Everything in stores being priced before taxes
Everything in stores being priced before taxes
That’s why I like eating at Chinese restaurants. The prices are listed after tax and it’s still a whole round number.
Whataburger was doing this before I left Texas. Good shit.
Why would you abandon Whataburger
In n Out calls
Texas has both, what's the problem here?
There can be only one.
Um... that's called a monopoly.
I wouldn't mind if In-N-Out were a monopoly. They do the right thing (I think they try all of the time.) I know only of a few companies that do this. AT&T was a great company before they broke them up. Fast, inexpensive, quality service. Now, same old bologna as every other company. PG&E is a monopoly and they are garbage.
It's called a free market!
[deleted]
Too expensive.
No, Whataburger couldn't make it in my state.
Why not?
Because Texas isn't worth it.
Not even for the Whataburger?
https://youtu.be/mJXYMDu6dpY
I can't believe how crazy this is. I never knew pre tax pricing was a thing and I thought I was fairly well-versed on the crazy States. On top of everything else, how the fuck do you ever leave the house?
Not where I live. General Tso's chicken, $9.99 plus tax
Not in Canada
if the number is nice and round they definitely have rounded it up
Odd to say, I'm okay with that. I really don't like coins
Except takeaway food is pretty price elastic, so the store [will probably be paying most of the tax themselves] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand#Effect_on_tax_incidence). More so if they include the tax in the price.
[deleted]
If yoy had cheaper proces post tax, would t you want to show it? Or id you had them higher - woulsnt you want to force your local politicians to lower the taxes?
r/ihadastroke
What cities?
I hate that so bad, my time in the US when I enter a store, I planned what to buy and how much it costs and all gets ruined because I didn't consider tax.
I grew up in the UK, where VAT is added, and you pay at the till what it's priced on the shelf. Returned home to the States a few years ago and this still baffles me. I did an ELI5 to try and get an explanation, and the best was something like 'so manufacturers don't have to adjust the price for every city/state they send their products to'.
See that's one explanation that I see a lot, but honestly? I think it's so that people will be tricked, conned, encouraged? To buy more stuff because it looks like you're spending less than you are.
Also, they like having their prices at like X.99. If your price tag is going to say 4.99 either way, then the retailer gets extra cash if the tax is added later rather than included in that figure.
Thankfully we avoid that nightmare in Europe by having the same VAT everywhere...
In New Hampshire we make it really easy by just not having sales tax.
Can you share that with California?
I went to Italy for a week once, and the price thing completely threw me off at first. But it became so damn convenient.
Try going to a legit 420 shop in California. Sales tax, county tax, vice tax, mandatory exit bag... You get a $40 bag and it comes out to 50 something.
mandatory exit bag
What is that?
Child proof bigger bag to hold your smaller bag of flowers. Costs $2 and you have to have one, so remember to bring yours or you'll have to buy another
Child proof bigger bag? What is that?
It's a semi metallic mylar ish bag that is required if you purchase anything in a legal California shop. It has a zipper that is tricky to use and keeps children and elderly out. It costs $1-$3 and is reusable but required. So don't forget it unless you like spending $2 for a bag.
compulsory departure receptacle
ahh en obligatorisk avfärdsbehållare
[deleted]
It depends. In my state sales tax is 7%. So I pay an extra 7 cents per dollar on "nonessential" items, like unprepared food. I do a lot of rounding when I shop.
Why is food "non-essential". That's fucking bullshit to the power of infinity
So sorry! That's a typo on my part. I meant PREPARED foods as being nonessential! Unprepared food is typically not taxed.
Ahh, that makes a bit of sense. It would be nice if food was not taxed at all. And uuh apology accepted I guess? (thought it was not really needed)
I round everything up.
If I want a lunch that costs more then 5 and I only have 5 I go to the ATM and get a 20 dollar bill or just use my debit card.
"putting them back when you realise you can't afford them?"
Only time I've been in this situation was cause my card was declined and that was only because my employer forgot to do my direct deposit for my paycheck.
oooh yes, that‘s a thing! are they all math geniuses over there? I often have difficulties to sum up my groceries correctly, I don‘t think, I could correctly calculate the percentages, too. How do you know how much tax to add for which article? Is that on the price tag?
Not in every state. Oregon doesn't have a sale tax. But it has super high property tax.
Super high property tax?
I don't know, it might be,.
It's worse here in Japan.
Some shops list the before tax, some list after tax, some list both.
I dont fucking understand why they wont just keep it the same.
Holy shit, this. I went to the states 3 months ago and the prices not including taxes was infuriating.
[deleted]
What state is that?
We don't get it either, blame the corporations
As an American that grew up outside the country until I was an adolescent, that shit threw me for a loop. I can’t recall a country that didn’t include taxes in their price.
I'm Canadian but let me say it's the fuckin stupidest thing! I am instantly loyal to any store that posts prices with tax included
I'm in Ontario and I don't think I've ever seen prices posted with the tax included. Lucky you!
Not stupid. Each city, county, state has different tax rates, it would be a nightmare for manufacturers to keep up with every sales tax everywhere that is always changing. So base price and local tax rate.
they could give individual stores the power to adjust for tax
...unless you live in Oregon, where there’s no sales tax!
Yeah it is weird, but I actually like it. A) each state has different taxes, B) it makes you aware how much state is ripping you off.
You get that on your receipt anyway. I can always see just how much of my money went on the ridiculous 20% VAT here in the UK (it used to be lower, a while ago).
We have a 10% GST (goods and services tax) in Australia. I assume it's the same thing? At least it's easy to calculate.
12.5% here in new Zealand
It's 15% in NZ since 2010
Oops, I stand corrected. Australia still has us beat in nearly everything but rugby, so there's that....
16% here in Kenya. And shop prices are always quoted inclusive of this.
Oof my calculator
I miss 17.5%
That assumes that taxes are inherently ripping you off.
A better way to tell would be if a state included its main spending and tax breaks (another form of spending). Then assess how much (definately some) is a rip off.
Honestly though, it’s the income tax states that are the ripoffs, not the sales tax states.
All taxes are ripoffs
and
Why don't we have working healthcare/maternity leave/help to homeless people
barf
That’s why I’ve only ever lived in Washington and Wyoming haha, no income tax in either!
What about property taxes?
Those are usually local, not state. I think.
Why are states necessarily ripping people off? Get your own country. You have common products and services for your citizens, like roads, airports, governance / laws, museums, Independence Day celebrations, parks and rec, defense, health, etc. All that needs to be paid for on a collective basis because it is more cost effective that way. Sure there are a lot of rip offs, but that doesn't mean they are all rip offs.
In australia we don't have state or county/shire/city taxes just federal GST, it's just 10% and is included with any shown price before and after taxes.
It's nice because then I see just how much the government is taking.
Wait, what?
it's like this in Canada too and I hate it.
I will never get used to that, like bam here you need to pay another 5$ for that item..
Ugh. Tell me about it. I cannot understand why stores pull this stupid stunt here.
Why ? Why ? WHY ?
This, as I was so confused when I visited America. I went to purchase something and I was so shocked and was all anxious and fumbling searching for the right money??
I think it’s partially because taxes can be different from state to state, county to county, and even town to town
cuz we have different taxes for each state, North carolina tax is .0725 cents per dollar, texas is .0825 cents per dollar, and most places i believe food tax is .0225 cents per dollar
But seeing as most shops don't straddle the border between two states, what difference does this make? Individual shops can have their own price tags depending on where they are.
Because it's not just states. Counties and cities can have their own sales taxes on top of the state one.
It really upsets people when you advertise something as $20, and it's $20.03 because they happened to buy it within the city limits this time. Most of our cities are geographically small, so advertisements cover multiple cities and counties. For example, an advertisement in "Los Angeles" covers 4 counties and something like 20-30 cities.
Advertise as $19.95+tax and the customer doesn't get pissed at the "unexpected" price.
This feels unnecessarily complicated... In Poland we have different taxes depending on the type of good or service you're buying. Standard tax rate is 23% (which is high anyway) and there are lower rates (8%, 5%) for stuff like some types of food etc. However the tax is the same for the whole country and you always have it included in the price you see in shop.
The US is very decentralized compared to European countries in general. The states have the authority to levy taxes, raise militias, set standards for education and law enforcement, and so on.
To put things in a bit of perspective, 30 states have legalized cannabis to some extent, which is in direct violation of federal law, yet the federal government has made no decisive attempt to stop this. While it has the legal authority to do so, attempting to force the issue would be political suicide. Instead, Congress is likely to follow the states' lead.
This state of affairs is not particularly unusual. You would probably call it utter chaos, but the system works.
We tend to push government work and funding for that work down as far as possible. So I suspect our cities and counties may be doing more than yours, or have funding coming from the higher levels of government.
Shops don't straddle different counties or cities either.
The till knows the true price. The people who print the price stickers have access to the till. Unless taxes change on a weekly basis it's not that difficult.
Also cities and counties having their own taxes is retarded.
Again, it’s about customer expectations, not any sort of technological problem.
Sure you can advertise as $9.95+tax but that doesn't explain why the labels on shelves that the shops have printed themselves are wrong.
I think the real reason is probably "it makes our prices look cheaper - people are unlikely to back out of buying something at the till due to taxes - and American consumers don't know any better so we can get away with it".
“Your ad says this is $9.95 and the shelf says $10.02!!!! This is fraud!!!! I’m going to sue!!! Give it to me for free!!!!!!”
I think the real reason is probably "it makes our prices look cheaper - people are unlikely to back out of buying something at the till due to taxes
Cheaper is probably an angle, but sales taxes in US are not all that high. If you were willing to pay $9.95, you’re probably willing to pay $9.99 if the tax was included.
It’s also the fact that we’re used to it, so it’s not something that bothers us.
Prices will always change faster than taxes in any case.
Didn't realise tax differences went deeper than just different states in the US.
The obvious solution to this is to set tax as % of price rather than % added to price, force the stores to deal with it instead of the customer.
“You must have uniform prices” is not going to be popular here. The right is going to object to the government dictating prices and the “cover up” of tax rates, and the left is going to object to the store’s windfall in the lower-tax areas.
It’s definitely not something we’d do for the slight inconvenience of having to add tax.
Probably because it's cheaper to print a bunch of the same price labels instead of one for each store, especially since the taxes don't stop at state level. Counties, cities, etc. can tack their own tax on. Can you imagine the innumerable different price tags? I can see why they don't. That's a lot of work to stay on top of a really complex system that could change at the stroke of a pen.
I think most stores print their price tags on site so it would only take a bit of spreadsheet magic to automate for each jurisdiction.
That was my initial thought, then I started thinking about how that means you'd need to keep tabs to always print the correct total price. I saw another comment that said there are something like over 9,000 different sales tax districts? So I checked out this link: https://taxfoundation.org/state-sales-tax-jurisdictions-approach-10000/
That's basically where I was like, "Yeah... This would suck to keep up to date."
Edit: Sorry for the quick edit, but I'm also now thinking about different sales and price changes and everything... I guess ultimately all I'm getting at is that I understand. It's easier just to say 'It's $9.99 base price, print the label and let the computer figure out tax'.
Why wouldn't the storemanager be able to keep their stores own tab up to date. It's not like the cost of labour or the property tax or rent is the same in every locale in the US so they still have to differentiate the pricing for every single store.
See u/dogturd21 's comment, I'd suggest.
That number is practically zero in terms of difficulty for a program to compute the price.
Yup
Use digital price tags, problem solved.
It's really not that much work.
Are you sure? I don't work in anything related to this field, but I can imagine the absolute logistical nightmare. Do you happen to have experience with this sort of stuff, out of curiosity?
Guy who works retail in the US its probably a software thing. When i print price tags i scan barcodes into a machine plug it into the computer load up the program and it prints the non tax price. Its a standard program from corporate offices. Most of the time your corp is in a different state with different taxes so instead they load the standard idea for the price into the machine and our local state office handles the tax into the POS system. So it comes down to what your local office is willing to do and its not alot
That last line really sums up my days in retail, though I'll admit it was a while ago now.
Correct- its a software thing, but its not easy. Sales tax, and income tax, is very complex in the USA, and there are a handful of companies that specialize in software that calculates the tax. Your big retail systems, ERP and payroll systems generally have API's that make callouts to the "tax engine", which then returns the calculated tax. Its been a while since I worked with them, but the popular ones are Vertex and Taxware, along with many others. If you get involved working with these systems in the USA, you quickly come to the realization that the entire tax system is royally fucked up and needlessly complex, and also why some areas are considered far more corrupt than others.
This is also why you need to make sure that your work location, and home location are both accurately recorded for income tax purposes: mistakes can be costly.
I like how you have the same initialism for Point of Sale as for Piece of Shit.
Eh same diff thats what they all are
Do stores not have the little LCD screens on the shelves which update remotely when a price changes?
Hm, I've not seen those myself. Whereabouts have you seen those, if you don't mind me asking?
All over Europe. It's super convenient and also display price per unit or per weight (so that you can compare easily). I've always wondered why it doesn't exist in Canada/US (as far as I know, never seen it here).
As others have said, it isn't really applicable for multiple sotres across the country. Mom and pop stores are doing it more now though (mostly restaurants).
Personally, that is the deciding factor between 2 similar generic mexican-amercian/chinese-amercian places.
I live in ohio, shit is confusing when it comes to food.
Buy food at the grocery store? No tax
Buy from the hot area at the grocery store? Tax
Go through the drive through? No tax
Go inside? Tax
Most shops do not change location on a regular basis, and when they do, printing new labels is the least of yoir wories.
Unprepared food in Texas in 0%. So things you get in your grocery store. Hot foods and ready to eat food is taxed at the base tax rate of 0.0625 cents on the dollar. All other goods are taxed at 0.0625 cents on the dollar. Cities and municipalities can add another .02 cents on the dollar to make an effective sales tax of 0.0825 cents on the dollar. The extra 2% is for city services such as public transportation and other city services.
I'm sorry, you have a 0.08% tax rate? So to raise a dollar in tax, you need to spend $1,250? That can't be right.
$0.0825 cents on the dollar is a tax percentage of 8.25%. Notice I said on the dollar after every number except the last number. So it is $100 to make $8.25 in taxes
You're still saying '8 hundredths of a cent on the dollar' and using a dollar sign with the word cents at the end is a contradiction. From the context most people will assume you mean 8.25 cents on the dollar but it's not the kind of thing you want to screw up on a spreadsheet!
8 cents is indeed 8 hundredths of a dollar. 8% of s dollar is also 8 hundredths of a dollar.
Also welcome to the redundant department of redundancy.
I give up dude. It's almost as though you're trying to teach ME something instead of accepting some friendly advice on how you're writing numbers wrong.
You're not saying 8 cents in the figures you give above. You're saying 0.08 cents.
Oh! You mean 8.25 cents in the dollar. 8.25% of 100 cents = 8.25 cents, not 0.0825 cents.
[deleted]
yes unfortunately computers don't magically print official shelf labels at a moment's notice, for chain stores it is important to have items across the country share whats called a price point. while some items may have "zoned" pricing meaning they could be cheaper than the same store down the street, it is necessary from a marketing and store development standpoint to have prices generally the same.
source: work in store operations/marketing
[deleted]
ill upgrade your face with my fist
/u/TamagotchiGraveyard - I feel for your work environment- store ops and online retail is cutthroat , and yet the companies spend 10's of millions of dollars at the HQ level trying to outsmart the competition. And while they are doing that, they constantly squeeze their suppliers and partners for every fraction of a cent.
Imagine if there were devices that connect to computers in order to print things at a moment's notice. What a world we could live in...
That's not even taking into account the any many city and county taxes. I know in 2014 the US had 9,998 separate sales tax jurisdictions. It was one of the big arguments against the law forcing online retailers to collect buyers local taxes and then send it to those jurisdictions.
It's worse than that. We can have a different tax for each county, and then a different tax for each city.
That <1% tax tho
[deleted]
Tax here in Europe is 21% now
Ahem... Europe isn't a country. Different countries have different taxes. Not all of them are that high.
Frenchman living in the US, I'll never complain again in my life of paying taxes once I get home. I'd rather have high taxes and the European standard of living
Imagine calling the US home.
Warning: Side effects may include dizziness, nausea, or thoughts of suicide. Ask your doctor if America™ is right for you.
You do realize that millions of people have been coming to the US to call it home from different countries, right? Including me and my family. I'm glad I live here and own a house, a car, and have a decent job. I could be still living in Russia, without any prospects. Thousands of people are risking their lives and leaving everything behind to come here from Mexico. I suggest you go to a courtroom when there are citizenship commencements going on and watch people get teary eyed because they are now Americans. Juding by your name, you are from Iceland. No offense, but your country is tiny and has no immigrants.
I live in the US. I have my entire life. It may be better than some places but it's still far from great when I can be forced to work 45 hours a week for $8.00 for 2 years and be fired for dislocating my shoulder on my day off. Being poor in the US is terrible. Inflation goes up and wages stagnate. Workers are treated by both management and customers at most unskilled jobs like they're sub-human.
America may be great when you come from somewhere say, Venezuela. But when you're expected to put work over your own family, your own life? That's not right in the slightest. America was definitely better in the 60's (for the time) but it has fallen back hard. No pressures for rights they should be given (the idea than the US should get EU entry rights is something my parents believed in) People are happy spending every day from 19-65 working 40 hours a week barely scraping by. I would personally like to spend time with my kids when I have them, not see them for only 2 hours a day.
People in most of the Europe work long hours, not sure where you get your info from. You can also get fired for not being useful in other countries. I work at a hotel and make $16/hr, plus good benefits. I chose my path, and I could've been anything else if I wanted. My mother came here in her 40s, took computer classes, and is now a programmer, making decent money. It's all about the opportunities, but people refuse to take them and then complain. Laziness won't get you far in Europe either. A lot of Americans are very ungrateful and wouldn't survive anywhere outside of US.
Laziness won't get anybody anywhere. You don't treat your enployees like tools. You don't replace your top manager because she's about to have a baby. You don't fire your cook for getting cancer. Would you say these type of people are lazy? That they refuse to take opportunities? Employees aren't seen as people, especially in lower levels of work. The fact that America holds a standard of no vacation, no sick leave, and pay that barely covers rent isn't a good thing. This may not be just a US problem, but to act like it's a goof thing is absurd. There's a difference between not being useful and being expected to build your life around your shitty 5-10 restaurant job.
Um, cooks don't make great living in any country. If you want to have nice hours, vacation time, and benefits, you would have to have a corporate job anywhere in Europe. Cooks don't get paid much and have to work very long hours. You have a VERY skewed perception, and most likely you've never been out of the country.
Not a great living but definitely a lot better. You do realize that mose of Europe believes in a livable wage, not a minimum (at least in the UK I know they do). I believe YOU are the one with a skewed perception. You grow up hearing "America number 1" so much that you believe it.
Since you like to throw your own heat, allow me to retort. From your post history I'd assume you lack a level of empathy considering you told one person they are in America because nobody else would hire them, and your first comment ever is able not being able to love your own child because it's disabled. If you want to continue to sling mud at my heritage and mentality go ahead. I'm not the one who got offended about a simple joke.
You're a simple generic American. I suggest getting an education.
So why are you living in the US? European unemployment is sky high right now. Maybe that's why you're living in America- the only place you could get a job.
European unemployment isn't sky high, the economy here is doing amazing, at least in Western Europe. Here in Ireland we are almost at full employment. The worst country for unemployment is Greece and to be honest I'm not sure what's happening there I haven't heard anything in a while, after that is Spain which is getting better then comes Italy which is under 10%
I'm living in America for a 6 month internship. I'll go back to France where there are more job offer in my field than actual job seekers. I'm fine thanks.
Complete nonsense! Not all of Europe has the same tax rates. Europe is a continent not a country!
The EU issued a directive to bring VAT to 15% I think to make it uniform across Europe to make doing business easier
Well I'm pretty sure that won't apply to the UK or Switzerland to name a few. So not all of Europe will have the same tax rate. Edit: a word
This. When I first got here I saw commercials of McDonald's with their $1 burgers. Yet due to tax it would really be $1.08. I've been tempted to just go there with a dollar bill and demand a burger. I meen, false advertising.... I can't remember the exact wording. All I know is the commercial made it sound like it was simply a buck for a burger.
Dont do that. The amount of times fast food workers fer screamed at for adding tax is unreal. Every ad you see says "plus tax" in the fine print
Nah, I said "tempted". And besides, it's the manager that would receive the screaming you are referring to. But the point I'm making was because of a TV ad. Fine print is hard to find in those.
The manager of a chain restaurant like that still doesn't decide the pricing or create the signage, so all you would do is look like a jackass for yelling at someone who has no authority to change what you are yelling about.
I can't relate to having to worry about medical insurance or paying thousands for some simple medical procedure. I can't relate to having to decide whether a family member should have chemotherapy and you be plunged into debt, or to be (some what) financially stable but them die from cancer... Breaking bad would have been a lot shorter in Europe...
I also can't relate to having to worry about anyone having a gun...
You don't have to worry, here. In my state, anyone you see might have a gun, concealed on their person, legally. You can walk down the street with no real fear of being shot, especially if you're not in really lousy parts of town. The publicized numbers of shootings in the U.S. look terrible until you start to break them down. There's a lot of nuanced that means you're unlikely to be shot unless you're suicidal or intimately involved with gangs.
[deleted]
People don't like the idea that some uncontrolled yahoo is out there, with a gun, and not just government agents. For my part, I know there were always people out there armed on the streets, now the criminals aren't alone in this.
Im not sure if thats supposed to make you feel safer, that everyone on the streets has a damn gun.
If it isn't legal, then only police and criminals have deadly force available to them. It doesn't make you safer, per se, because it isn't some sort of shield, but it is a deterrent to the casual mugger who doesn't want to confront a potentially armed victim.
51 y/o American here. I've already decided that if I'm diagnosed with cancer I only want palative care.
I'm sorry
It wasn't just medicinal costs he was getting money for, he also said that he wanted money for his family to get by if he died from cancer. At least that's his excuse.
Yeah, but he probably wouldn't have started the whole meth making business to start with. I might be wrong, it was a long time a go when I watched Breaking bad.
Great show, definitely. Aside from the medical costs, though, he was a teacher in a high school, which is good enough for a living, but his savings really weren't much at all by that point.
Cancer treatment is mostly covered by the hospitals themselves because they get tax write off and government grants for research if you agree to undergo experimental procedures.
How many people agree to experimental procedures though?
I don't have any numbers to pull out of my ass to tell you. I just know the option is there. I mean, if you look at recent news TB was also applying to take part in those experimental procedures. The only reason he was turned down was cause his cancer was to far gone for even them.
That's fair enough. I guess it's another decision though whether you're going to go through with experimental options or not. I'm guessing non of these are easy decisions...
Never is, and it affects Non-americans as much as americans.
And Western European healthcare systems would not be possible without subsidization from the American Defense Budget.
That's just fundamentally untrue. During the Cold War we met and exceeded the 2% GDP for defence and we still had universal health care. The reason is very simple: it is funded through taxation and by reducing costs for medicines by buying in bulk. This is true for almost every European country.
Do tell:
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-health-care-systems-on-life-support-special-report-drug-pricing-medicines-public-services/
UK: https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2018/jan/04/nhs-under-threat-new-model-of-care
Italy: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-12/13/c_136821027.htm
Germany is still doing alright, but get back to me after a few more years of migration.
That's not even addressing all of the benefits that Europe gets from American innovation in the drug market. OUr expensive healthcare that you like to laugh at is what paves the way for generic forms of the drugs made in Europe at a fraction of the cost.
Lol fuck off. Some of the biggest pharma companies such as Bayer are based in Europe. And drugs that are developed in the US are artificially overpriced, including R and D.
Feel free to cite evidence if you’ve got it.
I hope you get killed by the immigrants you hate so much.
You won't though, they don't hate you. They're better people than you are.
This is a point, americans often won't get: Europe doesn't need the american defense. The european armies are combined way more powerful than the russian army and have some of the best military education and equipment in the world. I would even bet that the army of France could take Russia all alone. Also Russia has roughly the GDP of Spain. If Russia touches european mainland, they would be fucked within a month.
It’s adorable that you think so, but that’s not supported by the facts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/26/europe-relies-on-the-u-s-more-than-it-is-willing-to-admit/
Yes it is. Just compare the global firepower index of the different countries. Also: https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/interview/conflict-analyst-eu-would-have-second-most-powerful-military-on-earth/
Funfact: Even american weapons won't work without european support because target acquisition systems are mostly manufactored in Europe.
I know, americans have a hard time realising nobody needs them anymore, but for good movies and series.
Lol. Did you even read the article you posted? Europe is a collection of different cultures and languages. We’ve got 100’s of years of evidence that you don’t play well together, despite this fantasy of a unified army.
”The problem with defence is that it is one of the few policy areas that has not been delegated to Brussels and Núñez identified three reasons for this “resistance” to integration on the matter: “We have one group of countries that think of themselves as the same as each other, as Europeans, who are committed to European defence; we have another that are ‘Atlantic-ists’ who would rather strengthen ties across the pond with the US; then we have another group, the most difficult to understand, the neutrals.”
The article states that Europe would have the second most powerful army of the world if there would be enough political will. Any attack from Russia would create that political will. You have to realize that there is no real threat anymore, thus nobody needs the american forces. I mean, this is good for americans too. You can decrease the money spend on defense and use it to fix your shitty education- , social- or healthcare-system.
if there would be enough political will
As I said, we've got plenty of evidence to show that this has NEVER been the case in Europe.
"Any attack from Russia would create that political will."
"You have to realize that there is no real threat anymore"
Which is it? You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here.
Nevermind. Just keep spending huge amounts of money on defense of an enemy that is weak as fuck, as we enjoy healthcare and affordable colleges.
Ain't no free lunch, Holmes.
You're paying for it, just not with a student loan.
"German university enrollment rose by 22% as tuition disappeared, the Ministry of Education and Research reports—much faster than in other member countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD—while the number of Germans who opt instead for vocational education has declined. On the other hand, the cost to taxpayers of subsidizing higher education went up 37%."
https://www.bmbf.de/pub/Education_and_Research_in_Figures_2016.pdf
Yeah, you are right. My mistake, fixed it. Despite all controversies, have a nice day!
Cheers!
Imagine if some of that defense budget went on universal health care eh?
What do you think is going on right now? The NHS in the UK is having their worst year ever and Donald Trump is about to turn off the gravy train.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/02/nhs-is-facing-year-round-crisis-says-british-medical-association
Why did you think they hate him so much? Cause he said mean things? Lol.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-defense-spending-challenge-new-transatlantic-order/
I think most people in the UK just hate him because he's an utter douch. He's just a bit of a shite human being tbh. Why do you think no one wants him in the UK? He's done so much work against women's rights. People here don't tend to like that...
"I think most people in the UK just hate him because he's an utter douch.[sic]"
Like I said, he said some mean things that you don't like. How mature.
Just going to gloss over the demonstrable evidence supporting my statement about US Defense subsidizing European Healthcare, are you?
No worries, that particular subject is about to take center stage in Britain over the next year or so.
What are you talking about? None of your sources show that the US is funding health care in the UK (or any other country in Europe for that matter).
Formatting might be rubbish because I'm on my phone. However when searching numerous articles to find exactly how the NHS is funded, all sources pointed to taxation and national insurance as being the bulk of the NHS income, with things like prescription charges and carpark fees. When specifically searching for anything to do with the US subsidising anything to do with health care in the UK, amazingly nothing was to be found.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-funded
https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx
I think what he means is that since the US spends so much on defense and has so much influence abroad, allies of the US (Western Europe) don’t have to spend as much of their budgets on defense. Finland, for example, doesn’t need a big Air Force and army because the US will defend them if Russia starts knocking at their door. Consequently, that means that the Finnish have much more money to spend on their health service because they don’t need to have a large military. This is true for most western countries because they don’t have the same responsibilities to the rest of the world that the USA has. If the US from today to tomorrow hacked its spending significantly on the military, you could probably foresee a lot more conflict with Russia and China starting to pressure and bother their weaker neighbors.
This being said, there is much to improve about the US healthcare system. It is wasteful, inefficient and stupid in many respects and at the same budget there are plenty of countries who do much better and we could learn from them.
Finland might be one of the worst possible examples, as the country isn't in NATO, its army is based on conscription and compulsory service and has pretty big army and airforce taking into account small population.
It has below 2% defense spending (compared to their GDP) which is the standard expectation for any NATO member. Anything below that would probably be considered under strength. If Finland was attacked I’m sure the US would voluntarily defend them as we did in Kuwait, who was nowhere near an ally before the Gulf War. The truth is the US military assures many countries surrounded by belligerent neighbors.
Finland's defence strategy isn't based on US support, but guerilla war of attrition. Cost of invading Finland would be too great. Sure, taking into account that Finland is part of EU other countries could help, but definitely Finland isn't balancing its budget around 'possible' american support.
They don’t balance their budget around it, but they definitely take it into account. That’s why when Trump said he wanted to scale down commitments abroad the EU started plans for a military force.
I don't deny that's not true for some EU countries, but as I said, Finland is bad example.
We hate him because he's an annoying orange faced wig-wearing moron who makes things up as he goes along and seems to revel in causing as much trouble as he can just so he can get noticed.
He's making enemies of countries which used to have good working relationships with the US, he's pushing allies away and is doing it for no good reason. And he's surrounded himself with self-serving egomaniacs who don't have any interests above their own, just like Trump
He's in it for himself not for the USA, he's got no interest in the country once his term is over, he think's it's his empire to run the way he wants and he behaves like a petulant spoiled child when he doesn't get his way or when someone disagrees with him.
Plus he has no actual sense of how to run a country and no diplomatic skills at all.
Huge gaps between toilet door and frame. I don't need eye contact, thanks.
It’s really awful. Who designed that? And why is it the standard?! I love going to Europe and having bathroom privacy.
Edit: After all the answers below, and what I know about design choices, I think it comes down to being a cheap and easy option construction-wise. Maybe the whole being able to prevent drug use etc. is a bonus, but I don’t think that’s the primary intent. My office building has this set up and it’s not a place where vagrants can just come in and use it, so my bet is on cheap / easy install / pre-fab.
Edit 2: I think a lot of commenters might be male so are only thinking about the usage in terms of poop, but there is another half of the population that needs to use an actual toilet for #1. :)
So the sad thing is that it's designed to be awful. So when you look at it and think "why would they do that?" the answer is invariable "because fuck you, go away." They know that an inhospitable bathroom gets used less, meaning that it needs to be cleaned less frequently and uses fewer supplies (soap, towels, water, etc.) They don't want you to want to use it.
So if you've ever found yourself out at a store, needed to poop, and said "eh, I hate using the bathrooms here. I'll wait til I get home," know that you just gave some beancounter a half-chub.
On the other hand, if you REALLY have to use the bathrooms to the point where you don't care, it's more likely to be empty.
Put a strip of toilet paper. Let's be problem solvers, people.
Then everyone will assume you're shooting up, no?
Like your thinking.
Depending on the place it's also used to discourage inappropriate behavior or drug use and sexual acts
Fun police :/
To be fair, you shouldn’t be having sex with the toilet
What if you like when people watch you do it ?
Then try to find a stall that's already occupied
That is a bullshit cop-out. As that design was standard long before people worried about those things on such a scale.
Also, every time this comes up on here, the other excuse is ''for ease of loose construction tolerances.
Really? You want people to be able to see grandma or your children doing their business just so long as we can have trogliditic attention to detail in comparison with the rest of the western world, and really celebrate the hell out of our doing so? THAT'S BULLSHIT.
That's just the reason corporate gave us at the shitty grocery store I was working at the time. Wait you don't think they were just giving a technically plausible reason when they really just wanted to protect their profit margin, do you? But corporations are so trustworthy! /s
So if everyone just had no shame, the system would be fucked?
Do you have an actual source for that? I'd be more inclined to think it is just design momentum. Bathroom builders probably aren't exactly well travelled - they might not even know the sane way to build them. Maybe you can't easily buy the fixings needed to overlap doors in America?
I mean, if you look at the rest of bathrooms there are a load of other regional variations that are just the local bathroom style. For example urinals have manual flushes in Canada (and maybe America?). And the toilets are a very different design - the bowls are huge and fill with water.
I think it is just the local custom.
I've never had that thought. If I gotta go, its not waiting till I get home.
Whats worse than crappy store bathrooms were the bathrooms in my high school. 6 stalls, only 2 locked and there were holes in the doors that didn't lock. And everyone was trying to use them during the same time slot. That was fun.
But not England, where you can get either hot water or cold water in bathroom sinks, but can’t mix them because they’re in separate taps.
you know, ive never encountered this issue in the UK..
Which is bullshit, because sinks have plugs. So you just turn both taps on and achieve a sink full of water at whatever temperature you'd like.
Right, but in countries without the UK's archaic regs about mixing hot & cold in pipes*, so you can have fully mixed flow, people don't tend to use a plug.
You just wash under a mid-temperature stream from the mixer tap.
*out of fear of backflow of hot water into the drinking water pipes, I believe. Kind of out of date, as water pressure is never really that shit in the modern era.
But back flow preventers exist! Check valves!
I remember reading somewhere (probably Reddit) that the taps are separate because hot water comes from a tank and cold from a fresh supply. And, there have been instances of dead animals found in the hot tank. So, you can't accidentally get fouled water out of the cold tap.
Used to. They don't anymore which is why you only find that in very old houses.
But it's always brought up in Reddit like it's every house in the UK.
Well, I think that's where the regulations come from, and presumably those (not so very) old houses are the reason the regs haven't been dropped. The 1920s house I used to live in had a cold water tank.
That's close but slightly off I think.
It is common for older UK houses to have cold water tanks that fed everything (including a hot water tank) except the kitchen cold tap. The whole idea there was from when mains water pressure might be sporadic or bad, you could get a decent head of water from a tank in the attic that was filled at leisure from whatever dribbled out of the mains pipe, but you don't want to drink that water, hence the kitchen tap was direct.
(so in general, never drink from anything but a kitchen tap in the UK, or you might be drinking water that's sat in a dusty, insect-and-perhaps-rodent-corpse-filled attic tank).
The worry is then you have mixed pressure, with your personal skanky-water pressure higher than mains, you could force water back into the mains. Really, a kitchen tap is the only place this could happen, but I believe the regs just blanket banned any shared-use pipes, and that includes the short end-pipe of a mixer tap.
And wash my hands in a sinkful of water that is in contact with the bottom of the sink? Perhaps the grossest thought I have had today
If I wanted an exercise in inconvenience, I'd just heat water on the stove to wash my hands with.
It's designed that way so bathroom components can be cheaply mass produced and installed.
Having a gap means the stalls and doors dont have to be individually measured, since they won't sit flush anyways. Contractor has a nice margin of error in drilling in the stall dividers.
You don't need it to be flush to close the gap, you only need a plank behind the frame across the gap that the door comes to rest against. The only reason it's like that is that it's designed to be inconvenient.
You're also missing the fact that there is a lot less of a tolerance needed when the doors themselves are being manufactured. There is a lot more leeway allowed when they're manufacturing the doors, allowing them to throw away as few doors as possible before sending them out.
there is a lot less of a tolerance needed
This is simply not true. Such a gapless door could be buil with a few twisted planks and rusty nails if you wanted to: all you need is an overlap.
I guarantee purchasing a mass-produced plastic door is cheaper than purchasing planks and nails and paying someone to put it together.
See my above comment about this being a bullshit excuse.
The rest of the western world seems to have no problem manufacturing doors, stalls, and the spaces around them to a correct degree. But hey, let's just be the drooling retards they all presume us to be if that's the best we care to do.
In a lot of places it's too make sure people arent doing drugs
How? Who is looking in toilets to check?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Manager when a guy comes in doesn't bye anything goes directly to bathroom for an abnormal amount of time. Managers are on that shit cause ODs suck for business.
In general addicts gravitate towards places of business with better bathrooms. But the ones who don't are usually repeat offending a couple bathrooms so it's easy to catch on.
Republicans.
Gotta make sure those evil transgender people aren't using the wrong bathroom!
It's just a wide stance
It's so you can go in and pull them out after they lock the door and OD.
I can kind of understand that in public toilets or in bars. But in office buildings with controlled access?!
In the UK we have blue lights for that
How does that work?
Can't see the veins in blue light
Time for a guessing game.
Surely they won’t have access to a flashlight/s
That's a lot of trouble to go through when you could just go somewhere else nearby without blue lights
How dumb. "Hey we want to watch you take a shit so your not shooting up". Plus they are just going to do the drugs out back.
Plus they are just going to do the drugs out back.
That's fine, employees rarely if ever have to clean the alley out back. Plus it's out of my line of site which gives me plausible deniability for any stupid shit they might do.
But if some asshole wrecks the bathroom because he's fucked up on something, then my day just got a whole lot worse.
You know what crack heads do? Stupid fucking shit like piss on the walls, shit on top of the tank of the toilet, smear shit on the walls, leave traces of blood. Take baths in the sink and leave a huge mess. Fuck all that, I'm checking on anyone who looks suspicious and then kicking them the fuck out.
Fair enough. I suppose it's a statement of privacy V protection arguments summed up in a simple example.
Plus it's out of my line of site which gives me plausible deniability for any stupid shit they might do.
Now something else is in your line of site
But if some asshole wrecks the bathroom because he's fucked up on something, then my day just got a whole lot worse.
What if they do it anyway when noone is around? Or are american public bathrooms a populare hangout?
It takes them time to work up to it. Plus, some guy dies in the ally the bring in the van and hall hum out and "investigate" (there isn't usually too much to figure out) out back. That is all stuff you don't want in your store.
[deleted]
Want to secretly smoke without your friends knowing? That's your problem. Go somewhere else. The soccer mom who comes in after you is going to be pissed about the smell and whoever is working there is the one who's going to have to deal with it.
And what kind of friends are these? Why are you hiding? Find a spot in the woods somewhere and share with your friends.
Just get an oil pen dude. No torch, and very little smell. Tell your friends you're just vaping.
No wonder in the UK theres such a cocaine epidemic.
I mean the door gaps don't stop people from shooting dope in the bathroom.
I'd assume it's just that they got the cheapest doors possible.
No it's legitimately more about the heroin. Heroin addicts do avoid bathrooms with door gaps because they or there friends have experience getting arrested as a result of them.
Also now bathrooms with nice doors, or single bathrooms are installing special doors that are easier to open because they have a way higher OD rate.
Use blacklights instead of normal light. It prevents you to see your veins.
No, it isn’t about heroin, and anyone who thinks it is is absolutely mental. It was about making it hard to do anything sexual in the toilets. These cracks have been around long, long before the “opioid epidemic.” Welcom to America, land of the prudes.
Land of the prudes where we wanna see you poop
Exact same as the peeps who wanted to institute genital checks to prevent trans peeps from using the correct bathroom, need to agressively check what's going on down there so -you- don't make -me- uncomfortable, fantastic logic.
Like, I don't even understand how you would enforce something like that other than checking a person's gonards before walking in. It's not like you normally are able to see another person's equipment in the restroom anyway. Even in the mens' room, peeing in the toilet (if you're piss-shy or something) instead of the urinal is fairly common.
That's the thing, they were suggesting for a while that their be a bathroom cop there who would check id, and if unsatisfied, do a pat down, it's fucking wild.
so -you- don't make -me- uncomfortable
To be fair, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And if more people are likely to be made uncomfortable than the 5 or 8% that make up the trans population, then this is a fairly logical argument.
Cue downvotes.
What need is there to know what genitals the person in the stall next to you possesses?
If indeed it's no big deal, then why shouldn't the person trapped in the wrong body just use the bathroom their body aligns to?
I mean, once the cubicle door is shut, nobody except you knows you're in the wrong bathroom, and even if they saw you they wouldn't know.
What is dysphoria? If like you say, when the cubicle door is shut that nobody knows, why do you need to force people into a bathroom they're uncomfortable in? Why do we have gendered bathrooms at all?
Why do we have gendered bathrooms at all?
Seriously? Ok, I'll bite.
Genderless ones work well, in isolation. Such as at your home, or in a small office.
In a place like a mall, where you don't want a toilet in the main passageway, they're out of sight isolated down long corridors and frequently behind an anteroom. I'm not sure that if I were a woman I'd feel safe if were to walk into this isolated room fairly far from anywhere else and find a bunch of men standing in it. In much the same way as I wouldn't walk to walk down a dark narrow street at night with a bunch of people waiting at the end of it. At schools, I'm not sure I'd want my little girl in an isolated room with a whole bunch of older boys. I'm not sure I'd want my little boy in a room with a whole bunch of older girls, either.
I'm sure 99.999% of these people have no ill intentions, but I'm not sure I would want to gamble. I mean, if all people were decent we'd have no need at all for the military, or the cops, or the courts, or social services, would we?
It's more about being able to go into the stall and unlock it once they OD
Those door gaps don't seem to be changing much...
When I worked in a bar (15 years ago) we put vaseline or WD40 on any flat tops in the toilets. If someone was to try to snort cocaine it would stick to the counter.
Wd40 had the added bonus of burning the hell out of anybody's nose if they tried to snort any.
Wd40 had the added bonus of burning the hell out of anybody's nose if they tried to snort any.
I'm curious how this was discovered now.
I forget how it is on the island, but on the continent there's an attendee you pay to use the bathroom, but you get floor to ceiling stall doors. Attendee keeps everything from turning into a den of drugs. In the United States, no attendee, bathrooms are free, stalls are designed to thwart drug use.
Oversimplified, but it's kind of true.
Attendee keeps everything from turning into a den of drugs
Depends where you are... Could also be that they sell you drugs
That attendant gets super pissed if you don't tip first, super strange the only place Europeans tip is the toilet. Shouldn't you tip based on cleanliness you found or damage inflicted, not prior?
One attendant banged on the door like crazy when I ran in with a digestive emergency and didn't fumble with my pocket full of money (screw having coins worth $0.01 to $2.50) to find the right one before all the beer and schnitzel from the night before required I figure out how Germans sized pants. When I flew home, I had well over $75 in coins in my bag from my (very American) habit of emptying my pockets every night and not spending coins.
I'd take a gap over a paid bathroom any day.
but on the continent there's an attendee you pay to use the bathroom
And I thought tipping sucked in the US
At least we don't have to tip some asshole just to take a leak
I forget how it is on the island
We just trust our junkies not to od in the toilet.
The sizes were estimated from the design months prior and ordered small from the factory so if the walls weren't placed right, or excessive drywall or tile were on the wall everything would still fit properly. The fittings are designed to tolerate the slop in the walls and everything not being plumb or square from fast/cheap construction.
Construction isn't measured to the 1/8", walls located within an inch are usually acceptable, so a wall of four stalls could be two inches shorter or two inches longer than designed, but the stall materials are cut for 2.5" shorter to ensure everything will fit no matter what. You might get 0.5" or 4.5" excess gap over the four doors.
Probably because its cheaper.
And why is it the standard?!
You know, I actually never heard an answer to that, even though it comes up in every thread like this.
We need to get to the bottom of this, Reddit.
I feel like the answer is provided every time. It's so you can't get away with being homeless or sleeping or having sex or doing drugs in there. And so you can't even get away with pooping in there, so that the bathroom stays clean
They will be making the gap 3 inches taller soon. It's so that it's easier to get in there and help someone who has overdosed.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON.
It is just lazy crap.
It's cheaper
People who wanted to save money.
I prefer free bathrooms, thanks.
I got so used to it that when I went to the restroom in the Eiffel Tower, I felt a bit claustrophobic being sealed into the stall.
I don't get the idea. Do you mean the gap below the door? I think many public toilets in Europe have those too, although many close completely too. However, it is not uncommon to have a gap between the floor and the door.
Sometimes you also have them on top, so there is a gap between the wall and the ceiling.
It is supposed to help with air flow to remove odor.
There also is a gap between door and wall.
I have googled it and you are right. A memory has sprung into my mind: I have seen that gap in a bathroom in my last visit to NYC, but I though that the door was broken.
Now I know it was not a bug, but a feature (I guess).
it's cheaper to manufacture if the tolerances are huge as well
When I was in Hamburg, people were peeing in little sheds just off the sidewalk. No privacy at all.
Doors sag. The large gap means you don't have to adjust the door as often....usually never in the case of US toilet gaps.
ive heard its to discourage illegal activity in stalls
Junkies and people who want to have sex might use a public/semi-public bathroom. This design will only be private enough for people who reaallyyy need to go, not the ones who look for a private space.
My work bathroom is designed this way. I work in a normal office building. It’s really awkward and obviously everyone needs to use it multiple times a day, so... after all the responses I’m thinking it’s just cheap, therefore the default option.
Edit: a word
Well yeah, what is produced in mass (if it's used in most public buildings/public bathrooms/fast food restaurants, it's probably in mass) is definately cheaper.
My guess is so people dont do drugs. And if you were to pass out it can be easily detected, and so people dont fuck in public bathrooms. Basically that kind of stuff
Because of all the closet married homosexuals who used public bathrooms for impromptu bath houses
People who didn't want homeless and crack heads sleeping in the bathroom. Nice places have full bathrooms, shitty public places you can see if someone is dead, passed out, or sleeping.
Drug use is common at cheap places like bars, trains, fast food, and public parks etc. So you either have no bathroom for customer (hello new york) or you have shitty bathrooms, or even better you give out tokens to paying customers to use the locked public toilets behind the building.
I've lived in LA and worked in SF. Now I'm wondering how I never ran into this. Maybe I have just not used public bathrooms for anything but urination... I certainly can't recall the last time I did... and this doesn't happen in office buildings?
Office buildings have key code doors. There is a token bathroom by Starbucks in fisherman's wharf by where bushman used to chill.
It's an unspoken rule not to look.
I know, who the fuck looks. If it's obvious someome is in the stall, you move on
I once had a teenage boy stand outside of my stall for several minutes looking in at me while I was pooping, and there were several stalls open. Really creeped me the fuck out. This was at a “beach” on a lake, and afterwards I watched him walk from dude to dude and chat with them, then move on. I think he was trying to proposition me for gay sex but didn’t know how to go about it.
I think I'd have called him on it.
"Hey kid, you're creeping me out and I'm not interested in whatever you're trying to get up the courage to ask me. Staring at me isn't going to pinch the turds off faster."
In some parts of the country he would have been in danger of getting his face smashed in.
Absolutely. I've spent way too many nights driving back and forth across the country and being forced to stop at sketchy truck stops, 24 hr diners, and rest stops to be cool with potty shenanigans. I'm not going to flip out if somebody just outright propositions me, but creepy shit has to be nipped in the bud or you're just inviting more trouble.
He probably had... "issues"
I mean, standing and staring at someone for any reason while they shit is asking for trouble.
I once had a guy dangle his johnson under the stall door. I'll never forget it.
In my middle school if you were taking a dump kids would gather around the stall and take turns looking in and laughing... never understood it.
I know, who the fuck looks.
Little kids. One of them pressed their face to the gap in the door. It was horrible. The kid's dad grabbed him after a few seconds and was mortified. I didn't even know how to react to a violation of one of the most basic bathroom codes of conduct.
At least the dad did something about it rather than going "But boys will be boooys..."
Whatcha doin'?
Tell that to little kids, who have parents that can't be bothered to go with them to the bathroom.
That's when you pee on them when they peek in ^not ^really^don't^do^that
I dunno if this is the vibe you intended to give off, but it sounds like you're excusing the massive gaps as no big deal.
It's a big deal if it's wide enough, combined with a weak twist lock that someone can jiggle the door from the outside to open it
American here and tbh I always have just thought of them as no big deal
Keep your eyes on your own work.
I always end up looking regardless of whether or not I want to, it’s unavoidable because I have to walk to the stall and I just catch a glimpse of people wiping their veg or something.
It should be an unspoken rule to not design toilet stalls like that.
We have one woman in the office who stands in front of the stalls waiting her turn, instead of in front of the sinks where you aren’t watching f other people do their business. It’s like, could you just fucking not stand there
I did not know about this rule.
Oh oops.
But if somehow you do accidentally look, you're supposed to give them an appraising smile and a golf clap.
I’m American, and I don’t understand why we do that. I hate it.
I've commented about this before in a somewhat joking matter, but it actually has a lot to do with deterring drug use and occupation by those of low socio-economic status...also sex.
It gotta be cheaper. Quite telling if that's the most important factor.
Me too. No wonder why a lot of people avoid public restrooms.
I’m an American and I fucking HATE our toilet stalls. It’s even taking a piss at sporting events...absolutely zero privacy between urinals. I’ll never understand why those creepy ass old men feel the need to eyeball my crotch.
Eww. That's just sick.
Oh my god, as an American I never understood this shitty layout either. I'm already pee-shy, so it's even harder when there's people or a line there and you can see people just waiting for stalls, peeping through yours "accidentally." Like, fuck
I would like to share that I had to give a urine sample yesterday. It took only one hour, three visits to the bathroom and ten cups of water to get it flowing...
It's about asserting dominance over the people walking by through the stall gaps.
But what is up with toilets in europe (public ones around Rome come to mind) not having toilet seats?
Or all of the pay toilets. It can be hard to find free public bathrooms in Europe.
These two questions go hand in hand.
They don’t have toilet seats because people are arseholes and trash them, so they introduce pay to use toilets because the people that like to trash toilets don’t tend to like paying to do it.
Any place that sells food/drink and provides seating is required by law to provide a toilet. That means you'll have far less public toilets. The paid public toilets are usually clean and looked after. Let's not speak about the other ones...
It is a different style. In Japan that is also quite common.
In theory it is a better position for defecation, because it is your natural position to do it.
In fact, the toilet seats are very unhealthy, but we have become too accustom to them.
I think this is why ‘bathroom bills’ are such a big deal in the states. In most counties the cubicles are completely private so it doesn’t matter who’s in them
Bathroom bills are a big deal in the states because Americans are idiots and super strange about nudity and sexuality.
Im American and agree
No, bathroom bills are a big deal because some people are assholes and want to find a way to discriminate against people they don't like.
It has absolutely nothing to do with stopping potential sexual assault in the bathrooms, especially since the story most propagated is a fake transwoman (so a man pretending to be a woman) in a women's bathroom, but nobody thinks about the consequence of forcing a transman (born-female transitioned to male) in the men's bathroom.
It's just an excuse for people to be shitty.
That's not contrary to my statement.
Whats a bathroom bill?
Legislation about public bathrooms, including whether trans people should be allowed to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with
Oh right, I was guessing some kind of tipping thing. Hah.
A guy named bill that does stuff in the bathroom (he bills you afterward)
It could be worse. In China, the best public bathrooms have waist-high walls so you can make eye contact with the stall across from you. The worst public bathrooms just have a long trench-like thing that you squat over to do your business. It's long enough so several people can all join in on the fun. Nothing desensitizes you to stall gaps like an old Chinese woman making fun of your very white American ass struggling to use a squatty potty.
Oh, and nobody provides toilet paper so we all just carried it around with us in our purses.
Just let me take a piss in peace! I have restricted liquids when I was in America just because it's impossible to find somewhere hidden to pee.
Then go into a unisex bathroom, you can lock the whole thing.
[deleted]
Hey, this guy passed out! Oh no, sorry man. He's just straining. Good job I checked though.
Haha I just woke my girlfriend laughing.
Why lets have the same for house doors then. Makes no sense to me...
How do you finish masturbating without eye contact?
Just think back to your previous sex crime
In a lot of places it's to make sure people arent doing drugs
But we do
But......how else would your cat amuse you by sticking their paw in the gap?
You bring your cat into public toilets?
But I went to Europe for two months and I couldn’t get used to paying to use the bathroom everywhere I went. So there’s pros and cons.
That sounds like quitter talk.
Then don’t look you peeping Tom
In my highschools locker room there was just a divider like you would get with a urinal.
Though this would ONLY happen in a male locker room, along with the communal shower where its a pole in the middle with shower heads attached. I had a class that was like IT helper and there was a networking closet in the girls locker room and when I had to go in there (when it was empty) I was amazed at how there were all individual toilets w/ doors and shower stalls.
Unrelated but I totally just upvoted your comment by slapping a bug that landed on my phone. Thought to myself, “whelp, that’s done now”.
I love leaving the door open and mean mugging everyone who walks past.
Everybody talks about this but it's never really a problem. In my 22+ years of using public restrooms, I have literally never once ever had anyone look in that gap, or even seem like they're trying to. This is just a thing people like to be paranoid about.
I started an AskReddit thread about this and literally got almost no responses.
Happened to me so no it isn't.
It's beside the point though as it's more about the fact that you don't have privacy.
I've never had this issue, like it's obvious if someone is in one so just don't look?
It'd be even more obvious if there was no stall at all, right? So we should just have shitters in the middle of the floor, and no one will look. You go first.
You've taken what I said and twisted it, nice try though.
No twisting involved. This is entry-level reductio ad absurdum. Look it up, it's a perfectly cromulent technique.
So in short to prove me "wrong" you've taken stall gaps that you have to purposely stare into to see the other person to mean that everyone should be shitting in the open.
You've failed horribly.
You dumb.
Edit: Or young, maybe.
Can confirm your cromulence.
At my work the lock on the stall door is broke so the gap is the only way to see a phone floating in midair and know it's occupied
Yea but you guys still piss in holes in the ground in public bathrooms so it evens out.
One of the issues with this list the privacy issue is that it also makes us feel the need to use the handicap stall since it’s usually at the end and not set up for people to walk by the “cracks”
Why do you all think we're peering into the gap? We just walk by like any other closed door. Nobody peers in. We think your obsession with a tiny gap and determination to look through it pretty weird.
This. And you know where I had the worst case of "door-frame gap"? Freaking NASA. Went to Houston a couple years ago and right before leaving I had to... Do an emergency evacuation. Sat down and noticed there was literally like a 1" (2.5 cm) gap and the way it was "designed" I had a full view of the mirror and vanity, and likewise anyone washing their hands could just get a full show. Luckily I was alone but damn, what the hell NASA?
I started an AskReddit thread about a time when someone looked at you through the gap and made you uncomfortable. I only got 8 responses. Not a big issue.
Wait, I'm American, and the only places I've really seen that are Central America, the Caribbean, and (admittedly only once), Frankfurt. Plenty of public and office building restrooms with more of a gap than I would like, but not more than 1cm, most places.
I've seen a lot of comments about that on the internet in general. But when I visited Europe (spent a good 5 months there in my life, collectively), I don't remember seeing a toilet stall design that was really different than in the US. I was thinking of this today actually. Can you possibly share a pic of a European toilet stall that doesn't have gaps? The gaps are caused by the door hinges. I wonder what hinges you use.
(I'm an engineer, hence the extreme curiosity about something so tedious.)
In the UK, I've never seen a stall door that doesn't overlap the frame. Normal hinges, but they're attached 1-2 inches from the edge so the door is inside the cubicle and bigger than the gap in the frame.
Have a look at this search result; almost all of those are pretty standard.
Usually the panels either side of the door are on the outside of the cubicle, and the door is on the inside, and there is no gap.
The floor-level gap is usually much smaller, too; I'd have to put my head to the floor to see the shoes of the person in the next one, unless they were right next to the divider.
That's George Costanza's dream!
I have noticed, though that urinals add a bit more privacy in the States than back home.
Then how do you establish dominance?
But what do you do if your stall is out of toilet paper and they can't hand it under the door???
I’m American, and I never poop in public restrooms. I just can’t do it.
How else are you supposed to know if someone is passed out from an overdose in there?
I saw that on a few r/Crappydesign posts. I didn't realise this was common in the US
Also, those paper toilet seat covers. Who the hell needs those?
You don't know what you need until you actually have it.
My whole life, I've lived in America. I went to Israel once and it was the best bathroom privacy I've ever had.
I just googled "european public bathroom" trying to compare it, and saw some pretty bizarre things that definitely do not serve your point.
Selection bias of sorts. People are much more likely to take and upload photos of strange bathrooms than regular ones.
I once had to take a dump before entering an airplane. I walked into the toilet area in the airport, saw the huge gap, hesitantly walked in, already had my pants down my ankles, turn around and i looked right into the eyes of this huge guy. Pants went up immediately, didnt shit for hours. Stomach can confirm.
I hate this so much! I'm in Canada, but they have it up here too. It bugs me every single time I use the loo.
Hmm. I remember traveling in Europe a few decades ago and a lot of the stalls didn’t even have doors. Apparently things have improved a lot since then.
We just recently stopped shitting into holes we dug in the sand
I had to pee in a hole in Pisa a few weeks ago. For a girl, that was an experience. This bathroom had a door and everything else except for a proper toilet.
We don't have holes in the floor that much anymore in America.
No we don't, I've never seen one. Also interesting over in Italy was finding places that had stuff you could buy just to use their bathroom. I take free bathrooms for granted in America.
As an American I can’t wrap my mind around it either.
It was horrible when I was travelling through the us and Canada. Emp theatre in Seattle had a good 2-3 inch gap each side, serious wtf moment
I love shitting in my companies London office. It’s literally a closet. Especially for mornings after too many at the pub with my English coworkers.
Those gaps used to be smaller, until this happened.
All the lawyer commercials, everybody must be suing everybody.
All the drug adverts - not illegal ones obviously. And the frequency of adverts in general. Like you watch 2 minutes of some TV program, then get 3 minutes of adverts for a haemorrhoid cream, some insurance product, cat food, then the same haemorrhoid cream again. Then 6 minutes of program and 5 minutes of ads, etc etc.
That is exactly why I don't have satellite TV in my home. I just use streaming services because otherwise I'm paying Soo much money to just watch ads.
Seriously, when are they just going to go out of business?
I have it in my house to keep my wife happy. When I’m home we never watch satellite because I straight up can’t stand to watch it. There are so many breaks in the show that I can’t follow it.
TV ad time is valuable, as TV ads tend to drive a lot of new customers to whatever business is airing them. As long as ads remain profitable (and right now, they're extremely profitable), TV will do just fine.
Crazy idea but why not have TV shows sponsored by big companies with no ad breaks? I'd love to see a coke sponsored sitcom and I'd buy more coke so I could see more sitcom.
That seems like a good idea, but I think the company would have to pay obscene amounts of money to match all the other sources of revenue combined. Its probably better for them to have smaller footprints in more areas than to dominate one or two channels. These are just my thoughts though, someone with an economics background can speak more to this than I can
Or coke can sponsor a show, get all that sweet sweet product placement and the network can still sell that expensive ad time to other companies.
You've just invented television in the 50s. Congratulations.
That used to be the standard for a lot of the old variety shows. One single sponsor for the whole show - as it was a relatively cheap medium. There was The Taco Bell Dana Carvey show. The Mug Rootbeer Dana Carvey Show. The Szechuan Dynasty Dana Carvey show.
So that last one isn't a Chinese reboot of Dynasty starring Garth from Wayne's World? Because I'd watch that.
I’ve seen a few shows like that, but they’re rare.
Yeah they usually have a thing at the beginning that says 'presented with limited commercial interruption by [sponsor]' and it's usually advertised as such in the lead up to the air date , so it's like pre-advertising.
He's right that is very, very rare.
More info: https://www.adweek.com/tv-video/family-guy-will-air-an-episode-with-a-reduced-ad-load-for-the-first-time/
As long as they can manipulate the laws, probably never. Unless something else happens
The only thing stopping me from cutting the cord is live sports. When something provides that on a cheap streaming service, it's over. That's why it will probably never happen.
I think hulu streamed all NFL games last season? Only a matter of time were all games are online.
I know there are piecemeal solutions for some sports. College football isn't one of them.
Get one of those $20 HD antennas from Walmart or wherever. It gets you all the standard channels, so all local sports and news, like Fox & NBC stations.
That doesn't help for college football because it's so deeply tied to ESPN.
r/MLBstreams lists multiple live streams of MLB games. Some are completely ad free and some list like 1 pop up, and 2 ad overlays etc but I've yet to see one due to ad-block. You can also find live streams of most games in most sports. When the normal channel goes to commercial, you just get a MLB screen and it says "commercial break in progress".
Ditto, except I include OTA as well. Even if I pay nothing, the content just isn't worth all the ads you have to sit through.
I used to sell DirecTV to people calling in to get AT&T Uverse internet. By used to, I mean I got a sell once.
Yep, this is why I don't have cable in any form. If I'm getting ads, your service better be free or paying me. Why the fuck would I pay money to watch ads?
Wait, for satellite, don't you pay once for the equipment and can then watch everythign that's not encrypted?
I guess I meant services like dish Network and direct TV when I said satellite, where you have to pay per month.
I never heard of those, but I assume they are PayTV offerings, not broadcast?
Yes I think? I've never heard the phrase PayTV but i think we're on the same page. You can get local broadcast stations by just getting the equipment but to watch channels like Animal Planet, BBC, or TNT you have to pay a fee per month and it's not cheap.
Sorry, I always thought it was a general term. Here in Germany we distinguish between FreeTV and PayTV.
FreeTV includes all the publicly funded stations, privatised stations financed through ads (although usually not in HD resolution), and many international programmes (like BBC HD). FreeTV is, as the name implies, free of charge and you only need the equipment (A TV and satellite dish in this case).
PAyTV would be specialised stations, like 24h sports, or the privatised stations in HD, and generally require an additional decoder module to be viewed. These modules, or rather the decryption keys, require a subscription. dish Network and direct TV seem to fall into that category.
So yes we are talking about the same thing. I like the terms you use, they make more sense than how we describe things lol.
Those ads are still on streaming services.
I've never been forced to watch an ad on Netflix or Amazon prime, but those are the only two I have so I can't speak for any other services.
Edit: after watching a movie on Prime I did have to watch one ten second ad at the beginning of the movie. But that's all.
That's actually pretty spot on. It's why I no longer have a TV. I only do streaming or physical disc now.
And in fact, there are also lots of adverts at the movie theater: sometimes up to 30 minutes of local adverts. Then, at the time when the movie is supposed to start, another 10 minutes of "big name" adverts (Coca Cola, Geico, etc) then around six Previews, then the STFU and silence your cell phone animated PSA, then another advert to go buy something at the candy counter, AND THEN the movie.
So I built my own home theater with 100" screen and full surround and never looked back.
I like the previews, and I consider that snack time where you get comfy and whatever. It also acts as a buffer just in case you're running late.
You're the guy they're banking on.
It's a good experience
I've got an antenna these days, and it's amazing. It has less commercials than cable and it's fucking FREE.
There's something else different - almost every house in the UK gets tv from an antenna and most of our channels are broadcast over the air for free. Cable replicates them and supplements them, rather than the other way around.
When you combine it with your PC's (since Windows 7) DVR capabilties, well, yes!
The local stations are the same ones broadcasted on cable...
I love the British spelling of haemorrhoid. More dignified, somehow.
And then they wonder why millennials are killing the cable tv industry.
Haha ive just typed the same thing out before seeing this comment! Its crazy like just ad after ad for medication for something that everyone could have, like an itch, buy this cream, or a sore toe, buy this pill.
DVR'ing shows is the way to go. Then you can just zip through the commercials.
There used to be media center add-ons which would automatically remove the commercials and add them to you're library
Plex can still do that
Plex doesn't support cable card
Yeah I watched the last Harry Potter film when I was in Reno. Felt like it took5 hours with all the adverts they shoved into it.
[deleted]
Drug companies are not allowed to advertise their products
Don't forget Ba ba ba ba BONER PILLS! Yeeeaaaa! USA USA usa
Most of them seem to also have some sort of awful side-effect like cancer or susceptibility to TV or stroke and that part's stated so casually. It's a wonder if anybody actually asks their doctor about the product or if they're counting on people just vaguely recalling the name from someplace they cannot place when a doctor does bring it up and nobody would ever actually remember that "cancer has been known to occur."
They are required by law to list every illness or injury that anyone has ever experienced while on the drug, even if there is no proven causal link. Imagine if car ads were required to do the same. The ads would be hours long going over every minor thing that has happened to anyone who has been near a car.
Yeah, I understand why they have to do it, I'm just saying it's a wonder if anybody actually asks their doctor about it. But I guess skin issues are really painful and inconvenient enough to risk it.
The funny thing is drug advertisements are probably the most honest ads you will see. Imagine if every car commercial was required to go over every injury or illness anyone has ever had while near a car, even if it wasn't even caused by the car.
cut the cable. My oldest, when she was little, used to get upset at her grandparent's when commercials would come on. she didn't know what a commercial was.
Trust me us Americans hate them as well, better to just watch your shows online imo
Something in American water causes "Restless Leg Syndrome"... or maybe all the sitting and no walking.
Or, you know, it's an actual illness that has been lambasted because it sounds funny.
It's kind of like Red Robin commercials in Florida. Never seen a Red Robin in my life. I cannot relate to this commercial. I get it - if I have any problems with my vaginal mesh, I know who to call.
I'm confused. What does a burger joint have to do with vaginas?
Ikr how'd she go from burgers to Vaginal mesh?
Likely commenting on the frequency of vaginal mesh commercials, as well as Red Robin commercials.
Red Robin yummmm!
Something really minor happened to me not long ago (my landlord made a tiny mistake that barely inconvenienced me before it was fixed) and my American friends first reaction was, completely seriously, that I should sue them.
That's why there are so many lawyers ...
I really don't get it. Personally, suing just sounds like an inconvenient waste of time. So you win, what do you get out of it? Money? The right to point and laugh? Honestly, "getting over it" is much easier. I've been told to sue because someone rear ended my car and left it totalled. Why? He didn't do it on purpose. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called an accident. Most I did was go through his insurance company, get the difference my car's worth after it paid off the vehicle, got a car. No legality and lawyer bullshit required.
Suing is for when they fail to compensate you. Not for what happened to you where all your damage was compensated and you were “made whole.” If your car was totaled and you were left with nothing, you would really be ok with bearing the cost of the other person’s carelessness?
Yup. And usually people end up with a load of lawyer fees to pay and stuff like that, I'm pretty sure. Not worth the hassle.
Yep. I do want to add that after my accident, I started getting a lot of calls and letters from lawyers about general suing stuff, and medical stuff. They basically try to convince you you're injured to get you to sue. It's so dumb. If I can go to work, I don't care. Lol
...how do they know?
Police reports.
EDIT: Or insurance. Not sure.
They're just given access to all the police reports? I clearly do not know enough about this system.
You'd be surprised, honestly. I was getting calls and letters for a good month or so. All info I've ever given was to the police, which they collected info from both of us, then when we handled it with our insurances. That was a rushed reply, I think it was data from the insurance company and not the police.
It sounds so... Bothersome. After an accident I for sure wouldn't then want to deal with that.
This is thinly-veiled anti-semitism.
What's wrong with you?
[deleted]
I feel like a lot of people don't understand what it entails until they do it.
Some context for why Americans seem so litigious: In every other developed country, if you get injured in an accident, your expenses that arise from the accident (medical, wages, job security, rehabilitation, etc) will be take care of by social welfare programs.
In the US, if you get hit by a car, you are on your own for paying medical bills, keeping your job, feeding your family if you are too injured to work, etc. Hence if you get injured, you have to sue to be made whole.
An increase in social welfare would decrease the amount of lawsuits.
"made whole/make whole". That's an Americanism that I find strange. It sounds weird.
But that would be SOCIALISM. We can't have that!
Do other countries not compensate for pain and suffering? Or difficulty in doing ADLs? The US also has various social welfare problems - you're not entirely on your own. Lastly, the US is not the most litigious country - Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Israel all have more lawsuits per capita.
[deleted]
"A fat African American"? No wonder he gets picked on. No N word?
This is so South Park
Just because someone can sue for something, doesn't mean that they'll win. That situation doesn't sound like a winner of a lawsuit - are they planning to sue the school or the other kid?
Thank god the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech isn’t a thing. At the end of the day it’s just bullying based on someone’s appearance. It’s definitely more severe than saying your fat to someone but it really just is an insult.
Allen Allen Allen & Allen all day
Like my political science professor always said, when ever a lawsuit came up
"he did what every red blooded American does..... He sued"
But real talk sueing is one of the main ways for laws to change in the us
I was sued for 20 grand when I was in college for an accident that wasn't my fault. Nothing came of it but it was pretty annoying.
There are far more legitimate claims being left unlitigated because people can’t afford to sue (abusive employers, shitty landlords, police brutality) than frivolous claims that actually go to trial (not really a thing—sometimes silly sounding lawsuits just get a lot of media attention).
We don't understand it over here either. I work in auto insurance and its definitely the summer of suing people. People usually assume if they have a commercial they are better than most/will get higher settlements but has really nothing to do with it.
Plus the "lawyers" in the commercial are 99% of the time just a referral service. They refer you to a local law firm. Not a great one. They know what audience they're targeting--people who would select a professional from a TV ad at 3 am. Source: 20 years as lawyer in CA; dutifully put in my time doing Personal Injury litigation--both sides
This may be a stupid question but how do you select a lawyer? Other than immigration which I got through my work, I've never had to look for a lawyer but I've always been curious about how to go about shopping for one
There's a pretty significant element of laziness there, I think. Like, why would I waste time calling friends and digging through websites to find the best option when Alexander Shunnarah's phone number is right there on the TV?
If Alexander Shunnarah hadn't been mentioned in this thread then I would have been shocked.
That's what they're depending on. And they'll refer you out to some local yokel who pays to get names from the service
Little do they know, the lawyers aren't the frightening thing they think they are. Talk to the DOI lol
Better Call Saul
[deleted]
And they’re generally assholes
Former pro musician here. Out of studios i've actually worked at where the owners were younger than 60, every single one opened the studio after getting a settlement for some kind of accident/injury/etc. One owner I know has no legs and one arm. Opening a studio is every musician's dream, but a real, professional studio with it's own location, proper live rooms, proper isolation rooms, industry-standard gear...you could be getting into the million dollar range pretty easily.
I'm sure this will get some hate, but unless you're exclusively doing hip-hop, you need more than software and plugins, and pro-studio-grade gear (meaning...not Behringer/Nady to start with) ain't cheap.
My old band did two songs at the studio where Twenty One Pilots tracked some of the songs for Blurryface. The console alone cost $650,000. Necessary? Maybe not, but that console is producing more hit songs than a basement studio run by a guy claiming a Behringer x32 is "basically a Neve."
I have a friend of mine who recorded a whole album at his home. Granted, a good musician can hear the subtle differences in quality, but honestly, nowadays recording music is purely dependent on how much you want it. The gap between a 10 k and million dollar worth studio can only be heard by the educated.
According to this - https://www.clements.com/resources/articles/The-Most-Litigious-Countries-in-the-World - Germany, Sweden, Israel, and Austria beat the US in countries that are most litigious by capita.
Wow I never would have guessed
I wasnt aware there were so many lawyer commercials on Reddit.
You should see how many lawyer advertising there is in Florida. I make jokes with my friends living there that there are only 4 jobs people have in Florida: lawyer, Doctor, drug dealer and retired.
everyone here wants to sue everybody. it's like those people who jump onto car hoods to try and get a lawsuit.
If that were really the case, the lawyers would be too busy to make advertisements.
I’m gonna sue you for that comment
They are pretty much
'The heavy hitters do it again, call 1-800-LAW-1010!'
It's been a year or two since I had cable and saw their commercials... and I can still hear the damn jingle when I think of the word "lawyers". Send help.
And the lawyer bilboards...
We are, especially in the corporate world. Any dispute over $10K or so will involve lawyers, from there it's a careful balancing act making sure you dont spend more in attorney fees than money you can collect if you sue and win. I'm involved in 3 lawsuits right now in my job, two as the plaintiff one as the defendant. Fun stuff.
Honest question, what happens in other countries with these situations? Like if you get in a crash or some property of yours was destroyed by someone else and they refused to pay up how do you get your money?
You sue. But that doesn't mean that there are lawyer commercials on TV
Lots of times things can be worked out before it get to that point . Its just not our first reaction normally.
Because of the American culture, nobody takes responsibility for how their actions and self-interest effects others, unless forced to do so by a legal court.
Recently I was explaining why no speed limit roads work so well in Europe but would be a disaster in the United States. Americans have no sense of social obligation while Europeans do.
What if everyone is suing everyone?
I’m from Australia and I once read about a case where a lawyer apparently signed a cheque with an invisible ink pen; hence the reason why Crayola has a warning on their boxes stating, “do not sign cheques with invisible pens or markers,” because they got sued by some idiot.
It used to be illegal for attorneys to advertise most places because it was considered unethical.
That is correct.
That’s not far from the truth...
We are.
They are unfortunately.
Anti-semitic much?
Housing associations.
Edit: yes I meant HOAs.
Having only heard about them on reddit, I did not realise they had positives for anyone other than the board members.
Homeowners associations?
On the surface, they make a lot of sense. Let's say that you live in a neighborhood and you'd like to share the cost of a pool because you won't use yours enough to justify building it. HOA makes that possible.
Bad news: the people who join the boards of HOAs are all terrifying narcissists.
I live in Sweden and I think the concept is very similar to the co owned apartment complexes here.
Sure, as I am vested in the building, it is in my interest to maintain the value of the entire area rather than just my specific flat, I should care.
However, if fucking old people complain about one more flower arrangement or trash collection fee, I may just have to serve time for assault.
People need to God damn chill.
[deleted]
I'll accept it as extenuating circumstances.
Speaks to the harassment my client was under. He could not have been in his right mind and I move to dismiss.
We call them condos here. However, in this particular case, sometimes free-standing houses with lawns and all are in neighborhoods with associations. It's the same concept as the condos, they're just not attached. Lawn care may or may not be the responsibility of the association like in a condo (I find in my area it's usually not), but there may be common areas managed by the association.
This isn't really a strange thing as there are common stuff that needs to be payed for which is not economically sound if everyone were to try and pay for it themselves, for instance clearing the snow in the winter and so on...
Snow removal is normally paid for through municipal taxes and performed by the city. This is how it works literally everywhere in Canada and we have a lot of snow, and it works quite well.
Just the streets? Or does that include shoveling all the little paths and sidewalks in a housing complex. In US the street plows are paid municipally, but all the shoveling is responsibikity of the building owners.
Shovelling sidewalks is the responsibility of the homeowner. Or the condo. At least where I am in Canada.
Most medium and large sized cities also do sidewalk clearing as well.
It depends on the size of the municipality but most places you could call a city clear the sidewalk. I don't think there's anywhere on the planet where the municipality clears driveways and private walkways. It's hardly something you need an HOA for though. It's not a huge expense to pay to have it done and most people do it themselves.
We have a lot of snow in Sweden as well, and while the municipality has the responsibility for clearing the snow from roads and bike paths and so on, they don't clear out private roads, and for some of that (not just a 3 x 3 meter driveway) machines are used, and the economics of employing these + the operators is more efficient if done in "bulk" by for example a housing association.
In general, snow removal for things like driveways and parking spots is cheap enough that I don't it warrants joining an HOA. Not sure what the prices in Sweden are but it's between $200-800 in Canada depending on the size and access to the lot. I can see for a condo building or townhouses that share a large lot, in which case you have no choice, but if you own a home I don't think it's worth it.
It might not be worth it simply for the snow clearing, but if you have an association they usually buy a lot of things in "bulk", ranging from anything like digging broadband connections to projecting for renovations/repairs.
"...I may just have to serve time for assault."
"People need to God damn chill."
The beating will continue until morale improves.
[deleted]
In my experience the old people complain because they have nothing better to do and it gives them interaction, albeit negative.
Yep, you seem to have a clear understanding of an HOA.
So like...how realistic was the film "A Man Called Ove"?
That part was very realistic.
I may just have to serve time for assault. ....
People need to God damn chill.
.... hmmm...
I may just have to serve time for assault.
People need to God damn chill.
What the fuck, how is that assault? Assult on their eyes?
That, and the fact that they impose a lot of unfair regulations on what people can and cannot do with their own homes. Wanna paint your house? If the lining on your roof is just one shade off what’s accepted by the HOA, they’ll make you paint the whole thing again.
And let’s not forget that homeowners have to pay an annual fee toward their HOA.
Also the idiots who insist on having green lawns in the middle of a drought.
Didn't a guy in Texas get a fine from his HOA overturned by proving it was illegal to water during a drought?
Or was that Cali? Idk.
Californian here, I can tell you that during the drought it was in fact illegal to water your lawn, it was to the point that there was regulations in place that made restaurants unable to serve water unless specifically asked for by the customer.
Can confirm. To this day a lot of restaurants here in CA still have the sign saying it will only be served on request
California is also is proposing a 50 gallon per person limit per day for water use and introducing a 10,000 dollar fine if you go over. I get that we should reduce water, but doing that seems a little bit too much government oversight.
Not a californian but iirc the last time this was brought up it was pointed out that 1,000 dollars is the maximum of the fine and that for most people 55 gallons a day is enough to do a load of laundry, have a shower, run a dishwasher, and have plenty left over for cooking and other things
edit to fix the numbers to the actual numbers for the fine and indoor water use limit
For me I need to know how they are going to propose the fine. They'd have to install water monitors on every house line in the state and that's really really not ok with me.
Why is that not okay? Everywhere I have lived in California has had a water meter. How else would they know what to charge you?
I also have electrical meters and gas meters. Utilities at places i have lived in CA have always been pay per unit (kwh, gallon, etc)
I'm not keen on the government putting more stuff in my house. I know it's not too popular of an opinion and I know it's probably going to happen, but I don't like the government putting additional restrictions on things that I can and cannot do. I like gardening for example, but with the restrictions I'd barely be able to have one while washing my clothes, dishes, and showering. Feels like additional oversight on things that are already incredibly regulated and monitored. And as someone else stated, putting a cap on personal use does nothing to the water crisis. Farming takes up the majority of the water in california. Personal caps make very little impact on the overall problem.
But they're putting the restictions on a utility they supply you with, if you have your own well it's up to you to manage the water consumption so it doesn't dry out, since it's a "public resource" someone has to regulate the use of it...
Well yeah but it's not even going to help. If they wanted to save water they'd regulate agricultural water usage considering it's such a huge percentage of California water usage, versus donestic which is like 10% of all water usage only.
Maybe they only need to reduce their overall water consumption by 1%, and find it easier to levy fairly reasonable restrictions on domestic use instead of affecting the thing that makes a good chunk of California's money. Plus, there are already plenty of restrictions and changes to agricultural water use that have come through over the past decade, and they're still looking at what else they can do to reduce water usage without damaging crops.
What if you have explosive diarrhea or something? "Sorry, you shat too much today now we're gonna fine you a couple thousand".
Okay, so this prompted me to actually look it up, and
A.) the fine maxes at 1,000 dollars a day, not 10,000
B.) the limit is actually 55 gallons
C.) a normal toilet uses about a gallon and a half of water to flush.
and D.) the fines are levied on water agencies, not the individuals with high useages
so you're good, probably.
Edit to add a point
That's much better.
It's also not solving anything, as domestic water use accounts for around 10% of the water used in California while agriculture is more like 40%.
I could of swore ag usage was higher than that. But no big deal. I just wanted to add that California grows a lot of water intensive crops like avacados, oranges, and almonds. On top of other crops. They act like it’s some oasis for farming but really it takes a lot of work starving your state of water to pretend to be a garden. I can’t speak for the quality of Californian soil, as in if it’s super amazing or something, but you guys do not have the natural water supply to support it.
In the central valley it's more like 80%, you're right. The climate supports ag on a level that the water table and rainfall just doesn't; even in good years they pipe water in from the north.
If I remember my lectures correctly, the reason we are a lucrative farming state is due to our soil having a lot of nutrients that are great for farming and being pretty decent in terms of aeration and water holding capabilities. It’s not that we don’t have enough water to grow what we need. We have enough water and land for that.
It’s just that we also make 99% of the U.S. oranges, almonds, avocados, almonds, walnuts, pistachios, strawberries, grapes, and literally another 15 other fruits, crops, or vegetables. Like you noted, most of these plants are water intensive, and other states are fine having California being the main and sometimes sole producer for it.
TL;DR we have enough water and land to grow what we need and more, but not enough water to be the U.S.’ main and sometimes sole provider for 30 other water-intensive crops that they want.
I agree with both other comments. 50 gallons seems like more than enough to use a day, you could throw a car wash into your list of chores that require water. That agricultural comment though is one most people don’t realize. STOP GROWING ALMONDS!!!!
Stop growing anything that wasn't meant to grow in a desert, for that matter.
That's how you get shitty crops. If you want to maximize your yield you need the Californian coastal sun. When fall comes it rarely drops below 32, and it usually won't get hotter than 100 during peak summer. These are near ideal conditions for growing most flowering plants. (Tomatoes, Strawberries, Grapes, Marijuana... etc.). Frost can kill your plants just as quickly as burning them can, and even if you still have a "living" plant that maybe survived through terrible conditions and made it into the flowering stage, any stress felt by the plant throughout its life will come out in the finished product.
Agreed. If it wasn't for the lack of that other pesky necessity, water...
Maybe California should ask Nestle for some water back?
yes yes yes. and not just california.
Did those laws extend to using grey water?
They are trying to bring those back also
Source: manage a utility
Yeah. I'd imagine there are other alternatives to keep a garden in the yards, like a self sustaining drought resistant or desert plants. Why go with the hassle and waste water on grass?
because green non-native, heavily fertilized / watered / maintained lawns are american! [ actually not, but seriously, people have lawn competitions here]
I feel some strong SoCal vibes coming off this reply
If this happens to you, remember that city, state, and federal laws all trump what an HOA says. In many cities and states, there will be ordinances that limit the number of times that people can water their lawn every week in a drought. If you can afford to live in an HOA, then you can afford to challenge that HOA in court when they cross the line and try to force you to violate city ordinances or state and federal law.
Well in theory, the fees are supposed to go towards maintenance of association/common property. For example, my condo dues pay for snow removal and lawnmower service, as well as less common exterior maintenance tasks like repainting. However, again, the people running these things are usually terrible
Yeah it just depends. Every HOA and every neighborhood is different.
Small HOA President here: everybody on the board is a volunteer, and we spell out the rules WAY in advance. We are also pretty lax and we want you to read the rules before you do anything stupid, so it saves us time and labor. It works pretty darn well. We only get about one dumbass mistake per year and try to work with the homeowner.
And let’s not forget that homeowners have to pay an annual fee toward their HOA.
Annual fee would be nice...my grandparents' condo is part of three separate HOAs and the fees are monthly. The people running them are pretty lax at least...for now.
I joined our board just to find out what's going on and what they do with my money. It's been a great experience and a way to meet my neighbors. We are mandated to have an association due to common area maintenance issues. But I have heard of some horror stories (on reddit) about boards that issue stiff fines for really stupid stuff.
I did the same thing. Also, I didn’t have to pay dues if I served on the board. So, I get to make sure we are using the money wisely and save my family $300/yr! We just paid a service to pick up trash from everyone’s home. The just had to leave their junk at the end of the driveway including furniture and whatever else needed hauled off. It was awesome.
Wait, you had to pay for that?!? In the UK, we have a rubbish collection, recycling collection and garden waste collection for free (rubbish and recycling once a week, garden waste every month) (this is in London)
Varies by state, city, county, municipal, neighborhood. Our house has city pickup of heavy trash every Saturday, normal trash Wednesday and Saturday, and that has nothing to do with hoa fees. But my old apartment only had heavy trash pickup once a month. My dad’s house has heavy trash pickup every other Thursday, and regular trash every day. He only lives 30 minutes away in the same city.
(Socal) We have twice a year pick up for large items and you can call for a pick up at any time and most things that would be normal big stuff they don't charge for. IE mattress', ovens, refrigerators and clean construction supplys (bunch of wood or dirt). They all get recycled so they don't charge for them. If you wanted to have them pick up a ton of regular kitchen trash you would have to pay.
Wow. Nope we pay for all of it.
i have to pay for garbage pickup once a week, i have to drive my recycling to the collection bins, and i'm afraid to ask how much the garden waste costs but it's a cost.
wuuuuut. Where the hell are your taxes and rates going?
my neighbors have one. my house was built before it existed and is exempt. that doesnt stop them from trying to impose their will on me.
HOA board members are the internet moderators of the outside world.
Nah, internet moderators are reasonable people sometimes.
And HOA board members can be as well. But the same basic concept applies, a normal person with power is a risk to abusing it.
But that goes for any person with power. Everyone is "normal".
That's overstating it a bit.
My HOA is nice. They take our concerns seriously. They don't really fine anyone.
Not all HOAs turn to shit like reddit would have you believe.
I think it also may have a lot to do w/ how much property, staff and equipment the HOA manages. I live on a private residential lake that is managed by an HOA. The lake, the shoreline, dam, roads and all sorts of property are all owned by and maintained by the HOA. There’s a full time staff of around 10-15 people. I’m a board member and I still don’t agree w/ everything they do, but they are absolutely necessary. I would guess most of the horror stories come from little housing or condo developments where the board has too little to do and too much time on their hands.
Well mine is a small housing development, and it's still fine. But yeah, I guess other people just have different experiences.
I've personally seen them go both ways. They wouldn't let my grandmother put a rail up inside her fence (can't see it from the road) to make her porch steps easier for her. On the other hand I have a friend who is on his HOA board and they this parties and shit. (Not with the hoa money)
so...they violated the ada? not cool.
No, but we had to get a lawyer to say we would take legal action and then we had to have a contractor for something me and my father could do in an afternoon.
that's frustrating. did you take legal action?
We had the lawyer send them a letter,l. They backed down but did require a plan and a contractor for a 3ft hand rail.
Or you could live in a place that views civic infrastructure as an investment.
Oh yeah? Who is going to pay for it? Me? Through a small tax? How DARE YOU?
For a lot of people who live in states/areas controlled by a certain political party, that could mean anything up to leaving your city - not every location in America is concerned with spending money to make life liveable.
Or maybe you're just a racist and you don't want "bad types of people" to use the same facilities you do, lol. That's definitely involved in certain HOAs.
HOAs don't get to decide who can buy a house. Unlike coop boards in NYC which are definitely racist, as they don't need to supply a reason for declining your purchase of an apartment in the building.
HOAs don't get to decide who can buy a house.
But they do get to decide on rules that make an HOA neighborhood unpalatable for young people, less affordable for minorities, and with separated facilities that aren't available to people outside the community - especially if there are socioeconomic/racial differences. HOAs are good at sectioning off their neighborhood from the community.
It's no real surprise that HOAs are commonly cited as causes of increased segregation in urban America.
In 2013, Rachel Meltzer found that a 10% increase in HOA share leads to a 2% increase in local racial segregation, but has no impact on economic segregation, for example.
Of course they have separated facilities for people outside the community. If an HOA builds a pool and rec center are they supposed to let the whole city come use it?
Most HOA dues I've seen are less expensive than the monthly fees of condos that "young people" gravitate towards. The HOA I lived in charged me $50/month and that gave me us access to the pool and also covered trash pickup. Hardly the kind of thing that would make it unpalatable towards minorities.
I would love to live in an HOA like that with just a pool and no one bothering me but condos are the only 'affordable' option where I live (don't even own, I rent).
Living in a community where we are literally under one roof means you have to pay towards the roofing and building siding, community dumpster, and water service that we all share. Gets expensive.
I'd love to be able to afford to rent a house that didn't come with a bunch of bullshit stipulations about being required to park in your garage, what's allowed to be on your balcony, or what color the exterior facing part of my window curtains can be.
See I look at it like, I don't see the outside of my house very often. I literally don't care what color my house siding is or what color the exterior part of my window curtains are.
My HOA didn't require you to park in the garage as many people had more than 2 cars anyway.
Having lived next to filthy neighbors growing up I was happy to be in a place where they forced you to take care of your property and if you didn't they would do it for you and bill you.
You're right about that. For some reason, HOA boards, school boards, and city councils seem to attract the small, petty types who want to be able to abuse the little bit of power they can get. I know some are better than others, but...
Its really any position that offers the slightest authority over other people. I volunteer at PGA tournaments from time to time, and the number of people who do that just to flex their "power" is absurd.
I laughed so hard at the last part. They are a bunch of assholes.
Mine just pays for landscaping at the entrance during the summer and restocks the dog poop bag dispensers sometimes. Totally worth $350 a year.
I've said it before, its like people wanna play at politics and having power while being Big Fish in a small pond.
Totally agree. I live in an HOA community and the retirees with nothing but time sit around making dumb ass rules. I was on the board for a year thinking I was helping and it was a disaster. I sat at a meeting once where they contemplated adding an amendment to our community agreement that allowed the HOA to confiscate pets from common areas if people were late paying dues
Yes, they "contemplated" - I am sure the rational heads shot that down pretty quick, and even if it came up to a vote it has no chance of passing. Get real
I was the one to speak up and squash it. I asked where they were going to keep the dogs after the dognapping and they realized it was a dumb idea.
Good - saner heads prevail !
Some of them, we currently live in an HOA community and have never had one issue with them, and we/ the whole community routinely breaks the rules regarding children's play sets.
A small portion are narcissists. Maybe 5%. About 30% are single issue guys who have one thing they care about, like trash cans or flag poles or something very specific. About 15% want to be helpful but have no significant time available and no skills and are dead weight. The remaining half are good people that with hard, want their neighborhood to stay nice and treat everyone respectfully.
Source: real estate development attorney that had worked with many many HOAs.
I was being hyperbolic for fun. Your view is definitely closer to reality.
I joined because the old board was leaving and if I didnt join up then I knew who would....
Like all things, they are a tool; they can be used for good or evil.
That said, I don't think I've ever heard someone speak positively about their HOA; I may need to rethink my thesis.
My mom is the president of her HOA and a raging narcissist. This guy in her neighborhood built a big beautiful fountain in his yard and cut down a tree to do it, without asking for her permission and she said "why is he trying to attack me like this" ha. She's tried to harrass him into taking it down but that fountain ain't moving. Good for him.
And half of the residents at times do disgusting things to that pool and ruin a lot of nice amenities.
Source: HOA Security.
Or you know the developer of the neighborhood can found the HoA, install himself, his wife, and his lawyer as heads of it despite not living there and enact borderline authoritative rules. But yeah the pool and neighborhood gym are nice.
This ^ Fairly certain that this is nearly 100% true. Got roped into joining my neighborhood's HOA by my neighbor, who I'm now finding out just wanted a bobble head to support his votes... And he is not even the worst of the narcissists. These people are horrible and we get next to nothing done or decided in a 2 hour meeting because the are all too busy listening to themselves talk. What have I gotten myself into... FML.
I think a lot of people like them because it means the neighbor won’t have a broken own truck or RV in the driveway in perpetuity.
Source: Neighbor has an old twenty foot camper in his driveway. At one point he had a toilet sitting out there for several weeks. I never saw him use it though.
Haha, finally a condo owner and my GOD am I finding this to be true...
Generally, yes, but I've lived in neighborhoods both with and without them and the HOA o ew did tend to be nicer to live in.
I think it depends on the size.
We own (strictly speaking we own the lease) on a flat in a block of 8, where we are also the joint freeholders (i.e. we own the whole thing jointly with the other lease owners).
We pay a quarterly service charge to a management company who pays for building insurance, gardening, window cleaning, lift maintenance etc.
We make the rules ourselves. So for example when we were thinking of buying we wrote to the directors (2 leaseholders elected by the 8) to say we wanted permanent permission to have a cat i.e. when the current model expires we'll be getting one or more to replace her.
And they just changed the rules to allow it. (It helped that one of the directors used to have a Maine Coon as well).
In contrast in one of the big blocks in the next town along which is enormous. It's four blocks of around 300 "mansion" apartments each, built in the 1930s as a home by the sea for the rich of London.
There is a definite tyranny in place.
There was even a court case where they decided they to ban pets. Didn't matter that there was a little old lady who'd been living there since the place was built in the 1930s who had a dog, she had to get rid of it!
Like hell she did. She took them to court and won.
After finding this out, despite it being a placed I'd wanted to live in since I was a kid, we just walked away.
the people who join the boards of HOAs are all terrifying narcissists.
No, they're just the ones who put their names on the ballot. They have elections so run for the board. I got on my HOA board just by applying because they had 1 less candidate than positions. They're a little more interested in parking enforcement than I am but they're not all crazy tyrants. If your HOA is bad, talk to the neighbors, get yourselves on the ballot, vote for each other, and take that bitch over.
I equate them to authoritarian regimes.
I never understood this reason at all. Surely if there is enough people wishing to use a pool then a pool business will open in the area?
Why buy your own pool when you could just convince someone else to buy it?
I never understood this reason at all. Surely if there is enough people wishing to use a pool then a pool business will open in the area?
Because the market isn't nearly as responsive as we'd like to think it is for several zillion reasons.
Because an HOA doesn't need to turn a profit.
Because some people are super classist/racist and don't want to hang out with "undesirable" people in a public pool.
Why buy your own pool when you could just convince someone else to buy it?
That's basically what an HOA is. Why buy a personal pool when you can group together and pay a fraction of the cost?
I think 3 is somewhat harsh - the private pool at my gym is a lot nicer place to be than the public pool for many reasons, “undesirable” (as you put it) people being nothing to do with It whatsoever.
Unless you count assholes or screaming children in non child areas.
They're also there to protect property values. My old neighborhood had one house with an offensively unkempt lawn, they were the only ones the HOA ever went after. And that was only after copperheads started slithering out from it every couple weeks.
Yeah if we could get rid of those I would be so happy. Florida is riddled with them.
[deleted]
I used to own a house in a neighborhood, where a few streets down a house had a huge trampoline & playground equipment set up in their front yard, parked two big ass ugly buses in their driveway, had a truck with a boat hitched to it parked out in the street and a few other vehicles. I can't imagine trying to sell your house if it sat within eyeshot of this place.
Also, whenever I go to my mom and dad's I drive by multiple houses that have put up chain link fences in their front yards. It's unsightly, and I can see where when you spend X amount of dollars on something you don't want to come outside and see some tacky crap right next to your house. It's like when you have neighbors that don't mow their lawn; it makes where you live sort of shitty too.
I've never been part of an HOA, but in thinking about it and reading these comments I could definitely see how the people associated with it are pretentious douche bags and look to just make things difficult.
Thing is, there are almost always by-laws that deal with exactly these kinds of things as it is. Instead of getting a rag tag group of power hungry assholes together and doing it yourself, you can call the city and have their rag tag group of power hungry assholes handle it, and then at least there's an appeals process, you can vote them out, and rarely is anyone at the city personally invested in harassing people or fining them for trivial things.
Most average cities give no shits about what your yard looks like, as long as it's not a hazard.
I was going to say this as well. Sadly HOA's are a necessary evil because people suck. The City doesn't give a shit if your neighbor never mows his lawn, or replaces his lawn with astroturf because it sounds cool, or wants to paint his house neon yellow with purple trim and a solid steel front door. (Fuck that house does sound cool though).
Like you said, it's strictly for safety, while HOA's are there to keep neighborhood home/property value up.
Where I live the city absolutely cares about all of the things you mentioned and has by-laws against not maintaining your lawn and also prohibits certain types of front yard landscaping, though usually doesn't enforce either to the absrud extent an HOA does.
Well I wouldn't go too far with that. Remember the original reason for HOAs was the keep blacks under similar property value pretenses.
I mean it's pretty obvious that's not the case now, so how is there any relevance? A lot of practices in this day in age stem from some shady pasts.
Many HOAs still exist that were created for that purpose. It's not as prevelent as it once was, but the power they have can still be used to force the "unwanted" out.
I don't doubt that a bunch of old fogies on HOA's are still racist, but I don't think HOA's are inherently racist or used for gentrification specifically. That's just an abuse of power as much as it would be to have someone racist decide who gets hired at a job.
And I was saying that just because the creation of an HOA has a bad past doesn't mean the current one still revels in the same purposes.
A lot of those same HOAs still exist. They just didn't all become disbanded after 10 years
I don't doubt that. But the people who run it are different, that's what I'm saying.
And in some places their friends or kids just came in after, and nothing really changed.
That's probably not as true as you think. Most municipalities have by-laws on the books that can obligate a homeowner to keep the lawn mowed and prohibit things like excessive clutter and parking on grass or against the front wall of a building. This is incredibly common in Canada where HOAs are almost non-existent. Some by-laws even regulate the type of soft landscaping that can be done in a front yard and it's not uncommon to see news stories about people being fined by the city for having strange things on their lawn (I recall one story where in protest a man put a bunch of old toilets on his lawn).
To me this is a preferable route as the process has a lot more oversight and can be challenged in the courts if necessary whereas most states in the U.S have laws preventing people from challenging covenants they agreed to, even if they've changed since they agreed to them.
I'm speaking as an American, not a Canadian.
I assumed as much, but these by-laws are common in the U.S as well.
https://chicagocode.org/7-28-120/
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DCE/Pages/Weeds.aspx
http://www.coj.net/departments/neighborhoods/municipal-code-compliance
http://buildingsafety.chathamcounty.org/Zoning-Administration/Guidelines-For-Property-Maintenance
Those are just the results from 5 minutes putting random place names in with "property maintenance ordinance" or "lawn maintenance ordinance" ("by-law" isn't a common term in the U.S it turns out). None of the places I put in had no minimum standard that could be enforced by the municipality.
I mean, clearly by searching specifically for certain laws in the US you are going to find some cities in the nearly 20,000 with those laws. It still isn't super common, even if some cities have them. Actual enforcement of those laws are even rarer.
I put in place names manually and every place name I tried was a hit. Of course the method you describe will turn up only results in the rarified group, which is why I didn't do it that way.
Also enforcement generally requires people to report the violation, which they often don't and most people probably don't even know that such ordinances exist.
Ah, so you likely only searched some of the bigger cities. Most cities aren't like that. And reporting doesn't always lead to anything. And just because you have an address with the name of a city doesn't mean you are in city limits. Like I said, they exist, but they aren't super common or strongly enforced.
I only spent five minutes searching anything. My point is that city wide or county wide regulations for basic property maintenance are common. In any case, if you live in a municipality where such regulations don't exist, I don't think buying into a property with a bunch of covenants you have no recourse against is the solution. I think lobbying the municipality for regulations is a much better solution long term. Giving your neighbors the authority to fine you is a terrible idea hardly worth the benefit of avoiding a neighbor that doesn't now his lawn often enough.
I don't think you understand that these things are consided absolutely unheard of in rural America. And I have lived in 8 different cities in my life. None of them had the laws, and nobody knew anyone that had lived in one. They all just we're stock pissed off that the city wouldn't do anything about shitty yards.
Your anecdotal experience of not having heard of something I've already demonstrated is common isn't worth much. I think it's safe to assume you never looked at the city ordinances where you lived. Most people don't. In fact, feel free to mention the places you've lived. I'd be willing to bet that most of them have property maintenance ordinances in place.
Also I never claimed that such regulations were common in rural areas. I wouldn't imagine rural townships have much need when everyone is spread out and not living in neighbourhood or close together. There also aren't usually HOAs in rural areas so it's sort of a moot point.
I think most of this is just due to a misunderstanding about what a city actually is vs what we think of when we think of a city.
One thing HOAs are good for is making sure houses are kept orderly and don’t bring the neighborhood down in value or appearance
This must be countered by the fact that I'd rather have a hot sauce enema than buy a house in a HOA, and I know I'm not alone in that.
Wow. I'm actually on vacation in Florida for the first time and this is exactly what I'm seeing.
Where do people who would rather convert their lawns to vegetable gardens fit in?
You wish they hated each other. They now host a monthly BBQ together because they discovered they share an opinion on Jews and black people.
To be fair to the old fogies, a neighborhood full of manicured lawns can go a long way in keeping home values up.
yeah, because of other similar minded old fogies
No, because old fogies typically aren’t out looking for houses. Younger families are, and they, along with the vast majority of the population would agree that a neighborhood filled with well kept yards looks more appealing than a neighborhood that is perhaps a bit messier.
Home values are largely dependent on if people want to move to that neighborhood.
You can’t blame people for finding those traits appealing any more than you can blame a guy for liking boobs.
Hmm, I think it's time to impose some minimum cleavage rules and plastic surgery.
That is pretty much the Florida State Legislature.
Here's how you do it:
Don't buy a home with an HOA rider attached.
Here's how it should be done though: HOA's shouldn't be binding about certain sorts of things the same way I'm unable to successfully contract out for someone to be my slave.
We have them in some places in Canada as well. They're a fucking bane in the life of any homeowner that isn't retired.
Ooo weird. I have an HOA in my neighborhood and I love it. It keeps people from painting their houses weird colors, forces people to keep their property maintained to a certain expectation, doesn’t allow people to park on the street, doesn’t allow recreational vehicles in the neighborhood. I drive through other neighborhoods where people can park on the street or have busted up cars in their driveways and it looks so trashy.
I generally understand the RV thing, but at one point my mother came to visit and drove a smallish RV across the country to enjoy the journey, but it was the only vehicle she had with her when she arrived, and the HOA instantly flipped out that it was parked at the HOA-covered house overnight.
But can't park on the street at all? What if you have more cars than garage spaces or driveway spaces or you want to use your garage for a workshop or something? And what about guests? Can they park on the street? Like my in-laws who have 5 adults living in the house right now and need the whole garage for workshop space while they're remodeling and my father-in-law has his own vehicle as well as a company vehicle (which he can't use for personal use so he can't use only the one car)? If we go visit, we're often the 8th or 9th car parking there.
The HOA I’m under allows a few days at a time for RVs—visitors or load/unload. It definitely can’t be there a week solid though. As far as too many cars they just don’t allow it. The cars have to fit in the driveway. My neighbor was grumbling because his daughter came to visit and they had to jockey their cars around for a few days to get everything in the garage and driveway. I have no idea what the HOA would do about 8 or 9 cars! I got a nasty letter because I stopped watering my lawn at the end of September and they wanted it green in the middle of October. Our sprinklers had already been winterized so I had to run out and hand water every day until mid-November.
I don’t want to live in a place where I can’t do whatever I want with my property beyond normal laws. Supporting HOA’s is a red flag for me when it comes to the character of someone.
There are a shit ton of awful, incredibly obnixous things you can do as a neighbor that don't go "beyond normal laws". Because humans as a whole are shit we often need some mechanism in place to keep everyone in line. In some areas that means paying $19 a month to keep it so your neighbor doesn't have a dirt and mud patch where their lawn should be (or delightful succulent garden if you live in the southwest).
Yeah I don’t want people’s trashheaps dragging down my property value. 🤷♀️
But doesn’t it bother you that you’re living your life based on the idea that control is ok because you MIGHT make money in a couple decades?
Some people just love the idea of authority
Hell no. I don’t want to live in a neighborhood where people don’t make it look nice. I looked at houses in neighborhoods without HOAs and they look trashy. That’s why I moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.
house pricing doesn't work like that though.
Curb appeal has something to do with pricing.
Why do you put that emoji at the end of some of your comments?
I use it as a type of upspeak, as in your comment here:
So just climb a tree and drop on them?
What you typed there isn’t exactly a question but you’re saying to someone “Get it?” You put a question mark, but it’s not a question. I wonder why you did that. 🤷♀️
Oh, I was making a rhetorical joke. But I get your point. The question mark wasn't needed.
Ah okay. My idiosyncrasies need to be interrogated but yours are okay. Got it! Asking someone their motivation isn’t usually fruitful, just so you know. Mostly people don’t ever know why they do something.
Ah, yeah sorry for asking, I just thought it was curious.
Why should she have been there at all.
Here you ended a question with a period. I think maybe you didn’t even really intend this as a question. This was you making a statement in a roundabout way. We all have idiosyncratic behaviors.
I give you an upvote because they can be nice but at the same time "your not my supervisor " don't tell me what to do
But what if I want to own an RV. How can you tell me I can't have it? Or that I have to move to have it.
There are businesses that provide parking for RVs. Those things look stupid on the street. I’m not telling you anything. I chose to move to a neighborhood with these rules. If you don’t like these rules there are other neighborhoods to live in. 🤷♀️
It's best to not support HOAs on Reddit. These froth mouthed incels can't help themselves when HOAs come up.
Haha. I don't see the connection between disliking HOA's and incels. I dislike them personally. Having all the rules that come along with an HOA seems like renting to me. My home is the biggest purchase of my life, and the thought of owning something that a bunch of old fuddy duddies have partial control of what I do with it is repellent to me.
I can see how you might like it if you're a "little boxes" all lined up nice and neat kind of person though.
It was just me trying to be hurtful. Immature, I know. I was in a rather sour mood.
I've always felt that it's nice to have a group in place ensuring that what you bought is what you keep. An HOA is ideally there to keep the neighborhood looking the Same (stylistically, quality, etc.) as when you moved in.
Ha! I noticed!
I’m not sneaking around and slapping mandates on people unawares. I voluntarily moved into a neighborhood knowing these rules up front.
These people have a different opinion than me so they must be froth mouthed incels.
Yeah you certainly seem like a very well adjusted human being. /s
Take a look at the hate being spewed at a guy simply for saying HOAs might be a good thing then get back to me. It's not a difference of opinion.
He had one guy saying "fuck you" who got downvoted and a bunch of people disagreeing with him snarkily.
Other than the fuck you guy, the only person spewing hate here is you lol. Like I said, you definitely seem like a level-headed adult.
Mhm
found the old guy
Fuck you
No thanks.
No seriously, fuck you
Now you’re hurting my feelings really bad. 🤷♀️
I personally disagree with your love of hoas but I’m loving your sass! Geez... I don’t live in one (I would NOT fit in) but some people love it and what’s wrong with that? Nobody has to live in one and they are probably saving money if they don’t. (And I’m in Florida and have managed to avoid with no drawbacks) Give A-U-T... a break
Fuck you and you're fat
Go fuck your own tiny dick because not even a fat person wants it.
Wow such anger, fat and uncivilized
"How DARE you want to live somewhere nice?"
Florida ones are the worst. I remember one in the neighborhood I grew up in harassed a guy for not painting his house the right color... after he just got back from his parents' funeral.
Had one take over the land around my house after I bought my property and they bugged me for about a year until I kept opening the door with a rifle over my shoulder. They no longer fuck with me...
I wish...mine hands out a $50 fine for every day you grass is over 4.75 inches tall.
Jesus kryce't. I mow mine at 4 inches so that leaves no room!
Ya every few months or so I get a bill in the mail for like $8k for various fines and such. but I own my property so they are just losing money sending me those. Now I purposely make my property look absurd just to piss them off, It is kind of a game for me now.
From what I’ve heard, Florida seems to be riddled with a disproportionate amount of most of Earth’s scourges.
Eh... it’s an interesting place and people love to make jokes because it’s an unusual combo of demographics but overall it’s a really nice place. A lot to love about it (cost of living, weather, stuff to do) and some to hate (lots of bad schools, bad public transportation) but overall it’s not worse or better than anywhere else.
Ya I live in FL and my HOA is the worst
Florida is a shithole country.
"Hey, you have a lot of moss growing in the cracks of the sidewalk in front of your house and there's weeds in your gravel. We need you to fix that."
Looks over at neighbors yard, more dandelion than grass.
They probably also got a notice, and/or they're a board member and think they can get away with not following their own rules.
Source: am the dude who does HOA inspections
Meanwhile, in the Philippines we have Homeless associations. -_-
A guy I work with has a house in an area under an HOA. He built an awning over his patio last summer, nicely done and approved - except that he used 4x4's for support instead of 6x6's. Structurally there was no problem, just the HOA decided 6x6's were more aesthetic or something. They sent him a warning he ignored ("fuck those fucking nazis", being his exact words), then a $250 dollar fine he ignored, then another one, then a $2000 fine. He ended up moving and never fixing it, and I believe all the fines will be levied against the property at sale.
Basically professional discriminators one pays to maintain a system to keep blacks out of the neighborhood. Under the guise of maintaining the property.
The HRA?
Sure, why not?
Can confirm. We lived in a neighborhood with HOA. My parents had to pay them $200/month. For what? So they could tell us that we can't work on cars in the driveway, keep our grass below 6 inches, whether or not we could extend the concrete on our back patio, whether we could plant a stupid tree, etc etc.
One neighbor across the street used to host parties in their back yard and it being so dang hot during the summer decided to build an awning. Well they didn't ask HOA first so they were forced to rip it down or pay fines out the ass. It blows my mind that we had to pay somebody for them to tell us what we could or could not do with a house that my parents paid for.
The money goes towards upkeep of public/common areas. Things like medians and flood basins and parks and the little posts and gardens at development entry-ways. When developments are built, the city usually doesn't take responsibility for those kinds of things. In some cases, even the roads will be handled by the HOA but I think that's rare.
Honest question - you dont have a proper health care system, your communal living spaces are apparently maintained by local organizations that you pay extra for, so what do you pay taxes for exactly ? I mean, besides making rich corporations richer.
sometimes we pay taxes so that our politicians can bribe popular football teams to locate to our area by building hideously expensive stadia.
we get under-funded schools, poorly kept infrastructure, limited community services [ fire, police, garbage] and snotty, over-paid public 'servants' who run their community like it's their personal bank / personal staff.
why don't we rebel? we're overworked & underpaid, in poor health, and somehow convinced that this is the best way to live.
For our HOA, nearly all streets are owned by city. Major parks within the community is also owned by city.
smaller parks, common landscaping that is between houses and sidewalk are maintained by HOA though. Similarly landscaping, private streets in a townhouse complex is also maintained by HOA.
Essentially we get a mix of both.
[deleted]
Fortunately all HOA budgets has to be easily accessible to home owners so you can go and check where the money is being spent.
200$/month in a single family home HOA is a lot unless there are amaneties like a community pool and a community gym. A 200$/month in a townhouse/condo HOA is very little as it won't cover reserve expenses.
Well, some HOAs do have pools, tennis courts, and fountains.
The biggest expense is liability insurance.
The HOA being a corporate entity that owns these common areas, if someone were to be injured or something - the HOA could be liable.
The rest of the money usually goes towards long-term financing of large projects like road or sidewalk upgrades, pools, fences, landscaping, etc. So that after 5-10 years you have a good amount of money saved up so that you can do a large project.
Granted, there's still a ton of waste. Many people on HOA boards aren't really fiscally responsible with other people's money... But that's basically government.
You should check your HOA budget, I am not saying you are wrong for your HOA but it is not normal for liability insurance to be the top item.
Usually for condo/townhouse HOAs, the top item is reserve contributions as those would be for high cost projects such as roof replacement etc. The next item is usually either landscaping especially if there are a lot of common areas or hazard insurance (not just liability).
When people compare price of a house with and without HOA, they almost always forget about the maintainence cost of the house. While I agree that you can save on house maintainence by DIY, you will very likely have to pay for large ticket items still if you live there long enough and those could add up really quickly.
wait a second. if there's something broken in your house, HOA will cover the cost for repairs and maintenance?
In a single family house, rarely as HOAs usually only own common areas but then your HOA fees would be very low as well as the fees are only used to maintain those areas nothing else.
In condos/townhouses though, common areas could include things like roof, exterior, piping in exterior walls. Especially in condos, it is usually the case that owner is only responsible for "drywall in". So if roof leaks and damages your unit, HOA pays for it. If your shower is broken, you pay for it. If your shower is broken and damages neighbors unit, welcome to insurance hell :)
Usually the most expensive repairs/maintainence in a building tends to be exterior items like roof, siding, attic, crawlspace etc and those would all be covered by HOA in a condo which is why their HOA fees are very high.
but also some hoa's charge assessments for large building projects, such as additional roads, new roofs, new / repaired common buildings, etc. don't know if usually those are in places where the hoa is otherwise reasonable.
We pay taxes so that our military can occupy countries all over the world that we're not in conflict with and so that our government can give billions in foreign aid while our infrastructure crumbles and our citizens are bankrupted by medical debt and student loans. I learned today that the US is the most charitable country in the world giving to foreign aid. I find that ironic when there is so much that needs to be done at home. Veterans can't get proper care, medical or mental. The Medical insurance industry keeps prices for treatment incredibly inflated and lobbies hard every year to keep it that way. We have bridges collapsing, streets disintegrating faster than they can be repaired. We don't pay taxes because we want better Healthcare and infrastructure, we have no say in where federal tax money goes. Anyone that tells you we do is fooling themselves. We pay taxes because if we don't pay taxes men with guns will come to our homes and put us in prison.
You missed the massive percentage of the general population that taxes pay for in prisons when those same dollars could be going to rehab, mental health programs, financial assistance programs, sex ed, and subsidized parenting courses and could be partially saved by removing mandatory minimums.
As little as possible, ideally.
Roads, police, courts, fire, schools, the majority of water and sewage. A fucking mountain of welfare by various names.
Oh yeah, and military defense of essentially the entire globe.
No corporation ever gets rich off me without giving me something I genuinely want... so good on them.
Well we did live in a nice neighborhood and it was well kept, so I understand the point of having an hoa. I just think they could be a little more lenient about back yard stuff because no one can see it from the street. As long as it's not trashed, they should be able to do what they want with their property as long as its aesthetically pleasing. I felt bad for those people who made a beautiful awning and had to rip it down. There was nothing wrong with it at all as far as I could see.
Honestly, homeowners that live in an HOA community should understand their rights and responsibilities. I'm sure the awning was nice, and I understand your core argument, but it's also true that those were homeowners that willingly purchased a home with an HOA obligation and they should have understood what that meant.
It's also possible that the awning would have been fine, just with a little alteration. Perhaps it was a little too close to a property line or something.
I live in an HOA community, and yes there are a lot of rules but the intent is to maintain everyone's property values. It can be annoying needing to pass plans by an architectural committee, but most of them aren't there to fuck with you. If something is wrong with a plan they'll tell you what it is, and you can adjust the plan.
The idea that the community would go to shit in the absence of a HOA is absurd, in my mind.
That's true. I honestly dont know that much about it, I just know that sometimes it was hard to maintain financial stability when my parents had to start paying hoa monthly and the property taxes went up. We moved in before it became an hoa community. I just thought it was weird they needed to ask about some of the most mundane things. But I'm not a homeowner so I'm not familiar with all the regulations but I understand why they put in place most of them. We were able to sell our house for 140k more than when we bought it. So they're doing something right.
It blows my mind that people would buy a property (almost certainly the biggest single purchase they'll ever make) and can't be bothered to read the bylaws associated with it.
I'm on the council for a strata in Canada and it's frustrating as hell when a new owner comes in and bitches that they can't park their 30' boat in their driveway blocking sightlines around a tight curve in our strata which has a very narrow road. Or they bought in assuming they could get the bylaw changed. I have zero sympathy for these people. I don't agree with some of our rules, but they were ALL voted in by the required 75% of owners attending an AGM or SGM. If you didn't like the laws in place when you bought, you shouldn't have bought.
I'm not saying those rules aren't necessary by any means. And we bought the house before HOA even existed. We were the only house there at the time. I guess the prices were just kinda ridiculous starting out and they just got higher and higher. But this is all just a moot point. We no longer live there and we live just fine out in the country with no hoa :)
$200 isn't bad at all. Most HOA's where I live in the DC area have at least $300 a month dues. $500 is more common and sometimes higher though. But yeah, HOA's suck.
Dang that's expensive!
Yeah, straight up illegal in the UK.
But also, even though there are some nightmare ones(watch YouTube) there are thousands across the USA that just do stuff like have a badass community pool, good lawnscaping through all the neighborhood common areas, and lake maintenance in lake communities. Lots of rich boating communities and such.
This. HOAs when they work properly are a net positive for the community they represent. It's a guarantee that your neighborhood isn't going to look like shit, and you are likely to have access to really nice facilities paid for by the HOA. Mine is good, run by professionals, and we have several extremely nice neighborhood pools (including one huge one), a beautiful community center, etc. I'm more than happy to pay the HOA fee here.
BUT there's no shortage of HOA Nazi scenarios out there apparently, and if I belonged to a shitty association I'm sure it would suck.
Another important factor is home value. For most people their home is the single largest investment they'll ever make. While HOA's can be annoying and sometimes too extreme, homes in an HOA generally maintain or appreciate value better than those without. Sure it's annoying being told to repaint my shutters, but a couple knuckleheads storing their busted car collections on their front lawns are literally costing everyone else in the neighborhood money.
It's a mixed bag really; they aren't purely good or bad. On one hand you have fees, possibly overzealous rules and enforcement, and often obsessive compulsive power tripping old people running them. On the other hand you can have some very nice amenities like gyms, pools, lakes, and golf courses, a beautiful and clean neighborhood, and more stable home values.
I wonder if your HOA is genuinely good or you just fit into it well and don't see any of the more unpleasant sides - a HOA can turn nasty on anyone it sees as an outsider, whether by race or religion or politics or whatever particular factor upsets a few key members. Not to say yours is like that, but it's worth considering when people praise these groups whether it's actually working for everyone in it, who it's excluding, and how it manages disruptions - it's hard to know if you're not disruptive, targeted, or actively involved in enforcing the HOA's agreements.
My HOA is a few thousand homes, and it is professionally run by an outside organization (i.e. my neighbor is not the President). They have an operating budget of a couple million dollars per year, and maintain a lot of infrastructure (pools, community buildings, parks, trails, etc). It's basically a town within a town.
The point being, it's professionally run. If I get a notice of violation in the mail odds are extremely high the person who sent that notice doesn't know or care who lives at that address. So in my specific circumstance I think my HOA is genuinely good, but it's not a fly by night bunch of power tripping homebodies running the show.
And in that regard, yes, small HoAs and those run by angry retirees CAN provide a lever for the wrong people to act like assholes. That's totally true. And it happens to people, they move into a home and find themselves in the middle of some bullshit neighborhood politics.
But honestly, if an HoA is professionally managed it's pretty unlikely to demonstrate the qualities of a middle school lunch room. Volunteer HOAs aren't automatically bad, but they are more likely to produce some of the stories we read about "shitty HOAs".
One thing people always seem to ignore: you can join your HOA board.
Mine has, ~110 homes. When I first encountered needing permission to do something I learned there were open board seats, so I joined.
The same 5 people have been on the board the last 5 years. Nobody else tries to run for a seat. No other home owner even votes, so we are just re-elected by default.
No other home owners even come to vote on new proposals. Occasionally one home owner will come to a meeting to contest a fine, but that's still a rarity.
It's a single meeting once every 3 months. It's boring as hell, but I can do whatever I want with my property since I'm one of the people voting and I'm friendly with the others. I can keep the HOA busybody lady in check, and everything runs smooth.
But seriously, nobody participates.
I can keep the HOA busybody lady in check...
The world needs more people like you!
So basically they keep those people out and don't get a lot of outside scrutiny.
I'm one of those people. I live in a regular neighborhood. Not an HOA neighborhood. But if we had a neighborhood pool, and a whole sprinkler system, I would expect to pay for it. There are lots of middle class neighborhoods that have basic ones. I bought my first house last year. I looked at so many places. I specifically didn't want to pay one. Found All kinds of options everywhere. But when the HOAs are dicks, they are mostly known for being dicks about fines for sheds and boats, house colors, certain sports stuff like basketball goals and such. Watch YouTube for lots of local news stories. You see people of all colors bitching about them.
I love my HOA! Super chill. The fees are minimal, and mostly go towards maintenance of the grounds, lake, pool, life guard for the pool, etc. The rest of the budget is for monthly pizza parties, occasional festivals, and other neat stuff for residents like father daughter dances, cookouts, and crochet workshops. This isn't a super wealthy neighborhood either. Mostly lower to mid middle class young families and retirees.
I seriously love my neighborhood!
Yep. Mine had all that, paved the streets every 2 years, recoated my deck twice in 5 years, replaced the roof, 3 pools, 2 jacuzzis, common yardwork, free cable.
Only $150 a month (basic cable was $50 of that alone).
But don't you have planning boards which have to sign off on things like what sort of siding will be on the house, etc? That's basically the same thing as those associations.
Modifications are signed off on by the council, not an arbitrary group of residents with a god complex.
[deleted]
Not really, local councils are elected.
If one of your neighbours dislikes you, that impacts a homeowner's associations decisions, councils are impartial.
And who is the council but an arbitrary group of residents with a god complex?
The council are elected officials.
Yes and the home owners association is elected too. Same difference. Both aren't for me. I'd rather not have someone decide my favorite wood cladding isn't the right color for the neighborhood.
That's not what councils decide, councils approve modifications to the property itself, like the addition of a conservatory.
You're perfectly free to install whatever colour wood cladding you want here without approval.
Councils basically just confirm changes are up to building regulations.
You're perfectly free to install whatever colour wood cladding you want here without approval.
Basing this off of house building shows I've seen shot in UK - several are told by council their choice of cladding isn't approved due to design criteria, it doesn't seem like it's purely safety regulations.
approved due to design criteria
Yes, design criteria like safety specs, not colour.
But then they appeal and it's approved.. no safety specs change. It's just seemingly purely ascetic.
There is planning permission when you do any structural modification, extensions or large tree felling, this is signed off by the council and it's to make sure you are not fucking anything up such as ruining foundations, water drainage, neighbours rights (eg right to sunlight or privacy) etc. They don't tell you what colour it has to be or what length your grass needs to be etc.
However there are Grade listings. These are properties of historical significance that do have very strict rules to both the inside, outside and grounds of the property. There are two Grades, Grade I which are usually very historic like millennial churches and castles, and Grade II which are the houses from 1700s, thatched roof, water mills, gate houses and the like. This is all still managed by the local councils though.
Also, it's generally only in higher class neighborhoods. Not some slum area where a rich man comes around whipping the poor for fees. You sign up for it when you apply for a mortgage. It's part of certain house agreements.
Florida has ghetto HOAs I assure you, collect their dues but barely maintain anything. Source: I rent in one.
Not exactly. Pretty much every condo or townhouse community in the DC area has an HOA. Source: Live in one.
I was thinking of single unit home neighborhoods. I always thought HOAs, or at least collective agreements, for connected housing was a given. I'm not being a jerk. But I thought it was required because of shared walls and pipes and stuff.
No worries, I didn't think you were being a jerk. I used to think that HOA's were only for wealthier neighborhoods too until I moved here. We hardly have them at all where I come from in the Midwest. In fact they are pretty rare there, at least in the small city I grew up in. Even condos won't necessarily have them there.
I'm smack bab in the middle of Kansas City. So yeah, I guess so haha.
You have some smart people over there. I loathe them. I refuse to live in one. I had to deal with one as I was the executrix for my late father's estate and that was all the bad taste in my mouth I needed. Crazy people.
Yea but you have councils that play a very similar role like telling you what can can and cannot have on your own property.
I think you might mean residents associations.
We have housing associations in the UK, they’re non-profits that provide social housing.
I think they might mean Home Owner Associations. Residents in a neighborhood enact them and then are able to make up a bunch of bullshit rules that everyone in the neighborhood has to follow- your house can only be a few select colors, only certain lawn decorations, etc.
In America, can confirm: My fiancé and I were renting a townhome. We had been there for 18 months when the HOA enacted a rule banning all renters in the neighborhood. We, along with 10 other renting families, had two months to move, regardless of the terms of our signed lease. All of those homes went up for sale, property values plummeted as everyone that had renters to pay their mortgage while they retired to Florida suddenly were trying to undercut each other.
Edit: Since some have asked, we live in Georgia. And as many below have pointed out, the HOA cannot actually evict you. However they can charge the property owner fines. In our case it was $50 a day that we were still renting the property, way more than our rent. We were in no condition to buy at the time, and our lease was on month to month basis at that point as we thought we were waiting for a lease renewal. We should have been smarter, but we sadly had good faith in the owner. When our lease was expiring was when the HOA started their hearings about renters. We found out when the court papers and a notice of eviction from the rental company arrived at the town house, two months later once it had all finalized. I don’t know the details of all the other families, other than that they were families. I do know all the houses went up for sale and we watched all the families move out. We have been smarter since, and are saving for our own home.
Non American here so I don't know much about HOAs. Are people forced into a HOA when you buy the house or is it something that you have to sign up for. I've never understood how they work and why people can't just say "no" to their rules.
If a home you buy (or rent) was already part of an HOA you have no option. It's written right into the deed/title of the house that you are a part of the HOA and subject to all it's rules and regulations, as well as whatever monthly fee the HOA decides you need to pay them. However if your neighborhood tries to start an HOA you have no requirement to join them, even if everyone else on your street/block/community does
Thanks, this clears a lot up. I've heard horror stories about HOAs and I've never understood why people want to join them even if it is the minority of them that are bad.
I myself would never join one, but in a perfect world I can see the appeal. It would be neighbors coming together to ensure everyone stays on top of the maintenance of their property above and beyond what cities and towns require to protect and enhance property values. But it's way too easy for a small handful of people to get corrupted by power and make everyone's life in the neighborhood a living hell. Personally I like knowing that if I want to paint my house a combination of every neon paint color I could get my hands on no one could do a damn thing about it.
They make a ton of sense for condos, which is my situation. We have common areas and common bills, so we need some sort of group to manage it. Otherwise whose job is it to clean the halls and stairs, and to maintain the yard, and to repair the roof? But it’s still a struggle to keep them from going mad with power. One of the members of my HOA has been on a crusade to dictate what kinds of curtains residents can have in their street facing windows, so that we can have a “uniform appearance to increase curb appeal”. Bitch, you cannot tell me what kind of curtains to put in my own damn living room, I will not have this. Thankfully the other five owners agree with me, but I could see this turning into a blood feud down the line.
Truly the Hatfield and McCoy's had nothing on the Curtain Affair.
The smaller the stakes, the more vicious the fight.
-paraphrasing Sir Terry Pratchett, RIP.
I could see this turning into a blood feud down the line.
"Janet, your slight against me during the curtain affair can only be settled one way: a fight to the death!"
I think a curtain rod joust would be appropriate.
You laugh because you have never seen the destruction that can be wrought as revenge for a perceived slight on a suburban housewife.
Personally when I walk into a neighborhood and all the houses look exactly the same and are perfectly uniform, I'm torn between wanting to barf and having nightmare memories from A Wrinkle in Time.
I'm in the process of buying a house right now.
When I was house hunting if it was in one of those newer developments where all the houses looked the same it was an instant "no".
I like character in my neighborhood. When all the houses are the same color and they all look the same it's depressing as all fuck.
Give me a street where one house is a 100 year old fixer upper, next door is an elderly couple that have lived in their house for 40 years, next door to them is a family that tore down an old house and built a new one, across the street is a nicely maintained brick house while next to them is a 1 story built on the cheap 10 years ago.
It gives the neighborhood its own unique look and feel instead of being a cookie cutter template.
My condo has three units, with one trustee representing each unit. It was a conversion from a multi-family, so all three owners bought at the same time. This dumb bitch named herself the President of the HOA, which is a role that does not exist. She also wanted to be the only one with access to the checkbook and bank account because she didn't want "too many cooks in the kitchen", fuck that. I was the one who opened the bank accounts, with all three trustees named on the account, and she actually called the bank and had them remove my access to the online site. They had to add a note to our record saying not to listen to her bullshit if she tried it again in the future. Luckily she's gone, fuck that bitch. For some reason the third owner was ok with all this and never asked for access to the bank website...
Guess I'm better off with my building managing group. All they do is manage the building. Things like, clean the hallways, repair the lift, wash the outside windows, pay the general electric bill and generally maintain the building.
I only pay them an small amount a year and I get a detailed report on what exactly they spend the money on. They even keep a balance, so when I pay too much this year, I get a discount next year.
you may have an HOA and not even know it then. What you just described is 90% of HOAs in town homes/ condos. An HOA can have a management company that runs the day to day and collect dues and what not then a small board that approves big projects and then the management company executes the project.
Depends. A lot of HOAs, mine included, do this.
But I've seen real estate developerment companies build new apartment buildings, sell the apartments, then charge a management fee over common areas, and retain control over the building and common areas. Sometimes they will hire a 3rd party manager.
So like an HOA, but they don't live there and you didn't vote for them.
But they're also competent, understand how real estate values work, and manage dozens of accounts, so no power trip.
I think I prefer the benevolent dictatorship of a developer, tbh.
My Wife’s parents have a vacation condo. Out of 16 units there are about 4 full-time residents and the rest are used as vacation homes. The owners decided to elect the full time tenants to the condo board as they are there full time and it would seem easier for them to manage the day to day of the condo building. Well about $400,000 later ($25,000 per unit) they have new windows, new exterior, new HVAC. And my wife’s parents had zero say on the charges because the condo board was within their rights to authorize the work. So that place is for sale now...
VOTE HER OUT! VOTE HER OUT!
Bitch, you cannot tell me what kind of curtains to put in my own damn living room, I will not have this.
My association has rules like these. They make sense because there's a rule of design (the principal of harmony, I think) that says that if you have a lot of something in one place, those things will look better as a group if they all look the same. It's a real thing.
My HOA requires curtains to be earth tones. When someone puts up curtains that are screaming pink or electric blue the place starts looking very ghetto. This kind of thing does make a big difference to condo prices.
There's a condo up the street where every unit is allowed to paint their doors whatever color they choose. It's a mess, and their prices reflect this.
My husband and I specifically only looked at houses without HOAs. When we rented a townhouse, understandably that had an HOA since lawns are shared, but we dealt with such bullshit.
Now we own a house, and one of the first things we did was paint the shutters, trim, and front door hot pink. Because we could.
I want to see this hot pink-trimmed house.
I just tweeted out a photo of the front if you want to see. Basically my husband painted all the wood, but not the vinyl(?) trim, which is white. Everything that's pink used to be a hideous shade of green that made the entire house look sickly.
https://twitter.com/belle_brita/status/1007013859264204805
Edit: You can't really see the door since I left it open behind the screen door. The shadow obscures the pink. It's the same shade as the shutters/trim.
Honestly, I was expecting something more horrid. But that actually looks really good. /r/ATBGE
Oh man, I thought it was going to be crazy looking for some reason, that doesn’t look bad at all.
We had a minority owned church painted purple right in the middle of some extreme gentrification in the area and people went nuts about it so bad some developer gave them a cash offer they couldn’t refuse on the church itself. I remember driving by the church when they did it and shouting YES HAHAHA for some reason. But it looked crazy and your house looks nice.
Just years before that stretch of road had all kinds of cool colorful houses but now it’s just ikeapartments.
Sorry, random side tangent.
Me also
I just tweeted out a photo of the front if you want to see. Basically my husband painted all the wood, but not the vinyl(?) trim, which is white. Everything that's pink used to be a hideous shade of green that made the entire house look sickly.
https://twitter.com/belle_brita/status/1007013859264204805
Edit: You can't really see the door since I left it open behind the screen door. The shadow obscures the pink. It's the same shade as the shutters/trim.
Your house is sassy. But a good sassy
Lovers of bright trim colors should come to a Victorian historic district like where I live. Bright pink is one of the approved trim colors and people use it liberally, along with sky blue, a variety of purples, and every shade of green imaginable. It's a lot of fun to walk around the neighborhood and admire all the pretty (or sometimes incredibly clashing) color combinations.
That sounds so pretty! I love the look of older homes, but I wouldn't want to manage the maintenance. Ours was built in the 1990s. Old enough that the neighborhood has no HOA; new enough that the house has relatively few problems.
I like your gumption but you're literally the reason HOAs exist lol
I promise it looks better than the puke-green we painted over. Ugly AF and made the gray siding look green too. Now the gray actually looks gray.
Right? Glad I don’t have to look at that every day.
And that's why I'm so glad I have an HOA; so I don't have to live next to the house that painted their shit hot pink just because they could.
Edit: Seems I’ve ruffled some feathers with my comment. Ya’ll can keep your pink houses, I’ll keep my property values, community pool and well maintained common areas.
why does it bother you what someone in their house is doing...
does it bother you when someone is taking a shit too...
idiot.
If they’re taking a shit in their front lawn? Yeah that would bother me. What they do IN their house doesn’t bother me. But what they do outside affects my property values so that does bother me.
Relax someone with a shitty lawn is not gonna increase your life. Worrying about shitty things like that will decrease your quality of life. Idiot.
You have to remember, this is reddit. Some of the people on here don't own houses, or are children. They don't understand that a neighbors shitty fucking yard, or poorly kept driveway can be the difference between selling your house for what it's worth, or selling it for well under what it's worth because no one wants to live next to a giant fucking hot pink house.
So if your neighbors wanted to bulldoze their house and turn their property into a garbage dump, you'd be OK with it? It's their house and they can do whatever they want to do with it, right?
I'm not sure that the UK has anything like HOA's it may well do, but it isn't common for houses. So here, people can do whatever they want to their own houses, as long as it doesn't harm other people. If I want to paint my house, or change my garden, or hang out washing, I can. If however I want to make significant changes to the house (up to and including bulldozing it..) I'd need to get planning permission to do so, and people could object.
The problem with some HOA's in the US seems to be the degree to which they control how people can use their houses, not that there are any controls on what you can do with your own property at all.
as long as it doesn't harm other people.
That's the point of HOAs for the most part, though. They're designed to prevent people from financially harming other people by doing dumb shit with their houses that lowers the property values of the entire neighborhood.
The problem with some HOA's in the US seems to be the degree to which they control how people can use their houses,
Yes, HOAs can be abused, but the same can be said about nearly everything in society. And just like almost everything in society, you pretty much only hear the horror stories on the internet. The silent majority who have good experiences with their HOA don't tend to talk about those experiences.
The reality is that the rules are voted in by a majority of the members of the HOA and they can be voted out by a majority of the HOA. The same is true for any HOA leadership. If you see a story on the internet about someone bitching about their HOA rules, just know that either the rest of their neighbors want to rule to exist (and it therefore has a very valid reason for existing), or the person complaining is too lazy to get their neighbors together to vote out the rule.
That's the point of HOAs for the most part, though. They're designed to prevent people from financially harming other people by doing dumb shit with their houses that lowers the property values of the entire neighborhood.
The issue seems to be the level of dumb shit though, and the fact that HOA's seem to have way too much leeway and far too little accountability in many instances. If you leave it to an elected council to deal with actual harm to people (as in dangerous buildings, waste etc..) at least there is transparency and massively less chance that silly rules will be implemented and enforced.
The reality is that the rules are voted in by a majority of the members of the HOA and they can be voted out by a majority of the HOA. The same is true for any HOA leadership. If you see a story on the internet about someone bitching about their HOA rules, just know that either the rest of their neighbors want to rule to exist (and it therefore has a very valid reason for existing), or the person complaining is too lazy to get their neighbors together to vote out the rule.
That seems to depend on how the HOA is set up, moreover, it seems that HOA's can be made up of people who don't actually have to live in the properties (and renter, can be subject to HOA rules on that basis).
All in though, I think its one of those things that just seems odd to people outside of the US because it does seem to be so squarely focused on property values in a way that I simply haven't seen elsewhere... Either way, I don't think I'd buy a house in an area where I couldn't change the exterior appearance, or where someone else got to dictate how my garden should look.
it seems that HOA's can be made up of people who don't actually have to live in the properties
Seems that way based on what? It's called a Homeowners' Association for a reason. It's an association of the people that own homes in that neighborhood. All of the rules are voted on and enacted by the people in the association. Leadership is also voted on by the association. They rules enforced by the leadership.
If you don't like a rule or you don't like the leadership, you have the ability, as a member of the association, to vote out the leadership and/or the rule. It's pretty much exactly like your elected council.
All that also goes to your point of too much leeway.
Cool strawman argument dick face
You clearly don't understand how property value works. If someone has a shitty yard, or a poorly kept house, or in the case mentioned, a hot pink house, it can negatively impact what your house will sell for even if it's a neighbor's house. And if you have to sell your house for cheaper to entice someone to live there, then that also negatively impacts everyone else in the neighborhood because sale price impacts property values surrounding the home as well.
But why should the value of your house trump someone else's ability to enjoy their property to the degree that they want to? Surely the balance between the two is wrong if a homeowner can't paint their house a different colour, or do any number of other things we've seen HOA's object to (from hanging out washing and planting a vegetable garden, to not maintaining a lawn or having a knackered car on the drive).
If I lived next to you, I'd help you paint your house every neon colour you could find, that sounds amazing.
They can all get fucked if I'm being honest. If I want my garden to have long crazy grass to help wildlife or just because I like it then that's what I'll have. If I want my house whatever colour or style then that's what I'll have. Thankfully I'm Irish and nobody here puts up with that shite. Or at least nobody I know of. It just seems mental to me. If it's your house then you should do your thing. I get that you shouldn't, for example, have a massive open dump in your back garden and have the whole place smelling of shite, but that's illegal anyhow.
You can always buy a house that isn't part of an HOA. I didn't want to be part of one, so when I was looking for a place to live, I didn't even bother looking at houses where I'd have to deal with that. On the positive, you won't have neighbors leaving rusting cars in the front yard and other stuff that could bring down your property value. On the negative, they can get annoyed at you for painting your own house a certain color. Like most things when buying a house, it's an option with pluses and minuses. You know about it before you buy or rent, so you don't have anyone to blame when it doesn't work out.
It's like living in a part of town with an active nightlife. It could be convenient if you go out a lot, but it could also be fucking noisy and have other issues. No point in complaining about it when you knew it could be a problem before you agreed to live there.
But would people be doing that sort of shite like? I've only ever seen that sort of carry on in social housing here but even then it gets sorted quickly. Farms too I guess but you'd want to be a fierce brave fucker to go hassle an Irish farmer. For me America and Americans just seem to be on a different level with stress and all sorts of shite. I'll take what we have here warts and all.
But would people be doing that sort of shite like? I've only ever seen that sort of carry on in social housing here but even then it gets sorted quickly.
Leave rusty cars in the front yard? Yeah, they'd definitely do that. And they'll do shit like never touch their yard, so it grows high and weeds overtake it and the place looks creepy and abandoned. I live in a nice neighborhood and there are houses like that in it (again, no HOA here). So, I can see the purpose, but sometimes the HOAs go a little overboard with their rules. If my neighbors let their houses go to shit and the resale value on my house tanked as a result, I'd be pissed. However, it was worth the risk to me so I wouldn't have to deal with the rules of a bitchy HOA.
Really, most HOAs are in these newer developments that were owned by one company and built all the cookie-cutter houses and sold them to people. So, the HOAs were built-in. They almost never exist in older neighborhoods or those that just kind of organically grow by people buying property and building a house on it. It's kind of like an easement, it can be a pain but you know it exists and you have to comply with it before you buy the property.
And now that I think about it, I'm not sure if an easement is a normal thing in Ireland or not, but in short if you owned some land on a road and there was someone else's property behind your land that's not on the road, they may have an easement on your property. That means you have to provide them access to get from the road to their property, across your property. Anyone who buys the property from you will still be obligated to provide them access across the property. It's something written into the papers whoever buys it signs and there's no way to get rid of it without the other owner's permission.
I'm not defending HOAs but in your example tall grass is a health hazard in the summer due to to ticks. I'm in Canada and we're having some major issues arising with tick bites including increase in instances of lyme disease, most recently a young girl suffered temporary paralysis from a tick bite after going hiking with her family.
Funny thing. Not such an issue in Ireland so wouldn't come up. Good to know!
should have mowed the hiking trails as well! where are the hiking trail HOAs if you need them?? ok, that doesn't sound right...
Our city does try to maintain hiking trails well as reach out to people about how to be prepared with fully covered bottoms, pants tucked into socks, etc. It's also against my city's ordinance to have grass/weeds grow over 8in for the above mentioned reasons.
I have honestly never seen a grassy hiking trail. It's always dirt and rocks and maybe leaves. You can have grasses, trees, or ferns alongside it, but a trail is kind of meant to be a visually distinct and passable path, isn't it? One probably trod on a lot so the grass doesn't have much chance to grow?
If my neighbour turned round and said my door wasn't a colour they liked, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. I dont see why they put up with it
People in HOAs put up with it because they can fine you, sue you, or even make you sell your house and move if you don't play by the rules. It's a legally binding contract that you enter into when you buy the place. Our current house is thankfully HOA free.
[deleted]
If it was an issue couldn't ye just chat about it? Also how much would it really matter. I mean where I'm from there's a mad lady whose house is in interesting condition and whose garden is shocking bad. But nobody really minds, the houses around her sell for as much as any other ones. Admittedly in Ireland ATM it'd be basically impossible not to get over market value for a house because things are going silly again but still.
How far away are your neighbors? I'm asking because HOAs are often found in townhouse developments (homes that share one or two walls with their neighbors - often built all at once and looking similar) or condominiums (essentially apartments that you own). They're usually not standalone buildings - people are right next to each other.
Right beside me in an estate. I just find the whole concept a bit mad. I lived in an apartment block before with a management company and they said nobody could put out county flags during the all Ireland championship for GAA. Now normally very few people do that anyway but this pissed everyone off and sure enough everyone, including the foreigners, had a county flag flying on their balcony just to tell the company they could go and shite.
Right beside me in an estate. I just find the whole concept a bit mad. I lived in an apartment block before with a management company and they said nobody could put out county flags during the all Ireland championship for GAA. Now normally very few people do that anyway but this pissed everyone off and sure enough everyone, including the foreigners, had a county flag flying on their balcony just to tell the company they could go and shite.
OK...I just wanted to make sure that you weren't thinking of rural situations where the "mad lady" neighbor might be a quarter mile up the lane. Your estates are probably pretty close to our townhouse developments.
I will say that I've seen places where laxly-enforced HOA rules (or a resident who won't follow them) cause problems. If a place starts off all co-ordinated but doesn't stick with it, it definitely looks sloppy. And sometimes an owner who changes the color scheme isn't a charming maverick renegade like yourself - they just can't be arsed enough to do the job right. That eventually shows up elsewhere.
I've also heard horror stories about overzealous HOAs - either tin-pot dictators, or professional management companies with too many lawyers. The best is a happy medium - fellow owners who care about the neighborhood but won't be jerks.
And as for no county flags during the All-Ireland championships - WHAT?!?!?!? Were they worried about starting fights or something? (I'm assuming you were somewhere like Dublin where lots of people were originally from other counties.)
If it's your house then you should do your thing.
Well, then you simply shouldn't buy in an HOA. If you do buy into an HOA, then you have to follow the rules.
We have so many people buying into my HOA that feel this way, and it usually results in fines and lawsuits. If you're stupid enough to buy a piece of land that's got appearance rules attached to it and you decide not to follow it, then you will find yourself in court.
Even in cities, though, you can't do what you want. Color-wise, sure, paint away, but there are places where the city or county will tell you when you can or can't water your lawn based on drought conditions, or force you to cut your lawn if it's a fire trap, or refuse to allow you to put in a fireplace due to air pollution.
Again. I'm Irish so this isn't something I'd deal with. Also no fireplace?! What the fuck.
Yeah, air pollution can get pretty bad here. We have a fair number of days per year when fires are banned, and new homes can't get fireplaces approved. I love 'em, but I love breathing more.
Why the fuck would you join a home group then in the first place.
Fucking edgy ignoramus.
I have said repeatedly, even in this very comment to which you are replying, that I haven't and wouldn't, I just find them odd and confusing. Which is the point of this thread. You dense ignoramus.
HOA are very rare and the only time you hear about them is when Pol Pot Jr takes over, which is rare.
Many people don’t like that people murdered the look of their rowhomes and like that when a community has a shit ton of shared space people can’t just do whatever they want.
Last a vast majority of HOA exist in 55+ communities which pay for the cost of landscaping and snow removal.
Good for them. The concept is still something I don't get. Especially the ones I hear a lot about with strange regulations. I honestly don't give a shite about them either way because I won't have to deal with them. It just seems like an odd idea to me.
Well I’ll let you be edgy.
I fail to see how I'm being edgy, whatever that means, the thread asked people what they find confusing about the US. This is something I find odd. Surely it isn't edgy. I'll leave you off to be a condescending arsehole though and I hope you enjoy it.
My home value is 10-15k higher than it should be because my neighborhood is non HOA, and every other neighborhood in the area is in one.
This is a good point.
Even if an HOA increased the property value, so what? You're paying money for it, and that's money that you could otherwise either invest or use to pay down the mortgage.
I don't have an HOA and my garage door/shutters are bright green. I couldn't do it either.
We have a couple places in the artsy neighborhood where home values are dictated by how crazy the paint job is. My two favorite are on opposite sides of the street: one is bright purple with neon green window trim and the one across from it is neon green with bright purple window trim.
I've been in several bad HOAs. They will use vague parts of the rules to harass people they dont like, or to post unnecessary fines.
The bad ones often find ways to charge more money than makes sense for things, but somehow the neighborhood is poorly maintained.
That said, I live in one now that has been around since the early 80's (I inherited my grandmother's home), and they are great. Sometimes they are a bit picky about parking, or dog noise, but overall, they have maintained the quality of the neighborhood.
A good HOA keeps you from having one or two people being down property value or comfort.
Yeah, we have to maintain a certain color palette, and not park in the streets, but other than that, it's all support.
I guess it's kind of like a small government, some are despotic and others beneficent.
Our neighborhood is in an HOA. Ours isn't as bad as the horror stories you read about. Basically there is a small fee, like $500 per year (maybe $1000) but it goes towards mowing the common areas, maintaining the signage at the entrance of the neighborhood, paying for mailbox repairs when a stupid teenager backs into it, etc.. Mostly things that improve curb appeal are in as rules, stuff like no cars parked on the lawn. No fences, unless it's for a pool, and then it needs to only surround the pool. (Although like 5 neighbors have put up fences around the whole back yard and no one really cares).
I don't think we have anything about approving house colors, or petty shit like "No trash cans out overnight" or "No sports flags".
No fences
But what about doggos?
Invisible fence.
That's only half a fence. Fences work two ways, they keep you in and others out. An invisible fence would keep your dog or cat on your lawn but it won't keep a roaming animal from coming in and messing with them.
But it's way too easy for a small handful of people to get corrupted by power and make everyone's life in the neighborhood a living hell.
I heard something like "anybody that wishes to be a politician should be immediately disqualified from doing so". It's not quite true, but the point is that there's a certain type of mind that is simultaneously attracted to positions of power and should never be allowed to occupy one.
I think HOA attract those people, the ones that want to be on the board for reasons that make them wholly unsuitable to be there. Anybody that cares that much about the state of other people's houses probably shouldn't be allowed to exert any control over the lives other people, yet HOAs give them that opportunity.
I've heard a few stories of good HOA's using membership fees for nice communal stuff like parks, picnic areas or neighborhood pools. that seems like a nice idea, 'we each pay a bit to make our neighborhood extra nice'
[deleted]
You pay money into keeping up the lawn maintenance/appearance of your neighborhood(minus your own yard which you control), or other things like childrens play areas, basketball courts, tennis courts, or pools. HOAs also make sure that your neighbor doesn't keep their lawn a complete mess, and dump trash all over their yard thus killing your sale value of your home.
Really depends on the HOA. Ours is cheap. The rules are simple and make sense. They are basically "Don't let your house bring ours down, because we're all in this together." We also have a private park, two pools, and private garbage service that is better than the city's.
It depends on how they are. My parents HOA is nice because they don't allow people to build random home additions (my dad was on the board). Like someone wanted to get rid of the drive way and add a dirt path or something weird like that and got rejected to do so, but because of the HOA the whole neighborhood has kept, if not risen their value for resales. When a hurricane hit, they paid to clear the trees and replant all the flowers and even updated all the decks around the lakes. They also made a guy get rid of, or move, his big RV that he kept on his street because it was causing issues with seeing when a car was approaching. If they are a good they only do things for keeping the upkeep and appraisal. If they are bad, they'll send people charges just to be a power-high dick.
Personally I like knowing that if I want to paint my house a combination of every neon paint color I could get my hands on no one could do a damn thing about it.
I had a co-worker who told me the same thing. He was so proud.
But then some hippies moved in next door and painted a rainbow and some clouds and doves on the garage door. He thought it was kinda cool. But they used cheap paint and didn't keep it up and it peeled and looked horrible.
The guy on the other side worked in the military and he started collecting humvees and other tanks. He parked 2 in his driveway and 4 more on the street.
So, when he tried to move and sell his house, it went for over $100,000 less than comparable properties. And there was nothing he could do about it.
Ironically (or not), he moved into a house with an HOA near me and his son and my daughter ended up going to high school together.
Personally I like knowing that if I want to paint my house a combination of every neon paint color I could get my hands on no one could do a damn thing about it.
which is the appeal, if i live across from you i dont want you to do that, and id be willing to sacrifice my right to do that. If you want to paint your house neon, get one that others cant see.
I can respect that, but I also believe that if I privately own something I should have the reasonable right to do with I want with. For safety purposes I fully support things like building codes and standards, or things like not letting grass get to out of control so animals can move in undetected. However when it comes down to visual things like paint color, or where I park my car on my own property, or what curtains I have no offense I really don't care what my neighbors think. I have my rights to buy the land that I want and decorate it how I see fit. I don't want to paint my house neon colors, but I also don't want my neighbor to tell me I can't.
But if they do, your house value goes down, so its not like it doesnt affect you.
Not to mention its just an eye sore. who wants to work hard, get this nice house, in a nice neighborhood, then some idiot moves in across the street and it looks like a meth addicts house.
This really only applies when your in these housing neighborhoods where everyone is crammed in tight, you need extra rules, what if they wanted to play loud music at 3AM, If your not in the city there might not be a noise ordinance, thats where the HOA comes in.
I can understand wanting rules that make sure your neighbors maintain their property, but I will never get the mindset of caring what color your neighbors house is. Currently the house beside mine is in the process of painting their brick in back white. I think it looks like shit, but as long as they don't fuck up and splash MY house with their stupid paint, it's none of my business.
We live in a neighborhood with an HOA, and they handle all outside maintenance and landscaping, so no yard work for me. They also cover all exterior insurance needs, so if for instance we needed repairs on our roof, the HOA would pay for it, which results in lower homeowners insurance for us.
[deleted]
$115 a month. Not great, but it’s also a nice neighborhood, and it was in our price range when not much else was.
Considering that covers yard and building maintenance, that's actually not a bad deal at all. You could easily spend that much on a landscaping company each month.
That's about a quarter of mine.
Holy shit. I’m assuming we live in very different areas
Probably. My region has pretty high housing prices. The other problem is mismanagement: we had a management company that encouraged us not to save money in order to keep dues down, but then when it was time to do several million dollars in maintenance there was no money to do it. That company got fired, and we're still recovering.
Be careful you don't contract Stockholm Syndrome from your HOA :p
Except you are still paying for that roof repair.
And the lawn maintenance, and the pool if there's one. Of course you're paying for it, but you're paying up front, and much less than if you had to pay out of pocket.
No. The same work gets done. You are just adding a middleman that takes a cut.
I don't think you understand how HOAs work if you truly believe that.
Explain to me.
You pay HOA. HOA pays property manager. Property manager pays roofers. How is that cheaper than you paying the roofer?
The HOA doesn't only take care of your home. They take care of the neighborhoods landscaping needs, the pool if there is one. The kids playgrounds, basketball courts, tennis courts, and if it's like my neighborhood, the trails as well. There are more things the dues pay for than just your house if you're paying an HOA. Some neighborhoods have fountains that are upkept etc.
That doesn't make the roof repair cost less.
I think I'm done arguing with you. You clearly don't understand.
Nope. I do not understand how adding two layers of middle men make a purchase cost less. But you go ahead and keep doing it.
I live in an HOA-condo. The HOA, for a fairly reasonable monthly fee for LA, covers
Exterior Landscaping and Maintenence
Full Insurance on my house, exterior and interior
Roof repairs and replacement
Water and Trash fees
Plus the HOA management company isn't intrusive and generally good at their job. You just hear about the horror stories because no one gushes over the HOAs that are doing fine.
A lot of it is to protect property values by ensuring that people keep well-maintained properties and don't do anything too outrageous that would devalue the homes in the neighborhood.
If your neighbor doesn't have a lawn, and instead just has 2.5 cars, dismantled in various states of disrepair in his front yard, if you try to sell your house, a prospective buyer might take one look at your neighbors and decide they want to live in a "nice neighborhood", where people aren't seen as trashy. You might end up selling your house for $20K less than listing price because even though YOU keep your house clean, your neighbor doesn't.
I'm currently renting a room in a house that's part of an HOA and it's been mostly neutral to positive around here, but those stories aren't attention grabbing and don't get upvoted on Reddit.
We get monthly notices reminding people that you need to keep dogs on a leash when walking them around here, that trash cans need to be taken in after trash day (you can't leave them outside all week long), and that they're having people coming around to trim the trees, rake up the leaves, and mow the grass.
Around Christmas time, we get nagged a bit about not putting up decorations too early or leaving them up too long, but that's really a minor inconvenience to have to take down lights in January because you don't want to get in trouble for still having them up in February.
I used to work in real estate and always roll my eyes at the "HOAs help property values" argument. At least in my area, being in an HOA devalues a property by pretty much the same amount as being beside a property with maintenance issues.* I mostly worked as a buyer's agent and at least half my clients wanted nothing to do with HOAs, so the mere existence of the HOA removes half your potential buyers, and that's not counting the fact agents often put HOA houses at the bottom of the list because they're extra work. Real estate is ridiculously local so I'm sure this isn't true everywhere, but don't assume an HOA adds value.
*The exception to HOAs devaluing property is condos. They kind of have to have an HOA, for obvious reasons.
Yeah that's exactly how I feel. Both neighborhoods I grew up in never send out crazy demands. Just things like don't let your grass get 10 ft tall, only park in the drive way, don't leave trash bins out on days trash isn't being picked up.
Yeah. I'll get a letter ever other year about something like when my driveway was stained with dirt after the hurricane(fuck you Harvey). But I haven't been fined yet because I just take care of the problem. It's rare it ever happens, and isn't much of an inconvenience. That, and my neighborhood is having the fencing re-done neighborhood wide at no additional cost to us as it's covered under HOA dues. That, and landscaping is beautiful all throughout.
Thanks, this clears a lot up. I've heard horror stories about HOAs and I've never understood why people want to join them even if it is the minority of them that are bad.
Frankly you get a very unbalanced view of them on Reddit.
People live in HOA neighborhoods because, by and large, they tend to be nicer neighborhoods with amenities, and they have higher property values. The subdivision I grew up in had a community pool, park and fishing pond maintained by the HOA.
The one homeowner that wants to pile trash in his front yard or park his project cars on the street hurts a street's worth of property values and its generally a good thing that there's a mechanism to regulate it.
The problem is that the governance of the HOA tends to fall to people who have extra time on their hands, whether or not those people's opinions represent the majority.
Not all HOAs are bad, I happen to live in a good one. Just like with pretty much everything you only hear about the terrible ones because they end up on the news or on social media or whatever. While mine does have its share of small problems and general bullshittery here and there it also has a lot of nice perks for a reasonable price (about 350$ a year a bit more if you own more than one "lot"). We have a golf course, small airport, shooting range, campground, tons of common grounds for hunting and hiking, miles of trails that connect to state trails for atvs and snowmobiles, several private lakes that are stocked and maintained by a committee of volunteers who are funded partially by the HOA and donations and grants which much of the association is as it is a non profit enterprise if i understand correctly the dues simply go to maintaining facilities with the help of other funds that come in. Theres some other shit here i forget it all, its a huge area theres some 10k lots and the place is large enough to basically take up a portion of a entire county in my state to the point that we have almost a majority vote as the tax base here when it comes to the county if the HOA is together on voting issues which it often is not lol as many of the property owners here vacation here and many live here which cause a divide on issues such as tax funded trash services and things of that nature.
It sometimes reminds me of being in highschool, there are cliques who want certain things, committees that form and want to do this or that with funding, most of them have good ideas but sometimes its not the best idea of what to do with a budget IMO and people dont seem to understand we have a budget and not just unlimited money to do with as we please. So these cliques kind of fight amongst themselves and do some petty shit once in a while. It can be entertaining if your watching from the outside but if you get dragged into it, it can suck.
My HOA isnt really strict on like if your putting up a fence or painting your house or planting trees, like ive heard of some being. You do need approval to building things, like their are building limits, only two outbuildings on your lot (shed and garage or two garages or whatever) and (your fence has to be 3 feet from your property line). Can literally paint your house any color though. Long as your yard isnt filled with trash or junk cars or something they normally wont mess with you (they will send the local cops to ticket you for blight if your yard is trashed, i have seen that happen several times over the years when they patrol and hit up the yards filled with crap).
Alright at that point it sounds like you guys just live in a legit town, that's pretty awesome
It does but if you seen it, its not really. Its mostly a wooded area. Lots of property owners buy to use the campground and facilities as a cheap way to vacation, then there are people with giant mansions here who usually snowmobile in the winter and ski at local resorts, got some smaller cabins for hunter and fishererman types here and there as well. Theres a pretty good mix of different types of people who just kind of vacation here. Then theres a good group of residential people, most of them work year round here dealing with the various tourist areas, theres also a lot of retirees who stay here during the summer and head south for the winter to florida or arizona, then some people like myself who are just disabled and its a reasonably cheap place to live, i have kids so they enjoy the crap here, my wife cleans cabins for side income to cover things not covered by my disability.
Theres no stores or anything inside the association, however there is a small town to the west and a huge town a bit further east, if you need anything more specialized though youll have to order off amazon or go a hour + one way drive to a large city to find that kind of stuff as we are kind of located in the middle of nowhere more or less. Thought surrounded by tourist trap like cities you cant really get your hands on say specialized computer parts or car parts easily without taking a trip farther away or nicer furniture those kinds of things. Theres a walmart and that kind of crap close by but not a lot of options for anything besides food really or trinkets to take home like t shirts and key chains. So most of us use amazon prime and order our shit online lol sadly we cant get food ordered here yet due to location probably but at least everything else we can and thats nice. Another real nice thing is very little crime in this area, mostly break ins and those are mostly in unoccupied cabins its rare but once in a while someone will go hit a bunch and take some crap, they usually get caught quick due to cameras as they are fairly common here people just to dumb to learn.
Most HOAs are actually fine. The extreme majority, even. You just hear the one in a million horror story and think they're all like that.
The ones that weird me about are the ones about gardens having to be lawns.
I may have crippling hayfever but my garden is gorgeous. No grass. A little bamboo, flowers and outdoor pots. Then a big herb garden with a little lavender. I heard about places that ban this.
In my area, I live in the third most expensive city in America. Our townhome was about $100,000 USD less than if we had bought a stand alone home. I actually like the HOA; no snow removal required, no saving up for a $20,000 roof in the future and no mowing lawns, ever. And this is all for less than $300 USD per month that I would be paying out of pocket for, anyway. They get a bad wrap because you hear a story in the news but 99.8% of them have no issues at all and include some really nice benefits.
Here's the thing: HOAs exist for a number of reasons such as to govern condominiums (a cheaper way to get into the housing market than buying a house), maintain privately owned roads and lands, etc. It's basically a corporation that maintains some property on behalf of a bunch of owners who jointly own that property.
I bought into an HOA because it was the only way I could own property where I live, and I'm glad I did because rents have gone up so high that I'd have been priced out years ago otherwise. The downside of it is that I am in my six or seventh year on my board because I don't dare get off it: the only requirement to get on a board of directors that makes decisions about how the association is run is that you have to own property in the association and win an election in which almost no one votes. You don't have to know how to run a business, or be mentally stable, or have any common sense, or swear an oath to be ethical and not simply use the position to benefit yourself.
As most people don't know how to run a business, or lack common sense, or are insane or petty or larcenous, the actions of the board can change dramatically at every election. As I do own my own business, have some common sense, am not completely insane, and have some ethics, I'm now stuck being that guy on the board who says, "Uh... that's really stupid. We can't do that."
So, if you can get into an association that is well run by stable, ethical people, buying into an HOA can be a good deal. And knowing what I know now about HOAs and people in general, I would never buy into one again. Homeowners are people, and people are nuts.
Like libertarianism or communism, HOAs look good on paper. They fall apart as soon as you add people to the mix.
It's situations like mine. TLDR: my house is between two houses that have been allowed to fall apart.
Bought a nice house, nice neighborhood, no HOA. Started with one set of neighbors who were only in on the weekends on one side, and an older guy who liked to fish, so he had an old truck and boat along with his regular car. He kind of kept up with the yard and stuff, but it obviously wasn't his thing. Okay.
Fast forward ten years. House of absentee owners was a bit neglected and sold to someone trying to get in the renting game, but did not want to do maintenance. It's periodically rented and then vacated because it's in bad shape and getting worse. There are spots I can literally see into the attic now. One the other side, old guy retired and proceeded to hoard like it was his job - from random stuff to vehicles. He also cuts the lawn to city ordinance, but you can't see the front of his house or the walkway to his door or even his door at all due to overgrown bushes. There's a side door through a carport, but you can't see it due to all the stuff. He maintains nothing except the length of the grass and removal of large branches. Where there was paint, it's pretty much peeled off completely. A house number fell off several months ago and it's just staying gone. I was approached two weeks ago by someone who asked if the house was abandoned. Because it totally looks that way. The other house is getting close to that, but simply lacks the massive bushes to signal it as blatantly... because the last renters tore them out due to them getting as tall as the house. /sigh
I have a nice house. The rest of the neighborhood is kept up. I'm just smack between two houses falling apart and there's nothing I can reasonably do about it. I wish we had a HOA because of this. No one likes it, but there's nothing that says you can't just let your house rot.
The difference between having one and not can be a very sizable property value difference, as in thousands of dollars gained, or the difference between selling a house and not.
oh I would be willing to bet that the majority of them are bad.
But it is a tiny minority of homes in the US which are subjected to them at all.
Because a good HOA keeps the neighborhood nice and property values up. Think about it like this, if you're in a super nice neighborhood and someone let's their house get run down suddenly the whole neighborhood isn't nice. I think most HOAs arent an issue, but yeah some go over the top crazy.
I know a German Lady who got evicted because she violated HOA rules.
If they're a homeowner, they can generally only be foreclosed on if they don't pay their fees, but otherwise can't be evicted or removed. Evictions are only for renters. Some HOAs do have it written in their documents that they can evict problem renters if the homeowner doesn't deal with the issues.
She only lived in it part time, so she never got the notice. She only owed like $500.
Weird. In my state you have to hit $1800 before an HOA can foreclose.
My mom and dad loved theirs. They chose to build their house, and one of the reasons is the HOA. Everything has to be to a certain standard; no pink houses, no cars left in the driveway, a certain range of color schemes, no children, everyone had to invest at least 10K in landscaping, nothing weird. It was a very nice neighborhood and they feel it keeps their property values up. How they had lil ole eclectic me is boggling, it feels kinda stepford wifey.
I've never understood why people want to join them even if it is the minority of them that are bad.
have you ever had a house you worked hard to make look good, but then the guy next to you never cuts his grass, has big parties, never washes it, etc.
Without a HOA theres very little you can do. an HOA makes everyone keep their properties nice, which keeps everyones housing value up, in addition to fixing problems with private roads, streetlamps, pools, etc.
American. To clear it up some more - think of a highrise apartment building. You plumbing connects to common plumbing, you use a common elevator etc., etc. The purpose of HOA's (usually referred to as condo boards in the case of apartment buidlings) is to manage common elements. And also set rules so that a dick doesn't put up a windmill on his front-lawn to generate his own electricity and you have your view blocked plus random birds getting slaughtered on the fan and landing on your lawn. Or keeping the sceptic tank uncovered to 'air' it out - right on to your back yard. As with every voluntary group of people - there are people in the group who abuse the rules and others who just whine but will throw the HOA book at you the moment you start trying to raise some free-range chickens for your big party next month.
Honestly most of the time they’re not a big deal. There are obviously horror stories but a lot of the rules are basic maintenance such as not leaving trash in your yard and mowing the lawn. Obviously there are horror stories, but I’d say they are few and far in between. A lot of HOA stuff has to do with property in the neighborhoods that’s communally shared such as retention basins and the contracting and maintaining of that sort of thing as well. They have their positives and their negatives but for the most part you’re not really going to be bothered by being in an HOA. Obviously it’s all personal preference as it’s clear there are some redditors that simply despise the concept.
Where I live you have 2 choices, live in a HOA neighborhood, or have neighbors who don't give a fuck about their property and how it makes your street look. Mine also has a great contract with the cable and internet companies so the fees I pay amount to nothing.
The hard part is, they are becoming more and more standard and in some areas it's virtually impossible to buy a home without an HOA. Especially if you're looking for something newly built. I'm lucky, combination smaller city and older subdivision meant no HOA, even though my screamy neighbor who was offended by my dandelions tried to convince me differently. No jackass, I know what our deed says, there is no HOA here.
Most of us who don't like the idea of an HOA just have to choose not to buy a house that comes with one. My house doesn't have an HOA, and I'm happier for it.
In general, you want to join them because you can use the legal force of contracts to prevent deteriorating property values. Let’s say a Trump moves in on your street and wants to bulldoze the craftsman home on the lot and build a gaudy gold paean to mediocrity. You know if he does it, your house values will plummet because no one wants to move into the neighborhood with the house with the flashing neon TRUMP sign. So your neighbors agree to join into an HOA and you enact a “no neon signs” ordinance.
Because people on reddit have never had their house value go down because their neighbor has an affinity for lawn ornaments and the other likes parking his car on his lawn with a sofa too.
HOAs sound barmy. Americans are all about their liberty but then let these little Hitlers dictate so much.
The only thing we seem love more than our own liberty is the ability to take it away from others
Oh I'd love to be the nail house on a block that tried to start one. I wouldn't join and then I'd doing out what their rules were and do the opposite (within common sense) just to piss the rest of the fascists off on that block.
Yeah but what are they gonna do if you break the rules? Kick you out?
Out HOA just tried saying two pets per household. We gave em the finger.
They can fine you and then take you to court to get a court order to pay the fees. If you still reduse at that point your in contempt of court
They can put a lien on your house and get it repossed if you fail to pay hoa fines.
This likely varies by jurisdiction. In Canada, I'm part of a strata (and am currently on the board, but will be resigning at the end of my term this summer). Here, we can't put a lien on a house for fines. We can for unpaid dues however.
It's not repossessed, but when/if you sell the house the lein money is deducted from the sale
Not in some states. In mine the HOA can hold up the sale of a unit because of unpaid fines, but can't foreclose or collect them any other way.
If you fall behind on paying your dues, though... all bets are off.
And you often have to pay for the HOA's lawyers even if the HOA loses in court.
So we'll pay the fees if that's the case.
This is why my husband is getting on the board, so they can't make stupid decisions like this one.
In some cases they can actually foreclose on you house for not following rules. It's crazy. Usually the fees come first, but then if you don't pay...
Liens that the HOA can impose are always second to the mortgage and realistically you can’t forclose (in the sense you’re thinking of, ie sell the whole house) over a few thousand in fees.
What happens is when the house comes up for sale and the title company calls the HOA to ask if there are any outstanding fees, the title company will pay them and take the amount out of the sale of the house.
They definitely can't foreclose here. We double checked that. Thank goodness.
This reminds me of the post on /r/legaladvice where someone's HOA tried to sell their house. Turned out to be spectacularly illegal.
Link?
Here is the /r/bestoflegaladvice post since the original is gone. It looks like the whole thing may have been fake, though. Just scroll down the page and the post will be quoted.
They can typically foreclose for not paying your dues, but that's pretty basic: if you live in an HOA, you have a responsibility to pay for upkeep. If you don't, the association can seize your property to try to get your money out of you that way. It's not fair to other homeowners that they have to pick up your slack.
My HOA can't foreclose for rule violations. That doesn't exist in my state. We can hold up the sale of your home if you have unpaid fines, but that's it.
This has always been my problem with HOAs. Even if you're totally fine with all the rules when you move in, they could, at any time, go and change them in a way that makes it impossible to continue living there. HOAs absolutely can ruin people financially with their fines and eventual property liens too.
That makes absolutely no sense. They aren't a government entity so Why should they dictate what someone does with their own property. Can they force evictions? That's fucked up if they can force you out of something you paid your hard earned money to buy
They aren't government entities, but they are protected by law. Generally, their operation is laid out in contract and is akin (though not exactly) like a servitude on the property. I'm told common law refers to servitudes as "easments," but I don't know enough about common law property to feel confident making that comparison directly (I'm a Louisiana attorney, we use the Civil Law instead of the Common Law).
For those unfamiliar with servitudes, it's essentially like giving up a portion of your ownership rights (e.g., agreeing not to block a neighbor's view or agreeing that a neighbor can drive across your property) for the benefit of another person or property owner. The HOA tends to set up the same relationship except that the surrendered rights aren't given up to a particular entity, rather they are given up to the collective.
If you own the house they can't force evictions because you do own the house. But they can put liens on your house, or as I said in another comment take you to court over outstanding dues or unpaid fees. Then it becomes a legal manner and if you fail to comply your in legal trouble with the real government, not just you high and mighty neighbors.
Its very much like government, the point is that people in the neighborhood willingly give up certain rights, like letting their grass grow long, or being able to paint their house neon, in exchange that no one else will be able to.
My friend lived in a neighborhood that was gorgeous, except for his neighbor whose yard was dirt. If he had wanted to sell his house he probably would have had to take 10-20K off his price to get someone, because no one wants to look out their window to a POS yard next door.
Well that makes a lot of sense. If you knowingly bought a property that have so many restrictions, than it's not hard to be sympathetic when the HOA doesn't go you way isn't it?
From what I learned from this thread, the optimal situation is to buy a house that's not part of an HOA, then encourage everyone else in your neighborhood to start one, and then refuse to join yourself.
If a home you buy (or rent) was already part of an HOA you have no option.
Sooo... Technically, it's a "Home Association" then, and not a "Home Owner Association". The old owner is gone. I'm a different owner. And I'm not associated.
Home Association I guess is more accurate because once it's established you automatically join when you buy the house
Can't tell if stupid or facetious.
isn't there some way out of there? even if the house is connected to an HOA, shouldn't there be some way to cut ties with them?
So what's stopping you from leaving the HOA once you own the house? An association that you can never leave doesn't sound like something that should be legal in a "free country".
I'm not in one, but each HOA has by laws that govern them. I imagine in the by laws there are ways to get out, but it's not as simple as I own this house now and don't want to be in it
You signed the deed or rental agreement that include the covenants that run with the land. You have the freedom to contract and did by purchasing or renting a home that belongs to a HOA.
What’s the way out without selling the property? There must be some legal way to exit or abolish the organization. I assume a vote of the group could abolish it, but is there way to leave?
I'm starting to see why America has a second amendment
The hell?!!
It comes with the HOUSE?!
Why hasn't anyone sued over this?!
There are ways out if you pay off the house or just buy it outright and there's no mortgage. You can also get yourself on the board pretty easy because nobody wants to do it, then stack the HOA with likeminded people and have a vote to dissolve it.
You seem to have some knowledge on this, so I've got a few more questions. Does the HOA own the neighborhood? Like did they purchase the land and build it? You said they are formed in neighborhoods, so how can they have any legal power if they don't own the property?
How common are they? Would I have trouble finding a good house in a good area without a HOA?
American here, I refuse to buy any house that belongs to an HOA. This usually limits me to houses built 50 to 70 years ago though. I am not about to make the biggest purchase of my life and have Susie down the street tell me I can't paint it blue, plant cacti in the front yard, and have a barbeque every weekend.
I'm British and I find the idea of these absolutely insane, it sounds way too easy for some bored busybody to become way too involved and all of a sudden start acting like Hitler Of Wysteria Lane.
If you want to paint your house every colour under the Sun why the fuck can't you. It's your property.
For all the freedom/liberty the US is so keen on this is ridiculous.
We love our liberty and freedom as long as it doesn't impinge on our ability to get top dollar on the real estate market when our 2000 sq ft house becomes too small and we need to upgrade to 5000 sq ft. /s
I don't understand it myself. I'm more a live and let live type of person. You want to own a giant puce colored house with purple curtains you do you. Just don't tell me that my house needs to look like your house.
Exactly, from my point of view its just a vehicle to be misused by the archetypal soccer mom who has nothing better to do other than harass people she dislikes.
Oh yes, I see that a lot on here. People tell horror stories about their HOAs and I just don't understand wanting to belong to one. I doubt the amount you pay actually equals the value of what you receive.
We received a ticket from our HOA in the mail last month with a picture of a car parked in front of our house at THREE AM (we aren't allowed to park on the street in this neighborhood). That means someone drove by my house at 3 in the morning and took a picture of it. The car was not ours.
I cant help but find stuff like this hilarious most British people would tell them to fuck off after a good,hard laugh. Who seriously has the time for this fucking shit hahahaa
For a country so terrified of communism in the 60’s it seems to be an incredibly left wing socialist idea...
I wouldn't call these socialist, if anything they're fascist dictating what can and can't be done with ones own property. Its not taking property away from people "merely" dictating what to do with it.
... they're all contract agreements that home buyers enter into perfectly voluntarily. Calling them "communist" or "fascist" when they're the libertarian wet dream of privatized local government is ridiculous.
Yes but it comes across as slightly forced, other comments have highlighted you can't opt out and is a requirement that you "voluntarily" sign up else they dont sell you the house. I can see why they may be beneficial but these arent really the pinnacle of free will and the like the US is so proud of.
It's not "forced" by any stretch of the imagination. It is literally a contract between two private entities included with the purchase of a house. Plenty of relationships (employer/employee, for instance) are inherently unbalanced or even coercive, but buying property is not.
I get why people don't like it; I'm pretty leery of it myself. But it fits right into the American hardon for laissez faire free markets.
Also that many of them stop you from having nice gardens.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/24/red-white-striped-house-zipporah-lisle-mainwaring
To put it into perspective, in many places the only options are either live in the ghetto or get a house with an HOA. There are some horror stories but HOAs are generally run by a board, so the situation you put forth is extremely unlikely to happen.
What do you do in large buildings in the UK? If you own a unit in a 20 story apartment block are there no owners associations with rules on what is permitted and how modifications must proceed? Like if someone on the 19th floor want's a jacuzzi, here they'd need to go the building association who'd have a set of rules on how modifying in the building must be done instead of the unit owner just going to the cheapest fly-by-night plumber who chip's out chunks of the floor to fit the jacuzzi and uses sub-par plumbing materials to do so which later blow up and flood the 17 units below it(I did a service call last month that was this exact situation).
I mean in a single family home it's fine, you do whatever you want, but in shared buildings these associations seem necessary because something done in one unit can significantly affect their neighboring units or the entire building.
Or if you live a single family home development that has a fence around the entire group of homes and a pool and gym in the middle. The fence, pool and gym are all communally owned by the entire community and there needs to be some way to govern how to maintain and pay for that kind of stuff.
Not that I'm saying HOA's are great. When I was buying a home 'No HOA' was the first thing on my list of requirements(I'm gonna build my goddamn 3 story stone castle tower and no neighbor is stopping me). But they seem necessary in several situations.
We have regulations and the like. I can't speak for tower blocks or apartments but I can see why they would be maybe beneficial in these circumstances. I was more making an issue of a suburban detached house, if whatever you want to do isn't breaking the law/endangering others or violating building regs you should be able to do it without fear of Jane down the road flipping her shit at it, just because she can't afford an extension.
But for these situations I agree with your point, not too sure how it operates in the UK as I've not personally been in that situation. I presume it falls under the remit of local councils but could be wrong.
I can't speak for the UK but here in NZ we have organisations called "body corporations" that manage the building as a whole. If you own an apartment, you pay fees to the body corp, but they really only manage the shared spaces and facilities.
You can find plenty of reasonable HOAs and then get a spot on the board to ensure they remain that way.
I doubt there is an easy or simple way to find a "reasonable" HOA while looking for a house. And having to join the HOA as a board member to keep them from being insane seems more trouble than it's worth. I'd rather avoid the entire issue all together.
Before you buy, you review the laws, budget, meeting minutes, etc. It can become pretty apparently pretty quickly.
Yes, but I don't want to get to the point where I'm sitting down to buy a house and find out that the HOA is run by a bunch of quacks.
I find non-HOA neighborhoods more charming, anyway. Every house gets to be different. If a house is a loud color or has an interesting garden, good!
I don't want some busybody telling me how many fruit trees I can have, anyway. No HOA for me!
They aren’t all super restrictive. Bought my first house 5 years ago. House was built in ‘75 and turned out to be part of a HOA. HOA just manages the small grass culdesac and small private access to nearby lake.
I'm an American and equally as unsure as you. If I buy a house isn't it mine to do whatever the fuck (within the law) that I want to with it??
Depends on the terms in the title.
See, it's possible when the house was built there was an HOA baked into the community plans. Management of common areas, etc (this is often referring to those named suburban housing developments, but the idea carries elsewhere).
So in order for that house to be sold, part of the terms when the house was built was that it would be part of the HOA.
Read the documents when you buy a house. Different houses, different areas, are different.
newer neighborhoods have them. basically one is established before building the houses, and membership into it is written into any deed, in perpetuity. Those houses then have no choice but to always be part of the HOA.
so no, you might have bought the house and land, but your membership was grandfather'd into that purchase. you can't get out of it.
but thats the problem, if i live next to you, IM the one that has to look at it, thats why we make an HOA so the person that moves into your house doesnt go do stuff that looks horrible.
Generally HOAs are good for condos, townhouses, that kind of thing, where people are all right next to each other, or theres common areas shared.
I understand the point of them but somewhere else in the thread someone said they were renting and the HOA made a "no renting " policy and they got kicked out. I feel like I always just hear about HOAs fining people over silly shit
I'm a Realtor. HOAs are basically a board of residents that enact rules to govern how a neighborhood maintains it's value. They can be very specific. If you buy a home that falls under an HOA, you'll be given the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (The rules of the HOA) and must accept and abide by them as a condition of the sale. There are dues that contribute to the HOA fund and that gets used for anything from neighborhood amenities like parks and pools, to things like road maintenance.
The good thing about them is that they do help to guarantee a level of maintenance and care of the neighborhood so that the person across the street can't let their place go to shit and bring down the value of the whole street. The bad part is that you may get into one with busy body neighbors whose sole mission is to measure grass looking for infractions.
If you're in a neighborhood without one and one is formed, you aren't obligated to join it.
My parents have incurred thousands in fines from their next door neighbor spending all his free time contacting the HOA about violations.
They’ve fallen on hard times recently, and don’t have the money to fix everything that breaks right away. So there’s usually a window of a few weeks when the asshole neighbor can contact the HOA and get them fined before they can afford to have it fixed. There was a storm that caused some minor damage, and the HOA sent a notice within a day or two. He literally does measure the grass, too. He’ll set his mower to the maximum length according to the HOA, and mows one pass down the property line - if my parents’ side is a hair longer, he calls it in.
He also likes to call the police and the fire department about stuff like putting a few logs in a county-approved fire pit, claiming it’s “uncontained”.
There’s a local ordinance that bars anyone from parking on a residential street for more than 24 hours without moving, but the police never enforce it on their own. They’ll only write a ticket if somebody calls. When I lived there, I would often end up parked in front of the house for 24 hours from Friday when I got home from work until Saturday when I left to go to my weekend job. I got ticketed two or three times in one summer because that asshole would keep constant tabs on who was parked where and for how long. So I had to make it a routine to go move my car forward or back 10 feet every morning even if I wasn’t going anywhere.
Nobody but that guy cares about enforcing any of this crap.
Yeah...fuck people like that.
It all depends on the neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood that was built in the early 60's and we do not have one. Newer neighborhoods tend to have them, and they force you to buy into them. I'm not sure what the repercussions might be if you choose not to obey them.
How can they force you to buy into them? Unless they are literally putting a gun to your head then you can't be forced to sign a private agreement. And if they are threatening you with physical force then that's coercion and also illegal.
I don't know, but there's a lot of info here that makes it seem legal.
It's not that you are forced to enter into the agreement, it's that the ownership rights of the affected property have become altered by law. Any owner can only transfer what rights he/she holds, so all people who acquire the property will do so subject to these restrictions.
My state, Louisiana, considers this process similar to the creation of a servitude; common law might better compare the process to the creation of an easement (I'm not super familiar with common law property). Essentially, the property itself is beurdened in a way that limits all future owners.
OK, but if you buy the property how do you not have the right to change the ownership rights, if you are the sole owner? And if my neighbors have an ownership stake in my property, they sure as hell better get ready to pay a percentage of my mortgage.
I can best explain it using the Civil Law system, but I'm sure someone else can better explain the common law answer.
The Civil Law distinguished between real rights and personal rights. Personal rights attach to the person (e.g., Jim Bob owes Billy Jim cash, a x Billy Jim can engorce that debt against Jim Bob) while real rights attach to the property (e.g., Uncle Owen owns the farm and can enforce that ownership against the world).
Ownership is the most familiar real right and itself encompasses three lesser rights: usus, fructus, and abusus (use fruits and destruction). Each can be parcelled off in one form or another. For example, a tenant acquires usus and fructus but not abusus for the duration of the lease.
The best real rights to mention in this lesson are predial servitudes which give the owner of one lot (dominant estate) at right over another lot (servient estate). Think of it sort of like a servient estate owner selling (rather than renting) a portion of the usus and/or fructus that makes up his ownership; the owner retains full abusus and whatever usus or fructus wasn't transferred.
Predial servitudes can convey such rights as "right of passage" where the dominant estate owner gets to drive through the servient estate, "right of view" where servient estate owner cannot block the view of the dominant estate owner, "right of drain" where the dominant estate owner cannot be stopped form letting water drain from his land on to the servient estate, etc.
If the owner of the dominant or servient estate dies or transfers the properties, the right/duty still affects the properties and will operate against whomever acquires the properties. Essentially, all owners of the dominant estate get the added right over the servient estate; and a owners of the servient estate are denied the bit of usually or fructus that's now attached to the dominant estate. The owner of the servient estate can't convey unencumbered ownership rights because he doesn't actually have them (he or a predecessor gave them to the.dominant estate holder), and nobody can sell what they don't have. Naturally, this restriction lowers the value of the land for future buyers of the servient estate; most people don't want to pay full price for restricted rights.
Personal servitudes work the same way except that the beneficiary isn't defined as "the owner of the dominant estate," it's just whomever is granted the right and the people he transfers it to (via sale, lease, inheritance, or gift). The ownet of the servient estate is still missing some limited usus or fructus rights that are now in the hands of someone else.
Land use restrictions are similar to servitudes in that the owner of affected property loses some usus/fructus, but they bind a whole bunch of properties with the collective being designated as beneficiary (there isn't really a beneficiary at all, but it helps to think of the setup in this way). There are a lot of rules regarding the creation of these restrictions (nobody can be forced into one), but once they are in place the ownership right is encumbered just like it would be with a servitude.
Note that you can also analogize to sale of mineral rights where a portion of your ownership is broken off and given to some other party. If I don't own minetal rights on my land, then nobody I sell or give the property can get the mineral rights from me.
Edit: substantial edits for clarity. Apologies for typos, am on mobile.
It's part of buying the property. By buying the property you become part of the HOA and must abide by the rules of it.
They simply don't sell the house to you. It's really not that complicated.
So the neighborhood association owns all the houses? In that case, OK sure. But if it's a private person, not the association but you just buy the house from an individual then there is nothing they can do to force you into it. Jesus, don't just accept what people try and force on you, stand up for yourself and your rights.
So the neighborhood association owns all the houses? In that case, OK sure.
No, they don't own the house. However, the HOA legal runs with the land. It is, for all practical purposes, a neighborhood level government.
It starts this way.
A property developer builds a new subdivision. He builds 120 houses, roads, and a neighborhood park, pool and tennis courts. He calls it something like "Whispering Woods."
The developer then creates a nonprofit corporation called "The Whispering Woods Home Owners Association Inc."
When the developer sells each and every house in the neighborhood, the deed to the property contains language (A restrictive covenant), that says something like: "the ownership of this property is subject to the rules and regulations of the Whispering Woods Home Owners Association, Inc. and the property owner is entitled to a voting membership in the organization."
So the organization meets and adopts rules.
many of those rules are perfectly reasonable, like "Home owners shall not leave trash outside in front of their homes." "Home owners shall not park a non-operational vehicle on the street for more than 30 days." But sometimes they get out of control and start being overzealous. And like any small government, they can sometimes be the source of petty political fights.
If you want to buy a house in Whispering woods, you have no legal choice to be a part of the home owners association. If you don't want to be involved, then you don't have to buy in that subdivision.
Notwithstanding what you read on reddit, By and large HOA neighborhoods have higher property values and fewer problems. People like living in neighborhoods that have community pools and parks and where there's rules against being the nasty run-down house on the block.
The HOA is tied to the deed itself. You have to accept the conditions when you purchase the home or the purchase will not go thtough. It's part of the closing and all of that.
Are you one of those Sovereign Citizen people? It's literally written into the deed/title. Even if there was some legal way out of them (which I doubt), who could afford the court fees?
I have no idea what that is. I just don't see how someone can tell me what to do with my own property. You legally can't. You have no standing to have more authority about my own house than me.
Think of it as another layer of local government, like a very small city. If you buy a home in a city you can't just decide to opt out of the costs and benefits of the city. If you don't like it you are free to move to a different city or a place that isn't party of a city at all. Same with a HOA.
It's sooo fucking stupid. Absolutely stupid.
They keep up property values. They are for the greater good.
The greater good
/r/legaladvice is my goto source for horror stories about HOAs.
Usually once a house is part of the hoa it stays in an hoa even when sold. It becomes attached to it's deed. The idea is that a bunch of neighboors get together and decide that in order to keep the neighborhood nice and clean and property values up they will all agree to be in a hoa where they vote on the rules.
This also might be to get things like a neighborhood pool or park or gym or gate or whatever that is only open to that neighborhood.
Some of them are really good. Like my uncle lives in one where there is a spring fed swimming hole that is maintained by the hoa and only open to guests of members. Or the one my grandmother is in cuts every bodies lawn and makes sure people don't leave junk in their lawn for days.
But some get too intrusive. You have to be active in it to make sure they don't enact stupid rules.
You can't be forced into one if your home isn't already apart of it.
So if you enter the HOA, you can’t ever get out? Crazy.
It depends on how the hoa rules are structured but usually yes. However the people running the hoa are voted in by the members so if it starts passing rules the the other members don't like they can vote the leadership out. The members can also vote to dissolve the hoa.
The bad ones come from the members not paying attention to who is in charge. But I personally wouldn't want to be in one.
You're automatically in it. When I was looking for a house last year one of my deal-breaking requirements was "No HOA" because I didn't want to put up with any of that.
In most cases, at some point, someone agreed to be part of the HOA. This can be, for example: a developer buys an entire block of houses, builds houses according to a nice-looking color scheme, and sells the houses under the condition that the houses are and will stay under HOA and will have to keep the color scheme. Or, the developer includes a community pool that will be funded by everyone on the block.
The HOA is like a mini-self-governing community. Usually they have the power to change the rules or dissolve the HOA if that is what the collective homeowners agree to. But then the pool will not be maintained, and Bill will paint his house neon purple...
The first person has to sign up.
Everyone else is stuck.
Yes, if there is an HOA in the neighborhood in which you are buying a house, you are forced to join the HOA and pay dues towards maintaining the HOA. If you don’t pay the dues, or follow their rules(sometimes down to which contractors you can use in your home), they can and will put a lien on your property.
What??? How? Under what legal authority?
The legal authority of "read what you sign."
Yes, except it's also a principle of common law that you contracts with significantly unequal bargaining power can be void or unenforceable, and also that you can't sign away certain rights through contract, even if that's part of the contract.
Right, but that particular principle is voided by most states with HOA when they passed laws granted HOA's that authority. It generally happened years and tears ago. Like fifty or more.
Right, which is why this is something that confuses people in the rest of the world. America is one of the few countries that contains a concept of property rights as an inalienable constitutional right, and yet they pass laws to allow these types of restrictions to be enforced by private persons.
Davis–Stirling Common Interest Development Act
Looks like California passed a law as a means to get housing developers to expand into more rural areas, and most states passed a similar law there after. so to answer your questions, the states gave them that power.
it's almost always written into the deed of the house, and traces back to the developer who built the neighborhood or building who put that language in the deed.
"Ownership of this property shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the Home Owners Association."
Yes, and I get that where say there's a condo corporation that provides common funds for things like roads and sidewalks. But it's baffling the number of restrictions that can be put on an otherwise freehold home.
Yes, and I get that where say there's a condo corporation that provides common funds for things like roads and sidewalks. But it's baffling the number of restrictions that can be put on an otherwise freehold home.
HOA's are for all intents and purposes neighborhood level government and have to be understood in that context. they dont have arrest powers, but they essentially have the power to fine people.
Something similar's not uncommon in Canada in Historic districts where there's a variety of local government rules which exist to keep the district looking "historical." If you buy a house in those districts you are often limited and can only do exterior renovations in a specific style that matches the neighborhood.
Sure, historical preservation is possibly a more grounded reason than "because we want the neighborhood to be nice and look similar" but the point is functionally the same.
Yes, the difference is that historic districts are government-administered and designated, not by private citizens, so there is some level of rigour and procedure to them, as well as the fact that the designation can be appealed by citizens. Is there any way to appeal your home being subject to an HOA?
Historic districts are government-administered and designated, not by private citizens, so there is some level of rigour and procedure to them, as well as the fact that the designation can be appealed by citizens.
An HOA is not just "a private citizen," deciding to do whatever. It's almost always established by a corporate charter, has a governing body and procedures for establishing that governing body. (Usually a board of directors and elections) and rules for adopting regulations. They're also governed by a variety of federal laws and state laws in many states.
They can be challenged by taking them to court. The same way you'd take your town to court if you had some reason to believe that a city ordinance was unconstitutional or otherwise against the law.
Thanks, I'm not used to running into these since they're so rare here, so I genuinely didn't understand what their scope or authority was. Thank you for having the patience to lay it out.
That's a breach of lease on the part of the lessor. If you had taken that to court, you probably would have won that lawsuit.
We, along with 10 other renting families, had two months to move, regardless of the terms of our signed lease.
Thats illegal regardless of state. I cant believe no one had half the sense to file a lawsuit.
Thats illegal regardless of state. I cant believe no one had half the sense to file a lawsuit.
I don't see how. (Caveat - unless it would be illegal under the landlord tenant laws in that state for some particular law, in my particular state there's be no problem unless the written lease prohibited it somehow).
The home owners were renting their homes out. They were told they were no longer legally allowed to rent out their homes because it was contrary to the rules. (based on restrictive covenant on the deed).
If the homeowners refused to terminate the lease, they could be fined and the HOA could get a lien on the house. The HOA gave the homeowners 60 days to comply with the rule. So the homeowners said "Sorry, you've got 60 days to vacate."
The specific damages between the tenant and landlord are not the concern of the HOA. If the landlord has to break the lease with the tenant, the landlord might have to pay the tenant damages. Typical contract damages would be the additional cost to find a replacement residence of similar quality. It's unlikely a court would award specific performance for a residential lease and force the landlord to continue renting.
I agree. The landlords would be responsible for damages to the tenants. It would be interesting to see how it would play out in court. Im not sure a dispute between landlord and HOA is justification for breaking a lease.
Im not sure a dispute between landlord and HOA is justification for breaking a lease.
Most places I've rented had a clause allowing the landlord to terminate the lease for a variety of reasons, provided they gave appropriate notice.
More to the point, Contract law is all about "efficient breach." If a landlord will have to pay $2000 a month in fines to keep the lease, and only makes $200 a month in profit from the rental (above his mortgage). Breaching the lease would be the logical action. The landlord would just have to pay the tenants the amount of money it took them to find a similar house and their moving expenses as likely damages. Most attorneys would simply advise the landlord to look for an out of court settlement if there was no way out. "you've got 60 days to vacate and I'll pay $1000 towards moving expenses."
Depending on the circumstances, it could easily qualify as intentional interference with a contractual expectation, which is a tort recognized in many jurisdictions. The description makes it seems as though the HOA decided they didn't like the renters, so forced the rule. Probably enough for a basis for either the landlord or renter to sue the HOA.
The specific damages between landlord and HOA are not the concern of the tenant, unless spelled out in the lease agreement. The landlord will not be able to successfully evict the tenant while tenant is holding up their end of the deal.
The landlords will have to fight with the HOA and deal with whatever consequences come from that. If I were a landlord in that situation, I'd fight the HOA and offer the tenants cash for keys.
Just because you have a private contract w/ the HOA doesn't make leasing illegal, just breach of contract, subject to penalties laid out in that contract.
the HOA is not a private contract really, it's a restrictive covenant based on the deed. the HOA can get liens and foreclose if they're not paid.
In many states, a landlord cannot evict a tenant except under a handful of circumstances.
Being in breach of a HOA rule would likely not constitute cause for evicting tenants in good standing in those states.
I can believe that no one had the money to file a lawsuit though.
How wonderfully short-sighted of the HOA. Given what I know about the types that run HOAs, I’ll bet next month’s rent that somebody on the HOA had a problem with one renter and decided it was a great idea to kick out everyone.
So, where do they get the legal authority to do this? Are there laws that give HOAs the power to do these things?
At some point in time, the homeowner agreed to it, either when the HOA was formed, or as a part of buying the property in the first place (if the HOA was pre-existing).
As for the HOA's authority to evict someone, that's much murkier. Technically, a renter's lease is between the renter and the property owner. The HOA has the power to fine the property owner, but not necessarily the renter. For this reason, most leases for properties in HOAs include language allowing the property owner to pass along any costs to the renter. If the lease does not contain that clause, it's entirely possible for the renters to remain for the remainder of the lease and for the property owner to have to eat the fines/extra costs for their violating the rules of the HOA. Obviously, that's an untenable situation, so the property owner will try to get rid of the renter's asap, not always using legal means.
The fact of the matter is that HOAs, like all voluntary associations, can be good or bad. If you don't like what the HOA is doing, then the correct course of action is to gather your neighbors and vote the bastards out and put your own people in. But just like in politics are higher levels, most people are too lazy to do anything about it. If you have a neighborhood of say 50 units, all it will usually take is a good handful to overrule the folks then in charge, simply because most people don't pay any attention to such things. But this is also how idiots get in charge of these organizations.
The fact of the matter is that HOAs, like all voluntary associations, can be good or bad.
And see, that's what I don't get. Because from the sound of it, they aren't really voluntary. You can't buy a house in a neighbourhood governed by one and choose to opt-out. They're pretty uncommon in my country (Canada) and where they do exist, they don't have the broad authority that seems to be given to them in the US.
HOAs are largely a legacy of redlining and racist housing policies too, so why they've continued to linger is pretty frustrating.
You can't buy a house in a neighbourhood governed by one and choose to opt-out.
You can voluntarily not buy that house.
Yes, but given how much new development is governed by HOAs, in some cities it can be very hard to find a new house that isn't governed by an HOA. It's the same kind of argument that was used when HOAs were passing restrictive covenants to prevent homes in their areas to be sold to black or Jewish buyers: you don't like it, buy somewhere else.
It's the same kind of argument that was used when HOAs were passing restrictive covenants to prevent homes in their areas to be sold to black or Jewish buyers: you don't like it, buy somewhere else.
No, it's not. Not at all. The one (whether or not an HOA is a voluntary association) has absolutely nothing to do with the other (whether an HOA can be/was ever used to enforce discriminatory regulations).
it kind of is, except the people being discriminated against are people who don't want to take care of their properties, and thats not a protected class.
Except that on the one hand, the question revolves around potential buyers being forced to join the association by the very fact of voluntarily purchasing the property, while, on the other, the question revolves around potential buyers not being allowed to purchase in the first place because of their ethnic or racial origins. Those two things are very clearly not the same.
This was not a question of whether, as you seem to believe, discrimination against renters is essentially similar to discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities.
Well another poster here gave an example where his HOA banned renters, so several families were evicted as a result. That's not racial discrimination, but it's still class based discrimination to try and ban renters from living in a neighbourhood.
I guess in both cases, what I'm saying is that allowing private citizens to form rules that aren't subject to review or government oversight is a weird thing in a country that professes to place individual liberty at such a premium above all else. That's why it's so confusing to those of us in other countries.
That's not racial discrimination, but it's still class based discrimination to try and ban renters from living in a neighbourhood.
Discrimination against renters is not illegal, plain and simple. In the US, folks are free to discriminate against anyone or anything they like save for discriminating against protected categories (i.e. sex, religion, race, ethnicity, national origin, mental or physical handicap, etc.). The vaguely defined and entirely subjective category of "class" is is not among those. By the way, who decides who belongs to what class? Because surely you know that not all renters are poor; some are, in fact, quite wealthy.
allowing private citizens to form rules that aren't subject to review or government oversight is a weird thing in a country that professes to place individual liberty at such a premium above all else.
Regarding non-governmental oversight: Every HOA has a board that is tasked with overseeing the actions of the association. Those boards are elected by the members. It's not like once an HOA is put into place, the property owners have no say over how it is run. A simply majority of property owners can replace the board and set the course in a new direction.
Regarding government oversight: You may find it weird, but it's not inconsistent at all. Why shouldn't private citizens be able to enter freely into a voluntary association with the aim of protecting their property? And why should the government have any say over how those private citizens engage in their voluntary association unless that association is breaking the law in some way? Would it not be an affront to individual liberty for the state to require its consent before private citizens could enter into a voluntary association? Would it not be an affront to individual liberty if the state somehow constrained the actions of private citizens engaging in free and voluntary association any more than necessary to enforce the duly passed laws of the land? And besides, in the United States, there is a court system that any property owner or renter can avail themselves of if there is some disagreement between parties, which is, in effect, a form of governmental oversight.
Finally, that renter who was evicted because of the HOA changing rules was almost certainly illegally evicted. While HOAs can ban renters, their only recourse against rule breakers is to fine property owner for non-compliance. Depending on whether the property owner put the right clauses into the lease agreement, the property owner may or may not be able to pass those fines along to the renter. What often happens, however, is that the property owner is not an experienced landlord and so did not put any clauses into the lease for this purpose, and the accumulated fines for violating the ban on renters makes the rental unprofitable. So the property owner turns to an illegal eviction instead of acting legally (like coming to a voluntary agreement to break the lease, usually through some form of payment to the renters for their trouble). As other commenters noted, had that person who was evicted gone to court, they likely would have prevailed.
They do keep property values up as the neighborhood remains relatively unchanged.
There are contracts that do.
HOAs are usually governed by the laws of the state that they are incorporated in. The law of the state usually provides a set rules to set one up and how they can govern themselves.
the homeowners sign a legal contract to make them, so everyone either aggreed to follow the HOA rules when it was made, or when you bought the house that was part of the sale, that you agree to follow them.
Most commonly, it becomes part of the deed that the property belongs to the HOA. Under that, the HOA has the power to fine them, in the original HOA agreement signed. Once the HOA has the authority to fine, it can place a lien on a property for unpaid fines, which can lead to foreclosure.
That's straight up evil, even for an HOA
We, along with 10 other renting families, had two months to move, regardless of the terms of our signed lease.
That's disgusting. =(
All of those homes went up for sale, property values plummeted as everyone that had renters to pay their mortgage while they retired to Florida suddenly were trying to undercut each other.
This makes me so happy. Fuck those selfish, greedy pricks and their short-sighted nonsense.
What the fuck
NIMBYs sure do love to jam a stick in the spokes of their bicycles, don't they?
So really the HOA just fucked everyone (including themselves) over?
That's not how it works. Your landlord has to honor your lease. You could have forced them to pay the fines or pay cash for keys.
go back and buy your house and dont move!
I don't think the HOA has the authority to do that. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
You can at least hope those running that association also lost money on their property... geez
Kind of hope I come across one of these situations in Colorado to get a cheap townhome...
This would not happen in San Francisco. With gentrification and high home prices, there are heavy restrictions on turning formerly rented multi-unit buildings or coplexes into condos, or what they call TICs ("Tenants in Common").
I believe this regulation would extend to existing townhomes that are rented. So in SF, the HOA could prevent future renters, but I believe they would have to grandfather in current renters, and let them stay.
How is that even legal? The HOA can't make rules that violate the law.
I could never live with an HOA. There is no reason my neighbors should have any say in what I do with my property as long as it's not directly harming someone. And "causing an eyesore" doesn't count as harm.
Jeez, America doesn't sound very free
What state is this in? I'd expect laws would require more time to be given. Don't think this would fly in NY
Was that even legal?
Funny thing is, they were created like the union was to defend homeowners rights and to boost neighborhood/housing prices be keeping a higher standard.
Now they're all just lead by old folk in the area who have nothing better to do than boss people around and enact heinous rules to oppress people they dont like
TECHNICALLY you could have made them go through the entire actual eviction process which I believe allows you to be in said home for up to 12 months before you must vacate.
(Not a lawyer but watch TV ALL the time, so I clearly know what I'm talking about ;))
Person who would probably never be able to actually tell the difference between a renter and an owner "Ew, renters are disgusting. We should kick them all out, they're just bringing down our property values and are a potential eyesore."
Inadvertently nukes all of the property values themselves
Justice?
I’m sorry that happened, but holy hell that makes me so happy the values plummeted. Fuck those guys for enacting that rule. They got what they deserved.
Unless the lease (and state law) allows a landlord to evict tenants at-will, that wasn’t legal.
In my state, a landlord must have cause to evict, such as failure to pay rent, illegal activity in the residence, violation of the lease agreement, etc. Absent such cause, the landlord must wait until the lease term has ended.
A change in the HOA policy would not enable the landlord to evict anyone before the end of the lease term. HOA policy is strictly a matter between the property owner and the HOA.
As an American who has never lived in a community requiring this, that sounds fucking stupid.
I have seen some defenses of them- that the rules they put forth stop property values from deteriorating just because some guy never mows his lawn for instance. Personally I’d much rather have the freedom of not being in one.
I'm in one right now that I like. Obviously it's not for everyone, and they are different depending on where you are, but I don't find mine to be intrusive. And it provides a community pool, well maintained common areas, swingsets and playgrounds for the kids in the area, etc. I'm also glad that my next door neighbor can't put his car up on blocks in his front yard. We vote the members in each year and any homeowner can join the board if they don't like how things are going.
The common HOA horror stories are all about minor, pedantic things that someone comes down to enforce, but I've found pretty much nothing is a problem if you have any level of respect or decency for your neighbors. Then again, each one is different. Just my anecdote.
From my experience, this is exactly how a lot of them start. At some point though, it seems common for a busy body with not much else to do to get on the board, and go power crazy. That is exactly what happened with my MIL - HOA was fine for years, until someone got power hungry and suddenly wanted to fine people when 2 inches of their garbage bin was visible from the alley, which the lady literally walked around checking. Sadly, a true story....
When that happens, you just get together to vote the hypercunt out of office. It's especially easy (though by no means necessary) to do if the HOA voting allows proxy votes.
It would vary widely by how the rules are set up. Sometimes it is based on terms without the ability to remove. Other times you cannot get enough for a valid vote outside the annual meeting.
I guess I can understand that, but I like to live out in the country where I can shoot guns all day long and do pretty much whatever I want and nobody gives a shit because all of my neighbors do the same.
that the rules they put forth stop property values from deteriorating
this is literally the reason why. Having some asshole neighbor who doesn't mow their lawn and leaves their broken down car in the front yard makes the whole neighborhood look like crap.
It's also the broken window theory. When one house looks like crap, more and more people start letting their houses look like crap.
That sounds incredibly oppressive and surreal to me. Especially so for america, where people constantly complain about the government telling them what to do. I mean i get that you may not like how your neighbors anything looks, but in at the end of the day, its their property.
How is it remotly reasonable to force or forbid someone from doing something (legal) with their property just because you dont like it? The whole "property value" thing is also absurd - maybe the property value goes down if people see your neighbor drinking/smoking/partying in their yard too, would that be a reason to forbid those things as well?
The whole "property value" thing is also absurd
There is also a value in not being in an HOA. In some areas, not having one makes the property value increase because some people really don't want to deal with one. I was willing to pay more for a house that wasn't in one, for instance.
It's not nearly as oppressive as you think, and you really just hear the bad stories.
My HOA takes care of landscaping for common areas, and there are clearly defined rules that aren't too hard to follow. Shit like "no livestock," so your neighbor doesn't install a chicken coop that keeps you up and smells like crap.
You only hear the horror stories, because like supply chains and plumbing, you only ever hear about HOAs when things go wrong.
It's not oppressive because you agree to the rules of the HOA before buying a property in there. If you don't want an HOA, buy property somewhere else.
The whole "property value" thing is also absurd
I think you will rethink this one once you buy property and see your property plummet after horrible neighbors move in. You want to sell, but no one wants to pay you good money because no one wants to buy a house in a crappy community.
That’s valid too. I guess maybe I’d support it more if there were less power given to them. 3 foot tall grass, maybe, but complaining if I miss mowing for two days or telling me what color I can paint my house? Piss off.
It is so weird how Reddit seems to absolutely love big, bloated, bureaucratic government, but always hates on HOA's whenever they come up.
It's like everyone on Reddit is really statist until it comes to their own property/house/cars then all of a sudden they are Libertarian. If for instance you argue that taxation is theft, or other typical libertarian talking points, they will all say "that's the price you pay to live in a society, we can't just have people walking around doing whatever the fuck they want!" But, whenever HOA's come up (which is basically just a very small, democratic and voluntarily organized form of government) everyone starts hating on them.
I too am glad that my neighbor can't tank the value of my home by deciding to paint his house hot pink, park four cars on his lawn and let them sit while he blasts music all night from his battered and dirty RV parked in the street.
I imagine that most of Reddit are renters anyway and don't own homes, so they've never had to deal with things like this, or comparable sales/pricing.
A ton of actual people hate them too for some reason. For example, my parents’ housing association collects dues (much much lower dues than normal HAs), and I could not believe the amount of people bitching that my mom told me about because they had to raise dues by $5 a few years ago. It’s unreal.
My mom is on the board, and like 80% of the money goes for snow and ice removal in winter. They raised the dues because they ran out of money in the winter of 2014. The rest goes towards maintaining the small park, or saving for other big projects. I think the HA paid a lot of money to repave all the streets last year.
Well for one thing I'm not in love with big bloated bureaucratic government. But, I'll try to explain why this still would make sense to me. People complain about taxes, but they recognize that they allow massive projects like road systems/highways, public education, etc.
Now it's possible that these things could be done without taxation (perhaps by corporate enterprises) but functionally taxation is how they're done here, and trading the government in for a corporation is just a change of overlord, really.
Meanwhile, something like the stuff that a HOA deals with is NOT something that is most efficiently handled in this manner. The inefficiency outweighs the benefit on this scale, and asking someone to mow their lawn is just easier than setting up a HOA to make sure that they can.
Not saying it's 100% consistent, but you surely agree that even though it's merely a matter of scale, it would be impossible for you and your neighbors to come together and pave your neighborhood as well as taxes would- meanwhile a HOA offers precious few benefits as a ratio to its drawbacks.
I get what you're saying, but:
The inefficiency outweighs the benefit on this scale, and asking someone to mow their lawn is just easier than setting up a HOA to make sure that they can.
The HOA becomes an authority. You can "ask" your neighbor to mow their lawn all you want, for free, and if he doesn't want to, then you can't do anything. The HOA can impose fines, and eventually put a lien on their house if the fines go unpaid. So the HOA takes on the role of the "state" in this situation.
it would be impossible for you and your neighbors to come together and pave your neighborhood as well as taxes would
HOA's do this though. That's why HOA's have treasurers and have to do accountings. There is a general fund that is used for neighborhood repairs, road maintenance (in areas that aren't maintained by the city), playgrounds, landscaping in common areas, etc. They basically replace the tax-payer funded government in areas of the city/county that aren't managed by the city government. For instance, my neighborhood is outside of the city, but in the county. So our roads aren't maintained by city taxes, but we pay HOA dues and that goes towards having our roads re-sealed. Or, when someone crashes into our community mailbox, or damages our streetlights, the HOA dues go toward fixing the damage.
I'd also argue that since the members of the HOA board are also residents who have to pay HOA fees, they are more likely to spend the money more wisely than a large bloated government. No one is as careful about spending other people's money as they are about their own. And once the government gets huge, in the State or Federal sense, there's a disconnect between constituents and their representatives, and they start spending ridiculous amounts of money on crazy stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the folks that says that HOAs are the absolute devil. It's just that, for me, the benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. I prefer my own autonomy to being able to enforce mow restrictions on my neighbors etc.
In that situation it makes sense but it's almost like forming a smaller municipality. Why not funnel those concerns through the existing municipality and not have a HOA at all? Granted the municipality might not always act in the way you personally want it to, but neither would the HOA necessarily. Plenty of municipalities have general ordinances similar to the HOA restrictions, but usually at least slightly less punitive in terms of individual freedoms.
I suppose you could, I've only ever lived in HOA communities that were not within city limits, so I don't think that they would be able to run those concerns through the city government.
But there's also rules enforced by HOA's that city police/governments wouldn't care about, like paint colors for houses etc.
In that situation it makes sense but it's almost like forming a smaller municipality. Why not funnel those concerns through the existing municipality and not have a HOA at all?
Also, bloat. As far as I remember, the people on the board of the HOA were all doing it as volunteers, meaning they don't draw salaries from our dues. In a city government, you have to pay the person who collects the money, the person who counts the money, the person who manages the money, the person who distributes the money, etc.
You also know with an HOA that those dues are going directly to your immediate neighborhood.
I get what you're saying, and I think if you want to live somewhere without an HOA, you can. And I don't think HOA's are perfect, obviously there are horror stories about them and I'm sure some of them suck. I just think it's a weird juxtaposition how many people on Reddit seem to love the government, laws, and regulations, but when you talk about them on a micro-scale, suddenly everyone turns into a libertarian.
Edit: Also, I think I'd rather call a vote with just 100 of my neighbors about something that actually effects OUR neighborhood, then put it up to a vote of 30,000 people living within a larger municipality that have probably never even been in my neighborhood (and couldn't get in even if they wanted to.)
In unincorporated areas, HOAs fill the void of local governments and districts. Maybe they pay for additional services from the county sheriff, and/or build firehouses and parks. Retirement communities save on taxes by banning minors as permanent residents so there's no need for schools.
In condos, perhaps more accurately described in New York as co-ops, residents have to make decisions about maintaining common spaces and structures.
The petty tyranny is elective.
It's basically a reaction to living in a neighborhood where you have one neighbor that persists in doing crazy stupid things that makes everything worse for everyone else in the neighborhood. That's been the case in most neighborhoods I've lived in - and it only takes one. I think everyone who has lived in an American suburb has identified with Tom Hanks' character from The Burbs at some point.
I don't necessarily love the idea of an HOA, and I'm not sure I'd be excited about joining one, but I certainly understand the mentality behind it.
As an American who has never lived in a community requiring this, that sounds fucking stupid.
If you bought a house and then the guy next door painted it neon green or let his grass grow 2feet tall and you had to look at it every day, it wouldnt seem stupid.
99% of the time HOAs are great, its just that the bad ones get all the attention.
Well the community I currently live in, we all mind our own business. If my neighbor wants to paint their house neon green or grow their grass 2 feet high, well that’s their property and they can do as they please. They bought the land, so it’s their land to do as they please.
I don’t buy into the theory that my neighbors’ property maintenance habits or aesthetic preferences have any measurable impact on my property’s value.
I guess you'd be in for a rude awakening then if your neighbor messed his yard up and you tried to sell your house.
Setting aside the fact that "messing up a yard" is largely subjective...
The fact that he's a terrible neighbor is what's actually going to hurt property values, and I'd be better off selling as soon as possible, rather than sticking around and trying to dictate to him how to manage his property.
Of course, if I see fit to tell him how to manage his property, I'm probably the terrible neighbor who's hurting property values by driving everyone out.
Nobody is entitled to have their home value appreciate.
They originally existed to enforce soft segregation... if you want to know why they are fucked up
This. Housing Associations have a lot of power in the US and go back to Red Line laws that limited who could live where. Nowadays, they can't limit who buys a house (usually), but they can tell you what alterations you can make to a house, colors to paint, what kind of gardens/lawn you can have (we had a HA that would not let us use mulch over more than 20% of out lawn, the rest had to be grass), limits on when you can mow or use the sprinklers (often reinforced by city codes), and also how many cars you are allowed to park on the streets for how long. Having a Party? Better let the HA know and tell them you'll be using a lot of curb parking or else you might get a ticket...
The worst was when my Parents would throw a yearly party in their yard (We had 2 Large Lots as one lot) for their Real Estate Clients and we had to clear what things we could have (Bouncy Castle? Hell no. Pony? Only for three hours maximum. Party Tent? Up no sooner than 8am, down no later than 9pm, but Noise MUST not exceed a certain level for no more than six hours total. Also no lawn darts, live bands, or grilling for more than four hours, no open fires (at a large gathering), and no no catch played with sticks/bats/clubs).
It was wild. My parents told them to screw off and just paid the fine.
Why the fuck would they pay a fine? Tell them to go fuck themselves and do what you want.
Because they might want to sell their house one day, and in some places, the HOA can foreclose the house and evict you.
Because HOAs can fine you? America is fucking stupid at times.
They can fine you, just like my co-worker can come over and hand me a bill for listening to music in my office too loud. Doesn't mean I'm legally obligated to pay it.
Depends on the State, bud.
Nah, we live in America and my neighbor has no constitutional authority to my property.
Yeah. What a shame they couldn’t throw loud parties until all hours of the night when people likely had to get up before dawn the following morning for work. Wild.
They're more referring to the parking issue I think. HoA's have very little say in what goes on inside your house, party or not (and there are noise bylaws to combat what you're talking about anyway).
For me, I'm not allowed to have wind chimes. Affix any sort of decoration on my house. Not allowed to have any sort of LED lighting (like garden lights). Can't put my bike on either of my patios. etc.
HoA's only pretend to exist for the betterment of the community, but in my experiences, they do nothing but make those communities miserable to live in, often headed by miserable old fucks that have nothing better to do. They also have an obscene amount of power like being able to put a lien on your house, and there have been cases where HoA's have literally sold peoples houses on them (or at least, listed them for sale). They're fucking bullshit.
Not all HoA's are as terrible as this and my last 2 points are extreme examples, but when we're able to sell our house, I absolutely refuse to live in a community that has an HoA ever again.
when we're able to sell our house, I absolutely refuse to live in a community that has an HoA ever again.
I have heard that from basically everyone who has lived with an HoA too.
I can understand that line of thinking. The parking issue is especially annoying when its in reference to a temporary situation like a party. Although I will say, my HOA has street parking limitations that they don't enforce and the result is neighborhood streets that are a pain in the ass to drive down. Sometimes completely impassable because some idiot decided to park across from an already parked car.
I can understand hating HOAs and I definitely agree that there are many bad ones and they can be given far too much power. But I also think they are necessary for anyone who wants to live in a neighborhood and not have to put up with a bunch of run down shit holes. Last time I went house hunting literally every single home that didn't have an HOA was surrounded by houses that just weren't maintained. 100%. True, its not my property, but it affects my property value and affects my enjoyment of that property.
Well, to be fair, The parties only ran on Saturdays, were over by 8pm, and were not loud. We had music from a DJ, but it couldn't be heard indoors by our neighbors (unless they had the windows open), and my parents mostly sold houses to Families. So we wanted things like a Dunk Tank, a clown, bouncy castle, and a grill going with burgers and hot dogs. We also had a Pony Ride, but only for a few hours because the ponies got tired.
The biggest concern was the Tent. We wanted a large tent up in the backyard to keep the sun off people, but the Tent Company didn't do same day take downs if the party went after 5pm. So we left it up over night and had them come by Sunday Morning at like 8 or 9, when they opened. THAT really pissed the HA off because they thought a Tent was trashy, even if it was a big fifty foot tent.
They also hated the Clowns/Balloon artists for some reason.
We never got penalized for the noise, and all the neighbors were invited too, so no one complained except for the head of the HA who lived six blocks away and just resented the shit out of the thought someone would have a client party at their house and not somewhere out of sight.
Well, my comment was in reference to you specifically mentioning excessive noise and after 9pm as examples of rules that were unreasonable. At least, that was my impression.
It definitely comes down to the HOA. Some are tyrants and over the top with their rules and regulations. But often there is a good reason for them too.
Oh sure, I can see that. My experience has all been bad, and I can't really qualify for a mortgage in a neighborhood with a good HOA, so my stance is pretty Con-HOA. But I can see why some people want them. Enjoy the upvote!
Excessive noise is regulated by actual law, so the HOA shouldnt even come into it. And if its legal and some neighbors just prefer stricter limits, well they dont own the neighborhood, they just live their, so they can ask politely or suck a dick.
Good point. I agree that an HOA has no right at put extra restrictions over and above those already in place.
There is never a good reason for a private citizen to be able to tell another private citizen what to do with their own property. If I bought a house and my neighbor came over and told me I had to follow the rules of their secret club, they can happily go fuck themselves.
Well, its not a secret club. You are aware of it when you choose to purchase the home so I would happily tell you to fuck yourself right back.
My HOA mainly goes around and sends letters to home owners who don't take care of their yard. You know who those people inconvenience? Their next door neighbors. Because weeds don't just conveniently stop at your property line. So the neighbors are having to constantly battle someone else's encroaching weeds. A near impossible task unless you (edit, got distracted mid-comment) maintain their yard for them as well.
Also, your run down house with its neon blue and yellow paint that you can be bothered with maintaining? Yeah, that brings down the home value of your neighbors. Nobody wants to live next to a shit hole. Do whatever you want with the inside, let it all rot to hell. But the outside needs to at least be reasonably presentable because like it or not that has a direct impact on your neighbors.
Now, I am not trying to preach that HOAs are the best thing to happen to home owners. Many get really shitty boards who act like little tyrants and have nothing better to do than hassle people about bullshit. But they also help to protect homeowners who have no recourse when dealing with a shitty neighbor.
Yeah, in an ideal world, you're right, and I wish my experience with HOAs was like that. But it was always closer to the petty tyrants than anything.
"No you can't have a green house, we only allow beige, grey, pale blue, or brown."
"No, you can't cut down that black elm tree that is shitting on your deck. You have to cut a hole in your deck and build around the tree. Oh, and keep cutting the hole bigger because fuck you."
"Three dogs? That's too much. Oh you have a full acre? Fine, you can have two and a half. I'll cut the fat schanuser in half. Maybe a third, he is very fat."
"You want to park a car in your back yard on the drive way that was installed forty years ago? NEVER! I hate cars not parked in garages! FINES ALL AROUND!"
"A party? With Clowns? What is this, Barnum and Bailey?"
YMMV
Sorry, but your property value is not my concern. At all. If you can't sell your house for what you think it's worth that's no more my fault than if you can't resell your TV or your car for a certain amount. I have zero obligation to help you get more money. I have an obligation to not be a nuisance to my neighbors, by whatever bounds are set forth in the law. Anything outside what the law dictates is not my concern and I don't care what you say or what little bylaws your committee makes up.
Have you considered putting up a fence? What if I find an overgrown yard to be more aesthetically pleasing than a freshly cut one? If you don't want to see it, put up a fence or don't look at my house. You can tell me to fuck off all you want, but you can't make me follow your rules, especially if I'm new to the neighborhood. Why should I have to follow rules I wasn't around to vote on? You're not a government, just a club.
Sorry, but you bought a house with an HOA so your whining about it is not my concern. If you weren’t around to vote on the rules then you clearly would have had to have bought a home with an HOA. The HOA is not a surprise. And they absolutely can tell you to follow their rules by putting a lien on your home so you can talk like a big man all you want.
It's not about talking like a big man or whatever bullshit. It's about the fact that if I buy a house, I own that house. Not the person who lives next door, or across the street, or on the other end of the block. It doesn't matter if it's a surprise or not. You can't force me to follow your rules, regardless of whether you wrote them before or after I bought the house. What makes you think you have more rights to someone else's property than the person who owns said property?
What makes you think you have more rights to someone else's property than the person who owns said property?
You give them the right when you buy.
The law recognizes your right to make contractual agreements. When you buy your house in an HOA, you give them rights over your property. The law will support your legally binding agreement to give them rights over your property.
If you don't want others to have a say over your property, then don't agree to let others have a say over your property. Don't buy in an HOA.
You obviously don’t understand how HOAs work. You agree to the guidelines when you buy. You literally cannot buy without agreeing. Your agreement means they can fine you for failing to follow their rules. Those fines can become liens on your home if they are not paid. That is just how it works and isn’t debatable.
What is debatable is whether or not they should be allowed to set those guidelines.
Anything outside what the law dictates is not my concern and I don't care what you say or what little bylaws your committee makes up.
You realize they can put a lien on your house right? That means you cannot sell your house until you decide you do care. It also means, If you don't care for too long, they will force your house into sale to cover the fees they made up and evict you.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defenses-hoa-foreclosure.html
Under what right? If you don't own my property then you can't sell it, sorry. I guess if you think you're tough enough to come in my house and force me out, you're welcome to try. I wouldn't put too much money on your chances though.
Under what right?
Under the rights listed in the link I posted. It's what you agree to when you buy a home in an HOA. That is what gives HOA's their teeth.
if you think you're tough enough to come in my house and force me out
I wouldn't. The courts, and then the police would if it came to that.
I personally like seeing project cars on peoples’ property. It means I won’t have to worry about them angrily marching over at 8pm on a Friday night to chew me out about the “racket” I’m making trying to fix the brakes on my daily driver.
They exist in Germany as well, but usually when there are several condominiums in one house or connected housing block.
r/fuckHOA
If you choose to ignore those rules and own the property you live on, can the HOA do anything? Do they have any legal authority?
[deleted]
Ah, that makes sense.
They still can't really do anything though. We asked our seller. We just bought a brand new house last year.
They can issue fines.
And how do they enforce them? On what authority? How do they have any legal power over your house?
If everything is done properly, very easily.
The deed is bound to the HOA and cannot be sold without the new owner agreeing to abide by the HOA's bylaws and covenants. If they are violated, the HOA can fine the owner. If all due fees, fines, and assessments are not paid, the HOA can use the courts to place a lien on the property and/or force a foreclosure.
When you rent or purchase the house, you sign legal documents agreeing to the HOA authority (it's like any 2 parties entering into a contract).
The HOA can forcibly collect the fines through liens on your house, which if unpaid, can lead to foreclosure.
But can't you just not sign it?
Then you don't get to purchase the house.....
Why? How? On what basis?
How can they block the sale of property they don't own?
Because the previous owner signed the contract with the HOA.....
So he could get fined, but how do they derive a right to block a sale from it? How is it not a right linked to the owner and not to the property?
Because when you own property, it is really owning the deed to the property, which is just another legal document. The HOA may have certain rules and restrictions attached to the deed.
The basic answer to all your questions is: "Because contract and real estate law."
Thanks for being so patient with me, it works completely different in my country, which makes it so mindblowing to me.
HOAs are actually pretty niche. I'd guess that most houses are bought and sold freely.
Depends on the State and Community. In Virginia, my folks used in live a neighborhood of some thousand homes and all were part of the HOA and had strict bylaws on what can and can't be done "to protect local flavor and style." In Minnesota there were only a few we interacted with, BUT Minnesota does have numerous HOA's in higher priced neighborhoods and communities.
It varies greatly from State to state or even city to city.
Because the HOA is enforced by covenants / deed restrictions on the land. Anyone who owns the land is subject to the deed restrictions.
I must seem extremely dense because of all these questions, it's just that in my legal system it's impossible to give someone rights to your property, such as a deed restriction, and not be allowed an out for a reasonable price, which in this case would be 2-6 months of fees, at most a year.
It's illegal here to keep someone in a contract for infinity without an out so it blows my mind that these exist, that they can block sales of property they don't own, they can fine you, they can take you to court etc,...
Yeah, America is nuts at times. We go on and on about personal freedom, and then we set up HOA's which limit those freedoms.
The idea for them goes back at least a century and were initially ways to prevent minorities from moving into an area. Black, Asian, Italian, Irish, whatever. Whoever the "locals" thought of as undesirable. Then the HOAs starting adding laws that restricted things that they felt were undesirable, like say, wind chimes. Or a specific color of paint. Or the like.
When laws protecting the rights of minorities and finding preventing people from moving in to areas was illegal based on race or religion, HOAs generally turned into groups the protected "neighborhood character" or "property values." Now if you have a shitty fence, they can fine you to make you build a nice fence since your shitty fence is causing my house to lose value. And that's how it remains legal. As long as you restrict your actions on grounds of property value you can get away with a lot of BS laws. Rainbow house looks gaudy and drops my value? Repaint that. The HOA interviews the new homebuyer and thinks they are slobs and will leave trash all over? Can't sell to them. Bad Credit Score means they might not be able to maintain dues to the HOA or maintain property to your standard? Get them away from here. Etc.
It's pretty shitty, and depending on state, they can be anywhere from rare to omnipresent.
At some point a developer of the land owned 100 acers, and put a covenant on the land (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)) requiring that it be subject to a HOA. He then subdivides it, and each purchaser of the land is bound by the covenant going forward. This is noted on the land title. By the same token, the developer could sell the oil / gas / mineral rights to a third party, and future owners would be bound by those terms as well.
The covenant is part of owning the land. It derives from the English Common Law fee simple estate.
They don't block the sale, it's part of the deed itself. When you close on the home you have to agree to the terms on the deed or you are blocked from buying the home and it will be sold to someone else.
The fine if not paid can cause a lien to be placed on your home, which is why the HOA covenants are part of the deed to the land that you signed when you bought the home.
They still can't really do anything though.
Our seller also told us that tenants wouldn't be able to rent units in our building. Turns out it's illegal in our area to prevent home owners from renting their units out, and it ended up killing our property value. We also got a lovely special assessment (if anyone doesn't know, these are temporary monthly fees you have to pay on top of your regular HoA fees to pay for overages or unexpected things) as a result of the legal fees they accrued trying to fight a law that was already established (ie: they had no goddamn hope of winning).
HoA's and condo boards have an obscene amounts of power and remember that your sellers first priority is to get you to buy. I hope you landed a one that isn't filled with tyrants.
We're joining the board once it's open. Still under development for now. I think their rights vary depending on where you live, but I'll keep your story in mind.
They still can't really do anything though.
You say that now. An HOA can issue fines for violating the covenant, and put liens on your deed for no complying with those fines, and in some cases can escalate further for non compliant members. Look up your state laws as well as county and city laws on what authority HOA's in your area have.
We asked our seller.
The seller will tell someone anything to get them to buy the house. Once it's sold and they got paid they've got no stake in it. If you let your property fall apart and the HOA puts a lien on your house a few years from now and you go back to the seller and claim; "hey you told us the HOA can't really do anything" they'll just shrug and say "guess they can."
Yes. HoA's are legally able to fine you, and they can even place liens on your house if you have enough unpaid fines. In fact, here in Canada, at least for condos, condo boards (pretty much the same thing) are legally required to exist, fine, and maintain "order" within the condo. Fines can also be pretty arbitrary. I know one of our neighbours was fined $250 for leaving a garbage bag on their patio overnight (so they claimed, but even if it was a week, $250 is ridiculous).
As for how extreme they can get, there was an article that was posted on reddit a while back where an HoA listed a persons house for sale, and the people living there didn't even know until walkthroughs started showing up at their door.
Granted, you agree to this stuff, but HoA's do legally wield a lot of power and it can lead to abuse.
Jesus, that is absolutely insane behaviour.
I can understand why a HOA or similar is useful certainly, but there has to be some kind of regulation on it right? Every time I hear talk of a HOA it's about some crazy neighbour who let the power go to their head and turned into a suburban dictator.
but there has to be some kind of regulation on it right?
I have no idea, but I do know that when you buy in a community with an HoA, you are basically bound by contract. So even if they are being ridiculous, you either agree or you don't buy.
It's very, very important to read the entirety of their rules before committing and if something seems legally questionable, ask your local bylaw enforcement or police to find out if what they're doing is even legal.
Case in point, I mentioned it in another reply, but in our case, our seller told us that in order to preserve property value, owners would not be allowed to rent their condo units out. We didn't think much of it, but we got a letter in the mail a year or two down the road saying that that rule was to be removed and owners were now allowed to sell. Why? Because they were taken to court by another tenant that wanted to rent their unit out, and it turns out it's actually illegal (here in my town in Alberta anyway) to prevent owners from renting out their units. We got a special assessment (added HoA/board fees) in order to pay for the legal fees our condo board spent trying to fight it.
In hindsight, I do remember thinking it was weird that they could prevent us from renting out our own property, so I should have looked into it. But fuck HoA's and condo associations. God I hate them so much.
Well, it got sorted out I suppose, but of course it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
Anyway, that's good to know, I actually don't know how prevalent this kind of thing is in Norway, but it's something I'm definitely going to look into when I'm able to get my own place.
How do you leave once you joined?
They are just the worst. You have to pay fees to be apart of the community, and the rules are strict as fuck, and the people on the board are usually older retired people with notging better to do than spy on you and measure the length of your grass and bushes looking for a reason to fine you.
When I was looking for a house, my main stipulation was a neighborhood with no HOA
I think they might mean Home Owner Associations. Residents in a neighborhood enact them and then are able to make up a bunch of bullshit rules that everyone in the neighborhood has to follow- your house can only be a few select colors, only certain lawn decorations, etc.
Seeing my mom and dad go insane dealing with them all through my childhood has done more than a little to convince me the eternally broke millennial apartments and roommates for life situation may not be too bad.
Things like HOA do exist in Europe. They're just not that common and way less intrusive. Also they are only local, unlike HOA which I understand cover the entire country.
By far, most European properties are not part of any association, because most privately owned land has been private long before any ideas of associations existed, and there is very little reason to start or join one. I don't think anyone would voluntarily give up their right to do whatever they want on their own private property.
When cities expand and new areas are turned into residential building properties, the investor might establish an association to ensure that all houses on the lots are build and kept to a standard to keep the price up for the whole area. So it's usually something you only see in new suburbs on land which was previously used for other purposes. Personally I wouldn't want to buy one, but I know plenty of people who do and actually like having those rules, so they don't have to confront their neighbours when the hedge needs a trimming.
Associations are necessary for condos and apartments. There are obviously shared cost for the shared areas, but they will also have a say in parts of the privately owned areas of the condo, so the entire building is kept to standard.
Also, while not the same but still somewhat similar, rentals usually have associations to make common decisions.
They seem ridiculous until you don’t have one anymore. My grandmother’s neighborhood got rid of theirs and a few years later the house across the street moved a tiny mobile home into their backyard, had junk all over the front yard, and even had a pony tied to a tree in their front yard for about a month. It just look awful. Houses started having trouble selling near Sanford (as my grandmother liked to call him). He recently moved, and the house by him almost instantly sold when they had been trying to sell for over a year.
They definitely have their place in my opinion, and help keep people like that from turning the neighborhood into a junk yard.
And they can sell your house, without your consent, if you are behind on monthly dues or fines they imposed.
[deleted]
Yes. They sell the property and take what you owe the HOA. They give you the rest and you pay the bank. If what you have left is less than what you own the bank the bank sues you for the remainder.
[deleted]
They should have provided a copy of the bylaws to you, they will state what all can happen and in what order. Most will send a lot of angry letters and a few lawyers notices before anything drastic happens.
After my dad died, we struggled to keep utilities on and make our HOA dues. I say dues because the mortgage company allowed us to forgo payments for a while, but the HOA wanted their dues. We we're behind, long story short, two days before our house went to auction by the HOA, my mom's bus driver friends were able to raise the the back fees and our house was saved.
Under what legal authority? Can members of the HOA legally enter your house with weapons and force you out? Will the police comply with them? The police force isn't a private security force for jackass neighbors so they have no real standing to invoke the police. Just tell them to fuck off and go about your business. If they enter your house you have full legal authority to shoot them dead.
Its a long process, but if you don't pay your dues / fines, they can take you to court, get a judgement and put a lien on your house, and eventually force sale at a sheriff's auction to pay the judgement.
OK, but how can someone legally force you to pay fees for something you never agreed to or signed up for? I can understand if you agree to join the HOA and then neglect your commitments. But just buying a house does not opt you in to any sort of legal or monetary commitment to anyone who demands it.
You agree to the HOA bylaws and dues when you buy the house. If there's an HOA in the neighborhood, that wording is explicitly in every purchase agreement and sale. You don't have a choice.
Or rather your choice is: Agree and buy the house or don't buy the house.
The HOA owns part of your house, it’s in the title paperwork when you buy it. If it’s not part of the HOA they can’t make you join or pay dues but if it’s is included you agreed to abide by their bylaws when you purchase the property. It’s like the bank “owning” part of it when you have a mortgage, if you don’t pay the monthly payment they have the right to sell it and recoup their money from the sell. The main difference is an HOA lien never expires.
Yeah but it's really not comparable to the bank because you aren't getting your mortgage from the HOA, you're getting it from the bank. Of course it makes sense for a bank to have legal authority to sell your property if you default on the loan. I don't see how it makes any sense at all for your neighbors to have legal authority to sell your property just because they don't like the color of your shutters.
They have the legal authority because the homeowner gives it to them. When you buy in an HOA neighborhood or agree to form an HOA you sign a document saying the HOA has the right to impose bylaws, level fines, and force compliance up to and including selling the property. It’s meant as a last resort measure and they all say they wouldn’t do unless they had to but it is included in the contracts and is used fairly regularly.
To be fair they are fairly rare in most states.
I've never knowingly met someone who lived in a neighborhood that had an HOA.
People think HOA's are bad because you only hear about the bad ones. HOA's when working correctly just pool money for the common good of the community. They pay to have things like lawn care and road maintenance.
Let's not forget the only people who ever want to be on the HOA are always the people you absolutely do not want on the HOA.
r/fuckHOA
I have been to a few areas where the HOA does not allow cables along the ground for any reason. Your cable/internet/phone/electrical service gets cut? Nope, can't lay a temporary line, you are without service until it can get buried. Typically I just lay the temp line anyway and if the HOA complains its a utility in an easement, we get to do it if we want.
Oh absolutely, I wouldn't like to live in a place where my neighbors can fine me because I forgot to mown my lawn or stuff like that. Still this does exist in my country in the form of private neighborhoods.
Just an example of how bullshit they are, my boss is fighting a 500$ fine for putting up a swing set that’s just a few inches higher than what his association claims was approved.
Wait, can't you just not tell them to go fuck themselves or ignore them? I understand legitimate rules that make sense, but I read horror stories about HOAs too often, and isn't that what municipal governments are for? I mean, if they're not a body of government and not the owners of your house, why are they given legal authority over you?
They aren't always so bad. My neighborhood has one and it's quite useful. I live right next to a high school, so sometimes shit goes missing in people's yards cuz "Damn Kids". Here's the thing about highschoolers, though, many times when they "steal" something they don't actually steal it they just fuck with it. They're like gremlins. Many times if you have something missing off your lawn or whatever, you can go on the HOA website and see if anyone has found it and it works surprisingly often for finding your shit.
EDIT: They also organize the neighborhood garage sale every year as well as helped petition the city to get work don on local roads. Love my HOA.
They can be annoying, but they also protect property values. A house painted turquoise, with a turquoise car in the driveway and turquoise flamingos in the lawn that can be seen from the highway lowers the property values of everything around it. That's the shit that happens when you don't have a HOA.
Yes - "HOAs" I get that HOAs are a thing in condominium developments. They even make sense, because maintenance of the buildings and grounds are a shared responsibility. But I'm finding that in some parts of California, entire neighborhoods have HOAs that you have to kowtow to if you live there. Now THAT sucks.
I'll chime in by saying that there are some real benefits to having an HOA in some places - my townhouse community here in Phoenix comes with a lot of shaded, grassy common area and a big community pool that are all taken care of by someone else. There are some annoying rules too, but in my case there's definitely more benefits than headaches.
The idea makes sense. Have basic expectations to make sure housing values don't drop in your neighborhood. Execution is a fucking nightmare.
HOAs are getting a lot of flak here, but they absolutely make sense in some cases, like retirement communities. Nearly all retirement communities have fairly strict homeowner rules which make sense for the community (like no sub-letting, because as soon as anyone starts sub-letting it stops being a retirement community).
Also, a lot of HOAs enact the sort of policies that local governments really should be enacting, like rules against putting rusting autos up on blocks on the front lawn, mandating that people clean up after their dogs, etc. But in too many localities, local governments are busy ignoring problems so it falls on HOAs to enforce common sense rules.
There are HOAs that are totally out of control, of course, and become mini dictatorships by cranky homeowners who are resentful of the existence of other human beings - but there's enough information on the internet to find out which ones are like that, and any good real estate agent will help you avoid them.
It starts to happen in my country (Belgium), I know some newer neighborhoods have some rules to follow. Bit it’s still very rare
What a lot of people are not mentioning (or not realizing) is that the HOA fees are paying for things that the city is not doing (for whatever reason when the legally stuff was done). Grass mowing in shared spaces, snow plowing, etc.
I am not saying I like them, just they do have a purpose beyond telling you what paint colors you can use.
This and voting for your police is the weirdest things to me. I always laugh when Americans say that without guns we're not free but they can't even have glow in the dark zombie gnomes in their front garden or something similar
Just out of interest. How do they enforce those rules? If you buy a house within their area, can you opt out?
We had an issue with our trash can. Our HOA says we can only have the trans cab outside on collection days. Our trash can broke and was missing a wheel. My dad called the township and said, “My trash can is broken. How do I get a new one?” The township told him to leave it outside and they would collect it alongside the trash and give him a new one. While it was outside waiting to be collected, the HOA fined him $50 for having the trash can outside.
HOAs can be quite reasonable if the people in it aren't crazy. In my parents' neighborhood, the only covenant rules are 1. fascade of house must be at least 50% stone or masonry to keep the neighborhood looking nice. 2. No raising swine, to keep the neighborhood smelling nice. 3. No commercial storefront activity, so you don't introduce too much traffic.
They never bother us and just send emails, have annual meetings, have an annual BBQ, and Halloween hayride and hot dogs for kids.
Two great nations, separated by one common language. ;-)
*great until 2016
Uh... what? Trump being president hasn't made the USA any less great, neither has Theresa May made Britain any less great. Both are still great nations, just with shitty leaders.
we got brexit tho
Which has made SOOO much difference to our culture and shit.
Yeah, the pound dropped. Shits's more expensive. Still my current favourite country.
Was great, is now great again. So, like, double great? (I have a hard time following Trump math. Though not as hard as his creditors do...)
YMMV.
Based on how much of a prick you are.
Man, I can’t believe both countries bricked so hard.
Why did this wrong answer get so many upvotes?
Can someone tell me what happens if you completely ignore the HOA or any fines they might impose? I can't imagine getting evicted from property you own.
You still have them in Italy for flats. But it's just for the maintenance of common spaces like the garages, the common parts of the building etc
They have no say in what you do with your home as long as what you do is legal. Want to have pink satanic unicorns decorations on your balcony all time around? You're free to do so
We have a residence association in the estate my parents live in, in Ireland. All it does is collect money to pay for all the greens to be maintained and for bushes/shrubs cut. They'll organise litter pick ups and planting of flowers but no shitty rules.
That's kind of how my HOA is here in Houston, Texas. Mostly we just pay them to keep the grass cut and the bushes trimmed.
So how do you manage a privately owned block of flats?
[deleted]
That method is most common in England. In Scotland it's more common for each flat to own a share of the freehold, and all flats are jointly liable for communal repairs.
[deleted]
Nah, no meetings or votes. If someone notices a problem that needs repaired they'll just chap on doors to notify neighbours and start getting quotes.
Repairs usually aren't frequent enough to merit meetings or an association. The fact that half the flats are likely occupied by tenants rather than owners also makes regular meetings more difficult since the owner often lives quite a distance away.
But Americans have them for neighbourhoods right? That’s weird
How do you actually make sure the freeholder does things? In my country (not the US) we have what’s called sectional title. Effectively the building is part-owned by all the individual unit owners, who then are required by law to have a board of trustees.
[deleted]
What exactly is a council? Like I've definitely heard people from the UK in movies and TV reference it. I always kinda thought it was maybe like a city council in the US. But they wouldn't get directly involved in something like this here. It would be a matter for the courts.
[deleted]
It sounds to me like you guys don't have HOAs because a lot of what HOAs do here is just handled by your local government.
Through lease covenants between the freeholder and the leaseholders. In big blocks, the freehold will often be a corporate landlord who runs the building for profit, or the local authority (usually if the block was originally built as public social housing).
However, there's another method, which is more common for smaller blocks of flats that are all privately-owned:
The freehold for the building is owned by a not-for-profit limited company.
The owners (leaseholders) of each flat then own a £1 share in the company.
I.e. each resident owns their own flat directly via a leasehold estate, but also owns the freehold indirectly via a company which owns the freehold. This is necessary, as you can only have 4 owners of a legal estate in land. But the land only has one legal owner - the company. The company then has multiple shareholders.
The company (often called Tenants' Management Company - not to be confused with a Tenants' Management Organisation) then acts as the forum for management of the property and collection of ground rents and service charges. Tenants (shareholders) can then use company law to enforce their rights.
The leases will then have requirements that people selling their flats must transfer their shares in the company to the new buyers.
Yes, it is a bit bonkers, and is a bit of an ad-hoc system cobbled together from some very old legal concepts, but it works for the most part.
In NYC this would resemble a "co-op" - a corporation owns the land and the building and you, the owner of the flat/unit, get X number of shares in the corporation tied to the size of the unit and a proprietary lease that goes with the shares. You sell your co-op apartment by selling the shares and proprietary lease - there is no title deed.
This is actually very close to how privately-owned blocks operate in the UK.
You can have a situation where a private company or a local government owns the freehold estate for the whole building, then the tenants own long leases (or rent on rolling leases directly from the landlord).
Or, the block and land can be owned by all the tenants via a not-for-profit company.
So the residents are technically their own (and each others') landlords, but via the forum of a limited company.
Or, the block and land can be owned by all the tenants via a not-for-profit company.
When you say tenants in this context they are not renters but owners with a lease?
What was/might be a good explanation for these convoluted ownership structures in the UK? In NYC, co-ops started as a way to keep out blacks and Jews. You have to go through an application process and at the end the co-op can reject your application. Since it is a corporation, the board has the legal right to reject anyone as a shareholder without assigning a reason. So you can reject ten black people in a row and no one can ask why or sue them for anything.
You're correct, but missing the layer between leaseholders and freeholder which is in effect a housing association.
Usually there is a management company hired to administer cleaning, repairs, etc.; as well as enforce certain rules such as prohibition on hardwood floors in an old building to keep the noise down.
This management company either performs the role of the housing association directly, or (more commonly) is overseen by a board made up of leaseholders. So there's your "HOA".
Not really though. They perform the function of maintaining the space/buildings, but they have no power to issue any form of rules or demands.
In my building the structure is freeholder->headlease->tenants (leaseholders). Tenants are shareholders of the company which owns the headlease. So the superior lease on every flat is controlled by an owners association. If you are in serious breach they will prevent you from selling or getting a mortgage.
I'm in a unit, not flat. We have a strata corp.
My fees cover building insurance and maintenance, but doesn't restrict what I'm allowed to do with my property. It's just anything outside my walls is basically pre-paid.
It is a good idea for condominium buildings. The HOA is what maintains the common areas and employees the doorman, maintenance guy, etc. They also set and enforce the policies. The owners of the units are members so we get a say in how things are done.
My grandparents had an HOA for their condos in a Florida retirement community. My grandmother, a retired English teacher and sharp as a tack, was always on the board just to have something to do. She was always either the Vice President, treasurer or something like that. These old farts would complain about people’s grandkids in the pool, and the length of time it took for the gate to close and petty bullshit like that and she would just shut them down, it was hilarious.
Yeah YMMV dramatically, depending on who is on the board.
Home owners associations (HOA's) can suck a big fat dick. Most of them are run by grumpy, retired people with too much time on their hands and an inexplicable desire to force the entire neighborhood to bend to their will.
I don't understand this logic, HOAs are run by elected homeowners. So if the board is bad, go change it. If the voting homeowners keep electing same people though or dont bother to vote, you get what you deserve.
Exactly.
I joined my board. Nobody else runs for a seat, nobody else votes, almost nobody else shows up to the meetings.
Most don't even show up to contest fines or violations.
We're all reappointed every year because literally nobody else participates.
What bugs me is that, people will readily complain about the HOA in neighborhood groups etc but at the end of the day they won't bother voting so the same people that makes the decisions they don't like continue to maintain the HOA.
Says the shitty homeowner who wants to leave his kids toys in the front yard and park his big ol' pickup truck in the dirt pad that used to be your lawn. HOAs exist because some people don't want to live next to folks who think it's ok to park their 24' fishing boat out in the driveway. It's tacky, trashy, and brings down neighbor's home values.
Don't like an HOA? Don't live in one!
But HOW am I going to know which EXACT shade of green to paint my mailbox??
Time off work, whether it’s illness or holiday
Saved up all my vacation time from 2017 to take a trip in early 2018 for two weeks to New Zealand. When I told my American friends and colleagues about it, the response was usually "2 weeks? That's so long!". When I got to New Zealand, the response from all the locals and backpackers I was around was "2 weeks? That's it?"
Damn, where I work it is mandatory to take 4 weeks a year. Mandatory as in if you don’t take them your manager will send you home because it is required by law.
But where I work we are lucky to be able get more vacation days, it took 45 days off last year and that isn’t even the maximum.
Some times I think damn I could make twice the money in the us, but then I realize it isn’t worth to give up my working conditions.
Edit: this is in the Netherlands
I get 10 days. Think about that. Ten a days a year. OH but don't worry we also get 40 hours of sick time a year. OH and I can't forget my 2 personal days that I get each year! I won't get more than 10 days until I'm at this company for 5 years or some shit and then I get 12!
In New Zealand you get 4 weeks. Or if you are casual 8%of worked hours, although this is usually paid out to you in your paycheck.
You also get 5 sick days a year. Which builds up to 20.
You get bereavement leave, which is 3 days if a close family member dies and 1 for any other (my company gives 3 for pets).
4momths maternity leave which is paid, and your job must be held for a year before you are replaced.
On top of this most companies will let you take unpaid leave as required and usually dont question it unless it becomes unreasonable or excessive.
You also get paid for any public holidays not worked, and time and a half of you do work them.
And these are all the minimum requirements!! I get 5 weeks and unlimited sick leave (of course this is monitored).
If someone here in the U.S. said they got unlimited sick leave they'd get laughed at. Brb emigrating to Europe.
You might want to aim a little further south because New Zealand isn't in Europe haha. I'll join you on the journey though
I'm in the states, I get unlimited sick leave, fully paid up to 8 weeks, after that it's 66% pay.
I have honestly never heard of that here, what/who do you work as/for?
I'm just a civil engineer, most of the similar companies in my area are comparable. I guess it helps that we're not publicly traded.
At the BioMed Eng company I've interned at, the full time staff got 10 days :(
A long time employee of our company recently had a liver transplant, the partners met and decided to give him full pay for the 6 months or so he was out.
We're consultants, so it pays to have some continuity with employees. If someone with ~8-10 years experience leaves for a better offer elsewhere, they could easily take a million dollar/year client with them. So to keep our employees we also have a very nice pension fund (trustee directed, so it's fully funded), and no overtime gate (although you just get your hourly, not 1.5 time).
We don't get a ton of paid vacation (10 days for the first 5 years, 12 for the next 5, 15 for years 10-15, and 20 days for 15 years+), but you can always take unpaid leave so long as there is no client depending on you at the time.
We have a significant number of employees with 20-25 years at the company, and one guy who just doesn't want to retire has been here 70 years (he's 87 now).
I think he is referring to FMLA. When you get injured. Let's say you break your leg and need surgery. You can apply for FMLA and your job is safe and you get paid, untill you return. After a few weeks the percentage usually drops.
I had to go on FMLA since I had a few seizures and was out for 3 months and I was paid the first 6 weeks full pay and then 80% for the remaining. The first month being back to work I was allowed to leave at anytime without repercussions.
I mean I get unlimited leave in the us. I work in sales. You just have to hit your numbers but that's not hard.
Yeah that shit doesn't fucking exist in my state. So we're a "right to work state" which means you can be fired for any reason the employer sees fit. Shoes untied? Fired. Saw you at a club on your day off? Fired. 2 minutes early to work? Fired. Doesn't matter.
The state changed the way sick time works. We used to get it back as you worked and my employer used to give us 1/2 hours for every hour worked. Nope. Not anymore. Flat 40 for the year.
PTO is 10 days a year after a year and 12 after five! How nice of them!
I hate everything to do with these systems. They're fucking archaic and frankly with the amount of older people dying instead of retiring from my company I doubt I'll be sticking around much longer.
We dont have that. You don't have to give a reason in the first 90 days of employment. But after that it is hard to fire someone.
Jeez...
From memory they have to confirm/state that the 90 day rule is in effect and it may be used to terminate your employment i.e. if they don't specifically write this in the employment contract then it cannot be used.
That’s what they are fighting against: the shitty employee that’s difficult to terminate. Unfortunately we all suffer.
Aren’t we getting rid of that? Or have I not been paying attention to the news?
Apparently for large organisations, small ones can still use it. I forget the cutoff number.
So we're a "right to work state"
I always wondered why it was called "right to work" when it really sounds like you have no rights at all?
Americans love laws that do the opposite of what the law says it does
[deleted]
Thank you. As a lawyer this kind of thread drives me bonkers.
Patriot Act was one of the worst ones in that regard.
Its almost like politicians intentionally cloud the issues so they can create their own narrative
[removed]
[deleted]
Thanks! I don't know much about working down in the States, so this thread is very enlightening.
Are unions generally badly thought of in the States? It's kind of 50-50 here, depending on the union. I know one of my friends hates his Union, but another one quite likes his. The only Union job I worked was pretty decent, but my current non-union one is pretty decent too.
it's pretty typical that non-union jobs are paid less, and work in 'at-will' jobs. but wow, yeah, no union dues, awesome! i'll just mooch off the union's power but not support it, and be free to make less money & have less benefits!
and yes, of course, there are some places that will discourage/ disallow unions, because they plan to pay their workers shit. but 'at least' they're hiring, as opposed to those union shops that supposedly aren't.
to me, it's kinda like the tea party; 'we hate taxes, but we expect community services'. and the companies 'we won't pay you fairly, but we still expect you to work totally on our terms'.
Because that's how bills and policies work here. Want to pass a bill that allows indiscriminate killing of puppies? You can call it the Happy Cuddles and Love For Puppies Act. Want to pass a policy that strips workers of their already-limited rights? Call it a "worker empowerment" policy.
It's fucking weird yet it's tolerated and a lot of people don't look further than the name.
It should be "right to fire" because you really don't.
[removed]
Yeah but they know we can't unionize or defend ourselves so mass firings are a commonplace.
You keep copypasting that, but why don't you try having a conversation instead?
Because I can also quit at any time with no notice if I get a better job.
Because I can also quit at any time with no notice if I get a better job.
Is that not usual? I could theoretically quit my job tomorrow and walk out if I wanted to, though that would reflect badly on me professionally.
No, he's being dumb
[deleted]
what's a union ?
It's because you have a right to work without being forced to join a union and pay dues.
It's a great law to have in effect
Right to work means you can work in a job without being forced to join a union.
You can call it a lot of things but essentially it's propaganda. Phrase the name of any law in a way that appeals to cultural mores and people will be more inclined to vote or poll for it without looking up what it really does.
For instance, "right to work"? That sounds good! Everybody has a right to work! Except that all it means is labor unions are outlawed.
It's especially effective on an anti-intellectual, information-averse populace, which unfortunately describes most of the US very well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You are trading your time for money.
Sell your time better.
'eh, you're useful, but if i can underpay you & you're desperate to work, and times 1000 other workers, our ceo gets another $100k compensation, and our shareholders are happy'
'also, we can cheat a bit on the safety regs & new equipment & you have no power and that means more profit for us that we don't share with you and maybe you get hurt or die but we have shit insurance too, sucks to be poor!'
Why do you put up with that? Other countries had riots over this shit decades ago.
Most people dont have time to riot. When you're working 50 hours a week, while maintaining a house, kids, family etc...you dont really want to spend your free time fighting when "someone else can do it who has the time"
[deleted]
I honestly cant even think of an argument against that, because it's true. It's all about keeping themselves and their families afloat, and figuring that other people will take care of their own problems, and if it doesnt directly affect them, they dont care about it enough to make a change.
To add to the other answers, pure propaganda. Politicians and certain part of media make it seem like it is normal to have these crazy hours or otherwise the country will fall apart. This kind of subtle propaganda (sometimes not so subtle) is always going on in the background, just look at how the narrative of European countries are falling apart with no go zone due to influx of immigrants are coming along. Certain population will fall for it and then you just wait for it to pick up steam from there.
Something like pulling up by yourself by your bootstrap is considered a good thing now even though it makes very little sense. If you have shitty working condition, it means you just have to work harder to make it better. Some poor people don’t look at themselves as a exploited group of people but rather embarrassed millionaire who will make it one day through hard work.
Thats some noam chompsky shit right there
Because we have been brainwashed to want more is considered “laziness” and you don’t deserve a job. I went to work last year running a low grade fever and no voice due to a nasty sinus infection/ laryngitis. It’s okay though, I wouldn’t have been able to afford going to the doctor anyways.
Because we have been brainwashed to want more is considered “laziness”
You can thank the "Puritan work ethic" those English immigrants brought with them ages ago.
The US did too. But then we moved to states rights, and any individual state doing this now only has to listen to 1/50th the voice from that states residents. Then we basically eliminated unions.
Worker rights are very hard to get back once lost, and it's not even unanimous among people in the US that they should come back. Many of the worker class believe this to be a better outcome because it means an employer is going to be more likely to hire them.
When in reality it means employers will be able to pay slave wages, force workers to rely on welfare to make ends meet, and contribute to the shrinking middle class/massive wage gap. But hey, a handful of people in the C-suite get to buy that beachfront house this year so yay America!
Cause our country can't get one cohesive thought to agree on for more than 5 fucking minutes without it turning somehow racist.
That's racist
brb checking my white privilege.
I've still got mine! What do we do now, do we get to riot?
I'll build the bullet proof bulldozer.
I don't know anyone who is willing to risk their livelihood to protest it. Unless everyone else joins you, you're the one who gets screwed, and nothing changes.
[deleted]
Weird cause I'm working in this state and have been fired from jobs for no reason in this right to work state.
Youre thinking of at-will employment. Right to work has to do with unions. At-will deals with employment and an employer's right to fire
AH I'm a jackass. At will state. Fuck im dumb thank you
Lol no problem. They get confused a lot because many at-will states are alson right to work. But they are not one and the same. Right to work is absolutely a good thing, no union should ever be able to force you to be a member or pay dues. At-will CAN be a good thing in certain cercumstances, usually for businesses, especially small business.
Wait so could you buy some animals that live short lives in build like mice and then take 3 days off every time one of them dies?
Sounds like Michigan
So we're a "right to work state" which means you can be fired for any reason the employer sees fit.
You mean "at will". Right to work has to do with unions.
You seem extremely bitter.
I am. Long story but I just need to work about 10 more years and then I'll never have to again. Still bitter tho.
Get on the grind and find a better job
I've been working on it but there's not another company like mine where I am and the only choice is to move from basically 3rd party back end to first party front. I don't know if I want to do that again.
I don't blame them at all.
Over here in the States this sounds either like a benefit package negotiated by a strong union, or some high-ranking manager. This whole "we give you a month off, in fact we force you to take it with pay" thing sounds almost inconceivable to me, and to business owners and operators it would sound like their balance sheet screaming. Even if we started the initiative to get on par with Europe and such, it would probably be lobbied out of existence.
Working at a bank, we have a mandatory 5 days off per year. It's a control measure to see if anything is different when you're gone and is supposed to help them catch things like employee theft. Or something like that.
If you ever read the Ask A Manager blog, there are all kinds of stories there about people who were scamming the company and no one figured it out since the person never took a day off so they were always there to cover up their shit. Then they have a car wreck or get the flu or something and then their scam unravels while they're out.
[deleted]
Not sure what you mean by that, but if it's "computer science" like I would have guessed, no. It's company policy for every full-time employee. Doesn't matter if you're a teller, supervisor, loan officer, or mortgage originator.
[deleted]
Ah yeah. It's actually a local credit union I work at, but it's usually easier to call it a bank for the sake of discussion.
"gives three for pets." *Punches uncle Sam in the face. My brother was denied leave when our nephew died. My last job preferred to lose me as a dedicated employee when they were horrifically short staffed than let me work from home as needed during a tough time. We are in the wrong country for so many reasons.
The point at which a job refuses to give me a day off for a family death is the point at which I quit that job. That is a job that has made clear they don't give a damn about me.
Your brother would have been given 3 paid and a week unpaid to sort his son's funeral. You could have claimed three and also been given the option to take the rest of the week unpaid.
Wasn't his son, our nephew /sister's son, but yeah.
FWIW... It's not all companies in the USA that do this. It does seem tho like the vast majority of employers take full advantage of their employees, treating them like disposable slaves.
Disclosure... I don't work in the USA, but I do work for a company HQed in the SF Bay Area. The company gives unlimited sick days, unlimited work from home (one developer works from a bus that he's driving across Europe at the moment), I think 4 weeks vacation but it's not rigidly enforced, 20 weeks parental leave, etc etc. The only thing they ask is... don't abuse it and get your work done on time, and the management will bend over backwards to keep you happy.
They do the same at the non-US based office I work at.
Most places in the US don't even give maternity leave. Mothers to be will cobble together sick days, vacation days, weekends, and sometimes some unpaid time off. You're lucky to get 2 weeks. I know a woman who is a Walmart cashier, she gave birth on a Friday and was back at work on Monday.
[deleted]
Yup. Work as a public school teacher and no paid leave. We get 6 weeks after birth (8 for a caesarean), but you have to have the sick days to get paid. Then the rest is unpaid. However, I can take up to a year off and they have to hold my position. We also have Family Leave Insurance in my state, which provides a small sum after the 6/8 weeks, but that only runs for another 6 weeks.
I used to teach public school and in my district, even if you had more than the 6/8 weeks worth of sick days saved up, you STILL couldn't take them. If you wanted more time off it had to be unpaid, even if you had saved up the fucking sick days for that express purpose.
Yeah, we can't take more than the 6/8 weeks, either. I had enough sick days to last me through the rest of the school year with my first, but they only let me take 30.
Same. I took the whole year with my last baby. It was amazing, but the no paycheck for an entire year was rough. I was incredibly lucky that my husband makes enough to cover us, most people aren’t that lucky. I’m really grateful that I have a union that was able to negotiate that leave. Even though it was unpaid it is an option that a lot of women in the US don’t have.
my company gives 3 for pets
Wow!!! I'm American (Washington state) and one of my previous employers have bereavement only for immediate family. I took a week off to go home to NJ when my distant uncle passed away (distant to give context for family tree, not actual relationship). I had to use my discretionary (sick/personal days) time.
In my work we work 40 hrs p/w. We get 40 days per year, all public holidays which takes it up to 47 I think( double time if you work a public holiday or Sunday, time and a half if you work past midday Saturday). Overtime is optional. Plus we accrue an hour for every week worked so once you get 8 you have another day off if you want. That takes yearly holidays to 53.5 days. Company and mandatory sick pay. Pension. Union protection( not as good as it used to be). Paternity leave, maternity leave, compassionate leave, bereavement leave. Very hard to be fired unless you are taking time off, abusing statutory sick or negligent or misconduct. It is similar in most of Europe, some places even better. Most workers are more productive than Americans too because we are not overworked or stressed, have a good quality of life and spare time to spend with families or on pastimes. No medical bills as it's all paid out of taxes in most places. America sounds like a shitty place to work.
What country is this? That's amazing
Uk.
3 bereavement days for pets?! This is how to be human. Good on your employer. losing a close pet is devastating
3 Days for pets!? I went to work the day my 15 year old dog died! THE DAY OF! I need to move!
TIL that my “great benefits package” isn’t that great!
Oh also we have ACC so if you have an accident or something that takes up more than a week to get better from, you get paid 80% I think it is of your normal pay until you can go back to work.
Had to edit this comment because /u/kittylover3000 is doxxing.
Don’t forget that most public holidays in NZ are Mondaynised - as we call it here. So if Christmas would fall on a weekend and you do not normally work on weekends then you get Monday and Tuesday off.
All company holidays are observed on a workday here as well. Friday if Saturday and Monday if Sunday.
In the US, the 4th of July (our holiday for the nations birthday) falls on a Wednesday. Companies are not shifting the day off to a weekend. So we get Saturday/Sunday off, then work Monday/Tuesday, Wednesday off, Thursday/Friday back at work.
If you normally get Wednesday off, that's just tough luck.
Totally borrowing "Mondaynised" (Canadian here, we "Mondaynise" too).
I'm in the US and get 15 days of vacation and 19 paid company holidays (1.5 weeks at Christmas, lots of 3 and 4 day weekends for Easter, July 4th, etc) per year (I also get 2 weeks sick time but I usually only use 2-3 days).
Wow. 3 days for pets? Thats amazing. It actually made me tear up. We had to put my cat down around Christmas and I called in sick the next day. I just couldn't do it.
I'm a programmer (so professional job). Here's my comparison:
3 weeks vacation per year. This is combined with sick which means if you don't get sick you get a longer vacation. This built up to a cap of 4 weeks total before you lose it for not using it. And if you quit or are fired, they have to pay you for this time in your final paycheck.
We also got bereavement leave of 3 days for close family.
We got up to 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave, for which your job must be held. You can substitute any amount of vacation time for the 12 weeks to be paid.
We had 7 paid public holidays and 1 paid personal holiday.
I also got a 401k (investment) match of 50% up to 6%. And I got a match of up to $2000 for a health savings account (which can be used for any unpaid medical, dental or vision expenses). I also paid only $500 a month for the entire family for medical, $100 for dental and $25 for vision.
We have socialized medicine. So the healthcare package doesn't really have an equivalent.
~~brb,~~ moving to NZ.
Na, that's amateur compared to some European countries where you can get 5 or 6 weeks leave.
[deleted]
Damn and I thought 5 weeks was good for me.
It's currently 18 weeks, going up to 20 weeks paid maternity leave for babies due or born after 1 July!
you know what we get in the states? whatever your employer wants to give you. know what most people get? nada. high ranking professionals? maybe a month. men with newborns or new adopted babies? nothing.
That's terrible! I honestly don't know how people cope when the system is so against people's health and wellbeing! You poor things!
thanks. we cope by hating each other on facebook & twitter, instead of going after the people who are controlling us while taking our money.
When can I move?
I get 4 weeks pto (5 next year) 2 weeks bereavement Paid holidays And I'm 7 days on, 3 off. Then another 7 days on and 4 off (so every 3rd week Is a 4 day weekend.) Kickass health insurance, they pay my gym membership, telephone life counseling (marriage, depression, financial advice). I get a work truck and they buy all my clothes and work boots. Plus, double the average us income.
It's a blue collar oil job in Wyoming.
Can I immigrate? Are you looking for more physicians? lol
Yes we are. Though we want them ideally to live in smaller areas which may not suit you.
How small is small? Current town is 45k pop
Some of our major cities have less people than that.
Yeah 45K would be ok. Basically anywhere that isn't one of the ten biggest cities in NZ would be happy to have more physicians. Though I have no idea about pay for doctors in the US compared with here, nor anything much about how much on call stuff/after hours you guys would do. I know most smaller city and town doctors are required to do after hours here.
Google Putaruru
What you don't get in NZ is time and half for overtime (over 8h in a day) which is standard in Canada (not sure about the USA). There are companies that offer time and half for OT in NZ but it is all on a company basis.
Not that not getting OT is a huge issue, but coming from canada to NZ it was a surprise
After reading replies here from Americans I feel very very grateful to be a NZ citizen
Public holidays you work which are part of your standard time are paid at time and a half plus a day in lieu (credit a paid day of for later use).
Id take the shit out of some unpaid leave.
This is one of many reasons why I wish I lived in New Zealand
Many major banks in the US do it this way as well except for the unpaid leave. It is available, but frowned upon
Wait really? I get like 20 bereavement days at my American company. Which is a lot for America, but I figured it was on par with other countries
Australia. I get 4 weeks per year (although two of them are mandated to be taken over Christmas/new year if you're in an office job) 10 days sick leave, 6 months maternity leave (plus my partner would get a month's paid paternity leave), bereavement leave up to seven days if you have to travel, and I get double time and half for public holidays which is nice for me, because I work all of them.
You also get paid for any public holidays not worked, and time and a half of you do work them.
So if you do go to work you effectively get paid 50% of your normal pay and as such, working for half price? If you take a day off you get 100% anyway and work it for 150%? I'd rather have it off!
If you're paid $10 an hour you get $15 and a day in lieu - which is a paid day off to be taken later
That's a better offer!
I get a day in lieu for any public holiday worked which is a sweet deal
Note to self: Move to New Zealand so having a life can remain being a thing
Don’t forget that in NZ if you work on a public holiday you get paid time and a half plus a day in lieu on top of that.
In the US bereavement is usually 2 weeks. At least we have that over you. Three days!?!? Your child dies and you have three days to get back to work!?!?
You have a minimum 3 paid days. There isn't a limit to time off. It's at company's discretion
Ah that makes more sense
Im moving to New Zealand. Fuck this place
So, I’m curious, what’s the trade-off? With so much more benefits, the bigger cost it seems
Housing shortage.
And were in the middle of nowhere
Bloody hell those are some impressive work benefits. New Zealand here I come
Yes. I think it is very fair here in NZ. I am astounded that the US doesn't have maternity leave!? I mean.. what the hell do you do?
I work for a company in the US with almost this exact policy. My company is one of the most hated companies in the US.
I would like to live there. Sounds wonderful.
As great as that sounds, do you know who pays for that? Like if you're 1 out of 4 employees at the company, does that business just have to run on 3 people for 8 months of the year?
(my company gives 3 for pets).
Wow, your company sounds pretty great.
Holy fuck. My dad died recently and my work gave me 2 1/2 months off as bereavement leave. 3 days?? That’s utter shit
These are mandatory minimums.
I cringe at the thought of owning a business there.
Your regulations are killing your GDP
What's a "personal day" and how does it differ from your vacation days?
I get the same, but we call it a "floating holiday". It's to account for holidays you plan to observe (e.g. Yom Kippur or Good Friday) where the office isn't closed. In practice, it's really just another vacation day.
The only real difference is that it doesn't accumulate with your other PTO, so you need to use it that year or you don't get it back.
[deleted]
Same in England
Personal day is like a mental health day. Not a sick day, although you do get to use them if sick and they're still paid, but you can schedule or use it on the fly.
Which we usually end up needing to save as a sick day anyway amirite
Most of the time I use it as a "Fuck this fucking garbage ass paycheck I'm getting day drunk" day.
in Italy, for example, every town has their own Saint protector, so you get that day off, based on where you are born ( or, more correctly, where the company you work for is located ). But, if you are for example a consultant working in another region, the "saint" days will not matchup between your city and where you work.
You can either not go to work on your "saint" day and go to work when everyone else is on vacation, you can use your "saint" day to not go to work when it is the "saint" day where you work, or you can go work both days ( if the company is open even on that day) and use that extra vacation day whenever you want.
At my place of employment:
Vacation is meant to be taken in larger blocks of 2+ days at a time but with an encouragement that you take 5 days at a time. It is for a proper vacation and must be scheduled significantly in advanced (two or three weeks notice, at least).
Personal leave is meant to be taken in hour blocks up to 1 or 2 days at a time. It is meant for leaving early to attend an event, coming in late because you had an even the night before, or take a day off to have a 3-day weekend. It must be scheduled moderately in advanced (a day or two notice).
Sick leave is for when you're sick. It can be used for doctor appointments (with documentation) or last-minute when just not feeling well.
Yeah I know that the amount of vacation days in the US are terrible, I’d even say inhumane. I’d go mad if would only get 10 days off a year and I don’t even hate my job. I’d probably say fuck it, save some money and live in a van like some kind of hobo.
I'm actually about 2ish days of work away from being done with my travel van to live in during the winters...
Oh but don’t you know we get other days off too they are called WEEKENDS
/s?
No, a manager actually said that to me.
Ew
I get zero days. If I don't work, I don't get paid. It makes taking a sick day a MUCH bigger decision. (But I stay home when I'm sick. Cause I don't want to spread anything around.)
Man that sucks. I have crohns soooo I'd basically be broke about 12 weeks a year.
that is completely bullshit and you Americans need to throw massive strikes like we did in Europe in the late 60s/early 70s.
I'm in the UK and get 7 weeks holiday a year..... I just don't know how you cope with so little time off.
not well. it's a matter of pride, which is another way of saying we've been socialized to believe that serving our corporate masters is our best thing. so we as a society/culture don't even take the vacation we're given. instead, over use of drugs, poor health, indebtedness & early death.
but hey, we're 'independent' and not socialist commies cuz that's bad! 'murica !
I'm gonna sell an organ and move
We are also 'allowed' three periods of sickness a rolling year, any more than that and you would be spoken to. Now a period can be one day or months. After the first week you need a doctors letter stating the reason you're off and how long they are signing you off work for, this can be extended if you are still unfit to work. I think its something like after twenty eight days sickness your pay gets reduced but up to this time its full pay.
I feel bad telling you this, I'm really sorry your time off conditions are so shity. You do have better weather so there's that.
Is that the norm? I thought it was 5 weeks plus your stat holidays like easter and bank holidays etc. Never lived there so I wouldn't know fully though.
Think it depends on the employer and that 28 days is the legal minimum norm. Pretty sure though the employer can include bank holidays as part of this too.
There's a reason depression rates are as high as they are and that suicides are as prevalent as they are in the US. We're a nation of stressed out, miserable people who live to work... with no free time to find any sort of meaning or appreciation of family.
My dude, I literally get 80 hours vacation. No sick days. That's it.
That should literally be fucking illegal.
I wish. It's pretty weak
How is that not illegal!?!
I think it's the fact it's a right to work state and we aren't union
I get 4 sick days a year, and I have to find someone to cover my shift if I call in sick, I only have 3 coworkers who do what I do, so basically I don’t have sick days, no vacation days, no benefits or health coverage :/ I’m Canadian so health care is a little easier but it’s still hard to come by without benefits from work
Jesus I'm so fucking sorry.
It’s rough, I’m one of the lucky ones as I have a spouse with good benefits that should transfer to me (but haven’t yet because they’re dragging ass, I’ve been uninsured since we got married because of it) I work with some people that absolutely can’t afford to work anything less than 60 hours a week, all because the bakery job we all work at isn’t valued at more than minimum wage in my city
massive, nation-wide, strikes. For months. That's the only way to change things, ask us Europeans that did precisely that in the late 60s
I got seven days a year and had to take them consecutively on either thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Years. The two holidays I didn’t pick, I had to work overtime every day of those weeks. I also had to fight with the receptionist if I needed a sick day.
[deleted]
I think it's time for them to get a lot of "headaches" and burn some of those hours.
[deleted]
I believe in you.
Do you have to prove you were sick or you just say "Oh, I don't feel so good" and get to stay home?
That sucks, you should move.
That costs money and I have about none of that
Don’t get me started on parental leave.
My coworkers wife just had a kid. He got 4 days. Shes off for another 2 months?ish i think. Her company is the shit though and we're actually joking about quitting to go work there.
I got 9 weeks off total, which is exceptional by American standards, but I paid a high price.
4 weeks were out of my 5 weeks of vacation for the year, and 3 weeks were from the NYS paid parental leave law, which pays only up to half of my usual earnings.
Additionally, my son was born five weeks early, so I had to burn some sick days and holidays, go back to work for a week, then go on leave.
I have one sick day and two personal days left until January, which I won’t be able to use for myself. Gotta hold on to them for when my kids and/or my wife are sick.
I get zero. If I want to take a vacation it costs me double, woooooo yeah, and yes I still take vacations. Because fuck em, and I save my money.
I’d kill for that! I get 5 vacation, and 1unpaid personal day. Any other time off is held against us
That's one reason I joined the army. I don't mind working 24/7 sometimes when on exercises or such. But then I start with 20 days off and get 5 more after 5 years. Not to mention "shorts" which are days off authorised by the CO. Got 6 weeks off plus odd days first year in.
Not bad. Thank you for your service.
That seems to be about what I get, except I can expect only maybe 7 days of vacation (based on how many hours I work) .
My father died a couple months ago and I consumed literally all of my available sick and vacation leave in addition to 3 days' bereavement to get 2 weeks off.
What fun.
This jan was the one year of my mom passing, which is 5 days b4 my bday which is also the same day my dad passed away. I used all of my vacation time in January. I don't regret it, but it's still sad that all of my time for the year was like 6 days
[deleted]
Fucking yikes. Pay must be good or yall must be in an area with no work.
Fuckkkk all that
That is disgusting. I am entitled to 6 weeks of holidays. In my previous contract, that was only for 6 months, I got 3 weeks of holidays.
People to point out that I am earning way less that I could earn in the US, but my point is, what do I want all that money for, if I don't have free time? I already earn more than enough to do whatever I want whenever I want with only some restrictions. I will take more money, of course, but not at the cost of my free time.
I get about 2 weeks my first year, but my company closes the office for certain days before/after holidays, and those closed days that aren't holidays use up our pto.
So I have two weeks off, but over a week of it is used up by closed office days that aren't holidays. It's pretty lame.
Quit and move away from wherever you live. You are living wrong.
Wow, I work at a hospital in central NY and get 34 paid days off including holidays and I’ve been here two years. I missed using 4 days last year because I just wasn’t used to having that much time off ever in my life.
Slovenia hare.
Holidays minimum is 20 days, plus whatever field agreements add (work conditions, children under 14, special care, ...). Extra holidays for marriage, moving or death of close family.
Sick leave isn't limited, you can also get it by the hour (for therapies scheduled during work hours or if you feel bad and have to go home). You bring a special doctor's notice.
If your kid gets sick, you also get a pediatricians notice and employer gets your time "off" for that refunded.
1 year of maternity leave, plus extra 3 months for every additional child born (twins). Extra months too if child needs additional care.
Day care/kindergarten is subsidized. O have 3 kids, pay full for first, 30% for second, only traditional activities for third (our day care organizes english, dancing, spanish and cooking, 4 (organic) meals per day). We pay about 450 eur for all kids monthly.
Wow that’s crazy!!! What state do you live in? Most places in Chicago offer around 16-25
Arizona. It's a shit hole and only getting worse
Oh no I’m sorry !!
dude same! though i think at my five year i at least get another full week 😂
Man that's some shit right? 5 years with this company and I get some ring or something and 2 fucking days. Thanks guys. Real glad I was here.
I really can’t believe they don’t even give you a full week. Insane.
It's 10 + 2 at 5 sorry. lol
Oh no, sorry, I meant at the five year mark they won’t even give you another full week. Every where around here at least gives a full week at five years 😅
Lol my wife gets 7 days PTO, no sick time and no paid holidays. .
Sounds like you get 17 days at your disposal...
19 per year that you can miss and if you miss 3 over find a new job
My boyfriend started his new job in may after moving countries and a week in he asked for 10 days in july for vacation. They let him have it and more.
15 days upon hire (I negotiated). 3 days bereavement leave as well as all major us holidays. I can come in late and leave early, all it takes is a text to my boss. Of course I make up lost time and it usually averages a little over 40 hours/week.
[deleted]
Man I'm the second youngest person in my company at 24. The average age is 53. All of these people have been here for so long they literally cant use their vacation time. It sucks
I get 10 days as well. In year 2 I'll get 120 hours but not all at once. I'd have to not take time off for 1 year to actually have that available.
Pffft ya got me beat. I get 10 days and then 3 sick/personal days. Lucky for me my bosses kind of ignore how many days we have and let us take days off without using vaca or anything
Fuck thats harsh man.
yeah, thats crap. i work at a not-for-profit health system, the benefits are ok. the insurance is...slightly less than ok. the pto is pretty good--no holidays or sick, just straight pto. you start accruing immediately, 25 days a year or something. full tenure maxes at 32. it's not amazing, but my first two jobs out of college had that shitty 5-10 days a year crap, and 3 sick days, with some holidays. that was lousy.
I worked at a MC shop for a year or so. Our rules were you could leave when you wanted, work when you wanted, anything over a week needed to be cleared. Kinda wish I could go back
I get 5. No "sick days" "vacation" days, just 5 paid days off a year. No extra pay for working holidays, and this isn't even a minimum wage job.
My company has 15 days off in total - personal, vacation, sick. It’s very convenient!
Fucking yikes my dude
It's terrific when my boss gives me shit about going overseas and taking 2 weeks off. It's also awesome when everyone comes to work sick because they don't want to use up their days. But the best part is that vacation days do not roll over end of each year.
where the hell do you work??
Car industry but more on the back end 3rd party side :)
AZ
[deleted]
Yeah I'm young and stupid and didnt even think about it.
I get nothing. You're lucky.
I get 10 days that don't carry over and don't pay out, so if I use 4 days and have 6...they disappear and I get 10 on Jan 1.
On the plus side, if you come in on weekends as shift supervisor you get a comp day. So winters I'll volunteer to cover people who don't want to work, I'm a summer guy and don't really do much on the winter weekends anyway.
Mine don't pay out above 5. So I can take two weeks paid, or one and one at the end of the year
Yeah, everyone forgets to use them until the end of the year and then we all use them on November and December and management is so confused why productivity is lower.... Pay our unused vacation and we wouldn't need to use it.
I worked in a factory for a year. You get 10 points. Calling out of work costs 1 point, calling in late or have to leave early costs 1/2 point, missing work without calling costs 2 points. There were some other rules, but if you missed work/come in late after you've used your 10 points, you would be walked out the door.
After a year, you get 1 week of unpaid vacation plus 3 personal days (in addition to your 10 points). After 2 years, you get 1 week paid. After 3 years, 1 week paid 1 week unpaid. After 4 years, 2 weeks paid. After 5 years, 3 weeks paid. I don't think it went higher than that.
Not 100% sure of the numbers on the vacation time, except that you had to be there 1 year before you get 1 week of unpaid vacation time. And you have to apply for vacation, and can only take it if enough people with higher seniority don't take that particular week. You also have to take the whole week. It's 1 week + 3 days, not 10 days. Also if you got required to come in Saturday for overtime, you would have to use a point/personal day to take that off.
God damn man.
I started at 21 in Canada
Less than one day off for every month worked. Isn't it great?
Ah either die or work. No inbetween
It's pretty fucking miserable, worse so in summer when we're busy and under staffed. I just sit and my desk and zone out
That's a fantastic job, sadly
It's insane that it actually is. I mean in the industry it's actually shit, but where we are its ok.
I get zero days off.
Lucky.
I get 14 days PTO that I have to earn, a little over one day a month. Nothing else.
PTO or nothing, personal days are a no go and if you get sick, even with a doctor's note, you get a point.
Wtf thats fucking stupid as fuck
You're telling me. Luckily The managers at our specific plant are more lax about it and give personal days still otherwise I'd be gone already lol
Doesn't surprise me considering half their workforce are fucking temps who don't get ANY PTO or anything. It's crazy.
Sounds like Japan. 10 days required by law, but your employer is allowed to decide five of them. A lot of places give you more than that, but the ones that give you the absolute minimum are certainly plentiful.
I get none. I mean I can call in and take days off but I am not paid for those days.
I work in a small business. I get no vacation, no sick pay, and no personal days. I have no benefits and am on my mom's health insurance until 26 (got kicked off dental and vision at 22). I work roughly 30 hours a week for $9.50/hour.
Not that it's okay the way you have it, but that sounds like a dream to me. Even when I was at a bigger company working in a management position, I got 7 vacation days, 2 sick days, and 0 personal days per year.
I get three whole days off to grieve if an immediate family member dies.
What is a day off?
I work 60 hours a week, 6 days a week every single week.
I get NO sick time, no personal time and I get a whole... 4 days of vacation a year.
I get 3 vacation days and 2 personal days. 🤦🏻♂️
Ooh I get 10 days as well. But we have no sick time. No personal either. In fact, I work 7a-7p so if I need to go to the bank, doctor, auto shop, or anywhere else that has normal work hours, I have to use vacation time. With that, you’re deducted points for missing work, being late, or leaving early. Even better, if you are less than 5 minutes early, you are given a point for being late. My wife has 40 vacation days and 365 sick days a year with a doctors note. FML.
40 hours of vacation, 40 sick hours, and 1 personal day checking in. I don't think I get any more than this for at least five years.
NJ here, had to work 5 years to get 10 days, we also now get 4 sick days a year, vacation maxes at 15 days at 10 years.
I guess I'm lucky, I'm in the US and have been at my job over 10 years, I get the equivalent of 5 weeks off plus one day. 3 weeks vacation, 1 week plus one day floating holiday, and one week sick. I work grocery retail. I'm on one of those vacations now, gotta use it or lose it!
I get much less than that in good ol’ Canada.
I've had 2 jobs in my life that gave some sort of vacation and/or sick time. One was for a governmental agency and the other was a company that contracted with the military to provide services (so they may have been required to give time off.)
EVERY other job, the only benefit I got was a paycheck. No insurance, no paid time off, nada. Oh...I did once get a $25 gift card to a restaurant for working Christmas.
But that's not what's fucked up. What's fucked up is all the (not well off) Americans who think this is just GREAT!
I'm envious. My sick days and personal days come out of my 10 vacation days per year. I hoard those 10 days in case something bad happens.
Lol I get 8 days, no sick time or personal days. Now my company put in place a policy that if you call off or leave early it automatically comes out of your PTO. I'm going to look for another job.
At my job you have to wr Work 6 months then you get 2 days off. After a year on the job 5 days, two years is 10 then 7 it's 15 days..... No paid sick time
Same. 80 hrs of vacation... Great
At my last job, vacation days included holidays. And we got some weird holidays off, so there really weren't a ton of vacation days you could actually take. Also, I had to work on most holidays, so I really didn't even get those vacation days.
Damn I get 5 weeks of annual leave and about 3 weeks of sick leave.
Lmao I get 80hrs of vacation a year, one personal day... That doesn't change for ten years when I then get 120hrs of vacation
So you get 17 days? Aka 3 and 2/5 work weeks?
It sounds like you at least get weekends though, so there's that.
10 years is when I get three weeks (15 days) at my company. That's also only because I'm grandfathered in, the new policy is you get hired in at two weeks, but you don't go to three weeks until 15 years of service.
Okay, where do you guys live? ✈️
I have a theory that short or non-existing vacation time mekes people ‚dumb‘. They never have time to travel and experience other societies, other cultures. They always ever see the part of society they grew up with and so they never question if it could be otherwise.
I feel like they do it so that they can rationalize burn outs and keeping people here without hiring more on.
My first real job after college gave me 5 days of vacation, 3 days of sick leave and 2 days of 'etc' leave, which can be used for any reason. This didn't change for the 4 years I worked there.
When I worked in another country, I started with 14 days leave, where any unused days could be added to the following year, 31 days sick leave, 2 days for family care, and a week for paternity leave.
I get 10 days too! And no sick time. And no personal days. What a wonderful world. (I'm not in the US anymore though)
French here, minimum required by law is 5 weeks, paid. In my company I got 6 weeks cause I'm in for 5 years +.
Its incredible. I am very happy to work at a company that not only gives me 40 paid days of leave each year, they also don't make any fuss if you are ill. In return I am very motivated and surprisingly, to myself mainly, loyal to them. Its a give and take relationship. I can not imagine only having 10 days leave and having a fixed amount of hours you can be ill. Like who the hell decides that; its not something you have massive control over. What do they want; you getting in for work with a massive fever or cold and infecting everybody else?
Yeah see I don't have any corporate loyalty here because you can literally be dying and they'll fire you. I've seen it specifically in the last 5 days.
Oh, i can imagine. Sounds aweful that people do that to each other.
hmm.. In Japan you only get 10 days on your first year (after the first 6 months being a fulltime-employee), and every year 10+1 for each year youve stayed. No sick hours. 1 personal day in summer (limited to summer..)
I would love to have sick hours though.
Japan also has a completely different work culture. Thats honestly humbling to think about.
Sick time is something we can't relate to at all here in Germany. When you're sick, you don't have to work, and if you get sick for too long, the (mandatory) health insurance will pay part of your salary the other part is continually paid for by the employer. Usually, you can't fire sick people.
I need to learn german.
[deleted]
Burn out is massively high. Currently going through it right now honestly :)
We start with 20 (not including National bank holidays) and get an additional day every year we work here. Ive been here 6 years now.
I get 26 days, not including bank holidays. 5 of which have to be used at Xmas for the Xmas shutdown. I don't know how you guys get by with such little holiday!
I get 10 days. That includes sick time, vacation, personal, etc etc etc. 80 hours per year.
The senior engineer who helped found the company gets 80 hours per year and thinks that is too much, so obviously none of us are getting any more.
There are a lot of nice perks working here, but PTO is horrid
This is why Americans are fucking homicidal/suicidal/angry all the goddamn time. We need some time to live. We need to remember we don't live to work.
I'm barely out of high school and already the thought of working for the rest of my life is depressing as hell. It feels like I'll never have time to do anything. Maybe I'll move to New Zealand
I tried talking to my dad about plans to move abroad on a working holiday visa. He told me that I "should just get a job here and work towards adding years to that company" because I'll "still get one or two weeks off a year in most places which goes up after 5 or 10 years." When I told him that was billshit and that I didn't want to live my life that way, he said that I should just deal with it because that's life. Not if I can help it it isn't!
Yeah. If "life" is just work, then why bother?
Exactly! I plan to move, but if I move back I'll create my own job if I have to just to make sure I don't slave my life away. This work to live mindset is ridiculous. "Work the vast majority of your life away and enjoy actually living on weekends and maaaaybe 2 weeks of the year."
AMEN
Where I'm working, we can't take more than five days off at a time, max ten days per year. Have to apply for it, and no more or less than two weeks in advance, and it must be approved.
Nobody has taken time off in a year because we've all been forced to do mandatory overtime, ten hours per day every day (eight hours on Sunday, because they don't want to pay double time).
Sounds like Japan
Sounds like slaves back in the days had it better than you guys. At least they got housing and food as well.
My companys vacation is a typical example for America
0-5 years of service 10 days
5-15 years of service 15 days
25 years of service 20 days
20 days is maximum
We start at 20 days, then every 5 years we get an extra day or two. After 20 years I’m currently at 26 days a year. I also get sick leave, I’ve had a couple of long-term illnesses over the years where I’ve been paid in full for up to six months at a time. My summer hols this year will be 2.5 weeks, and I’ve got another two long weekends booked.
And that's 4 weeks PAID vacation right?
Of course.
ahhahahahahahaha starts sobbing
Yeah, unpaid vacation doesn’t really exist here. Unless you make a deal with your employer to take a 6 month sabbatical or something.
[deleted]
Not the guy you asked but here in Germany you get 2 days per month. So the minimum required by law is 24 days. My Company gives 30 days. Which is Not out of the Norm.
Norway here. We have to take 5 weeks, and then you get an extra week after you turn 60. Sick days are unlimited, but you can only take 8 stretches of maximum 3 days each every year without consultation. Any more and you need a doctors note, but then it's unlimited.
How do people get anything done if they can just "be sick" for 24 days per year in addition to their vacation and government holidays? I guess this is a question of what is the work ethic/culture like?
Are you accepting immigrants?
Netherlands, although my company is also considered very generous for our standards. But 25 days of paid vacation days is like the basic package (20 is mandatory).
Sick days are not a thing you can take as much as you need. I never had to take one in my life though.
Holy shit. I could be at my company for 50 years and not get more than 13 days of sick/vacation days a year. Plus insurance is $1000 a month and a 12k deductible and no retirement plan!
Some companies are really only good as stepping stones in your career. This is what they are telling you with their compensation package. "We don't value you as a worker" loud and clear.
I've looked for another job for years. Luckily my salary is good and hours are good because I can't really leave.
I (US) started getting a third week after five years, and I'm way better off than quite a lot of people. I'm luckily really happy with my job, but having to wait another five years for three weeks vacation would definitely be a factor if I was thinking of moving.
It wasn't until I was about 30 that I got my first job that offered any vacation at all.
Lol I was able to take six whole vacation days last year, six holidays, and no sick time. Source: American lawyer. It fucking sucks. My life is endless deadlines, confrontation, irritating clients, a lack of sleep, and constant stress.
I am super lucky in that where I work you start with 3 weeks vacation and after 5 years you get 4 weeks per year. But it’s almost impossible to actually take vacation time. So we joke about how the built up vacation is our retirement plan/saving plan when/if we get laid off.
I work in the US and have mandatory 25 days off a year, which works out to 5 weeks since we don't work weekends. I don't vacation often, so typically I end up taking off the month of December. Seriously people, get into software engineering, it's a better life.
I'm American, work in education and I'm in a union. I have what would be called "European-style" benefits (4 weeks vacation, good medical, good retirement). Whenever the subject of vacation comes up, my fellow Americans cry and cry about how it's so much better in Europe and elsewhere. But in the very next sentence, they'll blame teachers, pensions and unions for wrecking the country.
The average American worker has basically been convinced that they deserve no benefits and that leisure time is only deserved if you utterly break your back making someone else rich, or become rich enough yourself that you no longer need to work. It's the self-loathing that happens when you worship the rich too much.
It truly is a strange land.
I am in the US and I work in a government job that's union. I get 33 days off plus holidays. The pay isn't terrible but it's not great either. Every time I think I could be making so much more in the private sector, I think, nah. This is a pretty sweet deal.
45 DAYS?????? I tried capitalizing the numbers, didn't work. I going to earn my second week of vacation this year! I've only had one week and that's only at this job.
45 DAYS?????? I tried capitalizing the numbers, didn't work.
It is nine weeks in total. But my longest vacation was 3 weeks, and two smaller ones. Besides that if I don't have a lot of work I sometimes take a day off.
Yay! We get to work 50 weeks a year, with 6 paid holidays, typically more than 40 hours each of those weeks worked, pay for expensive health insurance that sucks, and likely work till we die.
But freedom bro...
What country do you get these glorious working conditions?
All that 'Freedom' - seems like it only really applies if you're rich.
I'm almost to the point where I can request more vacation vs more money.
Jesus and here I am excited that I get a third week of PTO next year..
Wow where are you?
I’m assuming Europe. In the UK it is the same. We must take 4 weeks holiday otherwise it is illegal. Though if you decide not to take all of your 4 weeks holiday, the company must pay you extra for any unspent holiday days.
Netherlands
My dads original contract stated he gets an additional days holiday for every year of service. So far his annual leave from work is 62 days a year. They could have chucked that as it was an old rule but they stuck with it
I get 2 days vac and 2 day sick a month. They roll over till the cap of 144 hrs of vac. Sick caps too... Forget what to though.
If and when we leave, we can cash out any vac time. Not sick. We can donate that to other staff members that may be going through health issues.
Where do you live and what kinda job?
Netherlands, and I am an electrical engineer/in-house consultant for a power grid company.
But everyone gets the same package, however some people work with shifts/duties and have to organize their vacation days better and in advance.
Wow what country do you live in? That sounds amazing!
Netherlands
US here. We get 5 days per year, and they have to be ok'ed in advance. Usually they never get ok'ed and the company simply gives you 5 days additional pay in December instead.
Working conditions here pale in comparison to some of those in other coubtries. Less pay, but better worklife.
Which country do you work in? I would love to move there.
Netherlands
In the US there are no laws regarding time off. Another words, companies don't actually have to give you anytime off. Instead, it's usually part of the benefits package that can be offered.
If I don't use my vacation time it just gets turned into sick days, which according to my contract, must be proven with a doctor's note.
I get about 5 vacation days a year, no sick days, no personal days, and no paid holidays (except thanksgiving and Christmas). I just want a day off!
Yeah, but a lot of jobs don't actually allow people to use their time. We're pressured to work anyway or still be on call.
What country? What kind of immigration policies do you have?
Netherlands, and for non-EU citizens the immigration policies are quite tight. Unless you can have a company to vouch for you and get you a working visa.
Where do you live where that's the law?
Netherlands
I get five days of paid leave and five days of sick days. But they can be used interchangeably.
I work in Japan.
Fuck Japan.
I get four vacation days. That might not seem like a lot but I work for a school district.
I get all major holidays off. A week for Thanksgiving 2 weeks for Christmas A week for spring break A week during the summer
Then:
During summer, I only work 4 days a week.
I then get 40 hours of personal days And 40 hours of sick days that stack every year if I don't take them.
Also I don't get paid overtime but I get them as computer time. 1.5x the hours I go over.
It's actually pretty nice. The pay isnt as great but I don't miss working in the private sector.
In US and I get 30 days off a year. And this is only my first year.
Where do you live? 😂
Netherlands
Mind if you tell us where u are from?
Netherlands
I have 7 weeks built up but I am so busy at work that I don't have time to take it, and my insecurity is a little voice in my head that tells me if I take 2 weeks off they may figure out they can get by without me and let me go.
What country are you in? I get 5 days a year plus 4 sick days....
Netherlands
I'm so glad you foreigners get it. The US system encourages greed.
weeping...
I’ve worked at my job for 10 years and have been on 2 vacations, for a total of 8 days...
damn! where do you work?!
Netherlands
What country do you live in?
Netherlands
Where do you live/ work?
Netherlands
Where do you live that it’s required by law?
Netherlands
At the minimum where I am it’s two days a month so more than three weeks over one year.
It just seems ridiculous to me that you can’t just take a few days off to rest and recharge so you can do your job better or just go on holidays for a week or so... I’m currently not even an employee - more like an intern - and I’m off this week.
What country do you work in?
Netherlands
Over here I got 31 free days to spend, Saturdays not included cause I don't need to work on Saturday. Makes it a bit over 6 weeks off work each year. And if I don't take all my days off I'll be forced to take them the first quarter of the following year.
PS: this is Germany speaking
based on 40 hour workweeks, the standard minimum (not legal minimum) is 25 days a year, in the netherlands
Also food is much more expensive in the USA
10000% this. I'd go work in the US in a heartbeat, if they provide me the same health coverage and vacation days and sick days that I have guaranteed by law here in Italy.
I have 15 days off total. Want to go visit my family AND take a vacation? Better not get sick the rest of the year!
It sounds great but like what happens to all the work you have for those 4 weeks?
Most work can wait a week, and if I am gone for three weeks I have a colleague that can take care of it. And I do the same when he goes. Workload is usually lower during vacation periods anyway
I don't see anyone else that's asked, what is it you do and where?
In the Netherlands, and I am an electrical engineer/in-house consultant for a power grid company.
But everyone gets the same package, however some people work with shifts/duties and have to organize their vacation days better and in advance.
Oh I thought you meant 4 weeks at a time
You can do that, too.
I mean seems kinda messed up to dump all my work on someone else for a month.
Well, everyone deserves a holiday, and if f it's a particularly busy time of year you might not the all the time off because of the workload. Your workmates also get holidays so when they're away you and the others still there pick up their slack and vice versa.
I mean a week is one thing, maybe two, but 4 weeks I’m not doing two jobs for a month without extra pay
I've had out of office notifications from colleagues that were five weeks away. So you either ask their colleague to do something for you or it can wait (I understand this is not always possible in many fields).
This concept is disheartening to me.
Good on you for planning, what I'm sure was, an amazing experience, but the lack of freedom we have to take a break or experience new things is complete crap.
Seems like the President gets more vacation days than we do.
Yeah, I think the United states could do far better with labor policies.
But I want to unpack your remark on the president for a second, to really compare apples and oranges. You're right, he does take more vacation than 2 weeks per year. But he's beyond retirement age, so he's already doing more work (or at least putting in more hours) than I plan to at that age. He's also got an important and stressful job, so I think increased vacation time, as long as vacation time continues to be a form of compensation in the USA, is justifiable to an extent.
Agreement with the current president's use of his time, opinions about his efficacy, and whether he as a person deserves that increased compensation is a conversation I don't plan on having here. I just want to focus on whether the office of the president of the United states deserves a favorable amount of vacation time. I think it does.
That statement was merely an off-hand remark. What you said makes sense.
That is a fair argument.
so he's already doing more work (or at least putting in more hours) than I plan to at that age
I'd wager he's putting in more hours than nearly anyone in the middle class. His job never really stops.
It's the kind of job that takes up as much time as you let it. Anyone who's self-employed understands that aspect of it, and he's not really unique in that regard. It's just that his work has much heavier consequences.
And sometimes the line gets blurred between work and not-work in politics. Is that trip to Singapore 100% work, or did he squeeze in some time to work on his tan? Is a trip back to a senator's home state for a campaign rally during a recess really not working?
Something about your remark about the middle class doesn't sit right with me, but I can't quite place my finger on what it is. If you're talking about your typical 9-5 office job, then yes, it's more hours than that. If you're talking about a small business owner, well, the hours are probably comparable. If you're talking about someone with that 9-5, who also runs an etsy shop and drives for Uber/Lyft, and any number of other "side-hustles", then again the hours are what you make of them. That's not even considering those who would be in the "working class", like your single mother working 3 part time jobs to be able to afford food and rent, or your truck driver working 10 (usually more, but that's illegal) hours daily. Plenty of people work long hours. And as much as I think it sucks to be working hours like that, I don't think the office of the president is really unique there. It's just high stakes.
Seems like? The lowest average number of vacation days by a president since 1977 was Jimmy Carter with 19.75/year. George H.W. Bush had a whopping 135.75/year. Even Trump isn't on track to take that many per year.
So fuckin' yeah they definitely do.
Wow, that’s ridiculous.
I appreciate the facts.
Hi from NZ :) . Over here it is actually illegal to have an employment contract that gives you less than 4 weeks annual - 1 week sick leave and 2 weeks of public holidays. You can't even agree to less! If you are on a contract rate then sometime you get those entitlements paid out as part of the wage for the day/week. I couldn't believe it when I heard the USA doesn't have anything like that. Hope you enjoyed your time here!
I highly enjoyed my time there, and I'm actively seeking to move there.
Quickest route is if you have something on this skills shortage list http://skillshortages.immigration.govt.nz/ (I'm sure you're probably familiar already!).
Where do you think you'd head?
Given my industry (automation) I'll probably end up in Auckland. I'd love to go to Taupo though.
And yes, I'm familiar with the list, haha. I believe I'm on it, but I still need the offer before anything there can move on.
Best of luck! Going through recruitment agencies may be your best option to finding a good job - best of all with that is you wouldn't get an offer without them knowing your residency status/intention.
Thanks. Info on recruiters is a bit harder for me to find somehow. I've been directed a couple places, but they were all old links that didn't exist anymore or links to places that didn't have contact info. Do you have any leads?
Here are some major ones;
https://www.adecco.co.nz/about
https://www.recruit-nz.co.nz/recruiting-from-overseas/
https://www.onestaff.co.nz/contact-us
If you are having trouble filtering out your local results then add site:.nz to your google searches. It will bring up only pages from NZ :)
2 weeks is NOT enough. I get 3 weeks after being with the company 6 years and then 4 weeks after 10 years. how lovely
That's just sad.
its ok though, next job i take i will negotiate vacation days!
People do this, and should do this. Good for you for negotiating what you want.
yes! of course pay is important to negotiate but so is my sanity
A lot of people don't provide any value worth negotiating for, so they don't realize that other people actually get to negotiate stuff like this. They think everyone just takes whatever the ad says and are told to suck it up and like it.
It's also pretty standard. I'm under the same arrangement, except I get the 3 weeks at 5 years instead of 6 with my company.
I have been at my new work for a month and I have aldready 5 weeks I can take out in advance. Took one day off last week actually to attend my girlfriends graduation.
US?
Sweden
I get 12 days at 5 years...
4 weeks 0 years.
You must have a degree that's higher than mine, or you're just smarter lol
We got automatically 25 free days + 10 solid free days, like christmas etc. So basically we have 35 free days per year. When you have summer job you get paid extra for not getting these free days. Quite nice actually.
Man can we fucking trade for like idk 10 days?
[deleted]
Correct and correct.
I save up my vacation time to live off of when I inevitably get laid off. More often then not they'll cash out your unused vacation days when you leave. I only use vacation days for emergencies & if I've stopped accruing.
I work in tv production in the US & very few places keep you on staff when a show ends. Every time you hear of a show getting cancelled, know that everyone working on it (actors, directors, grips, writers, editors, set builders, coffee intern monkey, etc) have been out of work for a few weeks at least by the time it goes public. And because of things like pilot season it can be months before any new work is available. And then you have to land the gig
Besides production schedules are so tight to save money these days there isn't time for days off. Maybe a Friday now & then or Christmas. That's it. It's the trade off for working this cool job.
You save your money & buy expensive things like cars, & computers for when your show gets renewed. Most places will give you sick time at least. Some really good places will give you personal days & a 401k.
Many employers stop that, use it or lose it by a certain date, no carryover etc.
YMMV of course, check with HR.
U.S. Border Control got all uppity because they couldn't understand me a) saving up for a round-the-world-trip and b) that I'd take more than two weeks to do it.
Haha! :(
I get 21 days a year and I thought that was excellent. How much do you get there?
German here, 30 vacation days, basically unlimited sick days (if I'm sick I'm sick. My health insurance takes care of that, only after 6 months at a time there'll be some loss of pay if I remember right) and I still think its not enough.
Usually "Krankengeld" kicks in if you are sick for more than 6weeks for the same reason. Your insurance then pays 70% of your previous income for up to 78 weeks.
30 vacation days are mostly due to unions in specific fields and not the norm.
6 weeks, not month. You're right. Well, 24 is mandatory. I just get 30 days because my chef is nice.
What's the average payscale there? Unless it's far lower, it seems like the US is way behind.
UK legal minimum is 28 days but 35 is quite common
Christ, that's nice. I usually just have to take the hit and take the risk of being written up when I need a day off for my kids' events.
UK legal minimum is 28 days
I have 22 working in London, are you sure of this?
I suspect it's 28 days bank holidays inclusive.
Makes sense, thanks!
You should be getting 28 if you are full time. https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights
Are you including bank holidays in the 22?
I'm not sure how you're counting that 21. If you count paid holidays, I have 10 vacation days and 10 paid holidays. But I can't move the paid holidays, they just happen when they happen on the calendar. My next one is July 4th, which is a Wednesday (my dudes) and that sucks. I wanted to travel a few states north of me, where my extended family are hosting a reunion. I can't go, because even though I have the day off, I don't have the days around it off to be able to make the drive.
I misunderstood when I asked the question, I thought you weren't American. I'm in the US too. At USPS we get all federal holidays plus the 21 days I listed. Though if you have more than 15 years you get 26 days and less than 5 you get 13.
Are you able to at least out in vacation time for surrounding holidays or is that not allowed where you are?
European here : 4 weeks holidays per year, 38 hours work per week and good salary to go by.
Ugh, just did a NZ trip too. Only two weeks and it felt like I barely had enough time to begin to see it.
Where did you get to go?
We opted to do a rapid driving tour to see as much of both islands as we could. Way too much time in car, but was a great way to get a feel for the full variety of flat whites available.
If you go again and like beer, I highly recommend March Fest in Nelson - it was a great beer festival and introduction to NZ beer and hops.
The big thing we missed out on was much in the way of wilderness or hiking. It was unfortunate, but just would take too much time.
I'm living in New Zealand ATM, I had two weeks off at Christmas. 3 weeks on in April for SE Asia. Taking another 2 weeks off work in august and I'll still have 70hrs to take for the rest of the year which increases 3 hours a week. All paid time off. I actually needed up saving money on Holiday the way it worked out..... 🙂
The way you phrase it makes it sound like you're not a native kiwi. How was the process of moving there? Where did you come from?
I'm from Northern Ireland. Packed up and fucked of one day with a 15kg suitcase to Australia when I was about 24, after a year went to Thailand for a few months. Ran out of money flew here with $200nzd on a working holiday visa, got a job about 3hours after landing from talking to some fellas at a bar. Been here 4 years now, lovely people and country, not decided on the future though.
we'll keep ya. you sound like a top bloke
[deleted]
I know it's short. It felt short. I stayed on the North Island and wound my way from Auckland to Wellington. I feel like I spent the right amount of time in each place. But there was more I could've seen if I had more time, even just in that area of the North Island.
2 weeks is long? I take 3-4 weeks off for Christmas every year and that's about 1/3 of my yearly holiday allowance.
2 weeks is my yearly holiday allowance, so yeah, it's long by our standards.
Move to a country that gives a shit about citizen welfare if you can.
Working on it
I'm currently on a 5 week vacation from Australia to the UK, which is using up about 18 months of accrued vacation leave.
It's only so long because its mandatory to take between Christmas and New Year off as well.
If I stay in my current job for another 5 years, making 10 years in total, I'll get 10 weeks long service leave, to be used in addition to my annual leave.
My sick leave of 10 days per year also accrues if not used.
I have almost the exact same story. 3 weeks in New Zealand (I’m absolutely in love with the place now and want to move there, but that’s another story) everyone was shocked here at home. A lot of “how could you afford that?!” And “you’re so young, wow that’s a big trip” and then I got there and met people from all over the country on my tour and they were traveling for 1+ month. Sad. I just want to travel.
(I’m absolutely in love with the place now and want to move there, but that’s another story)
Same.
This happened to me in Scotland. Was so depressing because with travel etc you still are limited on experiencing the trip you paid for. And we went during high holiday time and heard the itinerary for other Europeans. I don't know why it's so out of reach in American. Even working at one of the most progressive female positive agencies here in my state we don't have any maternity leave either.
To be fair Kiwis seem to take about 4-5 weeks off over Christmas/New Years. I spent 2 weeks there last January and stores were still closed until the 14th/15th because holidays were still on. I'm Australian and everyone is back usually by the 7th/8th.
Exactly the same as you! Took 2 weeks off from Ireland to have an epic trip in New Zealand by myself few years ago. Most other backpackers were there for WAY longer than that. I was so jealous (and questioning my life decisions to focus on career)
I live in the USA and work for a large retail chain. I get two weeks after one year. That is pretty standard as far as I know.
"Is that it?"
I know what you're trying to say. You're trying to say "Ahhhhh yeah. That's it."
I'm not sure if that "Ahhhhh" is supposed to be like a contented sigh or like stalling for time.
It's just lyrics from a song by the New Zealand duo, Flight of the Conchords. Business Time.
Oh yeah, I remember the first time I saw someone saying "I'm a teacher and the pay is not good but at least I got 30 days of vacation".... took me a while to understand that not everyone has it...
2 weeks? You will come back and find you no longer have a desk.
-Japan
Yeah, fuck the American dream. They work us like dogs. Time off is scarce and many people only get about a weeks vacation a year
Seriously. My family took a week to drive from our state in the east coast to the Grand Canyon. We met these two German dudes at the camp ground we were staying near the canyon and they couldn’t believe we only had a week to do the trip. We asked how long they were in the states for and they said they were doing a road trip from LA to NYC and had 2 months off. I literally can’t imagine having that much time for vacation.
I work in New Zealand. I have 9 weeks off a year. Its great!!
You'll enjoy this anecdote. One of my colleagues is of Swiss descent and he had a cousin in town on holiday. My colleague translated as I chatted with his cousin, explaining his holiday to me as about 6 weeks biking around/between various US states. I mentioned he must do very well to be able to afford that length of vacation, he went back and forth confusedly with my colleague several times before bursting out laughing. Finally he explained that he is a letter carrier, and that 6 weeks of yearly vacation is very standard even for middle class jobs in Switzerland.
American here. My company is rare, but becoming more common, in that we have unlimited PTO. It's kind of a 'big boy' policy, where you let your boss know you're taking these dates off and as long as there's nothing pressing, you're good to go.
We also have really great health insurance, including insurance for our pets, and a complimentary massage once a month; and early release (half-days) on Fridays every week. I personally get to work from home 2 days a week which helps with house maintenance and (if we had kids) daycare costs.
As long as there's nothing pressing
There's always something pressing at my job.
That’s why I don’t work at a place longer than 1.5 years.
Australia has mandatory 4 weeks annual leave for full time (or equivalent) workers. It’s great. On top of that we have so many public holidays that it works out we have like 5.5 weeks of time off each year.
20 days is mandatory in germany. Most people i know get between 28 and 30. I couldnt life with only 10 days.
I live in France - what did you do with the other 3 weeks?
Work.
German law grants every full-time employee a minimum of 24 days vacation a year (2 per month, Saturdays and Sundays don't count against these). Sick days have to be paid in full for the first six weeks of sickness, afterwards the employee receives 60% from the health insurance company. Also you can't get fired during that time.
I get 6 weeks a year.
I must take at least 2 consecutive weeks a year.
I'll get in trouble and be forced to take leave if I amass more than 300 hours (without justifying it, eg. Planning a long holiday).
I love living in Australia.
That's OK. They couldn't believe I was going to drive both islands in 2 weeks either.
In Brazil we get 30 days, for which we get paid 4/3 of a monthly salary (note: 4/3, not 3/4) in advance. You can take the whole 30 days at a time, or divided into periods of at least 10 days (companies can have rules like “only 15+15”, “only 20+10”, etc).
You earn that after being in the company for a year. You can’t add up more than 30 days, the company gets fined if you’ve been working 2 years with leftover vacation time.
As an American, I don't get what they didn't get. 2 years accrued vacation a year is typical. You didn't use it over the course of the year and took it all off at once. That's a longer vacation than people normally take at once, but not shockingly so.
20 days minimum, unlimited sick days with doctor's note, 1 year of maternity leave... At least some benefits of being former commies :p
8 weeks holiday I got before moving to Canada. I know get 2 weeks and it’s so hard to get my head round.
In France we have 8 mandatory weeks
My girlfriend was surprised that I've accrued over 90 hours of vacation time since the beginning of the year. For me it's pretty normal, my boss just lets me use however hours I want whenever as long as I give him reasonable notice. It kinda hurts to know that when I move on from this job someday things are gonna be really different, not just vacation-wise.
Where do I live to get 2 weeks of vacation.
American here. In a strange way it can actually work out well. The fact that you can't take a month off every year got me interested in finding work I actually enjoyed. I job-hopped for a few years, finally found one I like, and have been here for nearly 20 years now.
I like my occasional vacation (2 weeks a year) but my income and job happiness are much higher than they were early on. Generally if I'm bored at home I just come into the office because I like my work. I get paid accordingly, too.
As it happens I like backpacking also but never got paid to do it.
I'm glad it worked out for you, but it doesn't work for me. In the same way it prompted you to find a job you like, it's prompting me to look for a country I like.
Army here. I get 30 days of paid vacation a year, and it rolls over year after year too. We also get a four day weekend just about every month.
Don't forget the free healthcare, subsidized housing, travel opportunities, education benefits... hahaha.
Oh, and I'm doing a job that I fucking love and get excited about every day.
"2 weeks? That's ut?"
FTFY
Can confirm. Just went on a two week vacation because that’s all I could take off after saving. My family (all not from the US) told me I needed much more time and asked why I only took two weeks off. This is unfair!
I'm taking 4 weeks off in a week. Last year it was 5 weeks off. Paid of course.
Yeah I get four weeks here in NZ, I am a waitress.
Damn! Not trying to boast or anything....but can't imagine having to save up vacation days from one year to another to be able to go someplace for 2 weeks! I have 30 days vacation annually here in Germany, which is the standard in the IT Consultancy Field here.
[deleted]
So I work in the UK and whilst sick days don’t get redacted from my holiday, they are monitored and if I’ve had so many within a 6 month period it may get mentioned by my manager.
And by mention I mean “you’ve had 4 sick days in the last 6 months, is there anything we can do to help?”
[deleted]
I should move to europe!
At the longest job I've ever had, I was punished for doing my job too well. My mom, who has literally 10+ employee trophies (for being a fucking amazing worker), was just randomly 'let go' (fired) from her company, after working there for years.
I have to always try to have some advantage over the people I work for, so they can't randomly fire me. Eat or be eaten.
Same dude. Last summer I dedicated my life to my job for a solid 4 months just to cement a hard to replace spot so I could have job security. Shouldn't have to work so hard against your employer.
I worked for 6 months at a tiling facility, moving pallets. (There were a shit tonne of em)
After doubling the amount of pallets moved per day, for six months, I was discarded.
Also, the only raise I ever got from those fucks was an insult; TEN CENTS.
MY RAISE WAS A FUCKING DIME.
God I hate America
Let this be a lesson, your wage is not affected by your quality of work but rather how much your superiors like you.
But you can still be fired by their superiors anyways.
Hell, my last layoff came from my boss's boss's boss, and I think he was just the messenger for someone even higher up.
So much this ^^^
You also have to assert yourself and fight on your own behalf for what you feel you deserve. Don't be so agreeable in performance reviews. Tell them passionately why you deserve what you're asking for. You mustn't expect an employer, least of all in the private sector, to pay you more than you're willing to accept.
Lol, insulting payrises are also happening in the UK. I blame the Tories seeing America as a blueprint for success.
Notice MP payrises are nice and tidy
[deleted]
While that will sometimes work, I don't think it's the best strategy. Even if you don't have anything documented, your employer should still have a plan for what to do if they should suddenly be without you -- the so-called "hit by a bus" plan. So it's not bullet proof, as they could decide to fire you and go to the backup plan.
Honestly if your employer isn't trustworthy then they suck and you should try to find a different one (not that that's always possible, unfortunately).
'Trustworthy employers' don't exist here
was just randomly 'let go' (fired) from her company, after working there for years.
She was a cost savings measure so some fat cat could get a bonus. I'm sorry that that happened to her :(
She actually just picked up a job in realty yesterday!
Unfortunately, i'm not as strong-willed or as capable, so i'm still struggling to get my shit together.
You should; it's nice here :)
I was off work for over a year while I had cancer and both my manager and my boss personally offered to help me with anything I couldn't do myself. I also still got my yearly bonus despite not working a single hour for a full year.
Since my employer also had me insured I still went positive money-wise each month despite being sick and my wife staying at home to help me :)
Swedish welfare saved my life (litterally :P).
Darwinism in Work place is more of an American thing.
I have to always try to have some advantage over the people I work for, so they can't randomly fire me. Eat or be eaten.
I think of it like this. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just need to outrun the guy behind you.
Out of all the people hired around the time I was there are only two of us standing now, and plenty of meat for the grinder hired after me.
With that said, I never assume I can't be next so, like you, I always try to keep an ace up my sleeve.
That doesn't happen in Europe also because it would become too expensive in window repairs for the busyness.
Is that because people would smash the windows...?
Nah, bro. We don't smash windows in America... We sue the shit outta them till they stop moving.
Well, I think you should reconsider, smashing them is free, suing often isn't :P
Joking aside, literally ruining a person livelihood and possibly leaving them destitute over some vacuous idea of "efficiency" is despicable, you do not need to be an anarchist/communist to believe so.
I haven't found another decent job in the 2.5 years since.
At this point, I'd rather see them burn to the ground than actually get anything out of it.
Im lucky to have stock funds, or else i'd have been living on the streets by now. The way America treats people as expendable is unacceptable.
They also shit on immigrants because employers hire them becuase theu are cheaper....isnt America beautiful?
I'm really enjoying watching the company that did it to me's stock spiral into the ground since the layoffs. I think they're below the IPO price now.
That's socialist talk. If they don't want to be poor they'd make up shit to sue someone else for first.
Ah ain't capitalism beautiful?
Smashing them is free unless you’re in America where vandalism is basically a felony.
smashing them is free
until they sue you for cost of repairs plus cost of loss of potential business.
literally ruining a person livelihood and possibly leaving them destitute over some vacuous idea of "efficiency" is despicable
So you lay off 5 people so you can keep the other 15 because you've done the math and that's what's best for the business or you are forced to shut everything down and all 20 people are unemployed because you ignored the needs of the business.
Despicable, truly despicable.
Stop making sense. Your logic only attracts downvotes. Unbelievable.
There is a reason why such rules are based on the amount of employees the business has, the higher the number the higher the expectations.
And anyhow your comment is a good example of why an economy based on profit is inherently damaging to society.
economy based on profit is inherently damaging to society.
Capitalistic economies have lifted more people out of poverty and into a higher standard of living previously unknown in the world than any other system. You are just completely incorrect.
Or budget the buisness in a way that diesnt affect your employees
Labor is far and away the largest expense for any business. The user you replied to gave a concrete example of budgeting. If you can't replace people who are not doing their job, then you are not a business, you're a charity. Or government.
Except we are talking about people who ARE doing their job
The entire point of my argument was that they'd fire anyone, for any reason.
My mom was doing her job better than a fair majority, apparently, but that didn't matter in the slightest.
They wouldn't even blink before firing anyone or everyone in their company. At a certain point, you just wonder what happened to respect, and loyalty?
Oh yes, i'm sure it had nothing to do with the company's investors pushing for more profit at the cost of humanity!
When you see the decisions these companies make on the small scale, it makes it pretty hard to feel bad for them.
No raises, 3 sick days, minimum vacation (unless you get sick too much, then it takes your vacation days), cutting corners at every possible avenue, micromanaging to the point of obsession, and accepting of every and any opinion from a customer, no matter how wrong they are...
They want numbers. When they don't get those numbers, they make a sacrifice. They abandon new employees, old employees, entire wings of their company, CEOs, really just anything they can.
They will shoot for the lowest quality of living possible, legal or not, and typically end up leaning more into the 'not legal' side of things.
All that effort and pain, and for what? A few more pennies...?
Unfortunately if you’re in the US, it’s almost impossible to emigrate.
I’ve tried hahaha
[deleted]
Most other first-world countries only offer work permits or residence to the rich (people who have enough $$$ to survive 5-7 years w/o a job) to people with hard-to-find skills (mostly jobs that require a very specific degree). You will always be passed over for the job by a native (either for not being fluent in the native languages or because employment laws say citizens first). Student visas do not count for residence. Americans have the fight against an E.U. preference (EU citizens can move/work anywhere in Europe, Americans can't).
Canada and Australia have the same principles. Unless you're rich or have a degree already you're on your own. No moving to another country and working as a deli clerk until you get your degree.
With the way people act here, I can't really say i'm surprised no one wants us.
No one wants us? Haha I don’t know, I wish I could solve the problem and move!
Currently fighting in this manner. One guy got a dui, insurance was informed, and now "mandatory random drug testing. Half my crew at least is on something--I just make sure they're doing their job well, if they're not I send them home for the day. That said, I know insurance wouldn't order it for an out of work occurrence, and I know my boss--it won't be random. The recovering crack dealer is gonna be first to piss in a cup. At least I'm sober, so I'm safe.
I have a means to move to Europe, but my European citizen husband wants to stay here in the states. It baffles me.
This is so true it’s sad. I look for advantages or things I catch my boss doing wrong & make a mental note. You summed up America perfect, eat or be eaten
You can love the company your work for but that doesn't mean they will love you back. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
An old guy told me to never work harder than your willing to work every day.
It's a shame so many states still have at-will employment. It makes the situation with your mom 10 times worse in those states.
for being fucking a fucking amazing worker
This might be crazy, but maaayyybe that had something to do with why she was fired? (Also, I didn't know they gave trophies for that. Did she work at a brothel or something?)
Some places give out stuff like 'employee of the month' awards, like you'd see on spongebob or something.
Her entire sector was cut. They basically were like "we don't need clients from (insert entire city here), let's just get rid of it!
It was an incredibly large corporation, similar to Dow Chemical
That sucks. But my comment was mainly aimed at how you had the word "fucking" one time too many, which sorta changes the meaning.
Noticed afterwards and changed it, thx.
Yeah. I thought I was just a loser or something, but when they fired her, I really understood how little your skills and loyalty actually matter in America
My best strategy so far is: Wait for them to fuck up, document it, and hold it over them as long as you can. Otherwise, you're liable to be tossed out with the trash.
I like the attempt, but I think this one may be a swing and miss.
What career Fields are you both in?
I just kinda do whatever. Odd jobs and technical stuff mostly. I've done teaching, lifeguarding, floating, coding, automation, game design, software testing, and a/v design (currently). I'm not picky about work; I just want to live my life without dedicating half of it to something so worthless.
She's a hardcore office worker. Recently got a new job as a realtor; although I question how viable that position is, since no one wants to buy houses now.
This alone makes me want to move out of the States. I can't even wrap my head around it, and I have a very chill boss.
I saw the difference between asset vs warm body filling a space very starkly this week. Listening to my company’s attendance and time off policies for my position versus line assembly workers certainly shows that the latter is considered disposable as opposed to enticed from leaving to greener pastures.
Many jobs I've worked in warehouses have a lot lower tolerance, since they are 0 hour contracts, if someone is ill they will generally just terminate the contract. You can maybe get away with 1 day but better not be too ill or you have no job (UK, also sick days are not paid unless you want the day taken out of your 28 annual holiday days)
Depends entirely on the company. I've worked at a company where if I called in sick, I was always paid. Another we only had like 4 paid sick days and my most recent one, no paid sick days. Tbf though the latter one is a casual shift one so it's to be expected
All apart from one were agencies working zero hour contracts. The out-lier (proper contract, not agency) was I was ill during the first week of training (so was another employee, thinking we got ill at the office) and we were both fired the next day rather than carry on training us despite willing to learn and showing an aptitude for the job
I thought it was illegal not to pay sick pay? What about SSP?
No idea, I'd assume the employers know what laws not to break and acted accordingly. All jobs I have been ill at, I have been fired days after (sometimes even the next day) and every time the time off had not been paid
You weren't sick. On their books you're a zero hours contract, you just didn't have any hours that day. Even if you thought you did.
Oh I definitely was but nice to know how they cook the books, I hadn't thought of that
Yeah I just meant that on their end you weren't considered sick, you were just considered to not be working that day. If you're zero hours, no obligation, they can change their offered hours whenever. It's really shitty and just one of many reasons those contracts should be illegal.
OP said he was on a zero hours contract. Rules are a bit different when you've signed a contract saying they don't owe you anything.
Sick pay for a contacted position?
When I consulted I wasn't getting paid for random time I wasn't working for the company.
Flex contracts are different yeah. I think they're cracking down on them here. We had a whole scene where a food delivery company got exposed turning their drivers into 'zzpers' which basically means they're external contractors. That doesn't fly here luckily.
Temp agencies still fuck many people over though. It all depends on the amount of hours you work and they are in charge of that.
Totally depends, not on the job, but on the boss. If he's a narcist asshole, don't think he sees you as an asset when you call in sick.
Meh I'm sure it happens but what's he going to do? Fire you? That sucks hard but we have a sociaal vangnet for a reason. Don't think that's a huge factor.
If you're in the US, most companies make you sign a document for "at will" employment. This means an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. Like firing someone because they are black or homosexual. So if your boss finds out your black, he/she can't fire you because of that but he/she can fire you for some bullshit like not having a team player attitude.
Never heard of such a contract here in the Netherlands tbh. We do have trial periods. In the first month (up to 3) I believe either the employee or employer can cancel the contract without reason (but usually with a good reason).
Edit: except for racism or other facts against the law
I had a job that would assign points to each sick day. After you accumulated so many points you bought yourself a write up. After so many write ups you earned yourself a new job. And sick days and vacation days were the same. So, you lost vacation hours while you were sick and if you're sick too long, you're unemployed. Killer management. That job sucked.
It totally depends on the company and the role, in the US, and I'm positive that it's the same in The Netherlands. I'm pretty sure that there are people who feel like a body filling a role over there.
Sounds like you get to be an adult at work instead of monitored like a child. That’s cool. (hello from America)
As an American, I can't relate to this. :/
at my job, if you called in "sick" 5 times in a rolling year you get a written warning, if you call in a 6th time you are sent to review for termination.
live in America.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Work in a hospital as a nurse. If I have a doctor's note it's unexcused. If I'm hospitalized it's excused. Wtf mate
A lot of companies don't accept doctors notes. There is no law that they have to...
We have the 'three day' rule in NZ where if you are away from work for more than three days in a row (including weekends) then you have to have a medical certificate. So you can have Monday off after the weekend without a note, but Tuesday as well and you need a note.
You can take time off for 12 weeks, but it's unpaid. After that, you can be let go.
[deleted]
The ones fortunate enough not to have experienced this are too busy judging their neighbors "lazy" and "unmotivated " and "morally corrupt" for having the misfortune of becoming ill. This is perpetuated by right-wing talking heads and pundits. The small amount of people who would actually stick up for themselves in this situation are told to sit down and shut up because that's how it is.
Because we're stuck at work.
Honestly, it's because we don't know any better. There's no option we can exercise. It's been this way forever, it will continue to be this way. As long as companies are allowed to operate this way, they will. They have no reason to want to change it.
That's why there's such huge backlash when things like minimum wage or UBI are brought up... It's corporations using their money/power to try and squash the worker. "But who's gonna pay for it!?" You are, you greedy fucks.
Capitalism (as it's implemented in the U.S) is a failed system. It's only held together because we're brainwashed into thinking it's the way things work. There should not be such a disparity of wealth in a country that is this prosperous. Jeff Bezos should not have $2X0,000,000,000 dollars while some of his employees are making ~$10 an hour. You could argue that if it weren't for the employee, there is no wealth for Jeff Bezos.
Even a bad cold could take half that out!
You lose your job and healthcare benefits as well if your boss feels evil.
It's 5 times not 5 days. So if an injury or illness means you have to take two or more days off at a time then it still counts as one occurrence.
That's how it works every place I've worked anyway.
So people are never sick more than 5 days a year?
They are but they come to work anyway. Once a year we get the flu running rampant through my place of employment. The flu shot helps but it's never a fail-safe.
Then you hope the disease takes you.
So 8 sick days a year and you get a "can we help you out?"
I get 8 sick days in a year and it's an automatic firing.
I get sick 8 days a year and I just sit at my desk sick 8 times, my PTO is already accounted for and any extra days I take I have to pay the company back what my salary is per day on top of not getting paid for that day.
Wait they don't pay that day and you reimburse them the day? So you're losing two days worth of salary?
Yeah, I just had the conversation with hr and accounting because I’m transitioning out and wanted to use all of my PTO because they don’t pay that out, either. They said that it’s for the inconvenience.
That isn't right at all.
The average German uses about 11 sick days. Every year. Can't legally fire someone for doing that.
I broke my shoulder and was off for five weeks here in the UK. Two were on full pay, the rest was on statutory pay (would have been even more on full pay if I'd been at the company for longer). Back to work no problemo.
Didn't count against my holiday allowance either.
[deleted]
This is the implied answer to everything you said:
"Either don't get sick or suck it up"
It sucks and doesn't make sense, as it just makes more people sick, reducing productivity overall more than just one person being absent for a few days.
In Belgium, even a single sick day is to be backed up by a doctor. And every time you're sick, your employer can send their own control doctor to try and refute what your doctor said.
In Czech Republic you also have to bring the note, for the first 3 days of sickness you are not paid and them you get 60% of the salary. My company, though, gives us 6 sick days (without note) a year and fully covers 30 days of sick leave.
Yeah but I guess you have a free doctor you can go to, right? I guess in America you haven't such a chance
It costs most people about 10 dollars to see their doctor.
That’s insane! I’ve used sick time to extend a weekend a few times before, or get a bunch of stuff done during the day so I’d be gone
In Italy too, but instead of the employer's doctor we have random controls from the government's doctor, who checks if you are home and sick. If an employer is suspicious, he can ask the state to check on you.
wow. that sounds great. I have 2 personal days, 5 sick days and 10 vacation days a year. I already took 2 personal days, one being my nephew was born and the other for my gf's graduation. I had to work from home and since the company does not have a policy on that, I eithehr had to take a vacation day or write out a whole summary about what work i did at home...
That's horrendous! I get 25 holiday days, 10 sick days and 8 bank holidays a year in the UK
You get allocated sick days? Never heard of that in the UK before.
We shouldn't use them unless we need them though!
Whereas I'm guessing they encourage using all the holiday days?
Yep!
I've had managers telling me I need to use more of my holiday days before, so it's definitely encouraged to use them all.
I've had managers tell me not to bother putting them through the system if it's a half-day or one-off.
The idea of a system that's strictly 9-5 minimum, few holidays, and constantly monitored sounds absolutely awful to me. People who do that in exchange for loadsamoney are mentalists.
Well its america. So you do that in exchange for 1/2 your total living expenses, and the promise that you have your job for another week
A couple of companies I worked for at the UK forced you to take your annual leave.
Like, "it's coming to the end of the holiday year, you should've used it by you now so now you are off work".
Some roll it over for an extra month to give you a chance to take it but generally they want you to take the minimum 4 weeks leave.
I get so many sick days with full pay and they it does down to half and then non.
I think most companies will have this policy but it’s usually hard to use them all up.
I broke my ankle a few years ago and was off from 12 Feb - 28 April and only went down to half pay mid way thought April.
Yeah it’s not uncommon. My mum gets like 3 days a year before they say you can’t get your pay rise this year
i mean we do get 10 paid holidays too but still, WHAT ABOUT OUR NEEDS!?
10 vacation days a year? Jeez, that's harsh.
I work in the public sector in the UK. Not high up, but a pretty well-paid technical position about halfway up the pay scale.
I get 32 days paid holiday, and sick days are worked out based on how badly they affect the business.
And the Flexi days are great too
That’s awesome. Yea some companies here are adapting to unlimited vacation days but obviously doesn’t mean take 70 days a year off lol
TEN vacation days? what the actual fuck? is that common? wow, what the fuck?
Yessir for starting years sadly :( it’s not enough!
i find it shocking that your vacation days increase with time. it seems like indentured servitude. "work for me for 10 years with pitiful vacation, and i just might grant you a couple extra days".
I have never had a job that got paid vacation in the first year of work.
oh yeah, that i'm familiar with. it varies from 6 to 12 first months here, but yeah, you're not entitled to a paid vacation in that period. you can ask, though, and chances are the employer will accommodate your needs anyway.
I believe the last place I worked that had paid vacation I got 5 days after my 12 month anniversary. No paid personal/sick days ever.
If you worked enough overtime you did eventually accrue more vacation time based in proportion to the number of extra hours worked. (40 overtime hours got you 1/52 of your annual vacation allotment - or something like that...)
wow... the line "the last place I worked that had paid vacation" suggests that you've worked jobs that didn't offer paid vacation at all, and to that i have nothing to say except goddamn.
and having to work overtime just to get vacation is sick. overtime should be a well-compensated favor to the company, not something that is, in effect, necessary to take even just one relatively decent vacation a year.
I dropped out of college due to health issues, so I have never been able to qualify for any career-type jobs. And have had a handful of jobs over the years with no kind of paid time off (or honestly benefits of any kind, just $5-10/hour for 30-60 hours a week depending on the job. The $5/hour stuff was before the minimum wage got raised, think it was $5.25 iirc. Never made more than $10/hour at a job with the exception of a job that was straight commission with no base pay... But the leads were inconsistent so I couldn't reliably get paid that. Never had benefits at any job that were really meaningful tbh... That miniscule amount of paid time off was by far the best.
To be honest, I agree with everything you said, but the idea of having a job like that is so foreign to my experience that I have given up on it and have been grinding through entrepreneurship (hoping one day I can be the guy giving employees time to spend with their families... Or honestly to just enjoy life doing whatever).
man, i'm sorry. capitalism fucks us all and it's abhorrent that you, a person fully deserving of basic workplace privileges, have to deal with this bullshit. if it's any consolation, degree holders in career jobs get fucked left and right too.
i wish you all the luck in the world with your entrepreneurial aspirations and commend you for being committed to being a decent employer. honestly, in the perfect world only people who a) have basic empathy and b) have gone through the exploitative minimum wage mill themselves would be allowed to create jobs. otherwise the cycle continues.
Can i ask, what is a personal day? And how does it differ from a vacation day?
Enjoy it whilst you can. I'm in the UK and my company has just removed paid sick leave. Take a day off sick and it is deducted from my pay.
You're still entitled to Statutory Sick Pay (but of course it doesn't kick in for a few days)
Sure, but only from day four (IIRC) and at a fraction of my salary. I've never been sick for more than two days in my life.
Seven consecutive days or more in the UK
What kind of company and what kind of job is this if you don't mind me asking? I feel like in my industry things are getting more liberal if anything. I wouldn't expect no sick leave to be the norm.
Accountancy in the charity sector.
Have you told the Daily Mail?
This statement makes me sad to be an American. We are absolutely treated like an easily replaced commodity.
Actually one of my fears for Brexit is that they remove the four weeks leave and sick pay benefits and claim that America doesn't have it and look how prosperous they are.
I cannot fathom for one minute working under the US way, it seems soul destroying and counter productive.
My friend moved back to the US from China, where she had two weeks leave PLUS the government holidays which is actually another two weeks on top of that, and sick pay.
Hopefully if the UK Government try any of that bollocks they'll be a revolt in the streets.
I work in a hospital. Sick days, holidays, and getting canceled for the shift (hourly pay) all come from the same PTO bank.
And by mention I mean “you’ve had 4 sick days in the last 6 months, is there anything we can do to help?”
4 in 6 months causes that? Seriously? In Germany you get offered a "Is there anything we can do to help" meeting if you have 42 days in one year.
I've never seen that where I work in the UK, unless it's for example the same day every month you call in sick, and then "Is there anything we can do to help" actually means "We know you're up to something and faking calling in sick, this meeting is a warning to you to stop doing it"
It really depends on the company and the industry, though. I’ve never seen an attitude like this in any company I’ve worked with, in the U.S. I understand I may be in the minority, but I’ve been fortunate never to have felt that I can’t get sick more than X number of times a year for fear of being reprimanded or even passive-aggressively called out. And I’ve worked under aggressive timelines.
Was a dishwasher in the US. Tried to call in 1 sick day cause I was vomitting. Was told no. I personally touched every single clean dish in that restaurant/casino/bowling alley. Sorry. Couldn't afford to get fired.
here in the US it feels more like "you've had 4 sick days in the last 6 months, try that shit again and you're fired."
Very few Americans get that luxury though some companies are moving to an unlimited time off model. I'll just share my story as an example of how it works for most of us.
A few years ago I had to have an emergency surgery. Due to the physical nature of my job the doctor wanted me off work for the full recovery time. I ended up using all of my remaining vacation time (I had already used some for a proper vacation earlier in the year), all of my sick days, and all of my personal days. I still ended up having to take a couple of unpaid days before I got the release to return to work. Then the bills started pouring in and it took a little over 2 years to get them paid off.
To be honest, I actually was a little lucky during that ordeal. I had started having symptoms while I was at work that got progressively worse throughout the day. Normally I would've gone home to try sleeping it off and hopefully feel better in the morning. Thankfully my friend, an ER nurse, was at the house visiting with my girlfriend. When I described the symptoms to her, she dropped everything and hauled me straight to the ER. I was admitted into surgery that night. Had she not been there I would've likely gotten an ambulance ride (which would've added significantly to the bills) and a much more complicated and expensive procedure.
And that wasn't the only time she managed to save me from unnecessarily large medical bills but that's a story for another time.
Had a pretty stressful period last year and ended up with frequent migraines, plus 2 days that I just couldn't deal with going in and pulled a sickie. After the last absence (genuine migraine) my boss called me in and said "You've been off 6 times in 10 weeks, and when you're here you don't look yourself. Work out the week to put a handover together, I've booked you in to see occupational health in case they can help or refer you somewhere, then I want you to take a week off, rest and relax. If you need the week after too then just let me know by next Thursday. If you do you'll have to take it as annual leave though"
This killed me a little bit.
Oh shit now I have 10k in medical bills.
As an American, I cannot relate to that whatsoever.
Damn, I live in Colorado and have been working at machine shop for the past 3 months. Literally think if I called in sick I'd be fired or be reprimanded
Imagine having 10 days, sick and vacation combined, off a year :)
I get 5....combined
That’s just cruel. What’s the industry standard though?
I’m not really sure. First job in this line of work. I’m at a small family owned HVAC company so I know that plays a part in it. They’re very forgiving with time missed so I can’t complain other than not getting paid. After 5 years it bumps up to two weeks but hopefully I’ll be long gone by then.
Meanwhile, in the USA :
"You were out sick 3 days last quarter. Maybe you don't understand what being a team player is about, so we're going to let you go."
What employers could do to help is immediately send home anyone that is sick. At my work (US) so many people showed up with obvious signs of the flu and just spread it around the whole office. Probably 50% of us caught it, including myself.
Time off in the US is almost a joke. It is this false benefit, given to make it seem as if your compensation is actually better than it is. People are given this time off but the expectation of the corporations/businesses is that you not actually take it. Taking sick time has this notion of weakness placed on it. It is just screwed up.
My co-worker was feeling a bit down so the manager gave her 4 "mental " days off. She didn't lose her holiday or need to take sick days. Love the UK
I am in Canada and this is the biggest beef I’ve had with my company. I never get sick, I hadn’t taken a sick day in two years that’s how often I get sick. I took 5 sick days in a row last February because I got a strain of the H1N1 flu. I had a doctors note and everything. A month later I moved to a different department. So I wasn’t even working the same job when my boss’s boss pulls me into an “investigative” meeting in September. She fucking opened with “we are concerned about the number of sick days you’ve taken, you are above the team average. Do you think you are calling in sick when you could maybe pull through and work through it?”. I was speechless.
I just found out that in the new post I'm starting in next month I'll have 10 sick days for the year, but if I use more than 5 I have to justify it to HR. So, I'm pretty sure I just get 5.
I wish they would do that. Maybe then they'd finally realized they need to remove the strongly scented products in an unventilated bathroom so I can stop having allergic reactions at work.
Yeah, no. The conversation is more like "you've had 4 sick days in the last six months, you're being monitored and you're no longer eligible for a decent yearly raise, you'll get a penny.. "
That doesn't seem like that many though..
My old bosses would've fired me haha
in the US if you work somewhere that has a certain amount of sick days those are usually going to be no questions asked you can take them when you want sort of things, if you get diagnosed with some disease and need a month off for treatment, that is a different stories and most decent companies will give it to you. also, the sick days are usually paid.
This makes me want to move to the UK.....
Holy cow my friend got sick 3 times in 2 months and dealt with "Are you going to get better or are we going to have to fire you?"
In America is “we’re going to let you go”
That sounds extremely reasonable.
I get two occurrences per year, then I'm fired. Calling in sick is an occurrence. Being late to work also counts as an occurrence.
Oh yeah. I've had my boss look at me when I came to work and he sent me the fuck home with the instructions to rest and not return for at least three days. Even if I was the guy that was supposed to close store for the night.
Can't imagine how terrifying it must feel to be American with how they treat employees.
Translation: You've been sick a little too often. Stop inconvenience us or we will fire you.
In Ontario, Canada we get 10 sick days a year that we can't be punished for taking and the first two are paid.
That sounds absolutely amazing. At my last job, we got 5 days off... per year. As in, 5 days to split between vacations, getting sick, other obligations, etc. Having separate vacation days and sick days? Sounds Utopian. If I took four sick days in 6 months, I'd be liable to get fired, regardless of if I had them to spend or not. In America, you are a producer, not a human being, and if you quit producing satisfactorily, that's the ax, my friend. Exceptions to the rule are just that.
mine's "3 periods of sickness in a rolling 12 month period"
I live in a Right to Work State in the US, and basically you can be terminated at any time for any reason. When my daughter was born via c-section, I seriously got one day off, and was back to work the next day if I wanted to keep my job, because that did't qualify for FLMA (protected UNPAID job leave under certain circumstances).
That is fucking unbelievable.
I have a friend whose manager pointed out that she hadn't been off sick in her time at the company (several years) so suggested she take a week off for R&R. I think part of their budget was for the cost of covering illness and were concerned about using it before losing it.
American here. I earn PTO (paid time off). I earn 0.027 hours of PTO per hour worked, but only on regularly scheduled hours. If I work an extra shift or get held over, I don't get PTO. If I call in sick or have a dr appt, or court, etc, I'm required to use my PTO. I'm not allowed to take off work unless I have PTO saved up, if I'm sick my PTO goes negative. I can only roll over 40 hours to the following year. I can cash out (take the 40 hours as cash without taking time off) a max of 40 hours of PTO twice per calendar year.
I get 15 paid days off a year, not including holidays like Christmas or New Years. If I take 2 weeks off I'm left with 5 "sick" days for the year. These are tracked by the hour, need to go to get the kids comes out of my paid time off, if your sick out of my paid time off, if I'm not in the office it comes out of that.
Odd. What are they proposing they would do to improve your overall health?
It’s mainly to see if it relates to anything medical due to my work environment.
So if I was off with chronic back pain due to sitting at a desk, they’d offer me a standing desk or get me a better office chair
This is mind-blowing to me. I think it's great, but don't people abuse it?
So here’s how it works.
Have a few sick days within a certain period: have a meeting, they ask if there’s anything they can do to help
Keep calling in sick after this: ok, so last time you said it’s not our fault, so you have to improve because it’s becoming an issue
If it persists: we gave you an opportunity to voice any concerns, we warned you that you needed to improve, grounds for dismissal
they ask if there’s anything they can do to help
What do you mean by this?
So say my response is “I’ve been off with chronic back pain”
They then will look at options to mitigate this, be it a different chair with better support or a standing desk.
It also means that if the absences continue, they can say “we gave you an opportunity to voice any concerns and you didn’t”
Also UK my company had a 2 in 6 month policy. Get disciplinary if off sick twice in 6 month without "good" reason aka someone better have died or they don't think its justified.
Results in everyone coming in sick and passing on to each other
Ha, meanwhile in the US I was FIRED for taking too many sick days.
They didnt even call me to say i was.
...Looking back I really shouldve sued but I didnt/dont have lawyer money
Thats manager speak for "the fucks up with that shit?"
Worked for some huge companies in the UK and the only time it came up was when I first got Colitis and was off for a month straight and they thought I was trying to find another job. Came back to a offer of a pay rise that I felt too guilty to take as i knew I was going to be off a lot more.
In Austria you even get paid when you call in sick afaik.
Still a student, but we recently talked about this in class.
By the way, in case you're not aware and you're working in an office, often your sick days are counted separate, and after a certain number of days, you won't get sick pay. Obviously this depends on your contract.
I’m an American and at the 4 companies I’ve worked for only 1 had a “sick day” policy. All others you call up or send an email “won’t be in I’m sick” and the manager is just like “ok hope you feel better”.
The one company that had a policy it was loosely enforced and we all used those as extra vacation days. However if you abused the system the manager would talk to you ... but by abuse I mean “hey you have called in sick every Friday for the past two months you need to stop or you need to start putting the time in as a sick day”
That's amazing. I have a knee injury right now that's preventing me from working and basically if I don't have the exact right wording on my drs notes plus every day I'm gone accounted for on the notes I'll lose my job. And I'm using up all my sick days and vacation days right now by being off.
Man this depresses me, I've been incredibly ill and still went in because I couldn't take any more sick days. Once I was so sick that I just went ahead and called in...I was written up.
You wouldn't be fired at my job but it would be heavily looked down on. After about 5 call outs in 6 months it's probably a written warning.
Here in the US we hear "you've had 4 sick days in the last 6 months. This seems to be a habit. If you have 8 in a 12 month period you will be let go."
In Malaysia there are separate amounts for vacation and sick days.
In America It's "you've had 4 sick days in the last 25 years. We can't have you missing work like this, so we're gonna have to let you go."
Or in my case, "you've had 10 sick days in the last term...why the FUCK are you so ill all the time?? Are you a piece of trash? If you are off ever again you'll have to be written up on a disciplinary by the head teacher and publicly shamed."
Turned out I had undiagnosed PTSD and M.E/fibromyalgia and that's pretty hard to manage when I was getting no support from the leadership team!!
And by mention I mean “you’ve had 4 sick days in the last 6 months, is there anything we can do to help?”
What the fuck? I probably have 4 sick days every month.
Lucky. I've worked at multiple places (in the US) that have policies like 'miss 3 days in any 6 month period without prior doctors notification and be terminated'. That's not no call no show days, just 3 days out of half a year for any reason without having gone to a doctor first. So if I was sick I'd have to go through at least 1 day of working being sick and spreading it to everyone around me before I could go to the doctor for an excuse. I was told once that I needed to plan ahead when having a migraine because I was being terminated over missing days for them, kind of hard to work when you're puking every time you make the slightest movement and any sound makes you want to (or actually cause you to) pass out from pain. I was told "the next job you have you should plan your migraines accordingly, this will look very poor on your record." Most places in the US couldn't give a flying fuck about their employees. That's why when a US company starts giving their workers basic things that most of the rest of the world has (I'm looking at you maternity leave!), everyone loses their shit and the rest of the world is like "really America, why don't you already have this?"
I wish. We get 120 hours a year, split into 4.6 hour allotments per paycheck. Saving time sucks. Any time off whether for illness or leisure comes out of that. It has to be planned if it’s unplanned we get in trouble after 40 unplanned hours. My company just bumped parental leave to 6 weeks paid instead of 2. America... amirite?!
Jesus. The last several jobs I had if I took 2 sick days in a year I would be getting a disciplinary action in front of HR and could be fired.
I developed a quite serious illness around december last year.
I have a few medical conditions (Crohns, diabetes) that have meant i've had time off during the year too.
On 4 December I felt very ill, went to the doctor from work in the morning and fainted. That was my last day in work until earlier this month. I had almost 6 months off 'long term sick' and was reaching the point where my pay would be halved. This coincided with treatment and such that meant I could return.
I am currently in an 8 week 'return to work' program, building back up to full time hours. During the time off I had weekly calls from management to check how I was doing and contact with Occupational Health to see what they could do to help me (Largely useless though).
Also during this time I continued to accrue leave, so I currently have 40 days to use by next April.
I couldn't imagine having to stress about potentially losing my job, not having an income, potentially losing my home etc at the same time as being unwell. I'm very lucky to be in the situation I am.
I am a civil servant which I know adds some extra benefits over 'normal' employment but I really don't know where i'd be without these policies.
Nobody is going to mention 4 sick days in 6 months at any company I've worked at.
The standard thing is the Bradford factor but you need at least 7 days off (in a year) before it even starts to kick in, and only if those are 7 distinct sicknesses.
I've never heard of it actually being used because normally if you are that ill either you're obviously a skiver and they will probably just fire you or PIP you out, or something is seriously wrong with you that should be obvious.
“you’ve had 4 sick days in the last 6 months, is there anything we can do to help?”
actually sir, you make me sick. Could you pleas resign?
From the UK also and I can tell you that this response from a manager is only the "norm" in certain jobs.
Yeah, send home the chaps who obviously have the flu so I don't catch it.
I was in the hospital for a week a few years ago and my supervisor called me EVERY DAY to see if I was coming in to work that day. Even though she knew I was admitted.
Must be nice. Everyone here is too afriad to get fired/looked down upon by their manager so they show up sick and get everyone else sick.
It's a big issue all over, but it was especially bad when I worked food service.
We ran a skeleton crew anyway so if even 1 person called in on a given shift it would run a bit rougher. I once called in, during flu season, because I had a fever and was vomiting. The manager on duty informed me that 2 other people had called in sick and pressed me "are you suuuuure you can't come in?" "you can't be thaaaat sick..." etc.
Now I work in an office and the extent of it is "I won't be in today, using a sick day.".
Oh boy, I can attest to that. I was a waiter. Went in one day for a shift, and had a headache. Over the course of about an hour it got so blindingly bad that I went to my manager and asked to leave. He argued with me and finally after about 5 minutes (that felt like 5 hrs) he let me leave with a 'I don't believe you, but whatever, so You better be dying' kind of response (I dont remember exact words). Yeah, turns out I had Viral Meningitis. Probably gave it to a few customers, which I still feel shitty about. Hospitalised and out for 3 or 4 weeks. Manager felt pretty stupid after that.
It's a big culture shock. I still feel the need to sound sick when I call out.
I once had a manager that was upset that I called out of work for extended days because of Mono.
I worked in a nursing home...
In the kitchen and then serving food. Yeah.
That's how it used to be for me working in a garage. It was a PITA to tell them I'm sick or whatever. My job now I just shoot a text to my manager and a coworker so that someone knows. I might get the occasional midol joke or something, nbd. The job atmosphere is really manly so there's plenty of jokes to go around.
Call the health department and tell them your boss is making people come to work sick.
We have to come in, sick or not, else we're fired. We work in an office next to each other. Everyone will get sick.
We have to come in, sick or not, else we're fired.
Yep. What's worse is I work in nursing, the one area where you really can't fake being sick and where you put already compromised folks in actual danger by coming in sick.
And it's immediate at my job. I called 8 hours in advance for the first time in over 3 years after covering tons of shifts in that time. This was during a flu season that had already caused deaths in our facility. Didn't matter: find a replacement, come in or be terminated immediately.
Didn't matter: find a replacement, come in
This is the other crazy thing with America. There are jobs over here that make it your responsibility to find cover, funny enough my first job at a McDonalds did this (US company I know but was surprised they were allowed to here), but even then, if you were genuinely sick, didnt get cover and showed up, the manager would look at you and confirm you can't work and send you home. A bitch to have to travel in just to prove it, but you don't have to work
or be terminated immediately.
This however is completely insane. If you're not on a zero hour contract, the only way you can be terminated immediately is gross misconduct/negligence. Anything else and you either have verbal, written then final warning first, or suspension, or "gardening leave", but they have to give you notice (usually 4 weeks). If you've not done something majorly wrong but they want you gone without going through the full performance management process, they give you a months notice and send you on a month's "gardening leave" - basically don't come back, we'll pay you for the next month, you're technically employed until then
By contrast, where I work lets you be honest if you are hungover, not come in, and won't fire you.
I lost a lot of trust working in an office setting. THE FEVER MEANS IT'S NOT JUST ALLERGIES CHERYL
Not at my office. We can't afford for an entire team to go down. If you come in sick, coworkers will tell you to GTFH.
This is what I don't get. Surely it's better to be 1 down in your team for 2-3 days than to have the whole team there but operating at 60%
This is dependent on the company. Mine tells us to work from home when sick. Of course, I work a job in which I can work from home. Maybe not so simple for jobs where you need to be there to do your job.
Unfortunately that culture is alive and well in the UK.
I'm in the US, but I work for an amazing employer. We have unlimited PTO. If you come in even with the sniffles, they'll send your ass home. Ain't nobody got time for the whole office to be sick!!
I showed up multiple times with pneumonia because i couldn't afford to take time off
This is what I don't understand about it. You can have someone missing for a day or two, or you can have a whole bunch of people present, but operating at 60%. Just take the initial hit.
i know it's not always their fault, but it still pisses me off when i see some person next to or near me non-stop coughing for minutes on the train. I feel bad for being annoyed by it but why the fuck do i have to get sick because that person couldn't stay home or decided they're not sick enough to stay in? Again, logically i know it's not their fault.
And that's how Chipotle ended up giving everyone the shits.
There's also the fact that their manager can just tell them to come in anyways. It's a big issue in retail and restaurants, especially. Think about that for a second - Grocery store workers and restaurant servers, being told to come in to work while sick. That's asking to spread disease. But the managers don't want to fill in shifts at the last minute, so they tell their workers "either find a replacement yourself, or come in to work." Naturally, when the worker can't find a last-minute replacement, they get stuck working a 6 hour shift handling and serving food with the flu.
I work at a huge factory with around 10000 ppl and about half are sick during the fall/winter months. I just assume I'm going to get sick and will only call in if I'm throwing up because that's just the environment it is.
I went into work sick with bronchitis & my boss asked me in a super bitchy attitude “did you go to the doctor?” I said no “well you probably should” with a bitchy head boggle.
I know damn well if I would have called in they would have BEGGED me to come in.
I work assisting mentally/physically disabled adults and this topic is even more ridiculous in this field because they never have anyone to cover you and somebody HAS TO cover the clients because they depend on somebody to take care of them. So if anyone calls in sick it’s like the fucking world ended.
But think about all the extra value you're creating for the shareholders.
My first boss called the entire staff in together when a local hospital had an MRSA outbreak, and informed us that coming in if we felt sick would be a disciplinary offence.
it should be in the company's own interest to make sure sick people don't come in. What's better? the certainity of having to pay 1/2/3 sick days to 1 employee or the possibility of having 20 people less at work because they all got sick?
Speak for yourself... I'm American and get as many sick days as I need, five weeks vacation, and my employer pays 100% of my health insurance premiums
Sick dude, you're obviously in the minority lol
I get 30 days vacation every year, unlimited sick days and no out of pocket healthcare costs as an American too. It's not that hard to find a job like that.
Clearly I am. But so are those who lack decent amounts of paid leave or health insurance.
I think I'm being dumb here, but can you break this down for me?
You agree that you, with a decent number of vacation days and good health insurance are in the minority. But think that so are those who don't have decent amounts of vacation days or health insurance?
So both groups - those that DO have these things AND those that DON'T have them - are minorities of those employed. What do the majority have?
Sorry, I'm super jetlagged and my brain is at about 50% speed so this seems confusing to me..
You agree that you, with a decent number of vacation days and good health insurance are in the minority. But think that so are those who don't have decent amounts of vacation days or health insurance?
My employee benefits are extremely generous, even by European standards.
I get free health insurance, extensive Paid leave, retirement benefits, and a $500,000 life insurance policy...
In THAT regard, my benefits are in the minority. I recognize im probably in the 1% as far as my benefits package is concerned.
Ah! Got you.. both are outliers.
I really need some sleep!
Are you in the army?
I think the difference is he's saying the majority have a decent level of both, he however has even more than that. So those with an poor amount make up the bottom 20% (for example), people like himself make up the top 10% (or however much) while the 70% inbetween get a decent amount - something that doesn't make them struggle to get by, but does force them to move their health further down their priority list
Clearly not
How do you figure
Nicknames checks out LOL
??
I made a joke because of your username, Laiize, I read lazy instead hahaha that ckecks out with your comment about having a lot of sick days (lazy days) hahaha
I’ve never called in sick to work and I’ve shown up in a full head cold and I felt like I was going to throw up my whole shift.
It took me all of 3 months to burn through my 3 annual sick days at work... as if I can easily control when and how severely I get sick (plus I have an autoimmune disorder).
I also get some vacation days but work at a law firm that requires 1,950 billable hours yearly (roughly 8 hours per weekday) so, even if I take vacation or sick days, I still have to make up each missed hour.
All it leads to is sick, despondent, overworked employees.
I feel your pain, I have a 2,100 annual billables requirement.
I’m so sorry.
I’ve only been given 3 cases in 7 months and 2 have settled... on top of that, the partners don’t want us to bill more than 60 hours per case per month so I literally have no idea how I’m supposed to produce 160 hours when I’m limited to one case. I’ve asked for more work but new cases haven’t been coming in.
The pay is good but I’m desperately trying to find something else.
Don't be, I'm in near the same situation. I decided not to care about the billing requirement and look for another job. The problem we have is our bills getting cut down by auditors for insurance companies. It makes it almost impossible to meet requirements when you are fighting appeals for billing and losing time.
You get 3 annual sick days???
I think I get 30 a year. I believe I've used about 10-12 in 5 years of working here. (this is Australia)
Most companies have a count of sick days and a count of vacation days. Using a sick day normally does not subtract from your vacation time.
There are companies that do just have a pool of days all lumped together called “paid time off” that you draw from for whatever reason.
On a side note, most companies will allow you, and in some cases are required to allow you, to use more sick days than you get paid for. So if you have 5 sick days a year and use them but then get sick. You can keep missing work, but you will not receive pay for the days over 5.
Ha here a sick day doesn't even mean you're fully off. When I worked at Amazon I was still expected to answer calls and email while sick or taking time off. I know multiple people who have gotten chewed out for not answering calls while camping, in the hospital for a scheduled sugary, or dealing with a death in the family.
I've heard so many horror stories about working at Amazon I'm not even that surprised. And that's fucked.
Lol my work gave me a cell phone that I don’t even bring home from the office. If they want me to answer calls when I’m at home they can pay me to be on call. Nothing is free, especially not my time.
At Amazon all engineers are told you will be on call during the interview. It's explained that this is periodic(once a month, every six months, depends on the team). What they don't explain is that if you are a subject matter expert you must be available. You're considered a subject matter expert when you're the primary person working on something. Most teams don't have enough resources to have multiple subject matter experts so you're essentially always on call.
to be fair, Amazon has a terrible reputation in the UK too
Where I worked, we had sick days and we had vacation days. Taking off for being sick required a doctors note, and didnt detract from vacation days.
That's weird. Most sicknesses resolve themselves and you don't need to see a doctor. What a shitty rule
You don't visit the doc for treatment in that case, you just go there to get him to agree you're too ill to work. Because otherwise you could just call in, say, I'm ill and won't come in the next three months and your employer can't do shit about it.
Mandatory vacation days????
Yes 20 vacation days are mandatory for full time here. Full time being 40hrs a week.
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vakantiedagen-en-vakantiegeld/vraag-en-antwoord/op-hoeveel-vakantiedagen-en-vakantiegeld-heb-ik-recht
Werknemers krijgen een wettelijk aantal vakantiedagen per jaar. In uren is dit 4 keer het aantal uren dat u per week werkt. Zo kunt u in ieder geval 4 weken vakantie per jaar opnemen. U kunt uw vakantiedagen ook in losse uren opnemen.
law mandates that employees have a number of vacation days every year. The calculation is 4 times the amount of hours you work per week. This means about 4 weeks vacation per year.
I work 40 hours per week which means 160 hours mandated vacation. 160/8=20 days.
But on top of that I get 5 more days because of my employer. Usually when you get higher ranked one of the perks is more vacation days.
I, and I think a lot of people in the Netherlands don't begrudge others for taking days off. It's part of it. Just make sure you plan it right. If everyone wants a couple of weeks off in August thats not going to fly - business needs to be done. It's about sensibility. Happy and rested people do better work in the long haul.
But they can't deny the mandated vacation days.
I work in a property in the Las Vegas strip in the US. I've been here almost 6 years. I typically work 40 hours a week but it's not guranteed but basically 9 out of every 10 weeks I work 40 hours but I don't have any vacation time EARNED because I can't earn any! Why? Because I'm still considered "on call" why am I still On Call? Because they don't want to classify us as full timers... That's pretty much it. All of the "on call" guys I work with have at least a year with the company. Only one guy on my shift has more than me and he's about 3 months more than me.
At my workplace we must take 1 mandatory week off, If you dont book your vaycay the manager will come sit down and kindly ask you when you want your week off. Manager will get in trouble if they see that an employee didnt take the week off this year, some law sorry, i dont know. No ammount of sick days will remove a vacation day. Also we have Mat or pat leave
[deleted]
But you just get free days if you call in sick, with no monitering?
a doctor attests that you are unfit to work. you'll get 3 papers for that: one for you, one for your employer, and one for your healthcare provider. if you take your regular vacation (i've got 30 days here in germany) and you'll get sick during your vacation, that vacation is replaced with sick leave and you can take that vacation days again. nice
I guess that makes some sense for days that aren't monitored but sometimes here in the U.S. when you're sick more than one day you have to prove you need to be out of work. Generally doctors don't want to be bothered having to do extra work to prove it when the only cure is bed rest, fluids, and cough medicine.
But you just get free days if you call in sick, with no monitering?
In the UK, yes, but if you take too many or if they start to take a pattern (say every monday) then they will start to take notice. You usually need a doctors note if you are off 5 days in a row or something.
Most places have two different types of leave, sick leave and vacation leave. If you are sick it takes from that pool, not your vacation pool.
My work has that, we accumulate sick pay at the same rate as vacation pay. All told its' 3 weeks vacation and 3 weeks sick time a year.
lol mandatory vacation days.
Everywhere i have worked if you called in sick you just dont get paid for that day, because you weren't there. But you have the option of using a vacation day so you dont miss that day of pay.
At my job (American in the US) we have vacation AND sick days. We only cut into vacation days when we’re out of sick days, which usually only happens to the single parents because of the many child responsibilities.
But why even make the distinction then? Can you use sick days as vacation days?
“No” is the only way to really describe it. Like you can’t take all your sick days at once without a doctor’s note.
I only get 4 sick days per year and have to accrue for 40 hrs to take. Also, if I call in sick in my first 90 days, it could be used to dismiss me. Lame. I'm a damn nurse, we work hard and need to take days!
It's not right you're being treated like that.
California rules. So much great stuff living here but the lack of time off is rediculous
[deleted]
Username checks out! Ha! We nurses call that a priapism
Where I live we just don't get paid. We also don't get vacation days most of the time. They just started mandating sick pay. I think it starts July 1? Or July 1 last year. I can't remember, its not like they give it to you. They mark it as a personal day so they still dont have to pay anything. You need a doctor's note so if you can't get a same day appt you miss a days pay.
What the fuck :/
I’ve worked at the same company for going on 10 years. I get 28 days off each year, and it’s been that way the whole time. Although, 8 days are basically national holidays (a week from Christmas to New Year, Labor Day, Memorial Day, etc) so really I only get 20 days to pick. A couple years ago they changed it to 20 days, though we still get those 8 holiday days (basically those are “BUSINESS CLOSED” days). Same amount but they’re categorizing them differently for some reason.
If you call in sick that’s one of your PTO days. If a family member dies and you have to take time off, that comes out of your PTO. If you break a bone, PTO. Once I asked to leave early because a coming snowstorm had me worried about my drive home. I was allowed to leave but they booked me 1/2 day PTO. Next day I was told the managers let everyone go like an hour after I left, and I had to ask multiple times for them to give me back that 1/2 day.
Sometimes I’ve left an hour or two early after asking my manager, and was told it wouldn’t be PTO, but later I found out another person booked me 1/2 day. Every time something like that happens I tell them that I’m usually in early, I eat at my desk (so maybe 10 minute lunch when we have an hour), etc. They basically say that’s not their problem (in so many words) and I should manage my time differently. Like MF-er, if I didn’t do that I’d get too backed up most days. I do my job and little side-jobs helping everyone in the office.
I was able to work from home for a week a few years ago but they put me on the calendar as PTO. I didn’t actually get charged the PTO; they just didn’t want other employees to find out. Even though everyone knew I was working because of emails I send for work.
My wife works at a place where they do it differently but still about the same amount of days. At first she and her friend said something like they only get 10 PTO days and for a second I thought I had it good in comparison. But they also get whatever it is, 10 sick days and 10 vacation days. Effectively I think it’s the same but they categorize it differently.
Yeah well here in the states we are a few sick days away from employment >> loss of employment >> destitution >> homelessness
WELCOME TO AMERICA
If I call in sick then there's a very real possibility I would be fired. God bless America!
Mandatory vacation days? What are those? Sick days dont get deducted from vacation days. You don't get vacation. The only time you get off is sicktime andmaternity leave.
At my workplace we must take 1 mandatory week off, If you dont book your vaycay the manager will come sit down and kindly ask you when you want your week off. Manager will get in trouble if they see that an employee didnt take the week off this year, some law sorry, i dont know. No ammount of sick days will remove a vacation day. Also we have Mat or pat leave
we Dont have mandatory holidays here, but most businesses just say you have 6 paid holidays on these dates, and then X number of days of paid time off, whether its for vacation, or sick, or whatever.
NY is getting sick days, thank fuck. I hope you get them soon where ever you are. You get a number of sick hours each year. You call in sick, you use them up, and those don't get deducted from your vacation days either.
[deleted]
Sure. I didn't realize it's NYC only, and not NY state. Sorry!
In New York City, you get one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. Some employers have their own sick leave policies, but this law is the bare minimum.
If you are in NYC and you haven't been told about this, you should ask your employer if you feel safe doing so, and if not, call 311.
What I like about it is it applies if you're part or full time. I'm not sure what the rules around holidays are, but are you full or part time?
IIRC full time work gives you a paid week of holiday time each year.
I work part time and get...4 days maybe? Can't remember.
I have separate sick time that I use and it is only for being sick or having a doctor's appointment or whatever. The US is still the wild West though so you can go from what I have to not getting paid if you don't come in. Big variance.
Washington State passed a law last year that requires employers to give employees a certain amount of hours of sick leave per working period. But a lot of companies get by this by lumping all time off as "vacation." My employer was required to do sick leave now and were gracious enough to have it accrue on its own and still get all of our vacation separately.
Many parts of the world are more progressive and already have simple problems figured out.
I am to the point where I believe many Americans are bent on having things be backwards
American here. What’s mandatory vacation?
How many vacation days do other places get? Im getting 3 weeks every year.
1 week is suppose to be sick but i generally just it for vacation. They also do it by hour and not days. So i get x amount of hours which 8 = 1 day.
Edit: my buddy has a whole different system and he usually get 4 weeks per year and its done by the day but he gets it per hours worked
Where are you from though? Employers can Add days here - not retract from the mandatory days.
We Americans have an unhealthy obsession with work ethic.
In the Netherlands, if you get sick during your holiday, those days won’t count as holiday days
True. I only learned that recently because my new employer has a decent CAO written up haha
It depends on your company. I'm American and I don't have a set number of sick days, I'm just told that if I'm sick to call in sick, and if I'm not getting better quickly I need to go to the doctor. But if I were to abuse them I could be in a LOT of trouble, potentially fired. It's worked out well for me thus far, I'm young and fairly healthy, so I don't need to call in sick often.
In Germany, when you get sick during your vacation days and hand in a doctor's notice, you even get those vacation days back.
Here in America, we have to choose which days we'll get sick.
At my specific workplace, the sick call-ins work as followed (This is for a one-year time period). Excuse 1,2, and 3 are free. Excuse 4 is a oral warning. Excuse 5 is a written warning that goes into your file for the entirety of your work-career there. Excuse 6 is probation. You are not allowed to call in while on probation. Excuse 7 (after probation ends, which I think is something like 60 days or something ridiculous). Excuse 8 is suspension. Excuse 9 is termination.
They can also skip numbers. You also have to call in four hours before your shift starts or you do not get paid and you get in more trouble for a "late call-in". If your shift starts and you call in afterwards, you don't get paid and you get in substantially more trouble. Like the first time you get probation and the 2nd time you get fired. These also don't all fall off on some magical date like January 1st. Each individual call-in lasts for 1 year. If I call in 1st in March, 2nd in June, 3rd in November, and then for a 4th time in February it counts as 4 because my very first call in has not expired yet and I get a warning.
Do you get paid when call in sick?
Yeah. I have a contract for x amount of hours so that's my base salary. If I work more than that I get extra(extra hours paid depends on the employer and contract though)
American here, at my job we don't just get that but we get points. With the point system if you get enough you will be fired. So if I call in sick on a day it's 2 points if it's a consecutive days that day is only one point for three points total. It's pretty shitty.
Yeah that's just sounds wrong. I'm getting uncomfortable thinking about it.
Do Americans get paid for sick days? We do in Ireland and I assume most of Europe?
I'm in the UK, we lose the first 3 days pay in my company. We didn't but then there was a whole raft of changes including extra holidays and a big payrise so people agreed to those and didn't consider what they were giving up. However I get 30 weeks sick at full pay and 7.6 weeks holiday (well the equivalent hours) so its not too shabby!
I technically have a limit to sick days, but at this point I could be out for solidly over a month on them.
I work for an American company in the UK so they give the bare minimum coverage which is basically just statutory sick pay. ( first 3 days unpaid, pittance thereafter) so if i get ill i have to weigh up the loss of pay.
I work in the UK and have to take sick days as holiday...
Doesn't sound right tbh. Have you asked /r/legaladviceuk sry not from the UK so it just sounds weird
No i haven't but i have looked online and yeah i think they can get away with it. Its either take holiday or work the hours back and in my role id be working two 7 day weeks to work it back 😂 good job ive not been sick in over two years.
We have 7 sicks days paid at full salary that we can take pretty much at anytime with some regulation about number of consecutive days sick you take. ( with a doc paper you can go sick the whole 7 days in a row btw :)
If i call in sick, I use a day of PTO (paid time off) to cover it. 'Murica
Hwre in Australia we get 10 or 11 personal leave days that accumulate, so if you don't call in sick, they add on to the next year. Super useful if you happen to break a leg, or have a long term illness.
That’s not what “redacted” means. Maybe you meant “subtracted.”
Oh yeah I think you're right. (sorry it's my second language and I've had a few beers)
My gf has a city job and it’s not taken from vacation days. She has separate sick days where she still gets paid iirc. After she uses them then they’re basically just days with no pay.
My sick days are separate from my vacation days. They accrue at a different rate. But in general, that's a rare policy in the U.S. I like it though. At my job, you can use sick time for health appointments for yourself or your family. I can just tell my boss, "I have an appointment." and that's that.
Do you get paid for your sick days?
Well, maybe that would be possible here if people didn't abuse the system so damn much. Here, if we had unrestricted sick days, I guarantee the vast majority of them would be for things like going to the movies, shopping trips, or getting drunk/stoned, rather than for actual illnesses. Even with the system we have, it's still about 50/50 in that regard.
There might be a few places left in the US that do that but for the most part if your company offers both paid sick leave and paid vacation days they do not exchange except in certain circumstances. Sick days and vacation days get brought up a lot here because they are typically abused by teens and young adults who work at large corporations. I've worked at the very bottom of the US totem pole as far as jobs are concerned, and there are some people who call in sick about every week and a half. It makes scheduling a nightmare, and its a pain in the ass to get rid of employees like this because they go file unemployment and typically win. Insurance goes up and you are now paying for an employee that doesn't work for you. Usually the easiest way to deal with this is to slowly cut back hours in hopes they quit.
As an American... Mandatory vacation days? I have them, but they're by no means mandatory.
We call time off "personal time". It's up to you whether to spend your personal time on being sick or vacation
We used to have sick days which were granted yearly (didn't carry over) and vacation time which was accrued at a rate depending on how long you were with a company; now paid time off (PTO) is becoming more common. Basically any time you need away from work comes from the same pool of paid hours that accrue at a flat rate. 6 months with my new job and I have 2 days of paid time off. So if i get the flu tomorrow and miss three days of work, i have no vacation time and i dont get paid for one day out of the week. It sucks and I wish we did it like europe does. But hey, 'murica.
I get a point when I call in sick. 4 points and I get a write-up. 7 and I'm fired. The points drop off a year after they're accumulated. The kicker: I work at a hospital where I'm surrounded by contagious people. It's a peds hospital and I've gotten strep and tonsillitis so far this year.
I understand what you are saying but what do you do about people who call in sick say every Monday for 6 months? Do they get away with it? If not how/why not?
No. That's an unusual situation - a company doctor will most likely have a conversation with you to figure out what's going on. if you're gaming the system you can still get fired.
So if you are calling in sick, someone is keeping track of how often. Basically the same in the US. This varies by company, some will assign you a specific number of days/hours you're allowed, others will just leave it up to your manager. Most people are reasonable, a few are not, some have legitimate health issues that they try to work through. One thing that is very rare in the US is a "company doctor", the best you can usually hope for is some kind of nurse station which is really there for on-site injuries.
I get paid for sick days, they limit the paid ones.
But I've also seen folks fired for calling in sick at places that don't pay sick days. Who knows.
I am hourly with no paid sick days so if I am sick I just don't get paid. Which is made even worse if you actually have to go to the hospital and get slammed with a bill on top of not getting paid. Edit:Also managers look at it and oftentimes counts it negatively against you. Even if it is an actual illness.
Sick leave is typically separate from vacation leave, so if you call in sick or have a medical appointment that will be redacted separately from your vacation.
Funny. My old job I could have “unlimited sick days” which meant I could call off, would still have to work it from home, then have it counted against me as an absence anyway. I was also allowed to work from home but that also counted against me and if I was really sick and couldn’t work at all I would be told “you should have went to the doctor sooner” even if I went on the day I was sick.
It was a damn joke to say the least.
In Costa Rica you don't get sick days, if you're sick you have to go to the hospital, get seen by a doctor and have the doctor decide whether or not you're able to work. Most of the time it's too much of a hassle to be in the hospital for 2 hours just to get told to go to work anyways so everyone just works whilst sick.
I’m in Ontario, Canada and the legislation recently changed here. It used to be that employees of companies with 50 or more people had to excuse up to 10 “personal emergency days” per year without any repercussions. This has now been extended to ALL employees, regardless of the size of the business, and the employer must pay full wages for the first 2 of said 10 days.
For a company like the one I work for (which offers 5 paid sick days/year to all staff), this changes nothing, because we’re already exceeding the minimum standard.
As it was a year ago, if one of my staff got to 7 or 8 sick days, I’d start to pay attention to it. Now, they can take 10 without question, but the company only pays for the first five (and is only required to pay for the first 2).
So yeah, don’t quite remember where I was going with that...
Combined vacation/sick is a relatively new thing in the US. I first encountered it around 12 years ago. I immediately said, "Fuck this shit" and changed jobs.
In that particular company, they intentionally hired younger people who didn't know better and worked them to the point of burnout. And of course, it was always packaged as the work they were doing was "changing the world".
American here. At my job when I first started, you had no vacation for the first year you worked there. Also, they told everyone when they first started that if you missed a day in your first year they would fire you unless you had a good reason. After a year you got 2 weeks of vacation, no such thing as sick time. After 5 years, you got 3 weeks. After 10, you got 4. It used to go higher but they got rid of that later on (there was a bunch of guys at HQ who had been there 30+ years with tons of vacation). If you were sick you had to make it up. There was also no rollover of vacation year-to-year (it refreshed once a year and if you didn't use it before it rolled over, you lost it).
That's pretty typical in america though, at least in my experience. Some places do sick time, but it's rarely enough.
This really depends on where you work. I'm in the US, I have PTO that I can use as vacation, personal time, or sick time, whatever I choose. I have over 200 hours as of right now.
My bosses do not want you to come in while you're sick. In fact, last year, HR sent this really irritating email to all 800 employees implying that we are selfish if we show up to work with symptoms, because that means we're going to infect everyone else. I mean, you're most contagious 1-2 days before showing symptoms of the cold or flu so I'm not sure if I'd call it "selfish" but regardless, they're really on you if you come in sick.
I think it's also because they invest so much in things like PTO that they don't want us to not use it, if we fall ill. I can see that, right? You budget money (granted it's a big place, they have plenty of money), and people don't use it for it's intended purpose, I get that.
We do have to have our PTO "approved" based on our reason for taking the time off, but I cannot think of any time my PTO hasn't been approved. I don't know, perhaps it's just a way to make sure the reasoning isn't something like "meeting with my meth cooker to take care of some business if you know what I mean."
mandatory vacation days
Fucking what??????
Something else to blow your mind, a lot of companies let you cash in your vacation days and get paid as if you worked them, without actually taking them.
My husband is from the Netherlands. When he told me this about sick days it blew my freaking mind.
One of my friends at work didn't have enough sick days to heal her broken arm. She needs to be able to lift 30 pounds to work. They let her use up her sick days and then fired her. Fucking awful.
same in aus.
I get non certified sick days. 4 days a year, or as we call them doona days. Where I dont have to present any evidence.
I also get sick days where I would be required present a medical certificate
Do you still get paid for those days you are sick? That's what we mean by sick days, paid sick days.
Yeah I do still get paid
America is fucked, if I’m sick I get a point if I get 12 points I’m fired. The best part is, through some mentally retarded math the company decided if you’re late on a weekend it counts as 3 points and then doubles. So I’ve been late to work 3 times and now have 8 points even though I really should only have 3 and if you have another “incident” within 90 days, the 90 days resets and starts over. So if for some reason I was late and then 89 days later right as a point is about to come off not only does the point I got 89 days ago stay on but I also get another one. So since I’m at 8 points right now, if I want to lose all of my points I can’t be late a single time for the next 2 years.
For my company we have one bank of PTO (personal, sick, vacation). My argument for sick days would to have x amount of days in the bank so we can call in sick however many days before it impacts our PTO bank.
I hate sacrificing my vacation days just because Susan didn’t call out sick and got me sick. But I get it because now I’m reluctant to call in sick because I’d much rather have a vacation. It’s a vicious cycle.
Oh and no work from home is not an option because my company just sucks. We can do everything remote but it’s just “not standard company policy.”
I work in the socialist paradise of France and it works the opposite way. If I'm sick for up to three days I get paid zilch. Above that I get paid 80% of my salary from the social security. Given how tight my budget is I essentially have no sick days at all.
Where I work we have a point system. If you take a day off unpaid you get a point despite whether or not my supervisor approves it. Sick days are points too unless they are forced to send you home because you're too sick, and they have it set up so if you're out for 3 days and you bring in a doctor's note it only counts as one point but if you come in after 2 with a doctor's note it counts as 2 points. These points can cost you your job if you get 9 of them and we only get 5 days of vacation per year so it's easy to make them add up.
They’re not really sick days, they’re personal days. Vacation typically requires submitting a request ahead of time and getting manager approval. If you have something personal that pops up and you don’t have time to go through the vacation approval process, you use a sick day. For extended illnesses you get a doctors note so you don’t have to use up all your sick days for those, only the minor ones that don’t warrant a doctor’s visit
My state just added a paid sick leave policy this year. For every 40 hours you work, you get one hour. That's 8 weeks of standard full-time work to accumulate a single 8-hour shift of sick leave. Which comes out to less than one week for the entire year.
here they dont understand sick days either.
except, differently from you, they will be like..
"What? Youre sick? Well you can either use your paid leave, or have a days worth of your pay deducted..." (or in my company I can allocate 8 hours of my overtime to cover that, but I don't like working unnecessary overtime)
Me neither. Hell, if I get sick during vacation I just need to give my boss my doctor's note and I get those vacation days back.
American here. Sick days exist (separate from other days off) because we don't get guaranteed vacation days. Some companies don't offer vacation at all. (To clarify: I'm not talking about paid vacation days, I'm talking about ANY days off). In those cases, the ONLY way to have a day off work is to be sick. So, if you need/want a day off work, a couple of times a year, you can get away with faking it.
It can depend on the workplace as well. I'm in the US and my favorite job gave me 20 paid days off a year plus 10 paid holidays like Christmas etc. The 20 paid days were for whatever I wanted. It was great because if I was too sick to go into the office but not so sick I needed to sleep it off, I'd just work from home, so I got to use most of my days of paid time off for fun stuff. Also in this company you could roll over your time off from year to year if you didn't use it, up to a certain point. My current job, I get 8 paid holidays and like...10 or 12 paid vacation days, and a certain number of sick days. And they don't roll over so if I don't use them by a certain date I lose them.
My first three sick days in a year have to be marked specifically as coming from the state's sick leave law. But if I'm sick more than three days in a year, I just mark the rest down separately. I don't actually have a limit.
As an American who moved to Japan, trust me: things can get so much worse.
I don’t tell this story much because its so hard to believe. But when I was teaching junior high here, I worked with another teacher named Mr Takashi.
For a few days he had been coming in sick, jogging off to the bathroom during each class. On the fourth day he came in, then for the entire lesson he sat on the ground dry heaving and making agony-ridden facial expressions.
Here’s the twist: nobody even suggested once he should go home. Instead, teachers praised him for his “gaman” (the ability to handle difficult situations) and told the students that he was a good role model.
The only sane person in the school was the principal, who had lived in the states for a few years. He and I talked about Takahashi in his office that afternoon. He leans in close, and in perfect unbroken English, tells me:
“Japanese people are fucking crazy.”
If any Europeans feel like making us even more jealous, mention what happens when you have a baby. Even (and this will blow minds) when you're the guy half.
Hell, I'm from the US, living in Germany. You know what I don't get anymore, at-will employment. I have a contract with my employer, they can't fire me without cause, I can't quit with no obligation to hand off work.
It's like being around actual professional adults.
But think of all that sweet sweet profit the shareholders are missing out on!!
Yes, but if you treat them like adults they'll demand adult wages instead of the nothing that capitalists think we're all entitled to. Better to treat them like crap and dehumanize labor by turning it into a market instead of making wages a collective decision about what we consider to be a humane quality of life. WAY easier to rip off employees when they are replaceable cogs and numbers on a balance sheet instead of real human people with needs, desires, and a life to live.
I'm Swedish and I work like that. Great while studying.
I was fired from a job after my boss claimed I had an “unexcused” sick day.
I literally called the morning of having the flu, and was told not to worry about it, and put in PTO for the day I missed when I worked next.
Welcome to America.
[deleted]
A doctor's note? I can't afford that!
Was working at McDonald's a few years back. Had an ear infection. Not contagious, no biggie, just couldn't wear that headset. After about a week it was starting to get better but still hurt a little. Couple more days and I would have been fine.
Walked into work with my manager sending me home until I got a doctor's note. Cost me an entire day's pay and $80. But at least it gave me another week from having to do drive thru! Still enraging.
As a German the notion of a doctors note costing anything feels wrong. some years ago we had a 10 Euro payment each quarter (if you went to the doctor that quarter, so not just mandatory 40 euro a year). And people got so angry that after 2 years it got canceled again. Even paying 10 bucks a quarter was too much for people.
It’s not that Americans don’t want to take long vacations, it’s just that we can’t. It’s not an option. I also think that our short amount of vacation time is the reason that many of us don’t travel abroad. It’s just not possible to most.
Most American corporations are so fucked when it comes to PTO. I worked for a company for just shy of three years that only had PTO, but no sick leave. The fact that this company’s net worth is in the billions and didn’t offer sick leave is disgusting. I had been sick here and there and would utilize my PTO to compensate for any days taken off in my first year and a half working there. Then I found out I needed to have two major surgeries in a year that were each going to require 1-2 months recovery time. I only had five days of PTO left to me (I was only part-time) at the time of my first surgery and my only source of income at that point was disability, which was a fraction of my incomes and didn’t cover all of my expenses. The company itself had a policy where employees could donate their PTO to other employees, which many of my coworkers offered to me by the time my second surgery came about. The company denied my coworkers’ efforts in helping me out because “it wasn’t under emergency circumstances since it was a planned surgery.” It was a very stressful time to say the least. I quit three months after I came back from my second surgery when I was denied full-time status after having worked there for almost three years. Good riddance.
This is changing. I have worked for three tech companies, all three had unlimited vacation days (within reason), sick days when you are sick, and 6 months maternity leave.
Unlimited vacation days actually help the company. People feel pressure not to use them, so they don't. Statistically, people take less time off when the policy is "unlimited days off." Also, it allows the company to not have to pay out vacation days if they want to fire someone because there's no accrual.
Yeah people have no idea this is a benefits clawback.
My company has unlimited vacation too, however, if you use it a lot you’re the first to go if there is ever layoffs. Not to mention we are required to find someone to cover our work while we’re out but in my case that is impossible because I am the only person who does, and can reasonably do, my job at my company :/
Yeah this seem on par with what we have over here in Europe, depending on what is considered reasonable. Although it might be different because there is a shortage in good tech personnel so they need to attract people.
I think that’s possible, but the culture seems to be slowly spreading.
Tech companies seem to be an outlier here. Where I work, I can work from home if I want. I can call in sick and nobody is going to chew me out for not docking a sick day. Managers actively encourage us to use all our PTO. So long as you're getting work done, and performing at the expected level, nobody could care less what you do.
"Sick day", "Vacation Time", "Maternity Leave"...
As an American, what the fuck are those?
Also, “Pension” , “Health Care” , “Workers Right’s” ...
Americans don't get retirement?
Not automatically. Typically employers will give you the option of setting aside some of your paycheck and they’ll match up to a certain percentage but not all employers do that and many people fail to even opt in to the plan. We do have social security but that doesn’t kick in until you are pretty old. The mentality in the US is save for yourself and don’t depend on anyone else to ever take care of you.
Pension is a bad idea in a world where people life expectancy is nearing 90. Most workers have health care. Believe it or not, workers have rights as well.
Yep. Had my son and I was able to arrange....
1 week off unpaid.
Thanks America!
The last company I was with offered three days to fathers! My boss got off a whopping 2 weeks and she’s a women! Though that was by her own choice admittedly.
Don’t forget paternity leave too!
Don't worry. They're just communist fairy tales. *waves an American flag while crying*
Or maternity.
At some point, employees shifted from "your work family" to "an expense to make efficient."
How dare you get sick? Your time and well-being belong to the company when you beg an employer to take you in and give you monies.
/s
I started a new job recently with a year long probationary period. You’re prohibited from using vacation time during that period. So yeah, no vacation for a year. If I want time off, I have to work up comp time or take a sick day. But we’ve got it built into us that taking a sick day is wrong even when you’re sick. It’s shit.
What level of Hell do you work on?
State government...
What is a comp day? I have heard that word but don't thing any job I had ever offered it - at least by that name.
I don’t get overtime so if I work in excess of 40 hours a week, the extra hours become comp time. So if I want time off, I have to work over 40 hours and build up comp time to cover the time off...or not get paid.
Lovely.
Thanks for the explanation!
I never understood sick days. What company wants to have sick people at their office? To infect everybody else and reduce the productivity as a whole? makes no sense.
The US isn't known for its empathy. Especially in the workplace.
Depends on who you work for. Employers can be as generous or miserly as they wish.
I get five weeks paid leave.
Indeed.
Every year our time off refreshes.
For the first 5 years, every year we get 2 weeks vacation, 4 personal days, 2 floating holidays and 12 sick days.
All time rolls over, except that any vacation time you roll over has to be used within the next year. And if you dont use your floating holidays they pay you out for them in November.
Our shifts are 10 hour work days, 4 days a week. So it equals to about 26 paid days off added every new year.
Pretty sweet gig overall.
Me too. I should have moved on from my dead end job a long time ago, but they are really generous with PTO. So I’m hesitant to go elsewhere - every time this comes up on Reddit I feel really lucky.
When I worked part time at a retail store, I was allowed one day a month without a doctor's note. If I failed to show any extra days, I'd be written up and I believe after two write ups I'd be fired.
I had no vacation or personal days and two holidays last year, both unpaid. Never missed a day. I quit though and just walked off during lunch break because screw that job. Sales...
29 year old American...never had a paid holiday
If you work for the US federal government the leave gets extremely generous. You can easily get a month off a year not including sick leave,which is yours to use when you please no questions ask. Private sector sucks for leave.
I work for local government and it’s the same. I feel bad for people in the Private Sector - they may make more money than I do but what’s the point? I get more vacation time than I can use and will be able to retire with a pension and a 401 plan at 54.
I just lost my job for using too many sick days in a row. so now I'm sick, and without a job.
I used to work for a grocery store in which the workers all lived paycheck-to-paycheck. Full time employees received one week of vacation a year, but it wasn't paid when you were off- it was paid on your hire date every year. So unless you could plan vacation for that week, you weren't getting paid while you were off. This is clearly a problem for people living one paycheck to the next, so no one ever took vacations. Finally after about a decade of this, the company forced everyone with accrued vacation time to take their full amount that year. This hit some people extremely hard because they were forced to take 8-10 weeks of unpaid leave that year and literally couldn't afford to. Those weeks were spent working side jobs for cash so they could pay bills.
TAKE ALL THE REPLIES WITH A GRAIN OF SALT
In the US, companies vary with paid time off GREATLY. My company has separate paid time for sick days, and vacation days, and they’re generous with vacation.
Some people work for terrible companies that give them like 3 days off a year, and they think that’s how it is everywhere.
It depends entirely on the company
Yeah ok, whatever you say. Oh wow my company is so great it’s not all that bad!
Works In tech
This varies depending on the company you work for. My company doesn't really deduct the odd sick days if you're an exempt employee (salaried). Basically I enter into a system that I took a sick day, and if it gets out of hand then they'll say something to you. If you need to take a lot of sick days for a legitimate medical reason, then they deal with that differently. Essentially my company lets us take sick days without having a set amount you can take so long as you don't abuse the policy.
And no paid maternity leave at all!
IT depend son what company you work for. I work for a large engineering company and we don't have vacations days. We take off whenever we want for as much as we want as long as we have our projects covered on our team.
Canada here. I started at 2 weeks holidays, but after 5 years i moved up to 3. Been here for 13 years and I max out at 3 weeks. I never take any holidays though. Maybe 3-5 days a year off, other than stat days.
I appreciate vacation days more than my actual salary. Being able to take off pretty much whenever I want is wonderful (American).
i live in canada, our vacation laws are equally shitty as america's. i am just thankful i work 12 hour shifts, which allows me to take 3 weeks off since i work fewer shifts per week.
American here --
I get 4 weeks, 3 days PTO. Can take unpaid PTO if desired, too.
Now this has to cover everything, sick, etc. but honestly it's way too much for my needs. I currently have like 125hrs accrued PTO and we stop accruing more at 130 so I find myself just taking random days off.
I wish I could cash them in, but they dont offer that. I don't go on a proper vacation but maybe every other year, so its just too much for me.
I would love to cash in 3 weeks of PTO for 3 weeks of pay.
Can you expand on what you mean? Do you work all the time and not get that time off?
Your mileage may very but overall we have fewer sick/ vacation days to use, are softly discouraged from using them, feel guilty if we use the, and many are unpaid.
I was talking to a guy who had come to the US from Germany, and he said over there they get 4 weeks vacation and are strongly encouraged to take 2 of those weeks consecutively. It blew my fucking mind.
I think this comment has made me realise just how different the US is from Europe - over here, a two week holiday to somewhere sunny is pretty standard. But I guess most Americans don't necessarily go to a different country when they have time off. It's interesting.
Yeah it’s tougher to travel overseas just because flying is so expensive. I’m jealous of the people who can take a train to a different country or make a 5 hour drive.
As far as getting two straight weeks off, the only people I’ve seen do that are the people who own successful businesses or are so old they’re basically retired.
One dude at my work was home 60 days total for sickness over the course of a year. Without any drama or talks, a week here and there.
Now its limited to 6 occasions a year but 6x5 days ago is 30 days 80% paid vacation a year. Oh yeah everyone is home a week when they call in sick.
I accumulate 3 hours of paid sick leave per week, up to a max of 1000, that’s the ceiling. I can have 3 sick days in a row without a doctors note but anything after that, a note is required. I use about 5 sick days annually and as of last pay period, I am at about 900 accumulated paid sick hours. I’m going to get my GP to sign me off for a mental health week in September.
My company offers "sick occurrences" rather than an individual set of days. Usually when you're sick with the flu or something like it you are not sick for a single day. One occurrence is any consecutive amount of days up to 1 month. After 3 you require a Dr's note, and after 1 month you are required to file for short term disability. Even after that you still have all of your PTO.
Most decent companies have a pretty lax sick day policy (read: shoot from the hip as you go).
I can’t say I have ever been docked anything as a salaried employee for calling in sick.
Are you Japanese/Chinese?
I think it varies by job. I work a very stressful job in the US where each person manages the lives of 50+ adults and children. I'm lucky if I take off one week a year. Half of that week is stressing about what is happening at work.
At my current job, small family owned business, I actually EARN sick time. About 1.66 A CHECK I EARN of sick time, same as vacation. I cannot cash out the sick time either. I can cherry pick it if I like, but best believe I come in sick if I don't have enough to cover a full 8hr shift.
Graduated college and start with 2 weeks. Pretty good.
I worked in Canada for a year and got 15 days. I was pretty shocked when I was told this was really good compared to other companies. Back in the UK now, I get 25 days + 11 public holidays and full pay for 9 months (or maybe 12, can’t quite remember) if I’m sick. Well, until Brexit happens at least.
My dad got really lucky with the company he’s working for in the US cause he makes pretty good money and gets a lot of vacation time. When I was younger, we used to go on month and a half long vacations over the summer to his home country to visit family.
Had a death in the family earlier this year, used up about 2-2.5 weeks of vacation dealing with it, and I've since used up the last couple of days I had left being sick. Yay for 6 more months with no vacation or days off in sight!
That said, at least I had three weeks, a good number of people only get 2, if they get any at all.
Just had my 1 year review and the fact that I took off one day because I was sick was actually seen as a negative. I took one day. It reflected poorly on me that I was sick. Wtf.
What is time off? Never heard of it
it's nuts, I get 30 days a year to use as holiday so with my 5 day week it's 6 weeks plus my 8 bank holidays and I would still love some more
Somehow I assumed most western countries had the same 28 day plan plus more if you live in one that actually cares for the well being of their people (like the Netherlands example).
Here in Spain we get those 28 days by law if you work full time. I never thought we were amongst the lucky ones.
What’s a normal vacation plan for an US citizen?
Time off varies so much around the world. I'm on 24 here in the UK, but I've just started a new job so will go up to 30 and this is pretty common here. Was speaking to a Mexican friend and they only get around 10 on average.
Bruuuh where do you live? I'm not even American and this is basically a right where I'm from
I'm American. I get four weeks of paid vacation, ten days of paid sick or personal time, and eleven paid holidays. If I don't use up my sick time they pay me for the unused days at the end of the year. Seems pretty fair to me
That's right bitches, our GDP don't sleep!
So this is simply my experience, but I have never worked for a US company that didn’t offer sick time, paid vacation time, health insurance and maternity/paternity leave.
You're extremely lucky. Out of these four, my current employer only offers health insurance. After a year you get one week of paid vacation, and that's as far as it goes.
Wow that's weirdly incomprehensible for me. German here and we have 24 paid vacation days minimum a year. And thats the law, a lot of people have 30 days or sometimes more. Now I understand why Americans don't travel that much.
The best package I've ever had was two weeks vacation (10 days), 5 sick days and 3 personal days. My husband has been with the same company for 19 years and had four weeks paid vacation, then another company bought them out and dropped every employee down to one week. 19 years of service and ONE WEEK OF VACATION. Most Americans base the value of people on what type of job they have...it's all about work, work, work and I hate that culture. I go to work so I can have money to live my life. However I've heard coworkers brag about not taking a day off since 1990. That's the culture here and it's unfortunate. I don't want to just work and pay bills and die...I want to travel and have experiences and enjoy my family and friends.
Im serious.. get out of that country
As someone who wanted to stay and work in Europe in a non-science field, it was too hard to get a visa :(
This is so sad :(
Feeling the same. I have 30 days vacation, and having sick days sounds extremly strange to me. Getting payed for 6 weeks if you are sick, then it is 60 % of your income for month...depends on how long you have been working there. 1 week off seems damn hard. I can't even imagine it.
Eh most Americans I know DO travel a lot, especially when you factor in the limited time off. It’s just that most of that travel tends to be domestic. My brother-in-law is stationed in Stuttgart right now and he’s closer to both France and Switzerland than he was to the next closest US State when he was stationed stateside. I feel like a lot of Europeans don’t realize or factor in how large the US is. It takes just as long to get from NY to the west coast as it does to Europe, but it’s a heck of a lot cheaper.
Fair enough. And I guess you're right. I mean I cross the border to Germany twice a day and even tho my parents are all the way to the south its still only 6 hours to drive. Unfortunately you can't get the feeling for the vastness of the US from movies and tv.
Does that 24 include paid days off like Christmas, or are those in addition to the 24?
Well christmas is a half day off (work till noon, sometimes the employer gives the day as paid vacation sometimes you have to use a half day of vacation time if you want the whole day off; same with the 31st dec). 25th and 26th dec are usual holidays/bank holidays that are not included in the 24 days.
So in addition to the 24 days off that you can choose to be whenever you want, you ALSO get 5-6 “bank holidays”? So you end up with about 30 paid days off?
Almost: at least 24 days i can choose (tho my employer has to agree, its usually a discussion so that not all employees are gone at the same time) then 11 bank holidays throughout the year (more if youre in Bavaria or so). From this pov we do have it pretty good...
Wow,. That's 7 weeks a year...Minimum.
And we still complain about not having enough ^^ Jammern = German Volkssport
Wow that's so little. We get 8 weeks in France
Now Im even more jealous^^ I was bemoaning my not having 6 weeks like some friends, but now...hm maybe I should learn French ;)
Or just cross the Ardennes as you guys are used to ;) ^pls ^dont
God that’s awful.
UK here; we get - 25 days paid vacation - maternity leave if you get ill - sick pay - life cover if you die - income cover if you’re off for more than 3 months - good level of wage (not paid hourly, just the same every month) - pension contributions by employers
I'm in the US - I'm sure you're not surprised by that. All most employers here care about is making as much money as possible, their employees be damned.
But why?! A happy employee is a productive employee!
Exactly. I used to manage in the restaurant industry, and I always put my employees first. I didn't let guests be rude to them, I let them leave if they had an emergency or were sick...I did whatever I needed to do to make it work. I took a lot of crap for it because the higher ups didn't like that. I was "too soft."
So.. work the happy (to start) employee to the bone, then get rid of them and hire a new one (who will also start out happy.)
Because if you quit you won't have insurance so you won't just quit because you are unhappy, and if you quit for another job there's 100 other people who are trying to find a job so they can replace you easily. We're pretty expendable here.
Why wouldn’t I have insurance? I’d just take a life policy out, it’d be like £20 a month for a couple hundred k.
Also, I don’t understand why anyone would quit a job without securing a position first.
Hehe, if only it were so affordable in the US. My mom has been single since my dad passed and has only been able to work part time to raise my brothers and me. So she has had to pay for all our insurance out of pocket and its several hundred dollars a month.
That’s insane, but I suppose our NHS system pays for the majority of healthcare needs.
I gotta ask...why the downvotes? I simply (explicitly) stated my experience, nothing more.
Garbage disposal system that use the sink.... Never used one, but Americans say they're great....
They're nice. As long as you don't throw down things that are especially gummy/cohesive, they don't clog very easily. And it can be fun to wash down some table scraps and have them chopped to bits and flow down the drain.
Bonus: They make great props for horror movies, year after year. :D
If you ever have a problem with one though, they are horribly gross to disassemble.
I had an ex who liked to trim large amounts of fat (and connective tissue) from meat and put it down the disposal. Then, she'd wait a few days to tell me it was jammed. Talk about an awful thing to clean out. The fat would have gone rancid and the tissue was all caught up in the grinder. It was a greasy, gag inducing mess every time.
Wtf dude I'd allow that shit once then if she did it again I'd put her down it
She is an ex, but for other, worse, reasons.
Surely this reason made the top 5.
You won't believe what number 1 is! Subscribe to find out.
Edit: all the comments about my username has made my day and it's only 8am.
/subscribe to dirtbag ex facts.
Meat was human.
Paid good money for it
Unsubscribe
Brought to you by WatchMojo!!
unsubscribe
She got mad as i bought PC case and PSU for 60€ (which was amazing deal, i still have the case 14 years later) so she responded by buying clothes with rest of our rent money. By the time i got a whiff of the action she had spend over ten times that..
right down the disposal
/unsubscribe
This is giving me relationship anxiety
[deleted]
She was left with the rent, i moved 600km north. It was her father who had paid the retainer which was two months rent. Her new boyfriend threatened to kill me about 3 months from that, even came to my neighborhood from another town to beat me up (or worse) but wasn't 100% sure what house i lived in.. A heroin dealer, she called me from his closet and he got mad (he got killed in a very weirdest suicide /murder for hire deal ever than can only work if you are mentally insane and manipulated... organized by his own dad). There is a one 300 page book worth of stuff that is all exactly that kind of crazy, all the time. My life has been considerably more peaceful without that crazy bitch.
You ran, right?
Yup. 600km north.
It was fluffy vagina
Username checks out.
Learn the ONE simple trick u/Wetbung HATES!
Jesus Christ your username
I'm far more interested in your username, though.
Subscribe to thot facts
Smash the like button to reveal her best sex move
I believe that would be the Pyroclastic Cumfart.
Hmm, no risk here...
I would guess that number one just coincidentally happens to be your username.
!Subscribe
Haha, I almost clicked on it.
Hey, that's my line!
Hopefully it has nothing to do with your username
No, we need to click through 3 teaser pages of adds with hidden "next" buttons.
You get my upvote just for your username.
I imagine your username is the result of a very specific and equally strange kink involving Taco Bell binging and anal sex.
/subscribes
Subscribe
Nah.
Do we get to know why? (I don't mean to super pry, I'm just curious as shit.)
Holy crap, I’m sorry she put you through all of that. She takes the cake for being a shitty human being. Hopefully you find someone a hell of a lot more worthwhile. People like your ex won’t get very far being a dishonest mooch - you deserve better.
I'm guessing that wasn't the only place she put rancid fat and connective tissue...
You got it!
Oh man, don’t tell me she didn’t put the cap back on the toothpaste?
Her dick was bigger than his.
worse than that? smart move dumping that.
She didn't remove the solids before throwing dirty dishes into the washer??
She repeatedly (and secretly) got us into debt so far that we had to declare bankruptcy. Also, and more upsetting to me, she cheated on me more than once.
Congratulations on getting out of that. I hope your future relationships are built on much more mutual respect than that.
You can't just leave me hanging bro
Was it because you discovered her poop knife?
M E T A
Go on...
Care to elaborate?
That fucked up. Good on you leaving it all behind.
What's the worst reason
Cheating on me.
Damn son. From the sounds of this girl, i reckon he's the one who had the "garbage disposal" problem from then on.
Sorry to hear that, wishing you the best for the future
Storytime!
Worse than shoving her down a garbage disposal unit!??! Did you put her through a woodchipper instead??
Dry Bung?
She asked someone else to look into her drain?
And to snake it for her.
I read this as: for other, whore, reasons.
It fits.
aids?
Sounds like manipulative psychopath SJW behavior to me
what?
[deleted]
I thought that too. Then I was like, no that's silly. He must mean put her down like insult her. "You'll never amount to anything."
I thought he meant put her down in the garbage disposal.
I read that as “put her down” like what you would do with a pet.
“Hey sweetie, wanna go for a drive??? Come on, hop in! Who’s a good girlfriend??” Commence drive to vets office
Or just put her down
I’d put her down for it...
Didn't you hear? Fat clogs the drain.
Fat and grease goes in the bin. It doesn't just clog up your garbage disposal, it clogs up the sewers. Just remember that some poor bastard has to go down there and unclog it
OI, FATBERG, RIGHT AHEAD
That'd be me.
Mike Rowe
Isn't that why we have dogs?
I think it's how you do it. We did this regularly with my unit, which lasted 7 years before we changed it. When I disassembled it, the blades were rusted, but nothing out of the ordinary. When we threw connective tissue, we just followed the instructions and we did it in a sensible manner. Always run with water, no hot water. We would run it as we threw things in rather than let things accumulate. Any connective tissue we threw in there didn't stand a chance.
I throw lot of shit doen disposal - it's all fine so long as you own the not $20 El Cheapo one. Every once in a blue moon, or if it smells, or you did a lot of scraps(like meal prep day) - cram the disposal with ice from ice maker, add little water, and it cleans it out real nice. Below the blades will still be greasy af but I've only taken mine apart twice in 8 years.
It's like your toliet bowl... You don't use it till it's fill of shit - you flush it/run it everytime you put something in it.
It's like your toliet bowl... You don't use it till it's fill of shit
The fuck you say
My wife used to keep a candle holder/dish thing with pebbles in it on the ledge above the sink. Pebble fell in, broke the disposal. 300 bucks and lots of cursing later (the plumbers who built the house glued all of the p traps in, dicks) I changed it for a newer, more powerful one. She no longer keeps pebbles above the sink.
Why did you break up? She sounds nice.
I have some tasty internet points if you tell us the story!
Can confirm, I'm an engineer at a hotel downtown. Kitchen staff does this all the time. Not to mention throwing in things that dont belong
Yeah, I had a roommate many years ago who was, unbeknownst to me, pouring bacon and sausage drippings into mine.
Me: "hmm. Disposal isn't working. Did something happen?" Him: "dunno. I used it yesterday after I made all that bacon, and it was working fine."
1) Why would you do that?! 2) Save that shit! Did your momma just raise you wrong?!
pineapple juice should loosen it up if you poor some down
Or sodium hydroxide it saponifies fat which makes them soluble.
That works if the grinder is stainless steel, and i would be careful with the concentration, but I think it would be a more or less painless way to clean such a clog.
I can see why she's an ex.
As someone who regularly cleans the grease trap at the butcher shop where I work, I can relate.
This is why I would never get one; my wife would put everything down there. You should see what counts for "scraping the plate" before putting it in the dishwasher.
Is this why she is your ex?
Nope this was just gross.
see this is why eating a lot of vegetables is great. Nothing more satisfying than putting a slightly spoiled stalk of celery down that shit. Chews it up wonderfully.
[deleted]
There are several tips that people have shared here. This one I did try. It doesn't work with fat.
filling it with some baking soda and vinegar then flushing it with hot water while running usually does a decent job cleaning out, or at least gets the nasty out so you can get big chunks
Glad they're your ex. They deserve to die alone for that.
Get a fat bag of ice, run the water and dump that ice down as fast as you want. Best way to get that nasty out without getting nasty.
My roommate once broke our garbage disposal with her shoelace. One minute, cleaning her shoes with a toothbrush over the sink, the next week, our disposal stops working. Every time the dishwasher ran, this purple slime would come up from the disposal and cover the sink. When I finally took the thing apart, found her shoelace. She got upset with me for blaming her and refused to pay for its repair.
Im glad she moved out.
In this situation, liquid-plumber/drano might dissolve most of the organic material.
Ugh, I see why an ex now.
Wow, what an asshole.
We pour a high strength drain cleaning solution down ours about once a year and it runs just fine, the only time we took it apart was to look for one of my mom's earrings that fell while doing dishes.
On a side note though they are awesome. Just peeled a bunch of potatoes, cracked some eggs, the occasional scrap of meat that someone leaves on their plate? Push it into the disposal and turn it on, gets rid of it and you don't have to do a damn thing for clean up other than rinse the sink and run some water through the disposal.
Edit: As someone else said and I forgot about, it will make greasy water run right down the drain.
Your ex and my wife would get along. She throws literally everything in there. Constantly fixing the thing. I tell her to ease off and it's always "you think you know everything, you're not that smart. It's a garbage disposal, you put garbage in it." I kept my cool until one day I unjammed the disposal and dug out an entire - cannot stress how literal I'm being here: an ENTIRE, WHOLE - chicken leg - bone and all. Not even eaten a little bit. I lost it. Went to the bar and didn't put the sink back together until she listened to me. That may sound petty - but put up with the same exact shit for TEN YEARS and tell me you wouldn't be a little pissed too. Marriage is....yay, fun?
Um you just put an Allen wrench in the bottom and turn...
I thought it was common knowledge not to put fat down the sink
FYI...You should never have to put your hand in there except for hard stuff like bottle caps or bigger. You can take a hex wrench and slightly loosen the blades, which usually clears out anything caught between them, including random hard stuff. There's a hole under the disposal. Put the wrench in and give it a few lefty loosies, run hot water and turn on the disposal. Remember, you're not taking it apart, just loosening the blades. If you want to clean out the disposal more, some vinegar and baking soda will do the trick. Throw a lemon peel in there when you're done. Tighten the blades back but don't over tighten. Try to turn it an equal number of times righty tighty.
I'm no professional plumber but that must made me recoil in horror.
How can people be so dumb about this?
Would pouring some dish soap and letting it sit for a while then taking that allen wrench and manually grinding it up do anything?
You can buy a more high powered one that will deal with it
That's weird I always get rid of every bit of fat or anything on the meat that is white.
Don't relate, don't eat meat, don't have rotting flesh/sinew/fat clogging up the garbage disposal.
eyesrollingoutofhead
Which is why you should do a chemical clean of your disposal once every 6 months. Organic shit is the easiest to get rid of, no reason not to shove some draino down there twice a year.
Folks with Septic systems would disagree.
[deleted]
Well, those old metal pipes wouldn't be part of your disposal would they? So maybe just have the common sense to find an alternative maybe?
They would be the drain pipes after the disposal, so yeah they would be affected. Drano can potentially corrode through old metal pipes. And the heat from it reacting with organics can crack PVC pipes. It's good stuff but using it comes with some risks.
Twice a year will have absolutely no effect on your septic system. And if you're really worried, use something else like baking soda and vinegar. i.e. use common sense
You can use Ice, shove it down into disposal, add a little water, put drain stop, and it does a good job of cleaning the top half of assembly throwing ice chips against walls. In my experience even draino has trouble cleaning the bottom half under the blades - gonna be greasy af no matter what.
Good point. Also worth noting that much of the smell you usually get from a disposal is actually the splash guard, so it's important to clean that regularly. Lift up each petal and wipe it down.
Occasionally I put some 1/2 cup baking soda, and cup of vinegar (dirt cheap cost-wise) down the kitchen sink, and put drain stop in, and leave it for about 15 minutes. The foaming does a good job of cleaning most organic material, your also likely to spill so it'll clean petals.
I haven't gotten a smell from garbage disposals but I live in a really humid tropical area so your likely to get gnats in pipes before you can notice the smell. I learned the vinegar/baking soda and ice chips from clearing out the infestation and now that I do it every 2/3 months I haven't had any issues. I recommend this method to friends, and they also no longer has issues.
Why I just opt to buy a new one; they only cost like 65 bucks for a 3/4 horsepower one.
You still need to take off and clean the 2 ends that connect each side of the disposal though.
Aside from burning down your house, you're not going to avoid that wretchedness entirely.
Understood.
proceeds to burn down house
I found that bleach does a great job cleaning it. I have a white porcelain sink that gets dirty with use, so a bleach soak whitens it up again, and when I go to empty the sink I just turn the disposal on and it cleans it very well. I never have a odor issue thanks to doing it. I've found it to be the best way to fight odor issues with them using this method.
I'm going to try that!
We've never had an odor with our disposal under normal use. But did it ever when I took it apart to clean it.
I use whole lemons/limes. I believe the acidity breaks down most scum and it smells lemon fresh.
This is the best answer IMHO. An occasional lemon does wonders
I'd much rather use citrus than bleach. Bleach gets rid of the rancid smell, yeah, but then it smells like bleach.
Vinegar, and Baking Soda works better than Bleach in my experience, and does decent job cleaning pipes beyond disposal. Pour half cup down drain, add cup vinegar and put stopper on. Breaks down material on all side of pipe due to foaming action. Bleach just runs down it, not getting all sides unless use alot.
Thanks, I will try this as well. Sounds like a Brady Bunch volcano 🌋
Be careful with bleach as it is corrosive. You'll want to make sure it's diluted enough or it will mess up your garbage disposal long term.
[deleted]
putting lemons/limes or coffee grounds in the sink and leaving it there for a while helps too
I regularly dump my coffee grounds down my garbage disposal and I never have any issues with it, whether it be smell, or clogging issues. I think the grounds absorb fats and oils which could clog it, and also contribute to absorbing foul odors.
Yeah that's what I was saying
I dump the pulp from my juicer down mine, it's one of those masticating ones, so its super dry fruit bits.
What's really interesting is the size of the outlet hole. It's much smaller than I expected. Those things really grind shit up. It's like the size of this finger 👉. Zoop.
Please say No to throw away culture.
Oh goodness yes, if I had it to do over again I'd just replace the thing, taking it apart was a mistake.
Even replacing it would be a nasty mess though.
Honestly, it was soooo bad to deal with, just the part that attaches to the sink was a tad nasty. The old disposal was just that, pretty old, so replacing it with a new one was actually quite ideal. It was quieter, more powerful, had no leaks due to fresh seals, and had a warranty to boot!
yeah, I always run mine for about 3x as long as I think I need to, and often squirt some dish soap into it as it's running to hopefully degunk it a little. not like I'd be the one fucking around with it if it DID break... but still. I just don't like my sink to smell awful either.
it's basically diarrhea in there
I shined a light down the one at my old apartment once. Would not want to disassemble that thing.
Well, yeah, you've got the detritus of probably years of gunk flowing down the drain.
That goes for pretty much everything you unclog That you can’t just flush out. Showers are a fun one too. Hair and body grease is the worse.
I use sulfuric acid, works like a charm.
When the disposal goes bad you just sell the house.
A new one costs about 60 bucks. Easier just to swap it out.
Hey I remember you, you told an origin story about your username one time.
And I met you on Everquest as a halfling!!!
just throw a shitload of ice into it and it'll clean itself
Even worse when they disassemble themselves.
Mine has broken multiple times and I've never had to really disassemble it. There is an allen wrench slot at the bottom that is used to turn it if it jams and that usually fixes it for me.
I forgot why I tagged your name but your name story is beautiful
Thanks, I've had some pretty shitty experiences. Some of the people from that thread created a whole subreddit for it. /r/catshitdogfart
I'm not sure what to think about it . . .
But I've posted a few stories there, they seem pretty excited for it and I like telling stories.
Found the home owner.
When a replacement is $100 or less, it's usually cheap enough to just replace it if you have the time....
Nice username
My mom tried to put a whole pot of turkey soup down the garbage disposal. And some cigarettes butts. And some broken glass. Then she wanted me to clean it as part of “chores”.
Childhood issues aside, that was NASTY.
Had a lady tell me if you toss some ice in there and then some lemon peels every month-ish it keeps it free and clear and smelling like lemons has worked like a charm so far.
But when they break, it’s hell on earth.
And really heavy
I got rid of mine. Disposals are not kid friendly. They do jamb up. Plus the less solids your dumping down your line the better in my opinion.
I have thrown silverware, shot glasses, bones, all sorts of shit down there and clogged it a couple times but never to the point i had to disassemble.
I have thrown silverware, shot glasses, bones, all sorts of shit down there and clogged it a couple times but never to the point i had to disassemble.
Usually takes place on a holiday
Can attest. Very gross
My wife is one of those people that will throw anything down the disposal without a second thought. Egg shells? Why not. The occasional spoon? Didn't mean to, but let's see what happens!
One time she was shaving carrots, 3lbs of them, and put them all down the disposal. I found this out after coming home to a sink full of dirty water. I had to remove the pipes and unclog it by hand. Terribly disgusting.
Usually I just have to unjam the disposal with an allen wrench, but not this time!
My plumber told me once that if you have gunk in your disposal, fill the sink partially with ice and run the disposal dry. It freezes all the nastiness caught under the blades and spits it out. Makes a hell of a noise though.
That is correct. (Slowly removes shirt and flails hair about)
Put an allen wrench in the bottom and spin it.
If that doesn't work. Pay $50 to get a new one.
Problem solved.
nine times out of ten all you need to do is stick a hex wrench in bottom of it and turn it awhile back and forth to unstick things. usually there is a thermal switch that pops out you pop back in, and presto! good as new.
They aren’t that bad.
I had a motor go bad in one. It was virtually the same price to just swap the whole damn thing.
Pro-tip Use orange or lemon peels in the garbage disposal to make your kitchen smell like an orchard
When I had to replace mine, I said screw it and bought an industrial breath mask with carbon filters with my new disposal. So worth it, didn't have to smell a thing.
Onlu cost $100 bucks
I'd just replaced it lol
Had a roommate who threw up in our sink and clogged it somehow. Blew my freaking gourd. It ended up taking 2 weeks to get fixed by the building manager and the smell was fierce. I started pouring concentrated fabuloso into it to make stop stinking up the whole kitchen. Fuck that roommate btw.
They're not too expensive to replace, from what I understand. I would definitely consider a whole replacement over disassembling one.
A lot are not repairable, and they are dirt cheap. Super easy to replace... I'm not sure what your issue is.
Reasons like that make me glad I live in an apartment
I’ve replaced ours twice over the years. It’s not that bad, really.
They make a tool specifically for clearing jams. It plugs into the bottom and you wrench it back and forth to clear it. Works like a charm!
Yea, mine stopped working 2 years ago. I just let it die and only liquids go down the sink now.
omg it's so easy to replace
There should be a red button underneath the disposal. Trypushing on that. It should click. Let me know if that works out for ya.
Lol, you might be my savior. Won’t be home til this weekend but I’ll try to let cha know! I had no clue, I just didn’t feel like calling my landlord and having a maintenance guy come into my place while I was at work for something that really isn’t essential. Legitimately just thought it had died and needed to be replaced.
There's a slot for Allen key at very button, idk about red button, but never seen on without Allen key for manually turning. There easy enough to take apart if your so inclined, or can get a new one for about $50.
I'd pour 1/2 cup baking soda, 1 cup Vinegar down both drains, and cover with drain stoppers. Cover it atlest 10/15 minutes and then almost boiling water, followed by regular water(don't want boiling to ruin pipes if use plastic). Manual turning should now be workable if it wasn't before.
In my experience they can break but usually they're just stuck on something.
Is it not turning on for u/getting power? Or is it running but not spinning the blades?
Not turning on or getting power.
[deleted]
Without a disposal, those lost items will often just be caught in the drain trap - it would take a fairly heavy water flow (or maybe a large ring with lots of surface area) to carry a wedding ring up and over the rise.
All I know about drains is that scene in Stewart little
You'll float too!
Don't they end up in the siphon trap before that? From there it shouldn't be too hard to retrieve something from I think.
It's not. You literally just screw it open, take out the ring and the water thats in the siphon and screw it back on. Just put a bucket or a big towel underneath and it takes 2 minutes tops. :)
Yeah exactly. Sounds easier than dismantling a garbage disposable with blades and electricity and such.
I can vouch for this. I lost a ring down the bathroom sink and my dad got it out of the bend.
Yeah, but you can just put your fingers in the disposal (if you have someone guarding the switch).
Opening the trap may be slightly (I mean, 45, 60 seconds?) more effort than sticking my hand in the disposal, but I don't even think I should need to say which option I prefer.
You should always lock the power supply to the disposal in the 'off' position before sticking your fingers into it.
Do your drains not have little grate things in them (something like this) to stop larger things from going down there? You'd be hard-pressed to lose anything larger than maybe a stud earring in my house
My double kitchen sink has one in one side but it comes out for cleaning, the other one is open for the disposal. Maybe yours has smaller holes but unless its a pretty large earring it will go right thru. Bathroom sinks have a different sort of stopper that may or may not catch normal sized earrings. I’ve lost stuff down them before.
Huh, weird. The holes in ours are always pretty small and they're generally the same in every room of the house. If you peel a potato into the sink (or the bathtub, if you felt so inclined) most of the peelings won't fit down the drain unless you mush them in there
Most plumbing setups have what’s called a “p trap” (it’s shaped like a p that fell on its side). This allows objects dropped down the drain to be obtained from an easy access point under the sink. If you lost things in your drains and have NOT checked the p trap, I’d do some googling and some spelunking!
Dude, I’ve watched Witchboard. That way lies madness.
Look at fancy pants over here, with their diamond earrings!
why would it be harder to get one out of a drain without a garbage disposal system?
I've seen enough horror movies to know not to drop a wedding ring down a drain with the blender thing in it.
Well theres a trap under the sink with a bin that comes out. You don’t access it by shoving your hand into the disposal.
You do if you're in a 70s/80s horror movie though.
We have this sieve-looking mesh thing that catches all the big food bits from going down the drain. I can lift it out, empty it to the trash and all done. Even if I don't have that,I think the pipe opening in the sink has four things cross over it that will catch bigger things.
I did drop a bobbypin down a sink drain when I was travelling in Turkey.
That poor lady you ground up
Broken glass is their bane too. Lost a garbage disposal from a broken glass and glass getting dropped into it and jamming it up, so had to replace the whole unit in the end from how badly it got jammed down in it.
Should also note the paranoia of getting stuck things out of it. Always scared it will turn on when I'm trying to get something out of it, ha.
Should also note the paranoia of getting stuck things out of it.
Oh shit yeah. I unplug it before sticking my hand down there, and it still makes me super nervous.
I unplug it before sticking my hand down there,
Everyone should be doing this. Do people not? Man, I unplug it, and kick everyone out of the kitchen.
I don't unplug it, I've never once had an appliance just turn itself on but I do make sure kitchen is empty, and it's clear not to use sink.
I guess I am just use to working around dangerous machinery. There are hundreds of things we can't predict. Unplugging it rules out all but the most unlikely. You have to weigh the chances of something you didn't think could happen versus the 5 seconds it takes to unplug it and the cost of fucking up your hand.
Also looks like about 1000 people per year think like you do and get to visit the ER. Not bad odds.
Always scared it will turn on when I'm trying to get something out of it, ha
I believe it is not as dangerous as you (and many horror movies) are imagining. The sharp parts that actually grind food down are on the outer wall and don't move. The impellers that stuff typically gets caught in are not designed to cut anything. Since your hand is connected to your arm, sticking through a hole it will be difficult for the impellers to push your hand all the way to the walls. You might get bruises, but not blood spewing cuts.
Note: Don't run home and try it. I'm just some guy on the internet you know nothing about.
:O Broken glass? Holy cats, no!
And I understand the paranoia of reaching in there. It's a vulnerable time, indeed.
My disposal is on a dedicated circuit I switch off at the breaker if I ever need to retrieve a lost object. Though I too have lost an entire disposal unit to a shotglass I didn't realize had fallen in until I turned it on. Thankfully I had the extended warranty on it.
Fiber. Don't put fibrous things down the sink disposal. Ideally the only thing that goes down the disposal is mostly soluble stuff that can't easily be scraped off the plate.
Source: my wife disposed of three large catering trays of iceberg lettuce down the disposal, clogged that summbitch up real good.
Fibrous, yes! Rice, as another mentioned, is a hazard.
Ugh. I know this pain. I tossed an artichoke down the old one without thinking. Yeh it killed that unit dead.
See I grew up without one and was used to just scraping the crumbs off of the plate and into the trash. We have a garbage disposal in our apartment and my SO listed out the things I couldn’t put down it. I have yet to use it...
It's not a massive time-saving device. I don't currently have one in my house. But they can be nice.
Grew up without as well & still scrape the plate into the garbage. The disposal is just convienent for those stubborn pieces that didn't go in that trash.
It's much better than having to clean out a sink drain cover... My worst nightmare.
I work in water treatment and these things are a big cause for headaches. Just because you can now get that garbage down the drain does not mean it's safe to be put into pipes. Earlier this year we had several houses get their basements flooded because of grease clogging a section of our sewer system.
Do the drains from the shower go to the same place as toilet flushes?
Plus throwing orange or lemon peels in there makes the whole house smell nice.
Had one in a villa, accidentally got a shotglass stuck in it and someone had a bright idea to turn it on.
GG, shards everywhere and clogged the whole sink up. THen someone had a bright idea to vomit in the sink.
My friends aren't the sharpest tool in the shed
Oof. Just all kinds of excitement!
OR FUCKING SILVERWARE god damnit i literally cannot begin to explain how much that pisses me off. Who the HELL wants to shove their hand in a sink blender? Not me.
And don't throw down rice. No matter how well cooked.
You live in an apartment? We upgraded to one of the fancy kill-anything models, its never been stuck once
My Mom's was the only one I've seen clog up, and that was a couple of decades ago. :D
Eggshells also. Calcium is a base element and doesnt break down further.
I just broke mine because the wife and I were washing egg shells down it
TIL.
Leason learned.
Where does all the food go 🤔
It goes down the drain, through the sewers, to sewage treatment plants.
We never intentionally put stuff down there, but we just run it when the sink is slow to drain, and it works great for that.
It's also very easy for a shot glass to somehow sneak it's way down there so the next time you run it you hear all kinds of banging and end up having to delicately pick all the little pieces of glass out with your hand, this happens to me about 3 times a year.
Never drink & wash, got it!
Also no meat. The little bits won't was away and start to stink.
They dont work all that great with shot glasses either.
Where does the garbage go after it's gone through the disposal?
The intent is that it's chopped up finely enough that it goes down the drain into the sewage system.
Ahh a razor drain.
My favorite is putting lemon or limes in after using them for cooking and then your kitchen smells like citrus
Or a whole Turkey carcass.
My dad did that once after Thanksgiving. They ended up having to call and have it fixed lol
Probably not the only call that plumber had to attend, that night. :D
Mine only gets clogged if I put stringy things down it.
Let's do the fork in the garbage disposal, let's do the fork in the garbage disposal
DINGDINGDING DADINGDINGDINGDING
Also can make them into margarita maker in a cooler lol
Why not compost though?
No composting pile, and I barely have a lawn.
And eggshells/coffee grounds will fuck your shit up. Also what some people dont realize is thats its really only made to handle the scraps at still on your plate after youre done eating.
I know this because i was a plumber for a year and had to replace 5 feet of drains that had been clogged with pasta. Something about an argument, but they had poured an entire pot of spaghetti down their garbage disposal.
Ooh. Pasta, yeah. That's like pouring chunks of glue down your drain.
Yeah. It was a bit of a nasty cleanup.
Potato peels are the kryptonite of garbage disposals
Plumbing sales here its not the item as much as the water temp. Cold water only! You dont want grease to melt, settle in to the grinder mechanism then recongeal and stink. Keep it cold and it will stay more solid.
Also to note there are no blades in there, its revolving grinding wheels. Dont put things like onion or banana peel in there because the stringy bits get all wound up and we are back to stinking.
Run your cold water before and after grinding to keep it all flushed out.
No it's not bad for the environment/better to compost. Most sewage treatment plants use the methane that offgasses from the garburator system to run their plants.
Thanks! TIL
No rice, no pasta, no meat is my recommendation
Except olive pits. Don't throw those down there. One of mine managed to jam the thing. Those pits are strong!
It's the pits!
[/groan]
They also make a great set-up for pornos where girls get their hands stuck in them and then get banged against their will
I once threw in molten wax (accidentally!), the poor thing locked up completely.
Luckily, all it needed was some boiling water while being turned on.
Glad you found a good resolution! :)
My favorite perk of having one of these is that most of the things that would smell if left in the garbage can overnight can be rinsed off and go down the garbage disposal. So when I was in an apartment that had one I didn't have to take the trash out as often because things like egg shells and fruit going bad would never even make it into the trash can in the first place.
Celery.. Don't
If you slice up a lemon and throw the pieces down, it makes your kitchen smell nice
95% of the time it's a simple solution. The disposal has a bolt on the bottom of it that you can put an Allen wrench into. Just twist it one way of the other and it usually frees up whatever was inside.
Oh, so that's what that thing with people's hair being sucked into drains from movies is.
I worked in maintenance and trying to untangle a fruit net or anything stringy from those things was horrendous. You would think they learned from that experience and never did it again. 2 weeks later ...
I actually knew someone who lived that horror movie very briefly.
Yeah fuck those things. If I ever drop a ring down one it's going to fucking stay there.
Also they are terrible in areas where the water is hard... rust and scale ruins them skunk quickly
:O Aw, poor kitty!
Is it really dangerous, tho?
Off? Only as dangerous as reaching into a dark hole where there are four semi-sharp knives. So not much!
Running? Imagine reaching into a blender hidden by some curtains.
The good news is that your blood would flow down the drain, saving you some time and effort on clean-up!
This kind of disposal is bad for the environment though. We used to have one too and it was a charm, but we've learned from a study that it helps blue algae (I translated it, not sure if it's the exact term) to proliferate in rivers and lacs, even if it's treated before it goes back in the wild.
Doesnt these make for excessive rat problems?
Not really. If you shoot enough water down the drain, the disposal is self-cleaning, and with the drain trap (the loop of piping beneath the disposal), the rest of the sewer doesn't stink up the kitchen or anything.
So where do really all the leftovers food that goes into this canal end up?
Down [points] into the sewers. It ends up at the sewage treatment plant. Probably not the best idea if you're working with a septic tank, because it would fill up your tank relatively quickly.
Sewage treatment plant -- the same place your toilet water goes.
Don’t you have compost bins in the back yard for all the food scraps? I don’t think the drainage systems of most cities are designed to have food scraps added in.
Nope, I barely have a lawn. :D But if my city's sewage system can't handle food scraps, they're going to have serious problems with my poop.
Bonus: They make great props for horror movies, year after year. :D
How now?
"Augh! I've lost control of my hand! And my stupid cat just accidentally flipped on the garbage disposal! Oh now, and now my uncontrollable hand is pulling itself along the sink toward that dark drain, emitting grinding sounds.... Stupid cat."
We compost in Canada. Not sure why you’d want meat in your water supply.
We have several strainers in sequence in our sewage treatment system, tight enough to block a T-bone from entering the water supply!
How do they work? Is there a filter in every house? Who cleans it?
They grind up whatever you put in, fine enough so that the remainder can flow down the drain, so no.filter.
Garbage disposals turn your compostable food scraps into expensive hazardous waste when it gets mixed with the other sludge at the sewage treatment plant.
As opposed to poop? Or do you compost from your commode, too?
No- when you put food scraps down the garbage disposal they get mixed with your poop, and it all becomes a matrix of hazardous shit.
No they are stupid convenience items that get really nasty over time. They don't even really install them new anymore. Embarrasing
Toilets get nasty too. I don't really see the issue. They're pretty self-contained
It's just another nasty thing you have to clean/replace that doesn't serve a unique purpose. People generally misuse and clog them.
They don't even really install them new anymore.
Weird! Home Depot seems to sell them new (link)
Cool research bro! Stores sell a lot of crap people don't need yah know...what I'm saying is new construction apartments/condos don't install them anymore.
NYT Story, "Besides the Gym and Great Views, Don’t Forget to Mention the Garbage Disposal", 2013-02-04 (link):
There are plenty of new buildings, however, that have taken the plunge willingly, eager to provide an extra touch of convenience. The kitchens at Crystal Green, a Glenwood rental building on West 39th Street, include garbage disposals — as they do at the ultraluxury Midtown building One57, where two apartments are under contract for at least $90 million.
Steve obviously works for the in-sink garbage disposal lobby. Your article proves my point though they are pointless luxury items. Also note the date.
Ah, the massive grinding sound of In-Sink-Erator going down the drain since 2013? :D
Babylon dem.
[deleted]
On that note, we could put a garbage disposal in the toilet so we wouldn’t need the poop knife.
The.. the what now?
EDIT: I wish I had never asked.
Hahaha! This guy doesn't know about the poop knife!
Everybody knows about the poop knife.
What kind of savage doesn't cut their poo before flushing?!
Jesus fucking christ some people are cavemen...
..intentionally overflowing the toilet so they can wallow in their own filth, probably.
Some people find that sexy. I don’t. But some people do.
It saddens me, really. ..but, y'know.. they're pursuing their dreams, I guess.
So... has anyone PM'd you stuff?
A couple times
[deleted]
It’s always relevant.
Yes
I think you mean wallow in their own crapulence.
Obscure simpsons reference but valid. Upvoted
I stand corrected.
I once knew an absolute philistine who didn't know that the poop knife goes on the right.
I don't know what part of the country you're from, but us civilized folk put the poop knife on the left.
Except those who know how to use the three sea shells.
But only if it's an abalone shell, you heathen.
Hahaha! He probably doesn't even know about the three sea shells
It is known.
Everybody does not know about the poop knife. Including me. WTF?
EDIT: I'm now informed and wish I wasn't.
What is a poop knife????
a Guano Glaive
Do you know about the poo shelf?
We didn't have a poo knife. We had a poo-driver.
I don’t know about the poop knife.
I don’t know about the poop knife.
Go get the poop knife stretcher!!!
Since European toilets use wider drain pipes, it's conceivable that a European would have never heard of this.
Could also be the size of the poops, too. Like a Fiat vs a Ford F450.
Lmao, the thought of Europeans having slender poops and Americans having big ass poops had me silently smirking. Good one.
If the poop were going the other direction, everyone in their family would berth giant logs of crap.
Risky click of the day
It's not risky because I'm never clicking it.
But worth it.
That entire post is fucking brilliant!
Probably because you are fat and eat too much.
I am not fat but I have a plunger because my apartment has bad plumbing and my toilet clogs from time to time. That story obviously wasn't mine. But when I lived in Europe my toilet still clogged from time to time. Maybe it's a difference in toilet paper.
Heh. I was just making a Fat American joke. It takes a big, hard poopy to plug a toilet, and it takes a lot of food to make a big, hard poopy.
I’m pooping now, in a Bass Pro Shop in Tennessee. Nothing more ‘Murica than that.
Is it in the Pyramid?
That is a nice pyramid with a good view. That place is crazy.
It was not. It was in Nashville, not Memphis.
You may be silently smirking, but your comment made air rush quickly from my nostrils
Bigger asses, bigger poops, it's not rocket science.
You can't explain that.
Their poops are so slender they leave the last p off the word and call them poos
European refinement!
it's from all the fast food
Well taking all that corporate dick can loosen a guy up.
Thinking about long thin poops vs hard girthier stumps.
'MURRICA! WE SHIT BIGGER THAN YOU EUROWEENIES DO!
Aren't smirks, by their very nature, silent?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
oh daddy-o
Smirks are silent, but that doesn't mean you can't make a noise whilst smirking. For example if you're smirking whilst tap dancing, you can hardly be said to be silently smirking.
It's like a grenade launcher launching a grenade. FOOM!!
Just keep smirking.
SLENDER POOPS KNOWS WHERE YOU SLEEP.
I have clogged more toilets in Europe than in the states. And I have clogged a lot of toilets.
I imagine the Europeans poop knife is simply a cheese knife
Lmao
I see what you did there...
You know what they say about Fords right? "Fix it again, Tony"
You're thinkin' of a Fiat, Dale.
I know I'm late for this, but frenchmen who has lived quite some time in the US here, and I only ever had clogged toilets in the US. The first time it happened I was in a host family and I was horrified..
Turd Super Duty!
you obviously never tried czech cuisine
Yeah, us Europeans rarely produce anything above 2 courics
Jokes on you, my diet of strictly fast food means my poops are purely liquid!
Im going to need a poop/toilet compatibility matrix, thanks.
Talk about a super duty.
like, the entire company vs a single pickup? is this one of those "one horse size duck or one thousand duck-sized horses"?
btw, duck-sized horse... HOW CUTE IS THAT?
EDIT
no, wait, just one fiat... it's ok, but you have to choose a model. Take the multipla, that thing could scare the F450 away.
I'm still bummed about the small horse tho... how come that's not a thing?
Um, it's not an American thing.
It's a reddit thing, apparently.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0lvtxx/
Edit: original post, thanks to /u/Jenga_Police https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/7p8puq/light_i_was_22_years_old_when_i_learned_that_not/
I'm Canadian and I've never heard of this either
What country uses poop knives? It certainly isn't the US.
I am an american and i have never heard of a poop knife... Im still not sure if this a joke...
[deleted]
It's the American dropbear.
No I'm pretty sure I could break a European toilet as well.
I'm American but don't know what this is
I have clogged up at least 10 toilets in the US, and none in Europe or anywhere else. US toilets stink!
My brother’s American father-in-law came for a visit and clogged their European toilet on the first day with his monster shits.
America, where even the shits are obese.
I'm an American and I don't know what a poop knife is.
I have not heard of a poop knife outside of reddit. I highly doubt people possess a poop knife where I live.
Is it standard to have a 4'' toilet flange?
Is there a restriction on using wider drain pipes in America? Drainage system is supposed to deal with poop not you.
Bust does he know about the three sea shells?!
Here are the directions for the troglodytes.
NSFL
I even saw your warning and still clicked. Not sure what that says about me....
[deleted]
Bravery is the cousin of stupidity. I think we're both on one side of the family....
I just saved the comment for later clicking.
yeah. NO
Ima simple man. I see Demolitionman refrence. I upboat
You may upboat but I upsurfboard
I never thought of using three.
John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.
I work in upper class homes in Canada, first time I seen one of these panel style flusher I immediately thought of the 3 shells.
http://www.plumbline.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/p/o/ponsonby_house_12.jpg
The ones I've seen as usually white or silver.
I know how to swear, which works just as well.
Wtf are you people eating??
Chipotle
Wait...so your toilets are so insufficient for pooping that you need to chop them up?
I feel blessed to live with toilets that instantly and forcefully empty themselves without issue.
Poop scissors are superior to the poop knife. It's less messy its snip snip not chop chop
Yeah but I'm not cleaning poop from between the two halves of a pair of poop scissors. They'd get nasty wouldn't they? It's got to be a knife.
Nah they dont get nasty your doing it in water your not taking the turd out and cutting it.
A poop knife is when you poo so thin you can cut your food with it
Umm I don't think it is what you think it is
Next time, on kiwami japan
My chap did not know about the poop knife. I explained the poop knife and he exploded in laughter and said, "I know someone who kept a poop knife." I'm speechless.
explain? lol
explained here-
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0lvtxx/
Please click here only when you are about to finish up with Reddit for the day.
Neither does this guy!
OMG! I have the Party Pack of poop knives. I thought I was the only one with this issue...been doing it since I was a child. I have clogged toilets worldwide and never travel to someone's home without one. I have used kabob sticks, wooden rulers, twig (strong ones), and a variety of other objects in emergencies. I would rather take a few minutes to do this than to go thru the agony of plunging...which sometimes ending up being futile anyways.
He never used the poop knife? Aww..he's missing out.
...I can see how that could be... confusing.
In my house we used corn on the cob holders.
Next he's going to be asking what a potato is!
Eh?
What about us loggers??
Bet he doesn't know how to operate the three shells either!
You mother fuckers. I had to do my damn best not to snort at work...
He's one of today's lucky 10,000 I guess!
I love when someone is unaware of the poop knife.
I did not know about the poop knife but I am so glad I do now
You're in for a ride son. Here's the whole story.
My family poops big. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's our diet, but everyone births giant logs of crap. If anyone has laid a mega-poop, you know that sometimes it won't flush. It lays across the hole in the bottom of the bowl and the vortex of draining water merely gives it a spin as it mocks you.
Growing up, this was a common enough occurrence that our family had a poop knife. It was an old rusty kitchen knife that hung on a nail in the laundry room, only to be used for that purpose. It was normal to walk through the hallway and have someone call out "hey, can you get me the poop knife"?
I thought it was standard kit. You have your plunger, your toilet brush, and your poop knife.
Fast forward to 22. It's been a day or two between poops and I'm over at my friend's house. My friend was the local dealer and always had 'guests' over, because you can't buy weed without sitting on your ass and sampling it for an hour. I excuse myself and lay a gigantic turd. I look down and see that it's a sideways one, so I crack the door and call out for my friend. He arrives and I ask him for his poop knife.
"My what?"
Your poop knife, I say. I need to use it. Please.
"Wtf is a poop knife?"
Obviously he has one, but maybe he calls it by a more delicate name. A fecal cleaver? A Dung divider? A guano glaive? I explain what it is I want and why I want it.
He starts giggling. Then laughing. Then lots of people start laughing. It turns out, the music stopped and everyone heard my pleas through the door. It also turns out that none of them had poop knives, it was just my fucked up family with their fucked up bowels. FML.
I told this to my wife last night, who was amused and horrified at the same time. It turns out that she did not know what a poop knife was and had been using the old rusty knife hanging in the utility closet as a basic utility knife. Thankfully she didn't cook with it, but used it to open Amazon boxes.
She will be getting her own utility knife now.
[Edit: Common question - Why was this not in the bathroom instead of the laundry room? Answer. We only had one poop knife, and the laundry room was central to all three bathrooms. I have no idea why we didn't have three poop knives. All I know is that we didn't. We had the one. Possibly because my father was notoriously cheap about the weirdest things. So yes, we shared our poop knife.]
Thank you for explaining! I had no idea and had never heard of a poop knife before now! know a lot of random crap but this one stumped me!
know a lot of random crap
I see what you did there
no one had ever heard of it until this
No one else has ever heard of it either. Just...that family.
There are more of us than you think...
If you knew a lot of random “crap” you should probably have known about the poop knife.
[deleted]
Or they just didn’t pay attention to the poop knife
Nope. Just a new username. But thanks!
You didn’t have three poop knives because that many should never exist.
1 is already pushing it just about as far as it can go.
There can only be three poop knives in the world at any given time.
Not true. I have two in my house, my sister has one, my mom and dad have two (one on each floor) and my grandma has one.
I hate to break it to you, but only one of those is made of the true steel.
Probably your grandma's
There can only be three poop knives in the world at any given time (Portello count aside).
I... I don't understand. When you poop, the tapered end naturally goes down toward the drainage pipe. I've taken massive dumps - who hasn't - but I've never had one end up sideways in the bowl so it won't go down. How does this guy position himself while pooping? I have questions!
I've never had this problem personally. But, I was once trying to take a shit at a truck stop on a family road trip and came across a turd the size of a Chipotle burrito. I'm not even exaggerating, it had so much fucking girth that it couldn't fit down the hole. If I had to guess it was probably 3.5 inches in diameter and about 8 inches long. That thing definitely would have required a poop knife.
*poop axe
FTFY
Omg thx for the laugh
Oh God I'm in tears
OMG I'm still laughing.
Dude, MGTOW? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Not sure what you think it is, simply a matter of opting out of marriage and relationships because they are all too often not worth the hassle.
simply a matter of opting out of marriage and relationships because they are all too often not worth the hassle.
80% of first time marriages are successful. That percentage is higher where both individuals are college educated and employed.
You need to ask yourself why you're part of the 20%? Why are you a failure?
Clearly MGTOW is for failures and losers. Low value males. But that isn't the issue - the problem is that these losers go around blaming women, advocating violence, spreading hate, all because they are too worthless to change.
Clearly MGTOW is for failures and losers.
Heh, why marry?
I can get sex from just about any millennial woman. They all put out and post their rumps on Instagram. Half of millennial marriages end up in divorce. The divorce rate has been increasing year after year. I can't even get away from women in the office. They're being forced their by society to work jobs they don't want to work. Women's overall happiness in the States has been decreasing and decreasing. If not losing more than half of my wealth during divorce makes me a loser than I am a total LOOOOOOOO$$$$$$$AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Half of millennial marriages end up in divorce.
20% of first time marriages end in divorce. Try harder. Stop being worthless. Have successful relationships.
They're being forced their by society to work jobs they don't want to work
Wat. The female attorneys I work with are quite proud of what they've accomplished.
20% of first time marriages end in divorce. Try harder. Stop being worthless. Have successful relationships.
No. Marriage in the US requires that I sign a legal document allowing the government to take my money in a divorce and give it to the other party. I'm not doing it.
Wat. The female attorneys I work with are quite proud of what they've accomplished.
Of course, all ballcutters are proud. But are they happy? Ask them.
I sign a legal document allowing the government to take my money in a divorce and give it to the other party.
No actually. Try marrying a valuable partner. Alimony is paid out where one partner makes career sacrifices in order to care for the home. The law isn't gendered here...
Try marrying a valuable partner.
Like I said... Why? I can get sex from just about any millennial woman. They all put out and post their rumps on Instagram.
Alimony is paid out where one partner makes career sacrifices in order to care for the home.
You're not thinking about what you're saying.
Why should I pay someone for a voluntary career sacrifice? I did not force them. Why force me to pay them for what they may have (predicting the future is impossible) missed out on financially? It is unfair and cruel. And I'm not doing it.
The law isn't gendered here...
Wrong. Women are not required to register with the US Selective Service.
Women are not required to register with the US Selective Service.
Lol, when was the last time you were drafted, boy? Oh wait, you weren't. And you won't be. Stop pathetically reaching for victimhood.
The point here is you could willingly choose a valuable partner. One with a great career. You would have even more money, more flexibility, and perhaps you would actually find fulfillment. But instead here you are...
[You:] The law isn't gendered here...
[WildFireBoat:] Wrong. Women are not required to register with the US Selective Service.
You lied about the US not having gendered laws. I am done explaining MGTOW to you. I shall now begin my three-day motorcycle trip along the east coast. Good day!
You lied about the US not having gendered laws.
Are... are you a fucking retard? We were talking about alimony laws, you fucking mouthbreathing incel.
MGTOW is a pit of right-wing bitterness, but the original message was good. It basically said 'Hey you know how everyone tells you the goal of your life is to get married and look after some people? You can just do your own thing if you want to and that's totally fine.'
I liked that about it, kinda freeing. I got banned for drumpf hating though, or something non-conservative anyway.
I agree with other person who replied. I am guessing it has more to do with the fact that you were discussing politics vs because of the position you took. We welcome men in all shapes and colors over at MGTOW
Poor guess as it was exactly the opposite. Politics was brought into a discussion that should've had nothing to do with it and I was banned for addressing that. I'd really love to check to confirm it but the comment doesn't appear in my history, presumably deleted by mods.
or maybe it was because you decided a non-political sub needed to hear about your voting preferences?
No it wasn't that specific. I'm not american either, I think it was just something classically right-wing and callous. Looks like they've deleted the comment sadly.
If he wants to be single he is a 'failure?'
Hmmm.
Wait do you see MGTOW's as "men who want to be single?"
MGTOWs are fucking worthless losers, dude.
I don't agree with your marriage stat. Can you provide sources? Here's one I found saying about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/
these losers go around blaming women, advocating violence, spreading hate, all because they are too worthless to change
You say this, but you are the only one in this conversation saying hateful things. I think you may be confusing MGTOW for incels because MGTOW certainly don't hate women or advocate any violence. In fact we condone it.
I understand how easy it is to see a few bad apples and base the rest of us off that group but I'd love it if more people did some research and were just less hostile.
We're just normal people who don't want to date, for one reason or another. I interact with women daily and we get along great and I'm an active member of the local community. We aren't creepy old dudes who are just spiteful about a past relationship.
We keep ourselves to ourselves and we don't go around ramming our ways down everyone else's throat. In this case it was YOU who went out of your way to find MGTOW stuff.
Please, in future, do some research or just leave us the fuck alone. We aren't hurting you.
There is no difference between mgtow and incels.
It's important to shame the lowest value members of society. In this case it is clearly you
My family, friends and communities begs to differ. I've given joy to many people and for that I'm valued by those people. I've built with and for people and I'm living a great life. I am truly happy.
You're just spreading hate and shame. That'll end up poorly for you. I don't know what MGTOW did to you or why you're so spiteful, but I hope you come to realise that shame isn't the answer before it's too late. Don't bother replying.
Oh and by the way, your 'shame' doesn't affect me or any other MGTOW out there. You may think you're being cool or whatever but you're having no impact what so ever. I thought I'd try be diplomatic but there's no reasoning with someone like you. You hate us for no reason, and go out of your way to shit on us. That says more about you than it does us.
We're still growing, we're still thriving and we're still happy and that pisses you off. So keep on typing but just realise no one really gives a fuck.
Best of luck for the future you hate filled creature.
[removed]
You don't get it do you?
We aren't playing victims. We pity you. You see us as evil because our lifestyle somehow threatens or invalidates yours.
You're just an angry little kid who got triggered because he doesn't understand that people can be happy on their own.
I'd like to try and help you understand but quite frankly, I know you're just gonna keep spouting the same, shit non-argument so I'll leave you be.
And please don't call me a fucking freak you fucking freak. Your hateful ass has negative value to society. Most people who spread misery like you end up just as miserable themselves so just remember your attitude towards people you disagree with when everyone has left you and you're even more alone than us "worthless mgtows"
He has different ideas than you. Is that so bad?
MGTOWs believe that women are inherently worse than men. They advocate violence and rape. Yes, that's pretty bad.
They're also low value members of society and the most likely to commit mass gun crime. Introverted white males and incels like you are fucking worthless to society.
From what I've seen of the subreddit they may be overgeneralizing assholes but they don't advocate for rape. They seem chill outside of it though.
*Poop chainsaw
FTFY
I work in a nursing home. A little old lady was on the commode (not a toilet; literally a bucket in a hole) and she took the BIGGEST turd I've ever seen in my life. I told her as much, and she told me I was being super rude. And then she saw it. Her eyes got really big, and she looked at me and said, "Oh, my! That is a big'un!" Yesterday, this same lady said to one of my nurses, "Why don't you go buy us some weed and we'll smoke it!" Little old white lady with a southern accent, from Kentucky originally. Fucking hilarious!
I went camping with a friend's family just last weekend. They have a camper and share its toilet with us tent dwellers. I went to pee in it but there was a massive turd in there that would not budge, so I yelled for my friend for help. He angrily demanded to know who quietly left the monster crap to stink up the entire camper. Everyone was silent until his four-year-old little girl raised her hand. He refused to believe that such a tiny person could create such a giant poop. His wife checked her since she's still learning how to wipe, and sure enough the evidence matched. I think in the end he was more impressed than mad at her.
This is great.
[deleted]
I wish. Sadly we're not allowed to provide booze or pot, even though they're legal.
Used to be an emt. We actually had to take a patient from a nursing home to the hospital because they tested positive for marijuana. So for some reason they thought that was an emergency. The hospital was like “wtf do they want us to do about it?”
I work in an ER as a paramedic. Once we had the best little old lady from a SNF who came in for altered mental status - turned out she was HAMMERED. Like over 0.25 EtOH. She was hilarious too, kept hitting on all the male nurses and telling bawdy jokes. The SNF tried to argue with us about taking her back but we threatened to report them for abandonment. It was a busy night so there weren't any ambulances available to take her back for an hour. Another tech and I getting off shift volunteered to take her back with the plan to hit every bar and pool hall on the way back to her facility but the charge nurse said no. :(
I am now rethinking every ams patient I’ve ever had now and wondering if they were just drunk all along.
I mean, it's good practice to never assume someone is "just" drunk. And even if they are, drunk people get strokes too!
‘‘Twas a joke, friend.
Well, they're crossing their Ts and dotting their Is. People in SNFs aren't normally allowed to partake of drugs and alcohol, because those things may interact with prescription medications (and also pot may be illegal where they are). I guarantee you that person was a pain in the ass patient, and the facility was trying to create a paper trail to get them kicked out.
At my last place, one elderly gentleman kept getting drunk and speeding around on his electric wheelchair. As you can imagine, that's every unsafe, for him and everyone around him. He ended up getting hammered one more time, went outside, took a curve in the parking lot too fast, flew off and hit his head. They called 911 and we refused to re-accept him when he recovered.
With the way SNF’s around here are, I honestly don’t blame their drug/alcohol intake.
Eh, remember that SNFs have to take in homeless people all the time. And oftentimes, homeless people are homeless because of drug abuse. I feel like SNFs get shit on a lot, but we often have to deal with the worst parts of society. Sure, we get the sweet little old ladies, but we also get the old dudes who knowingly grab our tits (yes, one of my residents has done that), and the dementia patients who like to literally paint the walls (and floor, and themselves) with their own poop. I wish that last one was an exaggeration. Then there's the "good Christian man" former homeless drug abuser who swears at us if we interrupt his valuable TV time to do the PT we'd scheduled with him 2 hours earlier. He also likes to tell us how when he was in high school 50 years ago, he used to do volunteer work as proof that he's a good Christian man. Like no time passed between then and today, with no homelessness and rampant drug abuse going on in his life.
On Friday, one of my little old ladies was having a bad day and I spent an hour just holding her so she'd stop wishing for her own death. :(
I’ve had my fair share of poopy dementia patients! The majority of my patients were hardly conscious but my opinion of SNF’s go far beyond that from not being sure who the patient is and slapping an ID bracelet on someone seemingly random to straight up refusing to tell me the reason for transport. Many SNFs have given themselves a bad rep for far beyond having difficult patients. My experience in dealing with them has rarely been a pleasant one.
I’ve never eaten at chipotle and thanks to this comment I feel sure I never will.
Welcome to opioids
Ohhhhh ya. I’ve broken a few pk getting clean.
It was probably Randy Marsh after a visit to PF Changs.
I've seen this as well. Walked into a public restroom in a store, saw a football sized turd that was never going to flush, so naturally i called my dad and brother over to look, i was crying laughing. That guy's asshole had to tear open to deliver that baby! Poor guy!
Stumbled upon one of these as a child at the Aerodrome ice skating complex in Houston. Was there on a day care field trip, probably around 11 years old or so, and I still remember it to this day. Once it was discovered, EVERYONE had to go in and see it so we had to keep a lookout for adults when the boys wanted to look (it was in the ladies room). Just like you described, this was chipotle burrito status, but even more perfectly rounded. Like a goose egg. Or an ostrich egg. Or a pterodactyl egg.
I'm glad that the metric bot isn't around now. Good bot.
I'm only interested in how many (Katie) Couric's that turd was. You could've been staring at a world record.
No way. Randy laid a 100 couric turd, that's 250 lbs! This was child's play in comparison, I'd guess between 2-3. Seriously though, it probably weighed at least 5 lbs.
How many Courics was it?
You've never seen my wife shit... Or as I call it "launching the Brown November". You know, instead of the Red October. It looks like she shits a toddler's leg.
Back in the day, there was apparently some girl who would regularly drop toilet destroying monster logs in the girl's restroom. They were apparently so insanely big that the janitor who first discovered one pulled a biology teacher in because they thought it was a prank. Nobody ever confessed to being the Godzilla Pooper, and after a few years it stopped, presumably when she graduated. I've always imaged it was some unassuming tiny cheerleader sneaking in between classes and committing vile acts of poopery.
LOL megadeuces! Those little ones can really drop some huge shits. They don't shit for 3-5 days, then they do and it has its own gravitational pull.
It looks like she shits a toddler's leg.
My sides are in orbit.
I’m gonna assume most people haven’t seen your wife poop.
I don't know. She is rather boastful.
I'm wondering why even he has seen his wife poop.
Oh, God. None of these made me laugh until yours. Laughing so hard I'm crying...
I'm thinking the level of water in the bowl plays a huge role in whether a poop knife is needed. My son (8 years old) dropped a turd in a public restroom just the other day that bridged across the hole above the water. After several unsuccessful flushes we just left it there.
This goes back to my initial query - how must you be positioned on the toilet to get a turd that doesn't leave your bunghole and down towards the drainage pipe? When I drop a deuce, it automatically dips the protruding end towards the pipe - it could never end up bridging the gap. I'm so cornfused.
Maybe their poop curves enough to miss the hole.
You do make a good point. It should go straight down.
Yeah. I've had turds that wouldn't flush. But one end was always in the hole, and the thing was just too rigid to go through the bend.
How someone gets it in any other orientation is beyond me.
... Unless it were to float, I guess. Very fatty diets?
like some people have straight hair and curly hair, some have straight poop, others have curly poop.....maybe
To get the swirly poo like the cartoon, you have to do the ice cream dispenser motion with your hips
I've had some across the hole but they tend to go titanic and break in the middle.
If you ate like an American you’d know that the large chipotle burrito that passes out of your body doesn’t always taper. It doesn’t always fall gently as gravity has a magnified effect on the large burrito which can effect its float pattern in the water. Some float (and spin) and some sink faster than the titanic. Also the consistency matters as if it’s softer it can also bend or break during the suction of flushing. But a brick doesn’t bend. It doesn’t chip. It requires something to divide it in half. Like this disgusting poop knife.
I just use the plunger to re-angle or cut said logs.
Does that help?
-large American
I am an American - a southern American. I probably eat more fried and fatty foods than most, but I've never experienced anything like this!
Sorry. Consider yourself blessed/lucky. Nobody wants to have a poop knife.
I always remember once in my school (K-12), in the grade 9-12 girl washrooms, there was a FUCKING MASSIVE turd, that was wider than the toilet hole so it was stuck... and this tiny strand of blood(y thingy?) going upwards from turd to water surface.
Every sing school kid went into that girls washroom to see in real life the rumour about the giant bloody turd in a girl washroom that wouldn't flush down. Kids from K to 12 went, every teacher that passed by and asked what the fuss was about thought "These kids and their dumb shit again", but some went in and changed to "OMG the kids were right, that was monstrous".
It was a funny day, I remember a video of it too.
Post that vid bud!
You just didn't poop big enough. It happened to me a couple times in my life, its just so much poop coming out at once that there is simply no space for it to vanish so it stacks.
U know why shit’s tapered at the end?
So your asshole won’t slam shut.
Just something my much older sister once told me when I was a little kid. I guess it was a joke, but kinda makes sense. She was quite the stoner.
I've heard that before and it's funny every time!
I think the problem is the girth not the length
That's what she said?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
If it's hard enough the weight of one end flops it down sideways. I've not had a pop knife but using a stick from outside does the job. My parents had to buy a commercial flush toilet.
Subscribe to r/poopphysics and your questions will be answered.
When I got clean off opiates - they constipate you - ohhhh boy. It was so bad, I actually broke a few poop knives.
Pretty obvious this guy's family doesn't actually have huge shits they just have weakass toilets
It's a fake story, calm down.
Edit* do you idiots honestly believe this story is real?
Guano glaive
Jesus Christ I’m dead, how have I lived without this term all my life?
Reading this has made all my time lurking on Reddit worth it. Regardless of what else I ever see on here. This has made it all worth it.
I think we did it. We found the one.
I once dropped an opiate addiction created, brain sized(baby sized?) turd into one of those fancy new powerful flushing toilets at a brand new Panera. It was literally touching my butthole still when I was sitting because it came to the very top of the toilet seat. I got up to flush it, oh and to tend to my freshly inverse raped asshole, and the powerful flush just made it move about 1/8th of an inch. I flushed 3 more times, and it just sat there slightly moving, but certainly not going away. I ended up having to grab shit loads of paper towels to take it out of the toilet and dump it in the trash by hand. It made the entire trash can wobble because it was so huge. Stan Marsh would have been fuckin proud! I was absolutely not going to be "that guy" who just leaves it in the toilet, even as a fucking heroin junky lol.
Dude knows the poop knife is weird af. Doesn't explain to his wife that they have a poop knife for ages...
Today I'm one of the lucky 10,000.
I haven’t been able to stop laughing at this
My ex-gf's family had a poop "stick"!
I'm just going to say right now that if I ever found out my significant other was using a knife to cut up their own feces and then stored it in a utility closet where it would be easy for other people to find and use, I would ABRUPTLY end the relationship and never look back. What the fuck, yo.
How obese must that family be to have such enormous poos? They must be consuming and laying down so much fiber that Google just tapped their sewage system to power high-speed internet for their whole town.
Based on how the story mentions not having gone for a couple days, it's either diet or heredity. Going that infrequently isn't normal or good for you.
three poop knives, mr. la-de-dah over here.
Do you clean this knife?
Like...........maybe some more fiber might just be a good idea.
Jesus fucking Christ
I hope this isn't real
What the actual fuck?!
Ahahahahahahahaha my Uncle was a disabled Vietnam vet who lived at the VA and would come to visit as often as he could.
I don't recall the exact med combo he was on (it was a lot) but he got constipated and on more than one occasion he took a dump that I honestly thought might have too much girth to fit through the pipe.
We always got a stick to rotate it so it could slide down the tube but a poop knife would have been more efficient, if not slightly more gross
Wow, as someone who has a shitty gut ecosystem and needs to poop 5 times a day. I only dream I can poop giant logs and achieve your family's consistency. #LifeGoals
I legit thought I was in for a shittymorph there, whew
wow
And here I thought nothing could top the SR-71 repost. :'-)
I have a poop knife. My sons crap massive logs so it is needed
no. one. does. this.
In desperation, I once pulled a bobby pin out of my hair, unbent it, and used it to break up a big poop that wouldn't flush. Threw it away afterwards of course.
Back in the day my then girlfriend and I were visiting some of my relatives. After a discreet bathroom visit she comes back to me in a hurry and asks me to help her with something in the bathroom. Turns out she let out a monster log that just wouldn't flush, or move, or break, lying perfectly aligned with the hole but over the water. If there ever was a perfect turd for an Alaskan pipeline this was it.
After looking around and realizing I had no useful tools at my disposal I came to the realization I had to break it manually, cobra attack style.
I took a deep breath, focused.
I swear the strike lasted milliseconds and it broke in two perfect halves that thank God aligned one after the other with the next flush and just disappeared down the drain. Somehow my hand was spotless after karate-chopping that vile turd.
Still washed it thoroughly afterwards of course.
Of course!
This made my day, thank you
Is it ok that I'm picturing a cake knife?
OMG! Funniest story ever !
"Dung Divider" <- legendary stuff
OMG. The poop knife is going to live on in reddit infamy now.
/u/nbd_030303
What’s the maximum Courics that can be scraped at a time?
I completely lost it at Dung Devider.
The "shitula" remains my favorite poo knife pun.
No. God no. The whole world must be made first work because of this. Where do I donate? God fucking no.
Bone-Santos?
I don’t think I originally commented on that but I recall thinking the “one or two days between poops” might have been a contributing factor to the problem.
I'd give good karma to see poops that can't flush.
When I was little I took a monster shit and my dad made my brother fish it out with his hands into a plastic bag
I've never used one but why wouldn't a poop knife be stored in the bathroom?
"Guano Glaive" holy shit that's amazing
This is one of my favorite stories here on Reddit! I read it and laugh every single fucking time
This story was posted here a while back. Was it you?
i think, Holy Shit, works here...
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Obviously he has one, but maybe he calls it by a more delicate name. A fecal cleaver? A Dung divider? A guano glaive? I explain what it is I want and why I want it.
Still makes me laugh like a hyena.
Why do Stories involving poop always make me laugh like a maniac... Thank you for posting this.
Honestly, I think about this story at least once a week.
Every time you clog a toilet - you've exceeded someones expectations.
How would you clean it and where would you clean it after covering it in feces? I'm on medication that causes me to produce some spectacularly large dookies. I may carry on your families tradition, I just can't picture how the hell I would keep it clean between uses.
Well that certainly is....something.
Omg. I wish I didn't have an actual experience with something like this, but unfortunately I do. Used to be a caregiver. Had a developmentally disabled client, and one day found this crusty poopy knife on the back of his toilet. It had one of those old WOODEN handles too, can you imagine the germs and bacteria it had inhaled into itself? (shudder)
Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's our diet, but everyone births giant logs of crap.
Fast forward to 22. It's been a day or two between poops and I'm over at my friend's house.
There you have it
But I know your post is one big made up joke because of this bit:
A fecal cleaver? A Dung divider? A guano glaive?
When Americans want to write something funny, they tend to use alliteration puns. Since the original poster did three here, I assume he was just making stuff up on the go. Like his entire post.
Is this actually a thing? I know American toilets aren’t as good as uk ones but never heard of this!
It’s from a story from r/tifu or r/askreddit or something where some guy had a poop knife to cut up the poop so it would go down the toilet. Kinda like a toilet plunger. And he thought everyone had a toilet knife, and he only learned that it wasn’t actually a thing people did until after he got married.
The mashitty
doesn't everyone have a poop knife?
The real question is, do you hang it from the ceiling or just stab it into the toilet lid to keep it handy?
It hangs from a rope on the side like a poop knife should
It's right there next to the three seashells
I just wanna chime in and assure you that a “poop knife” is NOT common amongst Americans. I’d never heard of it until reddit.
To spread toilet butter!
It's a story about a guy's family that used a specific knife at home to cut their poop before flushing. The teenage guy then goes to a party and asks the host about the whereabouts of their poop knife.
Never ask questions you don't want answers to...
You know, to cut the poop into little pieces so it doesn't get lodged in the drain
Yeah, obviously you use a wooden spoon...
Check out the muffin monster...muffin monster
Lucky 10,000
How do you break up your massive turds in order to flush them?
Hold up a minute.
You don't got a poop knife?
I'm not convinced the original post of that isn't a shitpost, if you'll pardon the pun.
why does this guy not know about the poop knife?
Wait, you don’t know what a poop knife is? Tell me you at least know what a plunger is
As an Australian I am thinking the same thing. I have never had a problem with a poo flushing and I can do bloody big poos.
5 years on Reddit and you’ve never come across the Poop Knife?! Damn man, your life must’ve been boring...
It's like a toe knife, but for poo. If you can't afford separate knives, you can rinse the knife off in between uses and use it for your toes or poo.
Americans take bigger shits than the rest of the world because of our fucked up eating habits.
It's a fake "that happened" style story that is slightly amusing.
These exist and are called Macerating Toilets, fyi.
And any boat with a built in toilet ("head") has a macerating pump.
They are usually installed with absolutely zero concern for maintenance or repair. What that means is you will be taking them apart on your knees. Once the gasket seal is broken you best be quick or you will be knee deep in nasty. And since space is at a premium on boats, it's guaranteed to be a tight spot.
...chewing toilets??
Macerating
That really is one of those perfect words for describing what it is.
Upvote for poop knife
Ever gone to a friend's house and they have no poop knife? You never know real fear until that happens.
I understood this reference.
I am American. I've never heard of this poopknife you speak of. I've heard of drain snakes and of course plungers but the poopknife is new to me
Edit: ah I see it is one of this infamous Reddit stories like the kid who "gave birth" to cockroaches or the kid with a broken arm.
Both of the kids arms were broken, important distinction.
Yes. Phew! I almost made the story sound weird! Thanks!
As someone who owns a poop knife store I'll kindly ask you to shut the hell up!
Poop spoon gives more poop scoop.
Scoop diddy woop poop scoop.
https://www.plumbingsupply.com/when-and-where-to-use-a-macerating-toilet.html
What Is a Macerating Toilet? When flushed, a normal toilet sends waste through a trap, into a waste line, and onto the main drain line to the sewer or septic tank. Because that drain line is below the level of the toilet, gravity pulls the contents of the waste line into it. It's the same with sinks and tubs. Macerating toilets (aka "upflush toilets"), on the other hand, send waste to a macerating unit located behind the toilet or in the wall. High-powered blades liquefy the waste, which is then pumped out of the unit through normal pipe that's been tied into the main drain line. Macerating toilets are more expensive than standard ones, but connecting a small-diameter pipe to an existing system is much easier and far less expensive than redoing the whole thing.
Omg 3 front page references to poop knife in 3 days
They actually make those. They are called Macerating Toilets.
oops, I had replied to the wrong comment.
I use a Poop Hammer in the shower.
I use my George Foreman^^^tm waffle stomper.
That exists in Europe. It’s called a sanibroyer in french (sani-grinder loosely translated). I shit you not.
As a girl with long hair, how about one in the shower too?
They sell replacement shower plugs with dicing blades to cut up trapped hair.
It's an older reference sir, but it checks out.
Oh please no
RV's have an inline garbage disposal inline with their waste system for dumping waste into a septic tank/whatever. That's all it is. One of those cheap ones that just go really fast.
This is a thing.
A neighbor lived in an old factory building which was converted to an apartment (no, not a loft).
He let us use his toilet while ours was being renovated and he had a "poop shredder" that you had to activate before flushing because the piping was too small or something ...
Damn that's an old callback. Good stuff.
My grandparents actually had a toilet in their pool machinery room. It had low water pressure or something and there was a turd muncher thing on the pipe. I was notorious for blocking their toilets with massive logs as a child so I was told that if I needed to shit I had to go outside to the pool house and shit there. It was remarkably effective.
These exist.
They're called "macerating toilets" and they're typically used in basements when you can't add a full size downward facing waste pipe under the toilet. They "chew up" whatever is flushed so it'll fit through a normal sized pipe, and, usually, pump it away to a conventional drain.
So, TYL, y'all.
meta.
If you make one I will but it immediately
Butting it is exactly what it’s made for. :)
Ugh omg BUY IT,buy it!!!!
M E T A
E
T
A
I have used the poop spatula, but hadn't considered the poop knife. Thanks.
Something something Jolly Rancher
That’s how I broke both my arms.
I had a pistol and a shotgun.
It;s called a grinder pump, they're pretty common in basement level bathrooms where the toilet is below the main house drain.
They already exist. They use them in homes where you may need to put a bathroom below the sewer line and pump the poo up hill.
Fun fact of the day, they actually have these. It's for if you waste line sits above your toilet.
Or in the shower to blast apart all that hair
We should put sharp and powerful spinning blades all around the household.
When I was a kid I almost/partially scalped myself with a fan.... so maybe not
Holy shit! I just found a spatula my wife hid way in the back of the under-sink cabinet next to the toilet. Is this what she is using if for!?!? I’m too embarrassed to even fucking ask! Edit: we’re both Americans.
Home of the Muffin Monster
https://www.jwce.com/product/30k-40k-open-channel-muffin-monster/
Jesus H. Christ! What do you eat?
Refried beans and red clay.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Macerate+toilet
Aawww yeah poop knife post!
I hate that I know what this is referencing. Goddamnit Reddit.
I put one under my toliet in my RV. Scares the fuck out of people the first time they use it.
That's called a macerating toilet.
Now there's a million-dollar idea! Everyone get in line for the DoodyGrinder™
We use wired hangers. I honestly have no idea how but my kids have really big poops. My 7 year old have clogged the toilet multiple times with her poos.
I will always and forever upvote anything poop knife
Goddamnit I’ve been on reddit too long I fucking dreamed about needing the poop knife last night like wtf
You can get toilets in the UK with a macerator (Saniflo is the brand I've seen) which are for the purpose of putting a toilet where there's no soil pipe, only 2" plumbing. Putting the macerator on a regular toilet would make a block-proof toilet for sure.
A coworker of mine patented this idea (after another coworker brainstormed it and told everyone about it during lunch break - there was still some tension over this incident, last I heard) - like, actually got a real patent - and has no plans to actually make one.
It would actually sell really well if you just pointed out the benefits to your septic system and never having to worry about a clogged drain again.
Tell your coworker they already exist.
Huh. That does exactly what I'd thought. Never needed one.
In RVs, they have an electric poop knife in the holding tank. It’s called a “mascerator”, which is the most disgusting thing to call a poop knife.
Some sort of garbage disposal in the toilet actually sounds pretty ingenious for preventing clogs.
This actually is a thing. They are sometimes installed in old houses that don’t have adequate plumbing as a cheaper alternative to replacing the pipes.
It's dingleberry season
They have that....its called a macerating toilet.
Muffin Monster. Have these on boats.
I think you've found your niche.
Am American. Have never heard of a "poop knife."
/r/evenwithcontext
Garbage disposals are stupid?
But why?
I live in a multi floor apartment building. Garbage disposals are the furthest thing from stupid. It saves me a lot of trips to the dumpster.
How are they stupid? They are fucken awesome.
Better to compost.
I mean that's not an option for everyone. Not everyone has the space to do it.
The Japanese bidets, yes. The other type, I don't understand and I soaked myself. And bidets don't seem to exist in Northern Europe at all.
And then there's the German poop shelf. WTF.
german here. we have both regular toilets and poop shelves. benefit of the shelf is you don't get nasty toilet water on your butt when rock hits bottom.
"In a traditional German toilet, the hole into which shit disappears after we flush is right at the front, so that shit is first laid out for us to sniff and inspect for traces of illness. In the typical French toilet, on the contrary, the hole is at the back, i.e. shit is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible. Finally, the American (Anglo-Saxon) toilet presents a synthesis, a mediation between these opposites: the toilet basin is full of water, so that the shit floats in it, visible, but not to be inspected. [...] It is clear that none of these versions can be accounted for in purely utilitarian terms: each involves a certain ideological perception of how the subject should relate to excrement. Hegel was among the first to see in the geographical triad of Germany, France and England an expression of three different existential attitudes: reflective thoroughness (German), revolutionary hastiness (French), utilitarian pragmatism (English). In political terms, this triad can be read as German conservatism, French revolutionary radicalism and English liberalism. [...] The point about toilets is that they enable us not only to discern this triad in the most intimate domain, but also to identify its underlying mechanism in the three different attitudes towards excremental excess: an ambiguous contemplative fascination; a wish to get rid of it as fast as possible; a pragmatic decision to treat it as ordinary and dispose of it in an appropriate way. It is easy for an academic at a round table to claim that we live in a post-ideological universe, but the moment he visits the lavatory after the heated discussion, he is again knee-deep in ideology.”
― Slavoj Žižek, The Plague of Fantasies
[deleted]
The correct term is "Flachspüler" and is mostly SFW for googling
Not stupid at all. No food in the bin means no stinky kitchen. I wouldn't trade mine for a bidet!
Agreed. How gross is it that all we do with the most unsanitary substance produced by our bodies is run it in with a dry cloth? I try to keep wet wipes on me, but eventually you're gonna get in a situation without them.
They're stupid but fun.
In what way are they stupid?
They aren't stupid. They save landfills from a ton of problems when food decomposes. If you can't compost, then the disposal is the way to go.
In the UK we have neither bidets or rubbish disposal thingys 😭
But at least they made our bin collections fortnightly and not weekly!
Bidets are very common in Middle eastern/South asian households, the rest of the country is slowly catching on.
The only person I ever knew who had one was my great grandmother (who died at 87 in about 2011). Her bathrooms were hilarious- salmon pink suites and carpets with silver wallpaper, and GOLD SWAN taps, which I’d have loved to have kept. It was delightfully kitschy and probs hadn’t been touched since the ‘70s, so to me, bidets are very ‘70s.
Well if you go on the UK amazon store theyre a hot seller, it takes time for these things to penetrate culture.
Actually forget that, take our garbage disposal but keep your bidets... do you have any... competent world leaders lying around?
Have you used a bidet?
I feel like a savage when I shit away from home now that I installed a bidet attachment.
Me too. There's no going back. I was so traumatised by having to wipe for a week when I went on vacation that I bought a travel bidet for next time. Wet wipes are garbage... they just don't do the trick.
I have used a bidet and I can't stand them. I tried to use them in the past and it makes me feel like leaping away like a springbok from a hynea as soon as it touches my crack.
Different strokes I guess. Using dry toilet paper leaves me feeling more raw and less clean. I just can’t imagine preferring that over a cleansing stream of water.
They dont sound stupid, i always have things that are too liquid to go in the bin but too solid to go down the sink, if only i had a little blender thing in the plug hole
Bidet changed my life.
We should combine a bidet with a garbage disposal and record the results.
I always tell my friends this. It’s freaking ancient that us Americans wipe our asses with one ply toilet paper!
YES. As an American, getting a bidet attachment for my toilet has been one of the best investments I’ve ever made. So fresh, so clean, and less paper waste.
Y'all should try the disposal
they probably shouldn't and don't have them for a reason. They encourage people to put things down the drain that shouldn't go down the drain. Which results in cities needing to clean out their sewers two or three times as frequently than if there weren't disposers, and sewage treatment plants need to have higher capacity grease interceptors and other facilities which also must get cleaned more frequently than a plant that doesn't need to treat so much food waste. Allowing garbage disposers on kitchen sinks significantly increases the costs of maintaining sewers and treating sewage.
I poured a whole jar of pickles that had gone bad into the sink and turned on the disposal. Because if the brine the pickles got sucked into the diposal. Cool
bidets
Oh don't say that, that'll just attract the "wet asshole" cartel
You dry up after using it, mate. Please tell me you at least wash your ass when you shower. You really need to wash your ass.
[deleted]
Toilet paper does the trick. The whole process is a lot less messy than wiping up poop. One of those things you just have to try I guess.
We live in the US and have a bidet. We absolutely love it and would never not have one.
Our cities should supply a compost bin. I never use the disposal but had to replace the one in my house when it was leaking, which apparently happens about every 6 years. Composting is an extra step, but the soil it turns out is legendary.
It is much better to put food waste down the sink than in the trash if composting isn't available/feasible. When the food breaks down in the landfill it causes a lot of problems. When you put it down the sink it gets taken care of with the other organic waste we produce, ya know, poop.
When you put it down the sink it gets taken care of with the other organic waste we produce, ya know, poop.
No, it deffinetly doesn't. Anything containing oils or grease will fuck up the drainage plumbing and sewers and cripple the efficiency of sewage treatment. The food waste will congeal into gelatin and stick to sewer pipe walls and needs to be power washed and vacuumed out several times a year where dumping food down the drain is common. And when it makes it to the treatment plant it will clog up the filters slowing or stopping the process and it coats and kills the bacterial sludge intended for digesting shit.
This is why commercial buildings like restaurants, offices, mechanics/manufacturing have two different sewer systems. One for the bathrooms that goes to the sanitary sewer, and another for grease and oils that goes to an interceptor to prevent any food waste or organic oils from getting into the sewer and making it to the treatment plant. Restaurants or other commercial buildings found to be dumping food waste into the sanitary sewer get massive fines.
Residential dumping of food waste into the drain isn't seen as big of a problem as commercial food waste dumping, but it still significantly increases the frequency of maintenance on sewers and treatment plants as well as decreasing the efficiency of the treatment, and it makes the smell of the facilities 10 times worse. And whenever they shut down the treatment plant to scrape the grease off all the mechanical equipment it just gets sprayed down and trucked to a composting landfill anyway.
deffinetly
stopped reading there.
I believe you are correct, I have a big green compost bin that the city takes every week for free.
My city is just now getting big recycling bins. We just had small recycling tubs before. If we get composting bins, I'm sure it will be far in the future.
Not the case for folks on septic systems.
Folks on septic systems probably have the room available for composting. They still shouldn't be throwing food in the garbage if that garbage is going to a landfill. They also shouldn't be burning their trash, but I know plenty of rural folk that do.
My current place has a bidet (US). It's pretty sweet
I have one of each. I'm living the life.
This guy doesn’t know how to use the seashells...
“Nooo... please!! Don’t give me a swirly! I’ll do anything!”
Or as we'll all call it over here, Booty Water Lasers or TTA (Toilet To Ass) Cannons
European here. We still don't have bidets, and it's fucking sad
Canadian. Honestly, bidets changed my life. Those Europeans are on to something.
I asked someone how they used a biday and they said just a quick rinse with no paper... ew
I should get one. So tired of cleaning peanut butter out of shag carpet.
Holy shit, this just gave me an idea! garbage disposals in the toilet! you'd never clog a toilet again!
They are not stupid. I've had to live without one and cleaning out the basket in the sink drain that catches the food is my least favorite chore by far. So gross, I feel like it's never clean enough.
Am I the only one here that will strip, stand in the shower, and then "bidet" away?
Nope. I did that for most of my life until going on vacation with my family and sharing a space. My brother made a comment "did you just take a second shower?" and I told him with complete confidence "no, I was washing my ass. I don't feel clean after pooping unless I wash my ass." They made fun of me for the day and he later bought me a bidet attachment as a gag gift... only it turns out that not only did I love the bidet, he loved it too. Now everybody in my immediete family has one at home, and we've all converted lots of friends as well.
A bidet on every toilet. That's the new dream!
Most Europeans don't know how to use bidets or don't even have one.
I'm British I don't use either, which is good as both things make no sense to me.
It’s absolutely not stupid. It significantly reduces the risk of clogs.
I'm Canadian so we have neither :/
I just combined them in my head. My lower half is terrified.
They're stupid but fun.
Interesting description for garbage disposals..
I wish bidets were everywhere in the US - I got spoiled last time I went traveling.
bidets are overrated.
I bought one because I was intrigued by the hype but its unnecessary and seldom used.
I am not the type of person to be overly concerned with whether or not I have a glisteningly clean asshole or not though.
They're illegal here - the additional nutrients mess with sewage treatment.
For the record, you can get a bidet attachment on Amazon for like $25 and it takes about 5 minutes to install. I put one on every toilet in the house. 10/10 would recommend.
Check out macerating toilet... basically razor blades chopping up waste
(American here) - My parents wanted to help me fix up a house I recently bought, when looking at new toilets, I saw some that come with bidet attachments and things, my mother would not even consider it, like I was a total fucking weirdo for even thinking about it. What's so weird about wanting a clean ass?
Can we permanently export the word y'all while we're at it?
[deleted]
You all. All of you. You, are all fine
[deleted]
Did you say youts?
Yeah the 2 youts
'you' is ambiguous. there rest aren't words.
Yeah I wanna know what that's like. Also something that may not be american per se but somewthing I only ever saw in american shows are trash chutes in appartement buildings.
Edit ok apparently trash chutes are everywhere haha I just never saw any of them
The sink garbage disposal is basically a blender that goes under the sink for small bits of food left over on your plate. Normally I scrape uneaten food in the trash, but if there's a bit more still on the plate, you just throw it in the sink. It gets stuck in the pipe, so you flip the switch for the disposal and hear a loud "WRRRRRRCHCHCHHCHCHCCHCHHCCHCGGRGRGGRGRCHHCCHHCH"
Once it turns to a "CHCHHCHCHCHCHCHMMMCMMCMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM" you know the pipe is clear and it won't clog up with food.
and when it’s like “CHNKACHNKACHKKKKKKAKAKAKAKAKACHNKAAAKAKAA” it means you fucked up and there’s a spoon or just something way too big in there
We should all do the fork in the garbage disposal
YES!
YES!
YES!
YES!
BITCH, YOU’RE YESSING TOO HARD!
KIKI! STOP! SHE'S YESSING TOO HARD!
ayyy this guy knows
[deleted]
STOP I lost my contact FOUND IT
Did you make a mess?
Kiki STOP! You're Yesing TOO HARD!
That is a vintage reference my friend
And if it's a shot glass you gotta take it apart and get all the little shards of glass out of there.
I've had this happen a couple times and never had to take it apart. I got some mechanical fingers and got all the large pieces out and then unjammed it with a prybar(i think you turn it counter clockwise for this). Then stood back and turned it on. It made awful noises but it fixed it both times.
You definitely just use a flat head screwdriver on the bottom side. There will be a slot for you to manually turn the gear.
flat head screwdriver
That's what the man said, a prybar.
Depends. Ours requires a specific size allen key.
Allen wrench, but it it's the same size as the bit extender on a standard ratchet, so you can just use that.
I got some mechanical fingers
You got what?
Googles furiously
OMG I NEED THIS!
You definitely just use a flat head screwdriver on the bottom side. There will be a slot for you to manually turn the gear.
That works but when it's really jammed you have to get creative. I went from the top and managed to get it free.
My garbage disposal has eaten probably 5 shot glasses.
Two for mine, one of them I didn't think it was coming back from but it got it going with that little allen wrench screw in the bottom.
Like a dozen for ours. We had a tic-tac-toe/checkers shot glass set and only have one left.
You know you can buy a little plastic cage screen that filters out glasses and silverware for like $1, at any store that sells sponges and dish soap, right?
But then you have to move it to use it. And they get loaded with gunk and smell bad.
It wants you to drink less.
I always stick my hand in the disposal to check for shot glasses before turning it on. Haven't lost a shot glass or finger yet!
My room mates and I have done this like 6 times. It's a nightmare.
College me weeps.
Omg this just happened to us.
My bro dropped a pint glass in one. Jesus.
This has happened to me a handful of times. Broke one of my favorite shot glasses this way. Sigh......
I didn't know one went down mine and I called the maintenance people to come good the disposal. They pulled out shards of glass that used to be a shit glass. They weren't happy.
I just moved into a new apartment and the girl who lived here before me was clearly clueless. There's been a ton of weird little things about the place but one of the strangest is that there was a small ramekin just down in the disposal. It made the disposal completely useless and I guess she just left it there and never used the disposal.
And if you hear a DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING it's a fork.
And then it turns into a horror movie.
Fyi it's very easy to unplug your disposal! They generally just plug into an outlet under the sink.
But some of us enjoy the thrill of potential mutilation
That's why I have a non dominant hand.
That's why I make someone else do it
A good reason to have kids. Small, nimble fingers make it far easier to avoid the blades of death
And if you lose one you can always make more
Are you my girlfriend?
I still wouldn't put my hand in a grinder. Capacitors can hold charge while unplugged. You never know.
Then flip the switch for a second before going balls deep in a knife pit
You know there aren't actually blades in there, right?
Yes, and everyone else agreed it was much better before the "YoU kNoW rIgHt" drooling started
In all honesty all the disposals I've ever used were hard wired.
no. then you have a spork.
SAW VII
My roommate put half a corn cob down ours at 2AM one night. It was very loud.
Shot glasses fall into our disposal all the time. We've lost so many.
Once a shot glass got into ours. That sucked.
I am picturing many Americans relating, while I sit here thinking wtf?
Yep, it's like the
RRRRRRR ^BIP BOOP ^^BEEP ^BIP RRRRRRRRRRRRR SCREEEEE RRRRRR
of a dial-up modem connecting 20 years ago. If you've heard it, you're probably laughing at the text version. If not, you're very confused.
Like my hand
Or a seed.
Shot glass*
My girlfriend ran the garbage disposal once and we heard the grinding and shattering of glass. I turned it off and reached in there to discover that a shot glass had fallen in the drain. I had to take on the task of fishing all the little shards of glass out of there.
Yea my mom taught me to always reach my hand in there first to make sure there isn't anything in there.
"Let's do the fork in the garbage disposal!"
Or an avocado pit.
Captured effortlessly, that's the way it was...
I also love this comment too
Growing up that spoon was called the grapefruit spoon at my Grandma’s house. She had a lot of them, lol.
Well it was a spoon. Now it's a sideways spork
Another teaspoon in the disposal...
Sounds like your spoon is too big.
My spouse wrecked our first disposal with flatware. Covered by warranty so I easily replaced. They wrecked that one too. Now outside of warranty, I went to buy the biggest, baddest industrial sized disposal compatible with my sink. The sales person said nobody buys that model, it's overkill, why do we need it?
"We still have some flatware left."
It lasted the rest of our time in that house. It was super quiet, had multi-stage grinders, and annihilated anything that went in there. Would buy again.
Fucking spoons man, every. Damn. Time...
10/10 garbage disposal description.
I'd say it's a perfect 5 out of 7!
The word you are looking for is “Onomatopoeia”.
I was looking at the entire description not just the onomatopoeia
Fair point.
8/10 with rice
I understood that reference!
I couldn't have done a better job describing the sounds.
It’s really great for if you’ve eaten soup or some kind of sauce with meat in it, you can’t really scrape liquid into the garbage can, so it goes in the sink, and so the little bits of ground beef or corn go with it. A lot of non-Americans (at least, a lot who’ve said anything about it) seem to think we out literally all our garbage in there.
A lot of non-Americans (at least, a lot who’ve said anything about it) seem to think we out literally all our garbage in there.
Ohh... that would explain why they think it's weird. Nah; only semi-mushy food waste goes into the disposal.
They can handle bones and stuff
Huh. I'm always worried that such hard objects'll snag in the pipes, ultimately causing a clog.
They work by throwing the pieces against an abrasive on the sides, the blades don't actually chop anything. If the pieces are too big they don't go down and get thrown against the abrasive until they are small enough
SOUNDS LIKE CHEWBACCA TAKING A SHIT
^(hey dad is that a mickey mouse t-shirt?)
THAT'S NOT MICKEY MOUSE, THAT'S JUST TIT DIRT
Tit dirt? where am I? lol
I'm deaf, and that's exactly what I feel for when I run the disposal, especially my new super quiet one that is too quiet for me to hear. I just put my fingers on the sink and feel it until it hums.
Were you born deaf, and if not how long have you been deaf? I've been deaf now for 10 years (fucking thanks, asshole Iraqi and your stupid IED) and I've been noticing lately that I'm starting to forget how certain things sounded. Like, the other day I was trying to remember what the chorus to "Hey Jude" by The Beatles sounded like and couldn't for the life of me remember, even after googling the lyrics. Have you noticed this as well?
Yep, it's completely normal. Just like you forget exactly how a food tasted when you haven't had it for 15 years, you forget sounds. I've always been deaf. Deafness is when you have to start using visual cues to understand speech and I've always had to do that. But deafness is a spectrum and you can hear relatively a lot to having no hearing at all.
If you're a candidate for a CI, you'd likely not have a really hard time in learning how to use it. Late deafened people tend to adapt quickly to a CI.
This is accurate.
Yeah, and you also need to listen for "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH". That's how you know someone had their hand in the sink when you turned it on.
I think you're doing it backwards friend. If its a large amount you should probably just throw it away but if its just normal scaps you can just rinse it right off.
Also pro tip: always run cold water while you use it
My wife jokingly turned ours on while I was repairing it, she thought it was unplugged and wanted to “freak me out “
You throw away food?
I mean, you might have a few pieces of spaghetti left on your plate or a stray green bean or two. Just wash it down the sink, run the garbage disposal, and you're good to go.
You don't dump a plate of food or something with bones down the disposal. All it does it keep the sink from getting clogged if things build up after washing dishes a few times.
You can put bones in them, works fine.
Yeah I'm sure it's fine. Growing up, I'd get yelled at for not throwing them in the trash so I'm always thinking "Hmm is this really worth the disposal's effort?"
Garbage disposal works great for eggshells and the bits of vegetables that are usually trimmed. Some fruit peels, too. Potato peels can gum it up, though.
Normally I scrape uneaten food in the trash
I'm more and more shocked as I learn that nobody else is as apprehensive about doing this as I am. For me, 100% of food waste goes outside to the scrap-pile. Because that's where I want the ants/roaches/rats to stay (and because the neighborhood cats take care of scraps pretty quickly). In my mind, having huge pieces of food in the trash is just an engraved invitation for mold and insects to come on in and enjoy the feast. It may be an upbringing thing too, as I remember my dad was always on us about leaving pizza boxes tucked behind the trash can instead of going ahead and taking them out - apparently the smell of the boxes was stronger than normal trash and he said it would attract rats.
Idk, but I just know I could never ever put food of any kind in a trash can. I'd have a nervous breakdown or either have to take the trash out right away.
Perfect freaking description.
OMFG I’m literally crying from laughter over here!!! It’s so accurate! 😂😂😂
Someone give this man gold
r/descriptivetextaudio needs to be a thing.
It’s a wonderful thing to hit this switch at night when you’re fumbling for the light switch WHICH IS ALWAYS RIGHT NEXT TO THE FUCKING GARBAGE DISPOSAL SWITCH.
You reminded me of this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V998lOeIN1w
Onomatopoeia on fleek
I had a cat figure out how to push the switch to turn it on. There's nothing quite like hearing that last noise of an empty disposal at 2 am
I'm crying!
Jokes aside, for those of you moving to NA and are unfamiliar. The solids aren't gonna be a problem, at worse you only have to dig it out.
Grease you still have to clean out because it will accumulate. If you flip the switch, the power of the suction will drag the things down, but the nasty stuff will pop up your second sink from the air vacuum.
But the best part is cleaning and sharpening the blades with ice. The sound of ice being crushed in a disposal is so satisfying.
I love this comment so much
Nothing quite like the sound of a smooth running disposal after a grind session.
Do you guys not compost your old food? As in a green bin for food that gets collected? Or is that not a thing in the US?
It is a thing in the US, just most families don't do it. I personally only know one person who does it, and they're into growing their own crops as well.
Huh. My city (Canada) is really into all recycling. If we throw food into the trash they will reject it.
Some areas have that, but most don't. I currently live in a nice Los Angeles suburb, more eco-conscious than many parts of the US, and we don't have food waste collection. There's trash, recycling, and green waste (leaves, grass, branches, etc). If you want to compost old food you have to maintain your own compost bins.
Where do you live that you get food waste collection? I'm jealous!
Eastern Canada
Portland, OR has that. Wish it would get out to the surrounding communities.
Wait. He wasn't trolling?? People actually throw garbage down the sink? And let me guess - the garbage can is for recyclables?!
The less wet food that is in the trash can, the fewer flies and disease carrying bugs will be forming colonies around your trash can.
Goddamn poetry, I tell hyu wut.
This reminds me of Creepshow. And that reminds me, I need to get hold of a copy of Creepshow
But why throw food in the pipe in the first place?
Well you don't "throw" food in it, per se. It's more like if you're washing dishes and there's noodles or a bit of chicken, you can safely just wash it off in the sink. If you notice the drain is clogged, you flip the switch next to the sink, hear the mighty roar, and the food gets blended and can wash away in the pipes.
Oh so you just have a big hole into the pipe in the sink? No smaller holes so that just water and some insignificantly small scraps can get through? I just use a paper towel to remove the food and throw it into the paper recycling bag.
Trash chutes are genius if you live in a tall building and have to take your trash to the basement.
Have one in my building in NYC. Beats going down 17 floors...
Thats crazy. I can't imagine living that far up.
The view is pretty awesome, I can see over to Queens form my balcony. Problem is, truck treat 1st ave like an interstate and go flying up it at 4:00am.
It's all fun and games until you realize the building doesn't have [working] elevators. Moving in/out of a 13th floor apartment sucks balls without elevators.
It has its tradeoffs.
I lived on the 18th floor of a building in downtown Dallas for a few years. Great views, especially with the rooftop pool on 26.
On the downside, you can't (or at least it's emphasized not to) pour grease down the drain. The property management gives you these "fat trapper" bags that you're supposed to fill and throw in the garbage.
And of course, at that level, water has to be pumped up, so if the power goes out, you're screwed. And there's the knowledge that the fire department doesn't have anything tall enough to reach you if a fire breaks out.
We also had to keep an eye on friends who came over. A surprising number of them (after showing them the balcony) said they had a weird compulsion making them want to climb over and jump.
That compulsion is completely normal. There's a French phrase for it that translates as "call of the void".
I'm almost certain this expression doesn't exist in French but was invented by an English speaker who gave it a French name to make it sound authentic.
I'm from the Dallas area. What is like being stuck up so high if there's really bad storms and stuff going on?
You mean with high winds?
A little unsettling at first, but not a big deal. Tall buildings do sway (I believe I heard our building had an 8-inch sway) in the wind.
However, they’re built with dampeners, so you don’t really feel the movement. If you have water in the sink, or look at the water in the toilet, you can see/hear it sloshing around in high winds, which is a bit freaky until you get used to it.
The buildings are steel and concrete, so I actually felt safer during tornado warnings there than I do in a house.
You dont have a garbage chute in your building?
I just said I do have one...
They smell so awful, though. I once lived in a high floor in a building with a garbage chute, and I'm tellin ya it's a toss up vs just taking the trash bag in the elevator.
Bro just dump bleach down it.
Instructions unclear. In jail for dumping bleach in my lower floor neighbor's face.
In the UK you take it outside. Very few buildings have basements.
It is the same in most places in the U.S. I've really only ever seen it in tv shows and movies in really tall apartment buildings but I've always thought it was a brilliant solution.
So many memories, I can smell the hallway now. My grandma lived on the second floor of her building but there was a chute. I loved putting the trash in there and letting the heavy metal door slide shut. Closest ive ever been to putting ghosts in the containment unit.
/r/unexpectedghostbusters
/r/unexpected(anything) is such a lazy attempt at a joke. Take any reference found in a story and it meets the criteria.
Thanks for your input. It was totally unneeded and useless, just like you seem to feel my original comment was. I guess we're right about on the same level.
So you understand my point then?
My apartment is only like five stories but we have one, not sure how many people notice it though because we have people who come by every night and empty your trash can if you leave it out by the door.
or you are really pissing off your neighbors.
/s
I tried to buy a house of only two stories with a laundry shoot once. Still kind of regret not having the best offer.
I rented a house that obviously used to have a laundry shoot or dumbwaiter or something because there was a big empty shaft leading to the basement. But whatever it was, it was walled over on the upper stories. So sad.
I lived in a house with a laundry shoot once. Brilliant invention, terrible for the hamster though
CHUTE!!!
Chute
chute
Every apartment building I have ever lived in has a garbage chute.
Except the one that was only 3 floors.
The US needs to get with the times.
In the UK you take it outside. Very few buildings have basements.
My building--8 floors--has a dumpster room which is a room on the ground floor of the building with dumpsters in it. There are garage doors for the garbage trucks to get access to the dumpsters.
The garbage chutes in the building all put the trash right in the dumpsters. No need to take anything outside.
I mean the whole point is to make it so you don't have to take it outside which often means going down many flights of stairs or taking your trash with you into an elevator (which won't win you many friends). Also at least some garbage chutes empty into outside dumpsters.
An open dumpster outside? Seems like that would attract a lot of rats.
Does the UK have tornadoes?
There's a movement in London of building so-called "Iceberg Houses"
No tornadoes but sometimes it does get slightly windy, does that count?
And I'm pretty sure the iceberg thing is only multi millionaires and fairly certain it isn't everyone doing it.
It's my understanding that London is just a bunch of multi-millionaires or at the least land-poor folks.
You can't build higher than like 6 stories without going underground at least a few.
I'm in the uk with a rubbish shoot in a tower block. Goes to ground floor though, not a basement.
Or escape an explosion
Yes, they come in very handy as plot points.
In sweden the last couple of years they have closed them all down I think. They say it's because of the fire hazard but im not too sure
I knew a guy that'd drop garbage out his window from the 9th floor directly into the dumpster, still makes me laugh.
Or get rid of your wife. Indian woman went down one in a building where I worked.
High rise council flats on England have always had these
In our apartment building (in Germany) there is what I think used to be a trash chute but it's closed up. I can only guess that when they started to require more separation of recycling, the trash chute system was closed down because it became less practical.
And you also have those great toilets with the shelf that let's you check your own turd before flushing.
Haha. They are somewhat out of fashion now. Thankfully.
American here, I’ve never seen one of these, but they look like so much fun.
I used one for the first time while cleaning out my mother-in-law's apartment.
They are incredible.
I must have put 500 pounds of garbage down that thing and loved every second of it. I even had great stuff to throw down it like 10+ shoeboxes jammed packed with junk mail postcards. Hearing them flutter their way down from the 5th floor was amazing.
Yeah, the trash chute is handy when you live on the fifth floor and don't want to haul your stinky trash all the way through those 4 floors under you. You just open up the chute, drop in your trash, and listen to the horrific crash below.
Do you have several chutes for different trash or how do you sort it?
One chute for just trash. Sadly, trash is sorted as "trash" and "recycling", and there are so many caveats and rules for recycling (currently, my town's recycling center only takes types 1 and 2). For recycling, you still walk it down.
I used to work at a hotel that had a garbage chute but they no longer used it. It would smell, get clogged up and we used people to come and get the trash from the room attendants and we would bring it to the loading dock. My work place used to actually burn trash and then Oregon outlawed it in the 70's. The trash room then became like the boiler room. Only maintenance could get in there.
Not all they're cracked up to be. A few weeks ago I was woken up in the middle of the night by fire alarms throughout my building. Turns out someone threw a lit cigarette down one of the chutes. I didn't even know we had trash chutes to begin with.
Do other countries not have trash chutes? I didn't know that they weren't everywhere.
A lot of buildings in Sweden have trash chutes!
you dont have trash chutes? thats like...not even technologically advanced. its literally an empty shaft. do you just have dumpsters on each floor?
They exist and make much sense. Who wants to carry trash down 5 flights of stairs?
Saw trash shutes in the Netherlands as well.
Have lived in larger buildings in the US. No trash chutes.
I've got one in Toronto and it's the best.
I'm English and we have those in some buildings.
My last flat in Edinburgh had one, it was amazing
I’ve only seen one in 25 years and it was always full.
We had a chute in the 11 story dorm I was living in in college. It would get stuffed full, and then about every month some moron would get drunk and set it on fire. Thank god it was a brick building and the chute was some kind of steel.
I’m American and have never seen one, don’t feel bad lol
I'm an American and I've never seen an actual trash chute either.
As someone who's somewhat lazy, I loved having the apartment next door to the trash chute (which also took recycling, in clear bags). Even in the worst summer heat where it would cook some vile trash smells in there, worth it.
Oh man I love my trash chute. I used to have to leave the building and walk around a block to get to the dumpster. New building just drop it down a hole.
I'm American and have only ever lived in one building with a trash chute (huge high rise apartment building) so they're not super common.
I've seen chutes in other countries!
The apartment building I’m in now has a trash chute and I had never seen or used one before moving in. I was so excited to use it. Unfortunately, several neighbors are so lazy that they can’t be bothered to open the chute so they just leave their bags on the floor next to the chute. I stopped liking to use the chute after the first couple weeks of angrily throwing other people’s trash down.
I've only seen trash chutes in older multi-story buildings in big cities. It seems more common on TV than in real life, in my experience.
I’ve seen trash chutes in Bangkok and Moscow - they’re in every big city with tall buildings.
Got a trash chute in my apartment in Australia, I fucking love it.
They are not everywhere. The last apartment I was in did not have one. The one I am in now does have a trash chute. In the summer the smell can get pretty rank. I live in the 7th floor of my building and there is 16 (actually 17 floors).
Trash chutes were very common in France at some point, until people realized how disgusting and unhygienic they were and they stopped building them
I think they exist here in Australia - the last airbnb (apartment) I stayed in had one.
My genius boyfriend thought it would be a good idea to hold our keys in the same hand as his rubbish and chucked them all down the chute. 0/10 Would not dumpster dive again.
WHATTT I had no idea trash chutes were a thing. Yesterday I was lugging the trash down four flights of stairs and across the parking lot and thinking how someone really ought to invent one...
I guess trash chutes are common in big cities, but I've never seen one.
We used to have trash chutes everywhere in Sweden, but they are not allowed anymore so they are all sealed up.
It's just basically an industrial strength blender in your sink and you can grind up for and then just wash it down the drain. It's loud and not particularly worth it.
[deleted]
Fucking tell me about it.
I went from a 600 dollar a month apartment in Michigan. It had granite countertops, in unit washer/dryer, garbage disposal, dishwasher, and a fridge that gave you cold filtered water.
Fastworward two years. Currently in NYC. Paying 1100 for the privilege of sharing a one bedroom. None of that fancy shit.
NYC is great, love it. But maybe people wouldn't be so fucking heated all the time around here if they had a dishwasher or a sink larger than two gallons in volume.
Yep. I’ve lived in/around LA since college so I’ve only ever lived on my own in cheap (so, obviously, shitty) housing. On the one hand, I’m always grateful I didn’t have to do a “price-jump” like you did... I’ve only ever paid a shit-ton for my own rent so there’s less sticker-shock. On the other hand, I’d kill for a washer/dryer or a dishwasher or, yes, even a fucking garbage disposal.
My current place is a 1920’s Spanish-style duplex. There is one square foot of counter space in the kitchen, one outlet, and when the movers brought my fridge in I started crying because it legitimately takes up the entire room. The 1920s kitchens were NOT like kitchens of today. With the lack of space, I just look at it as training for NYC as that’s where I plan to end up, lol. And I’m well-familiar with NYC apartments.
Finally, as someone who also can’t let anything go down the drain because it just means an inevitable clog, I just bought a little OXO dish squeegee off Amazon for like $8. I go through so many paper towels wiping off plates and bowls before washing them, I figured this could be easier and save towels! It works great so maybe invest in one of those, too!
when the movers brought my fridge
The rental doesn't even include a fridge?? Talk about bare bones!
Well my second apartment outside of school housing back in 2006 didn’t have a fridge so my mom bought me a nice, basic one. I don’t want to get rid of it, so for all apartments since then I’ve had it included in the contract that I’ll be bringing my own and that they’ll remove the existing one. Mine’s collected stickers for the past 12 years, too, and since I work in the music industry it is COVERED and you can kind of follow the path of my musical interests on the fridge as well, haha. It’s like a scrapbook at this point.
[deleted]
Hell yeah I am, rent is still too goddamned high. It's a building owned by Columbia so the rent is fair.
[deleted]
My god damned mortgage for a 1300 square ft house and a relatively large yard is only $635...how do you people in NYC afford it?
[deleted]
Oh god... Existential crisis just kicked in. Thanks for that.
I need to get out of this fucking city.
Move to Detroit/Metro Detroit. I guarantee you won’t regret it.
Why?
Because it's an awesome place to live with great opportunities and relatively low cost of living. You're within driving distance of more than 3,200 miles of beautiful shoreline with thousands of square miles of state forest and parks + three national parks.
You would have the ability to live in a major job/media/sports market and drive two and a half hours and be on a sandy, fresh water, Lake Michigan beach - or an hour and a half and watch the sunrise over Lake Huron, or drive four and a half hours and gaze upon the might of the great Gitche Gumee. Detroit has the second most theater seats in the country after NYC and has multiple major concert venues all within an hour drive of the furthest suburb.
Not to mention the fact that my fiancee and I work in a more urban area and spend our free time 15 miles northwest at our semi-updated three bedroom/three bath house with 3500 square feet of living space and a 3 car garage on 4 acres of forest and field within 5 miles of any convenience/restaurant you could want, countless state parks/forests, and dozens of 100-1200 acre inland lakes. Our monthly fixed living expenses (mortgage, utilities, groceries, cable/internet, cell phone plan) are under $2,400 a month.
I don’t see how paying $2k just in rent for a greasy studio in nyc even compared...
Many of us spend literally half our take home pay on rent
Just rent. Not utilities. Not food. Rent.
And that's why I left nyc
If you take your job to NYC you'll find you earn considerably more money, but it doesn't go any farther.
2100sq. ft. split-foyer home in Central KY. One acre of land. Mortgage payment is $583/mo. and is about two years from being paid off.
Yeah but you live in nowhere kentucky
I live in a city of close to 50k people, 30 minutes south of a city of 500k, an hour from Cincinnati and an hour and 20 minutes from Louisville. In addition, I live an hour from one of the largest National Forests in the US and about that same distance to two very large freshwater lakes. I am from Michigan. Lived in Chicago, San Antonio, Anchorage and many other places. I choose to live here.
So like I said, you live in nowhere Kentucky.
Sure, bud. Enjoy your sense of superiority.
I will 😎
Pay is basically scaled up to match the cost of living.
Dear God in heaven. How to people live in New York City. I just couldn't do it, man.
I will never understand why people pay this.
[deleted]
Of course, that’s a different scenario then what I’m responding to. People in the thread are talking about paying large portions of their income for not a lot.
Alternatively, if my fiancée and I cleared 600k a year, I’d probably prefer living in a house like this one: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6025-Upper-Straits-Blvd-West-Bloomfield-MI-48324/70864848_zpid/ tons of them around the northwest suburbs.
[deleted]
I mean we’re both under 30 lawyers making between 75 and 100k working 8-5 with great upward mobility. Neither of us had any trouble finding work and we were both median law school grads from a t2 school. My commute 30-45 minutes (20 minutes non rush hour) and that does irritate me, but frolicking in my yard where I can’t even see other neighbors makes it worth it. I hope someday we live on the water.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it insecurity, just a question about life enjoyment. I’d like to understand how the city life appeals to people. Whenever I go to a Big City (Chicago or NYC) I cant find the appeal of permanent residency.
People bitch in these threads about their living situations in big cities and the alternative seems so readily available tha I’m just baffled.
Someone downvoted you but I agree so much. Growing up in (suburban) Southern California with beautiful weather, and having some space...it's expensive here, but at least I'm not in shit weather, paying even more to live in a closet, in a concrete jungle. I really don't get it. Fun place to visit, ride the subway, see a show and that's IT.
Where at in the mitten... I'm near GR & a 1 bed & bath here runs between 7-900$ for just the basics...
This was 4 years ago but Okemos. GR has really exploded in growth, it was looking great last time I was home.
Ahhh okay! My girlfriend goes to school at State so my gym membership I added her too had a location in Okemos that she frequented.
& Yeah GR is forsure bustling
I graduated from there a couple of years back. Go Green!
Go White!
I know I am going to be downvoted to oblivion for this, but, since I was born there and my first degree came from there...
GO BLUE!
Nah, I'm with you. They're nuthin but heathens.
GR is a boom town right now, r jta is only gonna go up for you.
Lemme tell ya, Michigan is getting ridiculous for rental prices. Ridiculous.
Lol it's like I can't win. Long term goal was always to move back, too haha
I was paying $600 for a really nice two bedroom in a home in GR....now I am paying $900 for a tiny one bedroom in an apartment complex. To be fair, still a bit better than NYC standards. Don't be too discouraged :)
Why would you need either when every meal is eaten out of those paper take-out containers from Asian restaurants?
That's the thing, I used to enjoy cooking. Now I just eat at a restaurant like... 4 days a week. When I don't I just eat like a box of Dots or a bag of carrots.
Lansing resident here... I can't believe you got all that in Okemos for $600/mo... what was the catch?
jesus christ 1100 for a 1 bedroom?
its like 800 for a full house here in dayton
You misunderstood. He's paying $1100 to share a one bedroom. The rent is double that.
jesus christ, i didnt know it was that bad in NYC
It's that bad in all big cities.
He's sharing, so $1100 is half of it. $2200 full rent.
Yeah I like NYC and LA but can’t imagine living there. I pay $950 to rent a two bedroom house by myself in Pittsburgh (includes water). And I’m in the “trendy” neighborhood that people think is getting too pricy.
As someone who just recently moved to Pittsburgh from nyc, I understand both sides of this
I’m sure it’s 100% different if you are from there. This is where I’m from so my people are already here. But it’s just crazy to see rents so ridiculous. Hope you’re enjoying it here and the city has been treating you well.
1500 for a decent one bedroom in Denver right now.
you could also get a dog. Nothing cleans sticky or starchy food off a plate like a dachshund.
True, but I don't have to walk my garbage disposal and pick up its shit.
But your garbage disposal won’t come to you when you say “hey garbage disposal, its garbage disposing time”
And it won’t love you like a dachshund loves ~~you~~ itself
But then you have to remove the slimy dog polish their tongue left.
yeah, but that washes off pretty easily, you don't need a garbage disposal for that.
dog polish
I love this term
and then I have to handle shitty, soggy food every few days.
Might I suggest buying a pair of dishwashing gloves? Seriously, game changer. I hated doing dishes cause my hands got all pruny and gross feeling. Now it doesn't matter, makes things much easier.
So clutch! Plus they come in more colors than yellow now! Keeps my hands safe from yucky stuff.
You know, you can buy your own disposal, install it, and then just take it with you when you move out.
Most landlords won't take too kindly to a tennant messing with the electrical and plumbing.
All the plumbing you need to change to install a disposal unscrews, and disposals plug into a regular outlet.
Besides, all the leases I’ve ever held allow for tenants to make improvements such as adding an outlet under the sink (if there’s not already one there) as long as you ask.
Plus you need a sink that can fit It, and the know how to do it.
You don’t need much know how to install a disposal. All the plumbing you need to mess with unscrews, it’s not glued together. Nobody said you couldn’t hire a plumber to do it either.
If you don’t have the right sink, then that would put a hold on the project, but if it’s really worth it to you, you can replace the sink.
Sure where there's a will, and the means, there's a way. But it's not so simple as bim bam you're done.
200 bucks? you want the In-Sink-Erator Evolution and no less, huh? :P
that said, it has been done before: buy a small appliance for your rental, see later if you get your money back or not, but until then have a disposal at your disposal?
Big commercial unit that can eat an entire lasagna
that's called Garfield.
Yeah but attaching a Garfield permanently to your sink is difficult and you need a professional for it. Better use an Odie, they’re recommended by professionals because they’re less troublesome
true, but they drip.
Sounds like my wife.
Arr-Ar-Ar (Tim Allen bark)
[deleted]
not exactly an unsurmountable challenge.
[deleted]
My rental has the goddamned wiring but no fucking disposal. What in the hell is that kind of bullshit
Get one of those little removable mesh strainer things to go over your drain. It lets the water through, until it fills up with crap, then you just shake it out in the garbage. NJ doesn't have garbage disposals anywhere for some reason, but since I got a mesh, I haven't had a clog once. No dishwasher either, so I'm using the fuck outta that sink
These are great. I never liked the standard twist-in strainers. The mesh strainer is so much easier to use.
I don't even like touching that shit. Or anything that's been in the kitchen sink, for that matter. Most unsanitary surface in most households. Including bathroom floors and toilets.
I thought kitchen sponges were the most unsanitary
I'm sure they're even worse, yeah. I was just thinking of surfaces though.
Banned here in Norway due to the increased strain on sewage systems, and that you end up with way more nutrients in the sewage that are harmful to the environments sewage can end up in (like excess fertilizing). In some counties they are permitted if they have upgraded their plants to deal with it. But by law recycling is required and in many counties food scraps are collected for making biofuel, which is better than just throwing it away.
Lol what the fuck are you cooking? I cook constantly and have had the sink in my shitty apartment clog up like twice
Right? Throw the big things in the trash, and the small stuff you can just kind of press through the little holes which also makes it small enough to not clog the sink ever.
I think we have better plumbing in general in the UK, so that isn't a huge issue.
Didn't they have some giant greaseballs clogging up London sewers?
No, he became Foreign Secretary.
GodDAMN.
Yes, but we're talking about what the sink can take without getting clogged.
Anywhere that has such a large percentage of uncombined taps in your sinks has no right to be making that claim.
I read somewhere its a legacy thing from when people had a rainwater tank in the attic and it was non potable so they didn't want to mix it with the potable water from the city or whatever.
Yeah, but the operative word there is "legacy", implying we've still got them when we no longer fucking need them. Get that shit out of here already.
Yes, our wastepipes are usually 1¼" minimum, but are often 1½".
Never had a problem with a sink getting fully blocked. If that happens, it usually points to there being an issue with the actual drains than the internal piping.
Throwing fats and oils down the plug will clog it up nicely, though.
It's the same in the US. The only place there is a difference is the toilet flange is often 3" in the US and 4" in the UK which can lead to clogged toilets on occasion here.
Or you could, you know, buy a strainer with larger holes for $2 and fix all your problems instantly.
Wait, you don't lick your plate clean? Then how do you know if you've eaten all of your food?
It's worse than that. If you're not licking your plate clean you actively know you're NOT eating all your food. :O
Dude what are you eating? I havent had a gd in years and never have these issues
Another tip is to wipe out the excess grease and crap from your dishes with a paper towel before your start washing. I don't really use that one at home but sounds like you could; technique from the restaurant world.
In the UK you spend 99p on a little plastic net that sits over the drain. Just empty it when it's full.
Don't you have those: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2144/7101/products/product-image-282940500.jpg?v=1527576001
Same goes for shower filters.
That's what I'm talking about. Except they're plastic. Cheaper init.
Invest in a steel one. You're still gonna loose your head, back and pube hair.
Also get a fine grill, as displayed on the pic above.
In fairness, I only need it for the kitchen sink, as we don't have a shower. Besides, no big purchases like that with Brexit on the way!
First world, doesn't have a shower.
(Goes to shower to think it all over).
Trust me, I wish we had one too.
TECHNICALLY, we have a shower. By which I mean the property's agents would list it as a shower. If they were to show the place off, they would point at it and say "that is a shower".
What it actually is, is a dribbly piece of shit that will only pull from the cold water or the hot water -- never the twain shall meet -- that's only good for a brief rinse after a bath.
Do you shower in the sink or what?
Nah mate, I just have baths.
But why wouldn't you eat every bit left on your plate?
But the problem of getting an easily clogged sink/utilities also seems to be very american.
I don't understand this. I'm Canadian, people do have garbage disposals here, but maybe not as many people? I don't get what kind of food you're leaving on your plate that's so hard to scrape off! We have municipal composting where I live, so food scraps get scraped into the compost bin. Somehow putting them down the drain seems... wasteful. (Yes, the drain screen in the sink sometimes gets clogged with food, but not often!)
[deleted]
I don't care about clogging, but let's say you have any tiny scraps of food, you should really use a garbage disposal before going down the drain
I moved to NYC from Boston 2 years ago and they don't seem to really exist here and it's infuriating.
compost bro
You just made me realize I have been taking the garbage disposal for granted my entire life..
Dont you scrape your plates into the bin before washing?
I grew up without one because we had well and septic. Then, I had one in the last house I was in. This new house has well and septic again so I can't have one. I definitely miss it.
Worse is having one but not supposed to use it. Septic systems aren't friendly to having a lot of garbage flushed down them, so it should only be used when stuff happens to fall into the sink, not like in a normal sewer system.
They're not too hard to install. Maybe you can arrange with the landlord for you to do it yourself and take the cost out of rent?
Once you have it, you'll never be happy without it. This past year I've been in an apartment without one and its so god damn annoying.
Even better: my parents bought a lake house. The sink in the kitchen has a garbage disposal in it. But the house is on a septic system, so it can't handle food waste being put down the drain. So you can't use the garbage disposal or you'll ruin the septic system. Why?
Even the smallest, most insignificant scraps of food clog the strainer, and then I have to handle shitty, soggy food every few days.
Every few days? hahahaha I have a junior high aged son. I have to handle that damn thing every time I wash dishes.
Also, I have a garbage disposal. but it's horrible and the food doesn't get chopped up and just causes an even bigger clog. Decided not to use it anymore after the first time I had to stick my hand down the drain and pull out the food remnants that it refused to chop.
Don't use one. Once you have it, you'll never be happy without it.
I can relate to this. Same with my lack of dishwasher.
I read this immediately after finishing the "poop knife" series of comments, and got really confused & grossed out.
It's true, I'm in a new house that doesn't have one and it sucks. Also this new town I'm in doesn't collect food waste / biodegradable stuff, so it all goes in the garbage and I feel like a horrible human.
20 seconds? Like 5 seconds.
This. I always hated the stuff that gets in the strainer in the sink before I knew that garbage disposals existed. If something’s there for more than a few seconds I nope and won’t touch. I definitely won’t reach into gross water to get it. It’s horrifying.
The past 2 years I lived in an apartment that happened to have a garbage disposal and now I’m spoiled. I dread the possibility of living somewhere without one.
truth. i'd rather have a garbage disposal than a dishwasher.
Seriously, not having one sucks.
Don't use one. Once you have it, you'll never be happy without it.
This has been me with the disposal and the dishwasher at my new apartment.
I don't want to spoil myself and regret it if my next place doesn't have them.
Fuck me...Dishes aint your thing is it?
This! When I was in high school, my family moved out of town in to a 120+ year old farm house on a crappy (pun intended) septic system. No chance we we going to put one a disposal in and destroy the septic. We had to burn our trash as well so putting it in there was out.
Soooo....we had a “chicken bucket”.
That’s a bucket that sits by the sink to put your table scraps in. It had a lid, we weren’t heathens! Every couple of days (yes, it got ripe sometimes if I procrastinated) one of my chores was the take it out to the chicken pen and dump it out.
BTW, chickens will eat just about anything. Way more variety than pigs. The pile of old food would be gone in 10-20 minutes.
Good times!
One of the first things I bought for my house was a garbage disposal. I have no idea how the lunatics who lived there before lived without it.
That shitty, soggy food in the strainer is the exact reason I insisted on a disposal when we bought this house. I have a relatively strong stomach for gross things, but that shit made me gag every single time.
You leave the Washington Post outta this.
It becomes a must-have when moving once you've had one. Apartment doesn't have one? NEXT!
In the uk we scrape our food waste into a separate bin to be recycled, which is picked up with all of our other recycling and rubbish. I agree pans with un-scrapeable remnants would benefit from a disposer during the washing but it’s not something I feel like i need tbh
Or put a screen in your sink? Sounds like an easy fix.
Wow, hi me! I just moved into an apartment without a garbage disposal or a dishwasher. Yeah. I incredibly underestimated the utility of the garbage disposal.
I've gone without a garbage disposal for 15 years. Because when we remodeled our plumber flat-out refused to install the one we got, said he hated them with a passion and if we wanted it put in we'd have to find another plumber.
So we returned it, and just use screens over the kitchen drains and scoop the crap out into the garbage...like cavemen.
I was 43 the first time I got one. Bought a new house that was on county sewer and it had one. Love it. Growing up all the old food or food that would not be eaten was put in one of the dirty pots and I'd walk past our yard and dump in a field. In a house I lived in 20 yrs before this new one one I'd take the food to a wooded area and dump it. Just flip the pot over and let it fall out to the ground.
I lived the last 6 years without a garbage disposal and now that I have one I only use it to grind up orange or lemon peels cause it smells good. I just scrape most of the food in the trash or collect it in the sink
I don't believe that anyone saying they never fill up the filter is cooking large/complicated meals.
I don’t leave food in the pans. If necessary I use a spatula to get everything out. Why would I put perfectly good food down the disposal?
Haven't done much washing the dishes myself I'll admit, but one solution I've found if you find scraping the dishes too hard is to simply wipe them with a paper towel.
Then they are mostly clean and you can just wash them normally.
Yeah, I often wash my dishes on the filter side out of convenience, and if I forget to get all the bits off then I have to pick the bits out of the bottom with my glove.
... You wash pans under running water? :O That must use so much water.
But when you wash pots and pans after a big meal you are going to fill up all the holes in the strainer and you are going to hold water in the sink because of that strainer being full.
I purposely fill up the sink with hot, soapy water and I start with the least dirty to most dirty. I wash all the stuff that needs to be hand washed and quickly wipe everything that'll go in the dishwasher. Or if i'm hand washing everything, I may drain the water and refill after giving the later stuff a quick wipe with the dirty water and a proper wash with the clean.
I absolutely hate it when people leave the tap running while washing up. Waste of water there and you don't get any soap on anything unless you keep pumping out soap, which is a huge waste of soap.
Also, when you have a septic tank, you want to be more careful about what goes down your sink anyway.
Same here. I am pretty diligent about cleaning pots and plates before throwing anything in the sink, but my bf sucks at it. All the food clogged in the drain is 98% his fault and I’m usually the one cleaning it because he never gets around to it and I want to avoid the gross smell. No matter how many times I talk to him nothing changes. I just want my disposal back 😭
Dude, you can buy a $1 - 5 mesh dish thing that sits in your sink drain to catch all the crap. You can also scrap your food into the garbage before you do the dishes...
On the contrary, as someone who has used a garbage disposal their entire life, how does one do dishes without one? What do you do when the sink is full of greasy, messy water that won't drain? And when the water is all drained, isn't it difficult to clean bits of food or sauce from the sink without washing it down the drain?
And before someone says, "just scrape your plate before putting it into the sink", I do. Unlike some of the other Americans commenting, I generally don't shove large scraps of food down the thing, because cleaning and fixing the garbage disposal is no fun at all. I'm talking about stuck on stuff that you need the water pressure of washing to get off, and when there's too much of it to just fish out of the strainer at the end.
As an unwashed barbarian who has only just learned such a marvel of sink science exists, my sink drain is equipped with a removable sieve thingy cover that collects all the food particles and which you periodically empty into the bin. Yes, it's quite gross. I should be cleaning it every day and I certainly don't.
I thought every kitchen sink had those, except not permanent ones, they are removable so you can bang them out into the compost or garbage. You push them in all the way to plug the sink.
Actually my sink now is really cool because you can push them in part way so they are level with the sink, allowing the water to drain and collect all the particles. Push them in all the way to fully plug the drain.
I'm Canadian btw.
Your sink is too high tech for me. The type I've been familiar with all my life comes with a permanent cover fixed in by a screw, but since that's difficult to clean and doesn't stop large particles, people add the removable one on top for convenience.
Mine has a permanent one, but it would only stop the largest particles, like chunks of lettuce. The removable one could catch things like seeds.
Don't bang them too hard. Otherwise the ballbearing that holds it up to let water out flies off. Then you're stuck with one that doesn't work properly.
Then you have to find a similar sink from which to pilfer a new one...
I use these, but I still have trouble because particles smaller or skinnier than the sieve holes slip through and clog the drain anyway.
One has decent plumbing that doesn't clog. One also scrapes one's damned plates before one washes them, because if you're washing more than one plate and doing that, the ones at the end are not getting clean.
The one time a decade someone does manage to block a sink with something, you just pour bicarb and vinegar down it and hold the plug down.
I'm talking about stuck on stuff that you need the water pressure of washing to get off, and when there's too much of it to just fish out of the strainer at the end.
This is something that just does not exist.
Someone has obviously never let food dry on a plate
Well... no. Why would you do that?
> I'm talking about stuck on stuff that you need the water pressure of washing to get off
I keep a spray bottle with a 1:1 mixture of vinegar and water (which comes in handy for things other than plates). For really stubborn food, I just saturate the dishware and pop it in the microwave for 10-30 seconds, and wipe/scrape with a napkin (usually one that's already been used during the course of a meal). Repeat as needed.
If you have two sinks, you use one side for washing and the other side for rinsing and then put on dry rack.
If you have a dish washer, just rinse off and put in dishwasher.
If you only have one big sink, use a mixing bowl and wash each dirty dish in it and then rinse off and put on dry rack.
I've done all these things.
You've heard of such a thing as plastic or steel wool sponges, right? Like is used in every other country in the world?
Do you sponge stuff off directly into the trash?
Trust me, when you do NOT have one you will feel like you're living in Pioneer times. I easily use mine 5x a day. Scraping food in the trash just seems so gross. Not everything will go down the disposal but most food particles will. Its a miracle of modern science :)
Scraping food in the trash just seems so gross.
But food goes into the food bin and gets collected along with the recycling.
Wait, to be perfectly clear, you have a separate bin for food than garbage? Like, you have (A) a recycle bin, (B) a trash bin, and (C) a food bin?
Here in Scotland we do. The food is taken away and composted.
Do you put meat in it?
Yes, unlike a garden composter, the council one gets up to temperatures that allow any food waste to be composted. The things you can't put in are liquids (pour them down the sink) or oils (add them to the land-fill waste).
So like meats cooked in butter/oil/whatever? I just have my own garden compost so idk how it works other than that.
Well, no excessive amount of oil. Some is okay, but if you fill the bag (which I think is latex) with a pan of oil you're going to end up with a bit of a mess.
And obviously if you pour fat down the sink you will get fat-bergs.
Gotcha! I’m envisioning how i would put some olive oil or butter in a pan before making a steak. Compost? Or toss it?
Either put it in general/land-fill waste or in the food waste that goes to a municipal composter.
Neat; I wish we did that here.
It's not that far off from what I have, a) recycling, b) garbage, c) Greenwaste (not food but yard trimmings). Greenwaste ends up going to composting facilities.
I know for home composting, things like meat, dairy and oils are bad for composting. I would assume commercial composters have ways to deal with thosr issues.
where I live (Edinburgh), we have:
Many cities in the US also have this
Yeah, a compost bin is just extremely efficient for everyone. Less garbage going to landfills, and the city gets tons of cheap compost to use for fertilizer.
Well, we have that here in Montreal. Food waste gets composted and used by the city for parks and flower beds and whatnot. It reduces landfill by a significant percentage.
I've got 4 bins: plastics, papers, garbage, compost/food
We've got 2 bins with 4 pockets in each. Glas, food, cans, plastic bags, plastic containers, cardboard and paper.
I got 2 recycling (paper/containers), trash(kitchen and both bathrooms), and food compost. BC Canada
Or composted in the garden.
We separate recycling and garbage. I absolutely hate districts that dont separate
I hate how we don't have a thing for card board but instead we put it all in one big, paper, cardboard, cans, plastic jugs and bottles. Instead we are expected to recycle our own bottles and take it to a bottle place to get money for it. This is more common in the low income. Some will even dig through trash and recycling for cans and bottles and I see the homeless doing it a lot. Not a problem because at least they are trying to make a living just as long as they don't leave a huge mess.
[deleted]
We have had glass bottles disappear from our recycling. At least glass is separate.
Here in college I'll USA, we don't even have recycling bins. We only have main trash. How bout them apples
It depends on the county. Thankfully the county I live in separates everything.
food bin
The what now
Like this.
I’ve seen those in restaurant kitchens where I used to work, but I’ve never heard of those in homes. Do you have a separate garbage truck that comes for food waste? Wouldn’t all that food waste sitting there for days at a time start to rot and smell?
Yes, a separate truck comes once a week. When that bag is full you tie it up and put it outside in a small outside bin (outside bin, left; counter-top bin, right). It doesn't smell, but then again, it doesn't get very hot here.
edit: this is an example of waste collection in Edinburgh.
I'm trying to wrap my brain around how that calendar is supposed to read and it's absolutely defeating me
Ha, I'll try and explain:
The calendar is for areas that have Monday collection. Starting top-left, on Monday the 1st of January, the bins that are collected are the ones represented by the red star. On Monday the 8th of January, the ones represented by the yellow hexagon. On Monday the 15th, the blue square, 22nd January, the green circle, etc..
Oh yeah that makes way more sense lol
Most places in the US you have to pay for separate collection for that IF it's even offered.
how about eating it
Unless there are some environmental implications I'm not aware of, it seems like sending biodegradeable materials down the drain is more efficient than having an infrastructure devoted to collecting, especially considering not everyone can compost.
No its not. Where do you think all that food waste goes once it's in the drain? It's gonna end up back in the water filtration infrastructure or in the rivers/lakes, both of which are dirty and take tons of resources to clean. On the other hand, with compost bins the city gets tons of cheap fertilizer which it can then sell. It's kind of a no brainer.
Well, that would be the environmental impact I wasn't thinking of then
Well, that would be the environmental impact I wasn't thinking of then
I just bought a house without one after renting an apartment for a decade. Took 3 days before I went out and bought one. I never realized how dependent I became on the thing.
What should i expect to pay for one?
I bought one a few years ago and it was ~$600. The problem is if your retrofitting it you'll need a plumber and an electrical outlet nearby.
sgent way overpaid, I just looked into getting one for my new house, you can get a decent one brand new for $100 https://www.homedepot.com/b/Appliances-Garbage-Disposals/N-5yc1vZc3no
edit: that may have included installation of a really nice one which could run higher depending on the amount of work needed.
I paid $190 for 1 HP grinder. Twice as powerful as my old one; I walk around my house just looking for crap to shove in it.
I have lived without garbage disposables and it was never a problem for us to scrape stuff off our plates and i still do it out of habit because to me just dumping it down the sink is gross.
Garbage disposals really aren't meant to replace the trash can for all food scraps. They are to keep the drain from clogging from the tiny bits of food and grease that remain on the plate after scraping it into the trash.
I’ve never ever had one and I’ve never scraped food into the trash (unless you’re talking like a steak bone). What kind of weak sinks do you people have???
I scrap mine to the chickens. No compactor needed.
They're great but also an excuse not to compost. Anything organic (as long as it isn't too fibrous) can go down it, so the stinkier food waste doesn't have to sit in the trash. The downside is if anyone carelessly leaves utensils in the sink, one of them will eventually slip in and be turned into stainless steel toffee.
Just keep your compost in the freezer.
You really shouldn't be using it to grind up excessive amounts of food I don't think. Also the worst thing to get stuck is a shot glass, it breaks apart and jams the disposal.
I wasn't aware that these had the image of being American. They're everywhere in New Zealand too
Composting is better but some people can’t do that for various reasons. Throwing food waste in the garbage tends to attract vermin and create smells.
My excuse is the families of trash pandas and bears that live nearby. They have a habit of digging through the trash and compost bin and leaving shit all over the place. That and I’m lazy.
Hey, we have them in Canada too!
In Canada we call them garberators!
Well, I'm 36 and I've never seen or heard of anyone having one in my entire life, but I enjoy US/Canada differences, so I know we have our own word for it (though knowing Canada probably everyone under 40 just uses the American word).
From NZ: had one in my house growingup(that was built in the 70s), and also an apartment I lived in a few years ago that had been renovated a few years prior to me moving in. Definitely not just a US thing.
I have one in my house. Not as great as it seems. You can’t put too much down there. Most food still has to go into the rubbish it’s more for small bits left on the plate.
The reason most of us don’t have them is that they are pretty unnecessary.
Convenient, in-sink garbage disposal is the exact opposite of an issue.
Garbage disposals are fantastic. Kind of useless if you have a compost pile, but still. If you DON'T have a compost pile, they are basically just under-sink blenders that grind up organic matter into small enough pieces to get flushed down the drain.
Scrape a plate off and flush all the waste away. Peel a potato in the sink and flush the peel away. I personally scrap uneaten wet cat food into the drain and grind it all away.
Garbage disposals are wonderful.
Oh yeah if you have food in the sink after dishes you don't have to touch that gross shit. You just pull a switch and it is gone
I'm American and have never seen one outside of a TV show.
Those are not an American thing. I've seen them in many countries.
They are great if you don't have municipal compost. Keeps a lot of food scraps from rotting in your garbage.
My parents got one many many years ago but pretty much stopped using it after city based compost pickup.
They are a convenience to grind up minor bits of food as you rinse the plates, they are not meant to grind up your dinner. Way too many people think its a monster you have to feed whole leftover dinners to.
They are cheap and easy to install.
I have a British friend staying with me right now and he was absolutely amazed it was something that existed. Even after living in Scotland I had no idea they weren't widespread in the UK.
It is a god sent. You should still scrape big stuff into thr garbage can, but that disposal is just great.
I live in the UK and have one, I live in London so there are many foxes that break open garbage bags ( we don't have outside bins) and throw them across the roads to look for food. They never do it to mine beacuse no food ever gets put in my bins. Also there is nothing worse than a bin with left over food in high summer blehhh
I guess because most of us in the UK have wheelie bins that's why these things didn't take off... Also I mostly lived in places with gardens so would compost most food waste...
They're amazing! My parents put one in the sink after we moved, and it really spoiled me.
Now when I'm at my place (without one of course) the thung I most hate is getting the little pieces of trash out of the sinkhole cover to the trash can.
Just moved to the US (from the Netherlands). Didn't know what they were till I moved into current house (had visited the US a couple times before, just never came across one/them). I find them weird and not very environmental friendly. Hubby and I now keep a filter thing in the sink, so that I can just wash down whatever from our plates and pans and just throw that out. We'll run the disposal every now and then for whatever might have passed.
They are pretty great.
They look fun! Can you confirm?
Kind of terrifying honestly. But very useful.
Yeah. Very terrifying.
Fun but very scary. They are louder than you would expect, and give out a lot of vibrations.
I can honestly say I've never seen one of those anywhere in the US. Do they actually exist?
You haven't seen one in the US? I have lived in 4 different homes across 3 states and everyone has had a garage disposal. They most certainly exist.
I just moved to a place with no dishwasher, which isn't a big deal, didn't have one in Michigan either, but also no garbage disposal, and on that point I'm pissed.
Just bought a house like that, absolute top of the to do list as soon as I move in.
I've not lived in a house without a garbage disposal. I don't know if it's like that everywhere in the US, but I'm assuming the vast majority of kitchens have garbage disposals in the sink.
Until this thread I had no idea garbage disposals weren't ubiquitous throughout the world. I would have though most kitchen sinks on earth had garbage disposals installed beneath them.
Mostly in old homes, they won't have one unless the previous owner has put one in. My parents had one put in our 1946 house. I thought it was unnecessary because I went without one and did fine without it. Sink has never been clogged.
I didn't realize until my early twenties that there was even a possibility of there not being a garbage disposal in a home. I just thought it was one of those things everyone in a developed nation has like warm water or electricity.
Most houses in metro NY don't have them unfortunately. When I go visit my family in New England I always wonder why they never caught on in NY. I guess it's alright though. When they come down here, they always marvel at our gas cooktops.
Yeah, I've only ever seen one, in a house I was staying at. I would have no idea what to do with one.
Seriously? Where do you live? Of the fourteen homes/apartments I can remember living in since the late 1970s in upstate New York and all over California, all but one has had a garbage disposal.
Actually wikipedia says 50% of US homes had them in 2009, far lower than I would have guessed, so maybe it's a regional thing.
I live in Eastern PA and I think only one home I've ever lived in had one.
I always thought it was something from the '50's or something created for use in the movies. I live in down-state NY and have never known anyone around here to have one. It wasn't until my brother moved halfway across the country when I was 22 that I discovered they are actually a real thing.
Yea I live in the northeast too in PA. Maybe they're only common in certain parts
I have literally never heard of a house without one. And I don't know what id do without one.
They are great
There's a short and pretty funny Hungarian name for it (konyhamalac - lit. "kitchen piglet") but we still don't use it. This is the strangest part for me. I mean, if we don't use it, why have such a convenient name for it instead of some lengthy official bullshit, like "lefolyóba épített élelmiszerhulladék-daráló".
That is the cutest name ever haha
Can you even buy them in your country? They aren't terribly expensive and are a huge convenience.
In many countries outside the US they're not allowed because the sewage systems aren't designed for it.
What's a good brand? I'd be interested in one when I redo my kitchen.
I've always had good luck with insinkerator.
They are. And if they start to smell you just cut a lemon in half and run it through.
Never having had a garbage disposal as a child, people trying to put garbage down the sink is weird for this American. As in, why would you even want to put garbage there?
It’s not “garbage” so much as food waste.
They're great for a while, but they always end up clogging the pipes eventually. If you're handy or motivated it's nice to have one, but I know a lot of people who don't even use theirs because they can end up more trouble than they're worth. I haven't had one in many years and it seems strange now to just throw food down the drain lol
Don't worry, they're not universal in the states either. They're usually found in the nicer suburbs and developments, where developers include them in houses. I never knew what a garbage disposal was until I saw one on TV. Out of all the houses that I've visited in my 25 years on this planet, I've only seen one actual, real, working garbage disposal.
They are illegal here in bc Canada
[deleted]
We have one too. We live in my SOs parents basement in Vancouver (cause Vancouver be expensive yo) and her mother LOVES their garbage disposal and always talks about how awful it will if and when it is forced to get removed.
Not sure why, but she seems to think there are some men in suits going around checking houses for garbage disposals :P.
They only work well if you're connected to a sewer system, they will clog up a septic system rendering it useless real quick.
Literally can't live without it. I tried and it was terrible
My parents (UK) have one, and they're actually pretty useful. It's essentially quickly rotating sandpaper.
I try my hardest to actually not use ours. Take that rubber splash guard off and have a look at the bottom of it. Disgusting.
It’s basically great until you forget you put a fork or spoon or shot glass on that side of the sink and then it falls through and starts tog grind and the shot glass shatters into about a thousand oieces and you gotta fish them out one by one. Absolutely love em
All I can think about when I picture Americans' garbage disposal things is how many people must get their hands mangled in that shit.
Like none. Your hand would have to be down the drain past your wrist, and then some dumbass would have to actually turn it on while your hand is in it, since no one in their right mind would reach down there while it's on. Pretty sure that's just a sitcom trope.
I don't understand their use much... Just scrape stuff out into the trash can
Unless scraping stuff into the trash can leaves you with a perfectly clean plate, you still have grime and small food particles that need to be washed off. That shit flows down the drain and clogs. Hence, disposal.
I don't have one myself, so I very used to scraping my plate into the trash. But I do have family that has them, so I've used them before. They make dish time so much easier.
[deleted]
In the UK we have separate bins for food waste that gets collected and recycled, rather than being hurled into water treatment facilities.
I live in America but my sink doesn't have a garbage disposal.
They really aren't. I personally don't want one when I get a house. They break, they clog, silverware always tries to fall down them. It's one more part that doesn't need to be there.
I have an Irish friend who calls them gobblers.
they can be bad for plumbing though, and I have found in older homes that it's not worth it. scrape everything into the trash people!
When I first moved to the US I was surprised by the garbage disposal unit. The only issue though was that I never really needed it. Surprisingly, a lot of the items that people put in their garbage disposal units shouldn't go anywhere near them due to potential damage.
One thing that is a pain about disposables is stuff going down it and getting ruined. Another thing is when it gets knocked out of balance and then the sink gets clogged or the thing won't turn on. When you turn on the dishwasher, the sink then gets backed up when the disposable is off balance. This has been my experience in my own house and my ex boyfriend's apartment. Never had that problem in our other two homes as a child.
We have them here in Canada. My grandparents got one and I was terrified of it.
Not just an American thing. Us New Zealanders have them as well.
what now?
The garbage disposal is pretty fantastic.. its not so fantastic when you go to a house and put food down the sink to only realize they don't have a disposal. Then proceed to manual chop up the food or pull it back out to throw it in the trash.
I’ve never lived in a place without one, except now. I moved up to New England and suddenly they’re not a thing here anymore. I miss it.
Blows my mind that so much of the developed world both lacks a garbage disposal and washes dishes by hand. That sounds torturous to my lazy American self.
ISE - In-Sinkerator
A Wisconsin Company. I don't know if I'd say they are great, but I know I truly became a dad the first day I installed one on my own.
They're shit. They clog up fairly easily and need to be replaced every few years because they're all cheaply made.
I'm an American, but I lived with a host family in Europe several years ago and they could not wrap their heads around not just college athletics, but the fanaticism surrounding it
You guys get several thousand people attending your sports events and at my uni there’s about 6 people that turn up to BUCS football games, any other sport basically no one turns up
Edit: okay I get it I underestimated the size of your crowds. For perspective I went to a uni that’s got roughly 3000 students, although small it was pretty clear from away fixtures that this was a common occurrence for BUCS
When West Virginia University plays football, the stadium becomes the largest city in the state, that's not hyperbole or a joke
Penn States campus in the middle of fucking nowhere in Pennsylvania becomes a top five city in terms of population in the entire state during the football games.
Or something like that.
Happy Valley on game day becomes the 4th largest city in Pennsylvania, between Allentown and Erie, with 106k people
106k is just the stadium. There are way more in University Park those days.
Yeah we're just doing stadiums cause op was shocked at how many people showed up to college sports in the US.
If we expand outward, you could also assume that the people coming to the stadium drains the surrounding towns like I have to imagine the Big House passes Ann Arbor even without record attendance when you account for how many Ann Arbor residents are at the game
To build on this, 8 of the worlds top 10 largest stadiums are American college football stadiums. The third largest in the world (Beaver at Penn State) is in a city of less than 50,000.
I wonder how big Ann Arbor gets on game days rank wise.
Its at 114k as it is, but with a total seating capacity of 113k people, mostly not students, it has to get to 2nd biggest easily with only Detroit being larger.
I mean Grand Rapids has like 180,000 people and Lansing has 114,000 so I doubt it would be the second largest city in the state...
Well considering a large portion of that 113k thats in the stadium every week can easily put it over the 180k mark, and its the population is ~400 less than Lansing it will easily be higher than Lansing's population.
Penn state games are crazy!
Hey, that's how many people are employed in a medical center in my state! 106k people. Employed in a 2.1 square mile area.
It's astounding how big PSU football is. The stadium is fucking MASSIVE.
I think it’s the 2nd largest stadium in the country and 3rd largest in the world. Beaver stadium holds ~106,000. The largest stadium in the world is Rungrado 1st of May stadium in Pyongyang, North Korea at 114,000 and the 2nd is Michigan stadium in Ann Arbor, Michigan, holdon ~107,000.
I distinctly remember walking into the stadium for like the first or second time. As I came out of the little "alleyway", the entire stadium opened up around me in an all-encompassing, panoramic way. It was massive. In front of me, in huge letters, "THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY" along with an absolute sea of white.
Man, those games are fucking hype.
Man I miss that student section. Nothing like losing your voice for a few days, even after playing a D2 school early in the season.
I don't think it's astounding that there's a big stadium in a big city. What's astounding to me is that stadiums for college teams are bigger than stadiums for professional league teams.
A lot of that is because college teams don't pay players and have to make it look like they can't afford to pay them, so they build obscenely huge stadiums.
No it’s because college stadiums have bleacher seating while the NFL has chair back seating. You can squeeze a lot more people into bleachers.
No, only some pro stadiums have good seating. Others have bleachers. Same is true for college stadiums.
Which NFL stadiums do not have chair back seating? Most college football stadiums will incorporate bleachers. Also most do not have the luxury suites and etc that you will find the he NFL.
I can’t think of any NFL stadiums that have bleachers besides the Rams temporary home.
All the 90 and 100k seat college stadiums are bleachers.
Lambeau Field would be the first to come to mind. I think Wrigley as well, but I haven't been there in a long time. Any of the older stadiums are likely to have a significant amount of bleacher seating.
Well wrigley is a baseball stadium and it does have chairback and bleachers. So Lambeau is probably correct. It also has a large capacity compared to the other NFL stadiums due to the bleachers like I said. Either way most NFL stadiums are chairback and that’s why the capacity is lower.
[deleted]
You sure about that. Looks like 75 percent is bleachers and the end zone upper parts are chairs.
[deleted]
Is it nice to have it so quiet? For a lot of people, the liveliness of State College is a big thing for them; for me personally, I like the Altoona campus BECAUSE it's much quieter and less busy (I do enjoy visiting though!)
The Altoona campus is beautiful! Especially in the spring. Only downside was the ducks always having the right of way
Ya it was fucking awesome at psu for 4 years, especially these last two.
I'm in the Blue Band up at Penn State and was there for the record breaking attendance of over 110,000
Is Penn State short for anything? Ive never heard the full name
Yes, it's short for Pennsylvania State University. But that's a mouthful so everyone calls it Penn State or PSU
And on those days I stayed in my dorm and played mw2 because fuck those crowds.
Joe knew!
Holy crap you're not kidding.
Largest city by pop in West Virginia is in the low 50ks, that Stadium can host 60 000.
In Nebraska, Memorial Stadium becomes the third largest city on gameday. I hadn't heard that about WVU, that's pretty cool.
Yeah they block off some parking lots so people can park their RVs overnight before the game. Makes sense when there are no fully professional sports team in the state.
GOOOOO BIIIIIIIIG REEEEED
Enjoy Frost! Y’all stole him back from us.
This is 100% true. Also, our state's collective BAC goes wayyyyyyy up. Let's go Mountaineers!!!
Every Husker home game, Memorial Stadium becomes the third largest city in Nebraska, beating out Bellevue by about 40k people.
💙💛💙💛
The largest city in the state has almost 50k people. It’s a small state but we have a cult-like love for our Mountaineers! :)
LETSS GOOOOO
DRINK SOME BEERS
Let’s go mountaineers!
Spent many years in WV, can confirm. Same thing in Ohio for The Game
Sounds like when the University of Missour ( Mizzou ) as a game.
Norte Dame turns up like 80k people every week for football. Go Irish!
Michigan still has larger cities like Detroit but Ann Arbor's population roughly doubles on Game Days.
Your depression roughly doubles on Ohio state game days too
LET’S GOOOOOOOO....
This. I can confirm that this is 100% accurate as an alumni. The stadium capacity is definitely at least 67,000.
Nebraska too
Lincoln Nebraska was the same way in their heyday. On saturdays in the fall the stadium became the third largest city in the state
I became a Mountaineer last year and thought I understood because I live super close to Huntington and had been to some Marshall games, but WVU football blows Marshall out of the water!
The University of Tennessee has a football stadium that seats over 100,000 people. For college football. Shit is wild. Also super fun to tailgate.
Virginia Tech's stadium can hold the entire permanent population of Blacksburg, plus nearly all or all of VT's undergrads.
Lincoln, Nebraska temporarily has the largest population in the state every time there's a Husker game. The fanaticism is real.
(Note: Omaha, Nebraska is roughly 50% larger than Lincoln. Part of the above fact is that a significant chunk of Omaha makes the hour drive to Lincoln on a game day, completely choking one direction of I-80.)
Is college football more popular than profesional football?
Go Neers!!!
several thousand people attending your sports events
You vastly underestimate an SEC or Big 10 football game. Michigan's stadium holds over 100,000 people and it's always sold out.
Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska. 91k+ going near 60 years of sold out seating.
On top of that, we pulled about 90k for the spring scrimmage game a few months back!
Husker football games are always a blast to go to, especially the first home game of the season. I love tailgating out there, and I'm not even a fan. It's just fun.
Disclaimer: I'm not an Iowa fan, I'm just from a state that plays in a different conference.
I like that you specifically clarify you aren't an Iowa fan 😂😂
Yeah, I didn't want to be accused of being gross. Disgust for Iowa is something the locals and I have in common.
You must border Iowa. I've found every state that borders it, despises it.
Yep, Eastern Nebraska. It's literally right across the river and I can see Council Bluffs from the highway.
Yep! It's true and it's a blast at those games. SO went to U of M. Go Blue!
Maybe Purdue will get back up to that point someday... lol
I just don't understand how that many people can care that much.
Sitting at a sports thing in stands that big is awful. Bathrooms are filthy. Food and booze is expensive (in Canada, anyway). No thanks.
In the US everyone is an opinionated asshole. We always have some beef with some neighbor. At a college football game, you're on one of two sides, and for one day, all the other worries can disappear. It's a very unifying experience. Also, tailgating ahead of time greatly solves the issue with high cost of stadium drinks and food. If done right, the only thing you'll want once inside is some water.
Came here to say: tailgating. Pretty much the only reason to go to a football game vs. watch in my basement.
What does that mean? It means following a car too close where I'm from
If you've heard of "pregaming" before you go to a bar/the club it's a similar concept except it lasts a lot longer.. Actually a better way to explain it is some Americans have created a tradition of having a picnic out of their car in the parking lot before big events to cut down on cost of food and drinks once inside. They call it tailgating because larger vehicles like trucks or suvs will often have everything in the trunk and just let down their tailgate to give everyone in the party access.
Ooh haha, sounds excellent.
Usually there's a grill-out and large quantities of beer, alongside yard games like cornhole and frisbee.
I really don't like sports at all, but, I don't know man, something about being there in person just makes it so much fun. For me, at least, it's about the stadium experience itself, not for watching the sport. Also you gotta love stadium hot dogs.
But Michigan sucks.
Go Buckeyes!!!!
Go Blue
Don’t worry, we win by not having to have anything to do with the state of Michigan in the long run
Yes but that's one of the biggest stadiums in the world, its obviously not representative and most college teams aren't getting >100k fans
Most SEC or Big 10 stadiums hold 60 to 80 thousand. The point still stands.
Neyland Stadium 102,455 Go VOLS!
Yeah, there's only:
8 over 100,000
12 over 90,000 (inclusive)
23 over 80,000
41 over 70,000
Every Saturday in fall/autumn.
The big 10 are making their stadiums every week.
OK I don't know what that sentence meant but the big 10 out of 1300 institutions is not that many
Yes, because all 1300 have the same size athletics budgets too right? FFS what are you even getting at?
I imagine that, when constructing a stadium, you'd try to build as close to expected attendance as possible.
Are you trying to make the argument that the size of these popular sports' attendance isnt mammoth? Like it's closer to dude's experience up there where his school had a few thousand vs even 40, 50, 60 thousand at the games?
Regardless if the stadium has held the record for absolute biggest at some point?
Most of the bigger programs do. Hell, short of Vanderbilt i would say every single sec stadium seats at least 70k.
Kyle Field at Texas A&M checking in - we can seat 102,512. We're frequently at capacity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuPeGPwGKe8
this is always a great watch.
Several thousand is underselling it. I went to a school that is nowhere near big time and we get 45k for a home game. Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan get over 100,000.
Try like 60-80k at my alma mater for football games at home
101k capacity stadium. Always full most game days.
Yeah, but then you have to go to Michigan.
There are 8 stadiums in the US with more than 100,000 seats. All are college football stadiums.
Actually I was talking about Bryant-Denny Stadium.
Actually, I'll just go to Michigan
Roll Tide.
Wow. An actual correct use of Roll Tide on Reddit.
There is no incorrect use of Roll Tide.
Roll Tide.
The horror...
yeah its a good deal. Great academics and a fun atmosphere with school spirit.
That's what beyond stupid, for the rest of us. All that money goes to the college with students getting zero of it. Imagine if like half of that funding went into science/arts scholarships.
[deleted]
[deleted]
University makes money, spends on research, advances science, creates industry advancements, generates work and GDP gain.
You can’t argue we have the best universities in the world and attract the best talent to them, nor that the worlds most successful companies are here.
Capitalism is great isn’t it.
LOL, the nation with 35 of the top 50 Universities on Earth is doing it wrong eh?
I go to University of Alabama which is a huge football school. I don’t know exactly how much the school makes but they make a lot from merchandising and probably ticket sales as well. I don’t know where exactly the money goes either but I’m sure it gets back to the students in some way or another 🤷🏻♂️
Sports can be directly linked to benefits for the rest of the university. I went to UA in the early 2000's and the size of the university was around 17k. Once Saban was hired and he began to win, more and more kids from outside of the state of Alabama wanted to attend UA as well. Now the university is around 40k with the majority being from outside the state. All that extra money goes toward funding for other aspects of the university.
Yeah lol I’m out of state on a scholarship. I didn’t even think about that when I wrote my comment. I bet most or all of the money for our scholarships comes from the money that the team gets from advertising and selling merchandise
As a professor that got their Ph.D from a huge US school with athletics the claim that the major sports are some how a drain on the school is beyond inaccurate. Athletics as a whole CAN be a net drain but you can thank Title IX for that, not the football coach's salary.
For Europeans, Title IX is the law that requires an equal number of women's sports, regardless of revenue.
Thanks, should have known my audience.
I forget sometimes myself, even when in a conversation that's about American collegiate sports.
The football cross-subsidizes everything else for the schools. They put so much money into arenas and the football programs because they get money out of it. Amateur sports has been successfully commercialized and profitable.
These big football or basketball schools have insanely nice and modern facilities because at the end of the day its a business and these sports are money makers for them
A lot of the funding does go directly back to the school though. Ivy League aside its not exactly a coincidence that some of the best universities in the country have massive sports programs.
Who would pay to see that?
My school has over 100k+ people per football game
The simple comparison is this: In other countries, you guys have your non-premier-league sports. Like, you've got minor-league teams that can get promoted or demoted based on that. Then you've got your top-tier teams. We don't have all that. We have our top-tier teams, and then we have our college teams.
College sports are essentially our Segunda División. Combine that with the massive size of our country, and many people literally have to get on an airplane to watch pro sports, so they're left with college sports.
Played Lacrosse for fun at uni, sometimes players wouldn’t turn up and we’d have to borrow one from the other team.
They dont really have lower leagues so it's essentially like supporting your local team.
The Ohio State university gets 100 thousand plus people to show up to the spring game. Which is just a practice against ourselves
Whats BUCS
British university and college sport
Thanks
It’s a good excuse to party
My colleges football stadium holds over 100,000 people and it sells out quite frequently. It's definitely a completely different world when it comes to college athletics in America
Yup, done BUCS XCountry for 3 years and never seen anyone in attendance who wasn’t a student competing!
The BUCS athletics indoors was always mobbed. But it was mostly full of athletes and support crews ect. Very few actual spectators
I go to a uni with about 25000 students. We maybe get a couple of hundred people to the staff/student football match. Varsity only really attracts students and the uni we play against barely ever bring a crowd when they play here. I can't really imagine college sports being such a big thing
My uni has about 2 events with ~3000 people at a year, the rest of the time the crowd is usually an old man and his dog
At Texas A&M, the football stadium has about 104,000 seats, and our games are fairly often sold out
[deleted]
There's also a personal connection with collegiate teams that cause large attendance. The students of the university first, then faculty, staff, etc. Then the local community. Then the big one - alumni. There's a strong loyalty created in the university systems.
I'm always sort of surprised by how many fans a college team can have of people who have no connection to the university at all. They will wear school colors and display flags and go crazy for them.
(i.e. the Rams just recently moved from St. Louis back to California), so it’s a little harder to form an allegiance to those teams.
Kind of defeats your statement, as many Californians have been Rams fans since the first time they were here.
Nice! You just triggered some nostalgia for me. I won one of the BUCS leagues once, in 2009ish. I think the league was us (Surrey), Royal Holloway, Sussex, Brighton and Brunel if I remember correctly
...several thousand people...
You don't know the half of it.
College football (American) games in the U.S. regularly draw crowds of 20 to 40 thousand throughout the country. At big schools in the parts of the country where the sport is particularly popular (mostly the South and the Midwest) the crowds are in the 50-80 thousand range. Or more. And there are even a half dozen or so large, really, really football-crazed universities with stadiums that seat over 100,000 spectators. And they can, and do, fill those stadiums up game after game, year after year.
Also at WVU, our coaches make millions each year. It is insane to me
Biggest BUCS thing I've been to had 12000 spectators (varsity rugby).
Beckett vs Uni of Leeds rugby union varsity gets headingly stadium about 3/4 full I believe which is about 15k
Some highschool coaches make 1M / yr
Keep in mind that there are also a lot of smaller schools who don't get big crowds. I went to a division 3 uni (about 1200 undergrad students) and there were maybe a couple hundred people at most football games and they were mostly parents of the players.
Our high school stadiums hold over 20,000
Tbh the biggest football stadiums are not pro, but college stadiums, my uni's stadium can hold about 105,000 per game in a good season.
It's ok I don't think sports are very interesting either, and I'm an American. I understand the team bonding part but you don't need to be part of a sports team to achieve that
Okay, at Nebraska we got a new head football coach (he is making 5 million a year doing it too, and some coaches make even more) and at the open spring scrimmage (a practice game in which the teammates play against each other,) we pulled 90,000 people! For a practice! it's insane how hype we get, especially the blue bloods that have won national championships, like Michigan or Ohio State or Alabama. It is almost as big as how soccer is in Europe and south America. And we cheer on amateur athletes
Several thousand? Please, the football stadium at my uni holds 80,000 people, and it's usually full.
My college football stadium is as big as some pro stadiums... And every game has been filled to capacity for decades.
And we are like the 6th most popular school... In just our state.
The economics of just this one addiction of ours is greater than the GDP of first world nations.
And we aren't even talking about the pros.. Or even other sports.
It's fascinating
University of Alabama’s stadium seats over 100,000 people and sells out. 70,000 people show up to watch the spring practice game.
I’m canadian and I never went to a university sporting event, nor was I ever aware that any were happening
Cool?
Idk man depends on the uni I think. Lboro used to get pretty busy for big BUCS games but nowhere near American standards.
It's 100% about the fact that our universities exploit student athletes. They advertise and then reel in millions selling college sport merch at places like Walmart. Meanwhile, they use provisional scholarships to recruit talented, usually Black kids from low-income areas and then proceed to run these student athletes into the ground, ruining their bodies in many cases. The recruits aren't allowed to be paid even a penny out of the profit they generate (kind of like asking artists to make you shit for the "exposure", only worse.) Then, they tell these athletes to fuck off once the students are used-up. If they're lucky, they'll get drafted by the pros where they'll be whipped into standing during the national anthem.
And this is just one of our charmingly barbaric, racist and unjust traditions. If you like this, wait till I tell you about felony non-violent marijuana convictions and the private prison system!
Your only chance of being treated like a full human being in this country is to be rich enough to be able to pay for the privilege. And the only way to be that rich is to inherit at least 2 generations of wealth, which puts most people, especially people who aren't white, out of the running.
I dont really see the exploitation. Its not slaved labor. Any student athlete does it for scholarships, love of the sport, furthering their career in that sport.
Is it perfect? No. For starters I'd like to see NCAA athletes get protected scholarships so that if they get injured they dont lose their scholarship.
But theres nothing stopping them from valuing education first, or valuing money and going pro.
The NCAA is technically non-profit. While execs make big money a lot of the big money generated gets cross subsidized to support less popular college sports and much goes back to the schools
For starters I'd like to see NCAA athletes get protected scholarships so that if they get injured they dont lose their scholarship.
The Big Ten and Pac 12 are already doing this.
Say what you will, but it's still voluntary. Each of those kids does it for the experience, the free college degree, and the chance at a 7-figure income in the NFL.
wow that whole post is bullshit. Like there's an actual conversation about paying athletes with more than a D1 education but then you spiral into ridiculousness.
Like where is this mostly black shit coming from?
In Division I football at the FBS level, African-Americans accounted for 51.6 percent of football student-athletes while whites made up 43.3 percent, Latinos 1.8 percent, Asians 2.1 percent, and Native-Americans 0.1 percent. Those describing themselves as “two or more” or “other” were 1.1 percent.
The breakdown for all Division I football student-athletes is as follows: white 46.4 percent, African- American 43.2 percent, Latino 2.3 percent, Asian 2.6 percent, and Native American 0.5 percent. Those describing themselves as “two or more” or “other” were 4.7 percent combined.
And it's certainly not close to "most" who destroy their bodies in those short 1-3,4 years. Like this is spoken like someone who watched a single documentary but never played an outdoor game I'm their life. The rest of us, around the world, that couldn't cut it for the pros,or like those competing in non "pro" path sports yet still sacrificed the same effort to compete in their sport, just went on with the rest of their life.
But just starting at the top, the spectacle of college and highschool fandom is closer to local soccer clubs around the world except in most of these cases, the fans actually have some sort of connection to the team vs some sports marketing conglomerate funded with oil money.
Don't even get me started on this "the only way to make it bullshit" as you denigrate every immigrant family busting their ass opening their second and third restaurant or store. Or those of us who grew up poor and heavily enjoyed having literally everything covered for school with grants, scholarships, and loans and now have amazing careers.
Who you should actually be crying for are the middle class who didn't bust their ass for scholarships and decided to take loans out for a private University English degree.
Even in Canada, college athletes are nothing.
Edit: "nothing" was a poor word choice. It's not flaunted, celebrated, or important on literally anything. It may be an interesting fact about you and thats about it. 🤷
Yeah in Australia the biggest uni sporting event we have is "uni games". It is inter-collegiate and it is competitive but the few times I'd been asked to go I was been told it's mostly to get blotto and party.
And I think some elite athletes get scholarships and free gym/physio and, obviously, special circumstances for exams (not grade fudging like I hear happens in the US)? But that's like proper elite, have to have represented the country elite. My sister represented the country at dragonboat racing :3
Yep. I just posted similar above.. you get university colours (a serious sporting accolade and big bragging rights) for how good you are at non university competitions (e.g. Olympics), as university competitions are really just an Australian form of Spring Break.
Mix. V Z.
blotto
Is that LSD?
Nah, just means black out drunk.
Nah just drunk.
Lsd is often on a blotter
I represented the US in the youth division in dragonboat racing once. We got beat pretty bad because it is not nearly as competitive at that level here as it is in other countries. Germany and Canada stood out as being particularly good.
Idk what dragonboat racing is but it sounds fun as hell
Rowing. Those long ones with a few people on.
When do the dragons come in?
The boat is vaguely shaped like a dragon.
lol there was a dragonboat racing booth set up in an obscure location at a multicultural festival in Sydney. Hardly anyone noticed and walked up to it. I felt bad so I chatted with them for a while and had fun on the paddle trainer. I hurt my waist then politely discontinued our conversation and left.
Lol you might have met my mum and sister. Idek if they were at a thing at a multicultural festival or not, honestly, but they both paddle for Sydney clubs and my mum manages a team lmao
WTF is dragonboat racing?
It sounds like something Vikings would do. Please tell me I'm right!
It was actually a traditional Chinese sport (dragons c'mon lol not a very Nordic motif). Long boat, usually 20/22? People with one sweep (person who steers) and one person who beats a drum to keep pace.
What is blotto ? And dragon boat racing
Blotto is drunk. Dragon boat racing is team paddling in a long boat with someone steering and someone beating a drum to keep pace.
They stole our name (we have a role-playing and wargaming unigames at my university). :(
Those damn jocks!
I’ve never heard of uni games
Relevant username :3
Didn’t even think of that lol
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Fact is these players don’t get paid. They are not professionals because they don’t get paid.
Are you fucking serious? How dumb are you? I just listed the ones that have Queensland Cricket contracts. THEY ARE ALL PAID PROFESSIONALS. Contracted cricketers are the highest paid female athletes in the country.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-03/cricket-pay-deal-lauded-womens-pay/8772186
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/swoop/top-cricketers-become-the-highest-paid-athletes-in-australian-womens-sport-under-new-pay-deal/news-story/8119f0d66fa8716add9b39be068407d5
Men's state contracts are a minimum retainer of $66k. Women's state contracts are a minimum retainer of $25k, and $36k for those that play Big Bash as well. National contracts are a minimum retainer of $75k. None of these figures includes match fees or performance bonuses. I bet you a hundred bucks that Jess Jonassen makes more in a year from cricket than you do from all sources.
It's fucking hilarious how arrogant you are about things that you know absolutely nothing about and can't even be bothered to Google.
Sure but who cares? Not trying to be rude but how many people actually give a fuck about Australian uni Sports teams besides the people who do it? No one cares if you play sports for your school like they do in the US. Lots of people might follow professionals sport, but no one gives a fucj if you're a college athlete.
[deleted]
I clearly understand what you wrote, but the OP is about college athletes. No one cares a out uni sports because our uni teams, the best ones, are participating in A grade sport.
[deleted]
They are an athlete who goes to uni. So technically yes they are but how tf are you missing the difference on this comparison between US College Athletes and College aspory, and a uni student in Aus that is a pro athlete? Hit your head too many times playing rugby?
Not all US college athletes are even elite athletes lmao.
[deleted]
But they aren't watching a Sydney uni sports team play inter collegiate rugby are they? Which is exactly what US College Sport is. They're watching A grade sport where a team happens to be a uni team.
The question is asking about differences in culture, and this is a pretty clear cut one. US College Sport is a Thing^tm. You can't compare turnouts to college sports with professional A grade sport where a team happens to be a uni team. That is not a valid comparison lmao
It also seems to me that everyone who has replied to has has agreed with me :thinking: People watch A grade sport, no one gives a rats if it's a uni team, or gives a rats about specifically inter collegiate sport because it's basically not a thing here.
[deleted]
I didn't down vote shit mate.
Inter collegiate sport is not the same as A grade professional sport and quite frankly it's offensive to the people who actually play A grade sport that you think so.
[deleted]
'nothing' is a bit harsh. At my university we would regularly get 800-2000 for hockey, volleyball and basketball. But certainly not 100,000 like for some NCAA football games.
But 1500 in a packed gym is pretty raucous and fun.
It's mostly students though right? At least at my school it was. Not too many alumni or people off the street going to go watch uni sports
Volleyball and basketball were usually students and recent alumni. Hockey did get a lot of dads with kids. Tickets were dirt cheap and the hockey was pretty good.
I’ve gone to Minor Bantam midget games (like 8-9 year olds) because a friend of a friend had a kid playing.
Canadians go to hockey games regardless of level. It’s a great way to have a few beers and pretend you’re out in the community.
Minor Bantam midget games
Are you sure this is what it was called? Midget (and minor midget) is the 17-18 year old level and Minor Bantam is the 14 year old age group. They are completely separate age brackets.
It goes Novice (Youngest) > Atom > Pewee> Bantam > Midget > Juvenile (Oldest).
I think it’s because uni and college sports in the states are all the up and coming athletes that are scouted so the best then become nfl / nba stars once drafted.
Can confirm. Am a university athlete. Am nothing.
We definitely have the fans just not the level of players that are worth the dedication too. Canadian school legally can't offer athletics scholarships so all the best player either go straight to pro or play down in the states. This brings the level of play down significantly and less exciting
Regular season football games in Québec often attract thousands of people. Championship games will bring 10-20k.
I just think the fandom around college athletes are so bizarre and I'm really glad we don't have that in Canada.
To be fair, they're nothing here too. College sports are huge here. College athletes are treated like indentured servants (except for the free college part for some of them). The wrong person buying you dinner can cost you your whole career.
Yeah I hate that part of it. I don’t really follow college sports, though I get why they’re so big. They seem so much more competitive than pro sports, not as much whining or flopping/diving. Even though I don’t follow them it always bugs me to hear stories where college athletes are severely penalized if they took any kind of gift or endorsement.
I get that they’re getting school scholarships which may be payment enough... but that scholarship is essentially for them to go to school and learn (as well as being on whatever team).
Yet the student athletes collectively bring in millions of dollars and don’t get to see any of it? I get if they can’t get paid by the school since they’re getting scholarships, but to lay down on them if they take any free shit is just beyond me. So exploitative.
You might almost say they’re enslaved by the colleges...
(Yes it’s the obligatory relevant South Park reference)
Wow, that's terrible. At least we still consider our athletes people, even if they do a sport nobody watches.
Even Hockey?
I remember visiting my friend in Detroit and we saw a store in a mall for a specific college's football team. If it was on the team's campus or even the city the team was in I could maybe understand but we weren't on campus, it was just a random mall in a random city.
Yeah, that's not really true....it's not 60-thousand-seat stadiums, but college sports are carried out in a similar vein to American college sports.
You have junior hockey though
The athletes all get PAID way to fucking much. But the cop or fire fighter who put their lives on the line. or teachers that have our kids all day get minimum wage. So stupid.
May be stupid but it’s pretty basic economics in a capitalist market. Pro athletes bring in billions of dollars to the sports franchise and local businesses
The government isn't paying athletes' salaries...
☝️This!! As a Canadian living in the US it blows my mind that even Costco sells lawn chairs and pop up tents with the logos of the local rivalries! The level of school loyalty American’s have astounds me.
The level of school loyalty American’s have astounds me.
Many states don't have pro teams so the college teams are their pro teams see Iowa, Alabama, etc
Super valid point - I didn’t even consider that!
In Canada almost every province has at least one pro team - they may not cover every league, but it’s still someone to cheer for. This totally changes my perspective.
No problem.
Can confirm... from Alabama.
The Crimson Tide gets all the love we would give to a pro NFL team if we had one.
Let’s go Hawks
Ah is this why college football is so big in the US? What about in states that do have big teams, like Texas?
I can't imagine a TV channel in England showing uni soccer games. Only like 10 people turn up to watch the game, and it's not exactly national standard, because they're all students that only train once a week because they're busy with other things like studying and partying.
University of Texas had their first football season in 1893. The first pro football team in Texas was 1952. Hard to keep up with a 60 year head start.
Football got its start in the Rust Belt and in small towns. Just look at the Defunct pro football teams only two teams outside the Rust Belt: One in Kansas City and one in LA. Green Bay is only a town of 105,000 people. Green Bay is also the oldest team not to fold or move having started in 1919. Bigger Cities = Bigger Markets and a few of the teams moved to them. The Chicago Bears started in Decatur, population 72,000. The Detiort Lions started in Portsmouth, Ohio, population 20,000.
Same with Basketball. The Atlanta Hawks, an NBA team, was once in the Quad-Cities Area of Iowa/Illinois which as a population today of 474,000 people.
Just look at the "top" teams with the most championships of the major leagues most will be Rust Belt:
NFL: Pittsburgh, San Fran, Dallas, New England, Green Bay, New York, Denver, Oakland/LA Raiders, Washington(DC) all have 3 or more Super Bowls. 5 of them are "Rust Belt" and have 21 titles out of 52 total.
MLB: Every single team that has won 3 or more titles is currently in the Rust Belt: New York Yankees(27 wins), St. Louis Cardinals(11), Boston Red Sox(8), Cincinnati Reds (5), Pittsburgh Pirates(4), Detroit Tigers(4), Chicago Cubs(3), Baltimore Orioles(3) Chicago White Sox(3), Minnesota Twins(3) or they were in the Rust Belt at one point; Oakland Athletics(9 wins) were in Philly, San Fran Giants(8 wins) were in New York, LA Dodgers(6) were in Brooklyn, Atlanta Braves(3) were in Boston.
NHL: Not even going to touch this one.
NBA: will check it out later. It is 2 am where I am at.
Long story short, College sports still dominate areas that have pro teams especially in Texas, California, and Flordia because the college team was there first and had almost a full generation or two or three to build a fan base.
But isn't the quality of the players better in the NFL? More money, etc?
As an American, I get the sense that it's similar to indie bands. Pro-level players are scouted at college games, so if you're a fan of a team from which someone went pro, I suppose it's the same effect as a homegrown band making it big. Bragging rights to the effect of "I remember when they blah, blah, blahhh..." But in reality, like anything in the US, there's just a shit ton of money in it. While pro players receive millions, college players often can't afford to eat. It's a creul form of exploit on which universities, coaches, and private entities make their nut.
A good example is the Alabama Crimson Tide football program. They're more popular than some professional teams. Also, there's nothing else in Alabama to root for except for their in state rivals the Auburn Tigers.
How can you just hate on Trogdor like that? UAB deserves better.
This might be my favorite comment in all of Reddit.
Roll tide? Roll tide.
They are also really good and winning brings fans
Its exploitation of children plain and simple
Excuse me sir they are 18-22 years old
It's exploitation of adults plain and simple.
Not just college, a friend in the US was going on about his town's HIGH SCHOOL team. Seriously?
And the whole concept of "homecoming" where people go back to their college 25 years later to watch a football game. This just seems weird to me.
Europeans have their local sports clubs to watch. Can you imagine if NYC had club teams from each neighborhood competing at a professional level? FC Bedstuy or Williamsburg United or whatever. That's what Europeans (or at least English people) have instead of college sports. Sure Dagenham & Redbridge FC aren't very good, but folks go apeshit over Rutgers sports, so I totally see the similarity.
Wow feels weird to have little old Dagenham get a mention on Reddit
Where are these Rutgers fans, because they sure as hell aren’t showing up to football games?
Drinking their sadness away
I think they have sleepovers with Kansas football fans
Redbridge FC have maxed out at 1900 supporters so it's not really comparable. Sheffield United max out at 68,000 (1936) and London as a whole, if you count the maximum stadium capacity of all fifty clubs, considering that they all play at home on the same day is 494,000. Man U level out at 74k and Tottenham at 68 on average. I don't know, maybe i'm looking at this wrong, but maybe the USA has too many citizens and not enough club diversity, even with hockey, NBA, NFL, Soccer and all that.
They have the Knicks. :shrug:
Tru dat.
This fact blows my mind to bits:
The University of Michigan’s American Football team has had one crowd of less than 100,000.... ... ... In the last... ... ... 43 years.
Europeans: wrap your heads around that
We don't even have stadiums that big. Maybe the Nou Camp or Wembley comes close, but that would be at absolute max capacity for a huge game.
They pay their coach 9 million and he hasn’t won shit. Wrap your head around that.
College sports seem to be really popular in states/cities that would normally never in a million years attract a professional sports team. Like West Virginia with the Mountaineers. It gives them something to unite under and root for.
I think college sports are popular most places. Georgia fir example has several professional sports teams, but college sports are still huge
It’s the same in Tennessee. I’d say college football here is probably even more popular than any of the pro teams for hockey, basketball, football
Easier to get tickets for college games then pro games.
The waitlist for season tickets to uga is many years longer than the falcons waitlist
Seattle here, UW football is huge and college game day is an amazing experience
I also see a lot of diehard fans out the Dakotas
austin here, similar for UT. it does make sense tho, all of the big cities here have professional sports teams, but the most popular college teams are in places without professional sports. ie, baylor, ut, tech and a&m vs university of houston, university of texas at san antonio, and university of texas at dallas are all the biggest public schools in their city but don’t even approach the popularity of other schools’ sports.
it might be pure coincidence but who knows. also, yalls mls team is really popular! if that means anything haha
It’s true we are a soccer loving city :) Our second best sports experience is Sounders easily.
I think at least on the West coast it’s a mix. UW, Cal, UCLA, SC,even Standford and ASU in large cities. The other in slightly smaller township sizes, and WSU and OSU in middle of nowhere.
Its pretty big in the Northern Midwest as a whole since we really only have Chicago, Minneapolis and Greenbay
And Texas. College football probably bigger than the NFL [until Dallas gets it together.]
Fair enough but I think Texas is just has a huge hard on for football in general. Don't their High schools games get a pretty big turn out as well.
Some of those Texas and Florida high school teams could beat a lot of the lower level college teams.
That's true..... Go Clones
This is true, Texas is probably an outlier for that reason. They'd have football year round if given the opportunity.
That is why I watch Canadian football in the summer.
I guess I don't understand this comment.
1) College isn't as big in the northern midwest as it is in the south
2) That's actually a decent number of professional teams given the geographical area and population.
There are 4 separate Division 1 colleges in Iowa that have a team. 3 have a fair numbers for a fan base outside of their alums. 2 of them will have Highschool dropouts who get season tickets and have everything they own decked out in that colleges colors/mascot to show their support.
I only mention the midwest because when people come here from other states along the coast or larger cities they are usually surprised by our obsession. I understand the South has a large support too but Im only mentioning the area Im familiar with
This is silly. College sports are popular pretty much everywhere in the US.
I don't think I've ever met anyone in New England or NY who was much interested in college athletics.
It’s more College Basketball in the northeast, with the Big East/former BE schools i feel
Just because college football isn't huge doesn't mean other things liek basketball aren't.
But I will say that New York City is the one place in America where college sports aren't as popular. Literally everywhere else they're a big deal
I think you’re confusing having premier teams in state with having interest.
I mean there are definitely solid enough universities with athletic programs in these states including UConn, Syracuse, Boston College, and West Point. But just because there aren’t a ton of dominating programs in these specific states doesn’t mean people don’t follow other teams.
Sports bars are packed on Saturday’s during college football season and premier teams like Duke get plenty of coverage.
I want to agree with this but college football is one of the few joys in my life :(
Nothing wrong with being passionate about something.
I'm right there with you buddy. I feel like I spend 9 months a year waiting for my favorite 3 months to roll around. There's just nothing like it in the world. I can't go to games in person anymore due to a serious anxiety disorder, but I can recall with incredible detail what it felt like to stand and cheer alongside 103,000 football fans every Saturday in Neyland Stadium. Exhilarating!
Those 3 months have not been kind to UT fans lately. Maybe CJP will turn the ship around.
It's not easy being a Tennessee fan! I've had to learn to weather decades of crushing disappointment. Yet every year, as hard as I try to be pessimistic, hope creeps in. I'll never learn.
Yep, I lived through some oddball years with my team. Things are looking way up, with a lot more to cheer for, but you’re right that we never learn. The trophy is always within grasp before we take a few crushing L’s.
I’ve been to numerous European football games (German-American), and college football is still the best sporting event I’ve done. Tailgating can’t be beat by pubs, and the stadiums are so massive and the passion uniform (unlike Bundesligs, where it’s 10% insane ultra groups and 90% sitting casual fans)
College softball and baseball are really fun to watch.
I wish they would ditch the metal bats. Biggest turn off for me in college baseball is that loud high pitched TINK
I don't know man. I love wood bats, the crack and all. But I coach high school softball and there's something about the sound an aluminum bat makes. Especially a good one.
As a University if Kentucky fan, I have to ask. What is football?
A game where a 31 win streak is going on :) Go Gators!
As a University of Washington fam, I was going to ask you the same about basketball.
It's great. Crisp fall afternoons tailgating with friends in your old college town, cheering your team onto victory (or certain defeat in my case), the glory of a win over a rival.
Man, is it Labor Day yet?!?
To be fair he didn't mean that that is a bad this.
He said that he cannot wrap his head around it.
conversely, I wish we had college athletics with an actual following here in Europe, but the way it works is that all talented young athletes go pro before they are 18
We don't have the kind of farm systems erurope has for young talent, that's why we have ~~legal slavery~~ college sports
College sports in the us basically amount to try outs for pro teams.
[deleted]
Sorry, indentured servitude.
Ps you are taking it way too seriously
[deleted]
I wasn't even pretending I was making a joke
You're seriously butthurt about this
[deleted]
Lol now I'm racist? Wtf is wrong with you?
[deleted]
You need to get some help man
Not just student athletics either. It seems pretty bizarre that even in your deeply conservative states public money goes towards sports stadia. Bread and circuses would come to mind were it not for the fact that the same states aggressively try to prevent giving poor people food stamps.
It makes the cities money through the extra spending and people coming into the cities on gameday.
It still is ridiculous how much the teams take advantage of this, though. There used to be a time when they'd provide no funding or maybe just a small amount. Now teams want them to pay 1/2-2/3 of the stadium cost.
The really shitty thing about it is that when the math has been done by and large it's never even close to worth it for the city/taxpayers even though that's always the pitch. Some local businesses have a bit of a bump, and there will be a bunch of new mostly minimum wage part-time jobs, but the teams take nearly all of the profit and pay very little back to the city. The benefits never make up for the taxpayer costs of the stadium, particularly when new stadiums these days are running $1 billion +.
[deleted]
Are "not true" and "not factual" different? If I was a city planner, I think I'd think twice about investing public money into a stadium https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight/with-nfl-rams-gone-st-louis-still-stuck-with-stadium-debt-idUSKCN0VC0EP
[deleted]
The article cites several city stadiums, I also didn't say it was the norm, only that its not so cut dry and I would be hesitant if given the option to build a stadium in my city. What are the statistics on the subject by the way?
[deleted]
"I don't know what I am talking about"... got it
Not necessarily true - the university of Maryland is a bubble in Prince George’s county. it’s surrounded by super corporate commercial buildings and housing for students and beyond that you have a low income, rough, minority neighborhood. They’re fiercely segregated and there is no “school pride” in the rest of college park. I was confused why I couldn’t find a Maryland shirt at a target then It occurred to me I was at the “wrong target.” And how stark the cultural divide is between the school part of college park and the rest of it.
I think you’re confusing pro and college stadiums here.
I may be wrong here but I can’t think of any colleges that required their municipality to pay for their stadium. Even the public schools reach out to alumni for the vast majority of funding for the revenue producing sports (basketball/football) venues.
prisons and circuses
edit: or 'weed and circuses' is prolly more like it
I mean the sports teams charge for people to watch their games, get paid for their games to be broadcast on tv, get paid to play certain schools(sometimes) so they generally pay for the stadiums themselves.
/r/AsADumbass
Really odd considering many Europeans are fanatical sports fans.
The difference is it's for professional sports.
It's not like professional sports aren't a thing in the US, most people just couldn't wrap their head around being fanatical towards college sports and not professional sports. U-18 games can barely fill a fraction of the stands in Europe.
The third biggest stadium in Europe is Croke Park in Dublin - for GAA, purely amateur sports.
How is it different from any sports fandom, psychologically?
It's probably a major thing in the US and not elsewhere because of the way the US university system evolved, which was basically grassroots communities-up.
Yeah, it's really not that different. The United States is just HUGE geographically, and each professional sports league is capped around 30 teams, mostly in all the same cities from league to league. College teams fill the gap. It's something that's been around a LONG time, the schools in the rivalry I care about were packing stadiums in the 10s of thousands and starting brawls at the turn of the 20th century.
So what's weird is the fact that Americans don't care about leagues below the top league then? The English Premier League for example only has 20 teams.
Not always true. There are some great "minor league fanbases." For example, the Portland Timbers thrived in the USL (2nd tier soccer league) before getting a MLS team. But it terms of getting crowds of 15,000+, you are right, no minor league team routinely does that but college basketball/football sure do.
More the way the sports system evolved where your college team is probably the nearest one to you. Whereas the rest of the world the clubs are separate from the university system so you have a lot more smaller local clubs.
Is jock mentality a real thing. Do kids who are good at sports get away with battering other kids like in tv and films etc
Do you remember the Brock Turner rape trial?
It should be mentioned that thing isn't a normal thing. While athletes can get away with things the average person couldn't, it's usually not that bad.
More often, you'll find many schools who will look the other way academic wise. Look at UNC's fake classes.
Or just google 'rutgers football arrest'.
Or should I mention the time that the coach not only contacted a professor about a grade, but offered 'help' proofreading and assisting a student with their assignment? Google it. There's one they don't mention since it happened again. They gave them a slap on the wrists.
Students who cheat get expelled. Student athletes who cheat and the coaches that help them do it get nothing done to them.
He was super rich though
Or the olympic swimmer guy (not Phelps) getting away with a slap on the wrist in Brazil.
In my 1990s high school days, yes. I was routinely bullied by the jocks for being just a little too smart and/or queer. If I tried to say anything about it to authority figures, guess what? The principal and vice-principal were also coaches, and I got scolded for "making myself a target" while the jocks got more coddling and no punishment so long as they kept winning at meaningless throwy-runny games.
I hear it's better for kids these days, I hope that's true. To this day I can't stand sports, and a crowd of jock types all cheering at stuff gives me chills.
I played football in high school in the early 80s. Most of the team played Dungeons & Dragons. So I wouldn't blame sports, there were just really crappy people at your school.
Or just really cool people at yours.
Nah. There were still bullies and dickheads. Most of them weren't the athletes though. Funny enough, the biggest bullies were part of certain clubs and committees. The "too smart" ones I guess.
It's really weird how different we are because I have many relatives and friends from Asia and the academically gifted/student council members hold a lot of respect amongst the student body.
Of course like every TV/movie, it's based in truth, but overly dramatized
No, definitely not. Being really good at a popular sport, (football, basketball) can make you "cool", but you have to really good and also pretty cool to start with
Unfortunately it's more true than not.
When I was in high school 10 years ago there was a lot of antibullying campaigns going on. But there was a lot of social pressure not to say anything and teachers would usually brush anything under the rug unless a parent got involved while directly accusing another student of bullying.
I live in the North, and the answer here is no. But I have heard that down South being a school athlete is akin to being a minor deity. They apparently get all kinds of free passes and special treatment.
Part of the reason I'm much happier here...
this statement is overgeneralizing
Maybe so. But they're certainly treated with more deference than they deserve.
Yes
Those are not the norm but may be more typical in that culture. Young males, raging testosterone, aggression and hazing are all close friends.
To some extent yes. In college for instance, the players had the most expensive building dedicated to their tutors "helping" them with their homework. They were excused from exams usually and generally had lower expectations. In high school we had a couple soon to be professional athletes and they were given large exceptions to most rules at the school and were able to skip class just to practice. They also usually received less severe punishment, especially during that sport's season.
To be fair, the majority of the college athletics hype in the US revolves around two things:
1) Football (entire season) 2) Basketball (March Madness)
As a devout college football fan, I can give you a few reasons for the passion, as compared to many other collegiate and pro sports.
1) Every game matters. Lose 1 game, and it’s likely over. Lose 2, and it’s almost certainly over. Every weekend matters, and every team affects other teams by whether they win or lose. It’s really like a several month long playoff. You can lose half your games in the NFL and go to the Super Bowl. You can lose 70+ games in the MLB and go to the World Series. And in each of those examples, you’re primarily only competing for a top spot with a handful of teams. In college football, you’re actively competing against every single D1 school.
2) Most of the kids are passionate about the game. 95%+ of them will never see a dime from the NFL, but they love the game and put it all out on the field. The fans vibe off that energy.
3) School pride. Just like we have pro team pride based on where we live or grew up, and patriotism based on where we were born, you have that same sense of pride in the school you attended (or in some cases, would have liked to have attended).
4) General comradery. If nothing else, it’s a great excuse to cook some burgers, drink a few beers and get together with friends. Cheer on the team and enjoy the night together.
FWIW, I never let a game dictate my mood. I know plenty of people that truly live and die each weekend based on how the boys played. I love watching, and I want my team to win, but at the end of the day, it’s just a game (albeit a tremendously fun one to watch and follow).
Just my two cents.
Tell them you feel the same way about Soccer (Football) teams and the fanaticism surrounding them.
But soccer clubs in Europe are professional. You don't get 100,000 people turning up to watch a university soccer team, and it would never be on TV.
[deleted]
I think what he couldn't understand is why go crazy over college football and not the NFL? Isn't the NFL objectively in terms of quality as they're professional?
I must say I agree with this. They’re just colleges. The only thing even vaguely similar in the UK is the Oxford vs Cambridge boat race, and even that is elitist nonsense.
As an American, I do not understand it either.
Word
When I lived in Kentucky I would always see die-hard UK (University of Kentucky, not United Kingdom) fans, usually getting drunk in public. I made a habit of asking them about their love for UK sports and a few seconds in I'd ask them that's where they went to college. Based on my research, 90% of UK fans did not go to college.
Makes sense. Born and raised here. Lots of dumb fucks around here. They hate them there “educated elites” but by golly they love them some basketball.
They also can’t seem to get enough of shoving Jesus in your face. If it weren’t for the property I inherited and take care of from my Dad when he died, I would have long been gone. At least the military gave me a nice vacation away from this nonsense for a little while.
My wife is from Brazil and she thought it was crazy too. I took her to a Duke game at Cameron Indoor and she was mesmerized by the game, band and cheerleaders.
European here - I also don't get it.
I went out for a bit with a bloke from some mid west town and he was obsessed with College Football, and I was like, "Hang on, so it's a bunch of uni students you're watching?"
I vaguely remember "Buckeyes" if that means anything to anyone.
I just don't get it, I still don't get it. I guess in that area there's not a lot of craic of an evening so it's made to be an event because otherwise there's nothing else.
The UK defo doesn't have that culture of school sports the way the US does.
Our university athletes are more like the players in the leagues below the Premier League. The US just doesn't have that much in terms of pro sports like the U.K. does
This. If she watches professional soccer matches I’d bet a vast majority of players in the lower level leagues are college age. If they had a college farm system to the professional leagues like we do in the US, I’d imagine Europeans would be much bigger college sports fans.
Yeah I doubt I'd be really passionate about Anglia Polytechnic FC.
We have enough footie clubs to not need a Uni affiliation.
Sounds like you didn’t understand the point then. This system would replace everything other than the top Euro league in your area such as the Premier League and 18-22 year olds would have to go through the college farm system before pro leagues. New leagues would not be added in this scenario and all leagues below your highest tier professional leagues would be nuked in favor of college leagues.
It’s not about the name of the school, it’s about the talent you’re watching there. If Europe had soccer leagues follow the same format as American football leagues, players like Neymar, Mbappe, etc. would be the star players at your college when they were/are 18-22 years old.
The college sports system here in the US basically lets you "grow up" with these players. Going to a large school in the Southeastern US, I had classes with guys/girls that have won olympic gold medals while still enrolled as a student at the college. You see these guys every day as classmates, sometimes even friends and you want them to be successful, which in turn has you rooting for your college team every chance you get. To bring back the other point, it would be equated to something like having Mbappe in your freshmen Uni English class.
I got to ask and please don’t take this the wrong way because I’m being serious. Do Europeans have issues with America’s athletics and how seriously we take them
No, we just don't get it.
Europeans seem mad for soccer teams, and ya'll have soccer hooligans and such. It's exactly the same except our teams are mostly collegiate rather than private.
No not at all - we just don't understand why they're taken so seriously at the college level in particular. It doesn't make sense to us that high-performing sports teams should be connected to universities. Universities are for studying!
They don't have issues with it, in fact I think we're pretty envious of how good American athletic programs are, especially around the olympics. We just don't get why college football is so popular, when you have the NFL. Why aren't the college students busy studying? And why do they get scholarships just because they're good at sport? Shouldn't those scholarships be given to people that are good at science or something?
I'm pretty sure that the crowds at some US high school sports outnumber a lot of our college/university sports crowds.
As an American I also have trouble understanding it. My neighbor's house is nearly hidden behind flags of various teams.
In Nebraska we pretty much only have college football for major sports (though we also have hockey and basketball though nowhere near as big). Hell, Lincoln (the city where the games are held at) becomes the largest city in the state every game day.
I'm America and I don't know the craze surrounding it
To be fair this is the sole reason why Women's US sports teams are the best in the world. Other countries don't invest much in women's sports.
This is the reason why USA and Canada Women's Soccer/Football teams are the frequently the best in the world when the Men's National Soccer/Football teams are pretty bad.
[deleted]
Even in that, though, I think people outside the school-system/wizard-world don't know or care who wins the quidditch matches.
[deleted]
That was part of the discussion in the sense that here in the USA, the college teams have grown adult fans who don't go to the school and never have. College sports are a business directed at the general public, and hold strong meaning even among some folks who have nothing to do with that world. That's part of the fanaticism surrounding it.
That's at least the students. Americans get a hard on for a university no one in their family is smart enough to even attend
[deleted]
You aren't looking very hard then. Those types of fans are a dime a dozen in Michigan.
WALMART WOLVERINES
May I present to you, the University of Alabama?
Roll Tide!
It makes sense to support a local team, dunnit?
Does it?
As someone who doesn't get sports at all, I always found the worship of local teams so bizarre. Especially if they're not good.
Why wouldn't you be a fan of one of the 2-3 actually good national teams instead? It will never make any sense to me.
I spent a couple of years in Oklahoma, most of the rural folks are mad fans of OSU. Even if no one in their family finished high school, and the university's hundreds of miles away. I moved there from an area where sports, pro or college, weren't a big deal to most people. Seemed weird to me.
Similar to in Australia, they have AFL Australian rules football. Lots of people choose to support teams from other cities. They'll support a team literally from the other side of the country, and can't explain why. It doesn't do the sense of community or city identity any good.
This happens to a degree with soccer in England, where glory hunting fans will just support whoever the best team is at the time e.g. Londoners supporting Manchester United. But at least people give them shit for it.
These people are everywhere. A lot of people just like college football as it's played very differently than in the NFL. Naturally, people have a favorite team, and not everyone went to college or even lives near one, or they even just don't like the team from the school they did go to.
While inter-university sports are pretty much irrelevant in the UK, inter-high school sports do get a bit of a following in the case of the most elite private schools competing against one another. Rugby matches between them will absolutely generate 'school pride', and rugby matches between different houses in a school will often be seen as a big deal by the students too. The best players for these schools will often be heavily scouted into the professional system.
Given that Hogwarts is basically a magical version of a traditional British boarding school, I think it was probably the parallel to school rugby that inspired the quidditch fanaticism.
I am American and neither can I.
I am American and don’t get the college patriotism either
From what I understand. It means a lot for your community/state. University of Maryland Baltimore County made the Sweet 16 for college basketball back in March and that was a huge deal because schools at that level never make it. People were proud of the school. Personally I'm a big University of Maryland fan, because I love my state and they usually bring some good stuff to the table.
UMBC didn’t make it to the sweet 16, they lost in the 2nd round (round of 32) to Kansas State.
https://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/basketball-men/d1
Sweet 16 my dude.
That game is underneath the 2nd round section my guy. Also, that isn’t what’s considered impressive, It’s the fact that after a 130 or so games, a 16th seed finally beat a 1st seed.
I'm Argentinean but I've lived in the US for 18 years. I don't get it either.
This. I was just thinking about it.
Like we have college sports here and the only thing we give a shit about in that is the Boatrace, and even that is like for tradition's sake.
Just imagine if you got ride of all the football (soccer) teams below the premier league and instead those players had to go play for college teams. Ditto for all the other sports (just remove every pro team below the highest league).
For American football for example there are a handful of teams concentrated in a handful of states and vast swathes of the country only have college sports to watch.
It's a weird thing to imagine though. As in its a thing that every other country in the world does differently.
Exactly, but the trend in these comments is people assuming the US has tons of pro-sports teams and then also being obsessed with college sports but for us college sports are the equivalent to the lower leagues in pro sports everywhere else and they completely miss WHY we love college sports
I'm an American and I don't even understand it. I hate college sports, at least football and basketball because it's 1000% exploitative of the student athletes. Billions of dollars surrounding those sports and legally the students can't touch a dime off it. Also, cities get so proud over institutions that either they've eothernoverpaid to attend or never attended and are proud of it for some reason.
It's mad because I don't think that American student athletes are necessarily any better than European ones but they have a much more inflated sense of self importance because of the professionalism of American college sports and the attention they get.
[deleted]
People would rather get drunk and watch football with their friends than sit in library, what’s to get?
As an American, I don't get it either.
Coming from America, I don’t get it either.
I still do not understand it either TBH
Where I live, everyone roots for either UT Vols, Bama, or UGA. And none of these people have ever set foot on any of those campuses. I don't get it either, and I like sports.
Nashville?
Kind of similar, I lived with a host family in Germany. I told them about prohibition and broke their heads. Alcohol is such a normal part of daily life that they couldn't believe that it was illegal at one point.
I can confirm. I have European friends who can't believe colleges will give scholarships to kids just because they're better athletes than their peers.
the USA just loves their team sport, doesn't matter if it's football, or politics.
Soccer (football) fans not understanding fanaticism. That's amusing.
They have small, local sports teams in Europe, and so do we - ours just happen to be affiliated with schools. There isn't much mystery there.
I'm American and I don't get it either.
Oh man, I love college sports! I'm one of "those" Americans, a third of my wardrobe shows my fandom. I remember back in school taking a French exchange student to his first American football game and he was just absolutely dumbfounded at the level of support. Packed stadium of 45,000 (which is small compared to the bigger schools), everyone decked out in gear, screaming non-stop with the other team had the ball... good times. He described the sports teams at his university in France as playing to a few family and friends. The rivalries, the pageantry, the marching bands... It's great! My sports pants are tight!
Don't worry, it's also extended to High School! Well, mostly football and sometimes basketball.
Just equate it to soccer in any other country.
I'm American and I don't watch those games either... border on thinking their garbage except for people scouting talent that's trying to get into the big/major leagues like NFL/NHL/NBA/MLB/etc.
I always felt that americans seem to somehow be able to split their sports fanaticism over dozens of teams in various sports. In my country, all that fanaticism is concentrated in whatever football ("soccer") team you support. If people like other sports, they generally are just fans of the sport, not a particular team. But we're hella serious about football, far more than americans are with any sport I think.
I'm American as well and I don't get it
The fifth largest high school football stadium in Texas cost $60 mil. Now that's perspective on how serious football is in Texas.
I like college athletics for potential prospects, but not actually the teams
Those 'Little Miss' beauty pagents... they just look utterly bizarre to me
They're utterly bizarre here as well. The only people who don't have a problem with them are the people who participate in them.
[deleted]
"It's like throwing a picnic at the beach and getting pissed off when the seagulls show up"
Do not diddle kids, it's no good diddling kids
I actually hate seagulls...
Strange, they speak highly of you.
I’m not a kid diddler
Yeh that's not how they are at all. It's just over weight mom's and grandma's lol.
We also have it in our country (Philippines). Hugely televised in noontime shows across the country when it's up. I think it's supposedly garnering audience appeal of a child, like an "aww so cute I wish I had a child like that too" factor. In rare cases, some "Little Miss" kids went on to become actresses or show hosts.
On topic of "bizarre pageants", besides Little girl pageants we also have singing contests for little boys (our folks love watching singers I think?), but the more prominent ones would be Gay pageants. Heck, some of our gay pageants seem to be a fierce competitions. Nationally televised pageants have contestants with faces perfected by science (lots of surgeries) that they're essentially trans women, while we also have popular local festivals where the gays just dress up drag, and an extremely glamorous one at that.
Have any weird reality shows revolving around the pageants emerged in the Philippines yet? In the US, we have shows like "Honey Boo Boo" and "Dance Moms" that seem to border on child abuse.
Come to think of it, we don't have reality shows. Heck, I don't even understand the concept of reality shows (besides the old Survivor maybe, but that's a semi-competition semi-drama)? Like, those shows that just follow the lives of a family or a group of people, probably have staged drama... we don't have any of that.
At most, we have noontime variety shows for mass entertainment. There are times when the show hosts go overboard with their jokes, at times degrading to the subject of the joke, but those are rare because them hosts don't really like the sanctions imposed to make repeat offenses.
You mean their parents
[deleted]
Hey now, some parents legitimately try to teach their children that their value is based entirely on youth and beauty rather than who they are as people.
And pedophiles...
Oh...they participate. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
ya they tend to be judging.
Wrong place for that face dude lol. Upvoted
I know.
They have those in other countries this isn't a uniquely American thing. It's weird everywhere you go.
It’s my guilty pleasure... I think I’m envious of the little girls bc they have their makeup done and wear fancy clothes. I was too poor to get pretty things when I was younger and now I’m too uncoordinated and poor to wear makeup and wear fancy clothes.
Them, and pedophiles.
Yeah everyone I know thinks they are weird AF.
Those are really not that common. You have to actively seek them out, they're generally regarded as a creepy white trash thing.
Live in the south. The local public school has one for elementary and highschool kids every year. They are sponsored by local businesses.
[deleted]
I haven't really looked, but I've never seen any sort of children's pageant advertised in New England.
White trash thing? I thought it was for snooty, rich, stay at home moms.
[deleted]
Yeah, thats one case. Thats a popularized example from tv, not an extension of the norm. The majority in the US, as a whole, are spoiled kids with stay at home moms. Some are probably "white trash" but I doubt its a cheap thing, and white trash refers to low income whites, particularly southerners. Of course, I've never wasted brain cells looking into statistics either.
There are plenty of middle to upper class white trash
I mean, I agree as far as their behavior is typical of what you'd see in white trash people. Its just not the definition of white trash, which specifically says poor.
It doesn't specally mean anything. It's slang that's definition will vary somewhat depending on where you go and who you taking to.
Um, its in the dictionary bud. It's a recognized, historical term.
white trash - poor white people, especially those living in the southern US.
Theres also a Wikipedia page if you'd like to learn about the history behind it.
As a derogatory term, "white trash" and "poor white trash" were preceded by "waste people", which was used in England to describe the underclass of their American colonies... The first use of "white trash" in print occurred in 1821.[17] It came into common use in the 1830s as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites.
Lexicographers do not decide what is a word
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/dictionary-facts-and-trivia/lexicographers-do-not-decide-what-is-a-word
Dictionaries attempt to define words based on their usage. That usage is dynamic and can change from place to place. Dictionaries are not perfect, they do not contain every word or even every definition of the words they do contain. Slang especially has a tendency to vary quite widely.
No shit, did you read the quote? There was an example of evolution in language right there. Here's some other excerpts:
The term achieved widespread popularity in the 1850s,[17] and by 1855, it had passed into common usage by upper-class whites, and was common usage among all Southerners, regardless of race, throughout the rest of the 19th century.[20]
In 1854, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the chapter "Poor White Trash" in her book A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin. Stowe wrote that slavery not only produces "degraded, miserable slaves", but also poor whites who are even more degraded and miserable.
Sure, you can say its slang and use it to refer to whoever you want (be the change you want to see lol), that still doesn't change the fact that white trash is a specific term that has been used for freakin 200 years.
It's for the nouveau bougies. Old money shows horses and dogs, not daughters.
That makes a lot of sense. I mentioned to someone else that it seems the moms live vicariously through their kids, possibly due to their own lack of accomplishments. New money parents, especially those who spend time with old money parents, would probably try to find a way to engage in that lifestyle. If they can't afford to keep up, they would probably find a way to reach that same level of pomp
I was the charity case mucking stalls for lessons at my local high-level stable as a kid. I spent a lot of time observing and classifying rich people. 😂
What you say jives with my experience- new money parents would buy their kids all new top dollar tack and equipment, old money kids had Grandmas hand me down antique Hermes saddle that could probably pay for a year of undergrad...
They're not mutually exclusive
Of course not, there's demographics to everything. Im sure there's rich black moms, poor asian moms, gay dads..but we're talking about the majority. The majority seem to be middle to upper class stay at home moms who haven't done anything in their lives to have a sense of self accomplishment, so they put their kids through that shit to brag to others and gain that feeling. Its honestly sad for everyone involved.
As far as I know, it’s a mainly white trash thing. If you’re not part of the specific weird group that’s into them, you’d never hear about it.
Unless for some stupid reason you still watch TLC.
T h e l e a r n i n g c h a n n e l
Propagating the worst things about america!
I've learned that I need to find a new channel if there's any hope of any actual learning going on.
Creepy af
If you're familiar with the trope of "Dad is hard on kid about sports to make up for failed sports career" it's basically that. A lot of mostly women pushing their kids into these events to live vicariously through them. Can't imagine the harm it does to these kids for the more extreme examples.
We have to do a song about how we do NOT diddle kids.
There is no quicker way for people to think that you're diddling kids than by writing a song about it!
They look bizarre to the vast majority of us.
Dude, they're bizarre to Americans, too. At least, most of us. I'm sure there are people out there that love it, otherwise the shows wouldn't exist.
But yeah, they're terrible.
I'm sure there are people out there that love it
Yes, they're called "pedophiles"
We hate them too
Look, uh, please don't judge our entire country on that. I literally don't know a single person that finds those acceptable in society.
I used to participate in beauty pageants back in the late 80s and they were totally different back then. There was no cut throat competition, no adult clothing or make up. Moms were supportive of all the little girls. We all wore boxy jumpers and ruffled socks. Everyone’s hair was curled into Shirley Temple ringlets. Little prizes were given out.
My home county’s “Little Mister and Little Miss” contest was even less of a beauty pageant than that in the 80s and still is today. In fact it’s not a beauty pageant at all. It’s basically a politeness and sociability contest, and it’s good to teach kids to be polite and sociable. Typical “little girl going to kindergarten on concert day” dresses, little boys in slacks and vests, and no makeup on anyone. All the kids sing together and answer some questions both on stage and off (that’s where the politeness and sociability testing comes in), and then Little Mister and Little Miss get to ride in a convertible in the parade the next day. No harm done to anyone, and fun had by all except maybe some kids who haven’t learned to lose yet—which is maybe good for them.
Edit: Sociability, not socialist
Do not ddidle kids, its no good diddling kids.
Child beauty pageants are an American tradition... but not a proud one.
Do I look suspicious?
It's legalized pedophilia, essentially. They film this shit and then broadcast it on TV just KNOWING that some basement-dwelling freak with a handlebar mustache is sitting naked in front of his television masturbating to it. It's softcore child porn, that's all it is. Nobody with any scrap of sanity actually watches it.
Where on reddit is that frequently talked about? We don’t get it either..
Exclusively in "what is normal in America but creepy everywhere else" threads. I'm not sure where the idea that these things are common originated, but they're literally only ever mentioned in these threads.
Well it’s certainly not common. I imagine it existing mainly in the south where the rules of normalcy don’t apply. It’s a strange land.
Almost everything you think of as being morally abhorrent in the US is usually found mostly in Mississippi.
🎶 don't diddle kids, don't diddle kids 🎶
They should be outright illegal. Children should not be going through that. I know that some people say that the children enjoy it, but it is not true. They have learn that they should be enjoying it, but many of them end up with a lot of psychological problems.
Looks like the adult ones will be phased out before the child ones, which is, er... peculiar
I’m American, and these have always freaked me out so fucking much. I don’t personally know anyone who is involved in any way, but I’ve heard about them and it’s so god damn crazy to me.
On another note, the movie “Little Miss Sunshine” is certainly worth a watch.
Yeah, they put that film on Finnish tv a few weeks ago, that's why I wrote how bizarre they look to me...
Trust me, 99% of Americans are looking at those people like they're out of their mind. I don't know how anybody could make their seven-year-old daughter look like a $5 hooker just to win some tacky trophy. I worked in a salon and this mom used to bring her 8 year old daughter in to get her eyebrows and face waxed. The little girl cried and begged her Mom not to wax her (because it hurts), so we just told her - nope. I'm guessing she had trouble finding a salon to do it. These people are absolutely nuts.
I really hope she didn't find a place willing to put the girl thru that, I really do
I've seen videos on YouTube where they let 8 year olds dance really erotic dances. All the comments where like "She is sooo cute!!" and "such princesses....." When I commented how creepy it is and it's odd that anyone would let their kid participate in something like that they deleted my comment.
It's a bizarre deal to everyone.
I'm sure you have something bizarre they do in your country that even seems bizarre to you. Same basic feeling.
Trust me, the majority of us find them absolutely revolting.
We called those 'Pedo's Paradise'
I'm American, AND a female and they still don't make sense to me.
People here think they're utterly bizarre, too. The average person ain't into that shit.
Ya we don’t understand them either. No one likes them, but every year they just keep happening. I’m sure they are a front for something
Those are bizarre to everyone not directly involved with them.
They're real outliers here, too.
As an American it makes me sad that we actually have those.
They're bizzarre to me as well ,and i'm American.
They're pretty much solely for pedos and retarded moms who are trying to be pretty vicariously through their young child.
You're saying that those pageants are frequently brought up by Americans? Because they're really weird to every American I've ever met.
They’re bizarre to us too.
They're really uncommon. Don't get me wrong they deserve all the WTF is that shit attention they get, but it's a pretty rare thing.
All the ones on tv are scripted, even the winners are predetermined
Real ones are still kinda weird, but they’re more lowkey and chill
Everyone thinks those are creepy except the people who participate in them.
They look bizarre to most Americans including myself. I have no idea who is into that or why.
Dressing your 5 year old up like she's a 20 year old tramp is disgusting to most Americans. Most of the kids seem miserable and only do it because the parent wants them to.
Not American, but those aren't as common as the shows make them look, often times the show producers themself will organize or get someone to organize these shows, just so that they can have something to record. After all, from an organizers side there isn't much you have to do, just find a place (doesn't have to be big, not many people go to these things) decorate it a little bit, have some small audio equipment and done.
It's just a huge mess of pedophiles pretending to be interested in the "talent"
To be fair, most American's can't wrap their heads around them either
Little Miss Sunshine is the only acceptable Little Miss
Embarrassing
Most Americans think its gross too. It’s just a weird community that likes them
Born and raised in suburban America, parents were born and raised in rural America, currently live and work in urban America. Nobody in my family has ever actually seen a sign for those, it's like some weird subculture that makes for good TV so we made like 30 shows out if it and it's on tv a lot
If you've never spent a lot of time in America you really only know American TV likely. So something you see on American TV that looks super prevalent might just be a weird subculture that only a handful of people are like
The vast majority of Americans consider them utterly bizarre, and very, very wrong. It’s a small subculture unto itself.
To most of us too.
I don't know, my country has them, and they're very common. I even took part in one. I'm in Eastern Europe. Yeah, they're weird.
I’m an American and I cannot relate to them either.
I'm pretty sure that if one of these if brought up by an American on Reddit, it's because they think something fucked up and/or creepy involved.
The treatment of the flag. I worked at a US summer camp and was taught about flag raising, how to stand during the pledge of allegiance, how to fold the flag and how important it was to never let the flag touch the ground.
All these kids knew so much about it!! I was 21 and didn’t have a clue if the rules were the same for my flag (UK)
It's actually the exact same thing in Finland! Flag raising and lowering is kind of a ceremony (at least in summer camps and the like) and the flag can't touch the ground and should be folded in a specific manner.
It's only flown on specific days though
Same thing in Namibia. I've never been one for patriotism but I once walked past our Ministry of Defence while they were raising the flag, and a soldier politely asked me to cross the street so I wouldn't obscure it, out of respect. It was an oddly touching moment.
I'm an American and I am touched by that, too. It's honoring all the people who made the country possible.
Nice.
I think it's pretty old-fashioned and unnecessary. Of course it's nice to be respectful and treat the flag well as a symbolic piece but it shouldn't be that big of a deal and it certainly shouldn't be a law.
Ja sama suomeksi.
I can't say anything about Finland, but in the US, the flag code is largely, if not entirely, unenforcable. Especially when it comes to damaging flags as a form of protest. It's considered free speech, and the constitutional amendments are seen as a higher national law than anything else, so preventing free speech through other laws is not allowed, except in cases where the persons speech is an immediate danger to someone.
Like, gathering a crowd and yelling "let's all go down to Bob's house and beat him to death!" Is not protected.
It's pretty similar in Finland. You will, however, be strongly frowned upon if you treat the flag badly.
Took too long to find this. I've never understood people putting up flags around/near their homes (unless it's temporarily for a sporting occasion).
Edit: typo: purple > people (eater)
Yep, in the UK, it's only usually flown on official buildings (town halls, cathedrals etc).
Some people have flags, but it's more likely to be the regional flags, or the country flags (England, Wales, Scotland), rather than the national flag.
Could also have something to do with needing planning permission to put a flagpole up. This means only people who are properly committed to flying a flag do it.
In Sweden it is also fairly common to have a flagpole in your garden.
Could well be that.
People with Union flags flying outside their homes are normally either Veterans or EDL members. So they either deserve all the respect in the world, or none of it.
No. EDL members would fly the Saint George's cross.
Good point. I forgot what the E stood for.
We fly the English flag at my house, and we're neither veterans or EDL members. We're just culturally English, same as how my Taid (grandad) flies the Welsh flag because he's culturally Welsh. My nationality is British, but my culture is English.
People looking at flag outside your house take it as a sign they're in a bad neighborhood, I almost guarantee it.
Flag outside the house is borderline. Wheelie bins wrapped in a St George's cross sticker? Bad neighbourhood.
That's sad. :(
Absolutely agree.
Well seeing as I don't even live in a neighborhood (I live on an old farm in the middle of the countryside) there's no danger of that.
EDL members seem to put their Englishness above their Britishness. Very divisive.
EDL or dragon slayers then. So we are still back to "all or none".
More likely to be painted on their garage door
Or loyalists in Norn Iron
Edl and veterans are filthy casuals compared to the loyalists. Layabouts don't even paint their curbstones.
And they have one flag lazy cunts, there are lampposts in Belfast which have more flags then the UN.
*Flegs
Ha, I remember driving home from Ikea in Belfast (before they changed the planning laws specifically to allow one to be built in Dublin). I was on the M1...but forgot that the M1 up north isn't the same as the one down south.
Driving along in my southern-reg car, watching the sun set to my left...wait...if west is over there...shit!
Came off the motorway to pull a u-turn somewhere in South Tyrone. Had to drive through a village to get back to an on-ramp.
"Gosh, those painted kerbs and bunting make the place look colourful...wait...red, white, blue? Don't stop the car!"
Wasn't even July.
South Tyrone best Tyrone
Why paint the kerbs every year twice it's economical to only do it once every 50 years like a French fleg and god bless them Tyrone isn't extravagant we are a poor or extremely tight
Same shit.
What is edl?
English Defense League.
I dont know enough about them to definitively say theyre white supremacists, but aye, from what I've seen theyre white supremacists.
They would deny it, mostly on the grounds that they can't pronounce supremacists let alone spell it.
Racist, moronic thugs one and all. They came to our town to protest once, a few dozen of them, a few hundred locals counter-protesting. Where I live is a shining example of a well mixed society who get on with each other regardless of creed or colour.
I think this will explain everything anyone ever needs to know about the EDL...
I think it's Muslamic Ray Gums.
But I agree, Muslamic Ray Guns is funnier. And the reporter's comment that the anger seems incoherent is a nice touch.
English Defense League. Bunch of wankers.
English defence league, far right group
Couldn't help but notice you left out Northern Ireland. Is that an inside joke?
American here. And out of the loop.
No. It's just thay I've never been there, so can't comment on whether or not they fly a flag of any type, be it the union jack or st Patrick's one.
Flag flying quite common and controversial in NI. A lot of bigots fly them this time of year especially.
Yeah, I imagine a lot of people use it to show which "side" they're on.
Also, what do you mean by this time of year? I'm not very well versed in Irish history/tradition.
Yeah a lot of houses have things on the outer walls to mount flags.
By this time of the year I mean the 12th of July. Its the time of the year where Orangemen march in the streets and having massive bonfires were they burn the Irish Flag, pictures and effigies of Republican politicians. Sometimes they'll even burn effigies of black Celtic players, Scott Sinclair will probably get a burning this year too. I'd imagine the Palestine flag will be burned as well.
Ok. That's more extreme than I thought...
Yeah, it happens every year and parts of the government (that doesn't exist at the moment) are ok with it because hate crimes are seen as Unionists "culture".
I said there was a effigy of Sinclair, I was wrong. I remembered it incorrectly, it was a banner saying Scott Sinclair loves bananas.
What a lovely sounding group of people. Makes the EDL look like shining examples of acceptance and equality...
Those people are the reason the Conservatives won the last election.
And gay people can't get married or woman have abortions. The thing is 'these people' are quite a lot of the folk here, whole estates will be decorated in union jacks with red/white/blue bunting. Its not a celebration is a marking of territory.
I get the impression Theresa May didn't know this either when she partnered up with the DUP. The irony of the whole thing is they're crazy loyal to Britain and the Crown but they'll never be considered truly British by those in the UK mainland.
Oh she knew. She just didn't think it was as important as POWER!
I think the only thing she thought about was that it got her enough seats to hold power.
They have their orange marches in June.
American here, why do bigots fly them, why are they bigots, and why this time of year. Sorry, I'm ignorant and just trying to learn.
Keep in mind that in most western countries that aren’t the US, nationalism (ie pride in your country because it’s your country) is either minimal or frowned upon. So those that fly flags are being expressly ‘nationalist’ in the ‘my country is the best and all you foreigners [read: not white] people can get fcuked’.
ie the flag represents pride in the historical whiteness of the country. Not pride in the current state of the country or just love for the country
The Protestants treated the Catholics almost as poorly as we treat (Ed) slaves/black people.
See my replies to my original comment for some info.
Well it's kinda the the deciding factor if you're talking about the UK or GB..
[deleted]
Comrade
Tiocfaidh ár lá!
Do they mean the six counties? /s
In the US the Country and National flag are the same flag
Well if it helps you understand better, the US country flag is also the national flag.
And you're a racist if you fly it now
Am American, and this was just recently pointed out to me. I never noticed it, but yeah. It's hard to look anywhere without there being an American flag somewhere in the field of view. I never really thought of about it before. I guess I assumed all countries were like that.
My fiancée and I once thought, "Drinking game, we'll drop a random pin in the US on google street view, and take a sshot for every flag."
We didn't make it through a single round.
Same in movies, especially if it's like a Michael Bay blockbuster or something. Have a lookout for American flags in the background, they're always in shot when the hero is doing something heroic.
Propaganda?
It's all part of the military - industrial - product placement complex.
Or Michael Bay is just very patriotic.
Of what?
Patriotism, the industrial military complex pays Hollywood lots of money to promote it.
It's not really a secret.
https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2018/03/22/how-why-defense-department-works-hollywood.html
There is a game by called GeoGuesser where you look at a random location in Google Street View somewhere in the world and have to guess where that is. That game would be too easy if other countries also had flags every where. As it is you actually have to look at clues like plants and the weather.
The first time I went to the USA, I found it absolutely hilarious how many flags there were.
I commute about an hour to work every day and don't see a single UK flag.
I'm an American and the flags are nowhere near as omnipresent as you describe, what part of the country are you from?
I'm in the Southwest. A lot of random places will fly them. I count four flags on my street alone.
I also struggle to understand purple.
[deleted]
No colours exist. It’s just wavelengths on the em spectrum
Ok but purple doesn't correlate to a color.
South Koreans fly their flag pretty freely too, it's not uniquely an America thing. In America, people who are from Hispanic descent (especially Cubans and Puerto Ricans) can be seen flying their colors somewhere as well.
In America, people who are from Hispanic descent (especially Cubans and Puerto Ricans)
You mean especially Mexicans who are here illegally.
No, I mean Puerto Ricans and Cubans, I know what their flags look like.
Don't forget sticking up from car windows.
Nothing says "COME ON ENGLAND" like two mini flags flapping in the wind on a K reg Sierra Cosworth
Come on its the first round of the world cup. Its the fortnight tradition
Very true
Yeah, here in Spain, you only ever see Spanish flags cada dos por trés when we are doing really well in international football. There was also an unusually high amount of Spanish flags during the whole Cataleave fiasco.
Edit: autocorrect is stubborn.
Same here. Seeing a lot more Belgian colours with the world championship around the corner.
Does anyone in Spain wish they still had an empire?
We wish to have jobs, mostly.
Lol why don't you have jobs
How much time do you have?
Lots
Probably. However, this would be a minority. A more ample sample size has wants Gibraltar.
To be fair, that wasn't really a thing until WWII, and then after the war it died down for the most part and didn't really become a thing again until 9/11. If the War on Terror ever ends, you'll see the same pattern.
I guess I never really knew this. My parents always had a flag on their house during the warmer months ever since I can remember, and I also grew up in a small town where the fourth of July was the major event there so there were always lots of flags on people's houses. I just always thought that's what Americans have always done.
I have two flags at my house. And then the big one for special holidays.
Took too long to find this. I've never understood purple putting up flags around/near their homes (unless it's temporarily for a sporting occasion).
"We the purple?!?"
There were always people flying flags, but after 9/11 there was a giant surge in flag flying across the country. Many have kept up with flying them since.
We fly an American flag on holidays such as the 4th of July or Memorial Day. Both my wife and I, our fathers fought in wars and especially my wife wants to honor that. Part is patriotism, part is honoring memories.
we do for the same reasons hugs
Some people do this here as well. Though the flags are rather diverse, I've seen the EU-flag, Bayern München flag, Bavarian flags, a Norwegian one (still don't get this one) and German ones.
I always figured the ones from different countries were flown by people with either that nationality or heritage?
I didn't notice a lot of Bayrische flags on people's houses in Bayern, but they're all over the pubs/biergartens. I'd forgotten about them. Maybe the houses had them too, and I'm just unobservant.
I am generally pretty wary of people that feel the need to fly flags to show their ~~nationalism~~ "patriotism"...
We've still got a few things about our country to be proud of.
Flying a flag doesn't make you "more proud"
I have an American Flag hanging in my bedroom, and I'm very proud to have it there.
My Dutch flag still lies crumpled on the stairs after kingsday
Yeah but then you still see it plastered on things like shorts, bikinis, underwear, socks so I don’t really know what the point is.
You cannot make a bikini out of an actual flag, but you can have the image of the flag on it according to Flag Code. Subtle distinction, but it's there.
[deleted]
No, it's just designed to be protocol.
Flag code is only enforceable towards government entities and military personnel. Freedom of speech covers civilians, however a lot of civilians go by the flag code as well.
Source: am dirty civilian that honors the flag code
People like that are kinda jackasses sometimes.
In Highschool the band had one of those GIANT (maybe 75ft diag) dealership flags. After the veterans day ceremony it was taken over to the side to be folded. Everyone in the band had something else they were assigned to do so the band director (older lady) was left to handle this HUGE flag by herself. For a while after people were bitching about how she let the thing touch the ground. Any time I heard that I'd just reply "oh I know, damn shame, and you went to help right?..."
Then of course these people can be seen wearing clothing depicting the flag, which is forbidden by the same document they love to champion.
Flag code does not forbid wearing of flag clothing, as long as the clothing is not made from an actual flag. It's weird, but thats how it works. If you were to take an actual flag, cut and sew it into a t-shirt, it'd go against the flag code. However, unless you're a government entity or military personnel..there isn't shit that can be done. Free speech yo'
The entire idea of the flag code is pretty silly. It's all based on baseless superstition. Thankfully, less people take it super seriously anymore
It's not superstition. It's about respecting the nation that gave you so many great things.
US Code Title 4 Chapter 1 Section 8 (i)The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown. (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
The problem is that this violates the 1st amendment/free speech
Edit: Wrong sub-section
The crux of the whole thing is that there is a difference between "The Flag" and "the image of a flag". The actual, physical flag itself cannot be used as an ad, nor can the flagpole its flown on be used for ads. This also applies to clothing, i.e. can't make a bikini out of an actual flag. Don't really know how that's applicable to hankerchiefs and the like, but that's how it was told to me.
It would be a problem if it was enforced, which it's not. A lot of things fall under "It's technically against the law but we're not going to fight that fight unless someone wants to make a problem out of it".
Not sure how this applies directly to the 'wearing the flag' bit, but it's legal to burn the flag because making it illegal is a violation of free speech.
It's also legal to burn the flag because burning a flag is how you are supposed to retire one. I was a Communication major in college, I'm familiar with that court case.
Think of the flag code as an owner's manual for the flag.
Actually the flag code forbids using it on merchandise, which means that any clothing featuring the flag is a violation.
Flag code is, however, unenforcable
It's specifically not enforced, but that's the reason for "hurr durr why can you not burn it but make underwear out of it" everyone always says. TL;DR, you can't make underwear out of a flag.
Exactly! We get hassled if a tiny corner of our flag hits the ground but It’s ok if I wear it as a bikini piece covering my vagina
Seriously it makes no sense to me. I understand the why behind it but it makes no sense no one gets up in arms about wearing it for fashion but we can’t let it touch the ground!!!
Because you aren't literally taking a cloth, flag, crafted in a factory and sewn in the US, off of it's pole, and rubbing it against your privates. Instead, it's just a pattern on your apparel. It's not a flag, it's the pattern of the flag- it has no real meaning unless it's a square flag fluttering in the wind.
I see what you are saying, but couldn't they conceivably be made in the same factories out of the same material? At what point does it become a flag, or 2 flags sown together to give it a body shape? It seems almost like the difference between water and "holy water", like I feel someone blesses the material into officially being a flag or something..
It actually has nothing to do with using an actual flag vs a printed flag
US Code Title 4 Chapter 1 Section 8 (i)The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown. (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
The problem is that this violates the 1st amendment/free speech
"The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing".
Wut.
Translation: Bullshit
Again, like wine vs holy wine. The wine is considered the blood of Jesus, so I guess it would have living cells in it too, in theory.
Because one is a flag that fits the right dimensions and is supposed to be used correctly and one is a bikini bottom
∆ Bingo ∆
That's the difference. The flag code is about how to treat a flag that was made as a flag, meant to be a flag, flown or displayed as a flag. Everything else is just a decorative pattern that resembles the flag design.
Then why does it define a flag so loosely as to include pretty much anything someone would think to represent the flag?
The words 'flag, standard, colors, or ensign', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.
Yeah, technically people are correct, it's essentially saying that we shouldn't, but it really isn't enforceable by law. Although It's broadly written for official handling and usages for respect of the flag, or depiction and representations of it's images, by all entities, generally it's application is deemed more specific to officiate use - being governmental and military utilization - even though it has conditional articles specific to civilians.
It's a soft shouldn't not a hard shan't - there are no enforceable provisions, penalties, or pursuant consequences abjugated for not following the guidelines, generally speaking, for civilians. But it's still heavily frowned upon to slice up an actual US Flag, banner, or pennant for such usages.
So if a bikini with a flag is flown from a pole...is it then “a flag”?
No it must be rectangular, with 3:5 proportions and the design must match as specified in the flag code to be an official flag
True but at the base of it they're both just pieces of cloth so the distinction is totally arbitrary
Eh, not really. I don't see anyone flying swimming trunks on a flag pole, and if they do it's a joke.
I mean, the majority of regular American flags aren't sewn in the US anyway. Textiles is one of the industries that's almost entirely overseas, mainly in east and southeast Asia.
US Code Title 4 Chapter 1 Section 8 (i)The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown. (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
The problem is that this violates the 1st amendment/free speech
But still, all a flag is is a piece of cloth. Noting that important about it.
Congratulations, you don't care about symbols or flags. You're completely above such childish concepts. Do you want a reward or a pat on the back?
The pattern IS the flag. Stamping it on every fucking thing is immensely disrespectful of the concept of a flag. It doesn't matter if the thing was created as a flag or not. The pattern is the point. American obsession with their banner has made their flag a cheap logo, no different than McDonald's. And the pathetic clinging to the "flag code" is even more hilarious. How about the billion plastic flags (that are expressly created as flags) that end in a dumpster every year?
Eh, okay. I see the ones on Flag Poles as the real flags.
As you said, a flag is a symbol, not an official piece of cloth hanging from sanctioned flag poles. I don't give a shit about idiotic flag protocol but it does piss me off that professional patriots disrespect the flag by waving it on every fucking random occasion and printing it on disposable garbage. A national flag is only useful when used against an enemy, unifying the people. Waving it in your backyard, even on a flagpole, during barbeques makes you a disrespectful idiot.
Not really lol I was just making a point. Wasn’t bragging at all. I was simply making an opinionated point, like people usually do in conversations. Calm down lol
Calm down lol
Ah, okay, so when I do the same thing that you do: making an opinionated point like people usually do in conversations, I'm somehow being...angry?
We were talking about symbolism and you went out of your way to remind everyone here that, no, you don't care about flags. So again I say, congratulations.
You said so in an incredibly sarcastic and passive aggressive manner. Remember tone doesn’t convey well over text, so even if you weren’t being sarcastic/ passive aggressive/ whatever then you could have phrased it better. Now, I don’t have time for this so bye lol
so bye lol
lol
hahaha lol XD
That's just marketing. It's written into the ~~constitution~~ US flag code as offensive. Which funnily enough includes marketing with the flag. But hey, on Independence Day, people gotta show they're American everywhere they go.
Edit: it's not a law.
It was not written into the constitution. It was written into the US flag code. Subtle but distinct difference. One is law the other is a stern suggestion.
Oh shit! Thanks!
When I was in the US I went to a memorial day service at my friends church. Flags galore. I saw my friend looking at a flag with a tear in her eye and asked what was up. She said she was overcome and how she would happily die for that flag. Me being a sarcastic Kiwi with no understanding of US patriotism said, "well that flag is kinda old and a bit small and tatty. If you're going to die for one why not that nice big new one over there." My comment was not well received.
She said she was overcome and how she would happily die for that flag.
Jesus fucking christ.
Its the freedom behind the flag. Its called a symbol
Jesus fucking Christ
At least you believe in something; especially if it's not the freedom of all people
I feel like a lot of these people are confusing the map for the territory.
I can understand the reverence for the flag. I don't think most people here in Norway would be happy if someone burned a Norwegian flag either (although it's allowed under freedom of expression). Most of us also make sure not to let it touch the ground, and some people are very adamant that it has to be lowered from flagpoles before sundown (or whatever the rule is).
I think it's weird that there are so many American flags in the US though. It's such an important symbol for them, but also it's fucking everywhere. I've been to the US several times and I'm always surprised at how ubiquitous that symbol is. Houses, trucks, t-shirts, fridge magnets, everywhere.
I think it's a pretty flag. I also think the Arizona flag is very nice, being all Art Deco. It's nice to see them around because they're nice to look at, if nothing else.
If you go to Minnesota, you'll probably see some Norwegian flags too, definitely sewdish ones.
Haha, that's funny. Like, all the time, or just on our national day? Maybe I should go there once.
All the time. Small-town Minnesota is much much different from urban. My grandfather has a Norwegian flag just below his US flag. Granted he's only three generations removed from Norway, perhaps that helps his mentality.
People call Minnesota "Little Sweden". The US had a huge influx of Scandinavian immigrants in the mid to late 1800's, and for some reason they all just decided to go to Minnesota. That's why our football team is The Vikings
The town near where I grew up was actually spelt Lindström. There was even a slight controversy about it a few years ago. Even though the US doesn't have an official language, all street signs are supposed to be in English. The feds tried to step in a few years ago and change all the street/town signs from Lindström to Lindstrom, because technically "ö" isn't an english letter. Some people got pissed, and the governor tried to pull the whole states rights thing and put the dots back up. It was pretty silly.
http://www.startribune.com/dayton-orders-umlauts-restored-in-lindstrom-uh-lindstrom/299877001/
Edit: I almost forgot to mention that Lindström's Water tower is just a giant Swedish teapot for some reason
http://www.startribune.com/dayton-orders-umlauts-restored-in-lindstrom-uh-lindstrom/299877001/
Yet the umlaut didn't make it into the url!
Finish too, plus they made up a holiday, St Urho's day!
Pretty much all the Nordic countries. In addition to our made up holiday, we also have a town named Finland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland,_Minnesota
I cannot help but hear This in Gary Oldmans voice. "EVERYWHERE!!!" ( I know, the original text is everyone)
Yesterday I was getting my hair cut and could see four flags in four separate locations from my chair. One above the bank, one over the traffic circle, one on the outside of the barber shop and one inside the barber shop.
I think flags in general are important symbols. They're basically all of your culture, history, common bonds amongst your peers, encapsulated into one icon that can be understood.
The reason a flag shouldn't be allowed decrecration is to really prevent decrecration of your country.
That is if you give that much of a shit about your country.
Its because the Flag is the US, There is no American Ethnicity or Language like most nations that are ethno-states to some extent.
The closest we have in the UK is not letting the flag touch the ground, I used to be a scout leader and we'd have the union flag up at every meeting, tried our best not to drop the damn thing! Not sure if that's universal to any other groups though.
Boy Scout of America leader in the USA and it is that way.
Figured the US version would definitely do the flag thing seeing as you even have them up in schools and stuff. I'm not sure if other UK groups do it other than Scouts, Brownies didn't, not sure about Guides. I expect the army cadets do though.
Was a scout in Australia. Don't let the flag touch the ground was also a thing for us. It sometimes would, but we tried our best not to.
I was pretty clumsy, definitely dropped it at least once, I'm sure the flag didn't mind though. Still, I get it as a respectful thing.
I was a scout in the US and we were taught about how to treat the flag, not to let it touch the ground, fold it properly, dispose of it correctly, etc. Of course there were times where we messed up but still it was the effort that counted. Even today as an adult I try to follow the principles as much as I can although truthfully, the flag I have is in the coat closet in the hall. But not touching the floor.
It’s like that news article about firefighters risking their lives to save a flag from a burning house during the California wildfires last year
Such bullshit. The Thomas Fire tore through the entirety of my town and if I’d found out one of my friends who lost a house, lost it because a firefighter was busy trying to save a goddamn flag...
(On mobile, sorry for formatting) https://www.wired.com/story/photo-of-the-week-firefighters-save-a-flag-from-californias-raging-wildfires/ Honestly, Americans are surreal to me. It’s almost like a mass cult
If you actually read your own article it says they removed it from the house mainly because of safety issues, because the flag could catch on fire from the heat and spread the flame to the rest of the house.
This exactly. When we prep a structure for incoming fire we remove all flammable materials we can from the immediate vicinity of the structure and if we can access the inside of the structure we'll try to place them in there. Anything flammable or posing a risk to our egress is removed. Tables, chairs, potted plants, benches, propane tanks, flags, outside curtains, those fabric shade structures, if it isn't bolted down it's getting moved, and if it is we might still move it.
It also makes for a good photo op too, after all we are talking about it nearly a year after it was taken.
Something you will often hear about or see on the news when a fire or other disaster goes through a town is an image of a tattered American Flag flying high over the town. It provides hope to a community that is shattered. You have to remember that our national anthem is the story of a flag that stayed high during a battle and as the anthem says "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there"
By EU regulations Flags have to be made of no burnable materials. They wont burn but they will melt into your skin when the fire gets to hot
As this lad found out.
/r/MurderedByWords
/r/feeltheheat
But it also says they’re “respectfully and reverently” lowering it to the ground. Fuck that... grab it and wrench it off and get the fuck on to the next house.
hacked by infektion^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.1431 91841)
This honestly is a pretty great picture. I think it sums up our current situation quite well. The country is burning and we are saving the symbol rather then the structure. (I get the flag is removed for safety, but it's the moment captured that matters)
Nah, we're just thankful to be Americans. Most of us anyway.
That’s so much more disgusting to me than just letting it burn. Seconds matter in these situations. I live in the area where the Thomas fire was burning literally an acre a second on the first night, growing towards our town, and we barely had notice to evacuate. I didn’t even get an emergency phone alert until I was already heading to the evacuation center.
They removed it because it was a risk
I read the article; I understand that. Believe me, I do. My friend stayed on his roof with buckets because of fiery palm fronds that kept blowing over from the burning street one block north.
But they removed it “respectfully, almost reverentially”, lowering it to the ground. In a race against the clock, I still have a problem with that. Wrench it free and go continue helping.
This is like saying it's bullshit that a firefighter saved a kitten, because there might have been somebody next door who needed help. If that were the case, obviously the would have gone to the person first. You judging their actions base upon a made up scenario with different circumstances.
I’m judging their actions based on my experience in a destructive fire zone. I slept in my car in the parking lot of our evacuation center, literally surrounded by fire trucks from all over the state. They were running their asses off, day and night, trading off when a new team had gotten enough rest and food to be effective once more. I’m simply pointing out that time is important in times like this and it feels more disrespectful, to me, that they would take longer than realistically necessary to remove a potential danger.
I’m sure that if someone had a Dodgers or Kings flag hanging up that could have been a danger, they would have just ripped it down and moved on. I’m not comparing these very different types of flags outside of this situation, so let’s keep that in mind, but when the stakes are high, “respecting the flag” should not take precedence.
Same as with North Koreans and their photo of the leader. That cult like obedience is concerning
The main thing about the union flag is getting it up the right way, really
America is first rate when it comes to propaganda. Never forget that they refer to their president as leader of the free world and their country as the best country on earth.
I remember hearing either "leader of the free world" and "most powerful man on earth" referring to the US president as a kid and wondering how they elected the leader of the free world and when the next vote was. It's just such a weird thing to claim when there's a whole lot more "free world" out there. People looked at me like I grew a second head when I asked that though.
Your comment made me think of Will McAvoy’s “crazy” rant at the beginning of the pilot episode of The Newsroom.
Edit: on mobile, and it doesn’t look like that worked. If nobody else links it first, I’ll update it later tonight.
It would be a great rant except then he literally starts going into MAGA territory talking about how the country used to be great. The rant should have just kept to the facts that it isn’t the best, nor was it EVER especially for anyone who wasn’t a straight, white, Anglo Saxon man from a decent socio economic background
This is something left over from cold war propaganda (like a lot of other things). Since the US was considered the de facto leader of NATO and the communists were considered the opposite of freedom, the leader of the US was also the leader of NATO which was considered the free world.
People still say it because it's catchy and because a lot of people don't realise that the world's changed in the last 70 years.
It was said within the context of the cold war I'd wager you weren't born yet.
Please don't think all americans are like this. Your comment makes me laugh because of how absurd some people really are though.
They're not even the majority. The only trouble is that they're very vocal
I always hated that, even growing up (and I’m American). It’s just so gross.
If it makes you feel better, most Americans no longer consider our president leader of the free world. The current president has a lot to do with it.
[removed]
He is the most powerful man on earth and the leader of the US, but he is not the leader of the free world, seeing as he has no authority over most of the free world. He can influence the other western countries, a lot in some cases, but he is not in a position of leadership over any european country.
Being the biggest & strongest bully on the playground that everyone is afraid of doesn’t make you a leader.
If countries were movie characters, the USA would be Biff Tannen from Back to the Future.
Italians and Greeks also refer to their respective countries as "the best in the world" in an non ironic manner. So that's definitely not an American exclusive.
Appositely stated comment. You’re absolutely right. I was going to comment on this point myself.
From a young age, we Americans are taught about the greatness of our nation. We must memorize and recite the “Pledge of Allegiance” each morning in school (at least in the public schools, when and where I attended). We are taught that our Declaration of Independence is the most holy of secular documents, written and signed by esteemed forefathers who founded this apotheosis of nations with the utmost reverence.
I still cherish this nation, its privileges, and the principals upon which it was purportedly founded, however I’m a bit disgusted by the indoctrinations of my youth after discovering, as an adult, the extent to which I fell victim to apocryphal propaganda. Disenchantment aside, I think I can cope.
What I cannot abide, however, is the sophistry and predatory tactics aimed at recruiting our nation’s youth to fight unjust wars, exploiting their sense of patriotism to those ends, primarily in the interests of ensuring continued dollar hegemony in its many forms.
I grieve the loss of each of our fallen warriors, the same as I lament the plight of those who struggle through life upon discharge. I honor each present and former member of our Armed Services and their sense of duty, patriotism and thank them for their service.
I just wish this nation had a little more perspicacity in holding our supposed leaders to account for their ignominy. Instead, we seem to all be to wrapped up in the polarizing positive feedback loop of pernicious partisanship and vitriolic parochialism.
Insofar as patriotism as a propagandist tactic, I’ll defer to Oscar Wilde on the subject.
I mean the term leader of the free world has it's origins in WW2 and the Cold war as the United States was the most powerful Democratic state, the term has dropped off in popularity the last few decades. But I don't think it's a falsehood to say the United States is or was the leader of the free world for the later part of the 20th century. If not the US than who? the UK and France were still embroiled in wars to retain control of their colonial empire for much of the 20th century and lacked the power to confront the Soviet Union
Well, not that the EU isn't free, but could you name another country where you have the rights to do some of the things in the US? How many EU countries have freedom of speech and press to the extent America does? Not that those countries aren't wonderful (because most absolutely are) it's just America is the free world as in anyone can come here, and with enough labor and time become very well off. Also, can you name a single country or group of countries that are as powerful as the United States? The US President is widely the most powerful person on earth because America is the single most powerful country on earth.
I think the world agreed that we should stop the dick measuring contest of "who's the most powerful" when the MAD doctrine was in use.
How many EU countries have freedom of speech and press to the extent America does?
Pretty much all of them, according to the press freedom index
it's just America is the free world as in anyone can come here, and with enough labor and time become very well off
and doing that is statistically easier in many EU countries than the USA.
What about Tommy Robinson, the journalist in the UK? Jailed for recording Child Grooming suspects, totally freedom of press. What about the woman Jailed for saying the holocaust wasn't real? (Even though I agree she was a piece of shit) She got 11 months or so in prison due to stating that, totally freedom of speech. What about those folks in the UK imprisoned for protecting themselves during robberies? https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/11/pensioner-jailed-shooting-burglar-dead-self-defence-7151230/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-arrested-burglar-unconscious-home-danny-crawford-michael-carr-humberside-police-a8313726.html
These countries are totally free, huh? Many EU countries don't actually have freedom of press or speech especially, if you say something controversial you could actually end up in jail. Thought crimes is all they are, and being arrested for them is extremely fascist (in the actual definition of the word, not the way Antifa and people like them use it). So I ask again, what are some actually free countries like America? It's impossible to find one if you support the 1st amendment and if you support the 2nd amendment especially.
You have a pretty bad understanding of how presidency works, I'm not even American and I know there's restrictions on his actions. He's not a dictator lol.
I'm sorry I meant to explain that. He's the most powerful man on the earth due to the fact that he's in control of the most powerful military. When Trump ordered those missiles strikes on Syria the first time they weren't approved by Congress first. The president is the commander in chief, which means that whatever he tells the military to do, they do. (I'm sure if a president told the military to bomb Chicago they wouldn't, I'm referring to stuff overseas. If a president ordered a nuke to be fired, it would almost certainly be fired. That's why it's imperative to not allow unlevel headed goons to assume that position, but hey, we all know about that.
Oh yeah you're totally right about that. I was thinking more political.
Your press is corrupt as fuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sITmVizv6X4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
I'm not arguing for or against the press' honesty. Everyone knows how much bull Fox and CNN spread on air, but I was talking about how much power the press possess in their ability to go pretty much anywhere and conduct interviews in the US. Where in places like Canada or the UK the press is pretty limited and often times arrested for trying to do their jobs. That more than anything would put distrust in me towards the government very quickly.
LOL the #1 indicator of how much money you will end up with in America is how much money you were born with. The idea that it’s so easy to move up classes in America is a propaganda tool, my friend. It’s simply statistically incorrect.
Where are your sources? Also, do people like Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, and Howard Schultz ring a bell? These are just a few BILLIONAIRES that grew up poor in the US. The N.W.A., Schwarzenegger... and so on. Also, just because you don't have millions doesn't mean you're not rich. My current employer created an A.C. business with his father, now they never have to worry about going hungry or not having a roof over their head. They found something that not many others were doing in their area and made something out of it. My brother joined the Military, went to school, and now works on CNC machines making a very comfortable living every year. I plan to start my own business after serving in the military as well. Even now I'm making decent money doing a trade I know will always be in business. I grew up pretty darn poor. Power, and water being shut off frequently, parents were both meth addicts that went to prison (they've been off drugs since the early 2000's thankfully) and we lost our house in 2008. Because I tried my damndest to make it out of my situation I found an employer who gave me a chance and have worked my ass off to get better at it and prove myself. America is still the land of opportunity and all you have to do is actually apply yourself and work like you want to earn a living. Find those jobs like plumbing, electrical work, HVAC work, mechanics, etc. Don't give me this crap that you can't become rich starting out poor by just hard work, you're not ever going to become anything feeling sorry for yourself like that.
Do you know what cmu are and how many political enemy are in these prisons? Or how federal agencies can spy on people? Do you ever heard of the patriot act?
[removed]
[deleted]
You need to check your sources dude, the US has been defeated plenty.
[removed]
Ah, so you now get to say what's a war and what is not.
Also, even if it hurt your feelings, you guys lost to a bunch of rice farmers. That's a fact.
Everyone wants to go there because you have a worldwide propaganda machine with your stranglehold on the entertainment industry where you can keep pushing the narrative that you’re amazing. People want to go there because they see it that most in movies. If Norway had the stranglehold on the film industry then that’s where people would head.
Weird. When the election was going on and most of Europe was pissed about Trump, plenty of Americans told the europeans to mind their own business, and the Europeans said that “the election effects them a lot, also”. So... leader of the free world isn’t a very outlandish thing to say.
Pewdiepie potentially has massive influence on the world, but he isn't the leader of it. Not the same thing.
Well, first off, it's pretty easy to see that Pewdiepie hardly has any "influence over the world" compared to non e-celebs (which also have next to zero influence over the world when compared to actual government leaders) but let's ignore that part.
Maybe he's not the leader because he doesn't have the currency youtubers standardize with, didn't build the North Atlantic Youtubers Organization's military (and command the specific military it relies on), and plan out and oversee the creation of the United Youtubers and host said organization on his own channel after the European-made League of Youtubers failed spectacularly.
Just a few important details
He can make or break trends globally among kids and teens, that's something Trump can't do. He can practically point at entertainment mediums and make them successes.
He can make or break trends globally among kids and teens
Name one
He can practically point at entertainment mediums and make them successes
Name one
The pledge of allegiance comes across as really totalitarian and brainwashy to me. It's the kind of stuff you'd expect from some communist dictatorship.
I'm fine with the pledge but I think it's really disgusting and disturbing that children are taught to recite it at the start of every day. For those who might not know, from kindergarten through 12th grade we would stand up with our hands over our hearts, face the flag in the classroom, and say the pledge along with the teacher and also with the principal who was reading it on the intercom. In high school I realized that you don't have to partake in any of it as long as you aren't disruptive (1st amendment) so I stopped doing it because I thought it was absurd to pledge my allegiance at such a young age to something I truly didn't understand.
I don't know when and where you went to school but I just graduated high school in Northern California last week and we certainly didn't do that.
In Elementary and Middle School we did it every morning, but the only time I ever did it in high school was 11th grade American History.
I guess it just depends where you live. I went to grades k thru 7 in Florida and 8 thru 12 in Utah, and I had to do the pledge every morning.
I recognized pretty early on what pledging my allegiance meant, and found it absurd to do so every day. I've already made the pledge once, I don't need to do it again.
Pure brainwashing. Shows in the insane comments defending this. The USA is probably the most brainwashed country in the west.
[deleted]
It's called fascism in the old continent.
Oh wow, and there's me thinking I was having an original thought!
Well technically it was since you never heard of it.
Its literally no different anywhere else.
[removed]
Neither have you if you think all americans are of the flag waving nationalist variety.
[removed]
It is the same everywhere. Europeans never hesitate to tell americans how great their lords and saviors are (their governments). Just because you don't fly flags all over the place doesn't make your people any less willing to disparage other places and laud their own.
[removed]
You need to actually GO to a place before you tell me how they feel, eh?
This is the age of the internet. I have the luxury of not having to go anywhere to find out anything.
[removed]
That's like, your opinion, man.
It most certainly is...
Saying "nuh uh" is a waste of a reply.
but still true.
There is no inherent truth to what amount s to "nuh uh". It's literally a nonreply.
It states that what was stated beforehand is incorrect, therefore it is falsification.
It's the tactic of a 5 year old.
but nevertheless legit.
Ah, so you value the political opinions of a 5 year old, who's sole argument is "nuh uh".
To be honest, your neuroticism annoys me greatly and I already understood that you just desperately want to be right, so I'll just stop here. Claim it as your victory or something.
Wanting to be right, and being right, are not the same thing. if you're going to bother to say something, say something of value, but like the guy who thinks "nuh uh" adds to the conversation, you think ad hominems are pretty swell. You guys belong together. Saying a whole lot of nothing of value.
[deleted]
I figured I'd give them a chance to say something of actual value.
Blimey, that's a bizarrely broad statement. Even with the monarchy, there's no part of English life that can't be questioned or changed. Except queueing.
That's the same in the US. the difference is many of us see no reason to change many things. Which, again, is no different than anywhere else.
But the difference is the reason why the changes are not seen as appropriate. With gun control, it's endemic in US culture because your holy text says, if you squint right, that guns are good. So people's views on the issue are built around that premise, not built from free thought.
that guns are good.
It says guns are effective tools against tyrants. Whether or not that's seen as a good thing depends on whether you like tyrants, despots, dictators, and so on. Or not.
Like I said, if you squint. I can interpret the same text very directly to say that "a well regulated militia" means that IF *you* want guns, the govt, or some formal body, should ensure that *you* are well regulated, and *you* really fucking love shooting ranges at least quarterly... but other people say "ugg, me america. me want gun." etc... the point is, as with all these holy texts, meaning is, sadly, in the eye of the beholder.
meaning is, sadly, in the eye of the beholder.
The price of compromise I would say. Many parts of the almighty constitution are results of that bane of society.
Some people think treating a piece of cloth with reverence is more patriotic than treating their fellow citizens with respect, you see.
We're big on fake patriotism.
We'll wave flags, get shitfaced, and blow shit up for our country.
But god forbid we paid higher taxes to help those less fortunate than us.
It's a culture thing.
Edit 1: all the butthurt. Amazing how apathy for your fellow countrymen some of ya'll are reframing as "patriotism".
Bonus points for: wElL wHy dOnT u wRiTe a ChEk kEk
Because a cornerstone of American history is taxation (without representation) is theft. People don’t like the government redistributing their money for them. It’s a conservative mindset to have small government(and taxes) because people would rather do things of their own free accord, which is why even though we see conservatives against taxes they donate to charities much more.
Taxation without representation doesnt mean the colonists didnt want to pay taxes. King George III was taxing them and they had no represntative body of government of their own to tell the crown where they wanted that money to go. The colonists didnt have an issue with taxes, they just wanted the money to go back into their community instead of funding the empire they left.
The colonists were taxed for a while but never really complained. However, when England lost a lot of money on the French and Indian War (Seven Years War) George introduced the stamp act and sugar act increasing tariffs on a lot of common everyday neccessities. This is what set them over the edge, then of course we had the massive tax put on tea that came a bit later. Basically the colonists were upset they were paying a ton of taxes that were being used to build British roads, British bridges, run British cities not their own.
I suggest you (and the 15 people that upvoted you) read a bit more about this topic, if you have any questions let me know.
And people are upset Over the thought of paying more in taxes just so it goes to other people and they get nothing from it. Most everyone is okay with paying basic taxes for thing they benefit from like roads, police/fire, military. What some people aren’t okay with is the government taking their money to give to other people.
It's a very fucking stupid way to look at the world.
How so?
Not the person you responded to, but I also think it's stupid because history shows us pretty clearly that it leads almost universally to discrimination, corruption, and massive wealth imbalance. That sort of libertarian-lite mentality is very reminiscent of communist ideology to me, in the sense that it sounds great on paper but in practice it falls apart because humans are generally greedy selfish fucks.
it leads almost universally to discrimination, corruption, and massive wealth imbalance.
Every system leads that way because those are all effects of human nature. Discrimination? in-group and out-group biases. Corruption? an effect of narcissistic tendencies that we all have. Massive wealth imbalance? It is an inevitable result of any merit-based system.
The fact that humans are 'generally greedy selfish fucks' is exactly why people don't like socialist policies and also why such systems are doomed to fail. They're out a natural equilibrium so to speak.
Employment is by and large theft. People aren't paid for the work they do, or companies wouldn't make a profit. Trying to recuperate those losses is not a bad thing
Employment is not theft. It is a consensual relationship between two parties. The employee feels they are being compensated fairly for their time. If not, they are completely free to walk away and look for a better deal. The employer feels the employee adds enough value to the product or company to pay them an agreed upon wage. If you think you're being robbed or taken advantage of by your employer and still choose to stay, then you're an idiot and have no right to complain.
If companies can't make a profit, then they can't grow. If they can't grow, they can't afford to give employees raises, bonuses, benefits or hire new people.
Not wanting other people to take your money against your will is stupid? If someone wants to help the needy, let them choose to do it of their own free will instead of giving the government the power to do it by force.
What if I'd much rather have rich people help so I don't have to?
/S
I’m sure rich people donate much more than you think, and already pay more in taxes. It also doesn’t change the principle of taking people’s money by force is bad.
That's why I used the /s
Just because you disagree, doesn't make it stupid
True. But in this case, I disagree and it’s stupid.
I love the bullshit though.
Ya'll dont want DC becoming a state and having representation.
Ya'll dont want Puerto Rico to have the same representation in congress.
Ya'll just reframe ur bullshit patriotism as some excuse for being shitty. Maybe if ya'll werent so hot about taking away voting rights and actually tried to get other people into our democracy; i'd consider your "values" not a fasad.
DC it’s own special complicated area that’s already a part of Maryland. And I don’t think Puerto Rico should have voting rights unless they become an official country, which I’m not against or don’t see other people being against. Voting rights should only belong to American citizens (without felonies). Also America is not a democracy, it never has been, it’s a democratic republic.
Aren't people born in Puerto Rico already citizens? Why shouldn't they have voting rights?
Because Puerto Rico is the treated as an unincorporated territory so while Puerto Rican’s are technically American citizens they’re not constitutional citizens and the 14th amendment doesn’t extend to them.
They may be able to vote if they moved out of Puerto Rico into the states bot too sure about that, but since Puerto Rico isn’t a state it has no senators or house member giving it no voting power.
They're American citizens paying American taxes, and the whole "no taxation without representation" thing started from a similar situation.
Nice excuse on why 700 thousand american citizens shouldn't have representation in our democracy.
You're retarded; people in puerto rico are AMERICAN CITIZENS.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/09/26/yes-puerto-rico-part-united-states/703273001/
Nice technicality. Pretty sure you called "taxation without representation" "theft", but you're pretty quick to line up bullshit excuses on why people should be taxed without representation.
Hence why we don't take people like you seriously.
Charity is no way to run a society and I would really like to see a statistic backing your assertion that "conservatives donate more". American conservatives (as represented by current republicans) look like greedy vultures and/or deranged cultists.
I'll just drop this here... it's an article from the NYT, citing the statistics. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Seems toxic.
How are those things comparable? Maybe they love the country because of their stance on taxes amd individualism?
So every liberal that is a patriot is a terrible person, even people that advocate for tax increases? Good to know 90% of our University professors are terrible people according to you.
i recommend re-reading my comment and sarcasm.
Or maybe i'm not understanding your comment.
I am liberal. I AM advocating tax increases.
But god forbid we paid higher taxes to help those less fortunate than us.
You know, as an American you have the liberty to send as much money to the government as you please. So feel free to send a check anytime to help the less fortunate than you.
You're aware that the tax refund you likely get each year is equal to how much you overpaid the federal government? Sending extra money to the government results in the government sending that money right back to you.
You had three days to look that up and you still got it wrong.
fEeL fReE 2 wRiTe ChEk LeL
Obviously sending that money is too much effort for you and your time is better spent being edgy on the internet. Good luck waiting for the government to make your life meaningful.
Sure, i'll just write a check to fix poor republican fiscal policy.
Amusing what more educated countries call "common sense" you call "edgy".
Also, since you seem to be hinting at some "handouts cuz u poor" republican retardation:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Accenture-SAP-Apo-Consultant-Salaries-E4138_D_KO10,28.htm
Cry me a river.
Wow it's almost like you aren't aware that Republicans don't run the government all by themselves and that it has taken time and many, many different politicians and policies to dig us into this morass.
Wow, it's almost like the great recession was due to republican lead deregulation, the defecit is the result of a democrat doing what was necessary to get us going again, and then a republican tax bill giving 12 dollars a week (as paul ryan bragged) to the poor and middle class, billions to the wealthiest americans ever, and ran up an addition deficit of 1.5 trillion.
It's almost like you aren't aware how big of a joke republicans are whenever they cry "fiscal responsibility".
Am American and also don't get the boner some people have for the flag. It's a piece of cloth.
That represents something important
A country. Like every other flag that doesn't get bonered over.
getting bonered over is my new term of the week
I too got bonered over "getting bonered over."
American nationalism is different than most countries because people moved here to become American (or there ancestors did) whereas for most old countries you’re English because your ancestors lived in England and so forth and so on
Sorry, but i dont buy that for a second. That might've been true a few centuries ago, but for the last ~1-2 the majority of Americans were born and lived and known nothing else than being of their own country, as have their parents and grandparents. Exactly like any other country.
Its literally the only thing we all have in common. Disrespecting the flag poopoos on the military and politicians, sure, but its more than that. We are a country full of mutts. We are black and white and brown and Christian and Hindu and from all over the world. When you shit on the flag, you're shitting on your neighbor, your friends... not just some guy in Congress making laws.
We don't have a shared ancestry like the Spanish, or Germans, or Brazilians or Japanese... we have our flag. The one thing that binds ALL of us together.
This is also why I dislike the terms "African-Americans" or "Muslim-Americans' or whatever. We're Americans.
Brazilians?
They use their soccer team the same way people in the U.S. use the flag.
Really? Ignore the entire point of my post to nit-pick? I just randomly named a South America country.
But Brazilians don't have a shared ancestry either, so it's strange to use them as a counter example. If anything, they are more mutts than Americans are. I don't really consider that a nit-pick.
And just because I didn't address the rest of your post doesn't mean I ignored it. I think you described it well.
You're right, dumb country to land on to try and make my point.
Thanks for posting this patroit
I love it when I see someone who is from another place. It reminds me that one of the beautiful things about America is the varied cultures that have come here to make a better life.
You might need to learn about Brazil you nut
Really? Ignore the entire point of my post to nit-pick? I just randomly named a South America country.
Well I was making a light hearted joke but since you ask Brazil is as much if not more of a melting pot than the usa. You made it seem like the usa was unique but Brazil has as much claim to being a county where hugely different communities emigrated to. (One of the largest japanese communities in the world, Lebanese, Portuguese, African etc)
Whichever way you cut it, Americans absolutely seem to 'value' this stuff more than people in other countries who are of a similar background.
E.g. I have an Irish surname, I think all of my great-great grandparents on one side were Irish, half of them on the other were Irish and the other half Welsh. I think some or all of the Irish ones were potato famine refugees.
An American with my ancestry would (stereotypically) talk about it like it mattered. I was talking about this to a friend only yesterday, she has one Welsh grandmother and one Irish grandmother. But we both agreed we're English. Of course we are, us and our parents were born in England. It's the only home I've ever known. (For what it's worth I'd say I was "British" first because I feel it's the more correct way to express the nation state I'm from.) But this friend has been to Boston recently and was talking about how "Irish-Americans" are more Irish than the Irish.
I have just as much, if not more, and similarly close Irish 'ancestry' than someone describing themselves as "Irish-American" would. But typically people in my position in other countries don't go on about their 'heritage' so much.
What I'm saying is I don't think there's a factual or 'logical' reason that so many current Americans seem to find it so important. I think maybe they grow up being given reasons like "we're a country of immigrants" but in other countries, even if we are descended from migrants/refugees, like I am, we don't grow up necessarily being told it's important. I'm convinced that in this day and age the American preoccupation with their 'heritage' is cultural, not to do with any logical reason.
[deleted]
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is a false narrative. The Irish are very well known for being treated poorly, as well as Chinese, Japanese (internment camps?), German, Polish, Italian, etc.
Pretty much all of our ancestors that weren't pilgrims got shit on when they came here
While some have been there for hundreds of years, some moreso and still get shit on.
Yeah 200 years ago, not really anymore. The USA is mostly made up of denizens now.
We don't have this kinda nationalism in Canada tho, and we are also a land made up of immigrants.
I wonder if that has anything to do with Canada being British for so long?
I think we just don't have a hard on for being part of a nation. USA is overly patriotic when it comes to anything, not just the flag.
I live in Canada now (American) and all the Canadians I know are pretty nationalistic, just in a reserved normal way. Watch the Olympics at a Canadian pub and tell me there isn't nationalism.
True, there're of course different circles =)
I dunno, I'd certainly say it exists here, though definitely not to the same degree. There are not-insignificant segments of the population (predominantly in rural areas), who are pretty onboard with Trump-style xenophobia and isolationism. I hear about it from my Mennonite in-laws in rural MB most every holiday. :/
Not really.
Nation-states didn't really exist until slightly before the USA became a thing. Most of our current jingoistic nationalist trappings (flag waving, pledge saying, stars and stripes ∞, etc) arose at the same time as nationalism emerged worldwide.
It's an open topic for debate if such nationalism only occurred because a preexisting state wanted to craft a new unified identity (i.e. Germans, not Bavarians, Austrians, Saxons, etc.) or happened as a result of nations being sort of self created because of greater literacy and media and Enlightenment/Romantic thoughts and works (i.e. Brothers Grimm, Charles Perault, etc).
America absolutely was not unique in our fervor for nationalism, we just didn't have quite the direct experience of its downsides and found it politically useful in the Cold War.
People emigrate to countries other than the US y'know
It's more connected to the whole military imperialistic aspect of America that American's don't seem to realize is very unusual compared to other countries.
It represents more than our country. It represents the ideas we were founded on, our history, the people of America. America doesn't have as much history as a lot of the world, so what we do have, and the symbols associated with it, does tend to get looked at with more reverence. America is too nationalistic in a few ways, but the flag should hold the importance that it does, because it reminds us what we stand for, and where we come from.
Also I think I need to say, I'm okay if you kneel during the national anthem. I think it's even more powerful than a lot of other protests because even though the flag means a lot to us, these other issues are more important and need to be fixed. The flag doesn't stand for the troops, it stands for us all, and those saying otherwise are just trying to distract and detract.
Where we come from? Disease? Massacre? Genocide? Our history is very very ugly and should not be celebrated at all, it should be learned and respected but in no way shape or form revered
So is everyone's who has had any kind of geopolitical relevance.
Right, which is exactly why blind nationalism is frowned upon almost everywhere else.
That was the point - that the USA is just a country like any other with good and bad, and the flag is just a piece of cloth used to signify the country.
From what you'd hear around here, the US is the only one that did anything wrong and unsavory and every other country just got to where they were or their peak in history through goodwill and niceties.
No, you projected that on top of people effectively saying they don't see why Americans think their country is so uniquely special.
It's like Christians, or white males complaining they're oppressed. No, it's just that people are questioning whether you're special. Suggesting you might be unremarkable and the same as everyone else is not putting you down.
You haven't been in other threads where it's nothing but people shitting on America for doing either the same or less worse things than every other power in history did and acting like we are the only ones who did anything wrong.
Yep agreed, and their history should be held in the exact same regard as ours. I'm not some America hating asshole trying to be trendy, im someone tired to seeing our dark history be warped into nationalistic steroids
[deleted]
Have you ever taken a good look of the issues our country currently faces. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world and deeply divided as a nation. We elected a narcissistic pervert to represent our nation and the world just watches in wonder as we screw ourselves over and over again. We have corruption in government, big business is monopolizing some of our most important resources and yet, I'm not allowed to state these facts and labeled a cynic for doing so. Our country has come a long way and accomplished a lot. But because of our arrogant and self absorbed view, we've screwed ourselves and simply cannot be take seriously from any country. Weve given multiple international agreements the middle finger and all you can say is don't put your cynicism on me. Fuck you sir
Yes chicken little the sky is certainly falling. It couldn't be that you just started paying attention?
Are you blind as to what is happening in the US right now?
Yes chicken little the sky is certainly falling. It couldn't be that you just started paying attention?
Oh come on. Maybe read up on some of the good parts sometime.
https://m.imgur.com/kpJzkOA
Because no other nation ever did any of that.
If you look at my other comments in this thread, you'll see very clearly I don't deny that
And yet you print it on condoms, thongs and every other fucking garbage made in China. The American flag represents rampant consumerism and jingoism at this point.
Represents rampant consumerism
So it does, in fact, represents America?
This is why I was so confused by people getting upset by the kneeling. They're still respecting the flag. They're protesting that the current treatment POC and other minorities get isn't part of what we stand for here. And what most represents our ideas? The US flag.
My country is not even 40 years old and people really don't get boners from saluting the flag. But we do have a law about "state symbols" which actually constitutional law and it states many similar things as are mentioned with the US flag, such it not touching ground, the orders in which it should be if it is raised among other flags and places where it can be displayed.
As the matter of fact some 7 years ago our capital city has been fined for putting our coat-of-arms on manhole covers (I don't know who thought that was a good idea) as the aforementioned law stipulates that it cannot be displayed on "disrespectful" places, but ither than that I seriously doubt that most people know we have a law that says the flag cannot touch the ground
Because of the Pride that we have for it. It's just in a different form than what you might be used to. That piece of cloth means a lot to me and many others. Some find it as a symbol of oppression unfortunately.
Not to be a limey cunt about all this, but I always chuckle at George Carlin's summation that symbols are for the symbol-minded.
Yeah, I’m American and that dude’s mentality is thankfully NOT as prevalent as it used to be. Nationalism is one of the most ridiculous things I can think of outside of (maybe, sometimes) social progress or sports. Like, Swedes obviously have a reason to take pride in their country: they are very environmentally friendly as a nation and actually take steps to be forward-thinking. People should be proud of progress. But I think I heard somewhere they have some pretty big problems with racism so that would obviously cancel out any pride on my part, if I were Swedish.
I’ve never felt “proud” to be an American and I’m 31. I happened to be born here, what do I actually have to be proud of? And obviously it’s just gotten worse and worse the last few years to where, if I travel, I’m telling people I’m fucking Canadian. I’m actively ashamed of this country nowadays. Old-timers acting like I’m a bad person for not blindly respecting a symbol when everything’s going to shit around us just make me even more disgusted by it all.
"I find X weird"
"but we X"
"Yeah, and it's weird"
"but we really X a lot"
...
Not sure this discussion is going far.
Well, not really. An ideal of a country, the memory of people that died/sacrificed for others to get closer to that ideal maybe. A flag is arbitrary colors, a country is arbitrary lines in dirt, but the idea and history behind them can be a bit more substantial.
Good response.
Yeah, okay? Sorry you don't have patriotism for your country- it's not a bad thing to like where you live. Europeans think they're so smart because they're 'cynical' but really they're just being mildly condescending on the internet.
Congratulations. You want a reward?
If you're American, than it still applies. Do you want a reward for not caring?
Europeans know that too much patriotism can lead to wars. That's why. Give us a peace medal.
Well you took the wrong lesson then since it's actually the zero sum nature of political power that leads to wars in Europe.
Too much apathy can lead to collapse. Too much anything can lead to wars.
To be fair, how many countries are there that were created and rose to the top most powerful country in the world in less than 200 years? The flag represents a whooooooole lot to those who actually appreciate the fact that they were lucky enough to be born somewhere like America. It represents even more for those who have sworn to give their lives for it, and those who have lost loved ones protecting it. Also, can you name a country on earth besides America that is as free overall as the US? Most EU countries have tight restrictions on so much stuff that US citizens take for granted. Even BB guns (not even powerful ones) are super restricted in Australia and the UK. It's illegal to have a fully auto bb gun in Australia, also, if your bb gun even resembles a real gun it becomes illegal. This is just one tiny example of the bureaucracy of most "free" countries.
There is very little reality to what that flag is supposed to represent in the modern US.
Thank you! I don't even say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's actually kind of fucking creepy.
ya, i do not pledge allegiance to any country or any flag. that is weird
Which represents freedom and liberty. Did you skip history class or something?
I seriously hope you're joking.
no, i only skipped one class in hs, and the classes i didn't like in college. i like history so i was always in that one. why do you ask?
Per Google, this is the meaning of the flag (And why we're so obsessed with it); White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valour, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice. That should've been among the first things you learned (or at least been somewhere in your curriculum)
yes i'm aware of the symbolism, but i don't think that necessitates obsession.
When it's symbolizes freedom, liberty, and justice then obsession should be understandable
Said in brief, it's a symbol that represents our republic, the ideals it embodies, and all those who have fought for our freedoms and rights.
Like every fucking flag of every fucking country. Yet only Americans print it on their underwear and toilet paper.
Certain "Americans". But then, the name "American" has been sullied over the past several decades by hyphenate colonials who read the Oath of Allegiance by rote just long enough to get their ticket to the golden road and for most intents and purposes conduct themselves like plundering, anti-american, old-world-expat sappers.
The whole flag thing is very weird, very dictatorial like. Really the only other countries you see anything similar (eg: to little kids reciting an oath of allegiance to a country/flag every day in school) is dictatorships.
You can do whatever the fuck you want to a flag in America. You might get nasty looks or someone yelling at you, but disrespecting the flag is explicitly legal.
You can do whatever the fuck you want to a flag
explicitly legal
Uh...
explicitly legal as in the Supreme Court has ruled on it several times and found any laws that have to do with mandating people treat the flag a certain way to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
explicitly legal
You seem to be struggling with what this statement means.
They are not. A flag is a big handkerchief. It is used to denote your unit and/or your alliegiance. You do not owe it alliegiance.
Yeah, but that's like saying the Declaration of Independence is just a piece of paper. Sure, you can look at them that way, but they're really symbols representing the ideals that America was founded upon. Realized or not, these ideals are why people give deference to the flag.
Oh no you guys can believe whatever you want. I was talking to my fellow UK guy about our culture.
AFAIK similar rules exist in most countries to prevent desecration of the flag. In my country for example men have to take their hats off when the flag is raised, the flag can never touch the ground and when the flag is disposed of it must either be burned or cut into very small pieces.
Ye I also found the obsessiveness with the flag a bit uncomfortable and the one time I brought it up people were super defensive about it. I guess patriotism isn’t such a big deal where I’m from.
oH NO DONT LET IT TOUCH THE GROUND OR THE FBI, CIA, AND ALL OF TRUMP'S PROSTITUTES WILL
KILL
U
Actually the prostitutes will just piss on you ;)
What? For FREE?
On video for you to rewatch too
Totally agree with this This is such a weird concept to anyone outside America. I'd wipe my arse with any flag I couldn't care less, it's a piece of fabric. There are other, better ways to respect your country
Unless you are in the military of course not, it's just a pretty piece of fabric.
[deleted]
I was talking about my flag, the union jack. I love being British and all but the flag doesn't mean anything.
In reference to defacing a picture of the queen: yep you can do that. As long as you were not actually planning to hurt her there would be no issue.
I only stopped drawing moustaches on her when I found out with the new tenners, you can make her look through the window.
Lol, I'll have to try that
Why is this so fucking funny?
[deleted]
I wish I could say I understand, but unfortunately I really don't.
[deleted]
And the same to you.
[deleted]
The flag is the symbol of the country. Our national anthem is about our flag. The flag is what is laid atop the coffins of their fallen brothers and sisters. The flag is the image they kept in their minds heading towards death. Because inside the weave of the flag is everything they hold dear. Their family and friends, their hopes and dreams, their dedication to the nation they love. Saying they didn't fight for the flag is a pretty arrogant thing to say.
lol
You could piss on my nation's flag, draw dicks on it and then set it on fire, i couldn't care less to be honest.
Why can’t I deface a picture of the queen? It’s just a picture ain’t it? Because it’s disrespectful for everything she has done for the country.
disrespectful for everything she has done for the country.
Lmao. Please.
[deleted]
Way to cherry pick! Please tell us about the skeletons in your nation's closet! Pretty sure at some point you had inbred monarchs and something to do with exploiting underdeveloped nations through colonization...
But they’re not the ones jizzing over a flag.
Vs over their monarch? Maybe that's why they're losing their national identity. They have nothing to unite behind.
Vs over their monarch? Maybe that's why they're losing their national identity. They have nothing to unite behind. It's all multi-culturalism and eventually lose their own culture. At least Austria is putting its foot down.
Who would've thought that the guy who's super anal about his country being criticised is a right wing nationalist? Colour me surprised!
that's a dangerously nationalistic thing to say for a country of immigrants
That’s the entire point, though. If you immigrate to America, you’re not British, or Turkish, or Mexican, or what ever anymore. You’re American. That’s the difference between multiculturalism and a melting pot. You definitely retain the culture you grew up in, but you’re also expected to accept and mix in with American society.
80%+ white in the U.K. in a population of 60 million. Every part of the country has its own culture that isn’t intertwine with the rest. Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and Cornwall all have a separate language (which not a lot of people speak but still), the culture in the Midlands is different from the South as is the North.
Austria happily puts far right Nazi’s in government - I’d rather an influx of India, Chinese and Caribbean culture than Nazi’s in government...
So you'd prefer systems of governments from homogenous countries. Now who's the Nazi? India still has a class system, China is oppressive and I'm putting that nicely. Caribbean... so Haiti where corruption is so bad it makes the government fail enmass? Makes the argument how America is better. Thanks!
It is called the *caste system and it’s been illegal for decades. India is a secular socialist country (which is another debate because of the Hindu nationalists in power) but the stigma of the caste system is still there but India is a modern democracy. China isn’t homogenous - millions of Muslims, millions of Christians, Turks, various ethnic groups - it’s a socialist dictatorship but not homogenous.
I wonder why Haiti is so poor... nothing to do with how the US has dealt with them....
And I didn’t realise when immigrants come to the U.K. their political system takes over...?
Yea but the brits don’t go gaga for their nation to remotely the same degree. The only time you’ll see patriotism is when the footballs on or one of the fucking royals is getting married (and even then that’s got polarising opinions across the country AND foreigners seem to get more excited about it than the brits)
Ah yes cherry picking - also know as what America was founded on and the wars it has been infamous war (including two it is currently in with the war in afghan being its longest ever engagement), not exactly picking some obscure examples am I?
Britain has a super shady past - the difference is most don’t embrace it. As Donald trump said in response to native genocide we ‘won’t apologise for america’ combined with the fact you are all still butthurt about the rebel flag.
Most British people (not all) won’t talk about the Boer War, Indian Mutiny, or stuff in Malaysia in positive terms. They don’t try and spin it. The only wars people get nationalist is usually ones that involved defending the country (Spanish Armada, Napoleonic war, WW1 - still arguable- and WW2).
So the US flag represents awful things like the British one, the difference is Americans are completely unapologetic about it. You guys are what the British Empire was one hundred years ago yet you see that as something to be super proud about.
While the british empire was absolutely terrible, it still doesn't excuse the human rights abuses of the United States.
Well, when you only look at a propaganda, of course you don't understand.
So basically the battles in which they propped up the US empire
I certainly hope you're not British, you know, who ACTUALLY had an empire, one so large the sun never set on it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's pretty much the same in the US for lots of people.
I think it's because (or in at least in part) we're a fairly young nation. When you don't have many national symbols you make a big deal out of the ones you have, and that gets passed down.
Why do British view flags with such disdain?
We're fundamentally embarrassed about ourselves and our past represented by our flag (not entirely unfounded).
Our flag should have a big "sorry" stitched right across the middle. Maybe then we'd be more comfortable with it.
This level of brainwashing would make Stalin uncomfortable.
Are you trying to imply that were brainwashed for feeling bad about fucking over so many other countries back in the Empire days?
There is so much wrong with this but yes, you are thoroughly and utterly brainwashed. The conditioning is complete with this subject.
It sounds like you don't have a very solid understanding of history then, dude. Let me guess, you also think America won WWII?
Last I checked Japanese surrendered unconditionally to the Americans. Not sure what stupid rant you're getting ready to go on and I don't care either.
Trust me on this. We are all brainwashed if this is your standard. You just have a different brand of detergent.
I prefer the detergent that doesn't affect my Testosterone levels.
To me it's just a bit of fabric.
I wouldn't be offended if anyone burnt it. I'd think, "well you've just lost a fiver".
So many other things to be proud of, but a bit of material?
To me it's just a bit of fabric.
I don't think you'd be saying this if someone put a nazi flag in front of your house.
I don't think that's comparable, we are talking about national flags, and national pride attached to it.
Bringing the Nazi flag into it doesn't make sense to me for the discussion.
nice mental gymnastics. Suddenly a flag more than "a bit of fabric." Oh the British, not happy unless you're self loathing douches.
I don't think it's just Brits.
We take it really seriously in Turkey as well. And for good reasons.
(To add to the many medical debt comments:) Canadian here, frequently browse /r/personalfinance. I feel so bad about the constant posts that are like "I broke my leg and now I have to pay a $20k hospital bill, what do I do???"
The worst one I've seen is someone who owed something like $200k for chemo treatments that was sent to collections. They had to do another round of chemo and was considering going back to work while they were supposed to be recovering from freaking CANCER just to keep their head above water. That's so fucking awful.
I’ve had patients who chose to die by suicide instead of trying to even hope to deal with both cancer and the debt. Sometimes they thought they saved their families hundreds of thousands of dollars. In some cases they left the family with savings. It’s horrible.
EDIT: Missed words.
EDIT 2: Another thing people can sometimes consider is quality of life. Would you want to spend the rest of your days working 60 hours a week when you had a terminal illness?
That’s heartbreaking
I don’t know what to tell you. Health is the most underrated thing.
It gives birth to the plot device of Breaking Bad but that's about it.
Fuck America's healthcare system. Seriously.
Fuck America's politicians.
Yup. Actual parasites that need to find a grave to crawl into.
Way I see it that's why healthcare is so bad. Less of us living means less they have to share. They want us to die, the sooner the better.
Nah they want you to rack up all the debt you can and then start paying it off. Hopefully die before the retirement checks come because they sold your pension to a private company an they already lost it gambling on the market.
True. That's more in line with parasite. Explains college debt too. "Oh we love education, everyone needs a college degree" while true, with our education system it just further migrates the money from the middle class and poor to the top.
Sadly they have all control as well
Americans still have guns, they just aren't used to defend themselves from the very real violence directed against them.
People have a weird portrayal that A. Every american has a gun, and B. That our government/military follow guidelines set by the people. We're along for the ride as well unfortunately. Unfortunately the US government has become an entity on its own accord.
Yeah, a lot of us are actually pretty anti-gun because of how many people die here to gun violence every year compared to other developed countries.
That's the kind of talk that gets you gun owners under hot water. There is still so much we can do that doesn't automatically resort to violence.
I really just wanted to make the point that traditionally non-violent action (pens, not swords) can still be violent.
You have a strange definition of violence. You sound like an Antifa member.
How can we make them deal with the same level of care as their constituents?
I know it's pessimistic, but I think when a politician gets to a certain level, they're not going to be helpful to the little man. Obviously you get the odd one that does want to try and help, like Obama. But most of them will give in to lobbying and payoffs from big medical and insurance companies, and not change anything.
Why would they? Once they are in D.C. and are rich, they can afford good health insurance and don't have to worry about medical bills. They don't care if poor people can't afford it.
Well them and the degenerate shitbags who vote R at every turn. Considering they're the ones repealing everything even the preexisting conditions provision. So now we go back to the good ole days where you get dropped from your insurance as soon as you get sick.
Unfortunately a lot of it boils down to it's citizens as well. As an American I fully support universal healthcare but many others around me are afraid at the idea of "socialism" and the refusal to pay more taxes for free healthcare. These people see healthcare as a luxury and it's so sad.
In a local Facebook group a guys was talking about the reason. He had to go in food stamps. He lost his entire life saving to helo pay for his cancer treatment and was unable to go back to work yet. He had five people get mad and tell him he is a leech and should have planned better. I know the majority of my area feel the same about healthcare and I wish there was a way to show them the benefits.
That's disgustingly sad to hear. Telling a guy who battled cancer he is a leech for not being able to pay treatment for cancer, that he had NO control over getting? ugh. I really hope this toxic mindset disappears one day.
The entire thread was gross. It was about benefits being cut in my state possibly and everyone was excited to talk about how all the dead beats should get jobs now. Some days I hope it is just my area that has this train of thought but I should know better.
Unless we live in the same state, it's not. But I did get a front row seat to some assbags saying the same kinds of things, difference being, I know some of them and they're on food stamps and unemployment. So, you really have to take what jackasses behind a keyboard have to say lol
And one of them includes my dad.
I'm so glad mine is too dumb to figure how how anything but email and a couple online newspapers work. I couldn't imagine the illiterate shit he'd type out...
Is it ok to wish they got cancer too just so they see how shitty that is?
He should should have planned not to get cancer.
/s
Honestly they don't need more taxes. If the government would just trim the fat off the military programs and many other mostly unnecessary programs I'm sure an increase in Federal taxes would be either non existent or only a very small percentage. Gotta have those new F-35's tho
Fully agree, it's an issue of budgeting and prioritizing. Education and Healthcare should at least be a no brainer if we want to put the citizens first.
You don't like spending billions of unaudited dollars on defense??? You need to get you some patriotism, son.
Stargates don't fund themselves
if we want to put the citizens first.
Therein lies the problem.
I wish this was a no-brainer for Americans, but sadly it is not.
Some day I hope to move to Canada.
Someday, I hope you do too...
Education funding is more or less in line with the rest of the developed world, the problems are how the money is being spent and the quality of the students being taught, the latter of which is directly affected by poverty and the influence of gangs, especially in the inner cities.
I know a lot of it especially is handled by the state or more specifically the taxes in the areas to fund for local schooling. Like you said, rich white suburban areas=more funding, whilst inner cities and lower incomes (typically minorities)=horrible schooling. I've seen this especially living in Illinois and it's unfortunate, but that's another discussion with how things are in this state. If the federal government had more control over schooling and didn't leave it to state and local then maybe there would be a more even distributed quality of education everywhere, but maybe I'm just being too crazy.
There is a lot of fat to trim. While they're at it, they should reallocate some to education.
I'm all for the US having the best military in the world, but I agree there is a lot of fat that could be trimmed off of it. And a lost of wasted / siphoned tax money that could be saved in other programs.
But if universal healthcare was implemented, the economy would improve anyway because more people would be able to work, there would be less mentally ill people ending up homeless or committing crimes, so less police needed, less $ would have to be spent on welfare programs. All the money you save on that stuff could be thrown at the universal healthcare system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html
Old article, but it's still relevant.
Frenchman living in the US, the real problem is also your twisted view of taxes. As long as you Americans think taxes as theft you will be fucked for financing important programs
Ya'll helped when we got mad about taxes the first time. So...
Paying taxes for healthcare 🤔
Paying premiums for healthcare 🤗
...americans are fucking idiots.
And the premiums are fucking higher!
And then we still have copays. So wtf are the premiums for, then? American and still don't know.
The premiums are for when you get into a major accident or heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc.
It's like complaining "What am I paying all this car insurance for?!? I got a minor fender bender and I had to pay the $1000 out of my own pocket!!"
It just seems interesting to me that we should have to pay a substantial lump sum after having already paid into a subscription service designed to offset the cost of medicine. It punishes you for actually using the service for the reason you got it, and also puts people at risk by incentivising the procrastination of dealing with an issue until it is too severe to be ignored, as opposed to treating when the treatment is more affordable, less extensive, and has a greater chance of success. Treating healthcare as a business instead of a right results in those that forgo it like any other luxury item, and all the dire consequences that entails.
No they're not.
I paid $100 a year for healthcare for several years. Try that in Europe.
($48 a month × 12 ≈ $600. HSA company financed amount was $500 per year.)
They're only expensive for people with entry level service jobs who aren't covered by their parents.
Personally, I am for universal health care, but to say that my premiums are higher right now is completely disingenuous.
It's the exact reason WHY rich people are against changing things.
Well lucky you. But what about everyone else?
On an average per capita basis, we pay more in the US than anywhere else in the Western world that uses a publicly funded system. Pick a graph
I don't understand why anyone would support a system where we pay more for less access and quality. Did you just not know about these statistics, or are you really so selfish as to support a system which is quantitatively worse for the rest of the country just because you, individually, are winning under the current system?
This is just too fucking funny 😂
Yeah, I'm an idiot that I'd rather pay ≈ $3000 a year for the whole family (with a $2000 HSA matching program) than have my taxes go up 20% (≈ $30,000) to the kind of rates seen in Europe.
Yeah, you are an idiot. Those countries spend less per capita on healthcare than the USA...our federal governments would be spending LESS on healthcare by socializing our system and putting price fixes on procedures, pharmaceuticals, and hospital stays. Also, you're not just dumb, you're also evil. You care more about saving money for yourself than saving the lives of your poor countrymen.
You put the burden on the tax dodgers and top 1% and MAYBE see a slight increase in the mid-tier 99%. Or you can close the gap between the 1% and the 99% and take home a bigger paycheck with a minor (or possibly no) tax hike.
With all due respect, pray that no one in your family has an accident or major health issue. $30,000 a year will seem like a blessing if worse comes to worst. I hope you never have to find out.
Yeah, it stems back all the way to when this country became independent from Britain. The problem? taxes! It left a scar on us. Let's just hope it doesn't take another more 250+ more years for this mindset to change.
Fucking Fox propaganda bullshit. Gahh
We need a new campaign for universal healthcare with a different message. Appealing to patriotism might work, although whoever tries will invariably be called a Nazi. Then again, anyone who tries to do anything is called a Nazi by some bunch of nutjobs these days.
Keep things the same? Nazi! Do something new? Nazi! Make things the way they used to be? Nazi!
I hear ya. This country needs some serious reform but it's so hard with the state the country is in right now and our system. Changing the mindset of people isn't easy either. Like you said it would resort to accusations and name calling if someone tried to implement this system.
Stupid too. I did the figures years ago and I was paying less for my tax and private healthcare in Australia than a similarly paid person in America.
Its more that i already have healthcare and dont want to pay more.
But if we trim the fat in military spending and other unnecessary programs, you wouldn't have to pay much more. Also, no one should have to choose between going bankrupt and getting treatment.
If we trim the fat, I want my money back.
The reason people go bankrupt for getting treatment is because of archaic IP laws and government waste ruining the industry. Yes some regulation is good but just forcing the medical field to follow the same rules as other fields would cause people to lose their minds.
If you're willing to let people die because they can't afford treatment just because you don't want to pay a little bit more then you really need to reassess your moral compass. Affordable and easy to access healthcare should be a right, not a luxury.
A right is something youre born with. A government can't give you rights.
You don't have a right to steal.
So by your very own logic, the constitution is meaningless?
The constitution is set up to make it harder for reactionary politicians to abuse the system to take away freedoms. It doesnt give any rights.
Um, yes it does. You have the right to freedom of speech, religion, etc. A right is something that the government can't take away. They can still amend your rights, and in the case of the second amendment, they should. I think you're confused on what exactly a legal right is. What I'm saying is that access to available and free healthcare should be a constitutional right.
False. I was born with those rights. If there was no government I would still have every right to say whatever I want and practice whatever I want. The constitution makes it so scum politicians cant abuse human psych to take our rights away easily.
Nope. Plenty of people are born without those rights. You were born with those rights because the Constitution grants them to you.
lol.
He is completely right.
He's not.
They can scream whatever they want to the heavens and back for all they want. The government would just prosecute them RESTRICTING their rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Our rights are not granted by a benevolent government and never have been. You can always tell when an election is coming up on Reddit as this place gets astroturfed by rabid leftists.
"endowed by their Creator"
To me that means the Big Bang, to you, it may mean a God. Thats whats great about America.
Yes! Keep fighting the good fight my friend!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Our rights are not endowed by a benevolent government as you say. You have a perverse, leftist view of rights and it is at odds with the founding fathers' intentions.
That's from the declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Yes, every human being is endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bill of rights, however, is a legal document that gives citizens rights outside of those unalienable rights.
Show me where our rights are granted by the government in the constitution. I'll be waiting....
Lol do you even know what the Constitution is? It's a document written by the GOVERNMENT of the US that explains both citizens and states rights granted by the federal government.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution if you believe our rights are granted by government. It's really sad that people like you exist.
Either you're a troll or just stupid, but I'll say it once again just to make sure. The Constitution of the United States of America - which includes the Bill of Rights - is a legal document that grants us the rights we have as citizens. The government allows us to have the right to freedom of speech, religion, etc. I'm honestly starting to think you've never heard of the Bill of Rights, which is a part of the Constitution. What's really sad is that people like you exist, because you're either unwilling or unable to move past your narrow minded view of the world we live in.
Inalienable - "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor" Now if rights are inalienable, how can the government grant or take away rights. By definition they cannot. Every citizen is born with them, they are not granted by a benevolent government as you say. Please study a bit more before you run your mouth and pass off fiction as fact.
Once again. the three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - are in the declaration of independence, not the constitution. The rights granted to us in the bill of rights are not inalienable. Do some research. While I can see your side of the argument - that we all have "natural rights," the bill of rights grants us the freedom to some "natural rights," and restricts others.
Then why do we have the Bill of Rights?? Given to us by our GOVERNMENT??
Its the other way around buddy. We gave that to our government to make sure they couldnt abuse the citizenry.
So i can the cost for the road to your fucking house please.
I will accept a check.
???
Did you pay your full share for the full cost of the road to your house?
Uh my road upstate is private and paid for by 3 families, and I live in the city so yeah through taxes I pay each year?
So you are saying that tax dollars are good when they go towards things like the road to your house, but they are bad when they do things like ensure that every American has health care.
China has a higher life expectancy than we do.
I would actually be for socialized medicine but its contingent on things.
Right now I wouldnt give that power to the state. I see how bad they fucked up privacy when we gave an inch.
When your ideology results in direct negative effects on society, maybe it's time to reasses your ideology.
Your selfishness holds our society back. Fuck you.
No personal attacks :)
Is this a libertarian appealing to a system of rules?
Not really a libertarian.
By your logic, since I'm born and capable of stealing, I am born with the right to steal. The government has only infringed on my right to do it.
Yes! Now you get it
So we don't need the guns, then?
They defend the rights from the govt
People like you should just say the words: I am selfish, and do not care about anyone other than myself. It's so much more honest than the garbage argument you just tried to use.
I am selfish, and do not care about anyone other than myself and people I want to help.
Congratulations on being less of a coward.
You can move to Europe, they are taking in people I hear.
Ah, the old "you don't agree with me so why don't you just leave America" trope. Is that really all you've got? Sad.
Im actually saying there are already places you can live that fit what you want, I can't go anywhere else for mine.
You dipshit. If healthcare is paid through taxes, then you no longer have to pay a premium! Wow! holy shit! And the gov isn't profit-motivated, so they're not just charging extra for themselves from a captive market! Wow!
I dont care if I have to pay a premium, Ill pay for what I want, you pay for what you want.
[deleted]
Lol stop trolling.
[deleted]
The answer is clearly cut down on corruption and business having the ability to lobby.
Youre trolling by intentionally being misleading.
Yeah, most of us fucking hate it. It’s a nuisance. But for some reason, anything else “communism”.
Fuck the Republicans, seriously
Great argument. People who say and have the mindset of shit like "fuck the republicans, seriously", is what helped Trump win the white house. Keep at it though. #Trump2020
[deleted]
The fact that you think we think that shows you know nothing about anything political except what CNN spews. See yah at the polls. #Trump2020
[deleted]
Sorry brother but your opinion on this matter is worthless if you're not American. All these foreigners think they know whats going on when they don't live here. All you see is what your governments media pushes on you. You in all reality don't have a fuckin' clue. As for your universal healthcare observation - if we were more socialist and was ok with paying more taxes for shit healthcare, we'd have it. Before there was so much government regulation on healthcare, nobody had an issue with non-universal. Do yourself a favor and worry about your own country's politics. What country are you even from?
[deleted]
Yeah and look what those tax dollars currently do. Nothing great as our healthcare situation isn't so hot. Take away the heavy regulation, and we go back to a great healthcare system. Like I said bud, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You don't live here. Since you don't have the balls to tell me, my guess is you're from the UK, since you think think we're "stubborn assholes" whose "country is fucked" Are you a fan of Piers Morgan by chance?
[removed]
Thats not really relevant but ok
With the current dumbass in office we get to keep the shitty system. The only joy I get is when his equally dumb supporters get kicked off their insurance and cant afford their meds anymore all while screaming "MERICA" in their Hover-rounds.
But at least we're free from dem damn commies /s
The "care" bit in health care should be substituted for something else. It's basically pay to ~~win~~ live over there.
America's healthcare system
What healthcare system ? Last i checked there was none.
Thats what happens when you force people to use a doctor for any thing.
Well it's already fucked you so that seems fair
My ex-wife's grandma lived a good life with her husband, always well-employed, beautiful house, volunteered in her spare time, generous and helpful in her neighborhood, etc. They both retired at 65. Then he got sick at 67 and had bad dementia, flashbacks to his military service in WWII, various problems from diabetes. Got very sick and had trouble finding care, and for whatever reason a great deal of it was out of pocket. I know he got kicked out of a hospice because of the dementia - he'd imagine he was back in the war and had been captured, and there were problems. Anyway, it took two years for him to die, and by the end all their savings were gone and she had to sell the house to pay the bills and funeral costs, and then go back to work at 70 years old. I've been out of touch, but she was still working every day to keep food on the table and a roof over her head at 76 years old.
To some extent, she lived the American dream, then it ended.
I hope she was able to spend some quality time with him in his last years. I know I would move heaven and earth just to get 5 more minutes with my girlfriend if one of us was dying.
I've missed out on the chance to finish school because of an accident that put my into debt and ate my school savings. The ACA made my insurance even worse so now that I have unrelated medical issues, I can't even afford to get some basic tests.
I've pretty much decided I'll die before going into any more major medical debt. I'm not even 30 and medical debt has wiped out about a cheap college education's worth of my income.
I need about 2k in dental work too from stress grinding and untreated sleep apnea, and some days I'm grateful that I'm constitutionally entitled to a way out, even if I don't think I'll ever use it.
Having molars pulled is something I can afford to do if the pain gets worse.
That's awful I feel bad for you and I will try to have more appreciation for my circumstances
[deleted]
I make too much for Medicaid and my employer's plan doesn't equal more than 9.5 percent of my income so I don't qualify for subsidies to find a better plan. The ACA fucked lower middle class American men under the age of 40.
And I'm not still a student. I need to work full time to survive.
its not a gender specific issue man
Uh. It actually is. The ACA was designed to raise the price of insurance on young men to offset how much more women and older individuals pay for insurance. That's why men need to buy prenatal service coverage now.
That makes up for the fact women pay on average 40 percent more than young men, but shouldering that kind of cost based on gender is regressive because not all lower middle class men can afford to carry more weight for women.
Source: https://amp.cnn.com/money/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/
For example, in Louisiana—home to a hotly contested Senate race between incumbent Mary Landrieu (D.) and Rep. Bill Cassidy (R.)—the underlying cost of insurance increased by 108 percent for 27-year-old men, and 46 percent for 27-year-old women.
As designed.
Don't even get me started on the stupid penalty thankfully Trump added exemptions and I so happened to qualify for one. Would've only got $50 dollars from a $1,000 tax return if it wasn't for that damn exemption. Fuck ACA, Fuck the government, Fuck the health system.
On the other hand, the ACA is the only reason anyone in my family has healthcare because we're chock full of pre-existing conditions. When I was a kid, we weren't allowed to go to the doctor for anything and a couple of my fingers will never close right because of a nasty couple of breaks that my mom set with tape and chopsticks. I'm sorry you have to spend some more money, but it's literally saved my life when I had to go in for a kidney infection a couple years ago.
I'm glad the ACA did you some good, and it really did mandate some pretty basic human protections, but as a very fiscally conservative gun hippy, we need a public option and not what we got.
Oh, no disagreement there. Universal Healthcare will do our country so much good, but considering half the nation won't abide by it even being on the table I'll take the baby steps that we ended up getting.
This is what I keep saying to people that mindlessly hate the ACA (and not for personal reasons like soviet). It was a baby step. Even the direct authors of the ACA have publicly said that it wasnt perfect and needed to be monitored and refined. But ever since it passed there's been a battle over it's existence. The Republicans would not accept that it passed and refused to help make it better. The system never advanced, and that was not the intention behind it. We should hate the politicians for the ACA not being good, rather than the ACA itself.
I don't mind the ACA, I just didn't like how they made pay them almost $1,000 out of your tax return because you didn't have health insurance. And this is coming from someone who made like 17k for that year.
If that's all you make, then you qualify for free or extremely cheap healthcare through the exchange (unless you live in a red state that refused Medicaid expansions out of spite, but that's not the fault of the ACA). If you don't have health insurance and require a hospital stay, you end up costing the taxpayers a hell of a lot of money, plus insurance pools need a good number of healthy participants to share costs. So yeah, you're penalised if you gamble with that.
So say I pay off my medical bills but don't have medical coverage. I still get penalized. It's not right man. While I understand the situation involved with someone costing tax payers. The government should just fix the dang system.
Universal healthcare now!
Shhhhhhh reddit doesnt like to hear how ACA is bad or how trump helped you in any way
I dislike Trump but clearly users are having trouble looking at issues objectively. We live in shades of grey, people!
Lol
My Grandpa did exactly this. :'(
I’m sorry for your loss.
B..but we're a Christian Nation! With family values! And morals like love thy neighbor and caring for the poor amongst us and...
..ya know what? I don't even have the energy to make this joke.
And I'd choose suicide too. How could I saddle my family with medical debt when they could be very well face their own?
At least we're not damn socialists with proper healthcare for all....
(do I need this? /s)
Now THAT is messed up. Wtf?!
Traveling to Asian countries for cancer treatment and paying out of pocket would be cheaper than paying copays .
These sorts of treatments are not available there. People are often surprised when they find out how many cancers require experimental treatments to prolong life.
A lot of experimental treatment happens in USA?
There are many types of cancer that require subjects for treatment and often these treatments are cutting-edge. For example, treating myeloid cancers requires replacing the immune system. As recently as 4 years ago we were transplanting bone marrow to accomplish that, but now we simply infuse stem cells. The chemo and redevelopment process is so technical and new that only research physicians can manage such regimens.
The field of oncology improves at a rapid pace, so new treatments can go from bench to practice in less than 5 years.
Interesting to know . Few months ago I moved back to India for my father’s urethelial carcinoma stage 4 cancer treatment. If there is any such experimental treatment available for my father I would be willing to try it out .
I believe it. I’ve been unemployed for 3 years living off the money I saved in the military. I was just thinking about how if I got injured theres no way I could afford to pay it all off and I would off myself.
Really? Is this with or without insurance? I’m only a teenager in the US so this seems scary to deal with.
Likely with the pseudo insurance that barely meets the law. If you’re worried and truly care about being protected from stuff like that you can definitely get insurance that will cover you, you’ll just have to pay more.
Agreed. The best way to get decent insurance is still through certain employers, but they are getting harder to find. I hope the ACA exchange improves.
Certain cancer treatment regimens can cost upwards of $2 million. Many insurance companies find a way to deny claims after a few hundred thousand dollars. At big cancer centers there are literally departments whose job is to fight those claim denials.
But the realistic situation is if even only 10% of people at some point in their life need a million dollar treatment for cancer, everyone will have to pay $100,000 through some sort of tax. At some point, it just isn’t feasible to be spending that amount of money saving people who will likely have more medical situation later on.
That is really less than 0.001% of the population. The tax you suggest is ludicrous. Using a more progressive tax system that taxes the 0.1% much more we can definitely afford Medicare for all. Many experts say we’d actually save money long term by the states ability to negotiate better prices for care and the benefits of primary, preventative healthcare.
As I said below:
Certain cancer treatment regimens can cost upwards of $2 million. Many insurance companies find a way to deny claims after a few hundred thousand dollars. At big cancer centers there are literally departments whose job is to fight those claim denials.
Medical debts can't be transferred to families.
I didn’t say they made a rational choice. Some also wanted to avoid their own debt and simply chose to die from the cancer.
What person can save their family $100k+ by killing themselves? The family won’t have to take on the medical debt if the patient dies and if the patient already has $100k saved up then they really should have been paying for a better insurance plan.
A lot of people don’t have a choice of what they can afford. The patient can save whatever savings they have. Sometimes that works, other times it doesn’t.
You’re telling me someone with $100k+ can’t spend an extra couple thousand a year on good health insurance?
That’s just not fair to the person who now only has $70k because they did spend it on health insurance because apparently they’re both suppose to be treated equally.
The people that made that choice did not have such means. But even rich people run out of money on experimental treatments that require rare goods and 3 month stays in the hospital plus a 1-year recovery process. One patient I saw spent $2 million before his family decided his treatment was getting too expensive and he went to palliative.
That is so horrible:( When Americans claim their system is better than one like Canada’s this is the type of thing I want to remind them of :(
At least he gets to choose suicide himself. In Canada they choose it for you:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/10/canada_has_death_panels_and_that_s_a_good_thing.html
Or one could say that in other countries someone who desires suicide can be tortured for a long time instead.
I've already had this conversation with my mother. If worse comes to worse, I'm not leaving her in debt. She was understanding, but from then on never talked about her cancer conspiracy theories again, lmao.
That’s what I would choose to do if I got cancer. Why fight what nature is trying to do? Why put the financial stress on people that I love just to maybe have a somewhat decent life? If it’s my time to go, it’s my time to go. Makes no sense to try and prolong the inevitable.
I know a few oncologists who think like you do.
If I came down with some horrible illness that was going to wipe out my funds and my family's, I'd do the same to be honest. They love me enough to go into financial ruin, I love them enough keep them away from it at any cost.
My Grandpa did exactly this. :'(
They didn't think they saved them that much, they really did.
Few people have that much in savings. You could make an argument for opportunity cost.
Im perfectly healthy, aint no way in hell Im working a 60 hour week like this let alone sick.
[removed]
Or they could just improve their health care system so things like that don’t happen
I know right? Talk about jumping from A to C, god damn.
[deleted]
In that case, no need to change anything, sadly.
I never said it was just because of this, but this is one of the many, many, many, MANY reasons.
It should not be a reason at all. And there should not be many many many reasons either.
Edit: To clarify, the only situation I agree with assisted suicide is when someone has come down will an illness that makes life pain, that no amount of help, or money, can help.
Do you know how many people end up incapacitating themselves in failed suicide attempts? Do you know how many people end up traumatized by witnessing, or being a part of, someone else's suicide (train operators, for example)? Do you know how much property is destroyed by suicides and suicide attempts, like property burned because someone set themselves on fire, or buildings damaged by people ramming cars into them, etc.? There needs to be a way to do it that doesn't harm anyone, because you are never going to stop everyone and you have some kind of utopian delusion if you seriously think that anything will ever eliminate suicide as a thing that happens.
Live in Oregon, Voted for Assisted Suicide, we have it.
Half the patients who get it die before they can use the suicide method. Its for terminal cases.
It should never be used for "I could live, but I just can't afford the treatment."
Any response to this other than "Healthcare should not bankrupt people". Is evil, full stop.
Edit: Also, suicide can never "not harm people" its a depression bomb that effects everyone around you. Sometimes, in rare cases, its a mercy. But those cases are "they were dying (soon) anyway, no need to make them suffer."
Live in Oregon and agree. Glad we have assisted suicide... for people that actually benefit from assisted suicide, like terminally ill patients that will spend the next 3 weeks suffering on morphine while their body deteriorates into nothingness.
This dude acting like assisted suicide should be handed out like condoms at a college makes no fuckin' sense. I know some people wanna die, helping them do that makes no sense at all for 99.9% of people that wanna die.
There was a guy who lived on high potency Dilaudid (×10 stronger than regular) for weeks in a straight infusion in hospice (it wasn't diluted at all except by being run with a maintenance bag of fluids). It was heartbreaking. Most people would die from that level of opiates but he didn't and was probably still in pain.
We would come in and at pass off be shocked that he was still alive.
One of the counter arguments when the vote came around was "We have Ultra Morphine!" (Dilaudid)
Sometimes it works, the question is, does it bring them back to clarity? Most of the time, it still makes them suffer.
You bring up some good points. Suicide attempts definitely affect other people. But I think that the best way to treat these things is by helping the people before they get to that point, or get them out if they are already at that point.
The only situation I agree with assisted suicide is when someone has come down will an illness that makes life pain, that no amount of help, or money, can help.
But I think that the best way to treat these things is by helping the people before they get to that point, or get them out if they are already at that point.
Yes, that can certainly reduce suicide rates, but it's like I said, nothing will ever eliminate suicide. It's a fact of life, suicide will always exist no matter how much we do to try to stop it.
That is not a valid reason for not trying. Saving any amount of people is a success.
Yes, but there needs to be a legal alternative for the rest.
And this is where you and I start to disagree on assisted suicide. I think it should only be the case for terminal patients, people suffering horrible physical or mental conditions, and the elderly whose quality of life has fallen below their desire to live. As for people who want to commit suicide for petty reasons, depression, or shitty situations such as debt or a lost lover, that’s a no from me fam
Depression is not a "petty" reason, jackass. It's a damn good reason, and it often is a terminal illness. You clearly don't have it because it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.
Someone doesn’t understand how commas work. Regardless, while I don’t think of it as petty I do put it on the same level. While I won’t sit here and pretend I have any deep understanding of what depression really is I doubt you do either. You seem like a special snowflake that latches specifics that support your narrative. Depression a terminal illness? Get over yourself
While I won’t sit here and pretend I have any deep understanding of what depression really is I doubt you do either.
LOL HOLY FUCK DUDE. Now you're pretending to know FUCKING ANYTHING ABOUT ME? Go fuck yourself.
Nice one deflecting, but it doesn’t matter. I never claimed to know anything about you, I said I doubted you yourself having any real knowledge on the subject. I’m done entertaining a conversation with someone who so readily falls into using logical fallacies. Have a nice day
I never claimed to know anything about you
Oh really now?
meanwhile...
I won’t sit here and pretend I have any deep understanding of what depression really is I doubt you do either
(when I do from firsthand experience)
and
You seem like a special snowflake that latches specifics that support your narrative
And there I was thinking your original comment was level 9000 satire... But apparantly not!
So you literally saying that people who can't pay for healthcare should kill themselves? Wtf with you mate?
Like I said in another comment: I didn't say this was the only reason, there are many, many, many, MANY reasons assisted suicide needs to be legal, but this is just one of them.
Why do you believe that an inability to afford medical treatment is cause to kill oneself? There are many cases I believe assisted suicide should be legal but this is not absolutely not one.
To avoid the debt.
Or, you know, reasonable methods to avoid debt. Like taxes or some shit like that.
Advocating people have the ability to be helped in killing themselves (and who is gonna pay for that, might I add!?), instead of a much more economically efficient single-payer type of system... that's late stage capitalism for ya.
it's like filing for bankruptcy for medical bills doesn't exist
No, treatment needs to be made affordable
Commas are your friend and are important
Thanks for the reminder!
That little squiggle completely changes everything haha
That sentence demonstrates why punctuation is important. Edit: they stealth edited to add a comma after "No".
Yes, absolutely!
And that guy is a shining example of a lot of Americans who instead of fixing the actual problems, offer convoluted non-solutions and dredge up whataboutisms.
And what's your answer to that? Socialism? Fuck that, better dead than red.
Yes, there's only a) going bancrupt because you broke your arm or b) literally implementing the Soviet Union again.
[deleted]
In these stupid discussion with some Americans Socialism means that the state takes away your money by force and redistributes it.
The fact that you'd save a shitload of money doesn't matter because it hinders your freedom and there's always this idiot who will tell you that he was never sick and saves money by living in 12 m^2, working 60h/week, so Single/Multipayer systems would cost him money.
I don't honestly have a solution, but what doesn't help is everytime the idea of affordable health care is brought up the only solution is that we become socialist? Is there no other options for ways we can provide an affordable option for low income people? I am open to ideas because instead of coming up with constructive ones I just hear being socialist sucks.
what doesn't help is everytime the idea of affordable health care is brought up the only solution is that we become socialist?
Tell that to the liberals, they're the ones who want socialism so bad and will bring it up at every possible opportunity.
Did you know that the government/other people pays for bankruptcy? "Socialism" is alive and well my friend, it's just that we have crony socialism right now that makes the rich and powerful very rich and powerful but we could have a much nicer system.
But ohmahgerd! Socialism! Halp!
Oh boy I sure do love good ol' socialist UK
That is not the law that should change because of this...
I'm certain this person is a troll. That, or this is one of the most moronic things I've ever read.
While I understand the sentiment, and agree that assisted suicide should be legal...
You don't think it'd be free in America, do you?
I mean your not wrong though
On the other hand, some of us do have free healthcare. We’re on OHP, Oregon health plan and my husbands 4 month stay in the hospital with two open heart surgeries was covered completely. Otherwise we would be 3.2 million in debt. Pretty fucked.
Wait what? There are states with randomly free healthcare??? Do you have more info on this or am I misunderstanding something?
You can apply through your states health care online, and if you’re poor enough they cover everything including medications.
its welfare... usually not the proudest moments in peoples lives
Not necessarily welfare, anyone can apply. It’s not strict like welfare is. If it were welfare we couldn’t have a house with a mortgage or own our cars.
No shame in welfare -- it's not charity dispensed by the government, it's the payback for taxes.
My mind can't get around the fact that it would have cost you 3.2 million for that.. how on earth do people without insurance pay for that? it's almost a lifetime of wages for low income workers.
how on earth do people without insurance pay for that?
They don't. They get sent home and die.
They don't. Life and health are considered luxuries too good for the working poor here. If a line cook or a farmhand dies of untreated cancer, who cares, there's more where they came from. This is what happens when a government only cares about the mega-rich.
Right now the only way I can get the medications that allow me to function is not to work so I can stay on disability and Medicaid. The vast majority of entry level positions are part time and/or contract work, which means the employer can get away without giving their employees any means to get medical care. There's no way in hell I could afford my meds out of pocket on a part time salary and no way I can work without them, so I keep fruitlessly hunting the unicorn of a full time job with benefits and collecting my government check.
Yeah, I'm bitter.
I don’t blame you, I would be bitter too.
No one actually pays that. It’s just the clusterfuck that is the billing system where no pays sticker price because everyone pays a different amount.
Yup, they don’t. We would have never gotten out from it. Especially since he spent 3 weeks in the ICU. It’s ridiculous.
In the UK, Canada and EU, you would never rack up that much debt because a death panel would decide you're too expensive and "untreatable" first.
I think the distinction is that they don't understand how much power each individual state has.
I still find it ridiculous, but I do get why it worked like that historically. The USA works a lot more like a bunch of small countries in a union than it does a unified country. Which fits the old name as well, statehood was just that, it implied sovereignty.
If the USA is a country, as it is treated, but functions like a union, then shouldn't it be treated like the EU?
Because the States all gave up their rights to bargaining with powers outside of the United States. All that is handled by the Federal government. Interstate trade is also regulated by the federal government
My girlfriend had a rare open heart surgery yesterday by one of the few people in my country (and the world) who are able to do operation. It will cost her the equivalent of $20; that is the daily hospital stay cost. She will probably get it back from the government for the duration of her stay as well. If not, it will be $600 for a month's stay, which we can live with.
I hope your husband it well. I also do not understand how the people who have arranged the funding system for US healthcare sleep at night. Quality treatment should be a right, not a privilege
I hope your girlfriend is doing better and I wish her a speedy recovery. My husband is quite well now, thank you. The US is so fucked on so many levels. I just wish that healthcare was truly universal, that drugs were legal here so people wouldn’t feel so stigmatized getting help and I could also do them more easily , we had multiple parties running for offices and weren’t such fucking gun nuts, yes I own some , but there’s no need for anything stronger than a rifle or shotgun and we need actual gun control. Oh and fuck the nazis that have been flaunting their hatred. I could go on and on.
holy shit, im moving to oregon after college if this is true
You just have to be poor.
It's not really free healthcare if you know how much it could've cost you. I have no idea what my operations have cost me because apart from the 5 euro fee for visiting a specialised doctor in the first place money isn't even in the conversation.
Can confirm, was in the hospital for just shy of a week for my kidneys failing(then recovering). Got a 34k bill. Thank goodness I had good health insurance and only paid $500. But if I didn't I would have lost nearly everything I owned to pay that.
I think part of the reason healthcare costs are so high is because hospitals can bill to an insurance company. Don’t quote me on this but I think it’s also why drugs, IV bags etc cost more in the USA than in other countries.
It's...complicated. The hospital sends a claim to insurance that says they provided treatment costing $X, based on a completely arbitrary set of pricing guidelines that is different for each hospital. Insurance turns around and says they'll pay $Y, based on their own arbitrary pricing guidelines that's different for each insurance company. They argue for a while and hopefully money changes hands, before the patient gets billed. And those of us in the middle who know the actual costs of things compared to the markups just hang our heads in shame over the whole affair.
Good god and here I am bitching about an extra 60€ I have to pay for 6 days in the hospital..
"I had to pay how much for parking?! Oh, you validate... nevermind"
If I'm correct that money is for the bed and the food. Most expensive thing about hospital were the two taxi rides.
I stayed in hospital for a week once and i actually saved a weeks worth of pay because i wasn't spending anything
Why do you have to pay for the bed and food?
That's our deductibles. 10€/day for up to 28 days/year in the hospital.
You should be bitching about the extra 20,000€ you paid in taxes compared to me.
Except I didn't because I'm 23 years old and on my parents health insurance. Also, in what universe would anyone pay 20000 per year for health insurance? If you earn 60000€ per year you'd pay around 8000€.
This is terrible and why I hated the health care system in the USA. Ever since moving to Australia, I've never once had to worry about it. Wife went to the ER twice, son also went in/out of treatments at the major hospital, didn't pay anything but parking. Happy to pay the $20 for parking when I don't have to worry about anything else!
Australian health care is awesome. I can't fathom how i could live in the U.S.
My kidneys failed last year. have been on in home dialysis for the last year. t If i was in the U.S. i would be dead. Terrifying stuff.
If i was in the U.S. i would be dead.
Why? Do you not have a job? Most people with a career in the US would be completely fine. I've known dozens of people in my life that got dialysis. I only know one who died and that's because she was born with a liver birth defect to begin with and then drank herself into oblivion.
My wife had a stroke and got $75,000 in medical bills. We capped out at $6,300 on our insurance plan. We asked the hospitals to spread that interest-free over 24 months (which most hospitals will do).
Because of HSA company contributions of $500, $2000 and $2000, we got $4,500 of that $6,300 covered by the HSA (in money we didn't contribute), leaving us to pay only $2,200 out of pocket. Spread over 24 months, that was less than $100 a month for 2 years. And since we had to contribute $2000 to the HSA for 2 years to get the match, we still had money in our HSA (we pulled out the rest because we could cover dental and vision with it).
[deleted]
Fraud. It's called fraud. Elder abuse is also a big deal
Even trying to commit fraud like this isn't possible. To take out any form of debt, you need to be there in person to sign documents, and have proof of identity plus other background checks. I dont understand how a bank would agree to lend to someones child, especially without them being there
Hey bud, this is wrong. Credit cards get "sold" and approved over the phone, internet, and even mail.
I used to work for a bank talking people into credit cards all day never seeing them in person.
I also know because I was on my parents credit cards. When I was 20 years old I had a 630 credit score after having a paid 1000 dollar credit card for the last two years with almost no balance on it. Started digging and found out the cards my parents put me on were maxed out. Credit utilization, how much credit you spend compared to home much is available to you, plays a huge factor into your credit score.
I called to remove myself from those cards only to find out all three of the credit cards I was "on" were 100% mine and my parents were only "authorized users" so they had credit cards in my name with zero % liability.
15k and 4 years later I still can't listen to them talk about money or my future financials without my blood boiling.
ed to remove myself from those cards only to find out all three of the credit cards I was "on" were 100% mine and my parents were only "authorized users" so they had credit cards in my name with zero % liability.
Did your parents pay off the debt on your cards or you? How is your relationship with your parents now? I couldn't imagine being very happy with them over this
What credit card company will give a kid even $1000 in credit much less $50k?
He was 20 when he found out, and had been paying for 2 years. Credit card companies love to send mailers to newly-minted 18yo's with a small line of credit. Gotta start 'em young.
Not anymore. My daughter really struggled to get credit. We had to cosign a car loan on an $8000 used car in order for her to be able to get a credit card.
And we had her as an authorized user on our card to help her credit and her score was 720. Still got declined by every card.
That's good to know. Admittedly it's been some years since I was 18 so things definitely may have changed.
It's not necessarily a bank as much so as it's credit card companies. They send out forms saying pre-approved and some little lies on the application, bingo bango, credit card!
More-so credit card law as even store cards are in someway backed by a bank.
Lol what? You don't have to be there in person for most things nowadays. You could totally impersonate someone over the phone or even online to be approved for these sorts of things.
Yep this happened to my cousin. His mother completely screwed him
If my parents did this to me I wouldn't speak to them until they paid me back in full.
[deleted]
holy shit
Posting from Scotland. I complain that I can't get my medications posted to me for free. Which are all free.
I can get all this and I'm not even a citizen. Australia used to treat kiwis like citizens but they stopped in 2001, even though NZ didn't, so now Australia look like cunts, but I'm still super grateful to be here and can never believe how hard America makes it for their own citizens.
is kiwi slang for something or do you mean the literal birds? sorry my mind is blown so i legit dont understand
New Zealanders.
ah, that makes sense (and happy cake day!)
Kiwis are people from New Zealand.
I worked with a guy that did this, he literally worked everyday up until like 3 days before he died from the cancer
If you were likely to die, why would you not go bankrupt?
Honestly I didn’t get to ask him, I didn’t know that he was so close to dying. I imagine maybe he needed to get as much money as possible for his wife before dying. After all it’s not like his dying meant she gets a free ride with no debts.
That's so incredibly sad. I would gladly pay more taxes if it kept people from getting fucked over like that.
Significantly more painful without the expensive meds
Probably if I got cancer and treatment wasn't covered (or the Trump administration brings back the pre-obamacare lifetime limits) or I couldn't work through it and thus lost my insurance, I'd just quit my job, cash in my little bit of retirement funds, buy some cheap, possibly illicit drugs that just keep me going for a bit, and have as much fun as possible until I was too sick or ran out of money. Then commit suicide.
Both of my parents had cancer. My mom had breast cancer and my dad had colon cancer. We were in a financial dip for about a year and still skimp and are forced to save money or else we will be bankrupt. My dad sold his car and we had to get rid of many personal belongings to pay the medical bills. (Source: am American)
The worst one I've seen is someone who owed something like $200k for chemo treatments that was sent to collections.
That reminds me of that one meme about Breaking Bad if it took place in Canada: "You have cancer. Treatment starts on Thursday."
This is America... Don't catch you slippin up.
This is America
Don't catch you needing health care now (x3)
This is medical debt
It's a tool
Literally we have tv shows based around how bad our medical bills are. Ever heard of breaking bad?
To be fair Walt could have just taken the offer from Gretchen and Elliot.
My boyfriend has $700,000 in medical bills from a car accident 8 years ago. Insurance told him the most they'd give him is $25,000, when the policy he's been paying for is supposed to be good for $500k. He's gonna be dead before he pays it all off
Genna bain (the wife of total biscuit the video game reviewer who died of cancer a mouth ago) is around half a million in debt from combination of a shitty financial advisor, cancer treatment not just for her husband that included a shit ton of experimental shit but also she got cancer a few years ago (but later recovered).
this makes me so mad and sad, poor lady has to deal with so much
This is me right now. Suddenly had to have my gallbladder removed. I owe over 15k. I don't know how I'm going to pay it with my 9 dollars an hour.
Isn’t capitalism wonderful?
I used to work in a pharmacy and the chemo patients were the most heart breaking, especially before the ACA was enacted. A lot of them hit their yearly maximum coverage quickly and would find out right then that their necessary life saving medication would cost them $5,000 right then if they wanted to continue taking it. So many people sobbing hysterically in the waiting room, frantically calling family members to gather money, getting payday loans, begging bosses for an advance on they paycheck, etc. If it was someone who previously had cancer and was being treated again, there was a possibility they would hit their life time maximum allowance and their coverage was done, for life. The saddest was when it happened to an 10 year old girl who had leukemia as a toddler and it kept recurring every few years. Her healthcare coverage ended at 10, she was uninsurable after that, and she STILL had to treat her cancer.
The shit part is, you need to be completely destitute to qualify for Medicaid, like an income of less than $1,200 a month. So the state expects you to sell what you can and essentially impoverish yourself before it steps in, that includes loosing your job if it makes over that much per month.
I don't care what people say about it, the ACA was a blessing. We need so much more in terms of healthcare in our country, but at least some rules were established and some protections enacted. We've been living under a rationed care system this entire time with terms dictated by for-profit companies. Now that pumpkin-haired shit gibbon is undoing all of the advancements the ACA has made.
Imagine that. It's literally cheaper to buy a gun and shoot yourself than to pay medical bills. Isn't America great?
That's America for you all the "patriots" who claim this is the best country in the world have their heads so far up their own ass
Walter White, anyone?
[deleted]
[deleted]
How much does it cost to go to a dentist? Dental work isn't covered here (unless you have insurance) and a routine checkup can run you at least a couple hundred bucks. BF just got a root canal and it would've been around a thousand had he not had insurance. What's it like in the states?
same. but they only pay 50% for major work even with the best insurance.
Yep, sounds par for the course. American here.
Just got a notification that my premiums for next year will increase by $400 a month. I'll be paying an extra 4800 a yr...sigh...
that heart breaking, I don't know how I could cope with that
It's just so heartless, I still have a hard time believing that this actually happens and some die-hard opinionated Americans believe that Canada's healthcare is awful and we sneak into their country frequently for their "superior" medicine and services.
Sounds like you need to learn about bootstraps!
This is the biggest issue when I consider moving to the USA. No country is perfect but having free healthcare is the number one criterium.
I can't live knowing that I would have to pay thousands of dollars if I get injured or sick.
Yep. US health care is corrupted, unfair, biased and nightmarish....
While the shitty examples of American health finances are often brought up, its not even close to everyone. The primary demographic that has coverage issues are people in the lower middle class - employed but don't have employer coverage and aren't paid enough for private insurance. Additionally, very small small businesses can be in this group as they're not large enough for a group plan or self-finance or anything.
Pretty much every other group has good coverage.
Old people - Medicare
Poor (legal or not) - Medicaid, CHIP, etc.
Corporate and Government types - heavily subsidized or free health insurance with good deductibles
Military - Tricare and on-base coverage
I know I'm leaving out some groups, but think about these 4 at a minimum when you ask why Americans aren't screaming for some kind of national health care.
I’m surrounded by smart people who believe that Obamacare, forced medical plan enrollment, is a terrible thing. What are some good alternative arguments
Universal healthcare.
Here in Scotland, I can see my GP any day I want. I can see a specialist consultant in a matter of days. Quicker if needed (i got referred to a skin cancer specialist one morning and had the appointment same day. All our prescriptions are free.
We pay about the same amount in tax as you do in the USA
I’ve heard that wait times to see specialists are extraordinarily long in places where health care is universal.... but you’re saying not in Scotland
Also in Scotland and I work in the NHS (research not clinical). I think a lot of people forget the second part of the 'free at the point of care' (ie the definition Bevan used in the 1940's for universal healthcare) statement, which is 'according to clinical need'.
So if you have a dodgy knee and it needs seen to but not urgently then you can wait a few weeks, whereas if you find something that worries your GP, you are referred and seen very quickly.
Let me give you a couple of examples. Two years ago I went to see my GP with an odd mole on my back. He didn't think it was anything to worry about, but best to be safe so referee me to a dermatologist at the hospital. The referral was the SAME DAY. She had a look, did some tests and said she didn't think it was anything to worry about, but best to be cautious. I was in surgery within two weeks. It would have been quicker, but I asked to move the hospital to one more convenient.
About six months ago, I had chest pain. I am 48, so went to the hospital. They diagnosed a chest infection but also picked up high cholesterol and referee me. Within two weeks I had an appointment with a cardiologist.
Had similar waits in England as I am English and only moved to Scotland two years ago. Oh, and in Australia.
Does that seem excessive wait times?
Sadly this is very common
TBH: I live in the US, have insurance and all but if I ever need (non-emergency) surgery/procedures I’m catching a plane and going to Central America, finding the best damn doctor and getting my treatment there.
I already do that whenever I visit the parents (about once a year) I go get checked for glass prescription, dental work, even a full bloodwork analysis. I literally check for stuff there’s no way in hell I could have, like toxoplasmosis—even though my indoor only cat was already tested and is negative—. Fun story: this is how I found out a few months back I may have underactive thyroid.
In total, I spent LESS than $1200 and that’s including round trip, non-stop tickets; food, going out with friends/family 4 out of 5 days for two weeks, mani-pedi, the aforementioned full bloodwork (about half of which was “just in case”), a new set of glasses with all the bells and whistles (anti-reflecting whatever and other stuff) and a crown for one of my teeth + dental cleaning.
How is this one not at the top? This issue seems very unique to the US and it's a huge problem here.
It's insane. In 1996 my grandma had a heart transplant, and they had to file medical bankruptcy. She passed last year, having racked up another 750,000 in medical bills while they spent months trying to figure out what was causing her to not digest food.
Same metabolic disease that took her heart in 96 took her intestines. $750,000, a second medical bankruptcy and they didn't know what was causing it until it was too late and she'd had a load of mini strokes.
Fun fact, one helicopter ride was $40,000
Came here to say this. It's a terrible situation to be in, that often only gets worse for those who need the most support.
That's the kind of situation that warrants a Michael Scott style "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY"
And now you know why you guys have a longer life expectancy than us.
At least we have access to that.
Just saw my doctor a month ago.... got the bull for $257.... insurance paid 25.70. I was In the office for 15 minutes and zero lab work done
Wow! That just sucks.
I work food service in America and it's so bad. You can't make rent working food so these people are already dependent on someone else or on government handouts.
I've worked with three people who got cancer, one I know is still struggling. They all pretty much just accept that they're going to work until they die and never pay it off.
Oh boy, wait till you learn about filial responsibility laws!
My Canadian wife had a brain tumor when she was in her 20's. didn't cost her a thing.
I had that it would have zeroed out my entire life savings.
The differences are stark.
Everyone brings up the wait times but you know who also waits....people with poor or no insurance.
And many of us don't want it because we'll believe any of the shit spitting out of the mouths of people like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk.
TotalBiscuit's wife is apparently 600k in debt from their cancer treatments among other things.
Did Obamacare make it better?
Thank the American health care system for giving us Breaking Bad.
Fuck. That. I'm Australian and stuff like that is 100% covered by the public health system.
I used to work at McDonald's and there was a crew person who worked evenings who was a teacher during the day. The reason she started working part time at McDonald's was to pay for her medical bills from having brain cancer. Her husband also worked two jobs to help pay the bills. There's no reason a teacher should have to work a second job for anything, let alone health care costs. It's unbelievable.
[deleted]
Yeah, really wish pharmacare was covered. I don't have insurance and it's a little ridiculous. I'm glad I won't have to go thousands of dollars into debt if I have an accident though.
Makes you wonder about the Canadian spinoff of breaking bad.
I live in uruguay (good but developing nation in south america) and I cannot fathom why the people in US have no free healthcare when we have had it for almost a century
I'm an American and still never relate to the posts like that. I live in rural Ohio and I don't know anybody without health insurance. In a town of about 3000 there have only been a handful life altering injuries but I have never seen any of them in financial ruin. I know I'm only one tiny little section of the US but it's really hard for me to grasp how our situation is so, so different from how Reddit portrays it.
I have cystic fibrosis. I am not going to transplant because I do not want to saddle my wife with that kinda debt when I die. Either way I'll die eventually. I'd rather her pay for a cremation then a million dollar lung transplant that I'll still reject eventually.
Yet Canada has worse 5 year cancer survival rates than the US.
Yep. Unfortunately in America we have a corrupt Democratic Party that actively prevents us from electing people who believe in universal health care and inadvertently contributed to electing the floppy fuckboi who now lives in the White House.
The shitty wait times for everything is a minor trade off IMO.
Whereas in Canada you are put on a waiting list and either die waiting to recieve treatment or die after you received treatment because you didn’t receive it earlier. Rather be alive and broke then dead with free healthcare.
[deleted]
Sure. That’s why (wealthy) people from some of those very same countries travel to the states and pay out of pocket as opposed to getting cured of cancer in their socialist paradise... on the same day
Why do Americans always use Canada as a counter example to universal healthcare?
Why not Germany?
Germany has a much higher population than Canada but a similar per-capita GDP.
Universal healthcare may not work for America’s Hat, but it sure as hell works here.
Every "White people" meme that I see online seems to come from Americans and doesn't apply to myself or anybody I know across a variety of European Countries.
My favorite stance on this is that if you're from Europe, you "probably ain't white, but you're italian, polish, what have you".
"Now, Susan, with her damned stupid casserole, has italian parents. She may be of italian heritage, but susan is white."
I was dating a canadian girl (I'm italian) and one day she was like - you know, you are the first 'not white' that I go out with -
I was quite confused so I ask what 'label' she would put on me and the answer was: Hispanic
Okay as a Canadian I think most people here would consider Italians white. Your girlfriend seems like a special case haha.
I'm a white ass Italian American and the CBSA would beg to disagree with you....
A well tanned white usually
I’m a pasty Italian American. And my husband is actually a pasty Hispanic. I would never consider myself Hispanic for being if Italian descent.
Well Columbus was funded by the Spanish queen, but he was Italian... That may be the source of this confusion
We should apologize to the guy for his girlfriend. It seems fair.
Yeah, we're sorry, eh? We'll get 'er learned a bit more, eh?
She thought he was Mexican. Come on people.
she was probably retarded
As a white American, Italians are white.
Half of Italy is dark skinned, not too far from the color of Hispanic.
Edit: Please tell me what your definition of a color is. It really helps.
I agree with you, but no one in Europe differentiates between "white" and "hispanic". We would consider Italians, Spaniards and Greeks all to be "white".
Dunno, usually I(am Finnish) call people with those characteristics "mediterranean looking".
Everything is pale in comparisson to a Finns skin
Finnish people tan really well, I live there and I'm always the whitest person in the room.
I'm Irish I do the same thing
They might be mediterranean looking but they're still white. Even arabs, persians and indians are technically white.
I agree with you, but no one in Europe differentiates between "white" and "hispanic"
this. If anything, I use 'Mediterranean' to refer to italians spaniards and greeks.
Hispanic isnt a color, someone cam be black, white, asian, etc. and be hispanic its an ethnicitiy referring primarily to latin america
Hispanic isnt a color, someone cam be black, white, asian, etc. and be hispanic its an ethnicitiy referring primarily to latin america
TBF asian also refer to a location and not colour.
I'm afraid this isn't 100% correct either, hispanic isn't an ethnicity or colour, but it refers to predominantly Spanish-speaking countries, rather than people from Latin America.
E.g. a person from Spain is Hispanic, but not Latino, a person from Brazil is Latino, but not Hispanic (Brazil is Portuguese-speaking), while a person from Mexico is both Latino and Hispanic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino
hence my use of the word primarily
Ah of course, apologies. To be fair to you, the majority of hispanic people are in Latin America, rather than Spain which has a population of approx. 40 million.
no worries dude, and i hope my reply dodnt come off too dickish, i was on mobile and had to drop a deuce but was locked out my casa
To be fair. Latino as a race in a North Americam invention. Latino is everyone that were born in countries with languages derived from Latin. Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Romania, etc...
(Sorry for being pedantic again) Technically in this case latino is not officially recognised as a racial category in the U.S. (you can be recognised as being white and latino, black and latino, mestizo and latino etc.), but its true that Americans refer to 'latino' as a racial category which is incorrect.
In this case, Italians, Spanish Portuguese etc. are referred to here in Europe as 'latin' peoples, rather than 'latino'. A person from Italy or Spain would not be latino, but are of course latin peoples in the same way Swedes and Austrians are germanic peoples, or Polish people are slavic peoples, or we Irish are celtic peoples in Europe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples
I always thought that Latino and Latin are the same word in different languages. Anyways in the page from the link you posted it shows: Latin peoples: Regions with significant populations Southern Europe, Western Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia. And below is divided on Latin Europeans and Latin Americans.
Why is there a specific racial term for someone who speaks Spanish but not one that speaks French or Polish? I've never understood these words or what they mean.
The point is in this case that the word hispanic is not a racial term. It's similar to the world anglophone used for english speaking countries.
Of course. But the term "white" in the west doesn't literally mean white skin. I'm not sure what the guidelines for calling someone white would be, certain facial characteristics? Country?
White as freshly opened printer paper. Think Snow White, white. Think so white all snow looks like peed snow. Whiter than a white dwarf (stars not people, dwarfs are not white). Think if you were in Lord of the Rings whites were whiter than Galadriel and Gandalf the White together.
Add some /s to all that.
Well in reality you are white if you aren't black or asian.
Nope. It does literally mean the color of your skin. What else would it mean?
It means whatever someone wants it to mean. It wasn't till a hundred years ago or so, that the Irish were not considered 'a white race'. Oppressors gotta oppress I guess.
So if a white person tans she's not a white person anymore? That's what I'm getting at.
So if a white person tans she's not a white person anymore? That's what I'm getting at.
I think you answered your own question there.
A tan person can definitively be considered white, which implies that skin tone and cultural backround is connected as stereotypes in peoples minds.
But your defult was a white person, and their "Race" doesnt change bcz they stayed in the sun.
Same as if a black petson cover themself their skin with chalk
Culture.
Privilege?
No, white is just a specific type of privilege.
caucasian?
"Caucasian" is a term made up to justify some obscure racist claims. Real Caucasians would rarely be thought of as white.
I'm Canadian and my view is like Black White Asian Latin/brown
Black is like origins from Africa Asian is obviously Asian origins White and Latin are hard to explain but and not correct but I'd consider like any south American or Central American, Spanish Italian Portuguese and middle eastern, latin/brown. I know it's not correct and may be a little offensive but I really don't know how else to classify it
So someone that looks like this is brown to you?
Nah my list is pretty generic and of course i wouldn't consider everyone from these places "brown" but in my mind if someone says there's from one of those places I kinda assume they have a darker complexion
In America there's a difference between European and White
I don't agree. You don't consider some Europeans white? I guess you could consider Italians Mediterranean. I mean Swedish people and German people are definitely white.
I guess I should clarify: there are European whites (aka Europeans) and Americans (aka whites). When I hear European I think everywhere from Sweden to Spain to Finland to Greece. When I hear White I think r/PeopleofWalmart
Yeah i noticed that in Europe the term white is not the exact same meaning as in north America. When I say white, it doesn't necessarily mean American.
Linguistics at work
But... where do you think those American white people came from?
Their ancestors were European, but culture turned them into American Whites
But... that culture is largely an amalgam of European cultures. Sorry if this sounds weird to you,, I'm the UK, and nobody I know distinguishes between 'American whites' and 'European whites'. Our cultures are so closely intertwined.
Nobody verbally distinguishes them, but if you ask and American to describe a white persons actions vs a Europeans actions there’s a huge difference. The cultures are very different, and not that intertwined. Sincerely, an American
ask an American to describe a white persons actions vs a Europeans actions there’s a huge difference.
Ok, I'll ask: what are American actions, and what are European actions? Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely curious about your answer :)
American whites are either gross people who constantly drink shitty soda and lurk around Walmart, stoners, or the sensible people living in suburbs wearing vineyard vines sweatshirt around their necks and the brown shoes. European whites are people who are productive with their lives, care about the lives of others, and are generally much healthier
Those sound like stereotypes to me, rather than actual cultural differences. In the UK, there are plenty of trashy people who don't give a shot about other people, and are far from healthy. I think it's just not a side of our lives you see very often, but I promise you it's very much there.
Hmm, good food for thought, but stereotypes, good or bad, are what most people think of when they hear any group of people, and not many Americans are exposed to real Europeans, hence why the general ideology of White is white American, whilst we have the word European for Europeans whites
True enough, but we're all more than just stereotypes, so trying to recognise that our cultures aren't easily put in boxes can only be a good thing
Wise words sir or madam , any more wisdom from you?
Don't eat the yellow snow :)
I’ll try my best
Technically Hispanic isn’t a race, so you could be white and Hispanic. A lot of people just use it incorrectly. Also, if you’re Italian, you’re white.
But if he's Italian, he's not Hispanic. Hispanic refers to people from Spanish-speaking countries: Spain or many countries in the Americas. His girlfriend is very ignorant and has no idea what she's talking about (IDK whether this misconception is typical of Canadians or not, but since I understand that Canada has plenty of immigration from both Europe and Latin America, I bet the average Canadian is not this ignorant about the meaning). I have heard people consider Italians not white because they are Mediterranean and often tan-skinned, but having tan skin and dark hair (which not all Italians even have) does not make one Hispanic. (And yes, one can be both Hispanic and Mediterranean, but being from Italy/ethnically Italian would not mean someone is Hispanic.)
Im an Italian in the US and ive been mistaken for hispanic multiple times. As far as looks go they can overlap sometimes.
Yeah, but that doesn't make you Hispanic. Hispanic is a specific group of cultural identities, not just "tan skin and dark hair." There are white blondes who are Hispanic, and dark skinned black people who are Hispanic.
I completely agree with you. Im not arguing about anything just wanted to make a point.
I understand, but honestly, there is not a Hispanic "look." Someone who looks at an Italian and thinks "they are not white because they are Hispanic" is operating from several different levels of ignorance and stupidity, though. They're not making a simply mistake.
Eh yeah probably some ignorance and stupidity in there but it doesn't offend me at all and I don't think if someone called an Hispanic an Italian that I'd be offended either so it doesn't really matter much to me.
In fact, I find it more funny than anything.
It's not about being offensive. It's about being blisteringly stupid.
It also happens that there are a lot of white Hispanics. LatAm has a very mixed population and some countries saw more European influx (or more indigenous massacres, as the case may be) at different times.
So in Mexico, and Central America there are some white and even fair-skinned people along with different shades of tan and and yeah sometimes a large amount of indigenous-looking population. The Caribbean has more of a Afro-descendant population but you’ll still find lots of white people (Cuba and PR come to mind).
I think Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay have more white populations in LatAm from Europeans setting in droves during WWII (both Jewish escaping Nazis, and Nazis escaping trials).
All Spaniards are white Hispanics.
Lots of Spaniards have darkish skin. Spain was once conquered by north African Muslims.
Yes, but wouldnt they still identify as white?
I thought Hispanic was just Mexican?
It means Spanish-speaking, basically. So Spaniards are Hispanic by definition.
Googling seems more set on it being a South and Central American thing.
The first definition Google gives is 'relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, especially those of Central and South America.'. It's focused on America because people talking about Spain will just say 'Spanish', but they're still Hispanic.
The Iberian peninsula, the place now occupied by Spain (and Portugal) was called Hispania in Roman times. Thus literally Hispanic = linked to Spain.
Ahhh nice! That actually means a lot to me, I know Iberia. Thanks!
Unless it was obvious, it's also the origin of the name Spain. Hispania > Espayne > Spain (and also Hispania > España)
Argentina actually had a boom of European immigration in the early 20th century - Buenos Aires was a major destination for immigrants (essentially the poor man’s New York).
However, the reason Argentina and Uruguay are as white as they are (Paraguay is not) is because they did their best to kill off their native populations, though in the end they were not so successful at it as the U.S. (There are some Jews in BA but not tons.)
Please educate yourself before talking about something you know very little about.
Yeah but in no way is an Italian Hispanic. Hispanic derives from Spanish...
Oh I know. I’m just pointing out that Hispanic isn’t a race.
Well, no, there are black, brown and Asian Italians.
You mean if you're an Italian of European origin.
Technically, there are no human races and that's why all those categories are bullshit
Technically, there are no human races
Tell that to the Neanderthals! Oh right...
We kind of went overboard with the genocide thing.
I'm Italian, Colombian and white :/
Do you speak Spanish? If so, that'd be why.
My girlfriend took months to admit that being Greek and Portuguese was white like being German French or English.
I may have a slightly darker complexion when I get some sun but come on.
In the US, Italians are often called "olive-skinned" or Mediterranean. Never 'hispanic'. Sorry, bro, you dated a dumb chick.
I'm assuming that's part of the reason for your use of the past tense.
I had the exact same experience with a blonde American girl from Newport Beach (I'm also Italian). It was bizarre, I was like "Wow, so I'm not white?" Completely made me re-think race and what it means (it's mostly just made up nonsense). I've had a few more experiences in life where I've been on both sides of the white / not-white coin, kind of a fascinating perspective actually.
My gf is Portuguese and gets that a lot. At least Portugal is next to Spain.
Italians often do not have white skin. Here' a chart foe you from Family Guy https://m.imgur.com/t75V7oe
[deleted]
My family is from Calabria and Sicily. My uncles are so dark they look Indian. But somehow we're still "white"
Ah she was half way right lol
As a Canadian: O.o
That's crazy! You're olive.
Ouch, that must have been a bit awkard
I mean there are plenty of people who would consider Italians to be olive or Mediterranean but Hispanic makes me think she may be an oh honey.
TIL: Italians are the reason I always have to select "White (Not Hispanic)".
Gotta make sure they don't think I am from Italy.
Hispanic
HAHA! Not even 'Mediterranean', which is still obviously white... but still. Hispanic. Ha!
I'm white as white can be but the Lion's share of my genetics are Italian from my dad's side. I look white, my friends think I'm white, my girlfriend thinks I'm white, but holy shit did the CBSA think I'm Hispanic.
My brother got the olive skin and law enforcement in general thinks he's Hispanic.
I knew somebody who was Romanian-American. He could tan to a dark brown color from sun exposure. (possibly he was actually Roma, i.e. gypsy, i.e. descended from South Asian people). He was kind of generically schlubby looking with a little mustache, and wavy black hair.
Random Latinos would walk up to him and talk Spanish at him, then get very annoyed that he couldn't understand them. Like he was some kind of turncoat Latino who refused to learn his parent tongue.
Random Latinos would walk up to him and talk Spanish at him, then get very annoyed that he couldn't understand them.
Fun fact: Romanian is a romance language, just like Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French, Catalonian, etc. Doesn't mean they're mutually intelligible, but you may catch some similar words.
Aha! A cultured man I see! Romanian and spanish are quite similar however, romanian has had a lot of slavic influence so its not as easy to understand as lets say italian
Italians are as white as Irish.
Tell that to Luigi Di Maio
[deleted]
"The first time I have eaten" is correct.
Also, highly likely the Canadian girl who thought the Italian was Hispanic said "the first time I have went out with."
you don't sound like an asshole, don't worry. I have learned english while living in the euro-bubble in Bruxelles... mostly french, italians and spanish speak their own english. Next week I'll start a job in London, I'm expecting to get a lot of these remarks :D
have went
Eye twitch
As a really tan Spaniard (that would probably get confused with a latino most days) I've often wondered what would I be considered.
Mexican. I wish I was joking. I’ve lived on and off in Spain and as someone from the south (NC) too many people think Spanish and Mexican are interchangable. I’ve frequently blown minds when I tell them Spain is in Europe. Anyone that looks remotely Hispanic is Mexican.
That’s because most Americans think thst Spanish is the language therefore anyone who Speaks Spanish is... Spanish.
Here I go and explain every time that is like saying that anyone who speaks English is English and not British, Australian, Etc
What will really blow their minds is that Spaniards are very white (with a touch of Arabic in some areas)
People don't really grasp that the Spanish language originated in Spain and is a European language, not south America
I've seen "Mediterranean" used to describe that.
As far as I understand, you are. Latino refers to cultures that speak Romance Languages like Italian, Romanian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, and French. Latino European and Latino American. That's what I've learned. If someone can add more will be good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino
The word latino refers to people specifically who are from latin America, in this case Italians, French, Spanish etc. would not be latino. The phrase 'latin peoples' is used to refer to people from countries where the romance languages descended from latin are spoken (which would include Italy, Spain, Portugal etc...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples
Post-WWII American immigrants of Polish, Italian, Jewish, Irish ethnicity came to be seen as mostly white. Before that they were not. Whiteness was restricted to the first waves of European-American immigrants, the British, French, Germans and Scandinavians.
so... what is white...?
The opposite of black obviously, duh!
Italians I can see as not being white white, but how are Polish people not considered white?
The explanation is that white means Anglo-Saxon, so basically only people from the British Islands (occasionally only the English themselves), and the Germans (which also includes the Scandinavians and Dutch). Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, etc., even if they have fair skin, are not considered white, but their respective nationality, as Slavs, Russian, Polish, etc.
It's a whack system used in the past in the United States. Of course, most people nowadays think differently about that.
So races only apply to Americans and the rest of us are just our nationality? Wow that's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
scandinavia is not real i guess
In that same vein, American's obsession with ethnicity and race. Also, how they consider themselves "Italian" or "Polish" or "German", just because of their last name or a long lost relative.
It seems that white people are the only "Americans", the rest are just "African American", "Asian American" or whatever, even though their family hasn't seen Africa since the 19th century.
Whiteness has never made sense. Trying to tease out some kind of cohesive definition is impossible because there isn’t one.
Can confirm. Growing up, I’ve always viewed white people memes as something making fun of US and Canadian people specifically. Europeans would have a separate set of memes.
Eh, its a bit of a thing here in Australia too.
Basically if you live in a colonised country as a white person, you kind of apply to some of the 'white people' memes, and thats fine. You just gotta accept that.
Americans have it different however, because they just killed all their indigenous people and replaced them with slaves they stole from elsewhere, where as here, we skipped the middle man and just turned the indigenous population into slaves! Yay colonialism!
It's not really the same in Australia... For starters we don't have anywhere near the same population of "blacks" to have this "black" and "white" dichotomy, and in most capital cities the equivalent social blocks would be Aussies and ethnics. I guess for us white = Anglo Aussie, and everyone else is ethnic
At least our colonizers were efficient! /s
I'm a Canadian white dude who grew up in a super white area. Going to the states and seeing the white people there is really weird. When I first went to Pennsylvania when I was 19 I was taken aback by the amount of stereotypical white people with socks pulled up to their knees and collared shirts done all the way up. I thought it was all a joke. Nope.
Or even black people. In Europe, black people are not associated with watermelon, basketball or fried chicken. Maybe they're more inclined to Hip Hop music, maaaayyybeee
[deleted]
Immigrants from Muslim countries definitely have their own slang. You can hear quite some wollahs, inshallahs etc.
[deleted]
Immigrants have a different language because they're immigrants. Natives usually don't whatever their skin colour.
You're ignoring the huge immigration from the Caribbean.
Yes - like the Australian KFC ad. It was during a big cricket game and Australia was playing Jamaica so it involved an Australian cricket fan sitting on the Jamaican fan side and making friends by sharing KFC. Made by an Australian, so we didn't even realise the potential rascist implications until the Americans got upset. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FftZt-Dw_hQ
There are two large cultural groups in the US which we might call "Anglo-Saxon American" and "African American". People who are "physically" white or black (i.e., having ancestry from Europe or Africa, respectively) are usually members of one of those two cultural groups, which is why people in the US typically refer to them that way.
There is no particular reason to believe that these cultural groups are similar to different cultural groups with ancestors from the same continent; for example French people or Zimbabwean people.
Saying "most black people [IN THE US] like fried chicken" is like saying "most French people like wine". It's a statement about a particular cultural group; it obviously doesn't mean there's something about West African ancestry that makes you like fried chicken genetically.
Who doesn't like fried chicken?
If you don't like fried chicken or watermelon, you've clearly got something very wrong with you.
I don't like fried chicken because of the bones and watermelon because of the seeds, hooray for being half wrong.
Are you even human? Is this proof that aliens exist? What planet are you from?
boneless fried chicken exists, and probably GMO watermelons now/soon
Who doesn't like wine?
This is the real question.
People of color here tend to be Arabs or people who immigrated directly from Africa, in which case the culture is obviously quite different.
Depends on which country indeed. Black people are 3rd-4th gen immigrants in ex colonial countries. Arab and turks maybe 2nd gen.
[deleted]
It's a stereotype from the Jim Crow days: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/05/22/186087397/where-did-that-fried-chicken-stereotype-come-from
Yeah, Americans just love to put "race" in every issue, even memes. They literally managed to create racially segregated twitter-joke subreddits even here on reddit (blackpeopletwitter and whitepeopletwitter).
They literally managed to create racially segregated twitter-joke subreddits even here on reddit (blackpeopletwitter and whitepeopletwitter)
I'm an American and I've been trying to figure this one out myself for a while. The theory I came up with is that the style and content of Black American humor is indeed unique and is also disproportionately represented in the media (because people find it much funnier due in part IMO to the linguistic advantage of using Black English which adds to the uniqueness), so I guess people were like 'let's cut the shit, African American humor is indeed its own thing so let's accumulate it in one place so you can find it if you want to'. Then whitepeopletwitter probably was probably inspired by blackpeopletwitter.
Whitepeopletwitter seems to create humor via the 'white people are boring' stereotype, whereas blackpeopletwitter has a much broader stroke and covers everything from African American humor to political, religious, or philosophical tweets that are relevant to many African Americans.
I still don't quite understand why there is this separation but I do want to point out that a very common stereotype is that black guys are funny, and this is probably related to black men being overrepresented in comedy. Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chapelle, Kevin Hart, Chris Tucker, Will Smith, and he who shall not be named (Bill Cosby), just to mention the main black comedians. Keep in mind that black men are 6% of the population but make up a much higher percentage of the comedy stage, and this could be a result of a cultural difference and/or a stereotype that resulted in people thinking it would be a good idea to sort the tweets by race. I'd also like to point out that just because you're a black person tweeting doesn't mean you get on bpt. You can be any race but have to be saying something relevant to the African American community or be black and employing themes or techniques generally considered to be part of African American humor.
I teach English as a second language and you should see how confused students look when I try to explain anything related to race in the US. It's absurd to people from Europe and specially Latin America how Americans in general refer to and deal with skin color. I once had a student ask me why in American movies and TV shows, couples are almost always the same ethnicity. I then spent some twenty minutes trying to explain what interracial means and that apparently it matters a lot in the US.
If the United States were a person, they'd need a psychiatrist.
couples are almost always the same ethnicity
I believe this is true anywhere you have multiple ethnicities in a society
Not really. Of course being of different ethnicities still raises an eyebrow, specially in more conservative circles but speaking as someone from South America, it receives nowhere near the same attention here as it does in the US.
I mean, I don't know how to explain it very well. I see people everyday (including myself) who probably look Latino or Mediterranean to Americans but here that's just... how people look? It's like Americans have these predefined categories: black, white, Latino, Asian, etc, and pay so much attention to that, while here there are many different shades of skin color around.
These racial categories are very uniquely American and something I think that we need to move away from as a country, but they are significant because of cultural reasons. An Asian American marrying a white person can cause a lot of problems in the Asian American's family, and also the Asian American is almost certainly the child or grandchild of immigrants, which has its own cultural uniqueness to it. It's the same when a country boy marries a city girl, regardless of race. It's a marriage across cultural lines and that's why it can raise an eyebrow and stick out.
Most countries being persons would need psychiatrists if you sit down and think about it. Especially if you ramp up the stereotypes.
But America needs it the most.
Not the ones that beat women and kill gays?
But those are simpler to explain. America has much more bizarre paradoxes etc.
Interracial relationships are a big deal in the US? That's a shocker
Depends on where you live. On the coasts, not so much.
Imo, America is better at dealing with it than most of Europe. Europe's approach to it is (or at the very least has been) "pretend minorities don't exist" and then act surprised when you've got a bunch of minorities that feel like they have no place in your society.
As an American, I really hate those subs. It's divisive just for the sake of being divisive.
It's really not that divisive though. It's common knowledge (and a common joke) that BPT is mostly white people, something like 60% is the number that floats around. And plenty of people participate in both, posting in whichever is more relevant to the joke at hand.
Racial issues are still a big deal in America. It can help to make stupid jokes and laugh at ridiculous things from Twitter.
How is dividing Twitter memes along racial lines helping? It's absolutely arbitrary. BPT has nothing to do with black people except that those are the people making the tweets. It's not opening a dialogue or anything.
Because it's a lot of the same group on both subs, all coming together and laughing about stereotypes on both sides. Everybody involved is having fun and getting along, which isn't always the case when you're dealing with race in America. It may not be "opening a dialogue" about serious issues all the time (that absolutely does happen on occasion), but it's making people comfortable talking about things that have historically been very uncomfortable.
That doesn't jibe with what I've seen, but ok.
As an Australian, I think they're hilarious.
THIS BOTHERS ME SO MUCH. It's almost as if I don't even feel white anymore? I'm a blonde, green eyed white half Swede/Finn, as white as I can get but nothing like this ever applies. Especially how everyone assumes my grandparents would be racist etc etc.
The whole 'white' thing only applies to white Americans. Scratch that, middle and upper-middle class white Americans basically. There is a distinct, common culture in those communities which basically defines the broader American culture. They drive consumer choice and changes in popular culture. Suburban upper middle class people of any race whose parents are doctors live in a different culture than people in the city or deep in the country.
Spot on!
It doesn't apply to whites in America, either — yet some blacks continually drive the false narrative that they are 'victims of systemic racism'.
In reality, they have access to any position in society (including president), live anywhere they choose and can afford, and pursue any endeavor they want.
False narrative? I have no words for how ignorant you are.
That's right — you got nothin'.
It doesn’t apply to almost any white people. It’s just a ego grab by some people.
this tbh. addressing a whole group of people as guilty by association is textbook racism, but it's gotten a pass in the states because... young people are retarded here? idk what the reason is, but there isn't a good one.
I worked in a low income area and got so much shit for fucking slavery, of all things. Bitch, my grandparents were from fuckin' Quebec. My family wasn't even in the states when slavery was a legal.
I feel like a lot of my fellow Americans (U.S.) don't even think about the rest of the world unless they're making a joke about it.
The joke is made by 'black people', which is why they call them 'white people'.
We used to have far more fine-grained racism. For example, people would be put down for being Irish or Italian in various parts of our history.
But melting pot and all. Hard to keep bashing someone for being "Irish" when they haven't been in Ireland in 5 or 6 generations and have zero Irish-specific cultural norms.
But skin tone is something that lasts through more generations, and African-Americans were the last race we enslaved, so we could build a fantastic hatred system around that.
Lol, I worked in France and ya’ll invented white-peopling, especially with the near constant accusations that I’m Chinese. That you don’t think it fits you is the epitome of white-peopling.
Bro, they dont even apply to white people in America. They seem to be black people's way of "talking shit about white people", but then again, who knows where they came from...
I don’t know on this one. I have many online buds from the Netherlands, Scotland, and Denmark, who love to troll each other with white supremacy memes as jokes. While you may disagree whether this is funny or not, they are very good people in real life, and hold none of the beliefs they pretend to hold, on twitter.
The world has forgotten that nothing is real on the internet. Though, having said that, I do have an uncle that sends me pretty bonkers and racist emails. I’m fairly certain he isn’t joking about is hate.
We joke with you guys with american memes. But just for each other we have lots of european memes
Or really even Canadians either, and we share the continent.
It's okay to be white.
Swap various ''white poeple memes'' out for Bavarian for some, and Bosnian for others...now they all work. You're welcome.
As a white American they don't apply to me either.
Far too many American white people act a certain way because race is a “thing” here whether they like it or not. White people are in hardcore denial of racism in America and are super defensive of their whiteness. If they don’t think they’re being full blown persecuted despite a disproportionate share of wealth and leadership positions, you have supposed liberals and moderates who “aren’t racist” act in denial, accuse us of reverse racism for bringing race up, say they don’t see race and other bullshit and all we can do is just laugh at the absurdity thus the memes.
Becky calls the cops on a black man because he’s grilling in public. Becky calls the cops because there’s a black girl sleeping in the lobby. Josh or whatever goes on a tirade because someone didn’t speak English in a private conversation in NYC. If white people didn’t do this shit we don’t have to discuss it, so as long as it happens, there’s gonna be a discussion if “white people”.
But now you are lumping together and judging a group of people based on nothing but the color of their skin. What would you call that?
Judging a select group of people based on their behavior. It only applies to white people because it requires denying white privilege.
the reaction I’m getting to my comment is a prime example of white peopling. We call this specific behavior “white fragility.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPDpcYEdiOg
But you are not restricting that select group on behavior, but the color of people's skin. You are assuming all people of a certain skin color will act the same way, and thus judging those people for how you assume they will act, which is textbook racism in a vacuum. How can you not see that?
I'm not being offended by your comments as a white person, i'm just baffled as to how does it seem like a good idea to fight racism and prejudice with racist remarks and prejudice.
The reaction you are getting to your comment is exactly what i would expect you would get spouting racistic nonsense against white people on a predominantly white site, and then saying it's okay because they are white and racist by default.
Textbook racism via google:
“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”
I don’t think non-whites are superior or that whites are inferior. I think many white people (not “all”) are hardcore in denial of their own racism I because they’re blind to it. Racism is so insidious and commonplace it’s just considered “normal” and that when someone says something about it, were being sensitive and snowflakes which is hilarious because you guys are the ones who freak out when we talk about “white people” but you guys don’t freak out about police brutality. You all adamantly deny the minority experience and perspective and we can see that by my post being downvoted to hell (Idgaf about karma and stand by what I say). This hypersensitivity to criticism is what we call white fragility. White people thinking they’re “not racist” because they don’t own a slave. If the worst thing happening to you these days is being “offended” because you feel like you’re being called out, you’re okay.
Ignoring and denying our voice and perspective is being complicit with the status quo. The status quo is tinged with racism since it was designed by white people to keep themselves in power and minorities in check.
First off, don't lump me in with american white people, I'm a finnish man living in Finland and i have no role in the race debate going on in america. I freak out about police brutality, but it's distant to me since it is non-existant in Finland. I freak out when i'm called a racist just for being white, since that is untrue, baseless and deflamatory. It does not make me "fragile", it makes me normal. It's a completely natural reaction to something we feel is unjust.
I think it is completely justified and the right thing to do to speak out about racism, and I don't claim people are sensitive when they bring it up (in most, reasonable cases). Yet i don't see how the situation is bettered by blaming white people on the color of their skin. I don't know how to solve the problems the people there are facing, but i know whatever is happening now is not the way.
I don't deny the minority experience or perspective, but the way to bring it up in such a hostile manner wont help your cause. I did not downvote you, and I dislike the way the downvote button is used in discussions in reddit, downvoting the unpopular opinions instead of off-topic rambling. It brings nothing to this transaction of ideas and concepts different people have.
I feel like many people nowadays have very negative feelings towards the remarks about racism and being racist, and react strongly against it. I've seen it used as a "crutch", and it brings down the magnitude of the issues behind the word. It loses some of it's meaning, and becomes a word people throw around light-heartedly to hurt and alienate other people. It is a serious issue in many parts of the world, and such pointless use of the word degrades it's power. Calling someone a racist feels like nothing more than an anti-white people slur thrown around to muddy up people's accomplishments and characters. That is one reason i myself react strongly to being called a racist.
When I say you / white people deny the minority experience, it’s not that you are downvoting me, but to say that you are trying to invalidate my perspective on racism by saying that I’m being “anti-white” and “reverse racist” to shut me down. By implying I’m being bigoted against white people, white people can keep on white peopling and wondering why we keep “oppressing ourselves.” Becky didn’t call the cops on a black man because she’s racist, she just wants to be safe. She’s following the law and regulations. He’s cleaning up the park. We’re being told when these overtly racist experiences we face aren’t racist but just “coincidences” when laws and regulations are historically unequally enforced to the benefit of white Americans. This is what we call systemic racism. Not explicit acts of bigotry but small behaviors by the average Joe’s that add up.
Also I did not call anyone a racist in my remarks. I think racism should not be associated with a particular person but specific behaviors. white people as you’ve described freak out about the term and think it’s a “slur”. When white people think “racists”, they go to extremes and think of Nazis and the klan. You’re too busy being offended to hear the point - the problem with “white people” is the tendency to focus on defending themselves or paying lip service to racism, but not being proactive about racism.
when you take a step back and recognize what went wrong with american slavery and the holocaust, wasn’t that everyone was overtly horrible savages. It was that the masses were complicit and/or blind to the oppression others were facing because it wasn’t their problem or they themselves didn’t really care for or think too much about blacks or Jews so their plight was ignored. Germans don’t recollect great violence with being a nazi- they say that being in the hitler youth was like being in the “Boy Scouts”. And their nazi affiliation was due to national pride during hard times, not virulent anti Semitism.
Not to mention I think it’s funny that white people think they have expert opinions on race and what constitutes as racism. It’s like a rich person saying they know exactly what’s up with poor people and say it’s not that they’re being classist, but that they’re lazy to why the wealth gap in the US exists. That Gwyneth Paltrow is a poverty expert because she took the food stamp challenge one week. I take your perspective with a heaping spoon of salt because you have the perspective of someone growing up in a relatively well to do, homogenous white culture so you don’t face the same racial dilemmas we do. If they worst thing happening to you is being offended for being assumed racist (which I did not by the way), you’re going to be okay.
I’m explaining this as frank as I can without being rude about it and I’m considered “hostile”. This is the exact reason why white people memes exist - because minorities can’t talk about white people doing this shit without being antagonized so it’s come out as memes the same way people talk about depression via memes. Turning issues we face into memes so we can laugh about our problems, find solidarity amongst each other, and no one knows if you’re serious or not so it’s easy to play it off when people freak out but the problem still exists. Lmaooo ~
Anyways, I’m done explaining white people memes. This is why it exists. Take it as you see fit, and god speed, Finnish person.
How about saying that those individuals are wrong, stupid, racist and not point to an entire race of people. Unless you're willing to concede that your skin color actually determines your actions?
Guess what that is?
That's because we no longer live in a white nation.
most white people stereotypes come from Americans because America is like the whitest place on Earth. I live in America btw, like 90% of people are white.
EDIT: guess was way to high probably more like 65%.
Where do you live exactly? The midwest? I've never been anywhere in the US that's 90% white (thank god). I live on the east coast and it's pretty diverse for the most part.
the town I live in is mostly white and my geuss was probably a bit too high.
Having just two parties
Also the massive partisanship like they were freaking football teams. They arent, mate.
Someone told me in heavy tone about turning from Republican to independent like it was a big deal. Mate, I swing vote harder than a swingers party.
You can thank Martin Van Buren for the way Americans treat our politics like sports rivalries. After the split vote in the 1824 presidential election led to the House of Representatives selecting the president, Van Buren realized that the citizenry just did not care enough about politics as it stood to vote cohesively in great enough numbers (this is an oversimplification of his logic, but will do for now) to guarantee a more "democratic" outcome. Therefore, he spear-headed a change in American political culture to make the whole election process more like a bunch of sports rallies instead of a few debates. Prospective candidates now had to give stump speeches and go out and interact with their future constituents at picnics and parades that were specifically meant to celebrate the politician or the political ideas which would later appear on the ballots. He intentionally moved to make it so that political parties were polarizing like race horses, so that people would be interested. Come to the Republican's Caucus Picnic! Free food, fun for the whole family, (and speeches from your soon-to-be favorite politicians)!
The whole political circus started because Martin Van Buren, a man who you could equate to famous images of men in suits smoking cigars in dimly lit backrooms at casinos and parlors , did not like how voting blocs in Congress did not always mirror the electorate.
Of course, his system, which was ultimately an experiment for years, was proven effective when he himself won the presidency, thereby cementing to all the up-and-coming movers and shakers in American politics that the political circus was the answer.
And I know I oversimplified in some places regarding Van Buren's motivations, so I apologize.
Thank you for this!
Van buren my least favorite president. What an ass.
He was essentially a mobster without the guns.
He engineered the beginnings of fealty to your "mob" of choice aka parties. Parties were functionally dead in 1824, which is why there were 5 main candidates for the presidency that election cycle. And Van Buren found he couldn't be influential in this political climate, so he wanted to strengthen partisanship, and then be the driver of the vehicle he had rehabilitated.
It worked. And everybody saw it worked. And so people ran with it and admittedly, it got out of control. Van Buren never imagined what we have now would be ideal. He wanted democracy to prevail, but he wanted a mechanism to hone democratic choices, and partisanship was his chosen mechanism. What we have now is definitely too far gone from what he envisioned.
He’s also the only President not related to King John.
And the first American born President.
He’s also the only President not related to King John.
That was done during Obama's tenure. Do we know if Trump is, too?
Obama is related to the Bush family and therefore is related to King John.
I didn't say anything about whether Obama was related to anyone. I said the research was done during Obama's tenure. I then asked if Trump was also related to King John.
Oh I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I thought when you said "that was done during Obama's tenure" you meant that it was over with when Obama took office and Van Buren was no longer the only president not related to King John. My mistake, sorry.
Eh, I get how someone can think I meant that. I'm pretty sure the other person that responded to me thought the same. It's all good.
There's more dicks that have been president who are arguably worse. Like Andrew Jackson. Dude literally committed genocide and was probably insane at some point.
Didn't that actually happen under Van Buren? Much of the ground work was laid by Jackson but I think it was Van Buren who pulled the trigger.
[deleted]
Hope, Change and Zombies!
van je buren moet je het hebben
Spraak van Buren Nederlands?
Yeah. Only US president ever to speak English as a second language.
Oh, and it's *sprak.
Wow, this is false on a lot of levels. The first of which is trying to suggest that Van Buren spearheaded a change in partisanship that lasted until the modern day, the second of which is that his campaigning style was especially different from what came directly before or after, and the third of which is the suggestion that he’s the dude that ended power brokers and made it interesting for the people.
Martin Van Buren's version of partisanship is not the modern final product, that is certain and obvious. However, Van Buren absolutely spear-headed increased partisanship from what the nation had in the mid-1820s because a lack of well-defined partisanship is what he blamed for the pell-mell of the election of 1824.
He accomplished that a number of ways. I did not list them all in great details, nor did I give a fully detailed dissertation on the exact progression year by year. I stated as much.
And I never stated that Van Buren ended power brokers. I actually heavily implied that Van Buren was a power-broker himself, and in fact he was a New York bully boss of high repute. He did not like that he was out wheel-and-dealed in the election of 1824 and he believed that the wheeling-and-dealing should be done in such a way that you had to rope the people (and specifically the electors) so that there were backroom alliances being forged on the backs of democratic movements by the citizens.
The mess of a political field in the mid 1820s meant Van Buren wanted future parties to have a "discipline" to them. The voters who identified with the parties were to be more-or-less in lock-step with whatever the designated (and previously negotiated) platform of the party was to be. This was not necessarily the advent of, but the strengthening of, the concept of the candidate fits the party platform and not the other way around. Recent years have seen that flip, but Van Buren, who brought together the coalition which supported Andrew Jackson (who Van Buren believed should have won the 1824 election after all considering he had the most electoral votes going into the house decision) in the election he actually won, campaigned on the promise that his policies were continuations of Jackson's and that established firmly the continuity of party policies, not candidate policies, were how voters were to vote.
Surely, his campaigning style wasn't a completely different animal from previous campaigns, but what came after and for decades to come was sparked into an evolution the likes of which would not have occurred if not for his influence.
I knew that generalizing and skimming would get me into trouble with someone, and so I hope diving deeper into specifics the second time around helped.
[deleted]
I apologize. Most of this topic's knowledge came from textbooks I have sitting in my apartment or in class notes from Uni.
I could add two online articles I just fact-checked for my second response but they were supplementary to my points and did not directly contain the meat of my argument.
It's alright man, it's not on you. People, especially myself, when faced with a new an interesting idea should take it upon themselves to research the subject. Sources just help me for when I'm too lazy or too apathetic to learn.
This isn't AskHistorians, feller. And if you're a regular redditor who believes everything written in a sizable text wall must be true, then you must think that everything that every happened happened in nineteen ninety-eight when... you get the idea.
Ah, alright, I think I see now what you're getting at. If I'm understanding correctly, you're stating that Van Buren ushered in a change in how parties worked, creating the system that defined the decades after (up until the Civil War) and the patronage system? A return to the two party system, instead of the 'Happy times' of before.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding you earlier, I had assumed that you were taking a more broad view of american politics and boiled it down to 'the reason we have partisanship is because Buren in '28' but I can now see that's not what you were going for. I'm no historian so I won't comment too much about that time period, but I still find it difficult to believe that Van Buren was the only architect on this. Do you have any sources or resources that can expand on this?
I framed it awfully in my initial post, so part of the blame is mine, but I guess if you look at it from the perspective of "the way the election of 1824 shook out was bad and this was because of a lack of partisanship therefore more partisanship is good" you have the baseline for Van Buren's whole strategy. It caught on and became the baseline for American politics going forward because it worked since Van Buren got Jackson and himself elected.
And I will need to get home and dig out the books and Uni notes which are my sources on this, so I can give you a name for further research. I will come back to this comment.
Now I understand why my APUSH teacher hated Van Buren so much.
Huh TIL
I would imagine the shitshow of a reality TV show we have going on makes it even worse. Every election starts earlier and earlier. The news media twists public opinion... Hell if it weren't for them giving Trump so much attention, he wouldn't have won the primary.
Interesting
So we blame the Dutch, I got it.
He also started the infamous Van Buren Boys which terrorizes the streets of NYC to this day.
TIL
I now have a new entry in my list of "People to murder when I get my time machine working"
Martin van buren sounds like a Dutch name. My grandpa once told me that the voting system in America was also a old Dutch way of voting (the system of every state having a number of votes instead of the popular vote). Not fully sure if this is true.
But maybe the Dutch are all to blame for al your political voting problem.
He was a descendant of Dutch immigrants - and the only President to speak English as a second language.
It was actually because the Democrats wanted to defend slavery in slave states, they wanted their base to see the anti-slavery Republicans as "Fascist" for impeding on their rights as slave owners. They wanted a means to oppress any anti-slavery vote in the Democratic party.
Van Buren wasn't a Republican, btw.
Referring to the parties by those names at the time is disingenuous.
The remaining party in 1824 were the Democratic-Republicans. Van Buren did belong to this party. They eventually dropped the "Republican" part of their title just by way of less usage. Small side note: the first two major political parties were the Republicans and the Federalists. The Republicans from that time became the Democratic-Republicans, and then just the Democrats.
The rival party which Van Buren's system gave rise to was called the Whigs. They eventually became the Republicans. At any rate, equating the platforms of those parties then to the parties we have now by way of direct lineage is also disingenuous. The parties transformed plenty of times over the history of America, in name and in platform.
For those who are politically involved, they’re like sports teams where, if your team loses, you expect outcomes over that politician’s term to negatively affect your life. Hence the “other side” is seen as a villain, etc. and not your fellow countrymen—but if there wasn’t an all-out ideological war, convincing others to pick a side becomes harder when the stakes seem less important.
This is partly intentional posturing, and even moreso a diversion by groups attempting to retain power.
Only if your lucky enough to have one of the two parties completely reflect your values...
People are so much more complicated than that and your attitude regarding political “sides” does not acknowledge that.
Maybe if you were “politically involved” in a place without a two-party system it might be more obvious.
It is true that most people are more complicated than that. Unfortunately, political discourse in this country has been little more than “that other one is the bad guy” for decades.
It is a big deal. Even bigger is starting a centrist party.
You should tell that to the UK. New centrist party every other Tuesday here.
Let's be honest though. The UK is turning into a two-party system, unless you live in Scotland.
Then it's a one party system
You guys are almost a two party system lol Really it comes down to torries or Labor
We are no better in Australia. Labor or liberals here with the odd minor party thrown in some times
The difference is, between the UK and the US, the large parties have to make promises to stop the small parties getting too big, for example the David Cameron promising to have an EU vote to make more people, who would vote for UKIP, vote for them.
So your politicians work politically to mostly keep the choice between two major parties? Lol
Same in Australia, exactly the same. We admit it's mostly a two party system though and that, that can be bad.
You guys are much the same. Not saying it makes you bad but know this isn't just a US issue. It's an issue a lot of countries face
I whole heartedly agree. At least in the past, I hadn't I viable party to match my ideology who had any chance of getting into power.
It's literally impossible. What exactly does a centrist stand for? Say the centrists agree 50% with the democrats and 50% with the republicans... I can come along and agree with 50%D 50%R and 0% with the new centrist party, because the new party and I can't agree on which half of each is in the center!
That would be true if ALL issues could be divided to be left/right. They aren't. Green party here is usually on the right but sometimes on the left, depending on what benefits environment (and "other" reasons..). There is a whole host of options available and up for discussion the second you stop using two parties that somehow has to be both at or near 50% support. And the left/right divide based on individual freedoms which makes this divide to be: right vs everyone else who isn't 100% about individual freedoms. Which PERFECTLY describes US politics: there is no left/right in USA.. There is only far right and everyone else, green, dems, leftist are all on the "left" camp because of that one single thing..
Third party would not follow dems/reps 50/50, it is more like 25% when it comes to issue X but only if Z and W or an apple, otherwise it is 100% vanilla custard (ie, it is absurd to think about third party to be between two options since there are thousands of options..)
Centrist party is a euphemism. Think in a thrird party with own ideas. Its posible.
It’s not a euphemism, it’s a positioning thing. It’s things like social conservatives with economically “socialist” ideas, where it’s positioned to the right of the Democrats on social but left of the Republicans on economics. You’d have a corresponding socially liberal and economically libertarian party in the “centre” to counter balance in a normal system, and that’d give you the voter a greater range of choice based on whichever party is more closely aligned with your preferences.
The problem is the voting system and how the maths forces a 2 party system. Watch CGP Grey's "Politics in the animal kingdom" for explanations
EP 1 - The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
EP 2 - The Alternative Vote Explained
EP 3 - Gerrymandering Explained
Bullshit, you can have 2 left wing with similar thinking.
Uh, no, we have them everywhere parties are a thing...
You would stand for not being irrationally extremist about things.
Most people are reasonable about most things. The two party left-right system forces more and more extreme views though.
As an example there was an abortion discussion on reddit recently and a lot of people on both sides realised they have exactly the same views -> abortion as a last resort, and good options to reduce the need for it. They may quibble over details but the general idea was the same. But for some reason people end up divided and believing they are at odds with one another. Pro-lifers imagine they are debating someone who enjoys baby murder and pro-choicers think they are debating religious fundamentalists who hate women. While each side has those extremists most people are far more rational and reasonable.
What a massive fucking waste of time. Imagine a party - and media outlets - that didn’t encourage this and instead sought to bring people together and highlight similarities instead of differences.
I have difficulty believing that any "pro-lifers" had the ability to see anything other than absolute ban on abortion and though individuals may have views that suggest prevention, the political side they are on suggests abstinence only and the believe and the death penalty and despise "welfare".
Right
Kill murders
Left
Try to reform murders
Central
Only kill half the murderers
But which half to kill?
The top half
Random, like thanos
Perfectly balanced
as
all
Roll a D20. Odds die, evens live.
That's not how saving throws work.
There is a centrist party. They're called Democrats. The left/progressive/democratic socialist wing is barely represented in the USA and lives in the fringes of the DNC.
No, lives in huts in SoCali and the fringes of redwood forests of the North.
Also, in grubby Eastern high-rises. Without garbage disposals, apparently.
Optional chutes.
Democrats are not centrist. If a political system is devided between two parties and a "center" group that doesn't wholly believe in either, one party can not be both one party and the center group.
EDIT: I understand the are multiple perspectives to this issue, but my point stands. Also, the downvote button is not the disagree button.
Also I appreciate the responses, I love seeing other people's views!
[deleted]
I'm not arguing that at all, I agree it's stupid; that doesn't change my argument though.
You're using differing definitions of "center". You're thinking in the context of the center of two dominant political parties (something the democrats are obviously not and cannot be as they are one of the two dominant parties).
The guy you're responding to is referring to where the power structure within the Democratic party fall on the political spectrum in relation the beliefs of the American people.
If you go by polling on issues vs. where the parties throw their support, his statement is actually justifiable (that the dems tend to be centrist and don't push hard for policy that the left of the democratic constituency supports) and depending on context either of you could be correct. It's not really an argument, you're just coming at the term from different angles. I agree to say the democrats are a centrist party is an inaccurate (or at least incomplete) way of stating it, though I would also argue that to say they're "left" is also an inaccurate statement as they do not represent left policies, even where there is public support (aside from social issues which the dems do tend to support, they're economically centrist and even right in some instances compared to popular opinion, established academic schools of thought in the US, etc.).
It is also fair to argue that the left wing of the political spectrum in the United States lies in the Sanders-esque "democrats" who only run as dems because they have to, and it's just plain correct that the established party which has found success in neo-liberalism through the 80's-90's is at odds and in conflict with that wing.
This is actually really interesting. Thank you for showing me other angles of this!
On a political spectrum, the US Democratic party is pretty center, maybe slightly left of center. They are actually aligned quite closely with Canada's Conservative party
Democrats are moderates, though, when compared with European leftists (let's be honest; the U.S. has Tories, and batshit backwater cuckoos). Those are the two parties.
In the U.S., Bernie Sanders was a "pinko, commie, fill-in-the-foaming blanks," in Europe, a run-of-the-mill leftist politician (you know, another boring democratic socialist), not some commie revolutionary whackspazz who just might hiccup and say something a little too meaningful, thereby necessitating constant surveillance by tough guys in trench coats and scrunched hats in case, you know, he gets those hippies organized.
I would agree on an international level the Democrat party is fairly moderate, but the person I replied to was talking about American politics; in the American system they are not centrist.
Yes, BUT LET'S BE HONEST. THEY'RE MODERATES.
That's why I said moderates, not centrists, to avoid this very quibble.
...oh. moderates. I would actually agree on that haha. Shows how one word can really change things. I should read better next time!
It can if it occupies the centrist position on most or all issues. In the US, we have only the extreme right and the center-right of the larger political spectrum represented by major parties. Minor parties represent a more secular extreme right (Libertarians) and some hippie nonsense (Green), but there is no serious consideration given to ideas from the left of center. What we think of as "crazy pinko talk" is considered to be a proven centrist path in the rest of the developed world.
Our Overton window is way out of whack and we're in for a very uncomfortable correction period.
Permissive stance where fundamental cultural disagreements exist.
For example:
Culturally, we have a strong agreement that murder is wrong and should be illegal.
Likewise, with rape. Perhaps not as strongly as with murder, unfortunately, but still solidly there.
Gun ownership: pretty divided. Permit it, or pass legislation that is permissible by the majority.
Abortion: pretty divided. Permit it, or pass legislation that is permissible by the majority.
Areas where we are fundamentally divided have no business being legislated, except where they are clearly human rights violations. The battleground for divisive issues should be cultural, not political.
In the short term, the centrist party can act as a voting bloc, with reccomendations for local and federal candidates from other parties. This can be done by officially approving or rejecting certain candidates, largely guaranteeing extremists will not be voted for, or will be voted against, depending on the opposition.
In the long term, voting for centrist candidates, once there are enough people involved to pull it off.
Areas where we are fundamentally divided have no business being legislated, except where they are clearly human rights violations.
When it comes to abortion, the problem is that both sides think it's a humans rights issue, in different ways.
Don't get legalistic. That's a divisive issue and deserves no official mandate.
If killing babies is legal, then so should sterilization.
Sterilisation is legal, as long as it's voluntary.
Let me rephrase then, if abortion is legal, then you should be irreversibly sterilized at the same time so you never have to come back to kill more babies.
And yes both the man and the woman that made the baby get sterilized, or you don't get a state-funded abortion.
I don't think it's particularly common for someone to get multiple abortions.
You do know that a majority of abortions are for rape victims, right? It's not a fun weekend gathering.
I believe in individual responsibility and the 2nd amendment.
Responsibility for being raped? Do you have no empathy?
Abortions are done in the first trimester, you havent even named "it" yet. "It" isnt even recognized by the government until its born. There are more than enough reasons for abortion to be allowed. But if you're opposed to it i'm sure you wouldnt mind paying higher taxes for homes for the unwanted/unsupportable children or even take them into your own home?
I could have been aborted, I wasnt, instead I almost killed both my mom and myself being born 2.5 months premature, if she had died and I had lived, I would have preferred to be aborted as I hadnt even understood the concept of "life" yet, meanwhile she was living hers.
Naming and government recognition seem to be pretty arbitrary criteria for determining what is living and what is not.
But if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder in many states. So it isn't accurate to that it isn't recognized by the government. The people who decide whether it's recognized or not are the same people fighting for and against abortion.
Regardless you are just demonstrating the problem here. You make several huge leaps of logic and expect people to just agree with you while also attempting to dehumanize anyone who doesn't.
This inability to ever consider that the opposing side might have a legitimate reason for their views is very much at the heart of this partisan split and the reason nothing seems to get done. Stop attacking and start listening.
The point is that women are people, and preventing abortion was the real legislation--women have been having abortions and it's been women-only business for thousands of years. The state didn't step in in the West to prevent abortions until the invention of the Western state, which also very credibly created gender roles exploiting both sexes for industry, men for underpaid labor and women for unpaid labor (see the fantastic historical text about the campaign of the with trials Caliban and the Witch for a start).
Abortion has always been's women's business and never should have been subject to legislation in the first place.
However, to be entirely logically consistent, someone against abortion who believes it is "literally murder" should make zero exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and also should be out there picketing fertility clinics. For some reason whenever it comes to that last part crickets.
The point is that women are people, not incubators, pregnancy is both dangerous and life-changing (with regard to not just the child itself but the health of the mother), and preventing abortion was the real legislation--women have been having abortions and it's been women-only business for thousands of years. The state didn't intercede in the West to prevent abortions until the invention of the Western state, which also very credibly created gender roles exploiting both sexes for industry, men for underpaid labor and women for unpaid labor (see the fantastic historical text about the campaign of the witch trials after the era of the Enclosures in Caliban and the Witch for a start).
Abortion has always been's women's business and never should have been subject to legislation in the first place.
However, to be entirely logically consistent, someone against abortion who believes it is "literally murder" should make zero exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and also should be out there picketing fertility clinics. For some reason whenever it comes to that last part crickets.
Regardless you are just demonstrating the problem here. You make several huge leaps of logic and expect people to just agree with you while also attempting to dehumanize anyone who doesn't.
Didn't you JUST say the same thing to someone saying something totally different?
What "leap of logic" is it to say that legislation about abortion only began to be legislation once the male-created state was invented? How is that a "leap of logic?" It's history, not logic; it has nothing to do with logic.
Also, you failed to address any of my points. Are you against abortion under any and all circumstances? Also, are against fertility treatments and clinics?
It's almost like you're just copy-pasting... (unless this is another person who copy-pasted for sarcasm, sorry, couldn't bother looking)
I'm copying my central point because the isn't a discussion about abortion but a discussion about how the polarizing topics are used to drive voters apart. And look you guys took a one off statement and started preaching your sermons instead of actually listening to what was being said.
Uh...no we didn't. So you accomplished nothing.
However, to be entirely logically consistent, someone against abortion who believes it is "literally murder" should make zero exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and also should be out there picketing fertility clinics.
Just as an example - I do believe it is "literally murder," and in fact in the case of myself (am female) I would not choose abortion in the above cases, and I would counsel against it if another woman in such a situation came to me for advice.
However, I recognize that there IS another life to be considered here, and that our law says that even in the case of organ donation, you cannot take even a dead person's organs without consent, even to save another life. In that sense it is internally consistent within the law to permit abortion.
In either case the law takes the stance that one person's life does not come before another person's human rights.
My effort, therefore, goes toward reducing the frequency of these ethical/moral quandaries - convincing more people to consent to organ donation, and encouraging free contraception so an unwanted pregnancy is less likely to happen in the first place.
Oh, but a fetus is not an "organ," and if a mother is dying in childbirth, she's dying from something that could only be prevented by the murder of another...so...quandary? (Why should her life supersede that of fetus if fetus is literally a person)? The inconsistent laws in the U.S. are insane, persecuting women for miscarriages when abortion is illegal (it's just same-old same-old reproductive policing).
You didn't answer my question against fertility procedures. Are you against them? (You should be!)
Depends on what aspect of fertility procedures. If you mean IVF, yeah, I'm definitely against the kind where they dispose of extra embryos.
If you just mean taking steps to make conception more likely, like surgical work on a bicornuate uterus, I don't see a specific problem.
Do you regularly speak out against IVF? Why aren't there people picketing IVF clinics, do you think? (I take it you're against embryonic stem cell lines, too? Where does that factor into the sanctity of life? Or is this less about "potential lives" than "actual lives?" In that case, what makes a fetus an "actual life" rather than a potential life? I suppose the morning after pill is out for you too, right? But not birth control?) Is this a spiritual belief? (I mean, what constitutes a person? Is a week-old human embryo more a person than a fully-grown non-human mammal? What grants personhood and human rights? What about rights for other sentient beings? What level of self-awareness must a being possess to be granted the right to life?)
Why would you guess someone anti-abortion might be pro-IVF? Is there a reason IVF clinics aren't as vilified as abortion clinics, struggling mothers undergoing IVF not as vilified as women who have abortions?
Should women who have abortions go to prison, in your world, where it's illegal?
Is it better that abortion be driven underground? Should a woman whose birth control has failed be forced to carry a baby (I suppose so, since a woman who's been raped should, as well)? What if the baby is absolutely going to be born with a horrific disease which will cause it a poor quality of life and a very early death? Does quality of life for the child come into this, if not for the parents?
Are you equally about sanctity of life after birth, when it comes to raising, caring for, paying for children--their health, well-being, education? How about supporting young families? Single mothers?
Is the death of any woman who didn't want the baby she was forced to bear "worth it," to you, to prevent the murder of fetuses?
Should pregnant mothers be policed and charged for intentionally or unintentionally causing harm to their fetuses?
How is "pro-choice" anti-life? (What does "life" mean? Again? Potential? Viable? What?)
Wow that is a LOT of questions. I'll do a few for now and come back when I have more time to write.
I do appreciate how many angles you are looking at this from.
Ok, let's start off with
Should women who have abortions go to prison, in your world, where it's illegal?
Actually, in my goal world, it is NOT illegal, but it is very very rare, because it has been made unnecessary. It is a religious stance for me, and the US is a country of religious freedom, but not a country with a state religion. If I could change the laws to make it follow my religion, I wouldn't; forced religion is not the goal. I want people to freely choose to follow a religion.
I do strongly believe that a fetus is a human being with human rights, but I do acknowledge that it is internally consistent within the law not to force one human being to save another one's life at the cost of their own freedom.
Should pregnant mothers be policed and charged for intentionally or unintentionally causing harm to their fetuses? Is it better that abortion be driven underground? Should a woman whose birth control has failed be forced to carry a baby (I suppose so, since a woman who's been raped should, as well)?
I think my answer to the previous question makes these moot. I don't want to force anyone to do anything, and underground abortions kill MORE people.
Are you equally about sanctity of life after birth, when it comes to raising, caring for, paying for children--their health, well-being, education? How about supporting young families? Single mothers?
Yes, and I feel that a lot of people on the pro-life side forget this part. There are foster/adoptive families in my extended family, and I've seen the struggles they go through. I plan to foster kids when my own kids aren't so tiny (they're 2 & 4).
I strongly support aid programs for young families; WIC kept us afloat when my daughter was born. (I had spent my entire pregnancy very nearly too sick to stand, let alone hold down a job, and my husband had gone back to college and was in his last year there. We were on a pretty tight budget, but WIC made sure we had enough to eat.) Although I am aware that some people don't want to support the choices a single mom or an unemployed couple has made.... failing to financially support the children is punishing those who are by any measure blameless. Education in this country needs work, but I feel that the current adjustments are going the wrong direction. And I'd be all about single-payer health, it would cost far less than our current system.
Is the death of any woman who didn't want the baby she was forced to bear "worth it," to you, to prevent the murder of fetuses?
No. Unwilling, preventable death is bad. That's kinda my whole point on this. It's bad if it's the unborn baby, but it's also bad if it's a woman who dies of foreseeable issues. Being in a situation where there is not a chance for both to survive is a tragedy.
I'll write more later.
wouldnt mind paying higher taxes for homes for the unwanted/unsupportable children or even take them into your own home?
Take the money that goes to fund abortions, and instead of killing the babies you don't want to deal with, use those funds to raise them and fund full sterilization for those that give birth to children they don't want to care for.
We have plenty of ways for people to keep using their bodies as a theme park without resorting to killing babies. It's unnecessary as a means of population control and only useful as a medical intervention where the existence of the baby is compromising the life of the mother.
Besides that, people will still get black market abortions or go to another country with a lower regard for human lives. It's morally abhorrent to kill babies no matter the legality of such action. I used to be for abortion, but then i asked myself if i just wanted abortion to be legal so that i could abscond from my responsibilities or if i thought it was a reasoned, ethical approach to solving unwanted pregnancies.
I think I've made it clear where I stand on the issue now and the fact that I used to support killing babies makes me sick to my stomach.
Or just fund comprehensive sex education that explains how contraceptives work and fund a program to make them all freely available to everyone.
The problem isn't the existence of abortion; the problem is no pregnancy should ever be unwanted. If we had spent half the energy on talking about curbing unwanted pregnancies that we spent on relitigating Roe v. Wade, we'd have solved it by now.
"To abscond from my responsibilities" um...okay.
Zygotical.
Lol. This guy is a radical centerist guys.
👈👈zoop👈👈
Nailed it.
Centrists is a term made up by people who want to fit everyone neatly into a category. I have been called a centrist yet I often don't take the "center" on many issues. I personally consider myself non-partisan; because I dont choose my political parties like I choose my sports teams.
I don't take ideas regarding politics as a package deal. I try and think for myself regarding each separate issue.
It's not that I don't stand for anything, like some people on the left and right, will have you believe. It's that I do stand for things and am not afraid to stand by myself to uphold those beliefs.
Being loyal to a group of lieing politicians is crazy.
It's spelled "lying," but everything else is dead on.
Lol thanks
And a centrist party would have to have a stance about abortion and gun control... which would automatically make them side with Democrats or Republicans.
Not necessarily. I am basically centrist, and my considered opinion on both those issues does not align with either party. There are more answers than two.
I have no idea if this is sarcastic or just stupid........
This pattern of thought is what I can't relate to.
The centrist party could stand for anything they want just like the other parties, they don't have to be literal to their title
Like having one opinion on abortion and another on taxes. That being sais the centrist party in my country is the most incompetent gathering of dumb-nuts
There's not a centrist party because there aren't centrist voters. Even so-called 'moderates' aren't really moderates; they're cross-pressured.
Someone might be pro-universal healthcare, pro-gun, and anti-choice, and they'll be called a 'moderate'. But a moderate would mean they're for a solution in the middle on most or all issues, and that's not what almost anyone is. People have strong views on either side on almost every issue, but most people have those strong views on either side depending on the issue, and they just sum everything up and pick which issues are most important to them and that's the party they vote for.
A centrist party isn’t for centrist voters.
A centrist party is for voters who think the current party is doing a crappy job and want to protest vote without feeling like they are committing to that other side.
Usually in reality the third party ends up splitting the vote, but it makes people feel good and helps keep other parties in check.
It won't work unless we change how our voting works
Actually, it can work by circumventing how out voting works, and by starting as a organized centrist voting bloc.
The Democrats already exist.
So far every person who claims to be a centrist when pressed on the issue more often than not gets placed at the 'moderate right' on the political scale.
Press me please, I'm curious to know if I'm a true centrist
Do you regularly use the phrase "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" in political conversations in order to sum up your beliefs?
No. Typically in a political conversation, after much deliberation and trying to get people to understand my position, but failing to do so, I sum up my beliefs as: "It's all about balance, man. Either extreme is not the full solution" or some such.
Ugh. No, thanks though. If anything, I'm more left-leaning, but I definitely view that as a personal flaw more than anything.
However, I have absolutely no qualms in saying that the Republican party is currently a horribly infested and infiltrated mess of corruption.
We actually do have a centrist party, it’s called the Democratic Party.
The extremes of the right don't mean the left isn't left.
When leftists vote, they usually vote Democratic. But the Democratic Party is not a leftist party.
Look, I'm not arguing that the Democratic party hasn't migrated toward center because there Republican party has lost its shit. Both have done just that.
I'm arguing that the Democratic party is, indeed, a left-oriented and not a centrist party.
Good luck selling your "No, Democrats aren't the left, it's left people that are Democrats!", But I'm sure as hell not buying it.
In the spectrum of the US, the democrats are on the left. In the spectrum of the world, the democrats are centerish.
Currently, yes.
It's "left of republicans" who are further right than conservatives in most countries but obvious centrist neo-liberal get called "radical communist" anyway. It's all entirely insane and I wish we had a multiparty system: the one thin democratic socialists and the libertarians agree on.
[removed]
You're wasting your time arguing against it, then.
[removed]
Yeah, if your centrists are just rebranded left-wing.
[removed]
You're not wrong, except in that your words are couched in terms that pretend the right and far right aren't in the same situation.
I'm all for fixing the voting system with rank voting or similar. That would be one goal of a Centrist Party - to vote in candidates of other, larger parties thay favor centrist views - one of which is that the voting system needs a critical update.
In fact, a centrist political party doesn't even technically need to vote in candidates of their own unless there's an effectively guaranteed win. They just need to become a voting bloc of members from both parties who stand for centrist positions.
Why, so only half the party is filled with dumb ideas?
No. So that divisive assholes can be relegated to whining in the corner of the room, where they belong.
Come on, starting a centrist party isn't that big a deal. Here in the UK some former Labour leadership candidate or former Lib Dem leader starts one every 4 months or so.
Hahaha! Our future is so funny, right? 🤣
They basically are at this point. The Republicans are full blown reactionary, religious crusaders, the Democrats are center right to right corporate stooges. They're right of Nixon and Reagan, but are still seen as centrists or even liberal. Anyone that is actually a centrist or a liberal in the true sense of the word, not the American idea wouldn't ever consider voting for a Republican and would probably be appalled with most Democrats.
The few areas both parties do agree things like constant foreign intervention, a bloated military budget, opposition to socialized medicine, and corporate tax repatriation holidays are universally bad for most people.
Someone on the “How has Donald Trump affected your life” AskReddit thread called Nancy Pelosi a radical leftist and I thought “If she’s a radical leftist in your eyes you’d have a heart attack if you met an actual leftist.”
Someone in another thread called Trump's opponents communists. Bernie was the furthest left major party candidate and nowhere remotely close to Communist.
opponents communists
Well that how the Republican party has branded it. They spent 8 years calling Obama a Socialist.
A "Nazi socialist Muslim atheist from Kenya "
Sanders would be considered right of the centre in my country. Like pretty much all of the US "left".
So I hear Canada is pretty nice.
In American politics, she's very far left.
But isn't she one of those whackos spouting propaganda about how, you know, the government could consider the well-being of 99% of its population when making policy decisions? Geeze, if you were any further left than that, it's like you'd have the government actually doing something.
/s, because you just always have to these days.
They'd think that Marx is the anti-christ.
As someone who says he leans left, I always feel like I'm just voting for the lesser of two evils, not someone who I actually support wholeheartedly.
God this, I absolutely hate my country's team sport politics. Think your own thoughts and be open to the other guy's...maybe he sees something you don't.
I just stopped following politics at all, it's pointless.
I dont check the news. But when it's election time, check their platform (idk if the US does that), usually thats what they will go for.
Of course, politicians fail to met some or end up going against it, but believe it or not, politicians actually follows their platform. Lying in political debates is their way of getting your votes; platforms is their way of staying predictable and consistent.
A few years before Trump started his campaign he was all for Socialized Healthcare, now he's not. So I just decided I was going to bother with any of it, I will never vote.
Also the massive partisanship like they were freaking football teams. They arent, mate.
i think one of us has our priorities backwards
and i'm not sure which it is
I've voted for at least 8 parties over the last 10 years over mostly trivial matters. One year I vote for whoever has good plans for road maintenance, the next it's whoever vows to fund the schools/cops/health. One year I voted out of bile for the one party that wanted to remove the yearly tax on owning a television, since we've got a complusory state channel noone watches if it's not christmas or the national day.
It amazes me how so many people have their personal identity tied up in a political party or the president. It's assenine
I voted for a non-mainstream candidate for president and I got slammed by Democratic friends for "basically voting for Trump" and laughed at by the Republican ones for "wasting my vote". It's mind boggling how shitty people are about politics here.
I vote for candidates based on their merits first.
The tribalism that goes with partisanship is unreal. There's a certain component of the fake news epidemic where people knowingly tout fake news as a badge of tribal allegiance.
Sshh. Anything that can be done to get people out of the cult of the US Republican party is great. I don't care what party they join or if they vote at all, just get them out of that party.
Over the last two years, I've shifted from Republican to Democrat, and my family like... doesn't want to believe it's true.
Like cmon guys, can we not let our political ideas define who we are? Geez. I have one opinion on how things will work, and you have another. The important part is that we all believe we're doing the right thing, we just think our ideas will work better than the other guy's.
Unlike football teams there are real life consequences to whether they win or lose. We are forced to choose between genocide in a small country somewhere and higher income taxes. You are right it's not like football at all.
Also the massive partisanship like they were freaking football teams
Didn't used to be this way, even in the 1980s or 1990s. It just got really super-duper divisive in the past 20+ years or so.
It amazes me how so many people have their personal identity tied up in a political party or the president. It's assenine
People often swing pretty far in America. But just like how geographic sizes are bigger in America than in Europe, so is the range of views that a single party represents. A swing that would take you across three parties in France would keep you comfortably in the same party here.
People here in the US think there's nobility in one's party and loyalty to it is crucial.
All the while, they're routinely disappointed by their respective party. Both parties. For almost the last 40 years.
Yet partisanship, rather than ideology, is stronger than ever.
Money has such a stranglehold on both parties, it doesn't matter what they say or do. Voters practically ignore the primary elections, which determines who runs in the general (final) election.
Political ignorance is strong in America. But by recent elections I don't have to tell you that.
I know, right? I’m American, and I’m not a fan of the hostile competition between the factions. Even worse is how the factions adopt different sides of an issue completely opposite of one another. Just because I love science and logic, and want to see some colonies away from Earth within my lifetime, shouldn’t make me a liberal. I hate how logic itself seemingly became a partisan issue, because as far as I’m concerned, no one should take pride in being stuck in the dark, information-wise.
(Just stop psychologically attacking each other and start a Civil Space Race or something to settle things, sheesh.)
like they were freaking football teams
Except of course that's an even stupider form of tribalism.
At least disagreeing with an ideology makes some sense. Disagreeing with a sports team is just incoherent from the start.
Told my parents i was voting libertarian- may as well have told tgem I was gay, becauae my Dad had what i would assume the same reaction.
So much of American politics are all or nothing right now. On each critical congressional vote, the fate of the country hangs on, like, three or four republicans deviating from the norm. It's like war between private and public sector and it's hard to swing vote when so many candidates have such similar ideologies that you can only really bet that your party is going to be the one that is after your interests.
Anyone who is talking to you about politics in a heavy tone is probably an asshole. Me and nearly everyone I know joke about how ridiculous our stupid fucking political system is. The people that take it very very seriously are just obnoxious and bored.
it was not always like this. What party you belonged to really did not matter for the longest time. then came 24 hour news and the need to have controversy. Ever since then everything has to have a left or right slant. It sucks.
It’s so scary that Canada is moving closer to the American mentality and further away from this. It should be like this.
As an American, I don't get the fanatical PICK A TEAM shit either. It's like some people base their personalities on if they're republican or democrat. Fuckin' bizarre.
I'm officially nonaffiliated. I could register as an Independent, but at this point, I don't see why I should bother. I've voted all over the map in recent years, and I'm sure I will do so again. About the only thing I can say for certain is this: as long as Tr*mp is in the White House, no Republican will get my vote. Doesn't matter if I like them or not. If he's the head of their party, the whole party is dead to me.
Some of us are lucky enough to have also seen thru the shit veil of the "2" cough 1 party system we need some good 3rd parties in America beside the green and libertian
As an American I feel the same way.
More people need to make the change to take down the two party monopoly.
Making sure they never do is the one thing that unites the Democrat and GOP leadership.
Well, that and corporate bribes.
It’s very different here. Our system essentially mandates that there be two real parties. This two parties over the years have steadily parted out the various beliefs of the American people, such that now, what party you belong to is a major part of your identity.
I don’t stick to one party necessarily, but I generally always side with democrats and am much more comfortable with them. I think of myself as very different from most Republicans.
[deleted]
Yes. Voting isn't and shouldn't ever be about principles, it's about what the party puts forward and what I think is best for the country in this moment. Voting on principle just results in putting people in power for bad reasons.
I am leaning to a certain party but I dont have loyalty on them. Parties are just a means to my end.
opinions change, priorities change, parties change.
Can you give some good examples?
I disagree to be honest, I think largely they have been consistent with past policy.
They= both parties
not from the US as I'm not that informed on US politics. I have some examples from Europe tho. Easiest example would probably be the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland). They were founded as a conservative party that was very critical of the Euro but they didn't get enough votes. Nowadays they're a populist right wing party that stirs up hatred against immigrants etc.
True, as a non-American, I go to a ton of parties, not just two
This was my first interpretation. Then I realized what was meant... I like this interpretation better. DRINKS!
I smashed that upvote
You didn't forget to hit that subscribe button and click the bell, did you?
As a non-american, I don't go to any parties.
[deleted]
Hold my ballot, I'm going in!
^^Also ^^please ^^add ^^"?context=2" ^^to ^^the ^^end ^^of ^^your ^^link
invite to Halloween party sent
For a second here I thought I was missing out on some kind of fun entitlement, but nevermind op meant the complete opposite of fun.
Haha.. I was like wait what does he mean only two parties I'm sure many Americans go to more than a few
In the same night?
I'm usually too high to bother leaving the fire pit
Sure you do
America here. Want to go to a friend's house for a few beers? You'll need to run that by the Congressional Committee on Fun and Interaction. Where will you be? How many people will be there? Are they all PREPARED TO GIVE THEIR LIVES IN DEFENSE OF THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE? Will adults be present?
This is truthfully the biggest issue in America as it's the root of most of our other issues. Thanks to FPTP voting we're basically stuck with a two party system. Now, every potentially effective solution is some terirble non-functioning compromise to get it through congress and past the president and even then it'll be torn to shreds and repealed as "ineffective" by the opposing party once they get back in power. We're stuck in a pendulum of blie solutions being half-implemented while they wreck red progress followed by the reds tearing down what the blues put up amd hastily trying to make their own fixes.
It's disgusting and terrible because it's exactly why we wind up choosing between two shit sandwiches every election cycle.
Its not like nothing gets done. The super rich and big companies get plenty done through politics.
Also the military and other federal organizations just do things without needing day to day approval from elected officials. The bureaucracy/deep state doesn't give a shit about politics. 99% of issues are untouchable by elected officials. The stuff they get to argue about is generally not the most important of stuff. Even when they have to sign off on things, it just happens. Liberal Obama bailed out Wall Street et al. just the same as Bush because it had to be done. Even when there's a "government shutdown" the important stuff just gets funded anyway.
>deep state
You make it sound like I'm saying that as a bad thing!
And I want to be them and have that disproportionate power too
I knew it, The Poor! Thats why we cant be a socialist like eurotrip land!!!!1
FPTP to anyone wondering means First Past The Post.
Maine here, we just voted, again..., to fix that and passed... Again! We just had our first RCV election yesterday. Now Maine has taken the lead, others will follow.
I know we make fun of Maine a lot for, well, being Maine. But after the disaster that was the 2016 election, I see Maine as a shining example of how to not suck at elections.
I just wish I knew how to make my state do the same.
As Maine goes the nation goes.
Would this ever happen for the actual federal government though? For presidential vote?
Is RCV like alternative or preference voting?
Yeah, but having more than two parties means that you get distributed votes for parties with similar ideals. Here in Mexico Peña Nieto was elected with 38.2% of the votes. Also in 2006 Calderón was elected with 35.9%, the second place having 35.3%.
Without instant-runoff voting, a multi-party system is bad.
I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying. And also, instant-runoff is better, but not the best.
Obviously, single transferable vote is best.
That problem is solved if you don't have just one person in charge. In Switzerland no party has ever had more than 30% of votes in a federal election since the introduction of proportional representation in 1919. But we also have a 7-member council instead of a single president, so we have multiple parties (usually four) in charge of the government. It works great, I wish more countries had a similar system.
Switzerland seems to be one of those oddly level headed countries but. Not sure it would work everywhere.
That a where the electoral college takes effect. Now 1 president always wins majority of the electoral but nothing is stopping anybody for stealing enough to force a vote to go thru Congress to choose the candidate
In Australia you fill in the ballot paper by writing numbers in each box in order of who you want your vote to go to. 1 for your first preference, 2 for your second and so on. That way you can vote for your favourite party or candidate without throwing your vote away or hurting the chances of getting an acceptable one.
Also our founding fathers are basically revered as gods, so even though they knew they didn't know everything and TOLD us that this was a big damn experiment for us to improve over time, there's basically no chance we'll ever change the voting system that leads to this mis-feature of our democracy.
This and also the constitution is considered holy & untouchable.
I just don't trust either party to fuck with the document that protects our inalienable rights. Also, it requires massive support to amend, in both Congress and state governments.
as it's the root of most of our other issues
More so than our shitty education system? If Americans were better informed and better critical thinkers, half of our problems would evaporate.
As someone who works in the education system, you can't blame us until you know something about the parents who send these problem/nonlearning kids to school. They tend to have very little respect for education and try to do only the bare minimum to skate by.
Problem: our education system is fucked.
Solution: either focus on education until it's not fucked or make education less of a societal/economic priority until it's not a problem.
What our two-party system achieves: the first twk steps of each plan followed by the first two of the other, cyclicly, ad nauseum.
That problem is societal. The education system, while decentralized, does have funding that's entirely comparable to other developed countries.
We just used ranked choice voting in Maine yesterday for our primaries. We fought the Governor and legislature tooth and nail to get this and we fucking did it. It was a long process. We passed a citizens initiative. The legislature passed a bill effectively killing it. We then did a citizens veto, which had never been used until then, to veto the legislature. We probably won't be using it for this years general election but we will be eventually.
God that soubns like a dream
Maine is test-driving ranked voting right now
When I moved from Michigan to South Carolina I swore I'd never deal with snow measured in feet again but if thaf sticks I may convince myself
Tangent: how long have you been in SC? Do you like it? As a Michigander humidity is one of my most hated things
I've been here about four years now. My family lives in Charleston and the humidity here can get bad during the summer, especially right after it rains. But I go to school in Clemson, which is in the opposite corner from the coast, and let me tell you I could live there for a while without complaining. It dries out reasobably fast up there, plus it's all rolling hills and forests with the Appalachians in the distance. If you want to stat close to nature, theres a few reasonably sized towns up there, including Greeneville (larger, has some highrises with 10+ floors) and Spartanburg (smaller, caps at ~3 floors). If you want to live in the city, Columbia is gonna be your best bet for avoiding the coast, and it's two hours from Charleston, Clemson, and Myrtle Beach so whatever vacation you like is am easy drive away.
If you do come down here, just be aware it is a different culture. People genuinely are a lit friendlier and will talk to you in the street for no reason other than something about you piqued their interest. The whole state is relatively conservative too; even in Charleston hunting and owning weapons are fairly common.
Awesome, thanks for the info! I have a cousin who moved from Michigan to Columbia a few years ago and she loves it, but I just feel like I'd melt and die.
Well that, and the massive land/population (and the diversity that comes with that). It’s pretty hard to come to any agreement that is perfectly equally beneficial to both urban and rural residents.
Many rural European communities are still less than a hour drive/train ride from a city, but that’s not really the case in the US. A gun in a major coastal city means something completely different than a gun in a small Midwestern town.
That being said, I don’t have a solution for this, but I think the two party system tends to make it worse by catering to one or the other (urban/rural pop).
[deleted]
The states were originally conceived as being their own countries with a weak federal government. I would argue that Lincoln started the opposite trend and FDR kinda finished it off.
I don’t think FPTP is the real culprit for the two party system in the US. Canada also has the same voting method and we have 5 parties of note (arguable which are noteworthy I suppose), so I think the cause for the split in your country may come down to other factors.
Nah - The NDP, Libs, and PC are the only parties that really ever stand a real chance of winning in most areas. In several provinces, it's already effectively down to 2 parties.
There's even a political science rule about it - Duverger's Law - that basically states that FPTP always tends towards a 2 party system.
Anecdotally, almost anyone I've talked to participates in strategic voting - AKA "I really want the Green Party, but they stand no chance of winning and I don't want the PCs to win, so I'm going to vote Liberal".
That's more-or-less how Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford happened. (As reactions to Stephen Harper and Kathleen Wynne respectively)
Duverger's law has a somewhat localised effect though. You can have party A vs party B in one location, and party C vs party D in another. This happens in the UK somewhat. Spoilers still present problems at each location though. FPTP sucks.
Very true and a very good point.
And I do know a fair amount of people that also do the ol' "Let's see what 2 parties are popular in my riding and vote against the one I hate, lest I throw my vote away"
It really infuriates me when I hear the Conservatives (as it's biggest cheerleader, but anyone really) defend FPTP, especially against proportional representation. As far as I can tell it's almost always out of self interest. Even if it isn't, I just hate FPTP so much. I wish we had a better system. Unfortunately I don't see a New Zealand happening here any time soon.
Agreed - And generally the only argument I hear from people about why to keep FPTP is "It's simple" and "People understand it".
Well hot damn... Good point. You know what else is complicated? This whole weird democracy thing we do. Electing people is just so complicated - Let's simplify and just have a single leader that keeps their position until they die, at which point it goes to their offspring. /s
"There are supposed to be winners and losers", "we need constituencies, local representatives", "spoilt ballots", "longer counting time", "more expensive", "we need strong and stable governments, not coalitions of chaos" HA! All because they don't want people represented accurately (see: proportionately).
A minority of voters shouldn't be able to have a majority in parliament. A party with more votes shouldn't have less seats than a party with less votes. The whole part of having a parliament is to represent the people, so we should do it accurately. What's the point otherwise?
There's actually a political system (they use in Germany iirc) called Mixed-Member Proportionate Representation that combines both worlds.
You vote for both - the local member you want, and the party you want.
The local winner of each riding goes to parliament like we have now, but afterward each party gets to add candidates from a list until the parliament is proportionate to the popular vote.
So the Greens may get 0 seats from winning ridings, but their party will still end up composing 10% of parliament.
Indeed, :). And they recently (a few decades ago) switched to MMP in New Zealand as well. The Scottish parliament also elects members in a similar way I think.
Though I'd prefer if we used the Sainte Lague method to allocate seats instead of the D'Hondt method.
The Conservatives also like criticising closed lists as undemocratic as well (it has nothing on FPTP though).
The negative effect of FPTP increases as politics becomes more national. It made more sense historically when you were sending an actual representative of your local politics.
Indeed. Even then IRV or (my preference) approval voting would probably be better in that case.
Well, greens still win in some ridings. But if you're not in a green riding, yeah you're strategic voting
For sure - The city of Guelph in Ontario just proved that. But that's a combination of:
1) A really strong candidate
2) A really hated rival
3) A small-enough city for individuals to collaborate and agree to vote for a fringe party
The funny thing is that estimates are that >10% of the entire population of the country would pick the Green Party, but yet they rarely ever get any seats anywhere because you need strongholds to win in FPTP.
And every election someone promises voting reform :(
We're not really FPTP though, my state uses two round style runoff elections for all primary elections and all state/local elections.
Just give it time, Canada will eventually turn into a two party system
Hopefully
Why hopefully?
So that our voting base isn't so far split and a party can't get in with 37% of the pop. vote.
The idea that the two party system is bad comes from people who want to circlejerk about a "unique" idea
Then you should change it where you need at least 50%. Ranked voting would be nice
No that's still dumb. Last election none of the candidates got more than 50
If no one has 50%, then you get rid of the lowest voted representative and use their voters 2nd choice. Keep repeating until someone has at least 50%
That's also dumb because we have one conservative party (which isn't very conservative in the first place) and two very leftist parties. The left would always 100% of the time win and that wouldn't make conservatives very happy
Yep, you got it all figured out
Well clearly I put more thought into this than anyone else in the thread
I think FPTP is the primary factor, but there are definitely other factors. Congressional rules overwhelmingly favor the party with 50%+1 control, for instance.
Yeah, same in the UK.
We have FPTP and it's not a two party system either.
Here is a great video explaining why FPTP usually results in a two party system.
It's disgusting and terrible because it's exactly why we wind up choosing between two shit sandwiches every election cycle.
r/SouthPark is leaking...
Demand all you want, but "THE EEEVIL 2-PARTY SYSTEM" isn't going away barring huge overhauls to the foundations of our government. First, the two-party system is not only built into our laws and governing systems (for example, there is no "Third Party Whip," just the two-party "minority and majority whip").
The fact is, the "two-party system" is actually a natural phenomenon which is the result of a number of well-known basic principles in political science:
Duverger's Law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
The Median Voter Theorem:
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
and a Plurality Voting System:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
It's basic game theory. There's basically no way short of changing the very structure of our government and human nature to get rid of this.
The two-party system is not an evil conspiracy forced upon others by an Illuminati cabal. Even multi-party systems tend to gravitate towards party coalitions that are in effect 2-party systems.
The fact is, the "two-party system" is actually a natural phenomenon
Only in first past the post voting.
There's basically no way short of changing the very structure of our government and human nature to get rid of this.
No need to change human nature, just the voting system. But you're probably right about the structure of government...
Even multi-party systems tend to gravitate towards party coalitions that are in effect 2-party systems.
Maybe some do, but it's not an inherent property. In Switzerland we haven't had anything even vaguely resembling a 2-party system in the last 100 years.
As far as I can tell, the whole aim of propping up 3rd parties is under the guise of being pro-democracy when, given the basics of game theory, it actually results in being anti-democratic.
It's a way of getting more power with less votes; it means that when more people vote with the candidate that more closely expresses their exact political views, the candidate with the most votes will end up being the one that represents the majority less: minority rule.
It's explained around the 1:00 mark here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
And it's not only a natural phenomenon in FPTP voting, really. The very same game theoretic principles that make 2-party systems inevitable play out in nature all the time. When applied to evolution, it's one of the reasons that almost every species has two sexes and not, say, six.
r/SouthPark is leaking
I actually find that show a little too distasteful for me if you must know.
[The entire rest of what you said]
I know what causes the two party system, I just didn't feel like writing a paragraph on mobile at the time. And I know it's a natural consequence of our system that won't go away without a massive overhaul, that's why I'm advocating for a massive fucking overhaul.
And we've got a Frenchman like Duverger to tell us why that system is shit. In some places, we're moving to a runoff system, where voters choose a second candidate so that politicians have to be more moderate. That seems to be helping, but it's still frustrating
Yeah, I think the second step would be killing the idea of a career politician. Every elected position should have a term limit by class, so one person can serve up to four terms in the senate for example. Then we can clear out the swamp by evicting it wholesale.
Now, every potentially effective solution is some terirble non-functioning compromise to get it through congress and past the president
This is proportional representation as well, even in countries that don't have veto-power for the head of state. The mangled, barely functioning compromise just happens within the governing coalition, either in the post-election talks to form a coalition, or when the government begins to formulate the actual policy proposal that was just a vague waffle in the coalition agreement designed to get everyone to say they won the talks.
The 'immediate drive to repeal' may not be as bad a problem, but that's often because one or more of the parties from the previous government are almost guaranteed to be necessary to form a new government. Therefore, the mangled, barely functioning compromise is protected by at least one of its creators, and the only possible reform is further mangling and compromise as the all the constituents of the new government try to get their vision into it.
A two-party system moves the compromises into the two parties, which encourages moderation the same way governing coalitions do in more fractured party landscapes. What two party systems don't have is the possibility of something like the current German coalition happening, where the middle parties form a coalition, and leave the lunatics as the official opposition, with all the coverage, legitimacy, and influence that provides.
No voting system will fix the fact that politics is the art of compromise. As long as the voting population is composed of people rather than soulless automatons, government will be an endless, tangled web of policies mangled to accommodate this interest and that.
This is truthfully the biggest issue in America as it's the root of most of our other issues.
This is just wrong. America's "parties" are basically coalitions of everything right of center and everything left of center. Primaries are a thing. Gridlock happens all the time in congress even when one party has overwhelming control just because there is such variety within parties.
The truth is always buried in the comments. All politics is a matter of coalition building. All that FPTP systems do is make it so that that coalition building happens before the vote, so regular voters have a direct say in the what government is formed (as opposed to it being done behind closed doors by self-interested Ministers interested in gaining a portfolio).
That's part of the problem too. As an independant who supports gun rights and social programs, I get the shaft because any vote I cast that isn't blue or red is effectively a waste. That might not be a direct attribute to FPTP but it is another sign our voting system needs an overhaul.
Does the U.S. have a left of center?
Your left is what Europeans would call centrists.
God, I hate that myth. The US has a strong left, they just don’t cater to the same issues as Europe’s. Anyone saying that the American left is centrist or center-right is ether uninformed, a bigot angry the about attention being given to “identity politics”, or a fringe nut trying to legitimize their positions by acting like they’re more popular than they actually are.
Bernie Sanders? The most popular politician in America is a socialist.
Thanks to FPTP voting we're basically stuck with a two party system.
Most democracies are multi-party democracies but most are also first-past-the-post too? The only proportional representation country I can think of is Australia? Maybe I have it wrong....
Also New Zealand and several European countries
Yea but I bet only a handful of them use our archaic winner-take-all electoral college for presidential elections. From my observation, most mulit-party states have a Prime Minister (or equivalent) that literally has to build a coalition.
I was and am only talking about the "first past the post" part of it. The electoral college may be a US oddity. In head of state elections (as opposed to head of government = prime minister) I think the French Presidential election is also first-past-the-post but in multiple rounds. I recall die-hard liberals were voting a conservative some years ago to keep Le Pen out after he won a preliminary round.
Except in most parliamentary systems, the PM is the one doing the governing, and the President has relatively little day-to-day power.
We merged those two into President. The heads of our Legislature are very weak compared to a PM.
FPTP really is an issue with chief executive. In parliamentary systems, the winning coalition gets to run things. In the US, the President and Congress can fuck each other over, and frequently do when held by opposite parties.
The main reason we are stuck with two-party systems is our legislature is structured to make coalitions between parties not last very long. In a parliament, the equivalent of the Democrats and the Greens have reasons to work together. In the US legislature, power comes from legislative committees, and if you don't have a committee seat you basically have no power. There's no reason for the Democrats to give seats to the Greens, or the Republicans to the Libertarians. Might as well keep the power in your party.
(There's a handful of independents who currently pull this off, but that's about those particular individuals. They can't use it to build a party, and third-parties can't get in because we all know they'd be powerless.)
Also, the Democratic and Republican National Conventions (the two effective party platforms) do not want more parties, because they are currently receiving the bulk of donations and fundraising, and can control the money.
The US's two-party system is a pyramid scheme gone awry, sanctioned by the government.
No, this isn't it. First, the DNC and RNC don't really matter as institutions. Second, the Democratic and Republican parties don't oppose third parties because they thirst for donations/fundraising/control of the money. All that is downstream from what they really want--- power.
Democrats want power to enact Democratic policies. Republicans want power to...own the libs, I guess? Stop Democrats from enacting policy?
And there's nothing really wrong with that. Distributing power is the whole point of politics.
Whether Democratic and Republican parties support or oppose structural reforms that make third parties more viable depends on whether it will help their political interests. For example, Democrats endorsed rank choice voting in Maine in 2016, because they concluded it would help Democrats (or people with views similar to Democrats) win office. Link It doesn't really matter whether a person in Congress has a (D) or an (I) or a (G) after their name. What matters is what sort of policies they'll vote for.
TLDR: It's not some sinister conspiracy, it's just organizing people to achieve political goals.
Man, pro-establishment bots are getting sophisticated these days.
He really just said, Republicans want power to stick it to the libs. Really? No wonder Trump won
Democrats want power to enact Democratic policies. Republicans want power to...own the libs, I guess? Stop Democrats from enacting policy?
He really just said, Republicans want power to stick it to the libs. Really? No wonder Trump won
I mean, interpreting this as nonpartisan as I can muster here, that guy may actually be referring to the fundamental principles of each party, at least as they were originally intended. Meaning:
Democrats: More power to the Federal government! More structured economy! Tax more! Stronger regulations! More red tape (i.e. more enviromental and safety requirements, etc). Have the government take control of healthcare! Etc, et al.
Republicans: No, no, stop, just fucking stop, don't do any of that. Don't raise taxes. Don't give the government any more power over anything. Don't enact any more regulations and red tape, enviromental or otherwise. Don't pass any gun laws. Don't tax the rich. Don't let the government do anything more to me then they already are! Just leave all the citizens (and rich corperations!) alone and let us do whatever we want without the government getting involved.
Honestly, in principle, both ideologies have some merit. For as long as we've had governments in society, there has always been broadly speaking two basic groups of people: Those who support stronger government and liked the idea of uniting all the peoples under one banner and one rule of law; and the other group that has an inherant distrust of any government and values personal freedoms and wants only local sovereign government.
So in a way, whether he meant it or not, that poster you referred to was somewhat correct. Democrats want power for power's sake to grow government, meaning the Democrats actually want to use the elected positions to enact more rules and affect more of society (which isn't always a bad thing, but that depends on your view!). Meanwhile, Republicans want to be in power primarily to stop the Democrats from doing just that. That's not saying the Repubicans just want to stiffle the Democrats out of pure petty spite. They want to stiffle the Democrats because nearly all of the goals of the Democrats are to grow the government and the Republican idealogy is to stop or reverse that at all costs.
Definitely made it sound like the latter. Still might even meant it that way, originally. You're also right too.
I mean, what traditional "conservative" or "GOP" policies does Trump espouse? If Republicans cared about policy, they wouldn't be sycophants sucking Trump's cock.
Trump won because - unlike most Republicans - he realized Republican voters give zero shits about policy, and mostly just care about sticking it to the libs. The uber-productive GOP unified government that followed (tax cuts and nothing else) confirms that view.
Sorry man. Facts, not your feelings, etc.
Yes, this is something that is lost on a number of people. It also means that the Democrats and Republicans end up supporting the same things generally. Nixon started the EPA, for instance. Republicans do support diversity though not as loudly as Democrats. They also support entitlements. The more fringe parties are a lot more vocal in their distance or support of such things.
It also means that the Democrats and Republicans end up supporting the same things generally.
Exactly! BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME!!!!!
Let me be a little clearer. Of course the two parties are not going to agree on the same nitpicky partisan bills. But in the grander scheme of things they are not that much different. 50 years ago do you think anyone thought we would have a black president? No. 50 years ago no one cared about the environment. Same thing with your student lunch programs and on and on. Yes, conservatives are slower to take massive steps toward changing the status quo - that's sort of what the word conservative means. But the country manages to come together in some form to go in a general direction of change that the two parties can somewhat agree on.
Now instead let's put a hardcore Libertarian in office. Okay, everything but the department of defense is shut down. No more government hospitals. No more entitlements. No more dept of education. You get the point. What about a hardcore far leftie? Now let's completely defund the military and shut them down. Let's double the taxes on companies and the rich. Let's execute you if you cut down a hundred year old oak tree.
But in the grander scheme of things they are not that much different.
What is this "grander scheme"?
You mean, they're the same when you severely limit the scope of what is relevant?
If so, then of course two things can be "the same" if you do that--take a leaf and a grass clipping. Sure, there's many differences, but "in the grand scheme," they're the same because--what?--they're carbon-based?
If by "the same" you mean that they're both, say, not anti-capitalists? Surely, if your'e "scheme" is basically a single-issue, as a single-issue voter, then yeah "same."
No shit. Basic astronomy shows that two stars light-years apart can look like one if you observe them from a considerable distance.
It's the same unreasnoning that leads people to be in awe of the "fact" that "no two snowflakes are alike." Given basic laws of logic, that's true of absolutely everything, technically.
If by "grand scheme," you mean party platforms? If so, and that's the "scheme" you're talking about, then in the grander scheme of things, they are still very different.
Take a look for yourself:
https://www.gop.com/platform/
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
You see how this is clearly either ad hoc reasoning or circular reasoning, or both.
Grander scheme isn't that hard to figure out. Just stop being blinded by nitpicky issues - or more likely enraged by - and give some leniency to your fellow human beings. Tribalism doesn't help anyone. And NO they are not very different - I gave examples to that and I don't have time, like you apparently do, to link you to 50 sources and bitch about reasoning skills, which I am employing effectively already, thank you very much.
It's honestly not so bad. I'm not saying I wouldn't like a couple more (competitive) parties, but when you have a bunch of parties they start to appeal to really specific groups of people. There's a big issue with legitimate right wing nationalist political parties in Europe.
Runoff voting makes that an impractical strategy in large elections though, as everyone voting for every other party can just rank the extremes last.
Yup. That's precisely why Le Pen lost in a 67-33 landslide in 2017; her father lost in an even larger 82-18 landslide in 2002 and why Le Pen's FN only has 8/577 seats even though they won 13.2% of the vote in the legislative election. Compare that to say, 9.5% and 45 seats for the centre left.
but when you have a bunch of parties they start to appeal to really specific groups of people.
You mean I'll be able to have a party that represents my interests?
Where do I sign?
You mean I'll be able to have a party that represents my interests?
Sure, but you might be the only person in it.
Yea but the downside is there could be a super racist party that a small majority love but since there are so many parties the racists win and now we're really in Nazi Germany. That's a drastic example but it's the first that came to mind
Point the first: Nazis are entitled to a voice in government too. Just because they are genocidal maniacs don't mean they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Any theory of government that starts with an effort to keep people we don't like from gaining power is already wrong.
Point the second: have you seen the state of the USA lately? The racists won. We're not exactly Nazi germany, but we seem to be trying really hard.
[deleted]
Well, Trump campaigned on "build a wall to keep the Mexicans out."
The racists won.
...And then proceeded to lower black unemployment to the lowest level in recorded history.
Some people call everyone racists while having racist policies that keep black people enslaved.
Other people eschew political correctness and babying "victims", but their actions put money in black peoples' pockets.
You have it backwards. That reasoning (which is correct) is why we have 2 parties that don't represent us. We didn't choose to have 2 parties, with this "benefit" in mind; two parties emerged because everyone votes according to this (well-founded) logic.
small majority
Who says a small majority should get all the power? In Switzerland, the government has been split between at least three, usually four parties for the last 90 years. Also majorities are unlikely in the Swiss system, in fact no party has ever had more than 30% of votes in a federal election since the introduction of proportional representation in 1919. It's honestly a great system.
Really though it'd probably be something like libertarians vs religious right, instead of republicans, and progressive/green party vs neoliberal democrats, instead of democrats. Basically what we have now except not selected down to two in the primaries but rather 4. Then the top 2 after the first round of voting compete for the final vote, like in France. Most people would probably still be reasonably represented.... except the religious right. They're a minority with far too much political control. IMO they are the demographic group that benefits a lot from our current system, especially with younger people being pretty disinterested in religion compared to a couple generations ago. I mean fundamentalist evangelical Christians, not people who attend church and also vote republican.
Edit, words
And I'm fine with that. I'm pretty sure all the left-wingers would have preferred a Libertarian president over Trump and likewise all the right-wingers would have preferred a Libertarian president over Clinton.
Yeah haha for real. I'm just Over the 2 parties we have, most of all. We need more or they will never be accountable for anything.
religious right. They're a minority
Over 50% of Americans attend church once a month or more.
They're not who I am talking about. I guess I should be more specific, I mean evangelical and fundamentalist sects, they are a minority group in the majority religion who have pretty much hijacked Christian religious discourse etc and had a disproportionate influence on politics, much like specific moneyed industries have.
But one of the parties in the USA is also a legitimate nationalist right wing party, isn't it? At least by the standards of most european countries...
You’ll need to define “nationalist.” I know it’s a common refrain to say that Euro parties are more left wing, but the wing of the Republican Party that lines up with what a European would consider far-right nationalist is insignificant tiny.
[deleted]
Do you mean it seems like a lie, or it seems incorrect? Anyway, there’s no way to say until the guy above me defines what he means.
Trump doesn't take Alex Jones too seriously.
[deleted]
It's true, you've caught me, not a huge fan of Neo-Nazis.
[deleted]
TIL there are fascist groups that distance themselves from the Nazis.
No fan of either, frankly. I don't think neo-fascists are the ONLY ones complaining about neo-nazi's getting government funding.
You see, there lies the difference between Neo-Fascists and the vast majority of the other parties. The rest of us don't complain about legitimate parties getting their funding - we might truly despise the voting base that got those parties to where they are, but the only legitimate party I'd argue should be withheld funding is one that is actively complaining about other legitimate parties having funding.
But there's not just one party complaining. It's the majority of people. And even still, Germany told them they could keep their funding. So I'm not even sure what you're getting on a soap box about.
Neo-nazis don't have a right to form.
I'm sorry, but if part of your platform is genocide, you have no place in politics.
I wish more people would get this, that it's not because Americans are just nutty or like it or whatever, it's that it happens any time you have a first past the post system.
[deleted]
All FPTP systems trend towards two parties. Canada was used as a counterexample to FPTP being the culprit, but even they have 3 noteable parties, and many areas effectively have 2 because the third has no sway.
And the USA has had 3 at times, but has always trended back toward 2.
[deleted]
Off the top of my head, Britain's curremt form lf government has always been controlled by one of two parties except for a fuzzy moment a few years back where nobody had majprity control. And Canada is apparently pretty close too; they apparently have three parties but areas where there' basically two because nobody cares about the third.
[deleted]
What difference does it make how many parties have some minute amount of say if one of two has the majority vote?
We have several parties. The problem is that with FPTP, no small party has a snowball's chance in hell of getting anything done. Good video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
I don’t think FPTP is completely to blame for how hard it is to get things done. Congressmen from both houses not all voting with their party is a big factor. Two houses is a big factor. But we gotta remember that the union was formed by 13 states that don’t trust each other, so there tend to be way too many checks and balances
Sooo, scrap it and start from scratch?
Hmmm, I don't think it's FPTP. I think it's the fact that House and Senate rules have given majority leaders too much power. There are tons of things that could pass Congress on a bipartisan basis, but by turning Ryan/McConnell into extra veto points, it doesn't get passed, because they only want legislation that's popular among entire GOP caucus (which, as it turns out, is literally just "tax cuts").
What I honestly don’t understand is... why can’t we change that? You have 1.7 thousand upvotes out of a few thousand reading this. Probably 85% of the U.S. would have preferred a different candidate to be president, and probably 70% would have preferred neither of the “two options”. All that that 70% has to do is vote for a third party candidate, and even if that’s divided between independents, green party, libertarians, and maybe the occasional other pop-up party, that probably lands the independent candidate for the presidency, and I would guess 1/3 of the time for other things like congress or governors.
The solution is SO CLOSE. Let’s do something about it.
All that 70% has to do is vote for a third party candidate...
This is the problem right here. It would take not only coordination, but a trust in the other side to also vote third party. Because if one side abandons what they consoder an "ok" candidate while the other doesn't, they basically just forfeit the election.
So? Can we just not be that uptight and suspicious?
Theres a quote out there along the lines of "Individuals can be smarr, even brilliant, but people are dumb, panicky animals."
Sure, you can convince individuals, but it's the voting mobs that will make a difference.
They won't even compromise anymore. That's why I'm an unaffiliated voter...both parties are awful! Fortunately, they just changed the rules in my state, since unaffiliated voters are a plurality here, so I got to participate in the primaries for the first time.
I blame the media for ignoring any others running or let them in debates. Granted they let Perot in then realized that will never happen again.
The media definitely has a role to play, but it's also just the natural trends in a FPTP system. People will vkte for an ok candidate with decent odds over a great candidate with slim odds to make sure a terrible candidate doesn't get the spot.
But shouldn't the other candidates at least get into the debate or get some media coverage?
Certainly, but I maintain that's simply not the primary issue. If media outlets had let third party candidates in the debates, one of them may have gotten popular enough ti win the electuon. At that point one of the two incumbant parties would fall as its members flocked to the new party and the other would see little net change in popularity as every member leaving their party for the new one would have a party coming from their old foe to oppose the rising party. Then we have the same situation, just with slightly different lines boundaries.
It's happened before; political parties do come and go in America, it's just incredibly slow and there's never more than two major ones except in a period of transition. This is the part that I blame first past the pole voting for, because people always take a safe but ok candidate over a risky but great one to make sure a terrible candidate doesn't win.
I felt if ever there was a year for a third party candidate to win it'd be the 2016 election, but they were all lunatics too with awful policies. But the sport-mentality about USA politics right now is the most disturbingly disgusting thing i've observed.
2016 was almost a faceoff between two third parties - Trump and Sanders are only nominally Republican/Democrat, respectively. Trump managed to beat out all the other cookie cutter Republican candidates to get the nom, and Bernie had a massive following that I’m not sure he would have had if he’d run as an independent.
He probably wouldn't have had much of a following. People don't like independent candidates because of how FPTP voting works - a vote for an independant is one less vote for your second favorite candidate.
Donald Trump IS that 3rd party, he only ran with R because it does not work to go for independant or something else
I cannot upvote this more
The slogan for the next presidential hopeful should be 'Americans first' to remind everyone they're all the same and the other 'side' is not their enemy.
Thanks to FPTP voting we're basically stuck with a two party system.
The mistaken belief that we're stuck with it is a bigger impediment to progress than the voting system. The nation has had periods with more than two political parties in the past in fact.
Sure, transitionary periods. When's the last time we had more than 3 major competitors for more than a couple election cycles?
It only takes one to matter.
Sure, then we end up with a fix until it turns into a shit sandwich on a red plate vs a shit sandwich on a green plate.
We need more parties consistently
To be fair, it's usually a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
This meme needs to die
Meme? It's from South Park.
I'm well aware. And it's complete bullshit. It's politics for children. "Hurr durr all politicians are dumb!"
And that's how you get Donald Trump as president.
it's not about them being "dumb" (except for trump, he's a fucking moron) it's about having two unappealing choices. it's politics for all ages.
Politicians run a country. They're not supposed to appeal to each individual person.
i get the feeling you're intentionally missing my point. i don't think this is a discussion i'm going to continue.
No, you get Donald Trump as President when the Democrats believe that merely having a moral high ground is enough to compel voters to vote for Hillary. Hint: it wasn’t.
An uneducated opinion. Clinton ran on a platform, if you weren't smart enough to research it, that's your problem. That's why this "two parties are the same" bullshit is so dangerous. It's ignorant and lazy.
News flash: most voters don’t research candidates at all, they just eat up whatever they’re fed.
Sure, in an ideal world, you could say that people would be invested in politics and do a lot of research in different candidates’ platforms, but the fact of the matter is that’s not the world we live in, so that’s not the world the Democrats should be campaigning for. When all your campaign seems to do is run ads bashing Trump, it doesn’t matter how good your actual platform is, because most people are just gonna see the attack ads and immediately write her off as someone who primarily espouses identity politics bull crap.
You can’t tailor your campaign to some fantasyland where every citizen is politically informed, and then complain that you lost because the real world didn’t work the way you expected.
And idiots spouting bullshit about the two parties being the same is really helping.
I mean, I don’t disagree? I don’t see where I implied that both parties were the same. All I’m saying is, if you campaign primarily using Trump attack ads instead of your actual platform, you don’t get to complain when people view your campaign as primarily Trump attack ads instead of your actual platform.
I'm just tired of seeing this bullshit. People just exclaim "they're both the same" and throw their hands in the air. It's just ignorant and wrong.
I agree - Hillary isn’t nearly as bad a politician as Trump.
In fact, I know a lot of people who voted for Hillary precisely because they didn’t want Trump to be President! Seems like a lot of people do realize that they’re not equally terrible.
But when people are only voting for you because you aren’t as bad as the other guy, that’s a sign that there’s some major problems with your campaign.
Believing that all politicians are the same on policy is as moronic and ignorant as believing that no politicians are the same on policy.
To be fair, it's usually a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Yeah, just like how "turd sandwiches" near-unanimously support Net Neutrality, and "Giant Douches" near-unanimously oppose it, among other things.
r/edgelords
r/iamverysmart
And what's an independent supposed to do if they support gun rights and social programs?
Look at both platforms and decide which is more important to you: gun rights as you want or social programs as you want them.
Or which can you live with more: the Democrat's vision on gun rights, or the Republican's vision of social programs.
My entire point is I shouldn't have to choose between two polar opposites. Many people fall between red and blue and have no way to represent their views with any consistency, because their best option will represent some of their views while actively working against the rest. If more third parties were brought into elections, we could pick people who represented the vast majority of our views.
You asked what you were supposed to do. I gave you an answer.
Just out of curiosity what would you decide is more important to you given that choice.
Ah, yes, if I hold opinions which makes two parties equally viable, I sgould just pick one because it's more popular. That totally isn't exactly what almost 2000 redditors are expressong our frustration with.
[deleted]
That was a South Park reference, but yeah, either would have at least been decent compared to the Cheeto-in-Chief.
[deleted]
She would've made it even more difficult if not impossible for states to keep/(re)implement. At least right now states have the ability to tell the FCC to go fuck itself.
Congrats...This may be the dumbest thing I've read on Reddit.
It's hard to imagine someone honestly believing something so ridiculous. So, I think it's safe to say you're just trolling. I hope you're trolling, because it would be pretty sad for you to believe something so easily disproved.
This is truthfully the biggest issue in America as it's the root of most of our other issues. Thanks to FPTP voting we're basically stuck with a two party system
I'm from Canada. We have a bunch a parties. Three main ones, 2 or so regionally big ones. I'd rather have two. If you had six parties, you would only complain about the choice of 6 shit sandwich's.
The failure of democracy.
Too many parties leads to getting someone elected that 80% of the people hate. Most of reddit thinks they hate trump now, but wait until 15% of the population decides the leader.
No it's not. Jfc UK has like 20 and the majority vote for the same party for years. Honestly when has someone not from those 2 parties been PM? Japan had 1 party in power most of the time since 1955 , Most countries have 2 parties competing for power and a bunch of wings, just like the pauls and sanders make up wings of the majority parties here and when they have success in the primaries they get concessions in what parts of the government and committees they have a say in.
Two words: "Citizen Kang"
We have first past the post and a 2 party system but lack the incredible hatred and division that you guys have.
Divide and conquer - now your country is facing ruin.
I'm from Oz and I hope like fuck that our country doesn't become the target of malevolent outside forces like you guys, but I'm guessing we're too small and they'll just obliterate us instead... it's times like these I am so glad I don't have kids.
Well... Can we blame the people for this?
In addition, Republican states being "red", and Democrat states being "blue".
They're less like parties and more like broad ideological coalitions, but slightly more coherent.
Sure... but to use the colour of socialism, social-democracy, labour, and communism to refer to the Republicans... that's something I find difficult to relate to.
We thought so too, and therefore, whoever was drawing the map would always make the opposing party the red party, and them the blue party, this was before became standardized.
https://youtu.be/lgz3p4cEXZU
It apparently entered political terminology in the 2000 Presidential elections, where red was used for Republicans and blue for Democrats on electoral maps for TV. Before that, there wasn't a common standard.
Took me (a 'Murican in Spanistan) a while to get used to Spain's two parties being more or less the opposite but still in red and blue.
Spainistan
Why?
Why Spain? (Or why call it Spanistan?) Spain because it's a great place to live as long as you can make enough money. You won't get rich but you're not a criminal for being poor. "Spanistan" is just a friendly way of taking the piss, like calling America's hat "Kanuckistan". Spaniards had a heavy dose of state sponsored hellfire and brimstone Catholicism and lots of equally vapid Spanish nationalism shoved down their throats under the Franco dictatorship, so now they're very live and let live, like Canada And as a result, it's a pretty decent place to live in for all walks of life.
Ah, got it.
Spanistan
Al-Andulus
Al-andalus... if only. Those folks knew how to beat the heat. The damn Reyes Catholicos, who took three baths in their entire life, really shit the bed when they destroyed the 600+ public baths in Cordona alone in their purge of the "devil's waters".
Am Indian. We have 2 thousand parties lol
Well BJP and INC are the main ones kinda like how in the US there are many minor parties that don't have any power. (Although there are many regional parties like TNC in West Bengal.)
I wish we ran our elections more like the French. Everyone throws their hat into the ring and you have run-off election after run-off election until someone gets 50% of the vote. Imagine actually getting to vote for your first choice and having it count. How cool would that be.
The French system isn't quite like that though. There can only be two rounds maximum in the presidential election. First round: all candidates get their votes. If one gets more than 50%, they immediately become president. Else there's a second round between the two candidates who got the most votes.
I was trying to figure out which two parties you meant, birthdays and 4th of july? Then it hit me. Was looking forward to convincing people to party more
*two MAJOR parties
We have a ton of smaller parties. The last election in 2016 had the most third party votes ever in an American election.
[deleted]
There’s some law that states
It's not a law so much as an inevitable mathematical consequence of the structure. All systems with FPTP voting trend towards two parties.
[deleted]
TIL!
I think /u/MalevolentDM confused a law which is enforced by the government with a mathematical/scientific law.
I'm gonna nitpick. This isn't a scientific law nor mathematical law. This is an observation that describes a tendency, not even an absolute statement regarding plurality voting systems. It's name has the word "law" in it, but that's about as far as the law part goes.
If by government you mean the Constitution, maybe. It’s give and take. What you lose in greater choice with a single-member district plurality system, you make up in expediency (for the most part) of policy.
The more parties involved, the harder it typically is to pass legislation, especially legislation that fits a party platform. Sure, your exact ideals may not be represented but one major party does suit you better than the other... if you stop thinking about it as “choosing the lesser of two evils,” and accept that that is how it works in SMDP systems, you could focus more time on seeking to have the major party with which you align most adopt your preferred policies instead of abandoning them, and thereby leaving yourself unrepresented in government.
Yep! In single-member district plurality systems. One of the most frustrating things about our elections for me isn’t the fact that we aren’t multi-party but that people don’t understand why we’re not multi-party. You can’t just will third party relevance on a national level in this country, it’s systematic.
You may want the Green Party or Libertarian Party to be relevant but, even if they got enough votes to supplant the Democratic Party or Republican Party, there’d still only be two parties (just now with Green and/or Libertarian, etc.). Any issue that gains enough importance to affect a national election will be adopted (pro and con) by the major parties, or a party that does adopt a position (should a major party fail to) may supplant and replace the major party with which it is most ideologically aligned.
Voting third party when you know that third party candidate will not win is wholly irrational and hurts your interests, other than, possibly, vanity or simply wanting to say you don’t align with the major party. Regardless, you’re withholding a vote from the major party that best matches you ideologically, and weakening that party’s chance of instituting the policies you are more likely to support.
It’s a shame political science is based on rational voters when so many act against their own interests (and the interests of those they would otherwise seek to help).
[deleted]
It’s the dichotomy between self-interest and purported interest that always gets me with third-party voters in SMDP elections. Even if “voting one’s conscience” is the rational choice for an irrational person, it literally does that person no demonstrable good. It’s just a spite vote. That’s what I can’t stand. There is obviously value to the person in making a statement with their vote but it’s pissing into the wind for their preferred policies.
I guess I just wish I’d hear once from a third-party voter that they made their choice on their own and own up to the consequences of their choice. Third-party voters were a but-for cause of Trump’s election, just as they were for George W. Bush’s election, just as they were for Woodrow Wilson’s election, and so on. Though one can debate ad nauseam the biggest reason behind a candidate’s victory, rational voting between the two major parties is probably the easiest step one can take towards eliminating such electoral pitfalls.
Wouldn't this be just Nash's Equilibrium?
[deleted]
It's a bit inaccurate to say that first past the post leads to a two-party system, but the electoral college in the US definitely leads to that. The reason is that in addition to FPTP they also use a winner-takes-all-system. So when you have large numbers of seats, which are all won simoltainously by FPTP, it will be nearly impossible for smaller parties as two parties with appealing to the same base only results in wealening their bases power, thus having more than 2 choices will always result in the people with the most choices to have the least amount of inpact.
Canada also has a parliment and a coalition government. Congress works a bit different. The major party controls the legislative body, although we've recently had a few independent (non party candidates) win seats. Sanders and King basically join the Democrats on voting issues and get rewarded committee appointments for playing along and not being lone wolves.
After liberal, NDP and conservative who is the 4th legitimate party?
Bloc Québécois. Granted they were more of a thing before 2011.
They only have 5 seats. I wouldn't consider them relevant anymore. Separatists just get laughed at now.
Just want to point out that you can be both pro-separation and anti-bloc. I know I am.
[deleted]
What do the Ontario liberals have to do with the House of Commons?
Also, the Ontario liberals don't have the inherent right to ask questions during question period because they only have 7 seats (need 8). Same with the Bloc in the HoC (need 12).
[deleted]
Where do you think the Bloc has 5 seats?
[deleted]
Regardless of what your point is. 5 seats in the HoC and 7 seats in Ontario is irrelevant. By law.
So I'm not really sure what your point was.
There are 3 legitimate parties in Canada. Liberal, NDP, Conservative.
[deleted]
Why do you insist that the Bloc is relevant.
5 seats in HoC and only 28 in their own province. And before you get all douchey with semantics, Yes, I know it is PQ in Quebec.
[deleted]
You finally figured it out, I'll post whatever the fuck I want. It's on you to ignore it if you want to.
yea and in canada fptp regularly leads to the government party having only arounds 40% electoral support which is ridiculous
By framing it that way you treat the Green Party like it's not real, despite them actually gaining support
With their one whole seat in the House of Commons. Watch out Canada.
How am I saying they aren't real? I said they have a seat in parliament. What more do you want?
That's why you need Proportional Representation. Problem is the politicians that can actually change the system to PR don't want to because they got elected through the FPTP system.
That would mean expanding the house of representatives, which would dilute Reps individual power, so they'd never go for it. They haven't expanded it in over 100 years, the population has grown and shifted since then. DC, Puerto Rico, and the US territories also have no real representation at the federal level.
it's also important to note that this was done on purpose to avoid regional parties. With US states being way way way more powerful then most countries provinces it helps to have parties that must have broad appeal over a large multi-state area.
On Gov.Uk it says "In some areas of England voters elect a mayor." That's crazy talk in the US. Not only does every city and town pick their own mayor, we pick our own county officials, and all of our own state representatives as well. Most multiparty governments are ruled heavily by a centralized unitary government like the UK.
Also the US constitution's 10th amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Most people are baffled by the idea that in different states different laws exist, and that taxes are wildly different.
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming pay no state income tax.
Hawaii, Alabama, Louisiana, Delaware, D.C., South Carolina, and West Virginia basically have no state property tax, with their property taxes ranging from Hawaii's 0.28% of average home values to W.V.'s 0.59% of its average home value, compared to the worst of New Jersey, Illinois and New Hampshire who all have property taxes above 2%.
Delaware, Montana, Oregon, and New Hampshire have no sales tax.
TLDR: Two parties was done on purpose as a way to bind states together under larger parties, as states are in many ways their own countries when comparing their powers to those of most countries provinces. A multi-party system may work now, but it is easy to see why the founding fathers wanted to knit the states together...as back in 1800 a lot of states didn't really consider themselves the same country as the other states.
also you know that there would be a Texas party that only cares about Texas.
That’s really interesting to read. Are the states still so different as to need this system though? From outside the US the states seem pretty cohesive.
yes and no. The country is about the size of a continent (Australia) and has about 325 million people, so it does make some sense to allow different areas to do there own thing. The main reason is just because the 13 colonies were super separate before the Constitution and wanted to retain a lot of the powers that they held before the revolutionary war and after.
The US was under the "Articles of Confederation" from 1781 until the Constitution was ratified in 1788...and even before than the separate colonies acted basically as separate countries under the British, with their own ability to tax, raise some troops (militia), make their own laws, form their own regional governments, etc.
So it makes sense that Massachusetts in 1788 wanted to keep the laws that they had had for decades and that Virginia felt the same, and that neither wanted or thought that what the other is doing was better.
It also should be noted that as time has gone on the Federal Gov in the US has gotten more and more powerful compared to the states. Both because of the Supreme Court ruling that they have a lot of authority, but also because $$$. Education is 100% up to the state....but the US Fed. Gov. gives money in the form of block grants to states that follow educational guidelines. The states could ignore them but then no money...so all 50 states do what the Fed. Gov's dept of Ed wants so they can get the money. This is one (but not the only one) reason why some people want to get rid of the Dept of Education. Not because they hate Education, they just want that power 100% back in the hands of the State Governments.
Lastly...yeah some states are SUPER different. The North East, the South, the Midwest, and the West are all different and even in each there are big differences. Most of it comes from who moved where, when, and why.
So New England is a lot like Europe in the fact that Vermont passed universal health care for all under 18 in 1989, Massachusetts in 2006 passed a law in an attempt to get everyone covered by insurance...which parts of were used in forming the Affordable HeathCare Act...aka ObamaCare...aka a bunch of stuff including fining people who don't have insurance. I grew up in VT and when I lived in Germany I knew some people from out West who would tell me stuff they thought was weird...and it was all stuff that people do in Vermont.
The West also has a long history of "doing it yourself" as many settlers had no one to count on but themselves. Therefore it makes sense when someone from the West doesn't want to Fed. Gov telling them what they can and cannot do, vs New England which has a long history of the state governments running a lot of programs.
In the end everywhere in the US feels like a big extended family. Sure Vermont and Texas are SUPER different but we're family and there is more than enough mono-US culture that even if you move from say small town Texas to Boston some things won't be super different. Like I said, a big extended family...you go visit your cousins in another state and you can see all the stuff they do that your family does...and then there is the stuff they do that your family never ever does, but in the end they are family and even when you argue and fight, in the end if someone came along to fight them, you better bet you are jumping right in the fray to defend them.
Edit: The US at it's best feels like the reverse of the "No true Scotsman" As in instead of saying: "Well they are not a "true" American", everyone can be and is a "true" American. I taught Yemeni born Muslim girls in NYC who moved to NYC when they were very little, head scarves and all and 90% of the time they acted like the white girls in VT whose families have been in the US since 1750. The power of US culture is strong...I think because it is so diverse, and because the main parts are more of a way of thinking than a physical identity. Many are still quite racist and bigoted, but hopefully that will fade...even if right now it seems to be coming back.
Each state is basically its own country in the US and has significant powers within its borders. Public education, road networks, their own legislature system, labor laws, liquor laws, gun laws, death penalty laws, all controlled by the individual states and highly influences the people who live there. Thats where you get people not understanding the views of people from across the country, and partly why you see such hard lines between the Republicans and Democrats.
And people point out the US concept of patriotism. But think about it this way. You see all the division and all the back and forth and hate that goes on? Imagine that without all the overall idea of the "United States" and the patriotism and the "US vs. the World" concept.
What shape do you think the US would be in?
Canada is FPTP and there are 3 legitimate parties.
Only 2 have ever formed the government, but the other one usually has enough seats in the House of Commons to be heard and relevant.
its easier for smaller scale legislatures to be third parties, just due to voter population and lack of competition, so this doesn't surprise me.
It's not impossible to have more than 2 parties at any time, its just that it is unsustainable to have that over multiple election cyclels. Two of them will inevitably dominate. The parties themselves may change over time or be supplanted when old parties lose their base, but it will always trend towards two main parties.
Small scale?
No.
The federal government is made up of 338 Members of Parliament and 105 Senators.
I think he meant small scale population wise. Canada does not have a tenth of the people that the US has.
Except in the UK which is somewhat odd, still 2 main parties but there are still clear other choices that get huge vote shares. In 2015 no party got over even 40% of the votes. In some areas there are definitely other choices to go for although where I live its a 1 party constituency going by the last few elections.
Explain Canada, the NDP and Parti Quebecois
Not a legal law but a "scientific" law.
It's Duverger's law:
In political science, Duverger's law holds that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system, whereas "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism".
Duverger himself recognized that the law is bullshit. Mostly following research that demonstrated that FPTP or single-member districts actually favored a 2+1 system with two major parties and a smaller party that moves towards one of the major parties to form the government. (like the LibDems in Britain before Brexit which shows a tendency to atomize the Parliament like all crisis periods)
I know the reason, it's the same one some here adopt when voting only for the larger parties, but it's a bit against the right of minorities, I prefer to have different political forces in the parliament to be better represented. But it's a completely different political system, we don't elect the president for instance
The two main parties are also aware that it serves their interests to keep politics to just the two of them. They inspire sone of the electoral laws already mentioned, but they also serve as strict gatekeepers in other ways. Presidential debates are actually held by private groups and the parties wrangle intensely about the rules of each debate. The rules are then set down in contracts that bind the candidates, the parties and the host to follow them. The more interesting rules are the ones to limit participation in the debates to candidates of the two parties.
The inclusion of these rules really took off in the 90’s because Republicans still swear that Independent Ross Perot cost Bush Senior his re-election bid by draining just enough votes for Clinton to win.
And this is completely legal because it’s just private parties contracting with each other to put on a private event.
While that's true, it's not the only reason. Canada also has a FPTP voting system that favors a big-2-parties system but 5 differents parties are holding seats right now (actually it's 7 parties right now, but on election night it was 5).
And that's just at the federal level, if you include the provincial and municipal levels there are much more.
[deleted]
Canada (like most of the British Commonwealth) uses the Westminster system, where seats in Parliament are decided by FPTP elections in individual districts, rather than list-proportional representation
There’s some law
Duverger's Law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
and/or The Median Voter Theorem:
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
tea party
is not a party
There’s some scientific law that states as long as there is a winner-takes-all system, there will inevitably only be two parties.
No one tell Canada or the UK
Small aside: The tea party movement is named after the Boston tea party and, unlike the other two you listed, is not an actual party. At least not in that sense.
That's just plain factually wrong. America is the only country to my knowledge with 2 parties...
There’s more than 2 parties in America. There’s just two major parties that get voted.
You have no idea how long I wondered what the party other than birthday was. Then I got it. Now I'm sad for myself.
Both of which are just permanent coalitions of smaller interest groups
Thank you.
Yeah it just sounds insane. I'm not a party person myself, but I want to be able to party more than twice if I want to.
Is that why Americans go so crazy about prom night?
American here - can't relate either. Neither party represents me or my family
That's the problem. Even if a party with just, let's say, 6% at the elections isn't in a great position of strength, it may bring something that represents you into action if it makes it into the parliament
We have many more than two. People mostly choose to vote for either of two, however, due to the first-past-the-post system.
Bro, I’m not sure which parties you’ve been going to, but there are way more than two! Bachelor, birthday, frat, housewarming, going away... the list goes on! Just try to reach out some more people and I’m sure they’ll get you into the right parties!
I mean the UK has basically just Labour vs conservative, Australia just has Liberal vs Labour. Yes there are lots of other parties. But they'll never have a significant say. I know UK is slightly different with the explosion of the SNP, but nationally they're not really anything.
I'm from Italy where there are always 4-5 parties making to the parliament after elections, so only two seems strange ;-) different countries
[deleted]
The common misunderstanding, even amongst a lot of Italian, is that people elect their government. That's not the case, you elect who represents you in the parliament, then usually the party who gets more votes, over a certain threshold, is given from the president of the republic the task of forming a government. This time no party reached that threshold, but nonetheless parties talk between themselves and two of them, one took 33% and another one 17%, made a proposal to the president who gave the task to a person nominated by the two parties. This is something expected by the constitution. Just explaining a bit, sorry if it's long
It's no worries, it's the exact same in the UK and Australia.
Here every time something that's not "X gets the majority, X makes the government" a lot of people shout out to illegitimacy, or coup d'état, just because the president gave someone the task of forming a government completely according to the constitution...
Liberal vs Labour? Aren't Labour the UK's Liberal party?
They started socialist (1905 I think) then drifted towards the Liberal or central side then new Labour (1990 Tony Blair and his fuckwits) started on the conservative side of central then drifted back towards socialist whilst still being the same party as before. All leading too now with a lot of my generation seeing the benefits of social government but forgetting the cost leading overall to a really divided party with no real clear direction other than to just try and fuck up the other parties plans but not really getting anywhere
[deleted]
[deleted]
Liberal Party of Canada is Centre-Left too, although we do have the New Democratic Party as well which is totally the equivalent of a Labour party.
The Liberal Party also has various associated provincial political parties that typically operate left of centre as well. Where it gets confusing is in British Columbia, where the provincial Liberal Party is actually the conservative-leaning party and not connected to the Federal Liberals (although there's an actual Conservative Party in BC too that leans even further right, but they're not well-supported)
The UK's Labour Party are deeply illiberal.
We still have the greens and the Libdems
The greens got what 1 seat? and the lib dems 12? Hardly worth mentioning when it's not even 5% of what labour or tories got
Imo the Lib Dems were the necessity that we now miss in government. The job they did regulating the Tory party and towing them to the centre was admirable. It's a shame that the Tories took all the credit for the initial success and blamed all the failures on the Dems.
CGP Grey has a few great videos exlaining this
One's the centre right and the other the "of the right cliff" party at that.
Well there are other parties. They just never win.
George Washington is actually keeping the earth spinning as he rolls over in his grave.....
American here, the smart ones don’t get it either. Multi-party ftw.
You think that's bad? As an American abroad, my only experience was living in a single-party state.
Obviously one party is even worse. I'm thinking of 3-4 parties ending up in parliament and participating in making laws
America has one party. The corporate party. Everything else is fringe issues
I thought you meant parties as in housewarmings, birthdays etc. I couldn't figuren out why you could not have more parties..
Technically it is more. But the system is very screwed.
We party a lot too...?
I first thought it was party like alcohol parties.i was wondering why they do one right after the other
2 party state is only very marginally better than a 1 party state.
At least here (UK) where we have 2 dominant parties we still have enough minor parties that can wield enough influence to stop them going totally off the rails or straying too far away from the centre (DUP excepted). Even then both the major parties constantly try and undermine the system by promoting an “us/them” rhetoric in order to blind potential defectors to the other options.
What I hate about the American two party system is how they've gained so much power that They're able to be gatekeepers of politics. In most situations, only a Republican and Democrat will be seen as viable candidates amd individuals from other parties are essentially not allowed to run.
You really only need to be a Dem or Rep to win a presidential election and thats only cause of the debates, you can run as a third party and stand a shot at being elected to another position although not as likely. But yes I wish more people would start to vote 3rd party.
There are more than two parties, but the two main parties have the most money to advertise it.
We don't have two parties, we have two dominant parties. People are just too stupid to comprehend that. During election time I kept sharing my thoughts on third party candidates and a lot of people would be like "oh yes I agree with them...but I can't vote for a third party because they won't win". I swear to God I heard that a lot. They won't win because of your thinking that they won't win and so others think the same and don't vote even though they agree with them!
Sorry for the rant. It's been a long couple of years.
They won't win because when it comes down to it, they are fringe parties for a reason. People might agree with them on one or two issues over the main parties, but when their positions are considered as a whole, most people align with either the Republicans or Democrats, so that's who they vote for.
There are plenty of states and districts where the outcome is so safe that people shouldn't be afraid to vote for a third-party candidate, but even in those cases, they don't get more than a few percentage points of the total. Granted, that's enough to swing elections in a state like Florida, but consider the 2012 MA presidential election. Obama was pretty much guaranteed to win the state, and even if not, MA is not going to make or break the election. And yet, neither the Green nor Libertarian party received even 1% of the vote. You'd think if there were a bunch of reluctant Green party voters among the Massachusetts liberal electorate, they'd manage more than 1% of the vote in such a safe election.
Don't worry, that's a great problem and sadly a lot of people here tend to think it that way too
Oh there's many more, it's just that no one gives a shit about them
A small group getting to dictate the rules for every other small group is the first big reason against it and having a two party system prevents that from occurring.
This. It sucks that all both parties try to do is shoot each other in the foot
Yes, and also... two parties that are pretty similar at the end of the day (at least, historically have been), and yet hate each other with all the fire and fury of a nuclear first strike.
As an American, I can't relate to it either
Yup. It sucks.
Gottem
I am an American and I like having way more than 2 parties I am not sure what you are talking about. I have a democratic party, I have a republican party, I have a birthday party, my entire company has a Christmas party. sheesh
We need two parties again. Actually, one party. Vive Wahington!
In canada we have 3 main ones, arguably 4.
It's usually the liberals against the PC with ndp getting a good amount of seats and green getting one, but in the recent ontario election NDP did better than the liberals, who got their asses kicked.
Yeah that is the first conclusions most Americans that look into politics come to.
Yeah, we party waaaaay more
You mean political parties?
Please send help.
We have 9 or more national parties in the USA but far too many Americans just ignore them to the point of them being ineffectual.
We know here in Spain. Not good, at all.
You can see the trouble it's gotten us into.
As an American I also cannot relate to this.
me and George Washington wish it wasn’t this way
We don't, just a majority that has 2 often misguided ways of thinking.
You have two parties too. They just form after the election. At least we know our coalition partners going in.
It's just as stupid as you may imagine it is.
Yea I think we should party everyday
America doesn't have just two parties. It has just two parties, who can actually get enough seats to run the government. Same as Britain and the rest of the commonwealth.
This is without a doubt the thing that baffles me the most about the USA.
bro, its yin and yang. Not yin, yeng, yung, yong and yang
Even as an American I don't understand why we keep voting for the same two people year after year.
I don't understand. Explanation?
There's a party every weekend my friend.
Its. The. Worst.
People married with their own house at 20/25
Edit : Not an issue btw. 20 is a bit early but in france i don't see lot of people getting married before 30
Edit 2 : I read all of your reply anf i think i understand the situation quite well now. Depend if you live in big city or not for the house. But getting married this early is still hard to believe for me. Just wish you are happy and don't regret it later. And to all of you who aren't married early you now know it isn't uncommon in other country !
This is quickly disappearing in America. The current crop of 20-30 year olds (aka Millennials) are getting married and buying houses much later than previous generations.
Not here in Utah. All the Mormons are dying to have sex, so they all get hitched ASAP and with a combination of zero sex education and church pressure they all end up with 5+ kids before anything truly interesting could have happened to their careers, which is sad to watch.
Why can't they do what all the good God-fearing Baptist girls do down here in the South and only do butt stuff?
Everyone down here knows that God doesn't care about premarital butt stuff... And for you non-Americans reading this, no I am not joking.
Haha, "The Poophole Loophole" is real!
God hates penises in vaginas before marriage but you can host a Shriners convention in your ass?
...and if it’s a female ass I suppose. God likes penises in female asses specifically...
Wow America, that did surprise me.
5+ kids before anything truly interesting could have happened to their careers, which is sad to watch.
I mean on their death bed who says " I wish I'd worked more" vs I wish I sepnt more time with my family
It's more like "I wish I'd focused on bettering my own situation before birthing 5+ new situations I wasn't prepared to raise or support". I can see a lot of people wishing they had more to leave their families.
More like, “I wish I worked better.”
My daughter is 22 and still lives with me.
I can’t even afford rent where I live, you expect me to buy a house?
Rural Ohio, USA here. You can seriously get a $200 a month mortgage in my town, but renting isn't exactly a "thing." Apartments don't really exist. There are condo-type places, but they're restricted to 55 and older in most cases and cost $1500 a month to rent.
I managed to find a higher-than-minimum-wage job, which is like finding a goddamn unicorn-bigfoot in this area. (45 minute commute.) I'm hoping to be able to buy a house before the developers tear down the old starter houses and replace them with mansions that will sit empty for years.
(I'm kinda bitter, sorry)
I saw the same thing happen right before the crash in 2008 in Florida too. Ruralish area with lots of old homes and apartments that were affordable.
Suddenly all the houses got bought up and flipped for 3x the price and the apartments were now being SOLD as condos for upwards of $200k
What the fuck did they EXPECT??! Sadly we're going in the same direction again.
In ruralish Florida now. Look up Crystal Lagoon and you will see exactly what the hell is going on. :(
Less rural Ohio, in a metropolitan area. 1100 dollars for a two bed room apartment. Yes I'm still mad. It's not even that good of an apartment
A mortgage tends to be less monthly than rent, even for larger accommodations. I got a 3 bedroom house for the monthly price of my 2 bedroom apartment. Just food for thought. :-)
Edit: I normally don't go back and edit these things. However, I'm seeing a lot of misinformation in the comments below this one that I like anyone who stumbles across this comment to understand. In the US, for first time home buyers, there are FHA loans. Mine required around a 3% or 5% down payment. It wasn't easy, but it was worth it.
Also, you pay for upkeep on apartments. That's why land lords mark your rent up. They make enough to cover their mortgage payment and upkeep.
Lastly, buying isn't for everyone. If you're not sure you want to stay in a certain place, do not buy. If you like an area, and it's something that works for you, I highly recommend it.
Then you become a home owner and have to deal with upkeep.
Shit if my fridge breaks I call a guy and it’s fixed for free.
Plus being able to up and move when you want is pretty nice.
Plus to get that sweet mortgage deal that's cheaper than apartment rent you need to have at least $20,000 sitting around collecting dust for a down payment. That's extremely hard to do in your 20's (and even 30's!) without significant family help or extremely hard work and some luck.
Is it easier in other countries? I'm getting tired of mine and wouldn't mind a change of scenery.
I was actually surpised by this. From a young age my dad always told a montra of "pay thyself first." I always thought he ment treat yourself, ya know a nice meal or something. I left for 6 months and was 3k in the hole (ignoring student loans). I make about 600 a week on OT so thats a healthy lil chunk (for salary I made 32k last year).
Now every week I put 200 away in an account I dont touch, Ive figured a billing roation and how to pay what bills with what pay check, and then I set aside a 125 a week budget for food, gas, and left over change moght mean a nice meal once a week. Coming on 16 months back, I have almost 13k in the bank for a house. Not bragging, just that some self moderation and patience goes along way to acheiving a goal.
I agree. I did something similar. Put aside the difference between my rent and a mortgage payment plus other costs associated with owning a home to it's own untouched account to see if I could afford and still live fairly normally. It went on for awhile and I ended up with a down payment on my first home after around 2 years.
I do a similar thing. From day one, i've been putting a significant chunk of my pay into savings (slightly over half my take home!) and just been saving it. I'm currently at 40k in savings which is a number I didn't think i'd see this early in my career. Now the hard part comes - finding a house. Many houses here are huge and super expensive, or being bought up in a couple of days for 10k over asking unless you want to drive a long way to work from the 'bad' side of town. So now I just gotta wait, and keep saving. If it takes me a year, i'll have a solid 20% + fees saved by then.
Luckily I'm renting from a coworker on a month-to-month basis which is a saving grace for me. No rush to get into a house and no BS fees to get out of a rent contract.
They're always looking for English teachers in Japan. Live in the beautiful countryside, play with a bunch of cute kids. The Education Department pays for half your rent so you don't pay more than about 300 dollars a month.
All you need is a bachelor's degree in anything and to come from an English-speaking country and you're in. JET Program, Aeon, etc
To be fair in certain areas, you can get zero down Farm loans in pretty suburban areas. I live in a solid suburban area and had we bought just across the street (outside city limits) we could have gotten one.
As it is, I only had 7,000 to put down. We paid PMI for 4 years because of that then refinanced and got rid of it.
Don't lose hope.
Interesting, I'll have to learn more about that, thanks for sharing.
And not mowing your lawn
If I charge you rent, I'm charging the monthly payment of a 15-year mortgage on the property, insurance, taxes, average of maintenance from the last five years, saving for a new HVAC and roof, plus a healthy profit.
You'd be far, far better to buy your own place than to rent.
From what I've seen, it's that most people can't afford the initial down payment on a house even with the mortgage being cheaper than rent
You are correct. Even at a modest 10% of total value a down payment on simple starter homes is 15k or thereabouts. Plus slap some closing fees in there.
If you have good enough credit, you can actually take a loan for the down payment on your mortgage but that's not likely to be the case for a 20-something upstart getting their first house.
[deleted]
People have had to compare the salary vs the cost of living and the lifestyle far longer than just the millennials. A suburban or rural area might not have the same salary of NYC or LA, but it also won't have the same outrageous housing expenses or expectations of 60 or 80+ hour weeks.
Being able to be home at 5pm and pursue your own interests vs collapsing when you walk in the door, only to get up again in six hours to go back to work? I gladly chose the former.
My friends who chose NYC paid three times as much for similar houses to ours, their daycares are 50% more expensive, their pay is double to triple mine, but I'm home for dinner while they're given a Uber home if they work past 10pm and they take advantage of it frequently. I much prefer watching our kids grow up, feeding them breakfast and dinner and tucking them in to bed, instead of only glancing in the door as they sleep and playing with them on weekends.
Pick a skill that needs employment anywhere in the country (plumber, auto mechanic, civil engineer, nurse, etc) and see what your options are.
People have had to compare the salary vs the cost of living and the lifestyle far longer than just the millennials.
You missed the point. It's not about salary, cost of living, or lifestyle. Those things all imply you have a job. For millennials, it's about job availability.
Every single trade has baby boomers retiring from it daily, there are huge gaps in every industry due to lack of qualified and willing candidates.
The problem is millennials do not want to do an honest day's work for an honest day's wage, they want swipe through Tinder during work meetings, dress like it's 11pm on a Friday night instead of business casual, and generally expect to jump right into the financial and social position their parents had after 30 years of hard work right after graduating college. You don't get a corner office and a 5-series BMW just because you have a bachelor's degree.
Pick a trade or career that actually has job prospects instead of trying to make a living through interpretive dance or underwater basket weaving. Do interpretive dance or underwater basket weaving on the weekend for fun, after your bills are paid. Or accept that you're going to be a starving artist one step ahead of bankruptcy for your entire working life.
Millennials have been doomed by the helicopter parents that coddled them up until this point, telling them that they are special and can do whatever they want. Now the cold, hard reality that they need a job that pays the bills is staring them in the face and mom and dad are sitting on a beach in Florida, not answering their phones.
There's houses in that range where I live that has a real job market with nice salaries. And it's not in the bad areas, either.
There's houses in that range where I live that has a real job market with nice salaries.
Well don't keep us in suspense!
Areas of Texas are like that. San Antonio being the most prominent with a lot of good jobs and low cost of living.
[deleted]
Northeast. And not Bumfuck, Vermont.
That's not really true. You just have to be willing to live outside of the big city. My wife and I bought a house (I was 25, she was 24) about 2 years ago near a huge city with a massive job market for about 235k. You can put as low as 5% down on a conventional loan with good credit, so we had to cough up $12k at closing. We didn't get much off the asking price technically, but we negotiated the sellers to pay all closing costs so we only owed the down payment to close.
And it wasn't a starter home, it's 5 bedrooms. We bought bigger than we needed because it's usually easier to sell houses to families versus couples without kids, so we figured if we want to sell it down the line it's better to have a family home if you can afford it.
Of course, this story would be different if we chose to live near all the nightlife and convenience of the inner city. A house as large as ours would be pushing 800k-1million most likely. Hell even the lots with old ass shacks cost more than our house because of the location. We live 25 minutes outside of the city so we don't have to rent into our 30's.
That's actually high. I'm fairly certain you can find semi okay job markets in the Midwest with houses that go for 70k
Kalamazoo, Michigan.
It's pretty easy if you aren't in big metro areas or, say, Florida
FHA loans, 3.5% is all that is required to close. USDA loans, 0% closing costs and no down-payment in rural areas.
Both of those still have you paying PMI though, right?
FHA doesn't call it PMI, you pay a monthly fee for the life of the loan that doesn't disappear like PMI on a private loan. There's no free lunch for their low closing costs, just refinance after you have 80% loan to value and interest rates are favorable.
USDA does not charge PMI, but you have to really be out in the sticks with the cows and chickens for their program to apply.
You can get a conventional loan for 5% down, but you pay PMI until 20% of the value is paid.
They haven’t heard of FHA loans then.
That's assuming one's credit isn't jacked enough from over-priced medical bills that have gone to collections and crippling student debt to even qualify for a mortgage loan.
If you can't pay your existing bills, how will you pay a mortgage?
Don't forget, you might need a $10k air conditioning system installed at a moment's notice, or a new $30k roof after a bad storm. Insurance won't cover the HVAC system if it is due to mechanical life of the system and you might have to float the cash for the roof until the insurance company can process your claim for the roof.
I'm definitely an outlier in this one. Married at 22, mortgage at 24.
Yeah same here married at 21 mortgage at 24.
26, single, about to buy a house. What's this marriage business?
It’s all the rage. For real found the right person and wanted to make it a forever thing. It definitely does not apply to everyone.
33 here, never married, haven't even considered buying a house. Unless those little microhouses count; I was looking at those for a while.
What made you decide to not get a microhouse??
A few things. First was that you can't just buy any old lot and put a tiny house on it, apparently. Then I found out that the price for the one I wanted was around $100k, which was about $20k more than the highest I expected. The rest was small stuff, like reading about what exactly is involved in a composting toilet.
It's still something I'd like to do, but it's back on a general "sometime in the future" time frame rather than within a set number of years.
From watching tons of videos on tiny houses, it seems to me that the only economically sound method of attaining one is by doing most of the building/DIY yourself. Which I'm sure would be an incredibly rewarding project, but requires a lot of time and effort...
Yeah, I honestly thought I could get a decent one for $50k before I started looking into it.
The whole buying a house super early thing was really a very brief portion of American History too mostly from how much we benefitted from WW2 economically. We had the benefit of becoming an economic powerhouse following the end of WW2 because all the other western powers were busy trying to just rebuild their countries and population. We lost troops but were left mostly untouched at home. This lasted a few decades following the war, and now its leveling out now that other countries have rebuilt and begun playing catch up.
I don't know I think it depends on a lot of different factors. I am a millennial and bought my house at 23 thanks to the FHA program. Also got married at 27.
Bought a house at 25, but not married yet at 30.
I did both
I'm almost 50 and I still can't afford a house and probably never will
Yoo you're old haa
You will be too someday :)
Probably because the money spent on college now days used to be spent on housing back in the day, so our priorities have changed
[deleted]
I didn't say otherwise.
Yup me and my wife are 23 and just bought a house a few months back.
You probably live in an undesirable part of the country.
[deleted]
Certainly not in Seattle.
And eastern Massachusetts
Def not the norm here in NJ
Not necessarily. There are nice areas of the country where you can find affordable housing, but they're frequently somewhat remote and/or have few jobs that pay very well.
Bigish cities in the midwest.. lots to do and cost of living is dirt cheap!
an undesirable part of the country.
Depends on what one considers undesirable. One person's idea of hell can be another's idea of paradise.
Living in the middle of nowhere with no job opportunities isn't my idea of a good time tbh
Which is completely understandable, there's certainly far more in the way of work opportunity in cities. There are still some in remote areas, though, and depending on the field they can still pay quite well, but of course they're comparatively hard to find.
Exactly. What constitutes "desirable" for some can be off-putting for others. I'm going to be buying a house in several years and one advantage is that I would never really want to live in San Francisco or Seattle.
Commenting again...
It's this mentality you have.. You want to live in a "desirable" part of the country huh? What does desirable mean to you? I feel like it's the stick-in-the-spokes meme or something.. You think you can't afford to live anywhere, because all the places you personally deem even acceptable are hip and over-priced. Maybe that's not you though.. but it kinda sounds like it is..
[deleted]
Uh.. well of course major cities are going to be more expensive!
What makes major cities desirable and non major cities not desireable?? Not everyone wants to live in a congested city. Many people enjoy suburban or rural living. And the cost to live in those areas is so much better.
I live in the burbs of Chicago, can confirm rent is most definitely not more affordable. Maybe in some of the farther out remote burbs but whose trying to drive an hour and a half to work?? Rent around here is within $100-200/month of what you can get in the city and that's not saying much because it's still expensive (at least IMO).
I live in the burbs of Indy. I'm 25 mins from the city and it has tons of cool stuff to do. Plenty of jobs here. I myself have a pretty sweet tech gig. My mortgage is 725 a month. I also rent an apartment that is 840 a month.
725 A MONTH?! See you soon, Indianapolis!
Shh.. don't ruin it for us! You can come, but keep it hush hush. ;)
This is true. I live in the heart of a city and, while the accessibility to services and a variety of restaurants is appealing, the detrimental qualities and crowding exceed the benefits. My wife and I will eventually want to have kids, so we are planning to move back to the suburbs or right on the periphery where it becomes rural...and the housing is so affordable for the large homes and yards!
Sounds great! Enjoy that life!
[deleted]
Well.. yeah.. I dont know.. work towards desirable, dont expect to have your dream home right away.
I'm on board with you. I have a bunch of friends that bitch about being poor but they make as much, or with combined income, more than me. I bought a house at 25. I was making 56k at the time and the house was 125k in a metro area with a population of 4 million. I have a house on the lower end of the nice neighborhood.
With that said, I will also have the house paid off by the time I am 35. I make \~75k now, I went to a small cheap college and got a degree that makes decent money.
2 major things I noticed between my friends who struggle with money and me is not a large wage gap but they don't live on a budget and buy tons of bullshit. You don't realize how much bullshit you buy until you plan out literally every single dollar you are going to spend.
Also, a lot of them financed their 20's with credit cards buying stupid shit like smart watches and tickets to bars at $200 per person to watch the world cup (They've never even mentioned soccer in their life until then and haven't since.)
Lastly, our generation is turning the minimum payment into the standard payment. Pay your debts off as fast as you fucking can!!!! live off Raman until you do!! 2-3 years of cheap, poor living to get out of debt is a lot less painful than letting interest eat away at you for decades!
125k for a House? That’s incredibly cheap. I still live in the same area where I was born and raised (San Francisco) and houses here are over a million. There are areas in CA that are cheaper but it’s just hard to leave the city I grew up in. Even an hour away, the houses are still 600k-700k.
I’m glad it worked out for you. I just wish the housing market wasn’t so fucked here. I’m still in my 20s and years away from my first house but the down payment alone will be over 100k.
What would it take for you to move somewhere where the housing isn't so expensive? At your age I am guessing you don't have much interest but I found that in my 30's when I found someone I wanted to spend my life with and plan for the future, moving away became on the table pretty quickly. Before that I was 100% opposed to moving because my whole life was here. Now they are my whole life and I'd go anywhere with them to make our future the brightest it could be.
San Fran and other similar places is the outlier for the the housing market. Yeah the market is on the rise but at the same time, a lot of our generation is terrible with money.
That makes complete sense to be honest. The girl I plan on marrying sometime soon (the ring she wants is another hurdle) just got her masters degree a couple weeks ago and is currently looking for work. I could see myself leaving the big city atmosphere one day if it was in our best interest but I’m sure that day will come soon. Living in the city with a family just isn’t realistic and we plan on having a child soon after we get married.
Thanks for your comment though. It definitely gave me some hope. I might not believe that I can leave the city at this moment but thinking about starting a family with my future wife is probably the nudge I’ll need.
Don't let yourself get caught up in the negativity. There is plenty of money and plenty of opportunities. You might just need to be aggressive. Live with a budget where you know literally where every dollar goes (it's really fucking hard to do that) and don't buy into the hype on you need the nicest things available and be flexible. Get your gal on board and it'll pay off. Your 30's will be amazing, I'm serious.
If your woman is giving you hassle over a ring, you SURE you wanna marry her? Save the money on the ring and the wedding and get a house somewhere you can afford to actually LIVE ( not just exist) Much much better investment...
You're fucked because you live in the most extreme example of the housing market. In my home area which has plenty of good/decent jobs we're experiencing a housing crunch because the average house costs more the $200k now...
The Midwest USA is cheap and growing fast. Great houses to be had for cheap.
I've done some back-of-the-envelope math, and I figure I've completely wasted at least a grand in useless crap I'll never look at again.
I was happy being able to throw an extra $400/month at my student loans and then I sat down and really did my budget and realized that I should be able to throw an extra $1000/month at them and I have been blowing $600 a month or more on complete bullshit like eating out and buying video games/camping gear and other hobby toys.
Yep! You have the right attitude and your success in society is a result of it! Keep being awesome!
I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with wanting to live in a desirable area. I'd consider a house to be a pretty big commitment to living in an area for a pretty extended time if not potentially the rest of my life, why would I want to make a commitment like that in an area I hate just because it's cheap? In fact I'd probably say buying a house, even a cheap house in an area you don't like is actually wasting money, because it feels like you're actively paying money to be in an environment you don't like, what sense does that make? Plus an undesirable area can be in the middle of nowhere with very few job opportunities and you have to spend hours just commuting to the grocery store, or it could be in places with a high crime rate, which I wouldn't encourage anyone living in places like that just because it's cheap, unless of course they like being secluded and in the middle of nowhere in which case more power to them, or they inexplicably like high-crime rates or something. Undesirable doesn't necessarily mean "anything that isn't a townhouse in the middle of the richest part of the city" or something. I'd generally agree that people can learn to settle and compromise and find places that may not be their dream location but that they do like well enough though.
You would make that investment in a heap area because it's cheap. You then sell the house in a few years and profit so you can buy a more expensive house. Work towards what you want.
Yeah, dont live 2 hours from a grocery.
Lol... where are the undesirable parts? Chicago?
How is Chicago mentioned first as your undesirable example? Have you ever been there?
I have! It was just a little joke. :)
I'm thinking the guy that commented about undesirable places has some weird ideas and I wanted to draw them out.. that's all.
Ooh ok I should know better.. just sitting here ready to pounce on anyone with the wrong idea about my city.
I respect your city pride! :)
Any major Midwestern city.
Haha! The Chicago jab was a joke.
If you're serious... Why? I live in Indianapolis, Indiana, and it's great!
You'd have to be pretty close-minded for this to actually be the case.
I'm just from a major Midwestern city and I HATE IT.
why?
Awful roads, politics are really conservative and religious, drug epidemic, boring.
I hear house prices in Flint Michigan are pretty cheap. There’s most of the Midwest, the deep South, New Jersey, pretty much any state in the west that isn’t Washington, Oregon, or California. Of course, I’m making sweeping generalizations here. I’m sure there are desirable parts of all the states I just listed. But to assume that the only undesirable part of the United States is Chicago, well I have some bad news for you bud.
Lol. Just a little joke.
I live in the midwest and it is wonderful. Plenty to do and cost of living is unbelievably cheap. Oh, and Chicago is fun!
My husband and I bought our first house at 21 when we were both had been working good full time jobs for a few years, and had our first kid at 23. Another reason I don’t fit in the millennial tag, despite my birth year qualifying.
Where did you get full time good jobs without a college education?
You do realize that there exists well-paying, full-time jobs that you can get without a college diploma, right?
Work in the oil industry pays very well. Plumbers make a good deal more money than you'd think. Electricians rake it in--especially if they can get on working ships or planes. Construction sucks to work in, but generally pays well.
sucks to work in, but generally pays well.
Applies to everything you just mentioned.
Spot on. He’s worked at a car plant since he was 19 and starting pay was $25 an hour not including overtime and night shift premium, then yearly raises and bonuses. I worked in the accounting department of a carpet manufacturer. Neither required a college education.
Well for one they may not both be 21 - the husband could be older and have one. Also, at 21, that's time to have picked up an Associates degree or finish a trade school education if you went right for it after graduating high school at 18.
It seems to be disappearing everywhere :-(
well, murderers have a hard time finding someone to marry, and we know millennials are killing everything, according to boomers
Yep, many I know can barely afford an apartment. Thanks California...
I don't plan on getting married until I have a good career, and at the same time can support myself.
Given my own rules, combined with the economy, I should be able to get my own house when I'm 60.
Maybe. I have no idea really. One minute the economy is great, then suddenly I have to wonder which doctor bill or dentist bill I should pay or which one to skip for the month.
tl;dr probably gonna be homeless instead.
Actual data about this here.
Because we can't afford anything
Who can afford either?.. Let alone both at the same time?
Yeah, because of inflation and increasing prices it’s almost impossible to buy a house in the more urban areas.
Potentially not at all
As a result of debts after college and marrying later in life, a new statistic shows the birth rate in America has fallen, and IVF and freezing eggs for later use is on the rise.
This is quickly disappearing in America
And with it, down goes the divorce rate!
Who ever would have thunk that the person you want to live with at 20 might annoy the piss out of you by 25? Wait a few years, skip that whole "first marriage" deal.
But still, even getting married is much more of a big deal in the US. When people post on /r/relationships about their boyfriend of x years, people always ask: why aren't you guys married? I live in the Netherlands and it's so normal to live together and have kids without being married.
Because we can't bloody well afford it
Actually, most previous generations also got married older. The WWII generation and Boomers are the anomaly for marrying young.
I wasn't aware that Americans could marry houses at any age.
It’s 2018 and I can marry or fuck who I want. Don’t judge me because of the comfy hole in my wall!
username checks out
More like sexattic
You stole my joke
You stole my comment
You stole my heart
You stole my username.
You stole my axe.
You stole my thunder
/u/sexattic
EDIT: Woooahhh some dark shit in that profile
Man, that one thread is so topical.
He A D D I C C, but he also F U C C
Should be ‘Sex Attic’
r/unexpectedgloryhole
Edit: Holy shit, that actually exists!
I identify as a house.
Age/Sale value/Location?
Made in 2000 so i'm legal/more than you can afford honey/that sketchy neighborhood that nobody likes being in after dark
But honestly I let people "rent me out" for the weekend sometime for pretty cheap. Find me on Airbnb
The Bible said Adam and Eve! Not Adam and Condo!
I identify as a 3-bedroom condo. Let's hook up!
Show me your walls
lewd
Glorious.
Does that include your cousin?
Only if I get to put my fingers in the holes when we go bowling.
Or the rougher one in the floor for days the submissiveness kicks in a bit.
Slut
Look at this filthy whore. (NSFW)
Username checks out.
Robosexuality is a sin!
That comfy hole is probably full of insulation. Some pay extra for that... Just sayin'
I don't think a house is a who....
Horton hears a house?
Those poor mice 😱😱
Username checks out
You can’t marry a new build you paedophile.
*pædophile
Reminds me of that chick who fell in love with the Eiffel Tower and was “dating” it
Ah, the old reddit house-a-roo...
Hold my mortgage, I'm going in!
Hello, future people!
its currently the year 2077, the world is crumbling as i produce this message, we have just perfected our plasma rifle technology, we will be rolling these out to the army pretty soon IF the axis powers are not airdropping their troopers here. i can only pray to make it out alive. Hold on a second, is that a missi...OH GOD N-
Hello!
I’m in too deep, I can’t get back out now
With, not to~!
In my language (portuguese), if we would make a direct translation, it would be "you are married with someone" (like "You went to school with john") because it's something you and someone do it together. Married to someone, in my head, sounds like you did that to that person and they had no choice.
When I heard of the show "married with children" it sounded really weird to me.
There's a difference between being approved for the loan and affording the house. 'Murica!
On a side note: I know people who make half my wage that own houses worth 2-3 times more and I have no fucking idea how they aren't foreclosed on. I assume white collar crime.
Back in the old days, if you were a man you had to marry your house before you were legally allowed to enter it.
I consummated a marriage with a dollhouse and got 20-life
Thanks, Obama!
It's an Alabama thing.
Go to the country, tons o' cheap houses.
Buncha' fucking trollops, those country houses.
I think a lady married a train station somewhere..
Oddly, that story appears in the Daily Mail and its lightweight sibling, Metro. However, it also appears in the politically-biased-but-not-generally-known-for-that-drivel-in-this-way Daily Telegraph, or at least their website(!)
As an American, I'm concerned that my house is cheating on me with the garage...they're awfully chummy.
THE MARRIAGE OF A CHILD TO A HOUSE ISN'T OUTLAWED IN 28 STATES!
Phhh, fucking Obama... what's next? Letting people marry timeshares?
Those crazy religious nutjobs were right... Legalizing gay marriage really did result in people marrying anything they want!
I consummated a marriage with a dollhouse and got 20-life
Land of the free, home of the brave
Fucking Obama!
Yeah, being gay is a sin but fucking the house is totes cool.
What can I say, Jerry Falwell was right. Once ya let the gays marry, anybody will be free to marry anything.
In japan, you can marry a Nintendo DS apparently.
Let alone afford to buy them
ah, the good old reddit switcheroo
I wasn't aware that Americans could marry houses at any age.
How dare you. I am maisonsexual
Dude it's 2018, some people identify as houses.
She's a brick... HOUSE!
They can on international waters.
Ah, the ol' reddit house-a-roo.
I identify as a yard and ILL MARRY A HOUSE IF I WANT.
Clearly you don't know the legends of the deep South where pioneers married their house and survived long treacherous journeys across the great plains and once they have found a plot of land a settle alone they married and produced many house babies and this is where Apartments come from
The slippery slope is real!
IIRC there's even someone who married a tree.
If we allow the gays to get married then houses are next! ;) /s
It depends on what the house identifies as.
Ah, the old reddit house-a-roo.
Have you see PO's wife?
So long as it's consentual you're okay
That's pretty homephobic of you
We were warned about the slippery slope of gay marriage.
They are that free.
Thanks Obama.
To this day, homesexuals still can't gave equality.
Hue hue.
This is the future liberals want
I think this is quickly going away. The cost of housing is way up, and banks are very picky about mortgages following the 2008 recession. I'm 30 and most of my friends do not own their houses.
Were* picky about mortgages. They're starting to relax again. You ready for 2008 all over again? Buckle up!
jesus christ I hope so, these days in California, if you bought a dirt cheap house in the ghetto in 2009 and you waited until now, you'd literally be a millionaire. If you sold that house though, then you'd still have no money to live anywhere in the state
Has NorCal got that expensive too now?
I haven't looked at housing prices in Cali for like 7-8 years.
NorCal is the more expensive half. It's cheaper to move out to LA now than it is to move anywhere near what could be considered the bay area. Even towns that were once small, rural middle-of-nowheres that happened to be kinda sorta close to sf are now small cities with the same hyper-inflated housing prices.
I would think a few contributing factors would be shrinking available real-estate.
I know quite a few areas in NorCal have been designated protected parks etc, and the other major areas are turning more and more into agricultural areas for cannabis-growing, among other crops.
Add to the fact that more and more people have been trying to move into these areas, and you have a supply/demand recourse where property values have no choice but to go up.
Also add that finding a goddamn salamander or something on the land you bought requires blowing three hundred people and 50 more permits before you can build a house is a great way to prevent development.
And you're also in one of the few areas in the state that are better-off when it comes to water availability.
People back on the east coast don't understand that type of issue, unless it's the city/state government that has fucked up the water.
That's....a lot of people
"Damn, found another salamander. Looks like i'll see you guys next week."
true, salamander pushed off my high school being built for like another three years.
It's not really North vs South that determines housing cost, it's urban vs rural. I can sell my 1943 crap shack on 1/16 acre in a mediocre Los Angeles neighborhood for 750k and buy a 4000 square foot palace on 20 acres in the outskirts of Redding and still have money left over.
Ah okay thanks for that bit of info. I've never lived in Cali I used to visit friends who lived in LA frequently though. Any time living in California being crazy expensive came up they'd always just say that NorCal was cheaper. I never looked into it, just took their statements at face value. Only places I ever looked at moving to were in LA before I decided it wasn't for me. :)
I'm in the Sacramento area and pretty much the only people who can buy their own homes came from money. The rest of us still have to live with roommates well into our 30s.
It doesn't help that people from the Bay are flocking to Sac.
Yep. Another Sacramentan chiming in. I do live on my own, but I've rented the entire time I've lived in Sacramento and that won't be changing any time soon. Rents are increasing like crazy due to the flocks of people escaping the Bay. Plus, with student loans, rent, car insurance, and other expenses, it will be a really long time before I save enough for a half-decent down payment on a house.
Yup. Probably the only chance I have is to find someone to marry and we combine our savings for a down payment.
Every time I start to build up my savings something sets me back. Like the last rain we had before Memorial Day - my steering suddenly went out on my car while I was driving to work and I spun out and went off the road. Nearly $2000 to repair it.
I know exactly what you mean about the set-backs affecting savings plans. It definitely does seem like a dual household income would be one of the best ways to get that down payment situated. Of course, I'm a loooong way from that (seeing as I should probably be in a relationship first, lol), but maybe someday! I'll keep the positive vibes going for us both.
yikes, i have friends here in Santa Rosa that want to move to sac because its supposed to be cheaper.
I'd hazard to say NorCal shreds Socal in real estate now.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Eureka-CA/pmf,pf_pt/45191_rid/globalrelevanceex_sort/41.155393,-123.153992,40.314613,-124.63028_rect/9_zm/
NorCal in totality isn't super expensive, it's just the closer you are to the bay the more crazy it is. Perfectly good houses around 200k in Eureka for instance. Chico is cheap for the most part. Vacaville can be affordable as well not as cheap as these first two though.
yeah but who wants to live in chico?
I bought a house last September and if that was "relaxed," I don't want to see what their strict was. That process was a nightmare.
[deleted]
Yep. Can confirm just closed last week. Never want to do that again.
Yeah my friends made half a million by selling the house they bought in 2008. Jesus I wish I was in a position to buy a house then.
Bought 3 in 09, sold 2 last year. Rent one out and paid off my townhome. Life's good.
You ready for 2008 all over again?
im down, can buy a few rental properties for cheap when the market crashes.
You're ready for a bubble pop, yes. Not an entire economic collapse. A lot of people failing to see the difference here.
it was more of a sarcastic comment to begin with.
True, especially with last weeks overturning of a bunch of consumer protections.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I work for a company that makes diagnostic pharmaceuticals and equipment. Stuff that isn't discretionary. So I hope I'm secure.
Wait, what protections got overturned? Did I miss something?
Yeah, sub-prime is back! Brand new decade, brand new name (ish). They're called non-prime, and targeted towards those with credit scores beginning at 500. Also, FMae/FMac recently loosened some restrictions on score, debt-to-income and previous foreclosure requirements.
Well, guess this really is going to be 2008 Part 2: Electric Boogaloo.
The thing that made it worse were that those were then packaged and sold as "good" loans. Are collateralized debt obligations still a thing? That was what really did it. Subprime on their own wouldn't have done much.
Solid question. My focus has always been on the borrower's impact, rather than sub-prime's influence on the greater economy. I can't tell you if those loans are being bundled, but I can tell you that the same demographics targeted by sub-prime lenders in 2006 are the ones targeted right now. These folks will pay hundreds of thousands more over the life of the loan if the arms or balloon payments don't force them into foreclosure. Even worse, many of the assistance programs out there don't work well with the eventual refinances that sub-prime loans necessitate. So, if you get a assistance or repair grant, chances are it includes a rider that says that you can refi for 120 months, or can't pull cash from equity, sell for 60months, extend the term of your initial loan or refi at any rate not lower than 1.5 points below where you are. Long story short, that cripples a lot of well off folks, and makes it impossible for poor people with sub-prime loans to get out of those loans when money runs out, debt gets too high or if a balloon payment shows up on the horizon. In my opinion, sub prime is a bad idea, no matter what year it is.
The Fed just oncreased interest rates too. That usually doesn' do great things in the short term...
ROUND 2!!!
So does that mean it's a good time or a bad time to buy a house?
It's always been my opinion that generally speaking, it's unwise to try and time the housing market just like any other market. You should buy a house because you want to and it makes good financial sense to do so. If you buy a house you love at a price you can afford, and plan to stay there for a good amount of time, you'll do fine, with the possibility of doing very well.
"It's about time in the market, not market timing"
I agree, mostly. But buying a house you love at a price you can afford can change a bit with the market. I don't think you should make decisions solely on market predictions, but also don't but when price houses are wayyyyyyy above what makes sense.
I guess, but who's to say what "makes sense"? A home is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Besides, markets can take a very long time to correct, or they may never correct. What if in 2-3 years later they're the same or even higher? Even just 2-3 extra years paying off a mortgage vs. 2-3 extra years paying rent can make a big difference to a person's financial situation. I guess the bottom line is (like you said) there are tons of factors to consider when thinking about buying a house, I personally believe the general perception of the current market (or even worse, some random redditor's perception of the market) should be a very small piece of that puzzle.
The problem is that you are thinking about a house like a commodity or like an investment. It shouldn't be that. A house should be a necessity, something that you will use to live in. Once you already have a house, then you can think of buying another one as investment, but not before you have secured the roof for yourself.
Exactly, after 2008 it was made abundantly clear that housing as an "investment" is no good.
I bought my house because it was cheaper than renting and IF I'm lucky I can sell it for more than I bought it for. But that was never the plan and I am in no way counting on it.
At this point it's just a nice roof. If I have to leave it at a loss no big deal because that was the plan from the start.
That's the problem with the bubbles. Houses are a basic necessity that humans need. But when it becomes a question of investment, then you start making decisions on whether you will win or lose. That shouldn't be the case.
Bad time. The market is back in bubble mode, wait for the pop if you can.
Meh, I don't think it's a country wide bubble like last time. I think it's really only a few places like like SF and Seattle that are truly in a bubble.
[deleted]
I think probably just larger cities in general.
[deleted]
House prices be ridiculous in Denver right now.
And all of Florida. Anywhere people want to live. These things are cyclical and will always happen. Just hopefully we learned our lesson with subprime mortgages and the whole bottom won't fall out.
[deleted]
If the bottom were to fall out in the fashion it did in 2008 again I don't believe we'd recover as a nation.
Sub-prime is now called non-prime & they're gaining popularity again. Sigh.
...it’s anywhere people want to live. So, any city that’s not in Michigan.
In Phoenix, my parents house is back up to being valued at $200k when right after the bubble "popped" it was at $115k
Any house I was looking to move in to when I was getting ready to graduate has gone up nearly $100k in price, this is either because people will NOT stop flooding to Phoenix or because the bubble is here again.
And Long Island
Naw, girl. The Midwest is going crazy. The shittier suburbs of Chicago are seeing average offer turnarounds of >week.
Lol wut? It’s a great time to buy a house. Interest rates still low. I’ve bought 3 houses since 2015. We keep having to move for work. This sub is so fucking ridiculous sometimes
It's great if you either don't intend to sell, or sell before the next time housing prices go splat. Otherwise, it's a bit risky, IMO.
lol whatever. Lose the tin foil hat
...What? This is basic economics. When growth is based on unsustainable market forces, eventually there will be a contraction. Low interest rates or no, if one believes the housing market is going to dump again in the near future, then buying before that point is a bad long-term investment. This isn't even remotely tin-foily.
It’s not basic economics because you are projecting whatever area of the country you live in on everyone else and calling it fact.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm referring to the housing market in the US. I don't know how the market is in other countries, but right now here it's not in a terribly healthy state.
I’m in the us hahaha you are so ridiculous
I heard the same thing in 2007. We know how that went.
Get over yourself. You are so full of your own bullshit
Says the guy throwing around insults and not providing any kind of counter-argument. Sure, I could be wrong, but the conditions that caused the crash in 2008 are still here, so I doubt it. ~~If you disagree with me, stop being a bratty douche and act like an adult.~~
EDIT: Okay, that last part was immature of me. I don't mean to be divisive, and if you disagree with me I genuinely would like to know why. If you aren't up for it, that's fine too. I'd just rather not have an argument over the internet if all we're going to do is attack one another. We'd just be wasting both our time.
Come to Columbus check out the market here bud. Idk if you are in Seattle or SF or New York but whatever market you are in it’s not representative of the country. Not even close. There’s no bubble here. It’s been growing at an insane pace for years.
I hope so(preferably in the next year and a half). My fiancee and I want to buy a house sometime in 2019 out on Long Island and the prices are just out of this world even for crappy houses.
Housing bubble pops are great. The collapse of the entire mortgage industry of 2008, not so much.
Recent studies show that banks are actually getting increasingly picky. Subprime and alt-a are at all time lows, whereas the people with high credit are increasingly borrowing more.
That was the case until very, very recently. I don't think we'll make the same mistakes we did last time, but we are certainly starting to make moves back in that direction.
I'm trying to find the source currently but it was posted within the past month.
The biggest difference between today and 2008 is that (a) subprime borrowers not only have harder access to mortgage products, but even when accepted, their interest rate would be too steep to accept, and (b) the banks can no longer pawn off MBS as an AAA investment vehicle. No one wants to buy them since people know how risky they are and how quickly they can turn sour.
Like I said, we won't have a repeat of 2008 but places are starting to offer mortgages again with minimal proof of financial stability. We'll see 🤷
It definitely won't be the same. However, housing prices are a huge issue no one's addressing. They're rising once again at an untenable rate and will drop.
I dunno, man. I work in federal housing, and that's not the trend we're seeing. Also this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/12/sub-prime-mortgages-morph-into-non-prime-loans-and-demand-soars.html
first we gotta let the sub prime auto loans hit !
I've been on the fence on if I should grab an easy mortgage while I can or wait for prices to drop but run into the issue I've had previously with a very picky lender who wouldn't give a mortgage to anyone with student loans.
My rent is as much as a house double the size of my apartment (and that's a total amount including escrow and potential PMI). I have zero problem affording rent, student loans, and other expenses. I'm regularly putting away savings, but not enough to realistically reach that 20% golden rule anytime soon (by the time I can catch up prices go up again, constantly moving the goalposts). I'm in an extremely secure job, so I don't worry about losing it or having to relocate when a downturn occurs. In fact, downturns make for pretty cushy times at my job.
I could wait until prices go down again but run into the hurdles I had last time, or I could buy while high, knowing that I can more than afford it, and maybe get approved this time.
Neither option is perfect, but one has to be closer to ideal.
I don't think we'll see the same catastrophic collapse we did in 2008 so I don't think you have to worry too much. They have just now relaxed some requirements, so you might be in a prime time to buy. Also, shop around, and shoot me a message if you want. My SO does mortgages and gets people in houses for WAY less than 20% down payment. He said student loans will count against income at 1% of the loan total per month, so if you gave $100,000k of loans, it will essentially decrease your monthly income by $1k per month. Should still be able to get into a house with that, hopefully, especially if you have proof of consistent income.
Have you looked into FHA/Fannie/Freddie? A free HUD housing counselor should be available to you through the local Housing Authority.
you can get conventional loans under 20% , interest rates may be a little higher but may be better for you in the long run.
Make Recessions Great Again
Dodd Frank being basically completely undone is frustrating to me but we covered our asses so we won't get hurt by it happening again.
dodd frank caused the problem to begin with. it forced banks to give out bad loans without being able to deny , the government mandated they give loans regardless of qualifications.
dodd frank caused the problem to begin with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
Not sure how Dodd Frank caused the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis when it was signed into law in mid 2010. Wanna explain your reasoning instead of downvoting me and just saying stuff you believe?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Dodd_Frank_Tier_1_ratios.png/400px-Dodd_Frank_Tier_1_ratios.png
I think you are confused about what Dodd Frank is:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dodd-frank-financial-regulatory-reform-bill.asp
It placed restrictions on speculative trading and proprietary trading. These two things were a large part of the exacerbation of the financial crisis. It also regulated the derivatives on credit default swaps. It also setup an Office to regulate the Credit Rating agencies.
i didnt downvote you , i dont bother with that kind of thing. someone else downvoted you probably for taking a party line im assuming.
now while dod frank did not cause the 2008 problems, it actually made them worse, previously we gave everyone loans, then after dodd frank we gave no one loans, so that now its damn near impossible to get a mortgage unless you are pretty much affluent and white. Small banks will not loan for small business anymore because they cant afford it, its why ever 16 democrats voted to repeal dodd frank.
Fuck that.
I am 34 and have long given up on the notion of buying a house.
Between down payment, closing costs, hoa fees, property taxes, regular taxes, interest rate fees, fee fees, and regular upkeep...no fucken way.
I would rather just keep my savimgs for nice vacations and emergency funds.
27-year-old here and I'm leaning closer and closer to this line of thinking as well, lol. Getting the down payment alone is a big enough challenge, at least when you are doing it completely on your own while paying other expenses, too. So right now, buying is just not an option.
[deleted]
That's exactly what's happening with the real estate market in my area! There is a huge influx of people escaping from the (very expensive) Bay Area and buying up properties in my city. That influx seems to be contributing to greatly increasing rents and makes it harder for people like me/us (those without a bunch of cash floating around) to buy a decent home.
Except that $1000 a month mortgage isnt being burned every month like it is at an apartment complex or renting a house. House upkeep is not that expensive, especially if you buy new construction you wouldn't have to do anything. Most houses come with warranties and you can even get warranties on appliances if new or used with the purchase of the house. We bought a house that was 35 years old and every appliance that was in it, the roof, and the large metal shop on the property came with a 5 year warranty for like $20 a month.
Just wait until you’ve had that house for 10 years, then everything will start breaking at once. That’s what my parents are going through with their house, which they’ve had for 13 years.
Scrutinize your builder like crazy. There's a builder around here that builds cardboard boxes, essentially. I would NEVER buy new construction after seeing the way houses are built today. Zero insulation, it's just fiber board and siding. You're LUCKY if they use house wrap. Thing is gonna leak like a sieve.
It’s not really the structure of the house (the houses around where we live are built well) but like appliances and stuff. Heating, cooling, etc.
But how much does one pay between down payment, closing costs, hoa fees, property taxes, regular taxes, interest rate fees, fee fees, and regular upkeep?
You are probably already out $20k - $50k before you even get the keys!
We paid less than $5000 and had the keys in hand. Including every fee, tax, etc.
Our payment is an extra $100 a month until it's paid back. They are called pmi (protective motrgage insurance?) You could Google that and read about it. Or rurual housing loans.
There's also programs for first time home owners that you can put $0 down. Literally nothing down, no fees, nothing. We decided to do the rural housing instead because the PMIs were cheaper.
Rural housing .......well, that answers a lot.
But congrats! Sounds like you got a good deal for you!
I mean, it's 25min from Nashville, not like we live in the middle of nowhere. Rural housing (at least in TN) is outside city limits. You could be in the same county as Nashville and still be able to get a loan through it.
You're getting too negative. FSA loans only require 3.5% down and USDA loans require zero. Yeah there are areas where housing is ridiculous. There are plenty of areas it's not. Midwest America is great for tech and the houses are cheap.
I too am 30 and most of my friends suck with work history so they don't own homes. I have maybe a few friends now who have had long stable work history who don't own a house. I just bought a 30 year dept 2 years ago. it is in the shape of a house which is nice. a warm debt to live in. I have a friend who has his house almost paid off already. it really is going to depend on the state you live in for this one.
26 and just bought a 30 year town-debt. don't mind sharing the walls of my debt.
Honestly this isn't a bad way of looking at it. Housing should never have been seen as an "investment" that's what got my parents in trouble and they almost lost their house after 2008
I’ve owned my house since I was 19. Granted it’s a shack nestled between mansions, but hey, it’s mine.
As a Seattle native... it's damn near impossible to buy a house here now. Thanks Amazon.
I was thrilled when Amazon passed up St. Louis.
Yeah fuck having major corporations come to a city set up a headquarters and bring in thousands of jobs, people, and other businesses
It can also price natives out of the housing market. And in St. Louis’s case, we were fucking going to throw ourselves at the financially. If amazon wants a new HQ, they should pay for it. Not tax payers.
If you have two years constant income you can get pre-approved for a much larger mortgage than you would expect.
Since 2008 QE has made it so banks are looking for anyone that isn't sketchy to loan money to
Can confirm. I was working under the table for a long time till I got a job on the books starting around 45k. Only 2 years of work history, and 3 years of historyon a $200 secured credit card, I got approved for 200k loan. 3% down. I never had any loans before in my life I was turned down for store credit cards like Best Buy. Always bought my car is cash. I didn't think I'd be approved for anything at all let alone enough to buy an actual house. I was in tears during that phone call. In 2014 I bought a house for a hundred and seventy-nine thousand. All I had to bring with me was about 7500 bucks, that covered my down payment closing cost and whatever else. My mortgage is only 1100. That's what my rent used to be in the house half the size in the same town.
Shit, in 2011 when I bought my house they approved me for almost $500k with a 56k annual income. I was like you have GOT to be kidding!!! Banks are insane and want you to buy something you can't afford.
Honestly depends on where you live. It seems like outside of the major cities, it is pretty normal to own your own house in your twenties with not much college debt (because of state school), e.g. vast parts of the Midwest and South.
I would love to move to a major East Coast city but I am not sure how I would afford a house anymore, and my overall quality of life would go down so much.
I'm in the Midwest (St. Louis) and even, most of my friends still rent.
Unfortunately, I'm also noticing a trend that the people my age that own a home did NOT go to college and started working in management for QuikTrip, Dierbergs (grocery store), or are in trades that do not require degrees etc. Those that went to college, especially with advanced degrees, can't afford houses.
Those that went to college, especially with advanced degrees, can't afford houses.
Yup I agree, it sucks how student debt really sets you back from being able to own a home. I have my graduate degree from a Midwest state school but got lucky with not having student debt. The houses I was looking at was in the 150k-250k range so it ended up making more financial sense to get a mortgage than to rent, but cobbling together down payment would have been difficult if I had debt.
Yet my parents keep saying “oh you’re 30 a degree and a real job why are you slacking off and not buying a house?”
My parents got an assumed mortgage at $100 a month for a 3 bedroom house and her parents gave her $14,000 for a down payment....
Edit: That was in 1984, but still a good deal.
Holy crap, a $100/mo mortgage!!!
In 1984. Forgot that part ha.
Apparently $100 in 1984 is a $508.26 mortgage in 2018 which sounds a lot better (and $14k down payment is $33k today). But yeah... that down payment!! Did you ask why they weren't putting one up for you? :P
I’m getting $241/month. If you’re using the calculator I’m using it defaults to 500 something and doesn’t update on it’s own. You have to click calculate.
Of course I asked. Their excuse was “well we’re not a bank, you’ll feel better if you accomplish it yourself, and giving you or lending you a down payment wouldn’t teach you anything about working towards goals. Besides, we co signed for your car when you graduated from college” I’ve also explained how awful it is to rent right now, and my dad has seen first hand the way my landlord maintains my house.
And yeah, my parents are Republicans with money.
At this point I may wait for my grandparents to pass to buy in cash or put a large percentage down. I know that sounds bad. I’m not hoping for it, but it’s going to happen soon.
facepalm you're right, I didn't properly click.
Aww that sucks :( good luck with the grandparents! For the down payment, I got approved for the American Dream Loan (put up 3% down payment instead of 20%) which was helpful.
Either cant afford them or they are like me and expect to have to move in 3 years to get a significant wage increase
Now that sucks. I’m very lucky to be in a field (IT) that is a job seekers market in my city. Sure I may have to leave the company for a raise, but not leave town.
Yep. Midwest and south have rather cheap housing, and from what I've seen those tend to be the states with lottery funded scholarships so a lot of people get cheap/free college education.
Houses are not expensive everywhere.
Just in places people actually want to live.
If you are okay with a 15 min drive twice a day you can easily get a decent home for under $100000
Again, depends where. Average homes are like 1.2 mil where I am, 15 mins ain't gonna drop that by a factor of 10
I know that not everywhere has cheap suburbs that close but I’m just saying that there are cheap suburbs that are relatively close and nice. So there are places that people wanna live that are cheap
Ain't no fuckin' way you're finding a house in the suburbs for 100,000 dollars that isn't part of some drug ring, in an unsavory neighborhood not suitable for children, or sitting on a sewage wasteland.
ummm yeah you can. It's wear I live
hahaa k
Near a major city, you have a point.
Near most other small-medium sized cities, there is plenty of affordable housing. I live in Houston and you go 15-30 miles from Downtown and there is plenty of decent housing under 200k. Lots of good jobs have moved to the suburbs as well.
I eventually want to move back to the states, I'm going to keep this in mind!
Houston Metro is larger than my state population-wise. Not even a minor Metro but one of the largest in the nation. But Texas has cheap land and few property laws so building is cheap.
[deleted]
The kicker for a lot of people (myself included) is the down payment. Did you purchase your first home with zero down or did you have a sizable down payment? I have some friends who get financial support or "gifts" from their parents/relatives for their home down payments (and good for them!), but some people, like myself, do not have that option. Technically, unless I did zero down, I truly CAN'T afford to buy a home yet. With rent, student loans, car insurance, and other expenses, it takes a long time for people to save that money, and I think it's important to remember that not everyone is living under the same circumstances.
[deleted]
I did work my ass off in high school, too. I grew up in a small town, went to a small high school, I did extracurriculars, had a 4.2 GPA, while also working an actual job starting at the age of 15, so no need for the passive aggressive "work your ass off" comment. I know all about that. Unfortunately, I lost a parent who was the breadwinner for our household income, which lead to a tragic financial situation in my family. I have student loans from graduate school (undergrad was primarily covered by grants and scholarships because it DOES pay to work your ass off in high school). And the loans I have aren't even what I'm most worried about. It's all the other life expenses in addition to trying to save.
Honestly, good for you for having the ability to do 5% down and refinance at a time when things worked in your favor. That's great, and I am happy for you. All I'm saying is that not everyone has the same circumstances.
Edit: a word
Bought my first house and 23, second one at 30, moving into third one at 35. This new house is the first one to cost over 100k.
[deleted]
Where?
Depends on where you live. I'm 27 and know at least 4 people my age that own them.
I’m 31 and can probably think of 1 or 2 friends that don’t own their homes...
It depends a lot on location I think. I'm 24 and many of my friends (and myself) own a house.
This sub is ridiculous sometimes.
Hint: It makes the strawman more money to rent than to allow home ownership.
A hellllll of a lot more. About 50% more.
and banks are very picky about mortgages following the 2008 recession.
Wait another 10 years or so for the next pump and crash. Even now, the protections put in place after the last time are being undone.
Time is a flat circle.
Well, the banks that didn’t cause the 2008 recession
I have a couple millenial friends in their 30's with an apartment. One of them is a psychiatrist and one is a lawyer. Crazy shit if you ask me
I've known people like that, and they rent because it makes them money if they can work more. They can also move quickly if they find better jobs too.
One guy was a lawyer and charged insane amounts. His apt near downtown was 2k a month, but living in the suburbs would mean 1-2 hours in the car plus house maintenance and other stuff.
Instead, he could stay in the office and bill 1-2 hours more every day. That meant the apt was basically free after less than a week!
If you have a family, then yeah buy that suburban house. But if you can work more hours and have no kids, an apt close to work can work very well too.
Obviously I can't speak for them, but I don't want it this way. A mortgage would be far cheaper per month--but saving for the down payment is the killer.
I'm also changing up living arrangements next month and will be going from paying $1150 for my rent, to only paying $450 for my portion.
That's fucking wonderful mate, I hope it goes well for you! And nobody wants it this way, saving for your down payment is killer.
it's not the norm, but there's definitely some cheap housing in places in the US, it's because of all the land
Yeah I’m almost 30 and none of my friends own a house and some of them make quite a lot of money.
I'm 25 and I can't get a job that allows me living on my own. (European). Only 1 of my friends (out of 30) can really do it.
As others have said depends heavily on where you live. My wife and I bought a house at 23/22. We were able to buy with practically nothing down thanks to rural housing loans.
This always makes me feel better to see because for some reason my friends and I have felt like there is this expectation hanging over our head that we should be married and have houses by now.
I got married in my late 20s but we won't be able own a house for another 5-10 years at least. Too expensive.
Depends on where you live. Most people around that age in FL own a home.
Obtaining a mortgage is very easy. With a credit score above 640 & 2 years of steady income, you will get a mortgage.
That's interesting. I'm 31 and all of my friends and myself own our homes. Maybe it's regional.
Yeah, my boyfriend just bought a house at 21 and it’s a major deal. He was lucky and his mom’s friend and his grandma set up a fund for him and his sister for college, but he works and trains in a trade. His job pays for all the schooling, so he cashed in his fund and made the down payment for the house. He’s an anomaly.
I, on the other hand, am 30 and my wife and I have a house and almost all our friends own a home as well.
Probably depends on where you live.
Im 31 and I’m desperate to move back out of my moms house. Im getting like 3 interviews a week for jobs but i cant find anything. I live in the Bay Area California, so the odds of me ever owning a house is next to none.
Yeah I noticed that as well. I married an American, we were both 25. That is considered unusually young here (Australia), but back home in the US, all her family members were getting married barely out of college (early 20s), and she was considered one of the older marriages. Normal middle class family too, in the northern US, not a small Southern rural town or anything like that.
The big difference is that getting married comes with various tax-related benefits in the US, and allows you to put the other person on your health insurance etc. Neither of those are relevant in Australia, where you always file taxes as an individual, healthcare is universal, and any couple living together can get appropriate government/family benefits regardless of if they are married or not. I have quite a few friends who are in their late 30s and have multiple school-aged kids etc. and have no intention of getting married, even though they have been with their partner for 15 years or whatever. Marriage makes little difference to anything so why bother.
The big difference is that getting married comes with various tax-related benefits in the US, and allows you to put the other person on your health insurance etc.
If you're in the upper 20% of income or so, the marriage penalty was just removed from taxes. If both spouses earned enough income that exceeded a threshold, they would be taxed at the higher rate. However, if they weren't married but cohabited, they could file separately and be taxed separately.
It is true about the insurance in some states, although California had a domestic partnership clause.
in Canada getting married is WORSE for taxes.
Wow I had no idea there were no financial benefits for being married in Australia. Interesting!
Well there’s no concept of joint filing in most countries, including Australia. So in terms of tax, yeah, it makes no difference.
There are obviously government/financial benefits you can be eligible for as a family, or if you have kids, but whether you’re married or not is irrelevant to that. A de facto couple (living together in a relationship long term) is legally equivalent to a married one for government purposes.
This is fairly standard in European countries as well. The US (and east Asia it must be said) are much more traditional and conservative on these matters though.
Who are you talking to? Because most people I know don't marry until they are in their late 20s or 30s. And home ownership depends on the area. In urban areas, single people generally don't own homes.
Eh I bought a house in Oklahoma at 23. It’s not a nice house and it wasn’t an expensive house, but it counts. I definitely think it’s common in Midwest regions.
Outside of the cities, you are probably right. I don't think you can even rent in many places.
I live in one of the largest cities in Oklahoma and you could definitely rent. But my mortgage is $500/month, so renting makes very little sense
Oh definitely in that situation you should buy.
[deleted]
If renting is cheaper in your market then renting is a decent option. But if having a mortgage is cheaper per month, why would you pay rent on something you don't own? Is your fear of repair bills really worth paying rent instead of a mortgage and building equity?
You're not supposed to buy a house as an investment if it's your primary residence. That being said, buying a house in the long term is typically a better use of money than renting for the rest of your life, although every situation is different. You may have to deal with a pest infestation or a broken AC unit, but it's not like you're gonna do that every single year. There's variations in the cost you pay and it may suck to have several expensive problems in a row right after you move in (which is why you should have savings!), but that shouldn't deter you from buying if you have the solid financial foundation to deal with potential issues. IMO it's like saying "Don't buy stocks, the price could go down!!" Well yeah, but in the long term the overall stock market trends upwards, so I think I'll keep buying index funds.
I live in Chicago, am single, and was advised heavily by my financial advisor to purchase. I have a condo and enjoy it. If you have the means, you should buy. It is shoddy advice to tell someone who cannot buy to buy or pressuring people to buy more house than they should but otherwise you should consider buying.
Still infinitely smarter than renting a mediocre apartment, good on you. I waited until I was 27 to buy my first house just because I didn’t meet mortgage requirements. Funny how they feel you’re fit to pay 1200/m for a shitty apartment but 700/m for a house is too risky lol.
I’ve lived in Arizona/Utah (i.e., places with high concentrations of Mormons, a demographic who tend to get married very, very early, in my opinion much too early to be able to have a financially secure and emotionally satisfying marriage); probably about half of my graduating class is married. I’m 21. Maybe 25% were married before they turned 20.
That has more to do with religion. Go to any major city and that isn't the case. Birth rates and marriage rates in the US overall is pretty in line with Europe.
Right, I should have been more clear that the situation I spoke of is definitely outside the norm for the rest of the country; if I remember correctly the average age of first marriage is 28 for women and 29 for men nationwide, which is similar to the EU.
Not talk but saw on reddit !
There are pockets of very religious areas where marriage is early because you're not getting any sex without a ring.
In Texas it’s still common.
I guess me? Married at 24, owned a house at 19.
But it's true that when I lived in Belgium people were shocked I was married. It was too young in their eyes.
Homes in my area are mice-infested garbage for 1 mil+ :']
Maybe he's talking to me? I got married at 26. I knew people that got married right out of high school.
I just want to be able to afford rent and food without having to decide if I am going to eat breakfast or fill my gas tank.
I would say it’s not uncommon to be married around 23 and buy a house soon after in Nebraska.
Not married, but do own a house that I bought at 22, am currently 23. Right after I graduated school I found a great job that pays enough to afford one, so I thought it would be cheaper/better than renting in the long run. I also have a very large dog, so she needs a yard to run in, which is very hard to find when renting.
[deleted]
Well, I do live with my SO at the moment, but she’s not on the mortgage agreement and stuff. I guess my immediate plan is to stay... I love my job, so that would be hard to leave if I ever have to move. It sounds like she aspires to be in a bigger city though, so we may end up moving later.
So short answer, I guess it’s more situational
How much could you possibly be making right out of college to afford a house? Did your parents help? No judgement, I just can't wrap my head around how the funding is working here lol. What's your mortgage?
I’m a software developer, and my starting salary was $60k, house cost $200k. Got a loan of $20k from parents to help with the down payment / initial repairs and stuff.
I live in the Midwest if that helps you rationalize it lol.
As someone from the Midwest, yeah it does haha
American here: that’s definitely not the case everywhere. It’s a largely regional thing.
I think it's more about your income. Myself and most of my 20-something coworkers are married and own houses. Most of my high school/college friends are not.
The fact you even said that takes a HUGE weight off me for being alone at 25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_first_marriage
Average first marriage age isn't THAT different between France and the USA. France is 30.8 and the USA is 28.2.
Just what I was going to bring up. Even growing up in the midwest, very few of my friends got married prior to their late twenties.
Yes. This "get married and buy a house at 20" is extremely atypical in the US. Maybe it's a bit more common in rural areas, but despite the rhetoric, most Americans aren't rural dwellers. Even most people contradicting OP are wrong saying it's "quickly changing." The average age of marriage hasn't been that low in a very long time. Despite what everyone online says about their grandma getting married at 14, getting married at 20 was really only common for a minute in the 50s and 60s (for women; average age of marriage for men has never been that young). Prior to that, it was in the early to mid 20s, even in the 1800s.
It's primarily a rural thing. Out in the country you can buy a house for under $100,000 and a lot of people marry their highschool sweetheart.
Meanwhile, I'm 30, have been dating the same girl for 4.5 years and aren't even engaged, and need at least $300,000 for a townhouse and I'm in a relatively low cost of living city. People in California or New York probably need $1,000,000 for something similar.
Seems like Europe !
$300,000 for a townhouse? Holy crap. That blows me away.
I'm one of the guys you talked about. I come from a small town. Mid 20's. Married my highschool sweetheart. And we are currently looking for a house back in our home town. All of the houses are between 90k and 130k. I can't imagine a small townhouse being so expensive. That's just nuts to me.
That's a 00's build townhouse too that probably needs a kitchen reno to be up to date, if you care about those things, not new construction in a highly desirably area.
When you say 00's, do you mean 2000's or 1900's?
A few of the houses I've looked at recently are super old. I know one was from 1908. I looked at it because it was super fucking cheep but needed some work on the pipes and walls and whatnot. So if a 1900's house costs that much, well thats just ridiculous.
If it's 2000's well that's more understandable than 1900 haha. But for comparison, a 2000's house near me is around 125k-145k. Also, where I'm at, a kitchen from the 90's is still considered up to date haha. We are a little behind out in the sticks. But it's a simple life.
2000's
Where I live you can get a decent rowhome in a boring part of the city for $75k, but it will probably be from the 1930s and thus have no central HVAC. If you want a townhouse in the suburbs from 2000 it would probably cost you upwards of $300k. I rent but that's because I like living in a more lively area and the homes in my neighborhood are generally 4 or 5 br Victorian rowhomes from the 1910s/20s and thus are way out of my price range. Baltimore is an interesting city when it comes to housing prices.
A town house by me recently sold for 1.6 million dollars. It wasn't huge or super pretty either.
Cries in Californian
Most people I know would kill to get their hands on property that cheap.
Same! I'm 30 been dating the same girl for 6 years and still not engaged but we are very happy together in our comfy apartment and 3 dogs, also in a fairly decently cost of living city. I try not to succumb to the pressure of our parents nagging us about marriage and kids.
Engagement & weddings are expensive. We're struggling enough to save up to buy a house with student loan debt. I don't need another 5-figure expense.
Yeah we're actually considering doing a court wedding to skip all the wedding planning and engagement bullshit, then probably a more traditional "wedding" on like a 10 year anniversary or something.
Wife and I married 5 years ago. Did it for $5000 and had over 100 people attend. Again, probably depends on where you live but you don't have to drop 5 digits to have a nice wedding per se.
It's primarily a rural thing
I'm from Tennessee and people getting married right out of college is pretty normal in my area. But these are the people from my Baptist high school, many couples are high school sweethearts, or met another virgin Christian like themselves and got hitched young. My classmates were mid to upper middle class, so I'm sure their parents helped out with college so probably didn't start with much debt so easy to get a house with whatever job.
Hah, my girlfriend went to Lipscomb. Most of her highschool and college friends have been married, divorced, and remarried by now. Her being unengaged and living with me for the last couple years is a massive anomily
My guess is a lot of that comes from how things like love and relationships are over-simplified and sensationalized in media here.
When high schoolers see those things, many just assume that the person they want to spend the rest of their life with is probably going to be one of the first people they date for a decent amount of time.
Married at 31. Homeowner at 32. Where do I go to get my beret and stripey shirt?
People getting married between 18-25 is a very common and almost cultural thing in the southern (south eastern) US. I won't lie, alot of those marriages don't last.
Buying a house at 25 in 2018 though? Good fucking luck with that one!
This was my exact thought. It’s easy to get married, but buy a house? God I wish.
Bought at a house at 23. It's all about location though. Really not that difficult in a rural area.
Most of them are in debt up to their ass trying to live the "American Dream". And mortgage companies (banks) are happy to help them to financial ruin.
That is changing in many parts of the US. In the northeast and west coast its often too expensive to buy a house until you are in your late 20s or early 30s and its not uncommon to see people not buy a house until mid 30s. Student loans and poor wages have made it hard for young people to buy homes.
As an American in my 40s I find that extremely strange myself. I know it was a thing for my parents generation, but either is very uncommon among those I have known from my own generation and younger.
I'm a American and I still can't relate to this
This is very regional and highly dependent on whether you live in a rural or urban area. In the urban Northeast it would be unusual for you to be married before 30, for example.
22, fiance is 23, we own our house in Washington State.
That said, we got very lucky as individuals and most of my friends live in apartments or with their parents.
I live in Montana and this is very very common here. I think its because of the rurality that can come with living in Montana as well as having no or little life experience outside of Montana. Its wild!
I live in an area of the US where 20 is considered too young to marry, but most people start doing it around 23 or so. (Which is too young for me) A high percentage already has kids at that age, married or not. I've only seen people who are married, with kids, and living in their own house at that age on TV and ONCE in real life. And that one time was when I bought something off of OfferUp from a young family that lived way out in the sticks. I wonder how any of them can afford a family and a house at that age. We all do.
When i say 20 it's more like 20/25. I don't see a lot of married people before 30 in france
Laughs in Californian
I was 25 when we bought ours and have been married for almost a year.
Well, i'm 24 with no girlfriend and live in my parents house while i studied !
the best thing my parents did was have me graduate college without debt. I cannot be more thankful I didn't have to pay for college.
But good luck with your studies.
Seems to be something really hard in USA ! Thank you !
I'm 19 and have been married for a year, moved out and have a son..I suppose that is the life I was given being pushed out the door by my parents with 9 kids. I couldn't imagine living with my parents at 24..be nice..but never gonna happen here..
I know I'm lucky and I don't want to be rude, but I don't think I would be married at 19 even if I got kicked out by my parents. Maybe it's the difference in culture ? I wish you luck in life now that you are with your love one.
Could very well be. Having 8 siblings also makes me get lonely easily by myself, so that's likely a contributing factor too
Ahah yes that could be too ! Only have 2 older sisters who are 8 and 9 years more than me. And my parents are pretty old compared to other people i know (More than 60 years). I had to play by myself a lot (Hello video games). But that's also why it's a little hard for me to socialize.
That's close to our situation--25 when we bought our house, married 2 years. Congrats on your homeownership! :)
Close to 25 here married 2 years and closed last week. Must be a Midwestern thing.
That will be me next year, hopefully! Hopefully on just the house buying part, because the married part happens in 3 weeks.
CONGRATS!!!! ENJOY!!!! HAVE A GREAT HONEYMOON IF YOU ARE HAVING ONE!!! AND PUT A PICTURE OF YOUR/HER DRESS ON THE WEDDING SUBREDDIT!!!
Hahaha thank you, especially for the enthusiasm! No honeymoon yet, we are delaying that and the reception until next year :) I have a picture of my dress in my post history now if you want to see!
THAT BACK!!!! The back of mine was what me get it. It did me in. Congrats again doll!!!! To a life time of happiniess!!
May your love be modern enough to survive the times and old fashioned enough to last forever.
It got me too! I was feeling slight regret about it when it arrived, but it's currently being altered now and seeing it fitted to me made me love it all over again! Thank you very much!! I love the sentiment :)
p.s. I creeped on your posts, and I love your dress too!! The flowers were beautiful as well!
thanks I have a ton of photos from my wedding. It was a great day.
I got married at 23 (practically an old maid in Utah where I'm from) and we recently traveled to Europe for our 2nd anniversary. When we told the customs agent in Ireland that we were there for our 2nd anniversary, she muttered 'child bride' under her breath lol
Definitely don't have my own house though, and don't plan to any time soon with the housing market the way it is
Thats for the more rural parts of the country. Out where people want to live it's actually expensive.
Not living together before they get married. Someone mentioned it in a comment i saw today as well. Seems crazy to me. What if your partner turns out to be a slob
That's a really bad idea yep !
In the city people tend to get married buy houses later because of prices and such. But in rural areas yeah people get married straight out of high school, the ones with manufacturing jobs get houses right away. Not a bad thing but some friends in the city don’t understand it either. It’s just life out in the country.
I got married at 19 and owned a house when I was 23 and no college degree...which probably makes sense because an educated person would not have done that. This is in relatively modern times too.
In the country/rural areas this is super true (I grew up in one), but in American cities people get married when they're older, if at all. I remember reading that the average New York male gets married at 34.
This is literally me. I'm 25, and I've been to maybe 10 or 15 weddings of people between the ages of 20 and 25.
Grew up in Georgia and married my high school sweetheart after graduating college. Bought a house in a fairly modest CoL city one year after getting married. We'll likely move to a higher CoL area soon, though.
People getting married right after graduating college is fairly commonplace in the South. Any earlier than after college (in my social circles, at least) is definitely more frowned upon, though.
How is it working out for you?
It's working out really well! Life is good.
that’s awesome bro! i hope to do the same someday and really hope she’s the one i end up marrying.
Thanks, and best of luck to you!
This isn't that weird in Europe either if they go the "blue collar" route, as in they don't go into university and instead learn a trade and start working right after high school.
I live in america and I'm married with children. I don't see how that is even possible unless me and my wife both work, in which case we would have to leave our children with someone. Not sure when i'll be able to finish school, or if I'll even be able to get a career afterwards. My only real option is to live with my parents which is embarrassing because most people expect you to be moved out or finished with school before 25.
I'm in Canada, but I think I have some insight; I proposed to my ex at 17.
I believe it's a false thought of love. Currently 25 and I definitely did not know love at 17. Now I have a different partner that I'm very happily engaged to, and a son that's almost two. I feel that both Canada and the US have expectations of marriage sooner rather than later due to our media and social expectations.
Probably lines up with our divorce rates. All the kids I knew that got married young have already hit their first divorce, except for 1 family. They added another person to their marriage so I don’t know if that counts.
I’ve been with the same girl since pretty much 8th grade. We broke up for 1 year but decided we hated other humans too much. I think it’s weird too, but we’ve been through a lot together and I couldn’t imagine ever being with anyone else.
Lived together since we were 18. Bought our house at 24. Married last April, I’ll be 26 this year. Bought the house mainly to move out the hood for the same payment as rent. Plus we’re not moving anywhere anytime soon.
And if she isn’t happy, it quickly turns to a broke man and a woman in her 20s with a house
your comment made me feel better about not getting married yet. I'm 29 and many, many if not most of my friends are married. Maybe I should move to Europe. lol
We got married early because if you lose your job, you don't have a good option for health insurance. Unless you're married, in which case you can get on your spouse's employer's health insurance plan.
I got married 5 years ago at 25 and I'm here to report that we're still happily married.
(So like,) I've owned my own home since last year when I was 26, but I find it funny, your comment about marriage. My family is French and my grandmother cannot WAIT for me to push out some babies. It just goes to show that 'old fashioned' spreads across cultures :)
E: I guess I should clarify that I'm using marriage and babies interchangeably.
They make me feel bad because there are 18 year olds who move out of their parent's house, and I am still here. I'm still studying, which makes me feel a little less guilty.
I'm 23, my neighbors cannot wrap their minds around the fact that, yes, SO and I own our home. No, seeing my dad there once does not mean it's his house.
If one more neighbor says something about me "doing my chores" when I'm taking out the trash, I'm gonna scream.
Not married but I have had a similar experience. Recently moved to the US and have been on Tinder here since moving. It really baffles me how many women I come across that are like 20-22 and are 'mother of two' or the likes.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against it. It just is very unusual for me.
This was definitely the norm a generation or two ago, but as others have said, it doesn’t really seem to be anymore. Maybe it still is in some parts of the country, or in certain subcultures within the country, but that hasn’t been my experience. I’m 29 and not married, even though I’ve been with the same person for 8 years. We’re atheists and we’re both children of divorced parents, so we don’t have any religious reasons for getting married, and we’ve both seen marriages fail, so it just kind of feels like... what’s the point? I’d like to get married one of these days, so I can wear a fancy dress and all that fun stuff, but it’s not a pressing concern; we’re commited to each other and we feel like a happily married couple, and that’s what matters to me. No one else in my closest group of friends is married either, even though the oldest person just turned 40.
As for home ownership, I do actually know one guy who owns a home in his mid-thirties, but my partner and I have no interest in buying one anytime soon. We want to travel, and we definitely don’t want to be stuck in this crappy state forever, maybe not even this country haha. Which is good, because I can’t imagine that we’d ever be able to afford it, even though my partner has had a really good job for a couple of years now. That 40-year-old friend I mentioned? She desperately wants to buy a home, but she’ll probably never be able to afford it either.
I got married at 20 and we just bought our first house at 23 lol. I knew who I wanted to marry, and I knew what kind of life I wanted to lead. I just didn't see the point in delaying getting started on building that life as fast as I could.
It's all the kids that love Jesus and can't wait to nut so they get married so it's not a sin.
I've given up on owning a home, I don't know anyone my age who 1) thinks its achievable 2) Could afford it before their mid 20s to early 30s and 3) care about it, it's such a joke now people have lost interest. At least that is what i have encountered.
26yo, married for 5 years, 2 kids and 1 on the way, homeowner for 3 years
I guess one big reason I wanted to start young is because I want to be able to spend my younger adult years with my growing family i.e. do all the camping trips and fun stuff while I'm also young. I guess I was concerned that if I waited until I was older I might not be able to bounce back as well after births or keep up with kids or relate to teens. And it might be nice to have a 20+ year gap as adults rather than a 30+ year gap. And then overall I would be able to spend more of my life with my family if I marry/have kids young. These things were really important to me and I totally get that other people have different aspirations and dreams.
This is reassuring just because there is a lot of social pressure in American society to have your shit together by 25. The general populace is slowly changing their opinion about this because the economy and a whole lot of other issues simply don't support that ideal. I think it may be a product of the whole 1950's American dream propaganda.
Having your shit together and being married are not related in the slightest. Some would argue being married young actually shows you do not have your shit together.
You're absolutely right! It's good to remind yourself when you're young that when you make bad decisions or decisions that make life harder, it's ok because you're learning and it's silly to be hard on yourself when you're still figuring stuff out. I've got a bachelor's and I'm 26 but I definitely don't have my shit together and my degree is just a piece of paper right now. The stuff I learned in college is way more valuable to me than the merit of having the degree. I'm married and yes, we're both still young and figuring it out but having the support of someone you can count on, who's your best friend and who is there with you through disasters, mishaps, bad decisions, and pure bad luck is priceless.
married maybe, but there aren't that many people with their own houses in their early 20s.
This happened 30+ years ago. People in their 20s right now will probably never be able to get houses by and large.
Have you been to eastern Europe? Tons of people there still want to have kids around 20
Not yet ! Planned it for next year
These days plenty of people get married at that age but none of them can afford to buy a house.
Must be your CSP+ social circle because it happens in France too.
I heard in France that people can’t even get married until they’re 21. Is that true?
I don't know sorry !
Long way back, I was married at 25 and bought my first home (3 brm/1 bath/large lot) for 23K. I sold it for 3 times the price a few years later. Good investment.
Wow that seems cheap !
Welcome to small town Montana! It is a lovely logging community in the mountains; good people, good town, awesome geography.
TIL, I should move to France!
Aparently thats the norm in ukrain and russia acording to some of my friends
That was the norm maybe 20-30 years ago. Definitely not the norm now. People getting married late 20s now.
H
What the hell. I am an ameti an and thats a long shot
I live in coastal California that is not a reality at all unless their parents own the house
It all depends on where you live, major metropolitan areas can be extremely expensive but just about anywhere else you can buy nice homes for $150,000.
I’m 24 single and a home owner! And now depressed I’m single. :-(
The fact that it’s a thing or expected of us in our country?
That it's a thing for a lot of people. Especially getting married early.
It's not common anymore. Most of my friends are in their 30s before marriage or buying a house. Hell, most of the people I know wouldn't even consider buying a house.
I didn't get married until I was in my 30s, and we were renting a house then. We did buy a house a couple of years later, and fortunately that was before the housing marked skyrocketed in my area. These days, I'm not sure many Americans can afford to be married and living in their own house in their early 20s.
American here, 26. The fuck? I don't have money for a house, and neither do any of my friends. We're too busy drowning in student loans! I actually did the math recently because I want to get my own place before prices skyrocket in my area, and even by putting away every penny I make that doesn't go to rent, bills, food, or my car, it'd take 3 years before I even had enough for a down payment without completely wiping out my savings. Realistically I'm going to have other expenses, repairs, rent increases, purchases for myself, etc, that'll chip away at that, and it'll really be more like 5-6 years.
Four of my good friends all have finished a degree and got jobs in their fields. The lowest any of them makes is like 60k a year. Three are engineers and one is OSHA related. All have a house and the last one just got married. The youngest is 21. Granted we do live in the rural west Kentucky area where things are a bit old fashioned still.
I've given up on owning property around my area.
I'm 26, married and will probably be buying a home within 5 years. Honestly, we just got really lucky and things have combined in such a way that we will be able to do this.
I’m 24 and almost my entire class from high school (55 total) are married and have at least one child and I’d say a good half of my friends and acquaintances who are my age and younger, so between 21 and 26, own their house. It makes me feel shitty because I feel as if I’m failing at life, but in reality, they only have that because they get government assistance because of their children and with the joint salaries of a spouse they have credit to buy a house.
I’m from the south.
Ahahaha this is definitely not an American thing. Unless you count the cause of that resection they had.
Maybe it isn't a french thing and all other country do it, i don't know !
As in France? Isnt living there like insanely affordable compared to most places in the EU, i know comparing it to most major cities Paris is pretty cheap
Edit: i see you referring to the married party, yes 20 is stupid low, the average would probably be 25 rather than 20. Also remember a house is easy to afford with two incomes, you may be comparing your single income to that of 2 peoples
I don't live in Paris and i wish i never have too. I don't know how every french feel but the rent in Paris is just so high for something so small. So buy ? Naah But to be honest i'm not really into buying for the moment so i really don't know.
New Zealand here.
Its really annoying to be getting pranked on April 2nd.
Well maybe if you guys were on the map, you wouldn't be pranked late. /s
The internet is basically America really. I wouldn’t mind seeing some British spelling on here personally.
Bugger, Your favourite language is very colourful. Go and enjoy some honoured tea and crumpets.
Looks like you need to move your country, bud.
TV Commercials for drugs/medicine - the whole "Ask your doctor to prescribe you _____" Doesn't happen in the UK, and it just seems crazy to me.
I think it is a stupid thing myself. I mean you are advertising something I cannot buy myself, and would have to convince a trained professional to allow me to buy. Why?
you kind of answered your own question.
They (the doc) might not think to prescribe it. They want you to convince them to....
If you know any doctors ask them how often someone comes in saying "I need X" instead of "my problem is Y"
It's a lot.
That.....or the pharmaceutical company is also running a coordinated campaign with doctors that financially motivates them to prescribe the particular medicine.
"All of my other patients are on Effexor."
That was when I was taken off my working medicine combo to try something "new".
"Oh would you look at that, I'm not one of your patients anymore."
I feel like a big part of all this is just to get the name brand out there. If you asked a random person if they’d rather have Cheerios or compacted oat circles, most people would pick the name brand. I think pharmacies can substitute the generic brand for a lot of medicines so it gets people asking specifically for he name brand, even though it’s exactly the same.
Small quibble: generic meds have the same active ingredient. Specifically, anti-depressants can vary in effectiveness depending on the person and manufacturer. Which sucks because sometimes name brand is the one that you know works for you, but insurance won’t cover it and it is a ridiculous price out of pocket so you are stuck with a shitty generic and trying different things. Other times you find a generic that works for you and the pharmacy with switch them. It can either be no big deal or send you into a spiral of thinking you are losing your mind because “they are the exact same thing.” Thankfully, when I experienced this with a generic switch, the pharmacist assured me it happens a lot and figured out which manufacturer I normally had, ordered it for me and switched it back.
I have the same problem with Adderall. I used to get it from one manufacturer and then Walgreens switch to Barr. The Barr tablets don't work nearly as well for me and give me worse side effects like dry mouth. But I have not had much luck finding a pharmacy that purchases it from other manufacturers. For some reason they don't like to tell you who manufactures it and people seem to get really upset if I don't go to the same pharmacy for it each time.
Check the labels and any writing on the pills themselves. Manufacturers have abbreviations like APO for Apotek. I used to know the ones for Mylan and Abbott, but I forget now. Should be googleable. Anyway, you have a right to know whose product you're using.
It's on the label when I get it filled but they get really guarded and suspicious if you ask the manufacturer for some reason. Like I'm getting ready to knock over the place or something.
Here's the big list. Look for one of these abbreviations on the packaging or the pill itself.
The brand/manufacturer increases the street value if you were to sell it off, so it sometimes looks shady if you're looking for a specific manufacturer (although it's only really a problem if you're requesting the actual Brand). If it were me I'd just tell you to be honest or ask why you need to know.
The other thing with going to different pharmacies for your scripts, specifically controls/schedule 2 drugs, is that it looks like you're "pharmacy shopping." Basically, it might look like you're getting illegal c2 scripts and trying to fill them at any willing place that doesn't have a history of your meds and pickups.
Pharmacists are just trying to do their part in both preventing drug diversion and protecting their licenses.
I used to specifically request Mallinckrodt from target pharmacy (or CVS or walgreens if I was getting something filled when out of town), and if it wasn't in stock they'd order some for me.
I had this problem with my trazadone. I've had two generics and the difference is astounding. The first generic would knock me out within 20 minutes. The second one I tried, I had to take THREE to come close to the same effect. It still doesn't work as well even then but I'm afraid to take more than three at a time. They may as well be placebo, it's crazy.
It is most likely since anti-depressants are mostly just placebo. Not to knock it since placebo is powerful, but having a brand you believes works is a huge deal.
Edit: here is a source to read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/ . To be clear I am not saying they are a 100% placebo, but something like ~80% placebo. Getting good sleep I guess is ~3x more effective above placebo to put this in context. People are so sensitive around their antidepressants though. Like somehow saying that depression is way more complicated than some serotonin imbalance is like denying it is real or saying it is all in their head or their fault or something. Geez.
Do you have an actual case for that claim? I'm like 90% curious and 10% source or gtfo when I ask that
This is the first source I found while googling: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/
You can probably read more by googling more.
I welcome you to come live in my brain for a week with and without antidepressants. There is a lot to be discovered and varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the person, but they are more than placebo Edit: I see you have added a study. I will be the first to say that everyone has to figure out what works best for them. I am on a combo of antidepressants and an anti seizure medicine that was accidentally discovered to be helping me. In addition to that, I take supplements to ensure that my body is getting the stuff it needs to be healthy on top of a balanced diet and exercise and good sleep. I also have the genetic MTHFR marker, so that is another piece of the puzzle. AND I am constantly learning and reading on what I can do to help myself or others. Meds are a small piece of it, and even when you are trying your damndest to do everything else on top of that to keep the depression away, a small change in manufacturer CAN throw a wrench in the works. I didn’t even notice that was the problem at first, it took several days to realize that the pills had a different letter stamped on them and another day of research to get the courage to approach the pharmacist. So, yes, people are so damn sensitive about their meds because it is part of a precarious balancing act that keeps their lives going.
I don't know why people have such a negative association with placebo. It is powerful and can do a lot of good by itself. It is not to say they are ineffective.
Also as the article I posted above states taking AD can make relapse rate of depression higher. Also the withdrawal and rebound of ADs are very negative.
Nah not placebo buddy. Have you ever heard of withdrawals from anti depressants? They are bad. Almost as bad as opioid withdrawal. It took me a good year for my brain to go back to “normal” after getting off all my different kinds of mess. They mess with your brain buddy, I dont care if you have some stupid study that you found by literally just googling what you were looking for.
Of course they affect your chemistry and have side effects. It is how much of the depression improvement is placebo or not. They are separate things. Of course messing with your serotonin levels has effects. No one is denying that. I am not even denying that ADs help depression just that most of the improvement seems to be from placebo. This doesn't mean they don't work. Placebo is a powerful force and can do real good. The impact of the withdrawal and the increase in rate of depression relapse is a good reason to ask whether doctors should give out a more side effect free drug or just a straight placebo. Placebos can work even if you know they are a placebo.
Also it is not just a study but a meta-analysis (takes all available studies done.)
While I mostly agree with you point, generic pharmaceuticals are not typically exactly the same. Sometimes people respond better to generics rather than name brands too.
I don't know, my doctor always prescribes the generic version of any name brand, even if she refers to it as the name brand. I'm on a certain medication that my doctor always refers to by the name brand, but my prescription is most certainly the generic version of the med.
A while back I believe there was an issue with a generic form of Wellbutrin. Patients were complaining it wasn't as effective as the name brand version, and for a while they mostly received the ever-popular "it's just in your head" dismissal. Some patients changed back to a different version of the medication, others took the word of the professionals seriously and stayed on the same pill despite any concerns.
But somewhere along the line the medicine was tested and it turned out it legitimately was indeed not as effective as the original it was supposed to mimic. I think there were lawsuits and then eventually better quality control policies implemented, but it made two points clear:
It's rare, but sometimes the generic pharmaceutical is really not the same as the name brand it is based on.
Sometimes even when your mentally ill, it really isn't in your head.
Fun fact! If the medication you're on suddenly ends up in a class action lawsuit due to, well, crippling users and causing long-term damage, you're ineligible for compensation if you took the generic, and, the generic is not liable for any damages their imitation product caused, as decided by the Supreme Court in 2013! Thanks, Ciprofloxacin! Didn't need that liver!
Well, to be fair, drugs are only sold as "generic" once the original patent has expired, 20 years after it's granted. Generics are sold by companies other than the one that hold the patent/trademark name. The class action suit was almost certainly against the original company, which you didn't buy your drug from and likely has no relation to the company you did.
Legally speaking, it really makes no sense to make that company pay damages to people who bought a product from an entirely different company, but you should have pretty good precedent to sue that other company if you wanted.
[deleted]
Look up the lawsuit and health effects. To be fair, it doesn't affect everyone, but it apparently affects enough of us. And, for an antibiotic, that's ridiculous.
There's a chance you may be saying goodbye to a tendon or two. My mom was prescribed Cipro two years ago and one day had extreme pain in her foot from a torn tendon. She is in constant pain and was told by two doctors she won't feel the pain anymore when it finally completely breaks. They also won't surgically cut the tendon because they would rather see if it heals itself. It's not healing or tearing. Cipro is known for destroying tendons and there is a huge class action regarding it.
Great job! Saving $$ for the .01%! MAGA! We love Martin Shkreli!
/s, if it isn't obvious.
Ha! Like in America we can just "quit" our psychiatrist and find another one before our prescriptions run out! lol
Because I'm dead.
If only it were that simple.
Ha, sure told that salaryman
My psychiatrist pushes Effexor on me every single time I go in. I finally gave in about a year and a half ago, was on it for around 3 months and absolutely hated it and stopped. He STILL presses me every time. I actually said to him one time “do you get a kickback from the drug company or something?”, he was kinda pissed haha but he just would not let it go!!!
If you're in the US, you can look up whether he is getting a kick back.
My doctor had me on Nuvigil (non-addictive stimulant for sleep disorders) and I was absolutely allergic to it, as determined by GI and an allergist. They took me off of it and told me that he needed to prescribe me something else. Fast forward three months, and this man is INSISTING that I give this medication another shot... after I lost 60 lbs on it!
Looked it up---guess where he's getting his the majority of his kickbacks? Teva, the maker of Nuvigil.
https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/
Thank you for this. I told my doc for the longest time that the inhaler she wanted me to use twice a day was making me worse. I hardly ever needed it before except for emergencies and after I had attacks almost daily. I looked and yup, kickback from the company. I think she's an okay doctor, but when it comes to BREATHING, I don't know that I trust her anymore.
Is it her own private practice, or does she have a medical director?
Private practice. She saw both my parents, so I went to her thinking there'd at least be no surprises in my medical history.
You can always report her to her state medical board.
I would not go back to the same doctor after that experience.
I worked for him at the time.
Doesn't matter, though... this shit comes up with all docs.
Ah, that makes it complicated.
I have to disagree. There are genuine, good docs out there in it for the care and not for the money. Never be complacent in finding good medical/dental care... unless you live in a rural area. Then good luck.
This is new to me. I don't suppise there is one for Canada?
Hmm. I'm not sure.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pharmaceutical-drug-company-doctor-physician-payment-disclosure-transparency-1.4169888
Doesn't look like it... but with some digging, you may be able to find something better. I know that my google results are customized to my area... so you have more success searching while in Canada.
But it's a very helpful resource, IMO. I left my job managing a doctor's office recently and something that I had been looking into was whether a local pediatric psychiatrist was getting a kickback from the company that makes Vyvanse... because EVERY patient he referred to us was on it and having terrible side effects. Guess what I found out? Yep.
Thank you.
I was prescribed Modafinil after telling mine I wasn't keen on resuming dexamphetamine (always drowsy due to epilepsy drugs).
I live in Australia and unless you have narcolepsy you don't get a government subsidy for it.
I used to take dexamphetamine prior to epilepsy for ADHD.
Modafinil is decent but it's no amphetamine.
-afinil drugs are well known to affect histamine, your doctor must have been crazy to keep insisting on it.
It gave me ulcers throughout my entire GI tract to the point that I couldn't absorb nutrients. And he knew that. He still wanted me to keep taking it and refused to RX me adderall. I got it from my PCP instead and then later switched neuro. Still doesn't work great, but it also doesn't take my weight down to 85lbs.
That sounds like a nightmare.
There are so many drugs to treat fatigue and he seemed to insist on the "newer is better" mantra.
I was on the "newer" drugs for seizures but I kept having them; I was put on some older (but not too old, polytherapy; Carbamazepine, Sodium Valproate and the newer Lacosamide).
No problems since.
Is 60 lb not a lot? It sounds like you were overweight to begin.
60lbs is a significant amount. I ended up being 85lbs when it was all said and done because my body couldn't absorb any nutrients. I lost the 60lbs in 4 months.
I was probably slightly overweight when I started the medication.... but I looked like an emaciated person from a concentration camp when I stopped taking it.
My shrink is pretty cool. We often talk in terms of generic compound names, but sometimes its easier to remember brand names. I've tried every SSRI, they all suck. Propanalol works pretty good most of the time, I have alprazolam (Xanax) for more stressful situations.
Propranolol can be good because it will keep your heart from racing when you get stressed, often preventing it from cascading further. Glad you found something that works for you.
It's a good first line defense for anxiety and I can take it as needed. SSRIs you have to take everyday, and they made me super lethargic, have weird dreams, dick problems, and in the case of escitalopram, gave me diarrhea.
Dick problems? I'm out. Nope. Noooooope.
[deleted]
Yeah, I've noticed this with all of the SSRIs I have tried. I could finish myself off, if I really put in significantly more work than usual but I couldn't with another person. Great for her if she likes a marathon man, not so great for you.
SSRIs and orgasms are like those two friends that hate each other so you can only invite one to any given event
I'd recommend a full blood work test to see if you are deficient in some crucial vitamins or something :) if the issues has persisted that long then it's probably what you're putting in your body! Solved my depression through proper diet AND exercising every day cause you have to release those endorphins, which most modern humans don't anymore because we don't chase food and hunt things anymore haha
Anxiety takes more than just dieting and exercise. That's like telling people who are depressed to cheer up. It's a deeper problem. I'm glad it worked for you, but you're an edge case, not the norm.
r/wowthanksimcured
Sometimes, I don't even think it's kickbacks so much as tunnel vision. I had a psychiatrist who was like this with SSRIs (he wasn't attached to a particular brand, and they're all generic versions these days anyway, so I can't imagine where he'd be getting kickbacks from). It was like he'd just gotten it in his head that my condition Is Treated With SSRIs and wasn't processing information that contradicted that assumption.
Sounds like you need a new psychiatrist.
Good for you! The fact that you tried it and hated it should have been enough for the doctor to shut up about it. Most people are intimidated by doctors like that
Good old side effexor
Well, if he’s asking you every time and pushing it, I think that was a fair question!
It was the third drug they tried for me after 2 others didn't work so well and now I've been on it for over a decade. I think it works for some people but I think doctors should do what mine did and try to go for the best drug for the individual case and if it doesn't work then try another one not just push one because you get a kickback but look at individual circumstances to see whats best for that situation. Do American doctors value money over common sense?
My psychiatrist routinely "forgets" that I want the generic version, and not the "extended release" brand name version that costs an extra $200 a month. There's no way he isn't on the take.
Effexor makes me lactate and I HATE it.
are you a boy or a girl?
I am female. The dr talked that up like it was a selling point "at least you're female so it's not weird." Uhhh actually it is weird but thanks
Asking the real questions.
wait, what?
The answer is yes, he does. I work in sales. If you tell me no, I'm not going to bring up the product again unless it is to tell you we can always revisit your decision on it, which I will tell you once and only once as we are closing a sale or non-sale in that same conversation/day.
If I got more commission to sell you a blue fork than a red fork? Bet your ass I'm going to hound you about how much better the blue fork is than the red one.
That gets me heated. Find a new doctor.
Trying. It's a bitch with Medicaid. A lot of the docs in their system don't actually take it, unless forced by the state. They take it as a "secondary" insurance, behind another private insurer. The only reason I was able to see these docs was because I was assigned by the state following self-admitting to the ER. Not that they're effective. The social worker says I've got a good outlook on things and don't require much assistance, while I'm homeless, and the shrink is caught in her own cycles of medication treating symptoms instead of root problems, with an obvious agenda and maybe confidentiality issues.
America! I know there's better places and people than that, but I haven't personally seen it yet.
.... the shrink is caught in her own cycles of medication treating symptoms instead of root problems, with an obvious agenda and maybe confidentiality issues.
Some of the experiences I had with shrinks were the same, unfortunately.
The reason doctors don't like Medicare/Medicaid patients is because they often actually lose money to see these patients. It's not even them being greedy. A practice would go under if all they saw was medi patients.
Then don't list yourself as a medicaid-accepting doctor, adding extra time to me finding one that will actually accept it. It's a pretty lengthy process, and until I can actually find a doc, I'm out both psychiatric medication and liver medication.
I know in California at least, Medicaid comes in different flavors. Some are much easier and more widely accepted than others. But. I legally cannot tell a patient any of that. The closest I could answer, would be if they were to ask me which is easier to find Specialists or suppliers for.
For what it's worth, in my experience, MediCal Molina direct is the easiest to deal with. It is much easier to find Specialists and DME suppliers who accept them. If you can, you want to avoid an IPA. Vantage took over for Multicultural in our area, but it's even more of a pain to work with. They have to approve every little thing before a provider will act on those orders or referrals, and each approval takes a few days to obtain, even when marked as urgent. It's ridiculous! But, I'm told, that's just how it is with HMO State Insurance. :/
Edit: not a doctor or nurse, your mileage may vary, not legally able to give advice on anything yada yada yada. This has simply been my personal experience dealing with various insurance companies
Oh god no. I have OCD and when medications fail, they fail spectacularly. If it’s not broken, DON’T FIX IT. Stability is critical.
Yeah, I lost like three jobs because they were switching my psych meds every four weeks. "Sorry, I can't come in, I've been awake for four days and I'm starting to hallucinate. Promise, I'm only on the drugs they give me." "Sorry I'm late, I fell asleep for 16 hours through an alarm; medicine." "Yeah, I can't come in; I've depersonalized and am experiencing a blank void where thought and emotion should be, and I might just go jump off the bridge instead to break away from this vaccuous nothingness. Bye."
Ergo, homeless.
Man Effexor withdrawal was the worst shit I've had to go through
Oh, yeah. Like waking up mid-flu.
I've never had a flu that made it feel like I was taking household current across my brain every time I turn my head...
"Well all of your other patients will be glad you respect doctor-patient confidentiality so well." Would be my answer.
If they were to say "a lot of" instead of "all of" I believe they would be fine, as no identifying information is given. In fact, I think they could probably get away with all of as well, because unless you already know that someone is that doctors patient and is being treated for the same condition, you would have no way of identifying who was on the drug.
Maybe. I'm no lawyer. But it sounds like he's still discussing other patients' info, and so it sounds like to me it could be a breach.
But I'm not even close to a lawyer so I'll keep it at that.
In most cases, a breach of confidentiality requires some kind of specifics. This one's right on the edge because if you saw someone walking into his office as you were walking out, you could reasonably infer that that person was on the drug (assuming the doctor was telling the truth and not exaggerating, of course).
There's a misconception that if you mention anything to do with a patient (or client, for a lawyer), even if it's a vague generality or not identifiable, it's an automatic confidentiality breach. The threshold is a bit higher than that.
Thank you for the info!
To be fair, there is a lot to say for doctors to prescribe drugs they have a lot of experience with instead of trying stuff they dont know. Obviously you shouldnt change something that works unless you have good reasons though.
Fuck effexor so hard.
I believe doctors have a list out of which they commonly prescribe medications but switch to other drugs when patient compliance is poor.
This shit makes me absolutely adore my doctor.
He knew I used cannabis to treat my anxiety but wasn't comfortable prescribing it for that, and when I was diagnosed with a life long neuropathic pain condition, he kind of hummed and hahed for a few minutes, but then flat out asks me "does the Cannabis you use to help with your anxiety help with this pain as well?".
Of course it does I tell him. He follows up with "Well, this is something you'll live with, likely until you die. Since you're only 24, I don't want you on NSAID's because they'll destroy your stomach, opiates are too addictive for long term treatment and acetaminophen will destroy your liver. So how about I give you a 1 gram per day prescription for Cannabis instead?".
That was 4 years ago and it's worked wonders for my pain and overall quality of life.
I live in Canada, and for anyone curious, my condition is called Post Vasectomy Pain Syndrome. The surgeon that did my procedure didn't freeze the Vas well enough. The incisions and cutting of the Vas were fine, but then when he started cauterizing I jumped because I felt like I was being electrocuted through my balls in to my entire body. This caused him to lose his grip of the Vas.
He had to go in to my open ballsack and fish for the Vas and couldn't refreeze because I was bleeding too much. He basically said "you're gonna have to clench for this" and finished cauterizing my not-so-numb and cut in half Vas. It was terrible and mentally scaring on top of the permanent nerve damage.
medicine should not be an adventure!! what the fuck!!
Oh, sweet Jeebus. Stay away from Effexor. What they don't tell you is just how hard that stuff is to get off of when you're ready to quit. Nearly every other well-known anti-depressant is fairly easy to cease, but not Effexor. The withdrawal symptoms, mostly in the form of extreme nausea, are profound and keep many on it for life. I started it 10 years ago or more, but really only needed it for the first couple of years, then my situation improved, but I couldn't stop taking it. The nausea was utterly debilitating. After a year-long struggle, shaving tiny bits off the pill to reduce the dosage, I got it down to half a tablet, but I can't seem to get rid of the last of it. It just makes me too sick. If I miss a dose, within a few hours I'm puking my guts up, and I don't even take that much of it, around 15mg/day. Beware.
[deleted]
I've met others taking 150mg/day and I just hate what you're facing. If I can't escape 1/10th of that dose, I don't know how you get off 150. I've read horror stories of people spending years, removing 1mg every month or so. The stuff is just a nightmare, especially given there are alternatives. I can't believe I wasn't warned about this. Not by the doctor. Not by the pharmacist. And the company's literature, at least 10 years ago, made it sound like its side effects weren't of any great concern. That has not been my experience at all.
[deleted]
So true. It took me 6 months to wean off, and I still get brain shocks now and then 16 years later.
We have a standing policy in my family that we don't use drugs til they've been on the market for at least a few years unless it is an emergency.
I mean, if you weren't on a SSRI before, it makes sense to try because they have a low tendency to cause side effects.
I was on one, for sleep. That's what she took me off of because she wanted to sync me up with her other patients. And I'm there for an anxiety disorder causing acute dissociative psychosis in times of stress. No mania, no depression, some suicidality, but stemming from a bit of a different problem. But, psychologically, I put too much weight on my own personal responsibility, and it manifests as acute anxiety episodes that cause breaks from reality. For that, she took me off the medicine that was working to help one side of the problem to put me on Effexor, and for the anxiety episodes, Gabapentin. Note, Gabapentin is an anti-seizure med that some patients report a side effect of stress reduction. To me, they seem like Pez, because they have no noticeable effect even in excessive doses, which I know because I was prescribed that for migraines for about a year.
If you don't mind talking about it, what do you mean by "breaks from reality"?
Well, I guess depersonalization is the lesser of the two. Ever been really drunk or high, and suddenly pull a completely lucid moment away from the effects? It's that, in a way. It's sort of like having the conscious and subconscious mind reversed, where suddenly I no longer have thoughts, or feelings, or any connection to what is happening in the world around me. I'd almost call it auto-pilot, except I'm even more in the moment, but "I'm" not behind the wheel. Just a blank human slug where I used to be. On a positive, it can deal with the stress of a job, but on the negative, it's an endless blank nothingness that only makes me want to hurry up and die. Then, sometimes, it manifests as a derealized episode. These are... insane. When under them, I feel perfectly sane, but I'm not. I start connecting dots that don't exist, making parallels to numbers and math and philosophy and politics and social structure. I start to develop something of a twisted god complex, like some kind of mad savant. Thus, my username. I start thinking about how, things like entropy tie into philosophy and metaphysics, and scry meaning from that to reach conclusions like my own immortality, or that I can kill myself to "sink" reality, or how I'm some sort of cosmic being of energy. Crazy shit. Bad for social function.
I've had the former fairly often while high (though not with the blank nothingness effect), but the only time I've had the latter is during a really high fever. Wow. That sounds like a hell of a thing to have to deal with. Thanks for sharing!
SSRIs for long periods or in large dose can really fuck you up, provoking serotonin syndrome.
Per wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome
Symptoms include high body temperature, agitation, increased reflexes, tremor, sweating, dilated pupils, and diarrhea.[1][2] Body temperature can increase to greater than 41.1 °C (106.0 °F).[2] Complications may include seizures and extensive muscle breakdown.
Oh God. I had the worst side effects I’ve ever had in my life when I was on Effexor. Never, ever, ever again.
"... well, I wouldn't want to ruin a good thing for you."
proceeds to walk out the door
nooooooo. That shit is terrible.
Wtf
Fuck Effexor. I still have brain zaps to this day, and I stopped taking it over 14 years ago. My doctor prescribed it and said, "This really is the best medicine!"
Effexor should straight-up be illegal, its withdrawal symptoms can be literally lethal and even missing your dosage window by like 15 minutes can cause hallucinations and dangerous fluctuations in body temperature.
Hey, I’m on Effexor!
Straight up, I tried one of my mom's Effexor once. I was miserably drowsy for almost three days. Her anxiety must be insane to need that level of calming meds.
I was on effexor now i use cbd lol
Doc, what about this medicine's side effects? On the brochure it even lists death...
Don't worry son. I've prescribed it to hundreds of patients. No one has ever complained.
Ok... wait, what do you mean?
This is only partly true. It's not exactly a coordinated campaign with doctors, as much as it is the pharmaceutical companies schmoozing up to them as much as possible all the time. Which eventually, sometimes, pays off.
You're right, it's definitey moreso that the pharma companies are schmoozing up to the doctors. My mom is an NP in a doctors' office and it's insane the number of free meals and vacations the drug reps use to push their drugs onto the doctors.
Very true. I’m a soon to be NP. In the specialty I’m going into the drugs are extremely expensive and the schmoozing is real. Usually we find the reps extremely annoying minus a very select few. I’m usually convincing my patients to NOT have the brand name because 10/10 their insurance won’t pay for it anyway.
This is typically how it works. I'm a psychologist (therapist) whose SO is a prescriber, and in my many experiences with prescribers, they get lots of free lunches and then prescribe their patients generics. There's just no incentive for them to actually prescribe what pharma is pushing on them, because the food and gifts come anyway. Of course that surely has a psychological effect, but it isn't as direct as people imagine.
As I type this, there is a "pharma-lunch" happening in the conference room of the non-profit I work at.
I just busted out laughing in the office. Good thing my boss left for the day lol
My SO is a prescriber and she gets to go to free lunches all the time, but she still prescribes whatever medications she thinks will be most effective for her patients. It most definitely is unethical for the companies to do that, but the fact that it happens doesn't mean that all prescribers are biased.
Oh no, I totally agree with you! My mom does whatever she can to make sure she prescribes whatever she thinks is right for her patients too. I was just saying that it's crazy to hear about all of the drug reps that come in trying to push their drugs into the office. :)
If you think the "schmoozing" isn't coordinated then you aren't giving the pharmaceutical companies enough credit.
If you don't realize this was made illegal nearly ten years ago, then you don't understand the medical industry and probably shouldn't be commenting on it.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I've been in the rooms during meetings where basically pharmaceutical representatives are spending $2000 for a fine dining meal to a room full of doctors talking about their medicine.
I've also seen them get gift bags too. No idea why that is necessary.
That...or everything is controlled by insurance and doctors actually don’t have the final say a lot of the time on what medication you get because insurance decides what they’ll pay for.
Source: sister is a doctor and always griping about how she should be the one deciding what the patient gets, not their insurance.
Can confirm, I have really bad seasonal allergies all year round and my doc has a deal with an allergy medicine brand so she just gave me a shit ton of free samples because she knew I was poor and we just had our first child.
That’s literally the opposite of what OP’s comment is implying. Your case is your doctor being nice and giving you the free samples they get.
Sorry, I was on my break at work and tired, the detail I left out was I went to a website where you can check what pharma companies your doctor gets paid by (in monetary or otherwise, iirc.) and after she gave those to me, I checked later and sure enough she was getting some gifts and stuff from that company, so I'm sure she actually prescribed to other people besides me.
(That website is USA only afaik, don't know about other countries)
Someone isn't a doctor or have any doctor friends
That phrasing hurts my skull
I have a friend that worked in pharmaceutical marketing and no doctor (that he works with) exclusively hands out one treatment because he's paid by advertisers to do so. The issue that a lot of doctors find is a patient will come in with an issue, lets just use erectile dysfunction as an easy example, and the doctor will prescribe a non advertised ED medicine because it is better suited to the patient's body than a Viagra or Cialis. Some patients will demand that they take 'x' medicine, because they saw it on TV, instead of what the doctor recommends.
Which would make sense if doctors got paid based on what they prescribe. Of course, that's not how reality works, but you know, it's fun to imagine.
Doctors do not get paid based on what they prescribe. Period. Ask any doctor you know.
Doctors receive direct financial compensation (cash) from pharma companies for essentially 1 thing, which is making presentations to other doctors at events such as conferences. That is the only way they receive any payments from pharma companies. All of the financial data you find on the open payments website is either those direct payments for presentations or meals that are provided to doctors as part of an education program presented by Pharma companies. They do not receive direct cash for attending these presentations, they just get their meal comped.
I know it's a complicated subject, but please try and develop an informed opinion instead of knee-jerk reacting to things you have zero clue about. This industry is one of the highest regulated in the country.
https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
If a doctor is being paid to engage in advertising and consulting for a specific company, I'm going to go ahead and think they might have a small bias towards that company's products.
i was a file clerk in the doctor's office where my grandma worked... and there were maybe .. 10 people employed there in total? We had drug reps (from different pharma companies) come in probably 1-2 times per month on a rotating schedule. They would bring in a lunch for everyone in the office (which would include me after i was finished with my school day.)
The sales rep would talk to the staff (nurses, receptionists, scheduler, etc) during lunch, explain what company they're working for, how long they had to drive to get to the rural area that I was from, where they went to school, etc. Small talk. Then, when the doctors came back from hospital rounds/whatever, the sales rep would meet with the doctors 1-on-1 to explain what the new drug they were representing was for, how it was better than competitors' drugs, and why the doctor should prescribe it in general.
It's not "engaging in advertising and consulting for a specific company" but rather a company sending out sales representatives with a budget to buy a doctor lunch and explain why their product is the best.
Which makes sense, really. Doctors are extremely well-paid, and take their profession seriously. Buying them lunch once a month will not put them in your pocket - most aren't open to bribery at all, and the few who are will set their price vastly higher than that.
But that lunch lets you sit down with them and say "There's a hundred widgetase inhibitors on the market, and I know you probably have a few you like, but Placebix is new, and has proven to be really good on left-handed Scotsmen and people who inhale large amounts of salt. So, if you ever have a left-handed Scottish sea captain as a patient, try giving them Placebix - it should work way better than any of our competitors. Here's a few months of free supplies, so you can try a few patients on it and see if it works for them. Let us know how it goes!"
That's a pitch a doctor will listen to, and because doctors are humans with limited memory, it'll probably also put Placebix up the list of widgetase inhibitors to prescribe simply because it's at the front of the doctor's mind. And it's perfectly ethical, IMO.
Okay, not only is your theory is 100% spot on, but i love the hyperbole throughout. 10/10, would ask for drug recommendations, 10/10 would take Placebix.
And it's perfectly ethical, IMO.
I don't see how this isn't paying for preference, which would absolutely be unethical.
Wouldn't the most ethical approach be to have an uninvested party investigate the claims then present an unbiased representation of its effective use cases and patient profiles? I mean... isn't that the obviously superior approach? Data-driven decision-making instead of whatever is on the top of their head?
Doctors are extremely well-paid, and take their profession seriously. Buying them lunch once a month will not put them in your pocket
Paying them 200k a year to just advocate your products and "council" other doctors.. about your products.. is certainly more than lunch.
Wouldn't the most ethical approach be to have an uninvested party investigate the claims then present an unbiased representation of its effective use cases and patient profiles? I mean... isn't that the obviously superior approach? Data-driven decision-making instead of whatever is on the top of their head?
In theory, sure. In practice, medical research costs probably hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Pharma companies pay for most of it because nobody else is willing to foot that bill. If they do the research, and they're the ones who have an interest in the results, they're going to be the ones spreading the word. Industry-funded education is normal in lots of fields. Field staff aren't generally stupid enough to take it all as gospel, but there's often good information there.
Paying them 200k a year to just advocate your products and "council" other doctors.. about your products.. is certainly more than lunch.
Drug companies don't pay that much to every doctor. Anyone who makes that much is staff, at least part-time, and staff isn't expected to act the same as doctors at large.
If they do the research, and they're the ones who have an interest in the results, they're going to be the ones spreading the word.
That's the problem though, in that case it becomes a battle for increasingly positive sounding results without any oversight into whether they are consistently communicated across products. Company A might claim they're great at this specific thing, but company B is too, they just didn't choose to advertise that point, so A now has a niche based on how they advertise instead of actual efficacy. It'd make objective side-by-side comparisons between products very difficult based on how they're pitched. This seems to be a case where, yet again, the medical industry would serve the public better if it wasn't privatized.
Nobody short of outright communists nationalizes the whole medical industry - even in single-payer systems, doctors are usually independent contractors, and drug companies are standalone corporations. Do you think that will ever plausibly be nationalized? It's not the hospitals or the public insurance system that's the issue here.
Nobody short of outright communists nationalizes the whole medical industry
I didn't mean to say it should all be nationalized, just that it shouldn't all be privatized. I see no reason why a federal oversight committee couldn't review the claims of medicine passing the FDA and create a consistent comparisons report to send out to doctors. Pharmaceutical companies should not be paying for advertising, that'd save them money they can pay in taxes to instead better educate doctors in a fair, level playing field.
This all sounds very wholesome, but do you happen to know what a "speed bump" is in the pharmaceutical sales context?
I have a feeling you'll tell me anyway.
Pharmaceutical companies hire young ex-cheerleaders as their sales reps. Some physicians call the ones who use sex to push their drugs "speed bumps," because they're willing to go to bed with them so fast.
Considering that any drug rep that I saw come into that office was mid-30s and male, I’m not sure your theory holds up across the board.
Didn't claim it did.
Only claimed that your theory of Big Pharma Wholesomeness doesn't hold up across the board.
That's the argument for any advertising. The job of a doctor is to make the correct decision for their patient.
The reality is, a doctor can write a million prescriptions for a drug and they will make $0 in their bank account off of those prescriptions. They could write a million scripts for a competitor who hasn't given them any meals and they will make $0 off those prescriptions. Doctors are not paid based on what prescriptions they write.
Yeah but they'll be doing it with all of the companies that have drugs in their therapy area. It's all reported, look up your doctors and see what they're being paid for.
Thank you! I spend enough time putting details of every coffee break or lunch we provide as part of an educational meeting into a big spreadsheet to be reported... Seriously the industry is so tightly regulated now you can't even give someone a USB stick without checking in with the lawyers.
Welcome to the real world:
Drugmaker paid doctors with problem records to promote its pill
Doctors Get Paid to Prescribe More Opioids
Doctors who get meals from pharma tend to prescribe more opioids, says study
https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
Here you go. You can see what doctors are being paid by pharmaceutical companies. I've worked in the pharma industry. Doctors are not paid based on prescriptions. You have fallen victim to fake news and articles which (your middle link) say things like “The more opioids doctors prescribe, the more money they make.”
I'll give you a hint on how fake news works. That quote doesn't say they make more money based on prescriptions nor does it say they make money for prescribing drugs. If it said "doctors who see more patients make more money", which is causing the doctors who prescribe more drugs to make more money, would you be outraged? Of course not, that's why it's fake news.
You just posted that above he's refuting your claim.
He didn't refute it. That's my point. Doctors do not get paid based on prescriptions. Period.
If you want to split hairs feel free. The doctors have a financial motivation to prescribe.
No, they literally don't. A doctor can write a million prescriptions for a drug and they will make $0 in their bank account off of those prescriptions. That is the definition of not having a financial motivation to prescribe.
It's not so much "splitting hairs" as much as "reading comprehension".
Doctors have a financial motivation to see as many patients as possible, as well... does that mean that doctors intentionally make you sick so you come into the office more frequently?
Of course not.
See also the opiate crisis.
My friend was on holiday in the USA and got some sort of stomach flu or something. He went to the doctor who prescribed him some medicine. He then went to the pharmacy, and the lady working there bluntly asked "You know this costs $500 right?" No, he did not. The lady then called the doctor, and he prescribed him some other drugs that cost $13.
It's namebrand/generic vs your insurance. If your insurance isn't good enough, they won't cover the name brand so you get charged the full price (or close to it)
That's the thing, we don't have brands here.
Nope.
As someone who works in healthcare, that’s EXTREMELY unethical; as in get fired from your job, lose your medical license, pay exorbitant amounts of money in legal fees and no longer be a physician unethical
I’m a psychiatric nurse practitioner. Other than an occasional lunch with my office to offer info about a product no pharmaceutical company is “financially motivating” me to do anything. It’s such an incredibility regulated industry now. Companies aren’t allowed to give me a pen without me signing for it. Obviously rightly so. But the notion that we are out accepting handouts to prescribe certain meds just isn’t true.
That's not true. It's irresponsible of you to spread your tinfoil hat theories.
Reps visit doctors and deliver their message. It's similar to the consumer message but ramped up a bit. Usually it's retention/loyalty programs for consumers. We try as hard as we can to make it EASY for doctors and patients to write the Rx and get the medicine. That's as guilty as we get. I've personally distributed millions of dollars worth of samples to doctors and even told them how to split the pills of larger doses to make them last longer for the patients. With the Sunshine Act, there's no hijinx of ANY kind. No doctor is going going to risk his license for a little kickback. None. Zero. Zilch. We can't even give out pens anymore. You are talking out of your enormous, well-used asshole.
Consumer spots are incredibly rare compared to available medicines. About 1% of Rx meds have produced TV spots. Usually only medicines with a serious market share battle (and a HUGE bottom line) produce TV spots.
Source: Pharma guy for 22 years. I've sold, marketed, produced for just about every drug category you could name.
I used to work in a bakery and occasionally we get reps from drug companies coming in to buy several cakes with medicine related designs and they take them into doctor offices to bribe the front staff and nurses to let them in so they can sweet talk the doctor to agree to prescribe their companies version of a pill instead of the competitors.
Consider that pharma spends 10x as much marketing to doctors than to the public. Think 'conferences' in the Caribbean where the family is invited.
They are. My Mom works at a doctor's office and they are constantly getting visits from pharma reps with gifts and food to convince the doctors to prescribe their products. It's kinda frightening.
Ask your doctor to prescribe you this controversial and addictive medication that we are paying them to push
But then why pay top dollar for ads aimed at patients? it would make more sense to focus your money on winning over the prescribers. Yes, I know they provide other benefits (lunch, conferences at resorts etc).
That's how it works with the Departnent of Veteran Affairs. If they can put you on another pill they will.
Pharmaceutical Reps often ... "gift" ... "incentivize" ... doctors to prescribe their products to patients.
Source. Plenty more but I'm just linking one.
You can actually check if your doctor takes payment from pharm. companies online through a database.
Winner winner chicken dinner
Why not both?
Maybe in the past but they really tightened those rules when Obamacare started (it was packaged in the overhaul)
That’s illegal. Not saying it hasn’t happened (may still), but they’re not supposed to. Anymore.
Farmasoodicle
Ding ding ding
That still makes no sense. Why should a regular person have to tell the doctor what medicine to prescribe? Isn't that the doctors job?
Do they also tell their surgeons what to cut?
So if you think about this from a motivation persepctive it might make more sense. Pharma company X wants to make profit. They do this by selling their product. One way to sell more product is to market it. Doctors are marketed to through various channels but Pharma X also realizes that if a patient askes for a specific product by name that a doctor will just go along with the request in some % of situations.
They're probably a number of reasons why this happens... E.G. Sometimes this could be becuase the drug has competitors and the doctor doesn't think it will matter which version the patient gets (assuming this is a valid treatment.) In other cases the doctor may not have a 100% diagnosis but wants to help the patient try options so drug x could be used to help confirm a diagnosis. Or it could even be that the doctor, faced with a pushy patient, just relents and gives them something because the asked for it.
In any case if Pharma X knows these techniques sell more product they will use whatever legal/permissible means at their disposal to do so.
It makes perfect sense why PharmaX would do it yeah. It makes no sense why they would be allowed to lol.
It is illegal in the rest of the civilized world.
Well that I have no idea. I guess some countries haven’t decided that there needs to be a law to regulate this. Or maybe lawmakers have been lobbied specifically to make sure it’s allowed. Other countries decided that it’s not in the patient’s best interest so they’ve made it illegal.
I mean there are an insane amount of medications out there. Although I haven't asked for some drug that was advertised, I've heard about ones through word of mouth and asked about them and a lot of the time the docs have no idea what the drug is.
It's not so much that you're telling the doctor what to prescribe (although I'm sure that happens a lot), it's that there's no way for them to keep all of them straight.
Patients educating doctors about medicine doesn't make this any less bizarre.
I know it's not your intention but at first glance, it kinda makes American doctors seem incompetent if they need their ad educated patients to keep them up to date on new medicines.
Are you required to pay for prescribed medication in America?
Edit: Spelling
Yes. And how much varies by your insurance. My wife takes Humira and it costs about US$1000 per month. We have a high deductible insurance policy so we have to pay for it out of pocket the first few months of the year.
1000$ per month!!? JESUS. Big pharma racking in the dough. Sorry bout that, is it for crohns or arthritic reasons?? Check out a gluten free diet, helps immensely with both issues. Many personal accounts online with people halting their need for medication after switching diets! Trying to save ya some money, improve your families livelihood and happiness :)
For most people the answer is yes. If you have health insurance provided by your workplace, or your spouse's workplace then you have to pay a monthly or annual fee for that (unless your job is kind enough to cover it). Then there's different types of systems for how prescriptions are paid for. Some insurance has a flat co-pay for prescriptions, others like mine have a % based fee. So mine is a high deductible plan, unless we meet the deductible we pay 80% of the cost of prescriptions. That can really add up! I was in the hospital in April so we met our deductible and now our meds are free. Blessing in disguise I guess?
There's also Medicare, Medicaid, COBRA and "Obama Care" but I don't know about those.
It's very confusing!
Medicare is a program for senior citizens 65+ years old which provides them with health insurance subsidized by taxpayers.
Medicaid is similar, but it's primarily for low-income individuals who may only need temporary coverage, such as children who are under 18, or pregnant women. It's important to know that being low-income on its own isn't sufficient to be approved for Medicaid coverage.
ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, is a set of laws which aim to enable more people to buy health insurance.
COBRA is a law which requires employer-subsidized health insurance to continue offering coverage to an employee leaves for a certain amount of time to cover them while looking for a new job. This does not mean that the employee will receive no-cost coverage, merely that the company must sell the coverage to the employee.
For most people the answer is yes.
Pretty sure it's less than 50%. Statistics of coverage here.
9% are uninsured. These people are obviously paying a lot of their drugs.
7-15% have insurance they bought privately on the marketplace. Since they are paying a monthly premium, they are de facto paying for their drugs.
So that puts us at ~24% that are for sure paying for their medicine. However...
20% of the population has Medicaid, which covers 100% of medical costs with no copay or cost to the consumer.
14% of the population has Medicare, which covers most prescription drug costs. It's true that if you spend more than your monthly allotment you have to start paying out of pocket, but in a given month that only happens to <5% of those on Medicare.
49% of the population has health insurance through their work. It's much harder to breakdown who pays what copays here, but from personal experiance I've worked at four different companies over the past decade, and in all four my health insurance was provided entirely by the employer. I didn't pay any monthly premiums.
At a rough estimate then, around 50-60% of the country gets their health insurance for free. With ~25% paying out of pocket, and another 25% going either way depending on the circumstances.
While it is terrible that so many people are paying huge medical bills, it's a bit disingenuous to imply that 'most Americans' can't afford prescription drugs. The truth is a large majority have perfectly affordable healthcare, it's just that we never hear from them and we only see the horror stories of the 5-10% that are in medical bankrupcy and can't afford their drugs.
Again, I'm not saying we don't have a problem, because really no one should ever be in that situation, but it is important to have some context and understand that statistically the average American citizen has no problems whatsoever with getting their healthcare. There's already a false narrative among Europeans/Canadians that any Americans they encounter are unable to afford their medical expenses. That makes as much sense as Americans thinking all Canadians live in the tundra, or all Europeans eat baguettes.
But do people really do that? I would feel so stupid if I did that. The doctor knows what i need much better than I do.
I've been tracking a new migraine medication though FDA approval. Once it was FDA approved I talked to my wife's doctor about it. He said that they are very excited about it too but are waiting for some more information.
It is called being an active advocate for your health.
Doctor here, we don't mind if patients bring up specific drugs that we haven't mentioned. It simply leads to short educational discussion about that drug and why or why not it would be a good choice for the patient. Most times the patient suggestion is way off base and not something we would ever consider, but there are a few times when the patient's suggestion is actually followed.
Realize that, while doctors know more about the drugs and the diseases, in the end it is the patient that will be taking the drug and suffering through any side effects of taking it.
The best analogy is imagine you hire an electrician to redo all the wiring in your house because you've been having some issues with it. He will inspect the house and then tell you what he plans to do with the wiring to fix your problem. At this point, the home owner can obviously make their own suggestions. Clearly, if the home owner suggestions something really stupid (i.e. instead of copper wires, use chocolate bars!) then the professional will just tell them why that won't work and then stick to their original plan. However if the homeowner makes a reasonable suggestion (i.e. instead of rewiring the lights to a wall switch, can we just put in a motion sensor instead?) then the professional will follow that request since it makes sense and is a valid choice if that's what the person whats.
Same thing in medicine. If someone comes in for high blood pressure, the doctor may prescribe X because that's the most common drug. But if the patient says "I heard X gives headaches, and I'm really scared of bad headaches, can I get drug Y instead?" then the doctor will prescribe drug Y as long as it treats the blood pressure just as much as drug X would have.
Yes. Lots of people do
I do. Every doctor I’ve seen has begged me to switch from Adderall because “it’s for children.”
Let’s just ignore the fact that taking vyvanse made me suicidal and fucking off-the-walls angry.
Each time the conversation turns that direction, a simple “I prefer to stay with my current medication” keeps me from having a legitimate emergency on my hands.
I asked my doctor for X once, the cops were called shortly thereafter.
Why would you ask your doctor to kidnap Xzibit for you.
You see X gon give it to ya, you can't just get it from him
Fuck finding it on your own cause X gonna deliver
yep, then its just a knock knock open up the door its here!
"Ask your IT professional about reformatting your hard drive."
My dad's a pharmacist so most of the time he just calls our family doctor for general stuff. When it's a little bit more serious he'll tell us to set up an appointment to get a prescription for x problem, it's rarely for y medicine unless it's commonly known by the generic name.
From someone who used to be in that industry, trust me, the doctor will know to prescribe one or the other medicine. Big Pharma conducts COUNTLESS seminars specifically organized to showcase their latest pill. They invite tons of doctors/ medical practitioners to these seminars specifically to sell them on the idea of using their meds.
I was diagnosed in my 30s with ADHD and was prescribed an amphetamine after sitting down and filling out a questionnaire with a psychiatrist in about 45 minutes. I’ve always said “no” to a lot of medication if I am not injured. I have been interested to understand every day life with ADHD and how to be more constructive without medication. After my diagnosis I went to my family doctor to have a recommendation to a mental health specialist who helps those with ADHD... I wait 5 months to see him as he was high recommended and we had 7 weeks booked in advance. Instead it lead me to a second psychiatrist who just seemed grumpy and annoyed trying to talk to me and didn’t understand why I wanted to go off the medication and told me it sounded like my dose just needed to be increased. It was strange he was so persistent and if I was addicted to my meds it seems like I could just make him give me more.
It’s annoying how much doctors in North America push medication on patients for everything and I really truly wonder how many doctors are out there who genuinely care about their patients than to just look at coming to work as just “another day at the office”.
Then the Dr. prescribes the generic brand.
I'm not a doctor, but in tech support anytime somebody comes in asking me to do some specific thing for them I automatically get suspicious, because they are almost always asking for the wrong thing. I usually ask them what problem they're having and have to force them to tell me what's going on so I can do something that will actually solve their problem.
Or, you might be on other medication that could be in conflict with the medicine that was advertised.
Or, you could be allergic to something in the medicine.
Very true. Generally I wouldn't dismiss asking about care options though. To me it proves the patient is interested in increasing the quality of their life and that's great! Commercials don't have time to go over any conflicts medication might cause re: comorbidities, but your doctor sure can. I recommended that my grandmother ask about afrezza because it would really open up her ability to travel and socialize. Her doctor didn't come to her with it as an option because it may not have been covered by her insurance, but they gave it a go and surprise! It's covered. Her company was reluctant to do it, but with that push from her doctor, everything worked out and it's a great option for her.
Advertising prescription medication to the public is illegal in the UK and Ireland for this reason. Can't say for sure around the rest of Europe.
This!
There are so many medicines out there and the doctor may not think to prescribe that exact drug. In fact, they may actively not want to prescribe it. But if Susan comes in and pressures her doc enough because the TV told her to ask her doc then the doc may cave. They have so many patients and so much to deal with that fighting you over which prescription to give you may just be too time consuming.
The pharma companies know the average person watching is gullible, not very educated, and thinks they are way more intelligent than they really are.
I tell my doctors what I need constantly... because it keeps them from dicking me over at every turn. It works both ways. I might not know the best medication for my issue, but specifying will keep me from having to try countless medications while they price me out of house and home.
The US just kind of blows.
I always ask my doctor for warfarin! Every time I see her “hey, can I get some of that trulicity? Word on the street is it’s great. I need to try that xarelto!” I just ask for the crazy shit I see on commercials. I don’t need any of it I just think it’s funny.
I have done that on a couple of occasions, when I had a specific complaint and there was a specific medication that was considered most effective for it. I usually just tell my doctor symptoms and let him make the call on what to prescribe for it, though.
Whos more confident in their ability to prescribe medication than a highly trained professional?
Definitely me because I watch commercials.
The doctors are supposed to recommend me a treatment solution, not the other way around!
I’ve seen a doctor that asked me habe I ever had X when I came in for A. As in something completely unrelated. He tried to get me to take several unneeded tests and bizarre prescriptions for things i don’t need. I stopped seeing him. Especially after seeing some pretty shady shit.
Haha it sounds a bit like how kids get targeted to nag their parents for things. In both cases they are hitting the softer target that doesn't really appreciate the value the thing has or what it's worth.
Also, some companies buy Advertising space, even though the average person can't buy their product, to "pay off" news agencies for good coverage. Why does Boeing and Lockheed Martin advertise on CNN and Fox News? So, that those companies won't piss off a revenue source with a bad story.
Yeah I never got why Americans complain about it so much... what if you took Pill X and it treated your illness but gave you terrible headaches and you don’t really complain about it because your doctor said it might be a side effect and you’re just glad your illness is gone. Then commercial for Pill Y comes and says it’s like Pill X but less people get headaches on it. If your doctor doesn’t think it would work for you he should just say no when you recommend it.
In IT/programming these are called XY Problems
For some things it makes sense. I've seen a few for different birth control methods for instance.
But that isn't how medicine is supposed to work. You should be able to tell your doctor what symptoms you have and trust that they will prescribe the right therapies and medicines without the patient or the drug companies being coercive influences in those suggestions. I'm not a fan of the level of capitalism that's inherent in my medical care.
Also might be because it doesn't really work.
Many doctors are malleable, and will go out of their way to make their patients happy. So when a patient asks for a drug, the doctor is pre-disposed to prescribe it. This is why antibiotics are so over-prescribed. This doesn't work for opiates any more because the authorities will come down hard on doctors who over-prescribe oxy and such, but other drugs are not on the DEA's radar.
I’ll admit I’ve done that, but it was after doing my own research and the drugs I was requesting were generic with long expired patents that would never be advertised on tv in my lifetime. I’m also probably going to do it again soon because I’m looking for a new dr and I really don’t want to go through the whole search for the best adhd med for me again, just give me 30 mg of amphetamine-dextroamphetamine salts in an extended release capsule and let me get back to my life.
You typing “they” and “the doc” in parentheses makes your user name so incredibly ironic.
meaning I'm redundant?
See in the UK that wouldn’t work. The doctor will prescribe what they think. If you go in saying, I’ve been researching and I think it’s X and need Y, they are 100% going to ignore everything you tell them.
Allowing that (advertising prescription drugs) is medically unethical imo
[deleted]
They are all in the pockets of the drug companies.
While that's not entirely false, medical marijuana is still a Schedule 1 federally controlled substance. I'm having trouble finding details on the rules for prescribing it in states where it's legal, since it's different for every state and constantly changing, but doctors have to be very careful about prescribing Schedule II substances and can lose their license if their patients are abusing or reselling, and I imagine marijuana is similar.
This was in Canada, where medicinal marijuana is legal everywhere, and it is being fully legalized country wide by July 1.
In the states, there aren't many mainstream doctors that will give you a prescription for marijuana either - typically just for terminal cases, cancer patients, etc. When you go get your prescription (at least in California) you go to a doctor that only does Medical Marijuana recommendations.
Yah it is the same here. My doc even gave me a business card for one of those places. He even told me that they don't reject any one. But alas, I was too lazy to drive across the city for that appointment, and just buy my weed on street, where it is cheaper, and my dealer delivers to my front door.
where it is cheaper, and my dealer delivers to my front door.
Haha, it's funny - I had the opposite experience. Used to have to drive to my dealer, now I get deliveries, and it's cheaper now for me than it ever has been. Mind you, it's been probably 8 years since I've been to a dealer.
Doctor here, as far as I know I'm not in the pocket of any drug companies. If I am, their checks must be lost in the mail because no drug company has paid me any bribes yet : (
I don't know the specifics of your case, but the reason many docs may be hesitant to prescribe a drug that was only recently decriminalized are several fold.
Docs don't magically learn everything about a new drug the second it comes to market. They read medical journals and go to lectures about drug studies, but these studies take time. In the meantime, your doc has dozens of other prescription drug options that he knows firsthand to work, because he has been seeing hundreds of patients every week with your same symptoms, and year after year he has seen his current repertoire of treatment options to work. Would marijuana work better? Maybe, but he doesn't have any experiance with that yet, nor has he seen enough studies to fully trust it just yet.
For example, I work in the field of psychiatry, and if a new anti-depressant comes out today, I probably wouldn't prescribe it to anyone for another six months. It's not that the companies that make the older anti-depressants are bribing me to ignore the new drug. It's just that I already have a dozen other anti-depressants that I know work perfectly fine. And what's more, from prescribing these older drugs for many years, I know every side effect, every dosing amount, and every possible adverse reaction. I know these drugs, and I know the risks and dangers of each one. This new drug is a total unknown. Does it work? I'm sure it doesn, but I know far less about it at this point and my patients trust me to fully understand the drugs I am giving them. I'll keep my eyes open for more news and studies about this new drug, so in a few more months when it's more established and understood I'll add it to my prescription toolbox.
Yah I get that. Are you in the US? Would you rather prescribe medicinal marijuana or opioids for something?
-US.
-Medicinal marijuana any day of the week. These days if I have to prescribe opioids it's a last resort and only in extremly limited quanity. We'll send the patient home with a prescription for just two pills. Fuck opioids, seriously.
You are one of the good ones!
It is the same strategy used by toy companies to get kids to get their parents to buy certain toys.
They (the doc) might not think to prescribe it.
Thinking one is smarter than someone who has studied years to be a doctor is by itself absurd.
I feel like this is one of the root causes for antivaxxers as well. Getting brainwashed by medicine advertisers to think they are smarter than doctors.
On one hand that's such truth. On the other hand not everyone sees a doctor that keeps up with new treatment options.
I wouldn't presume my doctor (ok he's an NP last I checkes) needs to be told what to prescribe me. But I do keep up with new medications in case his first attempt at fixing my problem doesn't work out so well
Some doctors just like to punch in, collect their big salary, and punch out without having to do any of that nasty "research" and "staying informed" business.
That and the bit about "do not take Xzenotlsule if you are allergic". It's a new drug, HTF is anyone supposed to know if they are allergic?
The fact that they have to even say that is so sad.
Liabilities, man.
Might be related to other drugs which people are allergic to?
Happened to me once. Allergic to an uncommon drug, years later get perscribed something else for a completely different illness. Pharmacy advised I shouldn't take the perscribed medicine as it is too close to the one I'm allergic to.
Oh, I understand the how. It's just, if the pharmacy hadn't caught that contraindication for those two drugs, you would have no way to know there would be an allergy.
"try this new antidepressant, side effects include increased depression symptoms"
Then why the fuck am I taking it?
God, no joke! The way the dude speed talks through the possible side affects is ridiculous. Like, I can key in on one word if I'm lucky.
1) It encourages you to go to the doctor in the first place. Lets say I felt fatigued and mildly depressed. I may not consider medicine as a solution, but now I'm more likely to give it a try. They're roping in patients that would have gone undiagnosed. Lets not talk about how this could impact misdiagnosis.
2) Even if it was a drug that would help an existing medical condition, the doctor will pick from a pool of typical prescriptions based on what will work best with your medical requirements. E.g. other medication or favorable side effects for your body. The differences between the effects are otherwise minor, so your recommendation could easily sway the doctor.
3) Many doctors will prescribe a generic version of the drug by default to save you money. If you ask for the brand name drug, the doctor will let you get it. The pharma company is then taking back customers that it lost to generic drug manufacturers.
The US and New Zealand are the only countries that allow this. Its just another platform for the companies to market on. In fact, its fairly effective. The drug companies do this so you go to the doctor with the intent of obtaining their drug instead of going to the doctor and hearing their recommendation. Also I have read that some doctors can be somewhat lenient in what they prescribe their patients because they want to retain said patient.
money.
I see your 7 years of Medical School and Residency, and I raise you a 30 second TV spot starring Wilford Brimley. Your move
it's not completely stupid because it does mean patients are more aware of what there options are. If you read the original reasons from when direct to consumer advertising was made legal they are pretty sound.
Because americans don't go to the doctor often enough, if you remind them that there is medication that could help them with some ailment they're been silently suffering with for a while they'll go in for a checkup and ask for the medicaiton.
I can sadly see that. That sounds like a horrible work around instead of correcting the actual problem.
In some very unique circumstances, I kinda understand it. How many men felt comfortable talking to their doctor about their erectile dysfunction before Viagra advertising? How many people suffered with severe heartburn before hardcore antacid advertising (it took awhile for pepcid, etc to become available otc)? I think there are a variety of problems that many people don't even really think of as medical conditions and wouldn't think to consult their doctor about but that list is very short.
Doctors can't possibly read every piece of literature in their field, no one can. If someone said: ask your web developer about Apache POI for your reports. The doctor is probably at least going to read the first paragraph of the summary of their webpage.
They're not advertising to you. They're turning you into advertising directed at doctors, (because advertising directly at doctors with pharmaceutical reps has a lot of legal issues, and many doctors employers don't even allow them to see them).
It's risky, too. I live in Ohio. Unless you have a really good relationship with your doctor, going in and asking them to prescribe you something like Lyrica (a controlled substance) could get you a black mark in your medical history as a drug seeker, if you get a really shitty/paranoid doctor.
I once got massively downvoted for suggesting that your doctor and not you should be suggesting treatment. I guess a lot of people feel they, themselves, are best qualified for such things.
For exactly the reason you just stated...
I dunno. When I was being prescribed something the doctor named out a few brands and was like do you have a preference. Knowing some people they'd just choose the brand they've heard before.
Because its a conspiracy, duh!
convince a trained professional to allow me to buy. Why?
So you can pay $700 for a pill that costs $10 of course. They have to recoup their advertising expenses right?
Never actually thought of it that way!
Your trained professional deals with children coughing, knee pain, headaches, blood imbalances...
He may not be aware of a new drug to treat your specific problem. You’re aware because it’s YOUR problem and nobody cares more than you about it.
"Ask your doctor if [drug] is right for you."
It is actually effective and helps people get drugs that improve their quality of life.
It helps alleviate the responsibility of the doctor from knowing about all the latest drugs.
The people with that condition are going to have the greatest interest in learning about the options available. Even doctors who are specialists don't always know about the latest drugs. You're often very busy as a doctor and, though you try, can't keep up with all of the latest options.
I think that they’re trying to make you aware of a new medicine that could treat a condition you may have. It may be something most people don’t know about or is fairly new and they want to make you are aware so you can ask your doctor if it might be a good idea for you to try it. It may work better than what you are already using.
Well like it said in GTA radio:" What the pill does is irrelevant, ask your doctor for it".
Money honey
It enables people to go what is called "doctor shopping". The pharma ads give very generic symptoms that many people may relate to and think that they need the pill being advertised. They may then go see their doctor and tell them that they need it. If that doctor says no, that person can just go see another doctor. It probably won't be hard for them to find a doctor that has a cushy relationship with the drug rep from the big pharma corporation and gets kickbacks for the amount of prescriptions they write for that drug.
This sort of behavior is largely responsible for the opiod epidemic happening in America.
Vaccinations are a good example:
People tend to believe themselves more than anyone else. If they hear something that's related to them, (i.e. "If you suffer from these symptoms..."), they think of it as possibly important.
Same deal happens when people look up diseases and symptoms online; 'No, you probably don't have the super rare disease you found online that happens to cause sore-throat.'
You mention keywords that people can easily relate to in the ad, they hook onto that relativity, they suggest the drug (and sometimes push for it rather aggressively) because they think it's directly related to the issue they have...
People are dumb.
My Dr. is usually pretty open about learning about new medications. He'll whip out his book of medicine or w.e. and read up on it while I'm sitting there. Even though he's open to suggestions, I've been a bit worried as to how many times he's had to reference his book. I asked about alprazolam(xanax) once and he was pretty sure they didn't even make it anymore :/
I would rather that personally. We have to just accept whatever the doctor decides to give us here, even if we don't think it's what we need. Sure he's a professional and I value the opinion of one but I'd like to have more say over what I put into more body and what works best for me.
That said I wouldn't really want to see drug advertising on TV either.
Because in America you can just go to a doctor, reel off some symptoms and get whatever you like if you ask for it. Bad headache? Have some vicodin. Trouble concentrating? Have some amphetamines. This is also why America has a ridiculous drug problem.
Because it works
Because, big pharma companies need to continue to make billions. So what, if the one of the many side effects is death? /s
Relatedly, I recently realized why the Aflac duck is so screamy and annoying (aside from the obvious fact of having originally been voiced by Gilbert Gottfried).
It's because you can't buy Aflac directly. You have to get it through your employer. So if you don't have it available through your employer's health plan, you have to go be a duck screaming AFLAC! in your HR department for them to get it for you.
Same reason ads target kids.
It should be legal just to buy them
It's so that they don't have to pay for drug reps to talk to all doctors, they'll just have the doctors patients do it for them.
Speaking of which, I saw a billboard for a hospital. Why would a hospital need advertisements??
On the flip side, these ads raise awareness about the underlying illnesses that they treat. Some people get carried away but it's generally good for people to think about their health. A lot of health problems don't get diagnosed because doctors don't have the time to fully consider their patients health. People with chronic conditions tend to just assume some of their symptoms are normal human experiences. It's not so much about convincing the doctor to prescribe something as it is about convincing you to call the doctor and complain about symptoms and asking if that particular drug may help. Even better if the doctor says yeah but there's a generic to it that I can prescribe.
I can answer that . . . for money.
Kick back city.
Well in my country (Argentina) if a doctor prescribes you a brand name medicine, you can ask them to give you a cheaper alternative (which is generally the same) if it exists.
...so Big Pharma can make $$.
It's so fucked up. It's one of the worst things about living here, among many big fucked up things.
This actually had to do with antikick back laws. In the past, pharmaceutical companies spent exorbitant amounts of money wining and dining doctors in attempts to get them to prescribe their meds. However, the government has cracked down on this heavily and now is almost non-existent (at least comparatively).
So the pharmaceutical companies had to go to the next choice, which is direct to consumer/patient marketing.
My thought is they are probably hoping you are unaware of your condition until you see the commercial and then you go to the doctor to ask about it.
I just like it because it warns you it’ll kill you but go and get it anyway
Ya know, I'm of 2 minds on this. It's actually awful. But, did you know there's medication for Wrestles Leg Syndrome?! Like, have your legs ever just been kinda achey and tingly and you feel antsey and every position is uncomfortable? I've gotten this before and it's really uncomfortable but, apparently some people just live feeling like that regularly. Apparently there's a medication for it. I thin it also causes bleeding from the eyeballs probable stroke, and you have to sacrifice your first born, but who would think to tell the doctor, "My legs are very antsy... Can you cure that?"
Doctors watch TV too.
It's not just the medicine they are advertising, but the disease. Have you had loose stools and gas in the last decade? Maybe you have this serious disease you should go to the doctor about! Sure it is 1:1,000.000 chance you do, but you should look up your symptoms and convince yourself and the doctor you have it. If the doc gives you a choice in medicine, make sure you take the one that sounds familiar.
Most prescription pills I see advertised are for Depression, gastrointestinal. or Boner pills. Antidepressants come in a large variety, gastro stuff is expensive, and boner pills are used recreationally.
My family doctor was like 65 and used a tablet to pull up web md whenever I came in. They are trained professionals, but they don’t know everything
Exactly. Isn't the point of a doctor to recommend me a treatment/solution? Why would I be doing their job for them?
Then get accused of being a “drug seeker” 🙄
Because "That disease comes with a hot chick and a puppy!"
The more people hear / read about a product, the more likely it is to sell. Period.
Getting your products name out is #1 priority in sales.
My parents have worked in advertising sales for over 30 years and explained this to me.
I did this kinda. I asked for Mirena(IUD) because I was having issues with my old birth control and wanted something more permanent and less hormonal. I knew I wanted a different birth control so I shopped around for the one that looked best after research and then talked to my doctor over a few appointments and am happy with it. Considering every couple of years (appointments) I get a new doctor, I feel like I know decently what has worked and what has failed for me in the past.
It is your health, all day every day, you should have something to say about it. Doc has hundreds of patients and thinks about you for the few minutes you get so see him.
Sure, you can have say. But if you are reliant on a 30sec-1 min ad and like hey this is what i need, vs the doctor experience with said drug over the patients he has actually gave it to. That is my point of you shouldn't need advertisements to tell you this drug. If you care about drugs for a specific condition, you will probably be researching drugs online for said condition.
Half of the time I'm convinced these drug companies have to advertise to normal people because they can't convince actual doctors to give these drugs to people. Have you actually tried to listen to some of the side effects? Kidney or liver problems, heart attacks, or death are common issues in a lot of them. There are other treatment plans that work much better for the condition most of these drugs treat, which a doctor is going to recommend first, before the new, mostly experimental drug on the market.
And that doesn't even take into account that every drug advertised on TV is from a very small collective of companies. And every one of those pills has a cheaper off-brand alternative that doesn't require you to sell your soul to some Big corperation to pay for your meds. (I'm looking at you, Astrazenica, with your footnote about "if you cannot afford your medications" after every commercial.)
"Common issues" just means they can happen in like 1/100 people or something. You should read the full side effects listing for every drug. They all read like a list of shit You really don't want with "and very rarely death" tacked on at the end.
"Anal leakage" has been my favorite I've come across.
Quite certain anal leakage is nobody's favorite side effect. I know it isn't mine
Do you wake up tired? Do you have to pee in the morning? Do sad things make you sad? You are depressed. Talk to a medical professional today and ask about getting happy pills today!
FREEEEEEEDOM!
Because if you go to your doctor they get bonuses from these drug companies for prescribing these drugs so if you ask for it and it is something your dealing with the doc will most likely prescribe. Source Aunt who used to do the accounting for my family doctor.
I live in America and it seems crazy to me.
Lots of things in America seem crazy to people in America, because most people in America don’t decide how things are done. Corporations in America decide how things are done.
Source: am American
The thing that gets me about prescriptions is that it should be relatively easy to get consensus from both liberals and conservatives to drastically curtail drug advertising. Of course, the fine folks from CNN and Comcast (owner of NBC) get to set the discussion topics in political debates and they have a clear incentive to make sure drugs can be advertised so that seemingly low hanging fruit in our bloated healthcare system is always avoided by the talking heads.
speaking of America and "Crazy", I had a psychiatrist ask me if there was anything I was interested in trying when he was about to start prescribing meds...
You're not manufacturing and selling them, or else it wouldn't seem crazy as much as it does profitable.
Agreed! I don't know fuck all about health care, medicine, or even how to take care of myself properly. I'd come off bat shit crazy telling a professional how to do their job.
Seems crazy to me too. But I don't think those commercials were around when I was younger. I remember first noticing them around the mid/late 90s.
Maybe they just didn't advertise for Zoloft on Nickelodeon and I didn't notice it until I started watching "adult" TV, but I could swear those commercials didn't even exist until like 1997. Did a law change or something?
Yes it did. It used to be illegal to advertise for drugs or alcohol
The amount of psoriasis medication commercials in the morning is too damn high!
You mean, my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis?
Private vs Public healthcare. Two very different systems both with their ups and downs.
Reddit.com/r/aboringdystopia
I live in the US and work in pharmacology. It is absolutely crazy.
It's something I will say again and again - no I will not ask my doctor if ____ is best for me, they should be TELLING me what's best for me.
Edit for clarification - I am in England and therefore do not get the “ask your doctor if this is right for you adverts”. It was something I was shocked by in America.
Also a fun fact, my friend has a rare genetic disorder and whilst we were over there we saw an advert that catered to it. My friend was aghast because the side effects for that medicine would have killed her. Had she not had a medical background, the chances are she wouldn’t have known that, and therefore she is a strong advocate of “the doctor should know what’s best”. Obviously doctors aren’t perfect. They get it wrong. But you shouldn’t have to have a medical degree in order to make sure that your health won’t be compromised by tv advertised medication.
I agree for the most part, but in some cases docs aren't up on some of the meds. My husband was experiencing a lot of nerve pain and the doc kept giving him opiods. Which do nothing for nerve stuff. He never considered lyrica or a similar med until we asked about it. A pain management specialist. Yeah he sucked but he was covered by our insurance so sometimes you have to educate yourself.
Jesus, where WAS this?! My dad once wasn't given the right meds on one occasion in hospital and there was a full blown internal investigation complete with apologetic letters (even though literally no one in the family - including my dad - noticed that the wrong medication was given)
A potential misunderstanding that i'm seeing here is that Neetz512's hubby was given meds by the doc that treat pain, but not specifically nerve pain, whereas your dad was given the WRONG medication, implying someone gave him "x" when he was prescribed "y."
Could be misunderstood on my part, but hoping to shed some clarity.
OH. Yeah no that makes far more sense 🤦🏼♀️
[deleted]
This is my issue with a lot of the opposition to certain medications these days. It seems like every time it comes to light that Medication A is over-prescribed, the next thing that happens is a crackdown on prescriptions of Medication A. Just because doctors have jumped to it too quickly for too many people doesn't mean no one needs it ever or it needs to be an absolute last resort no matter what.
Well it wasn't anything that could have killed him so my guess is it wasn't worth bringing up to their grievance people.
It has just been explained to me what you meant and I apologise
That still sucks absolute butt, and I’m sorry that happened to your husband
I'm confused. You didn't say anything bad. Thanks for caring though I hope you have a great day.
I feel my comment may have implied your husbands issue was less than my dads (not saying you construed it that way but when I read my comment back I construed it that way) but it was more of a (poor) comparison of the two situations
Thank you, I also hope you have a great day!
In that case it wasn't really the 'wrong' meds. Nerve pain is often best treated by stuff like pregabalin or amitriptyline. Morphine treats it too but isn't the best, that's all.
it's not that they don't know the meds. It's more like they don't have time to keep up on all the new drugs that are being created because they are so busy treating patients.
Like how often do you research about the new technology in your field after you finish working for the day?
When patients ask them about new drugs, that usually forces the doctor to go read up on the trials and see if it is something worth prescribing or not.
I'm not sure why you agree for the most part.
Your example is why drug commercials are acceptable. Doctors aren't perfect. And they often don't keep updated on the latest drugs. Especially for every possible situation. Your condition might not be something they see frequently.
For all these reasons, what's wrong with asking them whether drug x might be appropriate for your situation? At the very least, it gives you reassurance that your doctor weighed all the options.
I agree with you that doctors should decide the best meds. Often people just demand a drug because the TV told them too and that isn't helpful. I think some docs just write the script because they have 12 more people to see by lunchtime. Your example can happen. I just happened to learn about one that helped via commercials but didn't ask about it until I looked it up. That's the exception rather than the rule tho.
Then why should I be penalized and deprived of drug ads because other people are too stupid too process drug info?
I would have to honestly wonder if the place might have been a pill mill, if this happened recently at all. Working in healthcare, it's kind of hard not to know now that gabapentinoids are the preferred treatment for nerve pain. Of course that wouldn't apply early on after they were released. Some pain specialists just write a shitload of opioid prescriptions because it's more lucrative than pain management, though.
Hubby did try gabapentin. It made him psychotic. :(
I sometimes forget that, just because I use a term at work, that doesn't mean most people are going to be familiar with it. You kind of get used to seeing way more medications than most people after awhile when you work with individual people who get a dozen different kinds of pills, and you have to memorize the med schedule of like, a hundred of them.
Gabapentinoids are the broader class of medications that gabapentin belongs to. Lyrica is also a gabapentinoid, called pregablin. It's an odd group of chemicals, because their similarities (they all work on a certain kind of receptor in nerve cells, and are based on a neurotransmitter called GABA) can mask really important differences in the ways that they work outside of their main effects.
[deleted]
Thanks. No standard drugs really worked but we live in a legal state. Medical cannabis has helped.
Unfortunately with the American Healthcare System, we sometimes have to be our own advocate and teach ourselves what our doctors should already know. There are too many people in this boat.
Example. My mom has been having breathing problems (on and off, but mostly on) since her chemo/radiation ended in 2010. Family doctor diagnosed her with asthma. 8 years later, she finally convinces her doctor to give her a referral. She finally sees a pulmonologist and has a test specifically to diagnose asthma (or rule it out if it's negative.) Guess what? It was negative. EIGHT YEARS of being misdiagnosed and mistreated. (She sees an allergist next month, cancer is still gone, breathing problem still a mystery.)
You should always be your own advocate regardless of what country you are in. Doctors aren't perfect.
That’s also true! Luckily, I’ve never had to visit a doctor in a different country (I live in the US), so this hasn’t crossed my mind. Good point!
pulmonary fibrosis secondary to chemo?
x-rays were all clear. We thought bleomycin induced pneumonitis or radiation induced lung injury, but both would've showed up on xray. that was pulmonologist's idea as well.
Depending on how your next visits and results go it sounds like it would be worth discussing possibly having spirometry done +/- a high res CT scan/ CT with or without contrast. Both would give important information which may lead to a diagnosis when combined with your mums history or at least get you closer to it or closer to a treatment that works for her. No idea how much these are and whether they would be covered by USA healthcare.
I’m honestly not sure what all tests she’s had done so far, but I believe she had CT c/s Contrast before pulmonologist appointment. Not 100% though, since I don’t live with her anymore. The price I pay for being a strong, independent, millennial I suppose.
I’m seeing her this weekend though, so I’ll check with her to make sure. If nothing comes up with allergist, I’m going to suggest another pulmonologist appointment.
My fibrosis didn't show up on xray either. But PFT showed it was not obstructive (like asthma) but restrictive, and CT scans and eventually a lung biopsy showed it. It took about a year for diagnosis, which i thought was bad, but at least it wasn't 8!
She hasn’t had a lung biopsy yet. If nothing pans out with allergist, I’m hoping that pulmonologist will try and figure something else out. If your use of PFT is the pulmonary function test where you exhale as hard as possible, on bad days hers didn’t reach 300. Good days she got to 450. She’s been having more and more good days recently so that’s good. I don’t know, it might be something weird like humidity or something.
PFTs are a whole series of different types of breaths into a machine attached to a computer. Deep breaths, fast breaths, etc. It measures many things about lung volume, gas exchange, etc. My (least) favorite part is they give me my "scores" compared to numbers someone my age/gender/size should have, and then the percentage. My numbers range between 40-50% of what it should be, which is why I am on oxygen and need a disabled parking placard.
Oh, I think she just has single type of the PFT then— maybe a spirometer?
Spirometry is one of the parts of a full PFT. She probably didn't need more, which is good!
The most part should kick in at Death....
ED don't like prescribing new meds because it's really risky fucking about with complex medical histories over a 20 minute consultation.
That's such a bullshit defence. The doctor will always know better than an idiot who watched a commercial.
So many new medications are on the market than there were even 6 months ago. If you see a commercial for a new.... I don’t know, antidepressant and you walk into your therapists office and you say “y’know how my meds haven’t been working? I just saw a commercial for this med, would it work better?” Sometimes the doc says “huh, I don’t know let me look into it” sometimes it’s “unfortunately probably not because xyz” or even “potentially, we can talk about that in a bit.”
They might not be familiar with the medication because it’s new; not because the doctor is an idiot.
In general yes but docs are human and humans can make mistakes. However I didn't get my info about nerve pain meds from commercials I got it from Mayo Clinic's website.
What's mayo clinic?
One of the best hospitals in the United States. Website with the database on lots of different conditions with some good quality information
Then that's not a commercial, and this is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand.
Yeah kinda went off track there sorry about that. ADHD is bad today.
To play devil's advocate, some older doctors are really stuck in their ways and gave up on continuing education. In an ideal world with a good doctor, you should be able to trust them. Unfortunately, many aren't nearly as up to date on medicine as they should be
You mean like the lady that lost her medical license recently because she refused to use a computer, didn't know how and refused to learn. She was 80 years old though, probably should retire anyways.
To add to the devil's advocate line, many docs are advocated by pharmaceutical sales reps to use something that's not necessarily best, too. So just leaving it up to the doc might mean you get something that works the same as a generic but cost 7x more and they doc gets a big bottle of scotch for christmas.
If you have a chronic illness and have been through dozens of medications and doctors you'll quickly reach a point where you're the expert and asking/telling your doctor what treatment you think is best is the best course of action. If I saw a drug advert for something new that related to my condition I'd be on it like white on rice unfortunately what I have isn't common enough to be profitable so no drug company is working on it.
Anecdotally, I had to all-but-beg my doctor to put me on a certain medication that is a pain in the ass too get approved and takes a ton of time and paperwork when he just wanted to sit on his ass pumping me full of addy. Cleared up every medical problem I was afflicted with.
Desoxyn? It's the only drug I can think of that would be more tightly controlled than Adderall.
Not comfortable giving the name, but it wasn't a stimulant thank god. Was able to move off completely to something that doctors hate prescribing because insurance gives them hell to approve a $144k/year drug
Jesus, why?! And where was this?!
Why did I ask, or why did he want to continue prescribing stimulants? This was a large, American city.
I don't know how the FDA actually approves some of these. I saw one for like chronically stuffy noses or something minor like that. The list of side affects was insane. "May cause explosive diarrhea, green cheesy discharge, or lymphoma". No thanks. I think I'd rather have a stuffy nose.
They have to include all the side effects that occured during clinical trials, from what I know. So if someone dies during the trial, even if it's not likely directly caused by the medication being tested, such as from cancer, they have to include it as a possible side effect.
They’re called adverse events and we document all of them so that the data is available to the general public and FDA. It has to do with efficacy vs. safety.
But yep you’re right.
Don't forget that grade 1 cough pal.
Oh god don’t even get me started. I got queried today on fucking “grade 1 flank/back pain”.
Query: “is it back pain, or flank pain?”
Jesus fucking Christ
I did once see a commercial that listed the symptoms of a condition. I ended up going "Huh all those sound like me...maybe I should go see a doctor about this really inconvenient health issue that has never been big enough of a deal to see a doctor about."
You’re crazy if you don’t take some ownership over your own health. Doctor’s aren’t perfect and most docs I know appreciate a well informed patient.
Also, the only way the Doctor will discuss it with you is if you go to them. They are not going to remember every persons issues or comb medical records to find out who might need the latest and greatest drug. I can go, discuss it with them and come to the decision in my best interest.
oh certainly take ownership, and doctors do get it wrong from time to time, but I also trust the doctor to know what's best for me. I'm a bit thick when it comes to anatomy, and though I do try and read up on things as best I can concerning my health, it might not stick. Therefore, if I want medical advice, I'm not going to look it up and ask my doctor about it, because I'll probably be wildly wrong, but instead I'm going to let the doctor make the best decision for me on my behalf without being influenced by an outside factor (like BIG PHARMA ^that ^is ^a ^joke ^by ^the ^way)
That’s really not the right way to approach doctors. You need to be your loudest and strongest advocate when dealing with your health. To a doctor you are perhaps dozens of patients along side you, they don’t have the time to care about you as much as you do.
I think drug commercials are often a very good thing for the public. Since health is such a personal issue, there is often a lack of information or conversation about it. People often don't know that the symptoms they are experiencing are an understood condition or something that it makes sense to "bother their doctor about".
It's easy to just conclude a minor issue is just a product of aging or something you were born with that can't be fixed and you keep it to yourself. Drug commercials are an avenue of publicly broaching these subjects.
Also, free speech demands that you allow it anyway.
It's how you end up with am opiate crisis.
No. Did you give that serious thought before posting it? Opiates are prescribed for dealing with major pain, usually from surgery. There's so much legitimate call for using them, an addiction crisis is inevitable.
Doctor here. I am also aware of how much more doctors in the USA prescribe opiates for less pain.
The issue is that there's no wean and you have patients who shop doctors who prescribe more.
In fairness I live in Canada, and the quality of most Doctors is so crappy that I pretty much have to diagnose myself and research potential options for treatment before going in, if I don't do that it's a wasted trip.
Um. That's very anecdotal.
In fairness I live in Canada and all my doctor's have been pretty amazing and on-top of their stuff. I've never had a bad experience at all in 30 years.
Not always, I asked my doctor about finasteride for hair loss. Not because of a commercial, but I read about it online. If he suggested it to me on his own, that would be kind of a dick move...
You must have a really polite doctor then, because every time I go into the dermatologist to get my moles checked, they immediately go, "What're you here for? Acne?" Lol
First time i went to my then-PCP, first words out of her mouth were "are you here to talk about a breast reduction?" I was 15 years old. And no, I was just there for a physical. She wasn't my doctor for long.
Wtf? That's so weird.
oof
I know. And I don't even have that much acne. They seem really pressured to sell acne medicine though so I don't take it too personally.
That's kind of what a pharmacist is supposed to do in theory. They're like QA a sort of inspector of drug interactions. They're supposed to check for dangerous drug interactions a doctor may have missed (or not been informed of). I'm not sure how diligent they actually are, or how much is just routine filling containers, counting, and labeling.
[deleted]
Ah yes, just like not using a certified architect/carpenter to write up house blueprints. You need to take the hammer in your own hands. You got this.
Doctors are just people, not super heroes. They make lots of mistakes. That's why its important to give them the best and most complete information about your symptoms that you can. Unless you are getting tested - they are usually just taking your word for it.
Also a fun fact, my friend has a rare genetic disorder and whilst we were over there we saw an advert that catered to it. My friend was aghast because the side effects for that medicine would have killed her. Had she not had a medical background, the chances are she wouldn’t have known that, and therefore she is a strong advocate of “the doctor should know what’s best”. Obviously doctors aren’t perfect. They get it wrong. But you shouldn’t have to have a medical degree in order to make sure that your health won’t be compromised by tv advertised medication.
Doctors and pharmacists exist for this reason.
Hello, fellow brit with long term condition. One thing I know now after 10yrs+ of illness is that I understand my illness and its medications and consequences much more than you average gp. This means having to advocate for myself if I get infections, which can be an issue as I have a compromised immune system. Particularly if that means a visit to a drop in and 9/10 they listen to what I say. My gp needed to try and get to grips with my situation and it took an hours phone call with my specialist.
Honestly, when you get to the 15 prescription items a month point you are less vulnerable understanding your own situation. Dr's can and do get things wrong. And it's easy to get caught in between the politics of the gp's and the specialists too.
That's not how it works. They prescribe the medications that are marketed to them the most.
From a medical point of view, there are a lot of conditions for which multiple brands are equally effective. Doctors understand this and are able to be influenced by non-medical factors.
Those drugs are by prescription only, which is why the ads suggest you talk to your doctor about them. Presumably, if your friend had spoken to her doctor, he/she would have said, “This drug is wrong for you because __.”
I'm not sure if you have watched recent drug adverts but they do mention a bunch of problems like "this drug may cause heart problems, hypertension, renal failure", etc. Many drugs don't try to hide the side effects, they outright tell you, which is incredible.
I moved from Canada to the US a few years ago and I find that a lot of American doctors shy away from prescribing/dictating one course of treatment when possible. They instead give options to the patients and let the patients choose even though they're sick/confused/don't have the industry knowledge. I watched it happen when my MIL got cancer. Just given lots of options with no clear direction on what to choose and she felt too shitty to decide. My cynical side thinks its a cover-your-ass move for liability.
You're making a classical new American/visitor mistake of trusting literally anything anyone tells you here. We're literally a nation of rogues. Like the stab you in the back and take your wallet rogue, not the fancy mutant with... wait no i guess she just steals/tricks people out of different things. Carry on. We're all rogues.
edit: Seriously if you only see it in American advertising don't trust it. If they ask you to trust them, don't under any circumstances. Assume everyone is trying to trick you out of your shit, and anything not nailed down will be stolen. When we want to get free furniture and shit off our curb we don't put a free sign on it. We put a price tag. It's usually gone within 24 hours in a good neighborhood. There's a reason that "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a saying here, and never goes away. Americans fucking love that idea because no matter how much of our shit is taken by the government or other people, we're CLEARLY the sly fox that is outwitting everyone else. Keep this in mind and your stay here will be pleasant if slightly paranoid.
Keep this in mind and your stay here will be pleasant if slightly paranoid.
I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the word “slightly.”
I never got this attitude. It assumes that due to greed and self interest, any kind of external benefit is off the table. Even if you wanted to be the maximum amount of paranoid, you have to accept that in many situations, especially in the medical field, actually helping someone else is more beneficial than not. The idea that a doctor gets “repeat customers” by keeping people sick is completely irrelevant for most situations since a doctor that cures nothing will get no patients.
You're being paranoid. US isn't the highest-trust culture in the world, but it's above average.
It gets weirder. Back in the early 80's, it was against the law to actually name the drugs in question on commercials. As a result, you had the same sorts of ads pushing the same sorts of drugs, asking people to talk to their doctors about [insert malady here] products from [e.g.] Johnson & Johnson.
I went to America once, and often found that in the drug ads the warnings of potential side effects took up more of the ad than the actual content.
Pretty shocking when you hear a ‘side effect’ of death.
Although it is shocking to hear, to put it in perspective- heart attack, stroke, and death are side effects of hormonal birth control. It’s rare that young women do suffer these side effects, but it’s still on the list of side effects because it has happened a statistically significant number of times.
Example of serious side effects from hormonal contraceptives
This medication may rarely cause serious (sometimes fatal) problems from blood clots (such as deep vein thrombosis, heart attack, pulmonary embolism, stroke). Get medical help right away if any of these side effects occur: chest/jaw/left arm pain, confusion, sudden dizziness/fainting, pain/swelling/warmth in the groin/calf, slurred speech, sudden shortness of breath/rapid breathing, unusual headaches (including headaches with vision changes/lack of coordination, worsening of migraines, sudden/very severe headaches), unusual sweating, weakness on one side of the body, vision problems/changes (such as double vision, partial/complete blindness).
If you look at the info online, it goes into common side effects, uncommon side effects, and then side effects that happened to like, 2 people (but technically they still have to list it)
I think it is even illegal in Italy to advertise drugs for which a prescription is needed.
IIRC it's only legal in US and NZ
That's right. And in our defence, it's only legal in New Zealand because we forgot to put it in our legislation. Source.
It's absolutely crazy.
I've never seen a commercial in NZ advertising me presrciption drugs. Then again I don't really take any drugs, or watch NZ TV.
It's not crazy. Any legal product should be allowed to be advertised.
It's technically illegal in Canada but most Canadians don't realize this because we all watch American TV - perhaps less now than 10 years ago though - and the ads are on there all the time, which makes it confusing.
It used to be illegal in the US as well, which was nice.
Lessens the liberty of companies to advertise their product. Prozac isn't less legal than a Domino's pizza so they should both be able to advertise.
I the US it used to be illegal to advertise prescription brand name drugs. The ads on TV are something fairly new. The drug companies make LOTS of money on their drugs and they want to push their brand as far as it can go. Getting a patient to ask about it drives demand.
In India, we have sensodyne ads if that's the kind of thing you're talking about ...
Thats toothpaste, totally different.
No, sensodyne is a product consumers can buy that your dentist might recommend you get for sensitive teeth. The ads we’re talking about are for medications only available through a doctors prescription.
The US and NZ are the only places that allow it
It's illegal to advertise prescription only medicine in Hungary... Seems bonkers to me that patients are encouraged to override the health care professional's opinion.
You must not have been here in the last year, the ads have gotten better. Now, for every TV ad for a drug, there is an advertisement to join a class action lawsuit against the drug that was on TV last year.
I had a really runny nose, then I took Sniffitol!
Sniffitol has side effects including runny nose, blocked nose, sneezing, coughing, increased mucus production, dizziness, headaches, blurred vision, loss of hearing, heart palpitations, diarrhoea, constipation, abdominal cramps, muscle pain, insomnia, loss or gain of appetite, loss of libido, memory loss, tremors, suicidal thoughts and death.
Ask your doctor if Sniffitol is right for you!
Brit in America here. This is the one that instantly came to mind and after several years here, it still boggles my mind. "ask your doctor about?"
No. How about, you don't feel well, so you go to that expert person who has dedicated their life the medicine, spent 8+ years in med school, tell them your symptoms and they choose what you need.
AFAIK, drug advertising is actually banned in the UK, not to mention use of generics is far more widespread meaning drug companies ahve little to advertise to. Also, here in the US, the brand name is precribed by default, and they sometimes ask you at the pharmacy if generics are OK.
In the UK, you normally get prescribed generics (i.e. the drug itself) and only in certain circumstances the doctor will denote that the brand name drug be used at point of prescription.
In the US, drug ads on TV etc are a relatively new thing. It wasn't allowed before. Drug companies make a LOT of money selling their drugs and TV ads are an effective way to drive demand. Patients asking their doctor about a certain drug on dives up demand for the drug.
And generics are very common - these ads are for new drugs that the generic equivalent isn't allowed yet. The "inventor" of a drug has exclusivity for a certain number of years.
If you don't want to suggest medicine to your doctor then don't. People are acting like these ads are forcing you to buy meds.
It seems crazy to us as well, but laws are made primarily via lobbying here, and firms with cash can buy all the lobbyist time they need.
Yeah, I think it's just us and New Zealand that allow drug commercials.
It leads to people spending more money since doctors get nagged. This used to be illegal. Its what drug companies want.
I'm American and it also seems crazy to me
Something similar to this is really high medicine prices. I mean, I get my script for, let's say, Rivotril... when I get to the pharmacy, they'll just ask me if I want the brand name or the generic, as to save money.
Also, paying the equivalent to 25 USD for a months worth of pills isn't exactly high price if I decide to go for the brand name.
Mandatory offer for generic replacement is one of the fucking best things to happen in morden medicine in the civilized world.
Prior to it, Pfizer and others used literally millions on promotion, making their product be the one to come to mind when a doctor was to prescribe something. Now, when you show up at the pharmacy with a prescription for something that's essentially antihistamines in pill for instance, the pharmacist is mandated to make you aware of your generic options which will cost you 1/10th of [brandname drug].
It is crazy. The healthcare industry is all about money in America. The more useless shit they can make people want the more money drug companies get. This is why we cant have free healthcare and marijuana is still illegal.
Free healthcare doesn't exist anywhere. Did you mean "tax funded healthcare?"
Semantics. Americans, sheesh. Doesn't it bug you a little that most of our taxes go to the military? Meanwhile citizens die every day from diseases that are curable because the don't get proper healthcare?
Not at all because that's how we maintain a superior military. The military is your way to a free or heavily subsidized education, free healthcare, and free housing but you must prove your worth by enlisting. I don't want to deal with Canadian style waiting lists as issues worsen or have to subsidize some obese dumbass who can't get their shit together. The military exists because the free market can't provide an adequate alternative but that isn't true for healthcare.
Besides, the government would impose nanny state regulations if it funded our healthcare. I shouldn't have to pay higher fees for an energy drink or other unhealthy product such as tobacco or alcohol and nobody else should.
Live in the us. The whole certain drugs can be advertised and sold by pharmacies is weird. Like that drug you buy on thr streets illegal but buy it from a shitty corporation and its legal
That's because of patents. This is why I support legalizing street drugs to lessen the price of namebrand drugs. Oxycontin would drop the price if people might switch to Heroin.
It is crazy. Those drug companies lobbied hard for it though.
The best is when half the ad is just listing all of the possible side effects.
It's terrible. It's just more ways our horrible medical system mugs us and pulls money out of our wallets. It's made people into self-diagnosing hypochondriacs.
We never had these commercials when I was a kid. They started popping up when I was around 13 or so. My partner and I were talking about this at the bar the other night, and when the game cut to commercials, we counted 5 medication ads in a row.
It was illegal until a few years ago. Only two countries in the world (I think Australia is the other) allow prescription drugs to be advertised.
Whenever anyone complains about the high price of prescription drugs in the US, drug manufacturers always use high r&d costs as an excuse. Advertising should be illegal again. It’ll save them millions.
It's NZ
Whoops! Thank you!
Where i live there are comercials for medicines but only simple ones (headache, stomachache, muscular creams, etc)
New Zealand also has ads for pharmaceuticals. So it's not technically just an American thing.
It is crazy. My wife and I talk about it all the time. Why are they advertising prescription meds? Why are they insinuating that we may have some unknown condition? Its the Great American Medical Insurance Scam. Making sure we stay sick. "Make sure youre paying your $500 a month just in case you accidentally catch shingles."
I saw an add that went risk of depression vomiting and rashes whilst in the us and I thought how could this be allowed to be sold
Commercials in general.
Ads where I live are annoying enough, but whenever I'm in the US I'm amazed at how some channels have literally more ad-time than air-time.
Worse even, the ad-cascade ends, they show you 5-10 minutes of the program, then throw in 2-3 more short ads because fuck you.
A central tenant of medicine in the US is that patients are expected to be able to diagnose themselves and come up with their own solutions for a wide variety of ailments.
In which subreddits are these frequently brought up?!
/r/roosterteeth and their sub subreddits had a little shitstorm when they started advertising boner pills on their shows so that's one I know of
The whole mentality behind that is basically a result of America’s individualism culture. A whole lot of people think they know exactly what’s best for themselves and it’s almost impossible to convince them otherwise.
It’s predominant among the older generations, as they’re the people this ads are targeting.
Individualism itself is great but self-diagnosis is idiotic.
Yea, I know, I'm just trying to tell you the logic behind it
Its a reflection of who really has the influence in this country. Its a sad state of affairs really.
It should absolutely be illegal. But we have legal bribery here and drug companies have assloads of money.
Fuck why do I even live here?
All legal products should be able to be advertised.
I can definitely empathize with that point if view. The thing about drugs is that they're not legal unless you have a prescription. So I think you could also use that argument as support for the opposite viewpoint. It's a grey area at best.
I never thought about this until someone brought it up on another thread and now every time I see those commercials I realize how weird they are.
It's not that weird
There is a barrage of ads for a drug at the train station I use to get to work.
[Picture of attractive blonde woman]
"Ask your doctor about [drug name]!"
It doesn't even say in plain language what the drug does. There's some medical/scientific "big words" about it in small print but that won't make sense to anyone except possibly the target market.
They have it for pets too.
The adverts don't happen but as I'm getting older and know my own conditions better, I've realised it apparently is an acceptable thing to walk in and ask the doc to prescribe you a specific thing.
They have been doing it for years, and it still seems crazy to me too.
I always thought that was unethical and it shouldn't be allowed. The average person is an idiot, and half are even dumber than that. They should not be asking their doctor to put them on any medication. If there's a problem, they'll prescribe you something.
We get these commercials in Canada on American stations. "Ask your doctor if blank is right for you" shouldn't your doctor already know that?
I believe only in the US and NZ can you advertise prescription drugs on TV.
From the Netherlands here - this baffles me too! No way my doctor's going to give me prescription medication just because I self-diagnosed and decided that X medicine is the thing I need. My health is not a market place.
I've always wondered how often it actually happens though. Like yea the commercials are on tv all the time but how often do doctors get someone coming in asking for cymbalta?
Really ? We have it in France but it's for light over the counter medication or homeopathy
I absolutely HATE direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisements. Theyre on all the time and IM NOT A DOCTOR WHO CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME ABOUT CHANTIX IDGAF. sorry. Really gets me going.
As an American who has watched sports that have been streamed through UK feeds, what astonishes me about your commercials are the ads for loans with like 50% interest rates. I know predatory loans are a huge problem in the States, too, but they don't advertise that way.
Big pharma man, healthcare is weird as fuck here. Doctors even get brainwashed or take bribes to prescribe certain medications. The former might sound unbelievable, but there are companies that put propoganda about how good their medication is into med school curriculum. Also without insurance, a lot of medications that are really important for some conditions cost such an absurd amount that if someone making minimum wage tried to pay out of pocket they would have to take out loans. Like medication for certain mental disorders, which obviously causes a downward spiral since it gets worse and they have a worse time getting a job.
Between the drug commercials, car commercials, and fast food commercials, you get probably 2/3 of all commercial advertising in the US.
It’s infuriating.
It's not crazy, it's fucking insane
The commercials in the UK are absurd. They are usually speaking so fast and seem like they have nothing to do with what they’re advertising. Especially the Churchill insurance one with the bull dog. “OOOoooooo Yesh”
may cause itchy butthole syndrome, diarrhea of the mouth, hallucinations, gout, drippy penis, dry mouth, and sweaty armpits
Zu Risiken und Nebenwirkungen lesen sie die Packungsbeilage und fragen sie ihren Arzt oder Apotheker
It was illegal to advertise prescription meds on TV.
I hate that they allow these things. Im not 100% certain they are the cause of this, but I highly suspect that the whole brand name drug thing exists largely because we have such commercials. Patents protect the generic drug just fine (if it is a single drug, not a combination formulation, there the name semi makes sense). But brand names existing and being so prevalent means that doctors have to learn the generic drug names (which often have unifying names so you can know off the bat what they generally do), but also the brand names--since patients rarely know the generic--which often have no identifying aspect to the name.
I was in California last year (am Canadian) and was watching some TV in my hotel room. About every 2nd commercial was for drugs...it was mind blowing. Prescription drugs being advertised like any other product on TV!
It seems crazy to us too.
No, but y'all sell codeine over the counter, so who needs prescriptions?
No joke, there's a pharmacy chain my area called "Discount Drug Mart."
Yeah but it’s also not really how it works unless you have a slime ball doctor. Thats more like if you’re prescribed a generic and then you want the name brand, you have to ask for it. You’re not just going to get prescribed something because you want it.
Over the years I've come to find out that most people are of the same "reasonable" personality no matter where you go.
When you see an American thing that you think is crazy or stupid, most Americans also think it's crazy or stupid... but don't have the ability to do anything about it on a large scale.
example: our president.
What else would be on the commercials? At this point it's just noise anyways.
When I had a 20 hour stop in Seattle on my way to Singapore the TV in my motel showed me commercial that said:
"Ask your doctor to prescribe you ... a gun!"
True story.
edit: It might have been national news and not a commercial. I am not sure, the USA is more upside down then Australia.
It is crazy, and at the end of 3ach commercial it shows the minimal side effects...which usually consist of "mild anxiety, suicidal thoughts, skin rashes, constant throwing up, diarrhea, minor psychosis, and a runny nose" but talk to your doctor and ask him about this great medicine that we have little research on!
I’m older and these were now allowed for quite a while in the USA. When they started it was... unsettling.
Besides the huge portion sizes at restaurants, this was the first thing my English friend was weirded out by.
As an aside, having been to the UK, I think the only thing I miss is the abundance of large coffees with half and half. I can only drink so much espresso. Your superior tea fills the role nicely though!
It is crazy, and as much as everyone wants to ignore it, the pharmaceutical industry is the main issue with American healthcare prices
Only the US and NZ
Then they list all the side effects... headache, the problem you already had gets worse, stroke, heart attack, in some cases death. You know the usual.
Only legal in USA and New Zealand to do that.
i honestly wonder who asks their doctors about that type of thing
exactly. in most of europe doctors get directly bribed.
It seems like healthcare is definitely more business oriented in the states. You have online review sites for different drugs so you can decide for yourself what you want.
In the UK we get free healthcare but I would never think to ask for a particular drug. Its almost assumed to be drug seeking behaviour if you show too much interest and in all likelihood they will put you on whatever you didn't ask for. If you need sleeping pills but you smoke weed or something they'll put you on talk therapy before letting you have any drugs.
It used to be not as obnoxious, but also much more stupefying at the same time. In the late 80's when I first started noticing them, they would show you video of a bunch of people enjoying life, talking about how Fukitol changed their life, and urging you to ask your doctor if Fukitol was right for you . . . . but never actually told you what Fukitol treats.
Then they got permission to tell you what it was for, and that's when the gates of Hell opened and belched forth the present inundation.
Listened to a podcast where they advertised boner pills yet?
That's because it's only legal in the US and New Zealand.
The part that gets me the most is the need to clarify "Do not take this medicine if you are allergic to it."
It is crazy.
“Doctor, I was thinking of taking (insert drug name).”
“Are you a post-menopausal woman with low blood pressure?”
“No.”
“Ok, well, why don’t you STFU and let me be the doctor today, m’kay?”
I had a TA bring this up. He said he thought it was crazy that we would tell our doctors what medicine we sould be using.
Before 1985 prescription drug advertisements weren't allowed on TV in the USA either, but then lobbyists...
Or where a 30sec ad is 10sec actually advertising and 20sec "side effects may include"
Come to Croatia
This is one of the reasons I stopped paying for cable TV. I hate those commercials so much.
Not just to you. I'm American and think it's Freaking nuts. I don't know what medicine is or is not good for me...or my type of illness....that's why I pay a doctor. If I have questions, I will research his suggestion or prescription, but I'm not qualified to go in with an answer of what I want.
What?! I've never heard of that, but wtf! The only "medical" ads we have in India are all the pseudo science/ayurveda/homeopathy etc ones
Drug ads didn't used to be legal in the U.S., can't remember when that changed but it was a number of years ago.
"Ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex" is no commercial a kid wants to watch while their parents are in attendence.
As an American, I hate them. They're not even over-the-counter medicines, an actual doctor has to evaluate you and decide what's the best prescription to use. In fact, I hate the whole fucking prescription drug industry. Big Pharma lobbied to have weed illegal just so they can continue to sell less effective medicines that cost like 5 cents to make in the factory but are sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars a pill. Like how is this shit legal?
I saw one for curved dicks the other day.
Am American. Dumb to me too.
Going bankrupt to pay for a medical treatment.
Going bankrupt removes the need to pay for medical treatment at least.
[deleted]
You can't just say it Michael.
I declared it!
Won't save you from student debt though
I don't get it does in Australia either but your not expected to pay it back if your on less then $50k a year. Also it's run by the federal government.
True but that's in another comment chain. This one was about medical treatment.
And the need to live.
Bankruptcy is a specific legal state that removes most debt from you.
Watch them try to prevent discharge of medical debts via bankruptcy next...
I already assumed you couldn't discharge medical debt in bankruptcy
You are living under a bridge, but at least it wipes out your debt! Hooorah!
doesn't that simply mean that you won't get the medical treatment?
No, Medicaid takes over and/or the hospitals eat the cost
Not necessarily, but it is why if you don't have insurance, they usually require you either pay up front or at least pay a deposit and set up a payment plan. If you're in an ER, they will stabilize you before requiring that, but if you need surgery or something in order to survive any more than the current emergency, they usually won't provide the services.
Most major medical treatments aren't paid in advance but rather afterwards.
Adding to this, I used to work in mortgage, and a lot of companies are more lenient towards it if its the only major hit on your credit. Not saying that makes it ok, but still
To everything, a solution
"Insurance companies hate him..."
[deleted]
It does absolve medical. But not educational.
You just figured out how free healthcare works in the US. Good job.
But you still lose your house and stuff in return.
[deleted]
Judgement Proof is a valid branch of minimalism.
In a similar vein, I've known people who've gone through ugly divorces and purposefully work a menial job much below their qualifications just to spite their ex-spouse on court-ordered payments.
Not to sound like one of the incel bronies, but goddamn I can respect that level of spite.
[deleted]
I think I found Michael Cohen.
I know in my state, Texas, creditors can't take your homestead (with the exception of things like a mortgage). I'm sure every state has protections like this.
Most states do. There’s a limit to what a medical lien holder can seize.
Can't lose anything if you own nothing
blackmanpointingtohead.jpg
I believe “roll safe” is the meme you’re looking for.
They can't take your primary residence.
They can if there's a lot of equity in the house, depending on the state. Some states allow a few thousand dollars homestead exemption, and others allow up to half a million. You can check your state's law here.
Awesome! Thanks
I read you can lose your house when you file for bankruptcy.
It may vary by state but where I live your primary residence, vehicles, appliances and other thing in the home are exempt. You also get a, I believe, $10,000 exemption you can use on anything you want to protect. I am not an attorney but I play on on TV. Do not use any of this a legal advice in your state. ;)
Once every 7 years, though. And they get to strip much of your assets. And there's no guarantee that the judge won't decide that your bankruptcy will be structured as a long repayment plan.
So are you opposed to using your assets to pay for your expenses?
I am opposed to the insanity that is the US healthcare system. You will suffer physical harm or death if you choose not to use the medical system. You do not typically get to know the price of what you're buying until after you have incurred the debt. In emergency situations, you're met with an effective monopoly (you can't go anywhere else or you'll literally die) on services. The services which are available to you are often times decided by accountants rather than doctors.
And the really big one is that we pay more than double per person in the US what any other country in the world does, yet we are met with incredibly substandard health and health coverage.
The system we have is exploitative and broken.
Had an emergency a couple months ago and just got hit with a 15,000$ bill because when I was out cold they did a shit ton of seemingly uneccessary tests on me. The necessary ones also costed about 10x more than other hospitals had I been there or in a different city.
Don't know what I'm going to do.
Dude, I'm dealing with debt collectors over a $140k amount just from being hit by a moving car and needing a few x-ray/CT scans, a single dose of morphine, and a two night all-inclusive stay in a ~~5-star hotel~~ hospital bed while I was unconscious.
I have 5k in a bank account (and a stock portfolio that is technically my parents as a tax dodge) and no tangible assets beyond a vehicle, a computer, and bare apartment/college essentials.
And I can't declare bankruptcy as that would instantly disqualify me from student loans AFAIK.
Best of luck, dood. The system that exists is created to extract money from individuals, first and foremost. I’m so sorry that you’re caught in it. :(
I'm caught in it, but I'm a fruit with no juice left to squeeze out. So it really doesn't bother me as long as I keep my phone off.
That's tough man. The prices for these CT scans are fucking ridiculous. Mine was 7500, then 800 for CT diagnostics, then 1000 for radiology examination (isnt that the same fucking thing?!) then another 300 for the doctor to look at the ct scan (again, is this not the SAME FUCKING THING)
Then another $5,800 for "Emergency room- General" no itemizations for 8 hours in a bed i guess thats the running fucking rate now
And it kills me because when you finally see a doctor (generally after hours and hours of waiting), they will generally just say "Get this test" and try to walk away before you can say a single word to them. I know that they have too much to do and too little time to do it in, but I need medical advice when I'm in the hospital. And if they are unwilling to speak with me, then I'm sorry, I don't honestly trust that advice to be tailored particularly well to my needs.
PREACH
I agree that the system is broken and the bullshit pricing that places charge because of insurance payouts is a joke. Only the people who have no insurance actually end up paying those prices and that is bullshit as they never intended those prices to be paid by anyone.
Now if the uninsured at least got charged the same rates as the insurance companies paid, then it would be less broken at least.
Then why do business with an insurance company if I pay the same as they do...OMG I FOUND THE PROBLEM
That doesn't work the way that you seem to think. I pay $500/month for my medical insurance and my insurance company paid over 22K for my surgery this past December. I was not ready or able to pay that 22K out of my pocket by any stretch of the imagination, but I can pay my 500/month until I need them to step up again.
So that's 6k/yr, how long were you paying that before you had the surgery? Anything short of 4 years you lose out, and the cost is only inflated by the problem (insurance companies) so where did you save again?
And you have just described insurance to a T. The sharing and spreading of risk among a pool of people. I have used my medical insurance for other things during that time, so I am ahead if I were just looking at the money aspect. Now if you want to count my auto insurance, which is $1000/year and I have had no claims for 20 years to that, then I might be behind.
I willing admit that the medical billing industry is screwed and having no insurance, or self insuring if you want to call it that, can be a very expensive chance that a person takes. It would still be expensive and out of control for people even if they were only charged the contracted rates that insurance companies pay by the providers.
So what is the fix? Total government control over the system? Eek! Ask the veterans how they like their government run medical with the VA. Ask anyone with Medicaid how it is going for them and then come back, so we can try and figure things out.
My father has been on Medicaid for a little over a year now, and just had his pancreatitis treated for no personal cost to himself, and he had no complaints about his treatment at the hospital.
He does not see the hypocrisy of enjoying government-sponsored healthcare while railing against single payer.
I'm opposed to medical bills being such a large expense that can require you to use your assets, yes.
Unless you want to easily go to a GP or specialist (there's no mandate or incentive for doctors to ACCEPT Medicaid--our "free" system"--so a lot of doctors simply don't), or get decent medical care (lack of doctors leads to overcrowding, 3 minute appointments, etc.), or heaven forbid you need something like an abortion, for which we don't allow Medicaid to cover. Also, hospice on Medicaid does not offer much more than a cot to die on.
Also, hospice on Medicaid does not offer much more than a cot to die on.
It does it California. Though, I'm not sure what "more than a cot to die on" is exactly.
If you mean a hospital bed in an old people's home designed for hospice. That's what we do.
I'm not sure what the alternative is when there's no family to take someone.
I see people just ditch dying family members at the hospital.
When I was in Paris the hospice looked more or less the same. Though they had a slightly larger room for each patient at that facility.
I haven't been to a doctor in almost seven years for any reason. I just got a job with insurance, and might go once just for giggles to see how much shit they give me for, er, doing my own repairs when I didn't have insurance.
This would be so funny if it wasn't so depressingly true.
Um, the problem is that we don't have free healthcare.
I thought starting a gofundme page was how free healthcare worked
YES! lolol
Same with nursing homes, unfortunately. Medicare/caid won't pay for anything until you've sold off all of your assets.
Don't have any money to start and you don't have to go bankrupt 😆
"Free"
It’s free after you pay for it.
Except that it costs several thousand to declare bankruptcy.
[deleted]
That's just fuckd up
Holy shit.
Oh man, I read an awful post this days about a guy who tried to kill himself, was saved and the received a $8000 bill for it.... I mean....
Hey my wife just did this! After a while you just laugh off those bills that ask for $750,000.
I cannot believe we have such an idiotic system. Most people I know think that being healthy is a permanent state. Every one of us is going to need medical care at some point. To ignore the millions of people less able to play this financial game, when we could easily help them, is so fucking immoral.
thank you for using the moral argument.
we are in a position to help one another. it is immoral to continue to let people die when we have the resources to help others.
that is a facet of morality and needs to be brought up more.
That's why you get insurance.
In America, people who aren't fortunate enough to have a job that offers good insurance will generally go bankrupt from serious medical care even WITH health insurance.
I got cancer without insurance. Qualified for medicaid from the state.
Then I got a job with good insurance.
So it depends on which state you live in
Yeah insurance that takes 1/3 of your weekly pay and won't cover anything until you've spent anywhere from thousands to tens of thousands first. Also, they won't pay for more than 50-70% of anything and if you receive treatment without their prior permission then you have to pay them a penalty.
Do you require home health care? They'll pay half of your bill for a maximum of 25 days per year. After that, it's all on you.
So many people die from preventable, manageable, and/or curable diseases here and there's no goddamn excuse for it.
Your fucking greed should not override someone's life. Nobody should have to watch their grandmother waste away from stomach cancer on the family couch solely because of a lack of money. And if you think otherwise, then you lack the basic level of empathy required to be considered human.
tl;Dr: fuck insurance companies
Hard to explain to Americans that this is not a thing. Bankruptcy due to medical bills is not talked about here, it isn't thought about, it is not even on the radar.
Hard to explain to foreigners (and other americans) that our politicians make money off of expensive healthcare. So to fix the problem we'd have to vote in new people. But no one votes for someone unless there's an (R) or (D) in front of their name so we're stuck with a predatory system
It is illegal for politicians to make money off of anything. I think you mean there campaigns get donations, which can not be used personally.
It is illegal for politicians to make money off of anything.
Do golf courses and hotels count?
Yes, and he will go to jail if he is proven to be guility.
wut
I was confused too. But I think he's a non-American saying that people don't talk about medical bills where he's from.
Currently dealing with a 15,000$ emergency room bill after getting jumped on the streets and my wallet getting stolen. They did all sorts of tests on me when I was put out and I had no say in it whatsoever. Talk about a kick in the fucking nuts.
I just dont get this! I got some money removed from my salary every month and i can go to the doctor/hospital without any restriction. Even if you got no job you can still go for free. Why cant they do this in the US
My dad had to file for bankruptcy 2 times over medical bills from getting Guillain Barre Syndrome 3 times in his life. He currently owes over a million dollars, even though he had insurance at the time he received treatment.
The premise of Breaking Bad wouldn’t work as a story anywhere else among OECD countries other than in the USA.
I cannot believe this is so far down. Just rewatching Breaking Bad and it has reminded me how utterly backwards and barbaric the US is in this repsect. It's a national shame that will be literally unbelievable to future generations.
or the simple fact many of us just don't get treatment or help because we can't afford it
I'm Canadian with an American SO, as a result living in the US. When anyone I know here gets hurt, my automatic response is always "you really need to get that looked at", and every time they refuse (for good reason). It's still bizarre to me how things I would normally get looked at without a second thought checked out, people here will suffer through. It's sad.
What is the first thing they ask when you go see a doctor? Who is your insurance. Why? Because they all have different prices? Would you buy anything else from a store where they didn't tell you the price and it depends on what credit card company you are using? Probably not. So why do it with the single most important thing you own? There is no reason whatsoever for the insurance industry to be involved in the medical field or anything relating to it. They aren't competing against each other and haven't for decades.
yes, whenever they ask for my insurance card, I want to first ask how much it will cost straight up with no insurance, then compare that to what shows up that was charged to my insurance, but I always chicken out.
It's horribly intimidating.
I had a 6200 dollar bill for 2 days in the hospital AFTER insurance
I live in South America, and work for an american company.
Were i work, there is a chance for relocation to the US, but the thought of how much medical need costs there, scares the shit outta me. I'd rather go to Europe, instead.
Going bankrupt to pay for a medical treatment with health insurance
FTFY
Not anymore... maximum out of pocket limits are a thing.
Fun related fact: bankruptcy does not remove student debt !
[deleted]
You could always tell your employer not to withhold taxes and pay your lump sum tax bill each Spring. That way there's no return to go after.
Meh. First year, I thought they got the whole loan amount, DOE did not warn me in time to set up payments. Second year (previous) I once again received the warning letter late and simply lost my return again. Frustrated, my wife figured out what was left and our return well actually have way more than that next year. So, we decided to let it ride. We would rather that, over another monthly bill. She's on a crusade to fix my credit.
Fun fact: you shouldn't be able to discharge loans you willingly took out. It's unsecured debt. Are they going to repossess your degree?
Fun fact, it can!
Nope, student loans are nondischargeable in the US.
Unless you can prove « undue hardship » but the threshold is quite high and courts are generally reluctant.
Many sources, but found this on a rapid google search :
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-student-loan-debt-be-discharged-in-bankruptcy
Buuuuut it can be done. There are other methods as well. Didn't say it was easy, just said it was possible. Thanks for playing.
almost impossible tho
All the people I helped didn't think it was that hard really.
ok
Rarely. Student loans and child support can be garnished even after bankrupty.
Why would you garnish a student loan?
You're asking the wrong person.
You brought it up. It makes no sense.
It sucks.
I was 22 years old. my cousin bought a new truck and was going to give me 20 bucks to drive his old car to the scrap yard (they were going to buy it from him for $250) at the first light a couple miles from where I lived the light turned yellow and I sped to make it through on icy roads. the 18 wheeler trying to turn across my lane also wanted to make it through. I the accident occurred on the 19th I spent a night in a coma in intensive care I was sewn up and discharged from the hospital the 23rd 4 days later as they found out the car I was driving was uninsured. this 4 day stint cost me just shy of quarter million dollars. granted it looked rough initially aside from having to do some cosmetic stuff (sewing back on my ear) and reattaching a tendon there wasn't a lot of hands on care needed.
in my state the uninsured motorist is breaking the law and therefor automatically at fault for an accident. this meant that I was also liable to repay for damages done to the 18 wheeler 86K and for workmans compensation for the other driver (who looked completely not injured according to other witnesses) 8.3K
I paid back exactly fuck all. the statute of limitations for medical dept is 6 years after it goes to collections. so I am I think dept free however have bad credit and no bank would loan me so much as a pack of gum.
Or dentist, or car, or credit cards, or having kids, or having a loved one die and having to help with the funeral/ their debt, or whatever else comes up that affects your wallet.
Heisenberg
But then we do get great TV like breaking bad. So I kinda get it.
Thats more a Greece thing I thought...
Depending on where you are from and how old you are the legal mechanism/option of "bankruptcy" for normal people might be pretty surprising on its own.
it has been a great motivator for me to live a healthier lifestyle, though.
We don't go bankrupt trying to pay medical bills. Eventually the hospital will send you the total bill. You just call in and tell them how much you can pay, and they accept payments. If I'm not mistaken they have to take whatever you can realistically give
In the U.S., medical bills are cited as contributing factors in about 60% of bankruptcies. For the elderly, the percentage is higher.
Edit to note that this number is a conservative figure from a Harvard study in 2009. ACA was expected to reduce medical related bankruptcies by requiring health insurance, but as ACA continues to be gutted, such affects will be minimized.
Yes but while that's happening you probably arent making a paycheck because the insurance company can just deny your disability. So you cant make rent, or pay credit card bills etc etc. Even if you have disability it can't cover everything so now your credit is gone to shit.
I mean, what you’re describing is a very specific scenario and totally depends on multiple factors like if you were employed prior to your disability and if you were covered under insurance there are some laws to protect people.
But yeah, our medicine is not as regulated as other countries, that is absolutely true.
It's extremely regulated. It's not regulated to protect the citizen though. That's what happens when our politicians are bought.
We don't go bankrupt trying to pay medical bills.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of medical expense related bankruptcies in the US every year.
[deleted]
[removed]
Yes, you CAN be forced into bankruptcy in the U.S. in most places by medical bills. (Just google it, please.) Remember those collection agencies? The hospital stops bothering you because they sold you account to the collection agencies, and they won't quit until you have been bled out. You can have medical bills discharged in bankruptcy.
Usually they actually send the bills off to collections, but okay
Contrary to what reddit wants you to believe, the vast majority of Americans do not experience this.
[deleted]
Lol! Really nice platitude there.
I don't think you can eliminate it 100%.. which is unfortunate.. but again, the vast vast majority of Americans don't go bankrupt from medical procedures.
Can it get better? Yes. Is it terrible right now? No.
[deleted]
Misusing or misrepresenting statistics is fun!!!
How percentage of people declare bankruptcy?
According to Snopes (which, granted, I only skimmed because it was long), about 0.3%. Apparently these bankruptcy statistics are a shaky kind of valid as far as exact numbers go, but medical bankruptcies being in the hundreds of thousands is believable.
So.. if medical bankruptcies are in the 100s.. out of 300 million people in the US.. what percent of people is that?
What a fucking stupid thing to say. It shouldn't happen to anyone.
Lol! What a fucking naive view of reality.
No one should drown or get cancer or die in a car accident or stub their toes or not have a car or iPhone. Major things require major money.. it's how the world has operated for a long time.
Like I said.. we can make it better, but it's nowhere near terrible as it is.
Even if nobody were to go bankrupt from it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a huge financial burden on a lot of people. TONS of people avoid going to the doctor because of the price, TONS of people wind up saddled with large bills they can barely pay (manage to, but barely) because of an ER trip that they might’ve not even agreed to and was barely necessary. Even with insurance!
It IS a huge problem. I, too, thought it wasn’t a big deal, growing up with my parent’s insurance and financial stability. Get in quick, $20 copay, easy peasy! But now I’m on my own and oh man, I get it now. I’m about to have to switch insurance and am genuinely worried my health will suffer for it.
You can’t compare it to iPhones. Those are luxury items, not life.
It's expensive, sure. And can certainly be a financial burden for some people. But I'm saying the vast vast majority of Americans don't go bankrupt from medical expenses like reddit seems to think they do.
Hey, it's only hundreds of thousands per year whose lives are impacted, so no big deal, right?
Not to mention everybody is impacted by out of control medical expenses. Over a typical 80 year lifespan, Americans healthcare costs over $400,000 more compared to countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada.
What's 999 divided by 300+ million?
It's a very very tiny fraction of people who go bankrupt due to medical costs.
What's 999 divided by 300+ million?
One study found 643,000 medical bankruptcies per year which would mean about 1 in 500. Assuming each bankruptcy only affects one person--they frequently affect entire families. That could add up to 1 in 25 people per decade.
And you've just completely ignored the hundred million or so every year who put off medical treatment due to costs and the equivalent amount that struggle to pay medical bills in any given year, not to mention the hundreds of thousands in increased healthcare costs for the average American.
Boy, you showed me.
Lol. The fact remains that the vast vast majority of Americans do not declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses. It is a very rare occurrence. That's all I've been saying.
Show me one person that's said the majority of people suffer medical bankruptcy. Strawman much?
Do you or don't you agree that the things I've mentioned affect a huge number of people in the US (basically everybody)?
We are in a thread that asks what Americans bring up frequently. The parent comment on this thread we're commenting in says "Going bankrupt to pay for medical treatment." I said it's very rare.. indicating that it is not at all frequent.. which is true.
You said people claimed the majority of people suffer medical bankruptcy. I'll take the fact you ignored that question and moved the goalposts as an admission that was bullshit.
A 1 in 250ish chance of winning $100 bucks on a lottery scratcher might be considered "very rare" if you were willing to stretch the term a little. A 1 in 250 chance in any given year of having your life turned upside down financially due to medical expenses on top of the trauma of having a significant illness or injury in the family just horrifying. I really don't see how you can minimize it.
I throw 249 blanks and one bullet in a box and load a gun and pull the trigger pointed at your head every year on your birthday. Are you going to shrug that off as the odds of anything bad happening being very rare or would you think that was something worth being concerned about?
Nope.. I never said anyone claimed that, you made that up. I have simply been saying it's the case that the vast vast majority don't experience it. I'm not refuting anyone's claim, just providing my own.
Yep.. major illness can be very traumatizing.. didn't say it wasn't.
I don't know why you're bringing guns and violence in to this. Odd and a bit unsettling.
1 / 250 is less than 1%. It's less than 0.5%. Again.. all I've been saying is that it's very rare.
Whatever dude. Over an 80 year lifespan that's like a 1 in 3 chance your family will experience it. You have the oddest definition of "very very rare" for something that is ridiculously harmful to those who experience it I've ever heard. God forbid people actually bring that up as an issue, huh? And that's ignoring the fact that bankruptcies don't just affect the family going bankrupt, but all the creditors and by extension everybody.
No dude... 33% of families do not go bankrupt from medical expenses.
Again again again... going bankrupt from medical expenses is extremely rare in the US. The vast vast majority of people will not go bankrupt... even fewer from medical expenses.
No dude... 33% of families do not go bankrupt from medical expenses.
OK, you do the math. If you have say a 1 in 250 chance of being affected by a medical bankruptcy in any given year, what are the odds over 80 years?
going bankrupt from medical expenses is extremely rare in the US.
By that definition getting cancer is very very rare. Other people do not share your definition.
Bud, no.. ask around among your family and friends of all ages. Ask how many have declared bankruptcy. Then ask how many of those were due to medical expense.
It's just not the case that 33% of families declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses. This is your claim, so show me some reliable sources providing evidence that 33% of families will go bankrupt due to medical expenses. And... go!
...
No, cancer rates are like 40% lifetime prevalence. I said less than 0.5% is extremely rare. I did not and will not say that 40% is extremely rare. I know several people who have had cancer, I only know one person in my entire life who has declared bankruptcy... and it wasn't from medical costs.
In contrast, I know several people who have had babies born in dire health. The babies had to spend weeks in intensive care and get surgeries. My neighbors growing up.. the little girl had heart surgery.. my uncle had heart surgery as a kid. None of these families went broke or had to declare bankruptcy.
This is getting ridiculous.
Bud, no.. ask around among your family and friends of all ages. Ask how many have declared bankruptcy. Then ask how many of those were due to medical expense.
I know several.
This is your claim, so show me some reliable sources providing evidence that 33% of families will go bankrupt due to medical expenses. And... go!
Right after you do the math I asked of you on the issue.
No, cancer rates are like 40% lifetime prevalence.
1.74 million people are affected by cancer every year. Depending on the exact number of people affected by each medical bankruptcy (average household size is 2.58) those numbers are roughly in line. 643,000 * 2.58 is 1.66 million.
This is getting ridiculous.
It's been ridiculous since the beginning. Regardless of what the exact numbers are, medical bankruptcy and people struggling to pay medical bills are a huge issue in the US that does not exist in the rest of the world, so yes it garners attention.
Feel free to put out a fucking poll if you want. Given the numbers people aren't going to agree with that it's "very very rare". I don't know why you're so intent on minimizing an issue that's devastating for so many. But hey, keep up the fight, I'm sure you'll accomplish... well, I have no fucking idea what you hope to accomplish other than just sounding like a insensitive clod.
You know several people who have declared bankruptcy due to medical expenses.. I call bullshit!
Lol.. no.. I'm not doing the math on your arbitrary numbers. Show me some real fucking stats! You wont though.. I suppose you're too lazy or too disingenuous or something.. so I'll do your work for you. Here is the us government's report of bankruptcies in 2017: http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2017/07/21/june-2017-bankruptcy-filings-down-28-percent It's almost 800,000 (including businesses.. but hey.. I'll even just give you those to bolster your numbers.. you're welcome). Here it shows there were 126 million families in the us in 2017. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/ So 800k / 126 million = 0.6%. Let's pretend each of those 880k were filed by a family (they weren't.. we're pretending). That's less than 1% of families filing bankruptcy. And moreover, that's ALL bankruptcies, not just ones due to medical expense.
And if you look back at the links, these numbers are relatively consistent from year to year. So we can conclude that in any given year, there is a less than 1% chance that a family will file for bankruptcy. New families come in and old families go out... in any given year, the chance that a family will experience any kind of bankruptcy is less than 1%. It's even lower than less than 1% that any given family will experience bankruptcy due to medical costs.
So once again again again again.. the chance that you or anyone in your family will cause you to go bankrupt due to medical expenses is less than 1% every year. The chance is even lower than 0.5%, which makes the likelyhood of the event occurring in any given year very rare.
You know several people who have declared bankruptcy due to medical expenses.. I call bullshit!
Ask me a question, call me a liar when I answer honestly. Why did you even ask if you weren't going to believe me? It's not like I proffered it as anecdotal evidence. Fuck you.
I'm not even reading the rest of your BS.
Haha! Later, buddy. Stay ignorant!
LOL I'm going to block you now before you have a chance to pollute my world with any more stupidity.
First ever block! I feel so special.
Try not to go bankrupt from medical expense with your 1 in 3 chance. ;)
[deleted]
I have insurance. I go to the doctor and dentist for free and when I get my eyes checked I pay something like $10. That's what insurance is for, paying for expensive stuff in the rare event that it happens. I'd have difficulty feeling sympathy for someone who says, "Well sure I didn't buy car insurance, but I crashed my car and I NEED it!" Don't go without car coverage, don't go without health coverage.
Seeing as how it's blown out of proportion, how much more will the average American's healthcare cost over a typical life compared to people in allied countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia?
Bonus question: How many millions of people need to have difficulty paying their medical bills; how many millions delaying medical treatment due to cost is OK; how many experiencing bankruptcy is OK before people are allowed to think it's a problem?
Bingo.
I’d happily pay for the medical treatment in the States!
I get free healthcare here in Canada. It’s free. It’s shit. I had a truck fall on my face just last week. I had a gaping hole in the middle of my forehead. Lost insane amounts of blood. Passed out in the waiting room of the ER. But guess what! I woke up and continued to wait for 6 hours. Another hour in the room waiting for the doctor.
I also lost use of my right leg for 8 years because of a shitty surgeon (but the “best one in the province!”).
I’ve been to hospitals in the States many times for broken bones (I ski and vacation there). I’ve never waited more then 5 minutes in the waiting room and it continues to blow me away.
My mother needed an MRI. They were going to make her wait 7 weeks. She went to the States, paid the $800, got it sent to Canada instantly.
I’d happily pay for the medical treatment in the States!
$425,000 more? You are in a distinct minority. The vast majority of your countrymen favor keeping a public system.
Because the vast majority hasn’t had to use it as much as my family has. The actual care (treatment) received is atrocious (in terms of hospital/surgeon visits and aftercare - not GP) unless you’re in a major city like Toronto or London with their Health and Science Center. The waiting times are equally disgusting. My team lead is waiting 13 months to even meet my old surgeon to discuss a knee replacement. We spend 8 hours waiting in the ER with a finger dangling off (personal story).
When you’ve had to go through 14+ various surgeries and had to experience our healthcare system inside and out for more than a cold or flu shot, it’s terrible. Once I started going to the States and seeing what care actually is... We happily pay.
You have the option to do private health care in Canada.
This is so overplayed. Yes, going bankrupt because of medical debt does happen, but not nearly as much as people would have you think. The vast majority of people who go bankrupt are people who choose not to live within their means.
Because it makes more sense to expect strangers to pay for you?
[deleted]
but muh bootstraps!!!!!!!!
Do you know how health insurance works? Others who are healthy are always paying for your treatment. And when you are healthy and payong your insurance every month, you are paying for others!!
Only the ultra wealthy can pay for everything oh of pocket and why do that when they can get killer insurance.
99% of the time, the healthy are paying for the sick.
Do you know how insurance works? Those with the highest risk pay the highest rates. Diabetics, smokers, women, and the obese should be paying the highest rates since they're typically the ones who use the most resources (sorry, ladies, pregnancy is expensive).
Do you know how health insurance works? Others who are healthy are always paying for your treatment.
Health insurance is voluntary. Or at least it used to be. Choosing to pool resources is one thing. Forcing another person is different.
Do you know that? Do you understand the difference between voluntarily joining a club and being press ganged into service?
99% of the time, the healthy are paying for the sick.
I was poorish and without health insurance from about the age of 20 to 35. So be it. I was healthy and NOT paying for other people's health care because that was my choice and my risk to bear. LET PEOPLE MAKE THAT CHOICE.
If I'd been forced to pay for health insurance I probably would have been unable to buy my home a few years ago.
Ok, what if you actually got sick during that time? You were healthy, good for you, but not everybody has that luck. I'm pretty sure if you got sick during that time and couldn't afford hospital bills, your opinion on this would be different.
Ok, what if you actually got sick during that time?
I'd be screwed. Which makes sense. Because getting sick and needing the help of dozens of highly trained people and their high-quality equipment and exotic chemicals logically means I'm in deep trouble.
I can't say what would have happened. This is what the word risk means, isn't it?
Now... what business is it of anyone else what would have happened to me?
I'm pretty sure if you got sick during that time and couldn't afford hospital bills, your opinion on this would be different.
And I'm pretty sure the far side of the moon is made of marshmallow peeps.
Now... what business is it of anyone else what would have happened to me?
Well you know, in other countries people care aboutf people dying just because they can't afford treatment and do something against it. Maybe that's weird to you, but here we care about other people.
What's weird to me is the notion that my care for people means the government should base policies on that.
Don't confuse human compassion and empathy with government policy. It is dangerous and terrifying to mix the two.
I help out people as I can to my personal ability and desire. That's is what empathy and compassion is. An emotion a person feels and acts on.
Bureaucratic programs invented by pandering politicians and enforced at the point of a gun has nothing to do with how you feel about the health and suffering or you neighbor. It is a gross distortion to project emotion onto government policy.
Health insurance is voluntary. Or at least it used to be. Choosing to pool resources is one thing. Forcing another person is different.
This is silly, if you want to go to the doctor and be healthy, then for all practical purposes, you have to have insurance.
I was poorish and without health insurance from about the age of 20 to 35. So be it. I was healthy and NOT paying for other people's health care because that was my choice and my risk to bear. LET PEOPLE MAKE THAT CHOICE.
Are you talking about the mandatory purchase that is part of the ACA? I feel you on that, I never agreed with it, most people dont... but according to the GOP and the insurance companies it is required for the industry to stay in business.
That is fine you decided to make that choice to eschew health care, it was risky but paid off for you.. I did the same for a while, but to expect everyone to make that choice is absurd. Myself and many other people have no problem with our taxes going to your health insurance so you can buy your house. And besides, we aren't billionaires or multinational conglomerates, so we wouldn't be paying anyways.
This is silly, if you want to go to the doctor and be healthy, then for all practical purposes, you have to have insurance
.... I didn't have it for 15 years. Tens of millions of people were just like me. What's silly about it?
That is fine you decided to make that choice to eschew health care, it was risky but paid off for you
.... dude, you just said that's silly and we have to have insurance. Want to try this post again?
but to expect everyone to make that choice is absurd.
..... it's a choice. No, I don't expect everyone to follow my choices. I'm explaining that my choice is viable and often beneficial.
Myself and many other people have no problem with our taxes going to your health insurance so you can buy your house
You're not making the choice for yourself, your forcing it on others.
So right back at you... it's absurd for you to expect people to just agree with you.
And besides, we aren't billionaires or multinational conglomerates, so we wouldn't be paying anyways.
So you're a parasite and you know it and have no shame.
You know, eventually you run out of other people's money. The UK's single-payer system never goes more than a decade without needing major bailouts and restructuring. It staggers from crisis to crisis.
Yes and in nearly every single country with nationalized healthcare, they are measurable better off in nearly every single statistical category. Even China has a longer life expectancy.
You're not making the choice for yourself, your forcing it on others.
Perhaps, I mean the constitution does give us a right to raise taxes so I am not sure what your point is. We use government to organize ourselves, I am not sure what else to say, clearly donations is not getting the job done.
.... I didn't have it for 15 years. Tens of millions of people were just like me. What's silly about it?
Yes, 10's of millions of people who would probably like healthcare. Including the likes of single mothers and others in tough situations, to the tune of ~3.3T dollars worth of lost production annually. It would be more financially prudent to spend a few hundred billion on healthcare and unlock that massive lost production. Arguments to the contrary are foolish on the face of them because any argument is actually much more expensive than the alternative, which is just giving people healthcare.
So you're a parasite and you know it and have no shame. You know, eventually you run out of other people's money. The UK's single-payer system never goes more than a decade without needing major bailouts and restructuring. It staggers from crisis to crisis.
I don't even know where to start with this. First off, our entire economy is parasitic, it is a giant ponzi scheme in which a few selected persons become wealthy beyond wildest imaginations off the suckers at the end of the scheme. The parasites are the rentiers, usurers, and monopolists at the front of the scheme and in charge of our econom and state apparatus, but I wouldn't expect you to even understand what those things are. In short, they are very bad for an economy, and all you have shown is a willingness to defend those practices, because you have not been taken for a full sucker yet. It is easier for you to be incredulous about the matter instead of objective.
Wages have been stagnant for 40 years, despite record production, yet I am the parasite huh? A handful of large companies could wipe out homeless in our city and not even blink.. hell my company alone makes billions in profit every quarter, we could care less about the head tax. Its only obtuse clods such as yourself that haven't the simplest idea of how a healthy economy is even supposed to work acting like your pittance of a tax payment is worth anything to anyone. Get off your high horse. You didn't cause these problems, you aren't going to fix them.
Yes and in nearly every single country with nationalized healthcare, they are measurable better off in nearly every single statistical category. Even China has a longer life expectancy.
Check out America's life expectancy broken down by state. It's not health-care, it's chosen life style.
Perhaps, I mean the constitution does give us a right to raise taxes so I am not sure what your point is.
You have the right to raise taxes. You don't have a right to use that money to provide health care. The congress has borad discretion in how to raise money but it is very, VERY limited in what it may spend money on. That's the point of enumerated powers. Health care does not fall under any of the federal government's assigned authority. (I will add here that promoting welfare is not a power, it is a GOAL. It is important to understand the distinction between goal and method. the government's methods are narrowly defined.)
We use government to organize ourselves
.... that's not the putpose of goevrnemtn.It's there to build some large, indespecable infrastruure like roeds (a power specifically granted in the constition) and to keep us from doing harm to one another by punhsing murder and thefts etc.
Governmenbt sould NEVER seek to "organise" us. That's stupid and scary. Soceity is an emrgent property. It doesn't require organizaiton.
It would be more financially prudent to spend a few hundred billion
It's not the governent's responsibility in the forst place. Let's assume you are correct about lost production? SO FUCKING WHAT. Managing production or effeceny isn't the government's job. Acheiving outcomes isn't the government's job. It's only meant to be a framework of order allowing us to operate without constant fear of being mugged or raped.
It is asinie to expect a politically derived buracracy to manage our lives. That is both doomed to failure and antiethical to basic human rights
First off, our entire economy is parasitic
No, because most of the economy operates on a free-trade basis where both sides get benefit. So symbiosis. It doesn't matter how much more someone may get whenre every small bit they get is the result of a freely acccepted trade that the other parites also benfitied from.
Wages have been stagnant for 40 years, despite record production,
Yes. As it should be. First, wages should be stagnent because what is the alterntive... enternally inflating wage costs? Stagnency is susainable and rational.
Secondly, rises in production are not due to harder work on the part of the worker. In fact, most jobs have become easier thanks to computers and communicaiton etc etc etc. Why would increased production mean increase in wages? The benifits go to the customer.
Also, please don't make the mistake of treating a country like America as a closed system. Don't look just at the wages of the American worker but all worder's globally. Improvments in wages around the world will come at the expense of other's wages in some small parts. More competition among the labor force means lower labor costs.
A handful of large companies could wipe out homeless in our city and not even blink
But it's not their responsibility to do so. Nor is it government's.
Its only obtuse clods such as yourself that haven't the simplest idea of how a healthy economy is even supposed to work acting like your pittance of a tax payment is worth anything to anyone.
Officious clods such as yourself have zero respect for your fellow human beings and insist you know what's best and everyone must obey. I'll take transparent greed over pandering manipulation any day of the week. You're trying to solve problems that are none of your fucking business. You have no idea whatsoever what constitutes a healthy economy. Here's a hint; risk! Shit doesn't get done if people aren't motivated by self preservation. Your "solve all the problems" mentality eliminates visible risk and demotivates ALL economic activity. and of course you're setting everyone up for disappointment and ruin all during the process because socialism can never deliver. It produces dwindling productivity and growing demand and then you have Venezuela.
Get off your high horse. You didn't cause these problems, you aren't going to fix them.
Wow, pot calling the kettle muc you arrogant busybody? The thing is, I'm not so stupid and arrogant as to believe these are problems I can fix. Your entire point is that you think you CAN fix them. Of curse, you "fix" is coercion and theft...
Check out America's life expectancy broken down by state. It's not health-care, it's chosen life style.
Uh, ok? How is that different than anywhere else.. I'm sure you will find the same thing in France.
You have the right to raise taxes. You don't have a right to use that money to provide health care.
I disagree, we use the government to do all sorts of things, healthcare is no different. Especially when single payer would be cheaper than the clusterfuck of a failure we have now. The evidence in every single advanced nation is beyond dispute. Besides, once the insurance companies actually have competition, perhaps they would provide real service. No one is saying they have to disappear altogether. If you want private insurance, then get it alongside your single payer. But its beyond absurd that we have to spend more than any other nation by more than HALF yet still not have single payer healthcare. It would be cheaper for me to pay this in my taxes.
It is asinie to expect a politically derived buracracy to manage our lives. That is both doomed to failure and antiethical to basic human rights
Absurdity, I use the VA for healthcare, and in absolutely no way do I feel it is managing my life.
Yes. As it should be. First, wages should be stagnent because what is the alterntive... enternally inflating wage costs? Stagnency is susainable and rational.
I don't even know where to begin, you are proving is don't understand what a proper economy is. Let this billionaire break down why wages are one extremely important aspect of a healthy economy. .
Why would increased production mean increase in wages? The benifits go to the customer.
Confirmed, you have no idea what you are talking about. A hallmark trait of a sucker in a ponzi scheme is that they never want to admit it and are further incredulous about the matter.
that's not the putpose of goevrnemtn.
Uhh, yes, it is. From Wikipedia:
A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, often a state.[1] A government is like a clan with the purpose to govern the whole family or whole nation with powers of financial, military and civil laws. The main purpose of government is to seek the welfare of the civilians and to fulfill their need for the betterment of the nation.
Gee, an organized community. If you don't understand what I mean by using government to organize ourselves, then you are more simpleminded than I assumed. We have been organizing with government since at least Hammurabi. Were the first man birthed a anarcho-libertarian, he surely would have been the last.
It's not the governent's responsibility in the forst place.
It is when regulatory capture is so rampant, when the business' involved so corrupt, whey they are so... intertwined with the very fabric of our legislative body, I argue it is absolutely the responsibility of the government. I would argue that for the vast majority of these super large organizations, they aren't completely private anymore anyways.
It's only meant to be a framework of order allowing us to operate without constant fear of being mugged or raped.
I can agree with this, but I would argue that it should apply to public (see the police abuse), and private (ie facebook, wells fargo) entities, and we use government to protect ourselves. For a very simple example, its why we have laws regulating overtime environments and obligations. It wasn't like some jackass woke up one day and was like "Hey golly gee, lets regulate overtime". No, he likely did it because he looked around and saw his constituents getting raped, as you so eloquently put it, by their boss.
Secondly, rises in production are not due to harder work on the part of the worker. In fact, most jobs have become easier thanks to computers and communicaiton etc etc etc. Why would increased production mean increase in wages? The benifits go to the customer.
This is just patently false, Americans work more hours than just about anywhere in the world. Furthermore, you shouldn't just be paid for your production but also your time, which is arguably just about as important, if not more so, as its the one thing you can't actually get back. Furthermore, the point I am making is that we lose a ton of production to the lack of healthcare in our nation.
Record production should come with record wages, all the way to the bottom janitor, that is how a healthy economy works. Pay your employees well, they shop where they work, this creates demand, so you hire more people that you pay a good wage, and they shop where they work and this creates demand. See the circle of a healthy economy? When everyone does this the economy works for everyone, not just the rentier, usurers, and monopolists at the end of the ponzi scheme.
I don't understand your model, it would seem under your model a company like Wal Mart or Berkshire Hathaway would provide every good and service, while having 0 overhead. How does that work when there is no demand because no one makes a paycheck that can afford anything you make? Do you know what drives demand? Pro-tip, it isn't rich people (pro-tip2, its demand).
Here is another way of looking at it, and we will keep the numbers simple. Now, before I pose the question, think about everything that goes into this, all of the support businesses such as mechanics, gas stations, used car market, dealerships, etc. So what is better for everyone? One rich guy with one $100,000 car. 2 Rich people with two $50,000 cars, or 10 people with ten $10,000 cars. Which generates more economic revenue?
Here is another question. A long standing federal law prohibits car manufacturers, such as ford, from opening dealerships and competing directly with local business. Is this "managing our lifestyle?". And if it is.. is it a bad thing?
But it's not their responsibility to do so. Nor is it government's.
I disagree, it absolutely is.
Your entire point is that you think you CAN fix them. Of curse, you "fix" is coercion and theft...
I didn't say I can solve the problem. What I am saying is we use the government as the vehicle for solving the problem and hire people who do actually know what they are doing and giving them the proper funding to get it done. For instance, I don't know anything about space travel, this is why we have NASA. Another problem is that every single purposefully ignorant blowhard's vote counts equally, and no one has the time to become knowledgeable about everything in a political system built for and 18th century world, but that is a different topic. Suffice to say, instead of talking about real answers, we are cowards and afraid of change so we argue over fundamentally flawed systems.
Uh, ok? How is that different than anywhere else.. I'm sure you will find the same thing in France.
There are far greater differences between regions in America than anywhere in France. You will NOT find such a statistical gulf in France.
You have the right to raise taxes. You don't have a right to use that money to provide health care.
I disagree, we use the government to do all sorts of things, healthcare is no different.
I'm speaking of literal constitutional powers. There is nothing applicable to health care. So the federal government is bared from getting involved.
Let this billionaire break down why wages are one extremely important aspect of a healthy economy.
No. You speak in your own words. I said something very specific. I pointed out a mathematical truism. (real) Wages can't escalate infinitely. That's is conceptually impossible. Conversely, stagnet wages are by definition stable and sustainable.
How do you respond to this simple mathematical fact?
A hallmark trait of a sucker in a ponzi scheme is that they never want to admit it and are further incredulous about the matter.
Where in any of this is it demonstrated that people are being paid less than they need to thrive and contribute to the economy? I'm honestly at a loss. There's a missing step here. Demonstrate that there is a shortfall in compensation.
Citing inequality is NOT evidence that the low end is not being compensated enough. That's not a logical connection. It is possible (and in fact currently the case) for the masses to be adequately compensated and thriving while also resulting in large concentrations of wealth. It's a perfectly functional system.
At some point were also going to have to address the fact that the assets held by the wealthy are for the most part being utilized by the masses. From real estate to corporate assets, the "99%" are getting large benefits from the capital held by the 1%. Permanent blocks and factories don't get built without concentrations of wealth. In fact, that's the basis of civilization. You need someone to control a big chunk of surplus output to direct it to the next bit project.
that's not the putpose of goevrnemtn.
Uhh, yes, it is. From Wikipedia:
Seriously? Yes, I know what you've been indoctrinated to believe. Showing me the indoctrination doesn't change what's going on.
You are being managed by political interests that need you to believe these things to remain in power. (I mean, almost none of them know that's what they are doing but the effect is the same.)
It is when regulatory capture is so rampant, when the business' involved so corrupt, whey they are so... intertwined with the very fabric of our legislative body, I argue it is absolutely the responsibility of the government.
You really don't see it, do you? you just gave the perfect reason why it absolutely should not be.
If you want to end "regulatory capture" or the role of money in government, the simplest answer possible is to strip power from government. Make it irrelevant.
The problem with special interests isn't their interests. It's the fact that government gives them power to FORCE their will on people. If you want to fight special interest, OBEY THE GOD DAMN CONSTITUTION. Strip all these fraudulent powers from government and the special interests will go away.
This is just patently false, Americans work more hours than just about anywhere in the world.
Not sure how this influences what I said. I said that gains in productivity are not the result of harder work. Merely citing what the level of work IS can't logically discredit my position.
Again, GAINS in productivity over time do not come from more effort. I mean, technically, that's the definition of productivity. Greater output for the same effort.
urthermore, you shouldn't just be paid for your production but also your time,
.... actually, that's MY argument.You're the one trying to argue that increased productivity should mean increased pay.
You are being paid for time and effort. Effort can mean things like skill level, education or physical strain or danger. If a new method introduced by an employer means greater output without any greater effort or time then there's no logical reason to change your compensation.
Record production should come with record wages
Why? Make an argument. What are the workers doing to deserve more than they made previously?
Furthermore, the point I am making is that we lose a ton of production to the lack of healthcare in our nation.
As I have said, it's no one's responsibility to manage production. If that hinders production then so be it.
I mean, think about it. Doesn't your argument suggest internment camps and forced labor? If you think managing production justifies coercion then go ahead and do it. Stop pussyfooting around. If you think it's the government's job to manage production then it should DO that. Forget single-payer health care; just put everyone in a work camp and manage their diet and medical care and assign them their jobs.
I'm not taking your argument to a absurd conclusion; I am stating the actual contents of your argument. You propose that managing production justifies government regulation and control of markets. I don't see anywhere where you've proposed a single limit to that power.
Pay your employees well, they shop where they work, this creates demand, so you hire more people that you pay a good wage, and they shop where they work and this creates demand. See the circle of a healthy economy?
I agree completely. And that's what we have. Because the workers ARE being paid well enough.
I repeat; you have not demonstrated anywhere that compensation is inadequate. So let's take your statement and test it on the situation today.
Don't we in fact HAVE a healthy economy? Low unemployment and lots of luxuries for the masses and very, very, very little suffering. How is this not a healthy economy?
And if you cite inequality as evidence of an unhealthy economy I will slap you silly.
it would seem under your model a company like Wal Mart or Berkshire Hathaway would provide every good and service, while having 0 overhead
Not only do I not understand where you are deriving that from my position, I really don't even know what you mean.
How does that work when there is no demand because no one makes a paycheck that can afford anything you make?
.... the people working for them CAN afford the things they make and sell. You keep implying that people can't afford things... but they can. We HAVE a healthy economy.
I don't understand your position. Where is there a lack of people buying stuff?
So what is better for everyone? One rich guy with one $100,000 car. 2 Rich people with two $50,000 cars, or 10 people with ten $10,000 cars. Which generates more economic revenue?
What generates economic revenue is a rich guy that builds a car factory and a car dealership that sells both $100,000 cars and $15,000 cars because there is demand for both. Which is the situation we have.
If all you have is the people that don't have much money then no one ever built the damn car factory in the first place.
A long standing federal law prohibits car manufacturers, such as ford, from opening dealerships and competing directly with local business. Is this "managing our lifestyle?". And if it is.. is it a bad thing?
Yes, it is managing our lifestyle and yes, it is a terrible thing. And I know full well that it was dealership lobbies that made that law happen. The point is that it is government power that is harmful in and of itself, not as much for whom it is used at any given moment.
I assume you are ware that that law has hindered innovation such as handicapping Tesla? I'm guessing you were going to be leading to that in some way but somehow make it out to be a good thing?
I didn't say I can solve the problem. What I am saying is we use the government
Same thing. Majority opinion is ultimately no more fair or just than a single person's. And the rule of the majority is every bit as tyrannical as any other dictator.
For instance, I don't know anything about space travel, this is why we have NASA.
..... that doesn't follow. You don't need to know something about a topic to... hell, I can't even see what you're argument is supposed to be.
We don't need NASA. Simple. Your knowledge of space travel has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what gets accomplished or learned. People will do as they see fit and it is wrong to coerce and manipulate them through the ballot box. It doesn't matter if the absence of NASA set us back 50 years and we still don't have satellite communication (highly unlikely but lets supposed). Then so be it.
Suffice to say, instead of talking about real answers, we are cowards and afraid of change so we argue over fundamentally flawed systems.
Yes, you are. The fundamental flaw is allowing the political process to control so much of life.
I don't have kids, why should I have to pay to educate other peoples kids?
Because as a society we've decided that everyone being educated is better than having a bunch of dumb kids because their parents can't afford school.
Why should I pay for the fire department? It's not like my house is on fire right now.
Because as a society we decided that we would all share the costs of this service so that all of us could benefit.
Why should I pay for the Police department? I live in a good neighborhood.
Because as a society we decided that we would all share the costs of this service so that all of us could benefit.
So why should I pay for other peoples healthcare?
Because as a society we decided that we would all share the cost of healthcare equally so that the service is free to anyone that needs it.
See how that works?
I will never understand how anyone can accept a for-profit health-care system. A for profit fire department would make loads more sense. When your house is burning down, you are still lucid and quite capable of determining if your house is worth saving for the cost of whatever a fire brigade would charge (unless of course you're trapped inside).
But health-care? If you don't pay you'll lose your leg. You may have been passed out the whole time, but we did all of these things to help you, so you'd better pay up!
How is any of that sensible?
A for profit fire department would make loads more sense.
The first organized Fire departments in Rome were for-profit.
When a fire did break out the fire department would run to your house but they wouldn't do anything until you agreed to pay their fee on the spot, which was significant.
If you didn't pay they would sit back and watch your house burn down and then offer to buy your property at a fraction of what it was worth.
For the more crooked ones, if business was slow they could deliberately set fire to neighborhoods.
TIL: The first Fire Departments were basically a protection racket
I'm glad that firepeople nowadays are considered more heroes than mafiosi.
I'm pretty sure I've heard that the first fire departments in Britain worked on an insurance basis as well, and would routinely turn up to fires preventing neighbouring houses cathcing fire while letting the building on fire burn down, because the neighbours were insured while the owners of the burning building weren't.
If we're all sharing the costs it isn't free. Free healthcare is never free. In the US our politicians write legislation that will make their donors money. They're paid to do this. If we give our govt free reign over the healthcare system it will be inefficient and expensive. We do need healthcare reform, it's just that tax payer funded healthcare isn't feasible until we take the money out of politics
I don't have kids, why should I have to pay to educate other peoples kids?
You shouldn't. Unless you, of your own free will, wish to contribuet your own money for your own reasons. No one should force you to.
Because as a society we've decided that everyone being educated is better than having a bunch of dumb kids because their parents can't afford school.
But that's the point. The majority making decisions and forcing them on the minority of morally wrong. It is reprehensible and dangerous. "We decided... for you. Now pay up or go to jail."
Why should I pay for the fire department? It's not like my house is on fire right now.
Ah, that's different. By paying for the fire department to put out your neighbor's fire, you are protecting your own home. And police works much the same way. You are being protected from other people.
There's a difference between doing things for you (and giving you things) and preventing something from happening to you at the hands of another.
See how that works?
Yes. Mob rule resulting and bread and circuses and a dependent, easily managed populace. Which I understand is you goal but it's not shared by all.
Somehow every other first world country gets by. Maybe I should drop the “other” because the US is starting to lose its claim to be called “First World.”
They manage to get by in a world where there is ALSO a market driven free-market... America.
America subsidies the rest of the world. It's most obvious in drug costs but it's true across the board. Methods and procedures are perfected to the point that the costs come way down in the profit-driven market and then adopted in the socialized nations.
If the American free market falls completely, the entire world is going to learn how dependent they were on it.
So America’s pouring all this money into other countries’ free healthcare, and deliberately not giving a dime to its own?
Not deliberately. It's a product of the situaiton. The American government only controls policy within it's boarders the country isn't actually a closed system. So resources directed into the American system can easily flow out.
And to be clear, it's not really the American government doing the subsidizing, it's the American people and the medical industry itself.
Here's the most obvious example. One way that America (and all other countries) is an "open system" is because international companies operate in it. Notably, drug companies are very international.
Other countries extort drug companies and force price controls. So, those socialized countries pay less for the drugs.
In America, we continue to pay full market price (actually, it's very complicated but it used to be entirely market driven and still is to some extent).
We are paying more to these international companies. That amounts to a subsidy. The companies can afford to tolerate socialized price controls because America serves as a vital income stream. The reason we are paying more is because we still value the rights of people to choose their business practices and negotiate prices without outside interference.
There are other methods of subsidy involving education of doctors and refinement of procedures but the drugs issue is the easiest to illustrate.
Fun fact: Americans pay more in taxes towards public healthcare than people in countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia where they actually provide care for everybody. A lot more actually.
Like when you call the police and only your family and friends respond.
because your are also paying for those strangers and both you and strangers benefit from the system when you INEVITABLY become sick or injured.
the prices in the US are WAAAAY beyond what they should be in the first place, no matter who's paying for who.
This statement is meaningless. There is no objective standard for what it should be.
Well, when you compare prices in the US to prices in other countries for the same treatments, medications, etc., and ours are way higher, doesn't it seem like they don't have to be that expensive if other places aren't charging that much?
Take those same facts and ask this. Is America subsidizing care received in other countries?
We are certainly subsidizing the drugs. We pay more for the same drug to the same companies. The conclusion than the other countries in question are benefiting from America's free market is kind of hard to dodge.
How well organised, funded high school/university sports and facilities are while the actual educational aspects are so underfunded. If your school can't afford textbooks but has first class sports facilities then questions should be asked as to where priorities lie.
questions should be asked as to where priorities lie.
They will proudly tell you their priorities lie with sports. This is not remotely controversial. I lived in Louisiana for six years and they'll tell you that proudly.
I'm in Indiana, and questioning basketball's importance could get you hurt.
Can you please explain to me why it's so important? Especially more important than education... Do parents expect their kids to become professional athletes and play in the major leagues?
It's more of a cultural thing. People get very absorbed with sports here. People root for their college teams when they aren't watching their professional teams and watch their childrens' high school team when they aren't watching the other two.
Basketball is a cultural tradition and also an welcome distraction
Also, a lot of the cost of sports comes out of pocket from parents/rich people who went to school there and donated their fortune to build a gym with their name on it.
Sports programs are also grossly underfunded by the feds, it’s just the community picks up the slack for them.
It's turned into a money thing. First you get the facility, then you get the players, then you get the sponsors.
Please don't defend that culture in any way. It could not be more embarrassing or mal-productive of a facet of our society.
This shit needs to die yesterday, and actual education be the focus.
I'm not defending it. I was a band kid in high school and never really payed much attention to sports. I'm just not going to pretend like sports culture isn't a huge thing here.
... Or spelling
Indiana is weird. We literally just started allowing retail alcohol sales on Sundays like a few months ago.
Don't get me wrong. I can appreciate this. But 98% of our water infrastructure needs to be replaced. Our priorities are strange here.
It wasn't a huge deal because you could still get meth on sundays
As someone who moved from Missouri to Illinois, I still can't wrap my head around liquor laws. I understand that here isn't the worst across the country, but before moving I literally didn't know there could be any laws regarding where and when it could be sold.
Which is funny because there's a 5:00 cutoff and I still never think to pick up any before then.
It is perceived that athletics attract donors so better sports = more donations.
Keep in mind that at some of the major universities in the US the athletic budget is self sustaining. No government money is used for sports. At my alma mater, Ohio State, the revenue from the football (American) program pays for all other college athletics and gives money back to the educational aspects.
I don't even need words: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It's money. It's the fans buying the all the gear, seats at the games, food, shirts, coupon books that supports the school, just so much money that can flow in. Visit the website fanatics. I work there. Go to the NCAA section, click on the Jersey section and just look at what Jerseys go for. Look at what a simple shirt sells for. Put a college team logo on it? Add $15 at least for the same material, company and everything else. Let's not get into the pro sports and their mark up. For the parents, it's really is about them going into the Pro's. Watch on youtube little league games, where parents are ready to and sometimes do fight referees for a ball call on their 8 year old who barely knows what is going. They all want their kid to grow up, sign multimillion dollar contracts and then pay for the parents to retire.
Education? Ya sure if can't catch, throw or kick a ball. But who cares. it's not like most kids need to learn, just play with a ball or cheer, dance, spin, swim, or something sports related. And if you wonder about people worrying about making good decisions as adult, well just look at our politics either side and see how well that works.
In addition to money for highschool teams being good at football (or a few other sports) could mean scholarships for poor families. You’d need REALLY good grades to have the same scholarship to the same quality schools a sports scholarship could get you
The thing is, the explanation only works on people without much in the way of education. It's a vicious cycle.
Sports programs don't get a lot of funding, but schools will invest donations and spare funds into them because they generate there own money. People pay to go to sports games, the pay for jerseys, memorabilia and a hundred other things.
That money can be funded back into the program as well as directly back into the pocket of the school.
Poop out as many kids as you can in the hopes that one makes it to the NBA/NFL/MLB/MLS and can buy you a big house with a pool
It's a cultural thing. Basically it's saying they value culture and community over knowledge. It's much more common then you might think, even outside of the USA. It's just that the culture is different so it doesnt necessarily involve sports
Sports are huge part of culture worldwide. It's how tightly intertwined school is with sports that's weird and unlike anywhere else in the world. Canada loves its hockey, for example, but they don't care so much about high school or university hockey; they care about independent leagues (for kids, teens, and adults alike) that do hockey and hockey only.
Yeah, the intricacies of American culture sometimes escape me. Despite being American myself, I grew up as an expat. The more you learn! Thank you!
Well, do they watch soccer where you are from? We don't do soccer much here (yet) but take all that soccer fervor from around the globe and channel it into whatever the local sportsball team is and that is what we do in the US.
I get sports, it's not about that. I understand why people love the NFL and MLB and NBA. It's the college sports and high school sports I don't get. If you don't personally know anyone on the teams, why care?
You don't exactly personally know professional players either.
No, but professionals are the best of the best. High schools, not so much.
Besides, it's not like professional leagues are the only leagues outside of the US. It's just that they're usually their own thing, not tied to high schools or universities like they are in the US.
You can't afford tickets to the pro sports so you treat the college or even HS sports as the real thing. Folks don't make a big distinction between those levels when it comes to being a fan. Also remember that in the US, we are all different races and from different continents. So we don't all share a one-ness that comes from all being the same that way like in other countries. People don't stay in one village either. So our basic human need for tribal connection comes from sports. Any sport will do. And the smaller the school, the more local and personal the tribe.
Also remember that in the US, we are all different races and from different continents. So we don't all share a one-ness that comes from all being the same that way like in other countries.
You've never been to another country, have you?
I've lived in multiple countries and spent years traveling the world. The US isn't the only country built from immigrants, but most countries have more of a racial identity mixed in with the cultural one.
Panem et circenses
Follow the money. I'm pretty sure the sports are where universities make a shit load of dough. E.g. This is a 2 year old article about the university I live near. Those budgets are insane imo. I mean.. look at how much the football coach makes.
it's what happens in town.
If you are in small town Ohio then Football is everything. Friday night EVERYONE is at the football game. (and ofc Saturday is for OSU... which brings in more money than it spends as /u/lykaon78 pointed out. also go Bucks)
no. 99% of the kids will not play pro. but it's just so ingrained into the culture.
It's "more important than education" in the same way that soccer fans in the UK going to games on Sunday and spending money on tickets and stuff is "more important than education"
Only here it's like we're subsidizing tickets so that everyone can go. and high school football isn't that expensive (yes, I know there are some super stadiums, but most aren't)
Academic achievements tend to be relatively solitary things and when you get an achievement it is not celebrated with even a fraction of the publicity; sports are generally social events and great talking points. Also in this day and age being a professional athlete provides more community standing and financial rewards. A good mechanical engineer that works hard may make the minimum NFL salary at the top of his career.
I tell people, "I don't like basketball. That's why my family had to move out of Indiana; it's the law."
Amen, my good fellow.
To be fair, Indiana is one of admittedly quite a few hellhole outliers of a state.
Aren't you guys the home of the Pacers? Yeah, those guys are shit.
Shhhhhhhhhh.
Ohio here, my school was wrestling. We just bred these monster guys who got us to state every year. They were exempt from bad grades, consequences for being assholes, you name it. I remember guys on the team being pulled out of classes to run laps so they could maintain their weight class.
u absolutely not relate to?
r/AskReddit•Posted byu/Priamosish16 hours ago
I live in Indiana aswell, can confirm
Been to West Lafayette and agree. Or peyton manning. Went to a Broncos colts game and it was insane how quiet it got before manning would hike the ball. A friend of mine was a Broncos fan and was yelling during pre snap. So much shit was thrown at him
“I ain’t come here to play school”
They'll tell you that without all the money the sports bring in, they wouldn't be able to afford to teach class.
Because they spend all their money on sports facilities.
That's fucked up.
Been in Louisiana for over 10 years now and it’s baseball/football > everything
They will tell you the same thing in PA. It's just bizarre.
See: LSU having a lazy river while declaring bankruptcy
[deleted]
High school football in Texas can draw tens of thousands of people, high school basketball in Indiana can draw thousands packing into raucous arenas.
Google “Eagle Stadium Texas” and then realize that’s for a single high school and it cost $60 million
[deleted]
If it’s a public high school then they aren’t paying for textbooks.
Indiana rents their textbooks in public schools. I think it happens in other states, but it's not that common.
Like the students have to pay? That’s crazy
The fees start in Kindergarten. The parents are presumably paying, not the kids. But sometimes, no one pays.
I don't know the specifics for this stadium, but a lot of things like that are contributed by donors who want to give back to their old school.
That is something that’s worth noting. It varies by location, but there are usually organizations associated with particular sports teams (i.e. QB clubs, etc.) that draw income via donations, team fees, and so on. And at the college level, there are a number of athletics programs that are self-sufficient. (For example, I went to Kentucky, and we had a science building finished my junior year that was paid for, in part, by money the athletics program put back into the school.)
Yeah I'm from Louisiana went to LSU and this is 100% accurate. At least we had the funds for a lazy river on campus though.
When I was in middle school the principal would praise our sports teams over and over just about every time he talked to students or parents. Meanwhile, band, orchestra, and theater were seldom mentioned. As for other clubs... what other clubs?
Allen's football stadium is ridiculous. There are universities that don't have facilities that nice.
I agree. I went to a college who became D1 in the early 2000s after being successful at D2. Even the basketball court where our team play is no bigger than a high school gym. Becoming a D1 program was probably the biggest mistake my school ever made.
In Canada, we had to use the universities football field for most games, and it's not even close to being as elaborate as that. We don't even go that far for hockey.
Sad as it is, in some cases, especially in the South, college sports are the only reason why higher education gets any funding at all. I think of it as a blessing in disguise. Some people at least are trying to teach kids with the leftovers from the football coaching team's salary budget. I can only hope this will change in the future, but for now it's keeping schools open.
I live in Louisiana now, this is TRUTH! And utter bullshit!
I'm willing to lay some of the blame for this at the feet of our collective delusions about class mobility. Us Americans in general think we deserve to be something big and important. When you come from a working class background, school isn't likely to lead to much more than subsistence. Sports? Well, same thing really. But you've got a moment or two in the sun on your way to eventually managing the auto body shop and retiring way too late.
Texas high schools have enormous concrete stadiums for football. It’s disgusting
That's what many playing sports will say, and the school administration is run by the brothers/cousins of the people running sports programs.
We're not all like that, it's just that the ones who are like that make the decisions.
In Texas the answer isn't even sports. It's Football.
Well that's two fold. If a game is selling out and making money, yes some of it should go to the school, but some should also use to buy equipment for the people making the money.
Next question is why don't the college athletes get paid?
GATORRRRRADDDEEE
Honest question: do revenues from sports (tickets, concessions) help fund the non-sweaty educational stuffs?
Good teams bring in serious revenue.....
Same in Oklahoma. And the band departments. Insane. Broken arrow gets like freaking 50k+ per year I’ve heard... for their band... unreal.
A girl I knew in high school was sexually assaulted by the quarterback.
He tried sliding his hand down her pants in the hallway, and started trying to kiss her.
She got suspended for a week for causing disruption.
Because how dare she try to ruin the quarterback!
My high school was, and still is, very proud of their football team.
TAF is a separate entity from LSU.
It even takes priority over the safety of young children at some universities. Joe knew!
I live in eastern Pennsylvania and my high school still uses computers from 2006, text books from the 70’s, etc. Our school board just passed a $1.45 million renovation to our 8 year old football stadium.
You say this like it's a bad thing.
No wonder Louisiana is such a backwards shithole.
The real question is, how can a society value sports so highly and yet be so unhealthy?
Most are finished playing by 20 if not younger then switch focus to watching the sports while drinking beer and being solicited by companies every 15 minutes until they die. It’s the circle of life!
Just used Facebook to look up all of the top athletes from my high school. (Graduated in 2010.) With one exception, every single one went to college in state, and now work landscaping in our hometown. The exception was our big star wrestler (the major sport at my school.) He now lives in the state capital and works at "self imployed." That is not a typo.
"I still got a 6 pack... of beer!"
Young people are expected to play sports, but as they get older they stop because they’re getting older, but they still eat like they did when they played for hours each day and were 18, but now they just watch instead of playing
Most Americans watch sports but only young Americans play sports. It's entertainment for the masses, which means money for whoever is hosting and showing the games. Mix in a little bit of greed and you have "universities" that spend almost half of its budget on more shiny things for its sports team.
The health problems tend to come when sport is over. Diet and habits don't improve to take into account the change in lifestyle.
I suppose because the vast majority of us value sports as spectators and not participants. Only a small percentage of people need to do the work as long as everyone gets to watch.
So true!
There must always be balance
I think the 'unhealthy' (if by unhealthy you mean weight) part is a bit blown out of proportion. Not a single person out of my office of 30 people are obese.
Ireland had a similar problem when I was at school, not sure if it is better, kids living in prefabs that were 30 years old, freezing cold buildings, lack of pretty much any equipment.
To be fair we have that in Ireland but we also have no amazing sports facilities
The worst of both worlds!
One thing to keep in mind is that at the university level, sports are profitable. In general, none of the tuition or college budget is going to those first-class sports facilities -- they more than pay for themselves in ticket sales, TV rights, etc. In most states, the highest-paid state employees (far above things like the state Governor) are the sports coaches at the major state universities, as they bring in millions of dollars to the college. Rather than the university subsidizing sports, the sports are subsidizing the university.
At the high school level, though, I agree -- high schools are funded by taxpayers and high school sports are not generally profitable, so if they have great sports facilities it's generally because the local voters have dictated those priorities (either directly or via electing school board members who think that way.)
At my college, when our basketball team went to the final 4, or we had a great football year, enrollment spikes. I have explaind this over and over and over but the argument persists that it's silly colleges spend money on athletics.
Having a solid athletics program can do wonders for the academic portion of the university. All while being profitable.
The problem is that the numbers don't bear out that it's profitable for anyone but (some of) the big division A schools in prestige conferences.
> Division A
You don't know anything about collegiate sports, do you?
That is only when you include ALL sports, i.e. Title IX mandated sports that make no money.
If Universities had their way and could only allocate athletics funds to their best sports they'd be a net gain.
And a huge gain at that.
Profiting off of players that get in trouble for accepting money for their skills. The NCAA is a fucking terrible organization.
Also, high schools can be like this as well depending on where you live such as Texas and my high school in California.
Not every sport makes a profit though. Men’s college football and basketball are usually self sustaining if not profitable, but I highly doubt that things like women’s field hockey or water polo are raking in the cash.
That's true but I doubt women's field hockey or water polo are getting a $50 million stadium, either. College football & basketball generally bankroll a university's entire athletics program.
That’s true. I go to a school with literally the second largest stadium in the world so I just have a special hatred for college sports lol
Do you have a source about college sports being profitable? Most things I have found online state the opposite.
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx
Not trying to be antagonistic, I would love for what you say to be true but most online evidence either states that sports are subsidized by tuition and fees (not the other way around) or that it's difficult to tell whether or not the intangible benefits outweigh the tangible losses.
(Keep in mind, this is not the case for a few select very popular schools like a few BIG10 members, but those are clearly outliers)
That is only when you include ALL sports, i.e. Title IX mandated sports that make no money.
If Universities had their way and could only allocate athletics funds to their best sports they'd be a net gain.
Ahhh makes sense u rite
Often football/basketball are cash cows that support other things. If you're going to do college sports, that's probably the way to do it.
I think it’s worth mentioning the funding for athletics is usually separate, for the most part, from the tax dollars that pay for books and salaries.
The “good schools” with the nice unis and new court/field/pitch/mat usually have some wealthy parents dumping that cash into the school’s athletic booster club.
Source: have been a HS coach for three years, going on four. We have to ask for donations and work for extra cash just like a lot of other schools do.
Not my high school all extracurriculars were equally underfunded. Life in the inner city
Texan here, and I'm not sure if people realize this, but high school football, especially in a small town, are KING. When I was a sophomore, my high school just finished constructing a giant indoor practice facility with a football field and a ginormous weight room, IIRC the total cost was around $18 million. Meanwhile my economics textbook was 14 years old, and I graduated in a class of 93.
This. The robotics team at my high school is so criminally underfunded by our school board that we have to rely on fundraisers just to go to competitions every year. How are people building and programming robots that will make a genuine contribution to the workforce ~~more~~ less important than a bunch of dudes throwing artificial pigskin?
Thank you u/slimkev for helping me catch my mistake and helping me edit it!
Also, because the community likes it as a sort of ceremonial thing. Football is similar to Fourth of July fireworks in a lot of ways.
Tbh it’s because no one really gives a fuck about high school robotics
Make a HS league battlebots and I'd watch the fuck out of that.
My kid dropped out of the Robotics Club because he was disappointed they weren't going to build flame-throwing blade chopping battle bots, only ones that could pick up little plastic blocks, or go through a maze.
Boooooooooooo. If I were a teacher.....
I told him you have to learn to walk before you can run, but he just didn't have the patience to learn the basics. I was actually really impressed with the robots the kids built, and it was great seeing the pride in their faces when I told them so :)
Assume you meant to ask how they're less important, not more.
Yea, sorry. I'm about to board a plane for vacation and I woke up at 3 in the morning.
The community derives a lot of utility from watching a bunch of dudes throwing artificial pigskin.
That's great, but the same community could fund said pig skin throwing the same way other sports are funded, instead of using public funds meant for education. You pay taxes to keep the country running, not to be entertained for free.
There are plenty of institutional reasons why sports are self perpetuating, and why they get away with these purchases.
Your school board underfunded your robotics team? Lucky. They just ignored mine completely.
In addition to the answers about communal benefits, how much money does the robotics team bring in? The football team makes thousands of dollars every game on tickets, merchandise, and concessions. Also, how many people are on a robotics team? A high school football team has 50+. I'm not trying to say football is better or more deserving or anything but a ton more people are involved.
High school robotics is lame and just because you play with kinects doesn’t mean that will be your career.
Same goes for high school football.
Not that I agree with the whole "robotics is lame" thing (I taught robotics to middle schoolers for the last few summers), but football can be a direct avenue to fund college for many more people than robotics. There are almost 11,000 players on scholarship in the NCAA D1 FBS alone, not to mention D1 FCS, D2, and NAIA schools. And almost all of those players will end up NOT in the NFL and so their education could make a huge difference down the line in their lives.
It’s because sports bring in money. Robotics, theatre, band, don’t bring in as much.
High School sports absolutely do not bring in money. Football, you have handful of coaches, equipment, facilities, buses, and you expect to fund that on 5 home games with maybe 600-700 people paying $5 to get in, half of those are students who get in for free? Not a chance.
Our team goes 2-10 every year and is still profitable
That’s certainly not the case in Texas, where I’m from. The local high school stadium seats about 13,000 people. And we live in a city of about 40,000 people
[deleted]
Okay but what about the 1000 other high schools in Texas and tens of thousands across the country?
Allen is pretty special compared to its neighbors. Their perpetual winning, only having one super high school, and community involvement seems to be a tier above.
No they don’t. Only in a few select universities do they. Countless schools just keep throwing good money after bad trying to build up their sports teams vainly hoping to make a name for themselves.
our high school invested in a new american football field when i was going there. meanwhile all of the classrooms are portable buildings and the main building just has temporary walls to close off the class rooms.
Fun little fact America pays much more per student than almost any developed natuon
Yeah, but they're easily the world champs at those sports that's nobody else plays.
It usually doesn't come from the same pool. College athletics tend to be supported (at the highest levels) by their profits and donations directly to them. Ditto high schools, whose athletics budgets are typically donated by boosters made up of parents, alumni, and community figures.
Now some smaller colleges take money from the general fund to fund their athletics in order to replicate what schools like the University of Alabama and University of Southern California did by funneling added revenue from athletics back into academics (and just the additional donations associated with increased engagement with the donor base in general that comes with successful athletic programs).
It's a cultural thing, and it this point it is institutionalized. For example, in my hometown, everyone knows how the high school football/soccer/baseball teams are doing, and they all have stadiums that are nicer than a lot of minor league teams. The games/teams serve as a kind of meeting point for the whole town; the football games draw 4-5k people in a town of 20,000. As for u/hackisonjd, the robotics team does not serve the same purpose, and as such won't draw as much funding from the people that support said school.
Additionally, sports are thought of as a way of socializing, for both the parents and the kids. Also thought of as a way to teach discipline and hard work to the kids as well.
Source: Am educated athlete.
My hometown has a rather impressive high school football stadium/ track. It was paid for through 99% donations from local businesses and individuals.
I can't imagine why anybody would want an undereducated population that isn't paying attention... Oh wait
Use my high school for example.
$1 million spent on a new football field and track.
I used a math textbook that was 20+ years old and had missing pages. When I asked how I was supposed to do the HW without having the pages in my book, I was told my administration that the books are too expensive and I need to work out a schedule to borrow a book from a classmate or stay after school with one of them to do it. They wanted me to fix their problems.
Note: No 'late' busses available except if you're on a sports team.
Universities in the US are actually super well funded and most big sports universities are good in their own right (Alabama, Notre Dame, UGA, are all good universities). It seems weird to you but for all its flaws American higher education is still the best by a wide margin.
Tbf a lot of the top research in other countries is done outside of universities (Max Plank / Leibniz institutes in Germany for example) while unis are often more focused on teaching. This skews qs-scores. Still, some and in many cases the best research in the world is done at US unis.
I’m not disparaging European education. The first commenter mentioned the so called disparity between sports funding and education funding in American universities which is based on a popular stereotype of American college as a big party with no learning. This might be some experiences, and it makes sense since many people live on campus in American schools, but it’s a very broad generalization with little truth to it.
The sports are often externally funded by "boosters" which are fundraising entities to support the sports. Without the sports, there wouldn't be the booster organizations (which, for high schools sometimes are just simply running concessions for fundraising money for the sports).
At the university level, the sports at major universities are pretty well self-sufficient and typically a net-positive to the university's bottom line. Without the sports you don't get merchandising, TV deals, etc.
US schools are actually more heavily funded than those of most other countries, such that people are mainly just freaking out that our results are only average/a bit above average when we spend all that money and used to have the best outcomes in the world. Really, our schools are pretty great once you realize that the American underclass is in America while Western Europe's in in Eastern Europe.
I honestly don't understand what you mean to be saying in that last sentence.
A lot of our failing schools are in economically depressed areas or areas with high crime, low upward mobility, and little hope. Because Europe is separated by country instead of by state, individual countries post much better numbers than the US as a whole. The US could improve their crime, economy, and education numbers significantly if they didn't include the poorest performing states. In Europe the poorest performing countries are typically Eastern European. The averaged educational achievement of Germany, Poland, and Lithuania is much worse than Germany alone.
[deleted]
I'm comparing a country to a continent.
The US one one country made up of a lot of states. Each state performs very differently in a lot of measurable metrics.
Europe is a lot of countries. Each country performs very differently in a lot o measurable metrics.
Both European countries and US states that do well economically, have a more homogeneous population, and have high upward mobility tend to do better educationally. The big difference is that when we look at the statistics for Germany it does not include Poland and Lithuania because they're different countries. When we look at the statistics for the US it does include states like Alabama and Mississippi because it's all one country. This give prosperous European countries an advantage when it comes to statistics.
We're comparing two areas with high levels of labor force and economic integration.
You know all those Poles who do your hard work for you? Our equivalent to them raise their families here.
Two methodologies at play:
Highschool: 1. Athletics are considered a good part of health and social development especially in highschool. 2. People donate facilities so its not out the budget
College: 1. Those programs MAKE money - so sports help the school. 2. Donations again to some extent
All these things are debatable. For example, looking at the percentage of students that are able to participate in sport. The financials of sport are also contestable, even for the big popular ones. I image you're aware of this, I just wanted to add that to the conversation.
True. Its worth noting (and often overlooked) that sports are a draw for regular students (who arent student athletes) - and attract more applicants and improve morale and unity; so theres really a bit more too it than pure P/L of the department. I can only imagine how many people grow up thinking they want to go be a insert mascot here rather than similarly academic schools in the area with no sports teams or national presence. Its hard to imagine a school with a break even athletic department (lets use Michigan state - around even finances IIRC) being the same school without athletics.
Absolutely. I'm shocked at how foreign people are unable to understand this. I get that it doesn't make intuitive sense, but even after explaining it... They just can't comprehend that this isn't some little youth club that tens to hundreds of thousands of people are coming to watch. It's a major athletic force that's the pride of a community, with decades of tradition behind it. Further, Football has been historically tied to colleges. It's strange to think about, but there was a time that the most affluent were academic and athletic elites. It's tough to imagine the most well-to-do in society being the biggest and fastest people on the planet, and playing violent games, where there where frequently fatalities; but that's how it was. In a way access to sport for all is a form of economic equality. Now you didn't need rich parents to participate in high level sports.
I can understand still being puzzled by the high school game. That an institution dedicated to educating adolescents/teens could be unwilling to buy new books, but shell out big money for sports equipment. Even I think that's weird and perverse.
Generally speaking people in the U.S. will pay to watch student athletes and the attention gained is good for finding donors. Which means that athletics can be a self sustaining or even net profit for a school that otherwise can't afford basic necessities.
For colleges, a lot of the funding comes from former players. My college has one of the best ice arenas in the country for college because we have dozens of former students who play/played in the NHL. The donate a bunch of money= new ice rink.
Same with football. We had a former student who is a super bowl winner. Just donated like 1M and they added a new addition our football facility.
Sports bring in the money. And they engender pride in the school.
It is ass backwards as hell.
Not always. A lot of times the sports facilities and teams are funded independently of the school itself. For example, the University of Florida, University of Texas, and also Texas A&M - their sports funding has nothing to do with the school. At many schools football funds almost all other sports, especially women's sports, because they don't make any money themselves.
Some sports here at the high school level are privately funded. For example, a rich donor may give $1M to his/her high school to help build a new football stadium or new equipment or hire a winning coach. That person may or may not care anything about educating anyone.
Theyre not underfunded.
Americans spend the most on education (not including college) in the world.
The most by what standart? In total? By student?
But, more importantly, schools can be underfunded while having more money than those that are not if there are differences in the costs, either due to inefficiancies or other factors. And hell is the US school system shitty and inefficiant.
Per student.
And im not sure how you could possibly say that since there is no "US" system at the K through 12 level. Thats state run, not federally.
Edit:
Its more likely that the results we are getting is from the importation of peoples from the 3rd world (over the last 400 years) to a level that no other developed countries have.
You are 100%. Its not that they're underfunded, its they're badly managed. DC is ranked horribly and its got the highest funding. For educators the answer is always we need more money. Money is not the problem.
There are general guidelines that allow for serious waste of resources, which is what I ment by US system.
Should have been clear about that.
This is my school. Our county passed a tax bill to build a multi-million dollar football stadium (and this was on top the other expensive sports complexes the other schools in our district had). The schools never had enough textbooks for the attending students. They didn't even have enough for just 1 class. Every textbook assignment we had in class required many students to share books and the textbooks were also really old and worn. A year after I graduated, I found out they cut the academic team.
This is why America will not be a world superpower within our lifetimes.
Sometimes the athletics help the academics. I did my undergrad at the University of Florida, which has two separate financial units - one for academics, and one for athletics. The athletic department donates $1 million per year to the academic institution on top of fully funding all sports AND providing full scholarships to hundreds of students.
It's still ridiculous, but athletics are definitely a help there.
So most of Texas.
Someone’s been to Alabama or Texas, evidently.
At my school in California, they made separate businesses that operate inside of our school. They have a theatre business and a football business that’s both non profit organizations that receives most of its funding through sponsorships. Public schools can’t take sponsorships but a public company can take a sponsorship from a private business. In this way, sports have tons of funding from big businesses such as Chevy or Ford because it’s a high school
Priority is sports. Which I mean isnt totally wasted if you think it allows a few students to get full rides to colleges. But otherwise yeah, way too overfunded compared to other parts of schools. Our football team were treated like celebrities. When they won some special game or whatever they got their own pep rally. Meanwhile our bowling team won a championship! That takes skill too!
Sports can be profit centers that help pay for other stuff.
Sports bring the school money. If you want them to focus on academics, simply don't show up to the sports games and stop supporting the school financially.
Either you have great sports and ass education, ass sports and ass education, or private school a majority of Americans cannot afford.
That's not common - the richest areas have the best facilities for both athletes and students.
Yes and no, sports tend to bring in money Through boosters and bs.
Schools regard sports programs as revenue generators. Normally, A school can't afford all of the materials required to teach the students so that look for additional ways to fund the school. Combine that with the American obsession with Sports^tm and thats how you end up with things the way they are currently.
I have a theory that it's just the field that it is easiest to be successful in. All you have to do to have a semi successful athletic program is to pour money into it. This cannot be said of academia. Schools need someway to be successful to make themselves look appealing to prospective students, because I really believe they're more corporation than public service at this point.
All the emphasis on sports creates a sports motivated society. Just a thought
Not an American but I know things like college/university basketball is huge and watched almost as much as professional league basketball.
The sports bring substantial amounts money to spend on other things in addition to building campus culture and unity
For some places the sports teams actually bring in more revenue than they cost though, so they're beneficial to the school
Some schools believe that putting money into athletics will lead to money in the school in return
I live in a major metropolitan area in a VERY (American) football popular area. One of the local high school’s stadium is in the top 1% of stadiums in the U.S. including professional teams.
In the South, it's important to know (American) football is a religion.
High school football coaches easily get $100k salaries. If you have a name for yourself and coach a 'good' school, $200k.
Money for the school goes to what the priority is. In the South football is the priority.
Generally speaking the mega stadiums are also in white flight areas with good schools. I don’t like the dick swinging contest the stadiums have turned into but those aren’t the schools that underfunded.
If those districts want to pay more in taxes to fund their stadiums than who am I to say anything
I don’t know about other schools and I’m sure it’s different, but my school has this problem of spending WAY too much on athletics. I go to a fairly large private school and from my understanding the problem lies with donations. There are quite a few bery rich families near by that have had multiple generations go to the school and donate tons of money. Our three biggest donators make up about 80% of the money donated to the school, and all three donate most of their money specifically to the athletic department, with the rest going to the academic department. Our academic department recieves a large chunk of the tuition money to make up for the massive financial inbalance. This however, still leaves our athletic department extremely overfunded and our fine arts department extremely underfunded.
Three years ago our head of school left and our new head of school has been focusing heavily on fixing the inbalance and expanding/promoting our fine arts department whenever possible. He also build a new athletic center for new locker rooms, athletic offices, a new trainer room, and a new weight room.
However (and this was very smart on his part) the old trainer and weight rooms were right next to the band/orchestra rooms, so the old space was given to our performing arts as an expansion (it was a big expansion).
I’m very pleased with how our new head is dealing with the financial inbalance, but with our top three donators all sending their funds specifically to the athletic department we will always have an overfunded athletic program.
Good students don't make the school money. Good athletes do. Almost every problem in America can be boiled down to money
Check the endowments of Stanford and MIT.
I seriously doubt that the amount of money made by Stanfords football team by winning the national championship could be equalled by the same number of students, excluding some kind of major breakthrough. I'd love to be proven wrong tho
Oh if you like that then check this out. A high school in texas spent $60 million on an american football stadium. The city had a vote and the citizens approved it, it was payed for with extra taxes.
A year and a half later it was condemned for massive structural failures and underwent a year and a half of repairs. Several more million dollars.
Ugh, 100% I feel the same.
It's kind of like how after WW2, when the Allies dismantled the Japanese military, the Japanese poured all of that energy and discipline into baseball.
Likewise, when the Union dismantled the institution of slavery, the South poured all of it's impotent rage into highschool football.
A high school down the street from where I live just got a brand new football field, but I guarantee that the school is using text books that are at least a decade old. It's a disgrace, really.
University sports are tiny drop in the bucket at Universities, and our Universities are objectively the best in the world so I don't know what you are talking about there.
If your school can't afford textbooks but has first class sports facilities
There is no high school in the nation where this occurs. The places with the first class sports facilities are usually in wealthy suburbs.
It's pretty sad because most high schoolers won't go pro afterwards and might become disabled if they really hurt themselves. In college, if they can no longer play, it's bye bye scholarship since that's what they're playing for. There was a big debate here whether or not college players should get paid for playing.
Some high school football coaches make more money than a school's principal.
At least at my undergrad, the Athletics Department is its own separate corporate entity. The University and the Athletics Department have their own operating budget and don't share funds. You either donate to one or the other.
Easy, schools make money on sports games through ticket sales and concessions. Schools don't make money by educating their students, that costs them money. The government pays schools based on attendance, not on quality of education.
So schools emphasize what makes them money (perfect attendance and popular sports) and they cut corners on the stuff that costs them money (education, lunch food, and extracurriculars that don't draw crowds).
Facts
For university reasons you have to look at it like this. If you had a decision between giving extra funding to the arts department or the football department they are most likely going to pick football.
Why? Because football brings in a shit ton of money for the school. Not only for just tickets and mech in general but it also brings in students who are fans of the team, want to join the team, and ect.
While arts may bring in a few people it isn't going to be as big as a return in investment.
One thing that I've been told by a few of my teachers is that it matters where the money comes from. They can put all their budget into the school and not have enough for books, but when some wealthy sports fan donates 100,000 for a new stadium it has to go to that stadium. Got some materials cheaper than planned and have an extra 10k? Wanna buy some books? Too bad go add a fancy statue to the stadium entry.
Of course that's just the way I've had it explained. Not sure about the accuracy.
There is a shown directly proportional relationship between graduation rate and a good football coach in the US
Why are so many American homes built out of wood?
Especially in places like tornado ally or other locations where natural disasters are likely.
Here in the UK we build nearly everything using bricks.
The story of the 3 little pigs springs to mind.
It's based on the easy availability of building materials. Here in the UK we used to build from stone or wattle & daub a lot because we had very little wood for house building. In the more recent years we used brick, because we have good brick clay. Now we use concrete or brick because it's easy to transport them around the place and make them.
The American north east coast was covered in forest when settlers landed there in the 16/1700s, so houses were built of wood. As settlers spread out they only knew how to build from wood, so the tradition continued.
As skills improved the construction methods changed, so they went from wasteful (of wood) log cabins to clapboard houses. These are quick to construct and are reasonably strong and can be weatherproofed with paint or varnish etc. The only downside of them is that they are easily flammable.
On the subject of extreme weather - houses made of brick, stone or wood would resist hurricanes etc just as well, that is to say not at all. They would all be critically damaged. So you may as well build from something which is fairly quick to put up and easy to repair with skills which can be learned fairly quickly and with relatively few tools.
To add onto this, even if areas lacked wood, mail order 'precut' houses were a thing when trains became popular.
Indeed, and it's why brick houses became more common in the UK - brickworks making bricks from good quality clay could export around the UK, and a recognised standard house began to be built, first cheap "2 up 2 down" or "back to backs" for industrial workers in the 1800s, then suburban homes in the 1920s/30s/40s all of the same or similar patterns as commuting really took off as the London Underground expanded and built the houses itself in what is now the Greater London Area. This was also the time a lot of commuter towns were built.
Going with your theme here, it's interesting to note that the town of Bedford (about 40 miles north of london) has a massive Italian ethnicity population, solely because of the brickworks that used to exist in the town. During WWII, they used POWs to keep the brickworks going, and after the war, most were offered jobs and stayed on and brought their families over, as the rebuilding effort for London required a lot of bricks. Bonus Bedford WWII fact; the BBC relocated to bedfords corn exchange building as it was safer to broadcast from there than in central london (only from 1941, before that they had moved to Bristol until that suffered severe bombing raids)
It's a similar story here in Peterborough because the city was chosen for expansion postwar. It provided a lot of homes for Londoners who lost theirs to bomb damage.
Sears used to sell houses as kits you could put together yourself.
They still sell houses as kits, though people usually use contractors to put them together.
I don't find any such beast (sears kit homes 2018.) Where have you seen them?
Sorry, I should've used a more specific pronoun. Not Sears, other manufacturers. E.g., https://lindal.com/
Now I see why they aren't popular anymore. At least for the site you listed, they would average $250/sq ft to build. Might be inexpensive for a few areas but that is pretty pricey for most of the country.
Thanks. I might have just checked for kit houses. Interesting all ways.
There are companies who pre-cut and label any cut pieces for your plans, and you provide the regular studs needed to complete. This results in a lot less wasted wood, but also more training and sorting so that the carpenters follow the plans and use the right pieces if the right spot.
My grandma grew up in a house her dad bought from a catalog. They were rural farmers and that was a thing back in the 1920's.
The majority of "Craftsman" houses are kit homes.
That is incorrect. Craftsman houses are an architectural style, Sears Craftsman houses were simply name brand houses made in many, many styles.
Craftsman just meant a certain look, with generally a large amount of added woodwork and trim all over. This allowed craftsmen to display their skills in their carpentry.
That's why I put it in inverted commas. I've lived in two and am surrounded by thousands in the Bay Area. It wasn't just Sears that produced them.
Looked it up again, they are Sears Houses, they were not labelled with the Craftsman brand.
The vast, vast majority of Craftsman-architecture houses were not kit homes at all.
Do you even know what inverted commas are?
The style is called Craftsman because it was at the time of the American Arts and Crafts design. Not because they were retailed by Sears (Craftsman tools, huh? LOL!). Like I said, I've done my research because I live in California where there are thousands of them. It wasn't only Sears that sold them either, there were about 10 companies.
You mean quotes?
As a non-American in the US (which is ironically, what this post is about), I don't relate to the dumbing down of the English language.
What the heck is inverted commas? Quotation marks?
https://www.google.com
Google is not an inverted comma, whatever that is. You should probably use the right words.
Google doesn't work for you? Is there a library near you? Have you ever been in one?
In North America they are not called inverted commas, they are called quotation marks, so many people will be reading this going, "No, wtf are inverted commas?" and there will be a great cultural divide with each side thinking the other is ignorant.
There is always Google.
You can even see the construction of one in the short film ["One Week"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Week_(1920_film)) from the 1920.
Recently we've started to use 'pop up factories'. Basically if Ikea made factories on a budget; we use them because they're easy to standardise (and therefore easy to maintain, while also reducing manufacturing complexity), can be easily moved and if in a few years we want to move manufacturing somewhere else we don't have to sell a factory we just pick it up and move it.
They're not as good as specifically built factories but the general consensus is that they're good enough.
I'm not a fan because some of our older 'brick and mortar' factories have closed because the cost of running them is infinitesimally greater than a pop-up factory where labour is cheap. It's not that we need to save money, we turnover more than a lot of countries do and globally we have more than 100k employees. But when director x is told they must deliver cost savings of y% year on year, suddenly they decide that their ROI target is of greater value than the livelihoods of fellow employees.
Wow, I got carried away. I guess my point is that precut houses and precut factories may be popular (i.e. used often - not necessarily loved) is because it's more cost effective to make, repair and build and sometimes in spite of everything that's all that matters to those who support their use (of which I am not one).
I didnt realise pop up factories are a thing. Thanks for that.
Houses made of block vs. wood most certainly do not resist hurricanes just as well. I've been in Florida for 32 years, been through a lot of hurricanes, and block houses are the norm here for a reason. With some affordable storm protection, you really need not worry about even cat 5's so long as you're not in a flood zone or storm surge area. There are plenty other factors in a house's storm protection, but not all houses are equal in that regard, and nobody around here wants a stick house for that reason.
Honestly, most houses in Florida anywhere where you're actually going to get the super high winds aren't made of wood. They're steel and cinderblock and concrete piers, and if they appear to be made out of wood a bit of tapping on things reveals they're quite solid. Then, further inland, its more bricks everywhere.
You've got to look around pretty hard for actual wooden houses around the Gulf Coast that aren't really old. Now, there's an awful lot of wooden roofing and interior framing, but that's different. I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the wooden roofs, but just from sitting through several hurricanes, there's something to be said for having a roof that flexes a lot as the pressure changes. At some points you can sometimes see your windows bowing in and out under the wind, and you get to a point where I've opened the front and back door of the house just to let the weather pass through a bit instead of making the place an obstacle that needs to be flattened.
[deleted]
I admit, coastal Alabama is one of those places I've just skipped over forever, even when I literally lived an hour away. Why visit Mobile when you can drive a bit further and go to Biloxi and gamble, or New Orleans and be somewhere that's not Alabama?
I'm with this guy. There's is a reason my house has stayed standing longer than your country has existed!
There are plenty of older houses in the states just not so many in the areas with extreme weather.
Tons and tons and tons of old houses here in Bermuda. Everything here is built out of limestone and the homes here have zero issues with hurricanes.
[deleted]
That is blatantly untrue, there’s no great shortage of wooden houses that old in both the US and Europe—
I. E.
[deleted]
I'm not saying no one knew or knows how to build out of brick, just that it's a less common skill because wood is, as you say, easier & cheaper to build from.
brick is garbage, as is wood. Make concrete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HJ7Ir_2ylc
This video makes it look like the newest technology, but this is the only way houses have been built in iceland for the past 40 years because every few years we have earthquakes. Now thats not a problem.
A good example of this is the cluster of flint houses in North Norfolk. Lived in 3 houses here, all flint.
Exactly - whatever is close by and cheap. It's why a lot of houses in south Wales are made from stone with tile rooves, it's easily available and cost little. It's also why houses not near any significant source of building materials were made of wattle & daub and wooden beams etc.
Same here in New Zealand. 99% timber construction because timber is cheap and available.
Brick is also incredibly rigid and not a good building material in earthquake zones (the entire west coast).
Take any framed house and add a few hundred pounds of strapping, tie-downs, and other hardware and it will withstand just about everything but storm surge and tornadoes.
A frame that can flex but not break apart works well for earthquakes too.
On the subject of extreme weather - houses made of brick, stone or wood would resist hurricanes etc just as well, that is to say not at all.
That is just flat out incorrect. Bermuda houses are made of thick block and generally hold up well to even cateogry 4 hurricanes. Roofs occasionally get ripped off but it's rare houses get critically damaged. A Cat 2 comes through florida and it's a disaster
idk man... i run around with flammable spray and a lighter quite often and have yet to burn my house down
But if something in your house does catch fire then it's much easier for a wooden wall to burn than a brick or concrete one, spreading the fire further faster.
Am American. What the fuck is wattle and daub?
Wattle is a form of fencing or walling made from staves pushed into the ground at intervals, and tree branches or strips of wood woven between them with each stick going in front of one stave then behind the next, then in front of the next and so on and so on. The next weave on top then goes on the opposite side of each stave to the previous one to keep the tension balanced out.
Daub is a mix of various ingredients which normally include mud, straw, and animal faeces (normally cow dung). Sometimes other agents are used as well such as lime or clay, depending on what is locally available. Daub ingredients are mixed well together, adding water as required, and are then daubed onto the wattle wall, filling in the cracks and creating a smooth outer surface. This then dries out, blocking up all the holes and helping to hold the wattle in place (not that a well built wattle wall needs holding in place). The daub can also be painted when dried.
Here is an example cross-section of a wattle & daub wall - this one happens to use shaped or flattened wood strips, but other types exist using unworked branches.
And here is an example house - the wooden beam frame provides the majority of the structural integrity and load bearing capacity, whilst the wattle & daub walls provide the majority of the weather proofing. The glassless windows are the result of glass being extremely expensive, plus they provide a vent for the fire smoke to exit as this house has no chimney.
Before the invention of brick chimneys most medieval houses had a single floor with a high roof and windows/vents at the top to let smoke out. They may have a half-floor on the first storey (first floor up so 2nd floor for Americans) with a bedroom for the master/mistress of the household, but this was fairly rare. Mostly people slept and ate in the same room, sleeping on the floor with palliasses (bags) of straw and a blanket or two. Servants slept in the same house as their masters, as servants at this time were seen almost as slaves, they lived with the family they worked for and worked for food/lodging and were bound to a term of service for a number of years.
When the brick chimney was invented and upper and middling sort (the term middle class is newer than this period) homes had them built, the second storey and single-purpose rooms became practicable for the first time. The chimney breast allowed separation of the large space into smaller spaces, and the absence of need for space for smoke to gather and exit made a full-size upper floor possible. Wattle and daub persisted for the outer walls whilst the chimney breast was built of brick as it was still fairly expensive.
Fantastic reply! TIL!!
Sounds like a bit of a predecessor to stucco.
Walls made of poop on slats.
Think of the stereotypical old Tudor/medieval style houses with the white walls interlaced with black wooden beams. That's wattle and daub.
It sounds delicious.
branches and shit
I built my house out of carbon nanofiber fabric. Take that, hurricanes!
we had very little wood for house building.
I don't know where you've got this from. We have a stuff of a lot of trees. The oak was called the Sussex Weed. A lot of it was used for ship building, but people also built houses out of wood. Timber framed buildings, were basically the most common medieval building. Its more that brick was felt to be more sophisticated. Here are some pictures of nogging, which is brick infill of timber frame. Its not structurally a good idea, but the brick shows you have money.
Yes, he's entirely incorrect. Britain was once slosh entirely forest and we cut down all those trees in part to build houses.
[deleted]
I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. Cite your sources please. There are timber built buildings still standing in many places across the country - they were in plentiful supply. The reason the great fire of London spread so rapidly was because most of the houses were timber built. There's a growth of 'polite' architecture and a move away from traditional building styles in the subsequent period. Also, there are currently companies building timber framed buildings.
On the subject of extreme weather - houses made of brick, stone or wood would resist hurricanes etc just as well, that is to say not at all.
This is an important point. Many older Japanese buildings are made with light material because they figured that nothing will survive the (insert every thinkable natural disaster here) anyways, so might as well have something that's easy to put up and less likely to become a death trap when it inevitable half collapse.
Also on the west coast, wood frame > Bricks in housing when there is an earthquake as well.
Wattle & daub? Luxury!
We used to live in lake.
You were lucky to have a lake! There were 150 of us living in a shoe box in the middle of the road.
Houses made of brick, stone or wood would resist hurricanes etc just as well, that is to say not at all.
I am from South Florida, a very hurricane prone area, and most of the buildings in the area are made of concrete blocks with metal bars running through them to anchor the roof to the foundation. In general, heavier materials will handle hurricane force winds pretty well. It's only with very strong hurricanes that these structures have a serious risk of failing. Tornadoes are a different story since their winds can be a lot stronger than what you'd typically experience in a hurricane.
I meant tornado, apologies. I wasn't aware of the difference.
That was a really nice answer
That was a really nice answer
A built concrete or masonry can much better withstand wind forces.
Yes there will still be damage but to say it's exactly the same is just wrong
It's not the wind, it's the trees and cars that the wind carries.
For the last bit, you're right if you meant tornado rather than hurricane.
Having never experienced either I'm not entirely sure of the difference. Apologies.
No need to apologize! I haven't experienced either, either.
The main differences are intensity and duration. Tornados have much higher wind speeds, but are much smaller so they don't impact one area as much as a hurricane. Hurricanes have lower wind speeds, but they are much much larger, so they last much longer in a given area. Also, I understand that tornados can be made by hurricanes, around the perimeter of the hurricane's area of effect.
Quality answer, thanks.
Well, in Southern California houses are STILL made of wood so...
To clarify, are you saying tornados would still destroy brick buildings and houses due to the force of wind, or other debris causing the critical damage?
Other debris or a direct hit by a strong tornado.
Live in a country where concrete houses are the norm, how does wood houses fare against other natural disasters? How cool are they? Every house I’ve lived in has been hell in the summer, except the old banana-republic-era houses up near the coast, my grandma’s house’s roof must’ve been 15 meters high, come April and May that house was always cool, day and night.
concrete houses
Next time there's a major (8.5+) earthquake in Greece tens of thousands of people will die due their love of stiff concrete block apartments that will crumble quickly.
Source: Umbria in Italy was devastated by a 6.6 earthquake in 2016 including the modern concrete buildings.
Honduras, but there’s talk that the recent guatemalan volcanic eruption might trigger mountains that were once volcanic in the south, and with that, bring earthquakes. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been interested in wooden houses instead of concrete/brick and mortar. Besides cost and speed of production, I imagine they have to be cooler in the summer.
Would suck to have it topple over if another Hurricane Mitch comes around to fuck us senseless.
Wood homes with proper insulation are easy to cool.
Come to St. Louis Missouri. Lots and lots of beautiful old brick buildings made out of river valley clay.
I never said the US had no good brick clay.
This was a great explanation. I was literally just in the UK and when I came back to the US I said to my boyfriend “why are all our houses made of wood??? Everything over there is brick or stone!”
You can build with any of these material in a way to resist natural disasters. Except wood will not resist forest fires and anyone living in a forest in a wood house is kind of asking for it.
Does the NE have forest fires? Just out of interest.
I actually had to look that up. Seems like they have in the past, but not so much lately.
However climate change and drought could lead to a resurgence and the lack of fires in recent history has created a lot of potential fuel.
Also I guess, built from something slightly less likely to crush you if it falls on you during a hurricane...
There are a considerable number of replies, so I apologize if I am duplicating information.
I work for a regional building supply company. After Hurricane Katrina hit, my store (at the time I was at a retail location in very rural west Texas) could NOT get decent amounts of cinder block for... like... a year? It was all going to the affected areas.
When Joplin MI(?) was hit with a tornado (and... I think it took a factory that makes shingles with it... or maybe that was a separate fire around the same time), roofing materials cost shot through the roof because demand was sooooo high and supply had dried up.
After Hurricane Harvey (by this time I had moved to the corporate office. IT Geek, so I don't see the product info as much anymore), I can say with fair certainty that studs, ply, gypsum board, hardi, block, and mortar prices jumped through the roof (which may or may not have existed after Harvey passed through, hue hue hue...) as all that stuff moved from as far as Canada to rebuild the affected area.
Is it readily available? Yep. Do we have a strong infrastructure to move stuff quickly? Yep.
But, by God... having enough at one time to support all of the Texas coast and moving east... the reserve drops like a stone and it takes a LONG time to recover.
Now imagine trying to rebuild using cut stone, or poured concrete thick enough to withstand such a storm. It would never be complete! Another storm would come along before you finished. And then another. And another.
FYI building from logs makes much more sturdy and warm house than the 'drafty barn' you build from 2'4's and shingle boards.
Also a log house can be moved, dismantled and even sold 'for parts' like an old car as needed unlike that 'barn' you though was 'saving' wood when it reality its wasting it in comparison.
Are you an 1800s pilgrim or something? I can't think of any other reason that you'd be so passionate about log cabins and how superior they are.
Edit: and btw, work out how many houses there are in the United States and how many trees it takes to build one with logs compared to 2x4s. We simply don't have the resources for that. Even if logs can be resold and repurposed. Also, used lumber can be recycled into MDF and other types of plywood. It's not like we just throw it away.
Maybe because we Finns taught Americans to build log houses in the first place back in the 1640s... I also own a one which was moved to its current location at 1923 having been at its previous location at least 50 years or more. Now how's that in any shape or form wasteful, especially when a log house doesn't even require additional insulation beyond caulking the gaps between each log to be fit for living even in an Alaskan winter?
The reason why log houses have fallen out of popularity as a town house is the fact that today's people want houses with fanciful/multiple rooms & huge windows and a typical rectangular log house frame doesn't support that without significant additional costs (when build from scratch) because unless your logs are coming from a Sitka spruce, red wood etc. giant 60-100m tall tree a single log is never longer than 6-10m which limits the design choices from McMansions to down-to-earth rather effectively.
Pre-fabricated platform-house that is the most popular type in America is cheaper for the housing company to build & design at the factory than the initially more labour intensive log house would be. See you're not saving wood, in reality you are saving money by cutting labour costs. it generally takes about two months to build a simple log framed house when a Platform-type can be built in half the time or less.
Though today even the labour costs aren't really a factor because modern machinery does the work of what used to need about 4 carpenters, it's just convenience and habit of 'this is how it' always been done' when it comes to deciding what wood materials to use when building your house.
Just FYI modern insulation is more efficient than a log cabin. A higher R value is better.
Hardwoods have an R value of 1.4 per inch and softwoods have an R value of .7 per inch. In places that have large temperature swings between day and night, the R values are .1 higher per inch because of woods ability to store and radiate heat.
Modern cellulose insulation that is being used has an R value of 3.7 per inch, and even the older less efficient fiberglass has an R value of 2.5 per inch.
Edit: the only difference is that you often see fewer and smaller windows if any in a log house.
[deleted]
Wait, you're claiming responsibility for educating an entire nation on how to build houses? So you're an 1800s pilgrim and a relative of Al Gore's?
I thought it sounded weird too, but actually looked it up. He seems to be right:
Perhaps the greatest contribution of New Sweden to the development of the New World is one that is the traditional Finnish forest house building technique. The colonists brought with them the log cabin, which became such an icon of the American frontier that it is thought of as an American structure. The C. A. Nothnagle Log House on Swedesboro-Paulsboro Road in Gibbstown, New Jersey, is one of the oldest surviving log houses in the United States.
So this might also very well be a reason.
Log cabins are a tremendous waste of wood is what he was saying.
How's it a waste? A wood frame house requires chopping down a tree too.
Yea, like two trees per 500 square feet. Not an entire tree for each layer.
No they're not because a log house is 100% recyclable to a new house
In fact this 'recycling' was so common about a 100-150 years ago that a log house wasn't always even listed as part of inheritance with the land deeds but rather listed as a commodity like, say a horse carriage, tools or livestock would have been.
In my country log cabins were moved and rebuilt all the damn time. Some cabins are made of 300 year or older logs but were only assembled in their current place 150 to 100 years ago.
New houses are 100% recyclable too. Once you're done with them you sell the house and someone else moves in lol. Log houses are nice but they aren't some miracle of engineering, and I'm not really sure why you would want to dismantle your house and rebuild it somewhere else when you can sell your house and use the money to buy a new one; you save two families the trouble of building new houses and nothing is lost.
"Drafty barn", lol. You're either a troll, or woefully ignorant regarding construction of wood houses.
[deleted]
That's pretty impressive, i mean, if he did in fact educate the masses about log cabin construction in the 1600s.
He has a point though, stud framed house were generally far more drafty.
We made huge strides in weather sealing the exteriors with Tyvek and other wraps however, plus sealing windows and doors to the structure.
My 1950 house was quite drafty, I gutted it and sealed the exterior sheathing as much as possible without removing the brick. Its virtually draft free now.
This is true of any method for building walls and structures. If you don't spend the time properly sealing the exterior, setting your doors and windows at plumb, you get drafts. Work fast and cheaply, you get problems.
[deleted]
His entire point is that selling a cabin for parts was seen as common. You think its funny and they don't; and that's his point.
I have no fucking clue who lives in a log cabin these days, though.
My great grandma lives in a log house. It's real nice
Loads of people live in really nice cabins now they are a thing still even a luxury because of how nice they can look
Places that are prone to the most ~~tornado's and~~ hurricanes in the US don't need to worry about the extra warmth provided by logs as they aren't in super cold areas. Also we would have even less tree's if we didn't cut them up and make boards from them. It just wouldn't work on a large scale.
EDIT: Because I'm an idiot who doesn't geograph well apparently.
Wrong, I grew up in tornado alley and it's just as fucking cold in the winter as it is hot in the summer.
Yeah... tornado's were the wrong example.
Hurricanes definitely, tend to be in warm climates. Tornadoes really form when warm fronts collide with cold fronts. Like whete I grew up we get cold weather from Canada and warm weather from the south and it just makes a mess.
Tornadoes are common in Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. All places where, I assure you, they need to be concerned about winter cold.
Yeah I shouldn't have said tornado's... However they are not "common" in Michigan by any means.
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology
An F2 tornado hit crowded suburbs a few years ago in the UK, damage was minor. Literally just some smashed windows and roof tiles blown off.
Every year, Atlantic storms give at least category 1 hurricane winds, with no damage whatsoever from winds.
Edit: The Faeroe islands get cat 4-5 equivalent winds almost every year, with little damage.
Lol cat 1 hurricanes
Category 1 hurricanes are just an excuse to drink and party. Not even really worth evacuating for. Will probably get pissed about the flood damage later, though.
Lol, an F2 is nothing. Might get some roof damage. F3 and up are common occurrences here.
[deleted]
An F2 will fuck a plywood house up, and tear massive holes in the walls. I'd like to see you stand on a porch during a direct tornado hit, I believe you will be killed.
I believe you are severely underestimating the weather in North America, specifically the United States
No. I've seen what an F2 tornado does in the US, and the damage in the UK was considerably less for the same wind speed. Roofs were torn off revealing people's lofts, but the houses themselves retained structural integrity. Compared to the US where the houses were not blown away, but the structural integrity severely damaged with sections of even ground floor walls ripped out.
The Birmingham Mail shows some pictures of the damage.
Granted, F2 is generally the maximum the UK gets. Last time an F4 happened was during the 11th century I believe, hitting London with 2 fatalities.
F4's happen every summer in midwest.
The middle Americans in this thread are probably laughing too hard to reply.
The highest recorded windspeed data I could find for the Faroe islands was about 91mph, (https://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Rapporter/TR/1998/tr98-14.pdf) and the Wikipedia article mentioned a hurricane that made it there that hit with about 100mph.
Now let's talk about category four and five hurricanes. Those are hurricanes with sustained winds of 136-156 mph and then hurricanes above 156.
Many of the category fives that hit the states have had sustained winds of 180mph.
Then there's tornadoes. EF3 and higher can have winds anywhere from 200-300+mph winds. I don't care how many bricks a house is made out of, when a 300mph tornado hits a house, it's going away.
Not to mention that is isn't just the wind, it is what the wind is blowing. A 200mph wind is bad news but that same wind blowing a telephone pole at 200mph is far worse.
Yeah a stone house doesn't mean much when a tornado throws a goddamn tree at 200+mph through your window
Plus the problem with tornados isn't necessarily wind speed but the dramatic sudden pressure differential that causes home to implode. I would think a brick house would be less drafty and hence likely to have greater pressure differentials.
The pressure differential thing with tornadoes is a myth. This paper talks about the pressure difference in an F3 being only about 1.4 psi. And even if the pressure difference could make a house explode, the windows of a house would simply explode first, causing the pressure to equalize.
91 mph? That's not correct. The south east of England has got more than 91. I believe the Faeroes have had in excess of 165mph winds.
Hurricanes never go that far north. These are winds from Atlantic storms hitting a tiny piece of land in a huge sea.
edit: Even scotland has had 120mph+ winds recorded in low areas.
And none of this really detracts from the point that brick and stone houses are much more sturdy than houses made from plywood. Fucking plywood.
And none of this really detracts from the point that brick and stone houses are much more sturdy than houses made from plywood. Fucking plywood.
Plywood is what you want in earthquake areas, unless you like being buried in your brick house. Also, if it gets really cold or really hot, wood is better than stone for insulation and shedding heat. Perhaps someone from a colder European country can weigh in as well - I've heard that homes in Finland and Norway tend to be built with wood.
I'm taking about resistance to wind damage. I am from a colder European country, can confirm it is popular to build wooden houses, but using complete logs, not plywood. I would reckon log houses would also stand up to a weak to moderate tornado as well as brick and stone houses, much better than plywood. A tornadic projectile will bounce off a log or brick wall, but bust right through a plywood wall.
Can also confirm that old stone houses in Italy come crashing down even in minor shakes.
A tornado is going to ruin your day no matter what your house is made of. Strong tornadoes are rarer in Europe, but they sometimes happen, such as in Hautmont in 2008. Multiple brick buildings were destroyed.
This report has pictures of some of the damage on pages 47 and 54-60.
http://www.keraunos.org/recherche-tornade-hautmont-maubeuge-mahieu-wesolek.pdf
Also a photo from the Venice tornado in 2015:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/EX9MPN/venice-italy-9th-july-2015-violent-tornado-knocks-down-some-hundreds-EX9MPN.jpg
As a Florida native, Cat 1-2 hurricanes are still beach weather. Stay out of your boat, be prepped for power outages, but go about your business.
Texas native, but the main thing I'd be pissed about in a Cat 1-2 is having to replace the carpet, drywall, and insulation if floodwater gets inside.
I've never had any problems with flooding anywhere I've lived. Paying attention to the flood zones and how much you're above sea level is something I can't help but doing even now when I'm far away from the ocean these days.
Most of my city became a flood zone last year, hah. I chose to live on the third floor to avoid the possibility of a flood.
For a category 1 hurricane, most of the damage comes from flooding and the occasional tree falling on a roof. It's not going to blow down a wooden house.
Source: live in a hurricane prone area.
The American north east coast was covered in forest when settlers landed there in the 16/1700s, so houses were built of wood.
Is this accurate? I live in a town filled with buildings from the 16/17/1800s and they're all stone.
Funny you say that, because a lot of the NE is built out of brick. Look at Boston, Philadelphia, or Baltimore (which isn’t exactly NE, but close enough)
Yes, but most of those buildings were built in or after the 1800s or late 1700s, 100 years or so after the first settlers. Once brickworks and experienced craftsmen became available people could build in whatever material they wanted, and public buildings and city-built housing of an older era tends to be stone or brick, as opposed to the post-war "baby boomer" housing which was thrown up as quickly as possible to accommodate the population boom.
Plus people building a house themselves tend to want to go for the most cost-effective option, whereas local government has a bit more leeway.
Two-by-fours and drywall also make for relatively inexpensive remodels. Aside from load-bearing walls (which can even be replaced by large beams), you can totally change a floor plan in just a couple of months and the demo is incredibly easy compared to concrete.
Which is something we've learned in the UK in the 1970s/80s - houses here now have relatively few internal load bearing walls, and dividing walls in newer builds are generally the stud type with plasterboard on.
Here on the west coast we're having issues with (older) brick buildings because they will catastrophically fail in an earthquake. And we're due for a big one. So we have to spend millions of dollars to retrofit these unreinforced masonry buildings. https://www.portlandmercury.com/feature/2018/05/30/20217453/brick-by-brick
Kiwi civil engineering student reporting in, we're right on top of a major fault line so masonry is regarded as the devil incarnate. Every modern house in the country is wood- or steel-framed, and all structural concrete is reinforced. This applies everywhere there's a faultline - using masonry to build is suicide. It jjust doesn't support the displacement or shear force exerted by the quake's ground acceleration.
This doesn't apply in the UK, where the concept of an earthquake is almost as foreign as the French.
I'm in Utah, less than a mile away from the Wasatch fault. It's one of those that doesn't go very often, but apparently goes big when it goes. All the new construction is wood/steel to come up to code - they'll put a masonry facade on, but the guts are all girders and OSB. Our house is brick (built 1939) sooooo...we're just trusting that the geological timescale on that is longer than the 40-50 more years we might be living in this house :)
Plus, bricks + tornado = gigantic Blend-tec. Glad we don't get too many tornadoes here.
Question for you. I enjoy watching your BBC shows (Collateral, Father Brown, etc) and I was watching the new Steven Coogan road trip movie in Spain. I found it odd he referred to going to Europe for the trip. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the UK part of Europe? Or do you guys consider Europe slightly different? I've sometimes heard it referred to as the Continent as well. Just really curious.
I'm not sure; I'm not British. While I was born in the UK (and am unsure if you somehow knew that or made an honest mistake) I've lived in New Zealand as long as I can remember.
Geographically, the UK is weird. It's part of Europe (the continent), but since it's a group of islands, it isn't physically connected to the mainland (colloquially called the Continent). Hence it is both part of the continent, and not part of the Continent. It's a bit confusing, I'm expecting to be corrected on this because I'm not 100% on it myself.
I'm from the UK, living in the States. When I'm in the States I'll regularly refer to "Europe" as including the UK, but in the UK if I say "Europe" people will certainly think of Continental Europe. I think it's cultural more than anything else, especially when you're talking politics. From an American point of view, British politics are closer to those of Europe than the US, for example on healthcare, freedom of speech, and the carrying of weapons. From a British standpoint, both the US and mainland Europe seem a little distant: the States feel distinctly capitalist, the Continent distinctly socialist (at least until a few years ago), and Britain seems to float somewhere in the middle. I guess the language barrier makes Europe feel more "foreign", too.
From UK also, I've moved across Europe most of my life, France, Germany, Denmark. They could not be more different places at all, the culture is so different, how they go about things, different laws, language, people, weather, attitude, products, shops, holidays and even different work. How the Americans cope with such a same old culture cross such a vast area I will never know.
Ahhh yeah, I read Kiwi Engineer so I knew you were from New Zealand, but then the last statement regarding the U.K. suddenly made my mind want to ask you about the U.K. And I totally forgot the Kiwi part!
I might as well tell you I like New Zealand shows as well. What We Do in the Shadows is one of my all time favorite comedies. And Glitch is an awesome tv series - ok, just yanking your chain in that one, I know it's Australian :-).
They're in post production on the TV series of WWDITS!!!!! So Excited!!
chilean here. our buildings are made to move with the earthquake as the whole country is on top of a fault line
They just violently crumble and then people die. Any time I’m in an old brick building I’m like “wonder if this is up to earthquake code, maybe it’s been retrofitted or its on rollers...I just hope the big one doesn’t hit while I’m in here”
I've just embraced the fact that I'm gonna die in the big one.
Remind me in 5 years!
Just buy a bunch of open space and live in a tent.
Yeah pretty much.
Every couple years the news sites post about how fucked we are if the Big One happens. Meanwhile like half of the schools aren't retrofitted.
I was trained as a child to prepare for the big one living in California. When we moved up north on the West coast, they act like it's a fairy tale, like that shit won't happen. A lot of the buildings here are made of brick because of how old the city is, but it's gonna crumble and so many people are going to die when it does. Yet they're still arguing about how to go about retrofitting the buildings, putting safety plans in place, and making sure we have an idea of how to respond. It's funny, sad, and scary to watch.
My husband is from CA. Despite the fact that we live in the mid-Atlantic, he will not buy a brick house and is afraid of being in brick buildings.
It has made house hunting very interesting, because we use a lot of brick out here.
Honestly that's not the big issue most of the time. We had a big earthquake here about seven years ago (not big compared to what you'll likely get or what we get when the Alpine Fault goes, but still) and with the exception of one shoddily-constructed building from the 80's collapsing, the rest of the deaths were caused by falling masonry instead of buildings actually collapsing. People assumed the buildings were going to collapse, ran into the streets and got hit by the façades falling off
Not sure why you got downvotes as what you’ve said is accurate Christchurch earthquake masonry
I figure it's because people assumed I was talking about all buildings in earthquakes and not just the old type like we have here in CHCH and I assume like what's on the West Coast, which are generally built strong enough to stay upright but with weak masonry. Which is fair enough I suppose, I worded it pretty shit, but still
Google Mexico City 1985 and Turkey 1999
Yeah Mexico City and Turkey will have slightly lower building standards than America, even in older buildings I'd imagine
This can't be stressed enough. Brick/stone is a deathtrap if you live in an area where the ground doesn't stay still. It's also the reason that all Japanese castles are made of wood. Sure, your enemies might set it on fire, but if it were stone, you'd pretty much be guaranteed to be killed in the next inevitable earthquake.
New Zealand here - I recall some English acquaintainces who were amazed at the propensity here to buy a house and get housemovers to go pick it up and put it on a different piece of land. Tricky to do with a brick house.
What? Literally move the house...the whole thing?
The porch can often be left behind. And for two-storey ones, they might often do it a storey at a time.
The house I currently live in was plonked here in the 1970s, not built here. It was built roughly 100 years ago and came from a couple of kms down the road.
I am enjoying your use of "plonked".
That’s awesome.
Happens in the States too. It's rare though because the cost to move the building is usually very high. Most of the times I've seen it happen it was because the government acquired the land to build a highway and the house was sold cheap at auction.
Depending on how far the house is moving you could be looking at costs to move mailboxes, utility poles/lines, cost of oversize truck, police for traffic control and road closures, etc.
Here you're only allowed to move houses between midnight and 6:30am, and you need to get permits from the LTSA and utilities suppliers the electricity and phone suppliers along the route, and there's various other issues including bank finance. Despite all that, it often works out cheaper than building a new one though.
An historic "mansion" (barely a mcmansion if we are being honest) near me was moved about 8 miles over hills to end up where it is now. Kinda crazy really.
Or a whole church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfXm2eJxXII
At least in the Bay Area (California) earthquakes destroy brick homes. Wood makes more sense from a safety perspective
Yep. Brick cracks, wood flexes.
Brick as in concrete block walls? Most brick houses are just a veneer on wood studs.
A brick house is no protection at all against tornadoes. A minor tornado with winds of "only" 100 mph can punch a 2x4 through a brick wall. Anything short of 6" or more of reinforced concrete is just the illusion of safety. Hence why most homes either have a basement, or a single hardened storm shelter if they're in a high-risk area.
Most of the houses in the urban areas of Puerto Rico (that were built in last 60 years or so) are made of concrete blocks and rebar. We learned from the 1920’s hurricanes. If it weren’t for that, Hurricane Maria would have been so much more devastating, it would have swept the island clean.
It does wreck havoc with WiFi signals, they don’t travel through the walls...
Hence why most homes either have a basement
Basements are for the footing of the house to be below the frostline. There are not because of a Tornado.
Edit: Really downvotes for the truth? a basement doesn't help when you can be sucked though the top.
Ooooh so that's why there aren't any in California except in the mountains. I just assumed they went out of vogue when they built all the post-war developments or something.
They stopped doing basements here after the 1906 earthquake. Old houses will have a basement but new ones won’t. Some houses from the 1920s and 1930s might have a very small quarter basement (maybe 6x8 feet and not that high maybe 5 feet). Those generally aren’t finished and have a packed earth floor or sometimes just a thin slab of concrete. Mostly for storage and the furnace. And wine. The houses I looked at when buying a few years ago that had basements were all wonky because of quakes over years. They all needed or had had some type of foundation repair because the piers had gotten out of place.
Especially in places like tornado ally or other locations where natural disasters are likely.
Brick doesn't do shit against a tornado and in fact, most natural disasters will destroy a home regardless of what it's made of and wood is generally cheaper and just as effective as brick.
r/askanamerican has a FAQ about it.
It's very location dependent. In California brick buildings are pretty rare outside of historic parts of cities. On the east coast it seems like all the houses are made out of bricks. But in California we don't really have tornadoes or hurricanes.
But you have earthquakes. I imagine that would decimate a brick building
Correct. Brick needs to be reinforced with steel and concrete, which makes things cost-prohibitive.
On the east coast it seems like all the houses are made out of bricks.
They're mostly wood in the east, but brick is not uncommon in cities.
I live on the east coast. It's still majority wood.
On the east coast it seems like all the houses are made out of bricks
They aren't actually made out of bricks. The bricks are just a cosmetic layer on top of a wooden structure. Same as using siding or stucco.
USC is now building with wood frames and fake brick covering. In an earthquake, they just replace the fake brick.
Bricks don't make a difference to tornadoes btw. The last thing you want is bricks flying at your head at 300mph.
I feel like it doesn't matter if its a brick or a piece of wood that is flying at my head at 300mph.
Im not a doctor though so take it with a grain of salt.
Clearly, because of you were a doctor you would be recommending a reduction in salt intake.
Nah I think you're fine with grains of salt at your head at 300mph, depends on the quantity of salt though.
You're not wrong, both will kill you
Also a ‘brick house’ still has wood studs. Not like the walls are solid brick. Unless we’re talking 1800s.
Most have rebar.
Brick is terrible for building on the west coast due to earth quakes. One of the things you need to be aware of in an Earthquake is to be sure you are far away from a brick facade building, because the shaking will loosen bricks from the side of a building. A brick falling from 2 stories and up is fatal and people can be killed when bricks rain down on a street. Wood is flexible, cheaper, and does not absorb so much heat in the summer when it gets to be 100 degrees, that is 38 Celsius for you.
Especially in places like tornado ally or other locations where natural disasters are likely.
Tornado don't give a fuck that your house is built of bricks. It'll destroy it all the same.
I was just about to say that.
Asked my geography teacher about this. He told me that a 140Km/h whirlwind hitting your house will destroy it unless it's solid metal. If it can make cars achieve liftoff from a stationary position, it can blow your brick wall off of your home no problem.
Rebuilding wood is quicker and cheaper, and the insurance company will not tear you a new one for it. Plus it isn't the best to give hardened clay shrapnel to a tornado. Wood isn't the best either, but flying bricks are not helpful.
I do agree that brick construction is better on flood areas. Less likely to rot itself apart in case of water damage.
He told me that a 140Km/h whirlwind hitting your house will destroy it unless it's solid metal.
Or concrete.
Depends on how well reinforced it is. We should get an engineer to answer this.
Well even if it is concrete, unless it's thick/reinforced, the tornado can still easily do serious damage with the debris it's flinging about. Hence why most concrete houses (like in Florida) are almost comically thick.
This. Thank you!
Because a tornado will still demolish it?? What the hell is that supposed to mean. Also wood is readily available.
Bricks fall down in earthquakes. Wooden houses withstand earthquakes much better.
It depends on the part of the country. Where I live, most houses are made from bricks. However, the bricks are made not far from here.
That's not the case for everyone. If you have to transport the bricks in from 1000 miles away, that's a lot more expensive that building a house out of wood.
[deleted]
I have bricks in my house and cinderblocks construction is pretty common. But typically wood is picked as its easy to insulate, and deals with thermal expansion better.
The last part is what is so great about wood construction. Considering how much of the US is hot and humid, its easy to seal, insulate, and air condition.
Where I live, most houses are made from bricks
It's likely they're just covered with bricks.
To be really made of bricks, you'd have a bunch of layers of brick making rather thick walls. Virtually all "brick" houses today are wooden structures with bricks on the outside as a cosmetic covering. Basically, think siding except made of bricks.
If your house has studs, it's made of wood (or possibly steel), even if the outside has bricks on it.
Exactly.
Not when the house has to be rebuilt everytime the wind picks up.
A house taking a direct hit from a tornado is pretty rare. It only seems to happen so much because there are so many houses in the first place.
The news may make it seem like some states get blown over every year, but it's not really true. I have lived for 40 years where tornadoes are allegedly frequent but I have never seen one.
Makes sense I suppose.
When the Joplin tornado hit, it was all over the news. The very next day everyone at work said the same thing. ' Why do they build their houses out of wood?'
It was clear from a lot of the pictures / footage that the brick buildings withstood the onslaught far better.
The odds of a particular home being hit by a tornado, even in areas where they're relatively common, are minuscule.
And for the (rare) tornado the size/intensity of the one that hit Joplin, it doesn't matter much. The brick homes may have fared better, but they're getting torn down and rebuilt regardless.
They do not actually.
EF3 and above damage will destroy even a brick home. In the Joplin tornado with EF4 winds it destroyed a cement hospital by moving it from it's foundation. There is nothing short of a nuclear bunker that will come out of a violent tornado unscathed. The winds in the tornado are very variable though.
I mean, this is the definitive picture of EF-4 damage: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Hattiesburg_leveled_house_feb_2013.JPG
EF5s don't leave houses. The definitive proof of EF5 damage is that houses are completely removed from their foundation. There will only be a slab of concrete where a house used to be. It will also remove roads from the ground. The damage they cause is simply incomprehensible for people who haven't seen it themselves.
Bricks aren't stopping a tornado.
Especially in places like tornado alley
That's actually a pretty good argument FOR wood houses. You could make a house out of Kevlar and diamonds if you wanted to and it wouldnt make a difference to an F5 tornado. You'll be lucky if you can find bits of the foundation within two miles of where your house was. Wood is cheap and easy. Most people in the states are at at least some risk of property destruction from weather or natural events (tornadoes, flash flooding, hail damage, wild fires, hurricanes, mud slides, et. al). From what I understand there isn't a lot of extreme weather or natural occurrences in the UK so it's less of an issue.
We can't use bricks in California, it's an earthquake hazard.
There's a fair amount of adobe bricks, isn't there? Is that better in some way? (Serious question)
I've not seen anything like that outside of facades and old buildings like missions. Many buildings may look like Adobe, but there's wood and/or reinforced metal underneath so far as I've seen.
No Adobe bricks are even worse because they’re not fired. You see a ton of wood frame houses with stucco coating. The stucco will definitely crack and need to be repaired after an earthquake but it’s just cosmetic.
Well, if we're going to bring stucco into this... I mean, near as I can tell that's the home construction equivalent of invoking NAZI's. :D I can't imagine how stucco ever even became a thing. It just seem s so obviously bad.
Keep in mind the facade doesn't necessarily indicate the construction.
Any "adobe" houses that are not historical landmarks are stucco over a wooden frame.
In California an additional reason is because wood bends and flexes a bit in earthquakes but remains upright, whereas brick walls just get torn apart. There aren't many old brick houses still standing and those that still are have likely been reinforced with steel. There are lots of 100+ year old wood houses however.
I wondered this when I moved to the States and concluded that if your house was going to fall down around your ears, things would be even worse if it were made of stone.
Yeah, our natural disasters are generally going to bring the fucker down regardless of the material, barring the reinforced stuff of course. In tornado alley, you pretty much just accept that mother nature might take your house, so you might as well make it easy to rebuild.
Why are so many American homes built out of wood?
It's incredibly inexpensive and easy to build with.
Property developers must be making a killing!
When the market's good, yes
Bricks are shit in a tornado.
Best pun
wood isnt much weaker than brick with the advanced building techniques, and since you can fill it with insulation it is much more energy efficient. Generally if your in tornado ally it wouldnt matter if it was brick or stone, so you build a safe basement, and then build the house from wood, and when you rebuild its cheaper.
And the thing about tornadoes is that although they can touch down anywhere in the high-risk areas, but they still don't have that much of a footprint. It's just financially unreasonable to build a house to withstand a tornado.
Why are so many American homes built out of wood?
We do that in many many countries.
As many said before, wood is cheap and plentiful. But I also want to add, that the reason Europe and Great Britain doesn't use much wood in construction is not due to safety or structural demands; it is because of the clear cutting of forests. The tradition of using materials other than wood started hundreds of years ago long before anyone cared or thought about safety in housing. If Europe had the forests and the need for housing that the US has today there would definitely be wood houses going up in Europe; the safety issue is largely mitagated with modern processes.
Can't speak for the USA, but up here in the frozen wasteland of canukistan we cant use bricks because they freeze and crack. Some buildings that are made out of metal have brick facades, like schools and hospitals. But regular everyday homes are made of wood.
As someone who lives in Florida aka hurricane hell, I can say that it is literally beyond my train of reasoning why building codes and homeowners associations won't allow/promote residential developers to build domes. It is cheaper, more energy efficient, quicker construction, and are rated by FEMA as near hurricane proof. How long have we known about the many benefits of geodesic domes? Oh, say, only about a few decades now. How many lives and billions of dollars of damage could we have avoided?
My husband really wants to build a Monolithic dome (rather than geodesic) some day. He even went to a seminar in Texas on how to build them. They will withstand pretty much anything Mother Nature throws at it. http://www.monolithic.org/
A man after my own heart. I'm a skilled craftsman in several trades for near 2 decades and I wouldn't hesitate one minute to build a dome home. From an engineering standpoint it makes all the sense in the world. That is an awesome website I've definitely been there a time or two. The wind studies of a home with even double the sides (octagon shaped home) decreases the wind resistance a huge margin. Even octagon houses are a step in the right direction. Of course, a building contractor wouldn't want to sell you a home like that because of many reasons, and yes greed is one of them. I work in the construction industry I know for a fact that structures built to withstand natural disasters are bad for future business and that's no bullshit.
I can say that it is literally beyond my train of reasoning why building codes and homeowners associations won't allow/promote residential developers to build domes.
1) They are generally considered ugly.
2) They are incredibly difficult to furnish. Everything we make and everything we expect from the inside of a house requires straight walls. Imagine trying to put a bed along an exterior wall.
Okay Devil's Advocate, why don't YOU try running for your fucking life and expect to come home to an empty lot where your home and everything you've ever worked your entire life for is completely wiped off the face of the earth and have to call an insurance company to PAY THEM money, so you can MAYBE start getting your life put back together in a few months when they decide to write you a check and in the meantime you're struggling to survive in your car and shower in the sink at work every morning.
But yea, domes are ugly and hard to furnish says you who's never been in one or seen a designer one. You're so wrong it's not even funny. Don't tell me about heartbreak and natural disasters you don't know what you're talking about. Go talk to the people in Puerto Rico and see what they think hurricane proof buildings could have done for them.
Dude, you asked why they aren’t popular. It’s not an attack on your children.
Also, hurricane damage mostly comes from storm surge. That will wipe out a dome just as easily as a conventional building. You have to do things like a break-away ground floor to have the house survive.
The story of the 3 little pigs springs to mind.
Or the story of the great fire of London?
touché....everything was rebuilt in stone. Learned our lesson.
Especially in places like tornado ally or other locations where natural disasters are likely.
Yeah if you did build it out of something else you would just have a more expensive set of ruins. Tornados don't mess around. Underground is your best bet. Or really, really wide buildings where you can hide in the middle.
Bunch of kids died in my state even behind cinderblock. Mother nature is powerful.
Do you actually think a brick house would survive a Tornado?
Depends where you are. Back in Florida a lot are made of Pueblo concrete style stuff or painted concrete blocks (looks better than it sounds) which are nearly indestructible. My grandparents house was concrete block and designed to have wind flow off the ocean instead of AC, pretty neat stuff. When we had a few hardcore years of hurricanes they lost almost their entire roof but that house was 100% solid. My parents house in the same town is wood frame, it won’t last half as long. Also, some insurances stopped covering wood frame houses because of how easily they get destroyed. Where I am now in Arkansas has a ton of brick houses, with only the newer ones being wood. Guess which ones last through tornados?
A tornado will destroy a brick house, a cinder block house, a brick school, anything but a concrete bunker. It’s cheaper to rebuild with wood. Don’t underestimate a tornado they literally pick semis up off the highway and destroy whole towns
Because America is made of trees
In older places of the US, like Michigan, many houses are built of a combination of brick and wood. Here's Detroit, which has a large number of older, brick houses. Grand Rapids even has brick roads https://i.imgur.com/4MCjaDL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/hTBkfBc.jpg
Modern American homes aren't just wood, and they are quite sturdy. I would say the weakest part of a decent home here is the roof, and even then it's very sturdy. If you check out damage after hurricanes, the walls are usually fine (And the roof is usually there, but damaged and missing shingles).
We've have shitloads of wood. It's easy to build with, they go up fast and if you do things right you can at least slow down a fire long enough for escape. Even a lot of brick houses are wood frames with brick veneer.
What is the internal structure of those houses made of?
Brick house isn't going to help in a tornado. Tornadoes blow harder than a big bad wolf.
Source: 50 years of living in tornadoes alley.
It’s changed a bit, where wood isn’t as strong as it used to be, but old houses (think made in the 1800’s) were made of old growth wood which was a lot stronger and durable than what we get now. I’ve gotten to rip a couple farmhouses to the bones and even at 150 years old the frame was still going strong on all of them. The stuff is so good and rare that it’s crazy expensive to buy reclaimed wood like that.
Lol here comes another "Euro superiority" bit.
I live towards in the end of tornado alley and bricks are the prevalent materials used in houses. Mostly only older homes are made with wood siding. However, according to a friend of mine who's from Minnesota, most homes up North aren't made from bricks as they're extremely expensive there since they're predominantly made in the South. Not sure how true that is though.
Logged in to say this, glad someone else got to it first. Brick built houses are very common in Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, most of the tornado-prone Southern and Central Plains. But that doesn't mean they're sturdy against tornadoes.
That's for aesthetic reasons though. The actual structure of the house is still wood.
Those houses just have a brick facade. They're made of wood with bricks covering the frame, vaguely similar to how you'd cover the frame with siding.
Wood is cheap.
We build out of whatever's around. In New England that means a lot of granite. Also wood because it used to be all forest.
Also, because the metal house market never took hold?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustron_house
I was shopping for houses and considered buying a Lustron house in Syracuse, NY, it was going for pretty cheap. Everything is metal, the kitchen, the doors slide in to the walls, the walls are metal panels. If you needed to fix something in the wall, you just unscrew the panel.
Well, the house didn't sell with the lot, someone with another Lustron house bought it for parts to expand their existing house. It was dismantled in to stacks of metal and shipped off.
I later met a girl at a bar that said she used to live there, and I believe she said that the creator of Zippy the Pinhead comic used to live there too.
We have lots of forests, and a realistically sustainable platform for logging. We aren't that densely populated and in most areas there is enough resources for it.
Also we don't view homes as permanent. People rarely retire and die in the home they raised children in. They aren't expecting to pass that home on down through generations.
And it's cheaper.
Wood provides good heat insulation. People don't build out of wood because they don't have any trees in their region. America hasn't seen modern civilization for that long.
Majority of Australian homes are structurally wood. It’s actually a super safe material to use, has a relatively high burning time in a fire, and often doesn’t require additional treatment to be termite resistant.
Well let's begin.
Tornado alley: Brick will still crumble in a tornado. If the tornado is strong enough reinforced concrete will break too, and then you have a much harder rescue to do because you are cutting through concrete not wood.
California: I see many on the internet asking why California has so many wooden homes with all of the fires we have. Well have you ever been in an earthquake? No? Let me enlighten you then. Wood will flex when the ground shakes, no other material that cheap will flex that well. You can build a house with other materials to withstand an earthquake, but price skyrockets quickly. Brick and concrete crumble and steel snaps. The wooden homes can survive because they can move with the ground. In a major earthquake they will still fall, and as I said earlier it is easier to rescue someone from a wooden built house than a masonry or steel one.
As u/collinsl02 mentioned wood is plentiful here, lots of wood means it is cheaper than other materials.
As an extension to this, people who own large plots of land and build their own houses. As someone living in the Netherlands the whole idea is completely alien to me.
It's a benefit not a cost to build a house that will only last 100 years. It's cheaper to put up, therefore cheaper to take down so future generations aren't saddled with a house that's tied to the building materials and techniques of 150 years ago.
I've owned two houses, one built in the 50s, and one a few years old. The one from the 50s was a lot smaller and cramped, not to mention lacking things that would have had made it more livable: taller basement ceilings, central air, modern insulation, more electrical sockets, etc. The new house has all of these, and is actually cheaper to heat and cool despite being twice the size. But in 60 years the new house itself will seem outdated.
The old house will be torn down and replaced with a new construction, and the comparison will swing the other way: "Ugh, this 2010s house can only house a single holodeck."
It's cheaper and more profitable for the builder. It's not because it's better. It's not.
Pinewood is cheap, and if you use it intelligently, you can figure out ways to arrange it so it is stronger or as strong as stone structures. You use less material which is also lighter, and easier to produce. These all add up to cheaper costs whith logistics and labor. Since the wood is readily available there isn't much of a down side to using it.
If it bothers you come to Florida. We all masonry down here.
In the 60's and 70's yes, but 95% of new construction is wood frame.
In Florida?
Yes I am in central Florida.
So am I. What are you seeing? All new construction I'm seeing is masonry. The second floors are usually wood frame on a two story, but the first floor will be masonry. Building a wood frame down here is a bad idea.
Alright so I did a search of my local real estate MLS listings.
474 total SFH listings.
238 built pre-1990, 33% of those are wood frame.
236 built post-1990, 84% of those are wood frame.
There's no way. Like I said before, they must be counting second floor wood frames as general wood frames. I'm a home inspector and I'm not seeing total wood frame homes built after the 70s at all.
There are very few two-story houses built in my area. Here, take a look for yourself. I just randomly found a spot on google street view with some new construction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.583483,-82.4383225,3a,50.6y,346.27h,88.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLaI5_usA0YRvyUdj00lYXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Picture is from 2011.
Yep. My parents built a house, it's brick, but the frame is wood. The brick is only a shell around the wood frame. It's designed around being hurricane resistant, probably around Cat3 or Cat4. Of course, that's wind by itself, and not flood or other factors. Tornadoes that spawn from hurricanes can go above Cat4
Hurricanes aren't really the issue. Moisture intrusion is. Moisture intruding into your wood frame home from settlement cracks and unsealed door/window frames can cause many problems and attract termites/lead to mold.
That's not true at all. Ton of wood houses in Florida. Florida Cracker houses for example.
Newer homes tend to be masonry sure, but it really depends on where you live. Some areas are mostly wood.
My parents house is 100% wood and has had zero damage through several hurricanes, including a CAT 5 where the eye passed over the house.
I didn't literally mean there are zero wood frame houses in the state.
I live on the East Coast in the South and there are a lot of brick homes here. I am from the North, and there it was indeed mostly wooden homes.
I think it must vary depending on the environment. I lived in a house with stucco siding in the North, but it would fall off because it couldn't handle the temperature changes, but in hot climates, stucco is fine.
In the South here, so many hurricanes plow through, and that might be part of the reason why brick is so popular here.
There's a 99% chance that those "brick" homes are actually wooden homes with a brick facade.
You apply bricks to the wooden frame, vaguely like you apply stucco to the wooden frame.
Real brick construction has pretty thick walls (you need at least two layers of brick), and do not have studs in any exterior walls ('cause they're solid brick).
You might be right, although there are a lot of cinder block homes by the beach. (I live on the coast)
Where in the south? In DC I see a mix of everything.
Edit: brick is good down here though, because wood rots and needs to be replaced periodically.
It's cheap! ...er than brick or concrete. Easier to insulate as well. At least that's the case for Canada, I'm assuming it's the same.
Shit's cheap. Everything here is about how can we do something for max profit, so building something cheap means your margins are larger.
It looks like wood, but is often hardiboard- rated as strong as concrete.
Wood is cheap and everywhere in the US. Adding brick to the outside will cost tens of thousands of dollars more.
today? it's because wood is cheaper. my house is brick and solid as a tank at about 100 years old. most wood frame houses would have long given up or be rickety piles of shit after that amount of time. america likes to build things only to last about 20-30 years. that way someone else can make money rebuilding them later but it's still been long enough where the original builder isn't blamed (or has died).
Wood is incredibly resilient. How many forests do you know that just fall over from wind, rain, hail, floods, etc.?
Wood is cheap and plentiful. Bricks don't do jack shit against a tornado. And the chances for a tornado hitting a specific building is hysterically small, even in tornado alley.
Even brick houses here use wood for framing/interior.
Destructive tornadoes aren't as common as you might think. Most people in tornado valley will see maybe a couple destructive tornadoes in their lifetime and even then, they won't destroy too much.
Extremely destructive tornadoes that take down large areas happen every few years across the entirety of the US. It's not the largest concern really.
Let me blow your mind then. I'm in the USA, but in the southwest, we decided to tell wood to fuck off and started making houses out of adobe which is essentially mud.
Most of the time wooden houses are better against tornados than brick same with earthquakes
Depends on the building materials they had at the time. My city, St. Louis is built almost entirely out of brick.
Bricks are cool. Remind me what you build your roofs out of again? Probably not bricks.
In regions with any earthquake risk, building codes actually don’t want you using brick. Wood houses stand up way better to earthquake damage while a brick house is more likely to cave in.
But for hurricanes or tornados, I don’t know which is actually safer. Haven’t seen a comparison or anything for those. I just know that earthquake area housing standards insist on wood frame houses, and steel frame industrial buildings. Brick is a big no-no.
What do you mean by brick? Like a solid brick wall No wood studs?
Because then we would have a bunch of bricks flying around during those tornadoes/hurricanes.
I've heard the same comment about homes in NZ from UK people. Brick homes explode in quakes, but the wooden homes can move with the quake.
Bricks fall down in an earthquake, which you don't get.
So America is pretty large and has vastly differing climates. Like VASTLY differing. There is no real comparison between Alaska (hoth planet state way up north adjacent to Canada, eh) and Hawaii (tropical islands of volcano in the middle of the pacific ocean)-and let's talk about the contiguous mainland states, right? We've got everything from like, deserts to swamps (hey, I live on one!) to plains (they're pretty great!) to redwood forests to mountain ranges (majestic ones out west to smaller ones out here) to rolling hills (piedmont!) to mangroves to salt flats.
Due to this, housing styles vary dramatically from region to region. People worked with the available materials, and with what was best for the weather-you need different styles of homes in areas with more severe weather (flat roofs tend to be bad in areas with heavy snow, for example, and super heavy brick homes tend not to weather earthquakes well. So yeah, there are reasons why our homes don't look the same across the board.)
Cheaper insurance, cheaper and quicker to rebuild I would guess. (UK resident)
I've read that some engineered wood is actually stronger than brick or concrete.
Just me, but I wouldn't want to own a brick house in some of the high risk subduction fault zones in California.
In Oklahoma, have worked in construction. Can confirm that it seems like a valid question but really we are really really good and fast at building them for relatively little cost in comparison. Realistically few building methods would actually stand up to significant tornadoes and virtually no residentially affordable homes can come close in conventional standards of living. Exceptions are out there but require a unique situation and budget.
It mainly has to do with the cost of building materials and long term investment. Many houses in America are relatively temporary, it's a growing nation and it doesn't make sense to build a house that may well be knocked down and rebuilt in 40-100 years. As we get more crowded lots become smaller and they knock them down and build condos in their place or replace them with more efficient buildings for multi-family homes, etc
The nicer houses are made of more permanent materials because they're built with the long term in mind, but in America most people don't buy a home and think "I'm living here forever and giving this to my kids who will live here forever", the concept of a 'starter home' and real estate being an investment that you trade up as you go is very real. That, and also renting is a very popular means of housing and because people are always trading up, that means some people are getting traded down. People will get priced out of their neighborhoods if they are renting and have to move to cheaper and cheaper locations etc. It's a system that makes it easy to gentrify, unfortunately
Side note: I get a lot of people that don't understand what gentrification is, they don't understand what's wrong with progress. Progress isn't the problem, it's that gentrification takes people that are too poor to move and tells them, 'you can't live here anymore, you need to move'. And every year their rent is raised again and they have to move again to somewhere further away. They can't afford to move somewhere more livable because a move like that usually involves finding a job in another city (how are you supposed to interview if you have a family to look after and no car or don't even know how to drive, and a job that you can't afford to lose?) that isn't even compatible with their lifestyle (hello, suburban racism!) And then renting a truck which you might not even know how to drive and moving your stuff there. And then living in a town without a public transportation system that functions?
You get where I'm going with this? It's like 'progress' that doesn't leave room for the poor. It increases homelessness and keeps the poor poor because they are stuck in a place where they can't afford to save money because they are getting kicked around from apartment to apartment and every single apartment they move into is shittier than the last one and farther away and costs more than the last, with no better options. It is horrifically unfair, and is the opposite of progress, it builds a larger wall between the upper and lower class and edges out the middle class altogether. A healthy society needs neighborhoods of all classes, not to turn all the middle and lower ones into upper class neighborhoods
oh for god sake your UK "brick" houses have wooden floors that would portal you to the ground floor on the first occasion. So before blaming americans for wooden walls you could look at uk' wooden floors. I've never seen anything like it in central - east europe, it's unbearable for someone to live under wood ceilings with neighbours on top.
Brick houses won't hold up in a tornado either. Wood is much cheaper to replace. Although, as an American who lives far away from tornadoes, I can't imagine having to deal with that. No thanks
Because we have a growing population, and we're able to build wood houses as sturdy as brick for most weather conditions (snow, rain, and heat)
I don't live in a tornado state so couldn't tell you why they don't wise up
Wasn’t the UK almost all wood until the Great Fire of London, at which point they realized tons of wood buildings in close proximity was really dumb?
America has so much space that anything built out of wood has a good 20-25 ft from its neighbor anyway, so maybe thats why?
I always assumed its because we don't value the longevity of things. It's a throwaway culture, we tear down old buildings and houses so we can make new ones.
A few things.
1) Wood framed houses are a lot stronger than you think. Anything that strong enough to destroy a wood house is gonna do severe damage to brick.
2) Wood is much, much cheaper to build with. For the price of repairing the above brick house, you could completely rebuild three wood houses.
In my area (California) you can’t build buildings out of brick due to earthquakes. Well, I guess you COULD, but you wouldn’t want to be inside one when an earthquake hits. We have buildings that look like they are brick but it’s just super thin bricks attached to the outer walls.
The difference being theres vastly more regions and rock types in North America than the extremely small UK. Some places it would be inefficient to bring clay/bricks in. And when you need to build quickly with a forest nearby then you have your building materials
I feel like this calls for a Fortnite reference somewhere...
Earthquakes.
In the US, particularly on the West Coast, wood is used because it’s flexible and able to absorb movement whereas brick and concrete tends to crumble.
I've seen Americans answer this question before with a kind of fatalism. "When the tornado comes, your brick house is going be destroyed, just like a wooden one, so what's the point?". Which raises so many questions about national character, apart from being factually inaccurate.
Somebody (of USA origin) in my study group today (in Australia) took out a jar of peanut butter and casually started slathering their whole banana with it and I 100% could not relate to that.
EDIT: Holy smokes! This blew up! Wasn’t expecting this odd happening in my life to garner this much attention, thanks guys 😂. For the record, I asked her wtf and she was all “oh you guys don’t do this here? Is it weird?? It’s normal back home.” and the study group were all “... no...” 😂😂
[deleted]
Pickle eating Australian here - I object, but cede it is not too common
There are dozens of us... DOZENS!
Maybe even scores of us!
[deleted]
They are called taverns and they are a deal in the Midwest. I like mine with mustard and pickles
I've lived in Omaha and can't say I've seen the chips with the meal thing more than once
So then sloppy joes at the bar is a thing?
I've seen "pot lucks" a couple times. I'll admit I never went to bars all that often. I know of one though that has nachos (chips and cheese) every Thursday night though.
Chips with a sandwich I assumed was common everywhere in the Midwest. Sloppy Joe’s/taverns at dive bars, also thought that was common in the Midwest.
I am genuinely surprised that someone from Chicago finds these things strange.
[deleted]
I don’t care to harp on this too much, but I live in Omaha and have spent a lot of time in Chicago(my wife used to live there). I am going to have to assume you are leaving something out of these anecdotes..
1) Chips with a french dip at a sit down restaurant sounds normal to me (Shrug).. IF we are talking a “fancy” restaurant I would expect nothing less than chef inspired thinly sliced fried potatoes, if they gave you a bag of chips I wouldn’t consider that a “fancy” restaurant. I am willing to concede that this may be a Omaha thing, idk.
2) I agree that free food sitting out at a bar in a crock pot is weird, but not unheard of at a dive bar in a small town on the outskirts of any city. I don’t think this place you are speaking of would be considered a “fancy” bar. The only times I have seen something like that at a bar in town is when there is some sort of event, like, that food would have been for people on a long bike tour or something.
3) I have no problems with bats, as long as they keep the bugs away. :)
If you remember the names of any of the restaurants, please share.
I only know of one bar that randomly serves pot lucky type random self serve (sup Map Room) and they could honestly cut that shit out. That's not a thing, lol
Maybe in the shitty suburban towns ringing Chicago, but in the city proper, no. We're not rubes.
A lot of places do chips with a sandwich because it's cheaper than fries.
wtf
I'm American and wtf is that sloppy joe story? That's gotta be a niche thing
Whew if that’s what you consider a fancy bar then we’ve got a whole city of dive bars waiting for you in Phoenix.
I kid of course, but a lot of small bars lay out free spreads for the patrons (cash tips accepted but not required) including subs, chips and dip, pizza, etc. I frequent a bar that offers a full breakfast with the purchase of a drink from 8-12 every morning.
Weird.
What? But pickles are delicious. There's nothing quite like a crisp kosher dill.
2 slices on a burger and not much else. Maybe like 4 pieces cut up on the side of a charcoal chicken. Not many people I know eat them straight out like that.
Source: Aussie.
What’s a charcoal chicken?
I had to look up a way to explain it:
Pollo a la brasa, also known as blackened chicken or rotisserie chicken in the United States and charcoal chicken in Australia.
In Australia, Rotisserie Chicken is oven baked chicken.
We do but it’s a lot rarer. My friend was eating pickles (gherkins) from the jar and it almost made me hurl. It was feral.
Don't be afraid of a pickle with a sandwich
A lot of us remove the pickle from burgers.
I rarely ever see pickles in Australia. Cucumbers are used in burgers all the time, but never pickles. I see pickled onions eaten far more often than pickles.
[deleted]
Close, Gherkins are pickled in a different solution and turn out a bit differently to NA pickles.
We have an American themed burger and beer joint here. I ate my pickle. Now I cut it up and put it in the burger. What is right?
Both are fine, it would depend on the burger and your personal taste.
We do. Sit a jar of pickles in front of me and its gone pretty quickly. Also most bbqs will have pickles and pickled onions, usually with curried eggs.
I assume she was confused that it came seperate with a sandwich
We call them gherkins, they're made slightly different and they're awful, trying to find proper dill pickles is a task and a half.
My husband and I honeymooned to the states (we are Australian) and found it humorous to keep getting pickles with all of our meals! One pickle was so huge it took up half the plate!We also thought giving out bags of potato chips/crisps with Subway was odd!
Am American and do not understand pickles so I relate to not relating.
Peanutbutter and banana sandwiches are the Holy Grail fyi
I like adding honey to mine. I hear Elvis liked his grilled.
I combined Elvis' two recipes, the grilled peanut butter and banana and the fool's loaf. It's amazing.
Get a load of French bread and cut in half lengthwise
Cook a whole bunch of bacon and drain about half the bacon fat
Cut up some bananas and toss with flour
Sear them in the bacon fat
Spread peanut butter on each side of the bread, layer the bananas and bacon on there. Then cut the corner of a zip lock, throw some jelly in there and squeeze it out in whatever pattern you want (like a cake decorating tube, the name escapes me)
Put it all together and toast in the oven
Fire
Edit: Like 30% of the comments are “that’s why Elvis died hurrr”
Don’t eat the whole sandwich, cut it into 2-3” sections and share it with people. Also don’t eat it everyday. Also don’t eat too much bread.
I got the majority of the recipe originally from one of those suburban mom recipe blogs, use it as fuel for your next 5k and earn that 3.1 bumper sticker. Make everyone in the cul-de-sac jealous.
The other 70% keep getting faded but still share it.
That may be one of the most American things I've ever read
drain about half the bacon fat
at this point i blacked out and started hearing eagles caw
you gotta drain half the fat in order to put it on dog turds in your yard.
lmao fuck is this a meta joke? im sure i read that somewhere on here yesterdary.
Unless im just dreaming of lathering turds in bacon fat
Dude was sick if his neighbor's dog shitting in his yard. So he took bacon grease and put it on the dog shit. Dog came back and ate his own crappioli.
That’s how you fry shit tho
Needs more cheese!
And mayo
That’s why Elvis died on the toilet
It was actually the drugs but eating that monstrosity probably didn't help him.
Piping bag
There's no need for name calling.
Yes, that. Thank you
I'll pipe your bag
How are you still alive?
Well when you become an American you gain an immunity to these types of things
diabetes and obesity isn't exactly immunity
Shhhhhhhhhhh, also I only know one overweight person... ik it's anecdotal but not all Americans are fat, and in fact a majority aren't
Because I’ve made it like four times and only for social events
Edit: and also mountain biking and pushups
I think I figured out why Elvis died
Dear sweet Jesus, yes.
A peanut butter, bacon, pancake batter, butter, banana sandwich.
You only eat this like once per decade though, right?
At least thrice in this decade alone, just eat like one or two pieces of it if you can handle more than that you have an issue
You shut your goddamn mouth right now
I can feel my body turning on itself from trying to figure out why I'd take healthy food like bananas and peanut butter, but fry them in bacon fat.
Humans survived for a long time on meat and vegetables and fat. Just try not to eat too much bread
What the fuck did you just do to me. I have a food boner the size of Texas.
I guess I gave you a food boner the size of Texas which I feel weird about too.
I think I gained 10 pounds just reading this. But damn if it don't sound amazing!
Annnnd, that's why Elvis died. On the toilet.
That and prescription drugs. Moderation is key.
Very true. But can you use the word "moderate" when you are talking about peanut butter and bacon fat fried banana? Lol.
You can use the word “moderation” anywhere if you’re brave enough!
Really though, I digest fat and protein pretty well. It’s the processed carbs (bread) that are the problem for me at least.
So moderation is key
Sounds like amazing stoner food
Fuck me I'm saving this to make later
Piping bag
This sounds amazing.
Way too involved for something I would only eat when I'm stoned.
I just toast the bread golden brown crunchy and then put my banana slices and peanut butter in and spread some honey on it. It's so damn good.
I'm saving this shit
Ya know, I'm gonna save this and try it. Will report back in probably never.
No need. It sells itself. Good luck!
Now know what my next snack will be.
Please do not eat the whole sandwich, cut it into slices and share with at least one other person
Eeyeewww.
How high are you?
Not much rn, I don't know if I could eat it high I would feel pretty guilty.
I would have to get a little drunk, then a little high.
Holy hell. I just nutted at the thought of this.
One time my friend was in a college logic class and he was so into the math that he looked down and realized he had a rager
HULK HOGAN INTRO!
I'm eating that whole damn sandwich and not you, or Elvis can stop me.
And we wonder how Elvis got that fat.
i'd eat this high af
And people wonder why Americans are so fat.
It's because we enjoy our lives
You cut it into slices and share it with other people, do not eat the whole thing. I am not fat, but yes over abundance of food here is an issue.
There's a reason Elvis got fat.
With bacon
Called a Golden Loaf
There was a place that served the Golden Loaf (an entire loaf of bread, filled with PB, grape jelly and bacon, no banana). He once flew in to the city where they were sold, stayed on his private jet and had some delivered, ate, and flew home.
He had his home chef make him grilled PB and banana regularly as well. He preferred them grilled not-quite brown.
Fools’s gold is what it is called.
"Fool's Gold Loaf" prepared by the Colorado Mining Company in Denver.
I don't understand how mixing all those things together appeals.
It works well. Peanut butter and bacon is delicious to begin with. Have you never gotten pancake syrup on your bacon? The sweetness of the jelly works. With the huge loaf-sized sandwich, just peanut butter and bacon would be too dry so hence the jelly, as well. On a good crusty loaf it all blends together wonderfully. It sounds a bit gross but I assure you it's not, everything balances out.
Banana and PB sandwiches have a creamy texture and the flavors also compliment each other.
I find bacon to be pretty boring honestly. I like it, but it's not that special. But I wouldn't want to mix meat with peanut butter anyway. That sounds odd. But how do you accidentally get pancake syrup on meat. Do you eat both at the same time?
It's the saltiness of the bacon and the crispness. Bacon is often served with pancakes in the States, it's a typical breakfast for many. Some people even like to dip their bacon in the syrup on their plate. I've had bacon in the UK before and they seem to prefer it chewy not crispy which would make a huge difference. I've had bacon budgies that were so dry I could barely swallow, just a bit of bacon grease to help it slide down. Nor would Canadian style bacon be very good. It needs to be a crispy bacon.
where i am from (california, United states), pancakes are typically served on a large plate with eggs/bacon/potatoes etc. Most places you have to ask for them to be served on separate plates.
In the South we even put jelly on sausage biscuits. You get a little sweetness to play against the savory flavors in the meat, but without the sour notes that you'd get by using BBQ sauce or ketchup.
Oh, and then there's fried chicken drizzled with honey. If you're gonna clog your arteries you may as well get diabetes, too!
Man I don't even know what a sausage biscuit is. I googled it and it's so pointless. Then you put jelly on that. There is no point to it.
Oh, right. An american "biscuit" is like a small scone or crumpet. We call sweet bikkies "cookies". Sorry for any confusion!
I tried it. Tastes like shit. Americans aren’t known for good food, anyhow.
It was the Brown Palace in Denver.
Fool's Gold Loaf, isn't it called? Btw I tried to make it, here in Australia using toasted Turkish pide bread, damn good.
The story I was told was even better. He was at a party and someone had never tried one. That’s when they flew to eat it and flew back.
Reminds me of the times I’d jokingly accuse girls of having fake tits, sometimes they would want to prove they’re real 😍
I thought it was a fools gold loaf
The Fools Gold Loaf is a sandwich that consits of a whole French loaf cut lengthwise, a jar of peanut butter, a jar of jelly, and a pound of bacon
Didn't Elvis die while making a Golden Loaf?
he was pinching a golden loaf*
Not the same thing....
Pretty sure I dropped a golden loaf a little while ago.
Elvis' golden loaf was a hollowed out whole loaf of crusty Italian bread stuffed with bacon, peanut butter and jelly and heated in the oven.
Elvis sandwiches are not quite the same thing: they are PB, bacon and banana on grilled or fried toast. If you want the ultimate indulgence, try one on French toast.
Can i eat it in a Golden shower then?
I laid a golden loaf this morning.
Oh, the breakfast place across the street has a banana bacon honey peanut butter sandwich called the elvis and its incredible.
Health nut, the King was
in awe of the absolute health consciousness of the lad
Had one this past weekend at a brunch spot in MKE. Can confirm, was great.
well. that explains a lot
oh, sorry. you plebs don't add crushed pretzels to yours? pff.
True story. My friend and I wanted to make Elvis ice cream. Basically his sandwich in ice cream form. So we got banana ice cream, peanut butter and fried up a ton of bacon. Only problem is we couldn't figure out how to properly mix them all, so we decided a blender on really low setting should do the trick. It did. Too well. We were left with this.... Frozen paste? Texture was undesirable, but it was delicious. We were stoned, so probably ate more of it than we would have liked to (all of it) but it was totally worth it. May try it again at a future date, or try to get Ben and Jerry's to do it up proper.
And amphetamine.
he really knew how to live
And pickles
gotta have pickles
Throw a little mayo on the bacon side and it's complete. Ya'll don't know 'bout that PB-banana-bacon-mayo. I know it sounds questionable, but I'm just trying to spread some sandwich gospel to the good peoples.
honestly just mayo, pickles, peanut butter is really good.
I've heard that but never tried it. I'm almost afraid to waste the bacon creating some sort of chimera sandwich.
It's delicious. Sweet from bananas, savory from the peanut butter, and salty from the bacon.
If you don't like it, the most you've wasted is a few slices of bacon. The rest of the sandwich can be salvaged.
[deleted]
If you try the whole sandwich in a buttered pan it's as if it came from the kitchen of god himself
And some vicodin.
Now we're in business.
And marshmallow
Sacrilege! Marshmallows are for sweet potato casserole. Though to be honest, I don't like the texture. Coconut cream is so much nicer on sweet potatoes.
Then wrapped in a pizza and deep fried
Grilled, PB, Banana, Honey on the bread, wit bacon on top. Yum. I bet that’d be really good in deep fried dough ball with the named ingredients as filling too. Call them “Meme Dreams”
Dude is kind of the authority on comfort food.
Source: died on a toilet
And a jelly doughnut
bacon and maple syrup - anything fried pork and maple syrup.
No wonder he died on the can. He must have been trying to pass one of these delicious monstrosities.
And barbiturates
And pills
Holy shit. Grill that baby up in a skillet and you might have a replacement for crack cocaine.
And morphine
Well, obviously. That goes without saying in the U-S-of-A.
Well you know what they say, everything is better with bacon.
Now, that's disgusting. Unless you're pregnant.
And cardiac arrest
classic lays potato chipps too.. on the sandwhich.
the correct answer is conn's wavy, but you have the right concept.
A grilled (with butter on a hot griddle, like you would a grilled cheese) peanut butter & banana sandwich is like a gift from God himself.
The only thing that's better is a poptart sammich, and even then it's a toss up.
a poptart sandwich, grilled? one must try.
Have you had honey peanut butter before? Takes a step out of your sandwich making process!
I don't think I have, actually, but I bet it's good. Peanut butter + sweet syrup of some variety works well. Jelly, jam, etc. Honey should work too.
It’s my favorite peanut butter variety.
I think Elvis did pb, banana and bacon.
I'm going to have to try this now. It's peer pressure, but I'm giving in.
I like adding honey to mine. I hear Elvis liked his grilled.
UK here. Visited Graceland a few years ago and had "the Elvis" for lunch at a nearby diner - peanut butter and banana grilled sandwich, my Godddddd it was heavenly.
I need to go visit Graceland just so i can say I did. And to eat some banana and peanut butter sandwiches.
Honestly it's one of the most beautiful places I've ever been to. My mam is a lifelong Elvis fan so it was more for her than anyone but it honestly was so beautiful.
I need an adventure to somewhere new to go along with a repeat. I'm bad about going back to the same places rather than seeking out new stuff and I bet I can combine a trip to New Orleans with a side adventure to Graceland.
That's been a dream holiday for my family for years - take us with you if you do that haha
I was considering a group adventure, but not in the summer time. New Orleans is just too hot until late September or October.
Ah right, see in Wales it's just cold all year round haha. This year's a lot hotter than usual though
Peanut butter, honey, banana sandwiches are cheap and delicious. Been eating them since I was a kid!
Tropical smoothie cafe used to have a peanut butter, banana, granola and honey breakfast wrap.... it was really good.
Elvis liked them fried, not grilled. Because Memphis.
When I got married, my husband's grooms cake was "Elvis Presley" - chocolate cake with layers of peanut butter and banana creme in between the layers!!!
Yum! I didn't know I wanted banana cake for lunch!
That sounds amazing.
Memphian here. Can confirm. White bread, bananas, peanut butter, fried in massive amounts of butter. I decided to randomly visit Graceland during Elvis Week (August- the week of his death) and decided to try one of those sandwiches. It wasn't my favorite, but can definitely see people loving it.
I love the honey, grilling it is always weird though.
Agreed, I prefer them untoasted too. It just doesn't seem like it should be a hot sandwich to me.
I've done it. It's good, but the peanut butter gets melty, and I'm not a huge fan of that.
i toast the bread instead of grilling it. then it's the perfect level of gooey
THE best on a bagel too
Just last night I made a pb and banana quesadilla , realized I didn’t have any honey :-( still delicious
I think he actually used slabs of hash browns for bread.
.... Grilled banana???
I tried a peanut butter/banana/honey sandwich because you guys raved about it in a "What's your favorite sandwich?" thread. I even gave the bread a light toasting per the recommendations.
Honestly, I don't understand the hype. I thought it was bland. To each their own.
It's all about the Mayo imo
You just made my mouth cum. I'm definitely trying this.
Mouthgasm!
Breakfast spot here in AZ has something like that.
Deep fried peanut butter sandwich, served with a sliced banana & topped with vanilla ice cream drizzled with honey.
I have been dying to try it but I feel like everyone will be judging me for some reason lol.
I may have to judge you for not trying it already. I think I have all the ingredients to make this in my kitchen now.
That he did.
Grilled is the best option for PB and banana sandwiches.
Throw some got-damn marshmallows on that bitch and you got a muthafuckin' party!
Oh hell yeah! I don't know why I didn't think of adding marshmallow. I'll be trying that.
Put granola in there with the honey nut time...
Grilled is 100% the way to go.
I may have to do some banana cooking this evening. I don't typically grill mine but done with enough butter I can see this being really delicious.
It is. Now I'm think I should go buy some bananas.
Dude.
I may be weird, but my dad would feed me peanut butter banana sandwiches with miracle whip mayonnaise. So good.
This right here! Toast, drizzle honey on it, crunchy peanut butter and sliced banana over that.
moans in Homer
Melted peanut butter is the food of champions
I could vouch for the deliciousness.
A grilled peanut butter banana sandwich is an underrated treasure.
Elvis was a genius.
Gotta add that mayonnaise
Nutella + Honey + Banana
It's funny. I'd never heard of this combination of foods until last night, when I happened upon a TV show where it was mentioned that Elvis loved to eat peanut butter on toast with mashed banana, bacon and fried in shitloads of butter. And then today I read this. Synchronicity, man!
Deep fried
It's great. Throw some bacon and few chocolate chips in there and you have a hell of an artery clogging tasty meal.
Bananas need a dying coal fired barbecue, brown sugar, rum and whipped cream.
Save the whipped cream for when you pull it off of the bbq.
Grilled PB&J or PB+banana sandwiches are delicious!
I can back up the peanut butter and honey combo, its really good. I always saw americans combining peanut butter and jam, and I wanted to try it, but I didn't have any jam, so I went with honey and I am glad I did.
Don't forget the Marshmallow Fluff!
I hear Elvis liked his grilled.
There's a reason why Elvis is dead.
Fried to a golden brown, actually. In the American south, we don't half-ass it when it comes to unhealthy eating.
Wtf? I think I just had a stroke or something, because I initially read your second sentence as "I hear Elvis killed his girlfriend" and was so confused.
I hear they killed elvis
Throw Nutella on one half and marshmallow fluff on the other half ooh baby
I fry mine. Highly reccomend it.
Grilled? lol, No they were fried.
Add a fat (butter/oil/pork fat/mayonnaise) apply to one side of each piece of bread, place in pan/on flat top and cook on medium high for like a small bit and then flip.
That’s what he ate.
You and Elvis both sound alright
Maple Syrup (Canada)
Fried. He liked them fried in butter. You don't use butter on a grill.
https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/nigella-lawson/elvis-presleys-fried-peanut-butter-and-banana-sandwich-recipe-2203663
You don't make grilled cheese on a grill either
Getting close to a Grilled Charlie.
You can buy peanut butter with honey in it. It's delicious
There is a crepe place I go to that has an Elvis, it's peanut butter, bananas, honey, and bacon. Delicious.
Try it with lemon curd. Pretty tasty stuff.
but elvis was also a pedophile so we shouldnt care too much about his taste in things.
Was he? But he was a rock star and they still get passes for that sort of bad behavior, at least when it comes to teenage girl groupies.
Peanut butter and banana with a little honey and bacon on toasted bread. It's one of the greatest sandwiches ever but don't eat them often or you'll die of a heart attack on the toilet.
Sounds American alright
My wife's family does peanut butter and banana sandwiches with honey...I had made them for myself as a kid too...but they put mayonnaise on them and act like it's normal. I just don't understand. The thought and smell of mayonnaise with peanut butter makes me want to throw up.
i will admit I ate a ton of banana n' mayo samiches when I was a kid. I also ate a bunch of pb n' naynays. But pb AND mayo? That's weird af.
I grew up eating sandwiches with PB and honey, PB and banana and PB and bacon. I never even considered doing it all at once. Mind blown.
I mean if you powerlift and burn 5000+ Calories a day, then that sounds like a mighty tasty way to get those extra Calories
I do PB&J w/ banana, It's so good
Add bacon to it. You’ll thank me later.
I've done peanutbutter and fried egg, and it was surisingly good, so I just might.
People think I’m off my rocker when I try to spread the word about peanut butter and bacon going together, but every single person I know that has tried it loves it.
it does sound good, but pairing savoury/salty with savoury/salty might sound unnecessary to some
if you want to knock that up a notch, butter the outside and flop it into a frying pan (like a grilled cheese)
You Americans are kinda weird.
I am proud of my unique weirdness.
I am proud of you too.
fuck this thread is awakening a hunger I long thought sated. pb + b sandwich for dinner I'm thinking.
I'm Indian and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are among my favourite foods.
Yeah man, but now sub the jelly for bananas.
I'll try it.
Even better if its peanut butter and banana toast!
Especially if you use rice crackers in place of bread. So delicious that I once lived through like 2 weeks purely on them alone.
Ritz crackers are what I used as a kid; the shape is perfect for the banana, and the saltiness jives great with the peanut butter.
You’re a goddamn genius.
Sprinkle some rice crispies on top. The best!
Peanutbutter, nanners, a little mallow fluff, and a drizzle of honey wrapped up in a tortilla. So good.
Agreed, we have these in the UK too. At least I did, and I know of others who did too.
Peanut butter, banana, and pickle - either bread and butter pickles or dill.
I hate bananas and tried putting them on peanut butter sandwiches to get myself to like them. It didn’t work
Throw a little dukes mayo on there and OMFG it hurts it's so good
Peanut butter and banana is great and all but peanut butter honey sandwiches are actually the best things ever.
Okay, banana sandwich, that's new for me. Also, I believe I've tried penaut butter like once in my lifetime, it just isn't sold where I live.
No one said anything about a sandwich...just a PB covered B.
Canadian: I dip my bananas in maple syrup and ketchup chips.
fuck avocado toast! PB & B is the shits!
Peanut butter and Marmite sandwich wants a word outside. (Actually I only have that on toast). Peanut butter and banana also needs honey.
I will literally ask for a nice PB & banana sandwich on death row as part of my last meal
Also frozen bananas... if you know what I mean...
Banana and mayo on wheat bread.
Ok, but this isn’t a sandwich. If I️ slathered my dick in jelly it would make more sense than this
try peanut butter and pickles. It sounds like sacrilege but it's pretty good if you want to change things up
My wife loves PB&P and it makes me wanna gag
Don't forget the Fluff!
I throw pb on a tortilla and wrap it around a peeled banana, great breakfast or lunch.
Banana and Mayonnaise is better.
Nutella and banana sandwiches are far superior.
Grilled pb and banana is the holy grail actually. Like you're making a grilled cheese but use peanut butter, add banana after cooking. It's glorious with a glass of milk
You should try peanut butter and onion sandwich.
Peanutbutter and chocolate sprinkels are better.
Bananananana and cheese is good too.
Only if they're pan fried.
Add fluff and you have a snack trifecta!
The combo also works great with oatmeal.
Jonny Bravo taught me this.
With nutella ...
Try it also with sweet onions. Yum!
Sprinkle some cocoa powder on it and grill it—it’s like a Reese’s with banana 🤤
Peanutbutter and egg for me
I like peanut butter; I like banana (because it’s funny to say and spell (that’s rare)) (I know I did brackets in brackets) I hate sandwiches.
Peanut butter and marshmallow is even better though.
Peanut butter, banana, and apple jelly on toasted bread...
Peanut butter, jelly, and banana. 🤤🤤🤤
I add mini chocolate chips to my peanut butter and banana sandwiches. Gives it a nice, sweet crunch because I'm not a crazy person who buys chunky peanut butter.
even better with mayonnaise
Toasted Peanut Butter and Banana sandwiches are a treat from the gods
KKona Clap
Keep in mind, you’re talking with someone from the Land of Vegemite. (Don’t get me wrong, I love PB and Vegemite equally!)
I'm not even american but peanut butter and apples.... Duuuuuude how could I live without that
Toast with jam and cheese slices too.
Even better when adding Miracle Whip. Tangy, sweet, and salty!
You ever try PB and lettuce? Game changer
Using a Hotdog bun as bread.
This is as American as bald eagles.
Pro tip: peanut butter, banana, and Nutella.
Peanutbutter and _____ sandwiches are the Holy Grail fyi
FTFY
I like to put a banana in a hot dog buns and slather the peanut butter where the ketchup would go.
Oddly, Cheerios are a great addition. Just do little slices of banana topped with PB and Cheerios. Make sure to have some water handy.
Peanut butter and banana with some marshmallow fluff is delicious.
Do you smoosh the banana down and spread it or do slices?
Evenly spread slices
False!^ Peanut butter, Nutella, and Banana is the Holy Trinity! Add honey for flavor.
Damn you. I may have to run to the store to get some now.
This. Some butter & peanut butter on toasted bread with sliced bananas on it. There are very few things in this world as delicious.
Don't forget the mayo
Cookiebutter and banana or jelly sandwiches are the holy Grail for me now.
Peanut butter and banana on cinnamon raisin toast is my go to. It tastes amazing, at least for me.
We have our winner
[deleted]
What kind of cheese? I feel like depending on the type that could be interesting or revolting lol
I eat peanut butter and banana toast ever day. All my macros are planned around this one meal.
...and mayo. Tastes like childhood. Also, fried bologna sandwiches w ketchup.
Peanut butter and raisins for me :)
Second this. It’s filling and healthy. Just one sandwich will leave you full for hours.
Add your favorite jam/jelly/preserve and heat it a bit in a press and you've got yourself heaven for your breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack/secondbreakfast/etc
I just ate one of those for dinner. Used to not like Bananas but diluting them with peanut butter has helped me enjoy them!
I think you mean banana and mayo sandwiches are the holy grail
If you want the armrest of the airplane seat to end up between your asscheeks
Ive never seen anyone do that on a banana alone but on a sandwich its really good
One of my favorite snacks ever is just a banana and peanut butter. In fact, I've gotten to the point where it's difficult to eat a banana that does not have a thick strip of peanut butter on it.
Then again, I also put peanut butter on my apples. And on my bagels. And celery. I even tried a peanut butter pickle (it was not good). Really, I'm just looking at fruits and veggies as peanut butter delivery vehicles and if they don't do the job well they can fuck out of my life lmao
Then again, I also put peanut butter on my apples.
Peanut butter on apples is far superior to peanut butter on bananas. PB is sticky and bananas are a little on the dry side as far as fruit goes, plus they're both soft, so together it can be a bit much in terms of actually eating it and slogging through the sticky chewing.
But apples are wetter than bananas and provide a nice contrast by being crunchier, too. A nice slice of apple with a smear of peanut butter is amazing. Hands down best afternoon snack for the 3:00 energy dip at work.
plus they're both soft, so together it can be a bit much in terms of actually eating it and slogging through the sticky chewing.
Well, I think there's our difference! I'm a soggy cereal type of heathen.
Soft itself doesn't bug me, but the soft and the stickiness of the peanut butter together makes it a bit much. I feel like I need a drink after every bite of banana with peanut butter.
Same! I love mushy food haha. I like to put milk in my cereal then do my morning routine so that when I come back the cereal is soggy.
Smooth peanut butter and a fresh honey crisp apple is the world’s best snack.
smooth
Be gone, heathen.
Granny Smith. I don't know why, but the tart goes so well with the peanut butter.
See I love peanut butter and bananas but, at least for me, it's hard to spread it on the banana without the banana breaking so I don't do it because I'm lazy
What you do is very small bite of the banana plain, then small smear of peanut butter on the now flat end. Bigger bite, getting a good ratio of banana to peanut butter. End is flat again, add another small smear. Repeat til banana is gone.
But you do need to do small smears if you're looking for it to be a reasonable amount of peanut butter/not a giant calorie bomb. I find it's easy to go way over serving size of peanut butter if I'm not conscious of it.
What you should do is take a spoon and scoop out a nice hunk of peanut butter. Then, as you eat the banana, you smear a bit of peanut butter on the banana tip after each bite. This allows you to get maximum satisfaction from your peanut butter banana since you have complete control over the peanut butter:banana ratio with every bite.
That sounds great. Too bad I'm allergic to apples. Strawberries and peanut butter go very well together too.
I'm gonna stick with my cheese and apples thank you.
Okay well that's also good. Apple-brie paninis are a think of beauty.
Cheese and peanut butter for the win!
Also, apples are delicious (unless that's their name) and bananas are terrible unless you make bread out of them.
I just put peanut butter on a spoon and eat it like a savage
Me, too. And Val Kilmer gave me a thumb's up for it!
i'm a classy savage--i sprinkle a little salt on the spoonful of peanut butter.
That actually sounds dank
Peanut butter and pickle sandwiches are the bomb. Gotta find the right kind of dill pickle tho. Deli style pickles? Gross. Milder pickles like strubbs are pretty good.
I was thinking it might be okay with like, bread and butter chips or something. And I usually despise those lol
Sweet pickles and bread and butter pickles work really well with peanut butter on sandwiches! One of my favorite snacks with the added benefit of grossing out the people in my office
Add some cottage cheese to really disturb the people at work. Tastes great with those
I don't know why but the phrase 'peanut butter pickle' is so funny.
Sounds like you need to try peanut butter on burgers... mmmm....
Peanut butter and pickle sandwiches are the best!!
I had peanut butter on toast the other day and I decided to load some scrambled eggs with hot sauce on top of it. Actually tasted great
Try peanut butter on baby carrots!
Grapes dipped in peanut butter are fantastic. Also honeydew.
My husband swore by hot dogs with peanut butter on them. It actually tastes amazing - kinda like dry roasted peanuts but squishy.
Pb and J hamburgers are also pretty good, especially if you get a jalapeno jelly instead of fruit jelly.
Went to A Chinese buffet where they had peanut butter chicken.
It was hella bomb.
Peanut butter on celery sticks is godly.
To me, sushi is just a wasabi delivery vehicle. Wasabi-less sushi can gtfo.
Fucking Winston mains
I can relate. I just feel one side of the bananaall the way down. Use a spoon to spoon out some PB and then slice off a little banana with it. So good. But I also dip almost anything in PB. Not my proudest moment, but I can admit to dipping peanuts in PB because I had nothing else to dip.
Try a peanut butter and bacon sandwich. Awesome!
A restaurant near us has a peanut butter and bacon burger and holy hell, it’s fucking delicious.
We used to slather on the peanut butter then dip it in a can of Hersey's syrup.
Peanut butter on apples is heavenly
Add bacon to the pickle + peanut butter sandwich. It fixes the tanginess overpowering the peanut butter.
Try carrots.
Dude, try peanut butter on carrots.
Peanut butter on baby carrots is good too
I put peanut butter on a banana in a bowl and sprinkle chocolate chips on as a nighttime snack occasionally
Reminds me of the time I tried Old Bay on Froot Loops and proved myself wrong, it does NOT make everything better.
There’s also the breakfast sushi: peanut butter and banana rolled up in a tortilla. Then you slice it like a sushi roll.
I am the same. Yesterday, I discovered grapes. In retrospect, it was so obvious.
Peanut butter + pickles on burgers is 10/10.
Have you tried peanut butter on your hamburger? There was a place in Arizona(don't know if it is still there) that severed a skippy burger.
Carrots are good too.
What kind of pickles did you use? You need the candied dills for a proper PB&P.
I was once gifted a bunch of bananas and a jar of peanut butter as a birthday gift.
We might be the same person.
Peanut butter on anything chocolate is the closest to god I have ever been.
One of my favorite snacks ever is just a banana and peanut butter.
I cut up bananas into coins and then slather some peanut butter on top, and then pop those suckers into the freezer. One hour later, and... suddenly I've eaten them all in one sitting.
I’ve started putting PB on my burgers and my entire worldview has changed.
Try peanut butter on garlic toast. It's very good.
Birthday cake almond butter on a banana is 🔥
Carrots bro. Especially the super sweet yellow ones
I had a highschool friend who brought PB/Broccoli bagels for lunch
Add some raisins, you will thank me!
Celery stalk and peanut butter is excellent also!
I love some smooth, creamy peanut butter (Skippy is my go-to brand) on apple slices or celery.
The occasional PB and nanner sammich is also good.
Was about to comment about apples and peanut butter. A bit more annoying to do since you need to cut the apple before, but totally superior to the banana!
But to be fair, I sometimes eat peanut butter with a spoon and I need to hide it in the back of the pantry to forget its existance otherwise I'll eat some whenever I am bored and see it...
I think you just like peanut butter
Nuke the peanut butter till it gets to s liquid state and dip the banana into it. Awesome
There were like two years straight in elementary school where I’d only pack peanut butter and celery for lunch. I still like it for a snack when I have celery in the house.
Celery filled with peanut butter is a normal snack in Australia.
We grew up with peanut butter and pickle sandwiches. And I'm referring to sweet pickles not dill. I didn't eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich until I married my wife and she made them.
The problem americans have is WHEN they eat something healthy, they combine it with something unhealthy
same. no way i'm willingly eating a nasty gross banana without peanut butter on it.
But Sunflower butter is so much better.
You could meet them halfway and spread peanut butter on a soft tortilla (plus honey or jam to taste) and then wrap the tortilla around a banana.
I've done it to the banana before. It's annoying because when you cut it open its slimely and smooth and doesn't adhere to the peanutbutter very well
Elvis Presleys favorite food was pan fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches.
Banana, Peanut Butter Jar, Butter Knife. Dip knife in jar, cut piece of banana which sticks to the knife, eat straight off of knife.
Peanut butter and banana rolled up in a tortilla is also good. The peanut butter sticks the tortilla to the banana. You can cut it up into slices to make it more kid-sized.
My dad did that. It's good shit.
Taken out of context...
you should try peanut butter and apple
Doing it on banana alone is great. Healthy snack. Skip all the empty carbs of bread. Nice and light, but filling. Makes your poops super smooth
username checks out
Literally nothing better than eating a banana with peanut butter after a workout. Myself and my German girlfriend are always giving the each other shit about how much/little respect the other has for peanut butter.
I'll just say this: the dogs are on my side.
Peanut butter and banana smushed on toast is my standard breakfast. Can't beat it.
Then it's doubly good washed down with a strong cup of tea, which is a trick I reckon some Americans might miss. Goes much better with the combo than coffee.
Whole banana is a bit overkill, but just a tiny bit every few bites is damn good. Especially after a run.
I ate peanut butter with an apple because that was all I had in my dorm at that time, it wasn’t bad but wasn’t good either, would give it a solid 6/10
Depends on the type of apple. I do that all the time.
My friend cuts the banana in half lengthwise and then puts peanut butter between the pieces. I thought they were a genius until I saw the mother fucker do it with hummus
I love dipping bananas and apples in peanut butter but even though I love bananas I am kinda nervous around them now. Last year while I was pregnant with twins I had really terrible morning sickness and one of the only things I could stomach was fruit. I ended up taking a bite of a banana and felt something crunching in my teeth. I accidentally swallowed and I looked at my banana and it had that icky red mold in the center. I was nauseated until I got myself to throw up but now I refuse to bite into a banana without taking of small pieces to check for anything abnormal.
One guy that sat at my lunch table last year at my university would get a bowl of peanut butter and slice bananas into it. Then he would smash it all together in the bowl and eat it. It was weird.
fuck outta here peanut butter is vastly superior to that death sauce you call vegemite
We had a cultural event at work and for Australia, they had a "try vegemite get a free Australian candy" table. One of my co-workers tried it and said it wasn't worth it.
Was the candy made of Vegemite too?
The frogurt is also cursed.
But you get your choice of topping!
That's good!
The toppings contain Potassium Benzoate.
...
That's bad.
Can I go now?
Can I go home now?
That's bad.
That's bad.
Can I go now?
That's bad
That's 'cause you're calling it frogurt instead of froyo ;P
Was the candy made of Vegemite too?
Candy is usually fruity, so they made it from durian to stay within the same flavor neighborhood as Vegemite.
Doesn't Durian just smell fucking terrible but not actually taste that bad? Like the opposite senses of vegemite.
Doesn't Durian just smell fucking terrible but not actually taste that bad? Like the opposite senses of vegemite.
I think it's one of those things that people either love or hate. It made my place smell like an onions cumbox and although I don't know for certain, I'd describe the taste as something similar.
Eating durian indoors? That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
It kind of tastes how it smells, but in a good way. You're not going to eat it and wonder you're smelling the same thing. It's pretty obvious.
But it's something along the lines of edible, right? Sweet? I'm not really sure. Mostly when I've seen people eat them they just dislike the texture and smell.
Durian is awful. The sulfur it releases when first putting in your mouth tastes greatly like vomit to the degree that it triggers a gag reflex in me everytime. Its strong enough to make me believe im vomitting, but maybe some people cant sense the sulfur.
The smell overpowers the taste. Though I have had freeze dried durian and still hated it.
I kind of like it, but not a lot. Texture and smell is hard to get past. It's an acquired taste.
Based on what I've heard, I don't see a point in acquiring that taste.
It's probably good in case someone buys some for a special occasion so you can eat it without gagging. It's not the cheapest fruit.
You either love or hate the fruit. To me, it doesn’t smell terrible, it smells wonderful and it’s even better eating it cos the smell is intensified together with the sweet custardy flavour. If you get durians that don’t really smell when eating, it’s usually frozen and pretty shit.
seemed to be some kind of hard candy.
Ghost drops? Redskins? Boiled sweets? Can’t think of any other hard lollies we have at the moment
Sorry didn't see what his reward was.
I always liked those lemon hard lollies with sherbert inside.
They actually came out with a limited edition vegemite dairy milk chocolate a few years back. 😷
not even aussie but god damn that sounds delicious
Don’t laugh. Cadbury came out with a block of Vegemite Chocolate a few years ago.
I’d be seriously suspicious of an Australian candy
I've always wanted to try Tim tams, especially slam them.
No. It was Australia. It was ridiculously potent black licorice of course.
Everyone makes the mistake of having too much. You just need the tiniest amount because the flavour is so strong. No one would smash an entire ghost pepper down and then complain that chilies suck because they are too hot.
Yeah I had an Australian friend make me some toast with it a while back - he basically said "if you can't see 80-90% of the bread under it, you've used too much." Very thin scrape across the toast, then cover it with some butter - really good stuff.
Nah butter first then Vegemite is the way to go
I'll try it that way next time I have it, it seemed easier to spread the vegemite before the butter had started melting so I always did it that way haha
Born and bred Australian here: never heard or seen anyone doing it any other way than butter/marg first, then vegemite on top
Yeah, then the Vegemite slides around and kinda mixes with the butter, leaving some streaks of good saltiness and pockets of nice fattiness. It's the best way!
The butter becomes a lubricant.
Even more effective if you let the toast cool, and it mixes with the butter while spreading.
Or put some Vegemite on cheese. Like crumbly cheddar. Very nice!
If want a little more vegimite, and a slice of cheese, oh boy vegimite and cheese is Great
The hell? Australian here who likes his vegemite like many enjoy their Nutella - thick and flavorful - butter is like putting sugar in your coffee too, ruins the flavour
Too be fair, I've known a few kiwis and aussies to cover their toast with enough marmite/vegemite to knock out a small whale. But yeah, gotta moderate it. You don't start off with cocaine.
See, that just sounds like an inferior food. I could drown a piece of bread in peanut butter and it'd still be delicious.
To me, that means that peanut butter is impotent
American here.
Vegemite and marmite aren't actually that bad. The key is that Americans use WAAAAAY too much. It needs to be a very light amount. It tastes kinda like a mixture of nutritional yeast, olive, and parmesean cheese. But it gets overpowering really, really fast.
I’m an American who likes Vegemite. Teeeeeny later with some margarine on toasted bread, yum!
[deleted]
To be fair, I had an Aussie workmate who taught me how to eat it the right way. Never had it with cheddar though! I should try that.
[deleted]
How does Vegemite compare? I ordered Marmite a while back and got used to the taste fairly quick. If I've got a salt craving, it's up there with soy sauce. I wanna know how Vegemite compares though.
Depends where the marmite is from or which brand it is, I find Vegemite to be saltier than NZ marmite though
nz marmite is very yeasty and bitter whereas vegemite is salty and salty. I regularly eat both, each have their place
If it's UK marmite, the marmite is far stronger
Marmite is "stronger" than vegemite. If you like marmite, imagine a weaker taste, but otherwise very similar. This is for the US (since another poster mentioned flavor being different in different countries).
It's even in the US? I think my Amazon Marmite came from over in Good Boy Point territory.
Vegemite and marmite aren't actually that bad.
It tastes kinda like a mixture of nutritional yeast, olive, and parmesean cheese
I think we have a language problem here.
I too am an American who likes Marmite. My favorite way to eat it is spread as thinly as possible on toast with a runny egg (poached, but fried works too) on top, so you end up with salty, goopy, eggy bread.
American here: vegemite, while not really my cup of tea, is alright. Musk candy, however...
[deleted]
Someone ate potpourri
Marmite's not bad, either. But don't slather it on too thick.
musk is nice!
People always lather on too much when they try it for the first time. You only need a very thin coating. Fuckloads of butter, dump a slice of real cheese (not that plastic crap) on as its still hot so it melts a bit and you can see the Vegemite through it, then go.
Also unreal under eggs on toast.
People who really hate Vegemite their first time usually used way way too much as a spread.
My Aussie friend had me try some. Never again. But fairy bread and Tim Tams are delicious.
Australian Candy?
I once saw a cultural even in Sweden, where they had a BBQ on the Australian stand, beef burger, lamb burger, kangaroo burger? (not too odd I guess), then they had a zebra burger, I sincerely hope that was just grilling it so there are dark strips.
Cultural events always have a weird conception of Australia, but vegemite is the best. <3
I 'stole' a little sample of vegemite from an AirBnB in Ireland and brought it home to try. It's almost been a week of me staring at it and I've yet to build up the courage. One day.
[deleted]
What type of cheese?
Dude, you need to go out and buy some really nice crusty white bread. Toast it, and spread some margarine or butter on and wait for it to melt a bit, then just put the tiniest bit of vegemite on. You want to be able to see almost all of the bread underneath it. Like a fingernail's worth on your knife. That's it. It's fucking delicious.
Report back!
"Sweet Christmas, this better be the kind of candy that's worth betraying my siblings to a witch to after that."
I actually like vegemite, but there's a time and a place for it and in a sandwich peanut butter prevails. It's good on toast if you want to try something other than butter and it's great for cooking if you want to add some umami flavor.
Americans trying to eat vegemite as if it is nutella has always amused me
Australian here who enjoys what you describe - can’t taste it otherwise
Exactly, I don't understand all these Aussies in here saying that everyone only puts a tiny little sliver on top of margarine; I have just as much vegemite on my toast as I would Nutella (if Nutella were anywhere near as good). No margarine either. Just spoils the flavour.
Its all well and fine if you are used to the flavour but if its your first time eating it then its basically like eating a chunk of wasabi or a stick of butter or drinking a cup of Tabasco sauce.
Vegemite is gathered from the basement floor under vegetable processing rooms, condensed from what drips through the floor above.
PS: The bits that cling to the basement ceiling are called vegetites.
Which is worse though, Vegemite or Marmite? Y'all eat some nasty shit scross the ponds
Vegemite just tastes like soy sauce paste to me. Also, my cat likes vegemite.
Vegemite is a good umami taste for sauces and gravies.
Sweetened Road Tar. Vegemite and Kiwi Marmite are foul abominations that should not be permitted.
It definitely shouldn't be eaten on its own. Mix a bit in porridge with an egg or eat it with bread and it's great.
excuse me? vegemite in porridge with an egg?
Yeah, it acts as flavouring for the porridge. My family always ate it with salted duck egg and spam. I don't know if it's an Asian thing or not lol.
Ah, makes sense now you mention being Asian haha. Like congee?
To people without an Asian background, porridge is exclusively a sweet breakfast, adding brown sugar or honey or fruit. So you did have me very confused for a second!!
Oh thanks, I didn't know that! To me porridge is more watery and bland and made with rice and water, and congee is thicker, more savoury and usually made with chicken bones and ginger. I'm not sure what the first one is called now haha.
Ah, righto. To most people of European descent would think of porridge which is made with oats. We would have is made on the stove with milk, so it is creamier and more nutritious, though it can be made with water too. It is nice and thick. You can also make it out of quinoa and other grains.
https://www.aheadofthyme.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/cinnamon-and-walnut-porridge-03.jpg
My Chinese friend liked a porridge made of millet. I think he didn't add anything with it.
Vegemite is certified nasty.
See, your problem with vegemite is that you do it wrong. I'm tired of y'all dipping your finger in that shit and going oh wait it tastes bad.
We think it tastes bad if you just fucking dip your finger in it too!
You make some toast. You put some butter on your toast. You then spread a very, very, thin amount of vegemite on it. You enjoy your fucking vegemite toast made right.
Strong stuff.
Nah, this is just the beginners’ way to get used to it. I only use butter to help the vegemite spread better but have eaten it without butter plenty of times.
Once you get a taste for it you can eat it in pretty large quantities.
Exactly, if it weren’t for vegemite on toast and flat whites, Australia’s GDP would plummet.
I imagine it's like fish sauce. Nasty on its own, but add a little to the right dish and it's great.
You can dip your finger in peanut butter and eat it.
Yum.
This is the right way. From there on, you might like it enough to dip your finger in it or maybe not, but until you've tried it this way you won't know
if it only tastes good in trace amounts when diluted with something that does taste good then it’s a trash condiment.
you can make peanut butter taste good in a wide array of situations and it tastes good no matter how much you eat
I don’t agree with this.
Hot sauce is terrible if you drink a whole cup of it. Truffles are overwhelmingly strong, they’re great if you add a little to a dish. Even salt is only good when you use it sparingly.
I’m sure there’s others but there is such a thing as accenting flavors.
Ah fuck, this chili powder tastes like absolute shit! It's way too spicy.
Wait. Let me add a little less of it to another dish...
I wasn't saying that vegemite was better than peanut butter. I never even mentioned peanut butter in my comment. I, personally, also prefer peanut butter.
I was just pointing out that vegemite tastes good if you don't go overboard. Its a nice salty, savoury spread, it just gets very strong very fast.
[deleted]
Chocolate sauce is a condiment right?
I’m pretty sure Australians wouldn’t try slathering vegemite on a banana anyway. The problem wasn’t the peanut butter, it was costing a banana in it.
I eat Vegemite and banana toast all the time. Vegemite and peanut butter toast even better. Sometimes straight out the jar or tube. Vegemite is the nectar of Gods fucking beautiful
i had a peanut butter banana smoothie this morning it is a match made in heaven
also had peanut butter banana sandwich almost daily throughout high school
[deleted]
Not burned vegetable soup.... burned beer soup
One of those things you make at 3Am after having too much to drink, perhaps?
Yes, and then you flush it...
You forgot that it's transported via sweaty kangaroo pouch from factory to store, but otherwise yes, spot on.
No, it’s brewers yeast from beer production. It’s amazing, I am eating it right now slathered on toast before I go to work.
I’ve never understood how a country that has cheese that sprays out of a can, Krispy Kreme, Hershey’s Chocolate Kisses (they genuinely smell like vomit, not even hyperbole they have that sickly sweet vo it smell and taste), Pop Tarts, Fruit rollups, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and that weird orange cheese can be so disgusted by Vegemite.
The absolute garbage you guys eat! Why is everything sweet? Your bread tastes like it’s made of sugar! Where can I get just actual bread that’s not made of donuts? I ordered a steak once and it came with this sweet sort of sauce slathered all over it. What’s wrong with you?!?
I’ve never understood how a country that has cheese that sprays out of a can
I've never understood how Stephen Fry could keep bringing up spray cheese as if it was a thing people normally consume and not a gimmick food that college students get because of limited fridge space. The first time I had Easy Cheese was Freshman year of college and the last time I had Easy Cheese was Freshman year of college.
Well my friends from Wisconsin that I met in Bangkok when I lived there were hating on vegemite and had some of their favourite stuff sent over for us to try. Number one was spray cheese on crackers, which was his favourite snack.
This guy was mid thirties at the time.
How was it?
I must admit that I can't speak for Wisconsinites except to say that my friends and I decided that deep fried cheese is probably the best food to eat before a beer tasting event. We wanted something that had fat in it, particularly oil, to coat our stomachs. But we didn't want it to be too carb heavy since we were about to drink a lot of carbs. We decided Wisconsinites were on to something.
It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t that bad either. It tastes like liquid Kraft singles. Which is not a good thing, they’re barely cheese.
I ate four or five crackers with it on, but I don’t want to eat it again. It tastes very artificial without being outright disgusting.
I think it's surprisingly decent, but I would never spend money on it. It could be good in a party setting. That said, I can't imagine anyone lists it as their favorite food.
DONT YOU BRING POP TARTS INTO THIS THEYRE TOO GOOD FOR YOU AND TOO GOOD FOR ALL OF US
I have no idea what you're talking about with the bread. Normal white bread in the US is not sweet.
Yes it is, you're just used to the way it tastes. I recently went through every single type of loaf at a local Safeway and couldn't find one without added sugar (or honey). I buy $7 loaves of sourdough to avoid having to make sandwiches with weird, sweetened bread.
You don't have to pay that much. You can get a loaf of sourdough at the 99¢ store.
He should try Japanese white bread if he wants to know what sweet white bread tastes like.
Hawaiian. It's ridiculously sweet over there.
I wonder if there's a connection between Japanese white bread and Hawaiian or if it's a coincidence.
No it really does. I’m sure you can get decent bread in the US if you pay a lot more, but your standard loaves of white bread or even wholemeal are full of high fructose corn syrup or something similar and they taste revolting.
It’s not sweet like a pop tart sweet, but it is sweet in a way bread really shouldn’t be. Perhaps you’re just used to it, and other things are so much sweeter it tastes fine to you? I remember the first time I had a Krispy Kreme donut and it was pretty damn disgusting. I can finish one, but then I don’t feel so great for about an hour.
I think Americans are just used to it, so it’s all about degrees of sweetness and tolerance to that. Which probably explains why the vast majority of Americans find Vegemite impossible to eat. It’s the opposite end of their usual flavour spectrum.
Close, but this doesn't convey the sense of overwhelming rot you get from smelling it. Like if what you described was fermented under the seat of a toilet.
I have a little jar of it on my desk, I can't will myself to try it. Every time I sniff it I nope the fuck out
No joke, my Aussie cube mate had a tube of Vegemite that he'd squeeze straight into his mouth.
That stuff is ratchet (look at me, using slang!)
I watch Steve1989MREInfo on Youtube, he opens old MREs and tries the contents to see how they've held up.
Watching him eat vegemite from the tube was 10x more unsettling than any of the 50-year-old Spam videos
From the tube? Jesus. Does he eat anchovies directly from the jar too? Because they're about equally salty. You're supposed to spread a little bit on something bread-slice-sized and eat it that way.
When I was in high school I was in army cadets and the vegemite and crackers are the best thing in the whole ration pack. And yeah, once I ran out of crackers I’d have the vegemite straight from the tube, it’s the nectar of the savoury gods.
Now that is the wrong way to do it. I'm pretty sure he is a monster. You have to spread a light layer of it over butter and toast.
He said it was from his day in the Aussie infantry unit. That's apparently what they do on marches?
Either way it made me gag, even on toast with butter.
I feel like he's trolling you guys.
Vegemite is designed for incredibly sparing use. A jar will last a year, level of sparing use.
Came here for this - I grew up in the US but my brother went to Australia in high school and brought home a container of Vegemite. When my parents were gone and he was "taking care" of me (he's 6 years older then I am), he would use eating Vegemite as punishment for me... for just about anything I did "wrong".
Oh brothers.
lock that man up and throw away the key that’s inexcusable
That's because you silly cunts don't know how to eat it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_sUhTWtvG4
Vegemite is the pinnacle of toast spreads, it’s not our fault you guys don’t have the sophisticated palates required to handle anything that isn’t pumped full of high fructose corn syrup.
i’m allergic to peanut butter and i still agree
An Australian friend of mine left me with a jar of Vegemite before he left to head back to Australia. I tasted it and couldn't tell if he hated me or if it was done as a good gesture.
[deleted]
Where women glow and men plunder
More chundering than plundering going on.
Vegemite may look like axle grease, but it tastes like axle grease.
That said, I grew up on the stuff and can’t get enough of it.
I put peanut butter in my scrambled eggs. Makes them smoother and taste better. Also makes me look kinda crazy....
I’ll try it tomorrow morning
Before or after you cook them?
Before, I try my best to mix it into the raw eggs and when you poor it into the pan it melts and mixes in with the eggs completely.
Vegemite tastes like seawater.
hold on now, that’s taking it a little far
seawater does not taste nearly that bad
Do you like soy sauce on rice? Same concept. If you use too much it tastes like salty garbage.
No. I don't like that either (but then again, I'm allergic to soy...)
This isn’t a cultural war, it’s a cultural misunderstanding
Only because y'all are too stupid to know not to eat it by the spoonful. It's a SPREAD, spread a thin layer on toast or bread with butter and you're good.
Thems fighting words boy. Dont make us sick Hugh on ya.
Have you ever had a peanut butter and vegemite sandwich? Mmmm that's good eatin'
You won't belive this, but I actually combine peanut butter and marmite (Brittish veggiemite) on toast to create a salty peanut masterpiece.
I like vegemite. It reminds me a bit of miso. A tiny bit on toast is pretty decent. It's vastly inferior to peanut butter, though.
Peanut butter would be death sauce for me..
He was 6 foot 4 and full of muscles. I said do you speak a my language, he just smiled and gave me vegemite sandwich.
haha i just looked it up. looks like the resin i scrape outta my weed pipe.
It's chock full of Niacin too!
You're probably doing it wrong.
This is what I came here to say. You’re talking about how delicious peanut butter is somehow weird when Australian’s are eating soy sauce made into a spread???
The trick is hot toast, heaps of butter and a very small amount of vegimite (about the size of your pinky nail)
We have peanut butter in Australia too
We just don’t slather it all over a banana
It sounds like a fucking pesticide and taste like one too.
Australian peanut butter, sure. You know you're not supposed to start with salted peanuts when making peanut butter, right?
I don't think most people on here make peanut butter themselves...
Salt with peanut butter is fine, it's the other ingredients that make me squirm. It's really hard to find peanut butter without palm oil in it.
No, Reece's Peanut Butter is seriously foul. Most American candy has the same problem. Your candy is loaded with salt, and everything else is loaded with sugar. I have no problem with preservatives, emulsifiers, additives, etc. The best peanut butter I've ever had was some shit imported from China with god-knows-what in it.
I wouldn't consider Reece's typical even for American Peanut Butter
Well that's reassuring, at least.
You can definitely use salted peanuts to make peanut butter, and it’s good as hell.
Australian. Agree. Vegemite is colonialist peasant food.
fuck outta here
I got one! The degradation of the English language.
If you think OP is degrading the English language, you're going after the wrong guy. You should focus your attention on that Shakespeare instead! That crazy fuck is just destroying the English language with all his new-fangled words and phrases like 'elbow', 'break the ice, 'laughing stock', 'sanctimonious', and dozens more!
Hurry! We need you to stop the inevitable evolution of the English language!
He also invented one of your favourite words: “swag”
Vegemite is great but the Australians don't know how to do it. In England (where it's marmite) they do it the right way- firstly, it's only for toast. If you're putting it on anything else, unless it's a specific cooking recipe, you're using it wrong.
The toast needs to be crispy, with an ample layer of butter under the marmite. Then, you dab small amounts of marmite on top. Australians use way to much, it should be treated like a spice, not a sauce.
As an Aussie I've never ever seen vegemite eaten the way you're describing. Maybe young kids and tourists but that is it.
Precisely the problem.
Actually this is how most people eat it, but plenty of us do actually like it as a thick layer too. That said I suspect a lot of people exaggerate to mess with foreigners, when they go overseas. Like when some posh kid who went to private school in Sydney or Melbourne takes a gap year to London and suddenly starts speaking like they grew up on a cattle station in Queensland.
I am American. If they were slathering a banana with peanut butter it is not a snack. It's a mating call.
PB also goes well with apples, celery, and carrots.
And Bacon surprisingly. Five Guys does this ridiculous thing of throwing bacon in their milk shakes, like they suggest it on their menu. I got peanut butter milkshake with bacon and it was the most gluttonous American excess experience, but it was also really good.
I’ve made peanut butter and bacon sandwiches for years. Occasionally I add cream cheese.
Cream Cheese and Bacon are culinary utility players that can work their way into a lot of things and turn out great. When I was in high school I had to work a summer job early in the morning and would stop at McDonalds on the way to get a side order of bacon and 2 apple pies. I would bite off the tip of each pie slide in a slice of bacon and just have a magical morning.
Red delicious is best for apple with peanut butter, in my opinion.
Red delicious is an abomination that shouldn’t exist. Heathen.
I would never eat one out of hand but it's perfect for this. It's crisp and neutral in flavor.
[deleted]
Peanut butter cups (e.g. Reeses)? Peanut butter cups are just a natural evolution of chocolate-coated peanuts (M&M's), less crunch and more Mmmmmm.
You're missing out. Next try peanut butter with Hersheys.
Edit: Alright I get it a lot of you don't like Hersheys. Use Nutella or a chocolate of your own choosing instead then.
When I visited America I was really excited to try Hershey's as it's referenced in so many of my favourite films, but I don't think I've ever been as disappointed in my life. It tastes like vomit :(
This is because of a process called lipolysis that breaks down fats in milk. It creates butyric acid which is also present in vomit. Other American chocolate companies add butyric acid in an attempt to taste more like Hershey's. So American chocolate is essentially vomit-flavored.
I wouldn't go so far as to say vomit. But I do agree that (mass produced cheap) American chocolate is trash.
Edit: I corrected the error of my ways
I wouldn't go so far as to say vomit. But I do agree that American chocolate is trash.
Whoah, lets not go crazy here. The US has good chocolate. Hersheys brand is just extremely cheap low quality chocolate and it's a matter of getting what you pay for. Just don't expect a $1.50 chocolate bar to be gourmet.
This same logic applies to 99% of the things foreigners think about American food. See Kraft American Cheese and McDonalds. We have plenty of good alternatives, you just don't hear about them outside the states.
...Or, even worse, Cheez Whiz. Even Americans don't really think of that as being high quality...or, for the most part, cheese.
It’s good on cheesesteaks and other high fat meaty foods that you eat when you’re drunk or hate yourself. There’s no other reason to ever consume it
Cheez Whiz is just disgusting overly-salty fake MSG crap.
It's not good on anything.
For sure. That said, have you tasted the difference between name brand Cheez Whiz and the alternatives? There's at least some cheese in the product. I don't think the alternatives even try. That said, it used to have a lot more cheese in it. Now it has almost no cheese.
Side note: Cheez Whiz was created for the British market. The idea was to create a cheese sauce for Welsh Rarebit that was a lot less labor intensive. I don't think they succeeded.
Cheez Whiz may not be cheese, but man is it great on sugar cookies.
For what? Stacking them up like bricks?
/r/evenwithcontext
Yeah what in the fuck,can we involuntarily deport this guy?
I am genuinely horrified. That might be the single most vile and repulsive sentence I've read all year.
It's brilliant.
Lol bro what? 😂😂😂
What would be considered a good American chocolate? I can't remember the names of the different types I tried when I was there (I visited Atlanta about 6 years back) but none of them were impressive.
Girl Scout cookies, though? 10/10. Would eat again.
well, keep in mind it's the local/small producers that care about product and quality. There are hundreds of thousands of excellent chocolate makers, beer brewers, ice cream makers, textile producers, etc... etc... in the States that will never be heard of outside of their state, or even town. It's the large corporations with the cash to advertise on an international level.. and their products pretty much universally SUCK beyond imagination.
I've always been an advocate for capitalism and the free market, but something definitely evil is happening in the world today and Hershey's becoming vomit is just one of the many symptoms.
That's true. The thing that I find hard to understand is why mass-produced chocolate brands in the US tend to taste so horrible, while here in the UK there are lots that taste really nice (I'm not sure what it's like in other countries).
There is a process to stabilize used in the US that produces a flavor it seems only some people are sensative to. Tastes like vomit to me. Other US brands (ghiradelli) don't do that, and I like them.
Hersheys has butyric acid in it, the same chemical that's in vomit, parmesan etc. Its a byproduct of the manufacturing process. During world war 2 the government asked hersheys to design a chocolate bar to go in ration kits with a longer shelf life, less melty. It just sort of became the standard. So much so that other chocolate brands started adding the acid to have a similar taste. I would say anecdotally most US adults dont even really like hersheys though. It's just sort of garbage chocolate you eat occasionally, sort of like getting a burger at mcdonalds vs going out to a nice restaurant. You usually only eat it because it's cheap and right there when you check out or you are nabbing it out of a basket of Halloween candy for kids. If I'm going out of my way to buy a chocolate bar I'm getting ghirardelli or lindt, or some other artisanal chocolate that costs more money and tastes better.
Right on cue.
They also pioneered the "fun-sized" bars that are now still ubiquitous in Halloween and gift bags, etc. That has helped them stick around.
Yep
my impression, is that companies in the UK actually care about their brand and reputation more, as opposed to the US where larger corporations care more about where to squeeze the next few pennies from.
Not saying you are wrong about what you are saying as a general rule, but I think Hershey's has always been like that. They made the chocolate bar for the army in WW2, and due to shortages in dairy, as well as cost savings and storage/shipping, they found a way to use other means of making "chocolate". It got popular here because that is what people got used to.
It's like people that like spam. Is it terrible tasting? No, but I don't like it either. But I didn't grow up on it. I know people that love it.
Yeah, a lot of things are like that. I'm pretty sure that if I was trying Kraft Mac and Cheese right now as an adult, I would think it looks/smells/tastes pretty gross. But I've been eating it since childhood, and it's a comfort food for me, and I love it.
I doubt it, considering our two biggest mass produced chocolate brands, Galaxy and Dairy Milk, are owned by Mondelez and Mars respectively - both American corporations.
Hershey's has always been vomit and it has nothing at all to do with the spooky ghost of capitalism. The Hershey Process uses Butryic Acid to stabilize the milk in the chocolate, which allowed Milton Hershey to produce the first mass produced chocolate bar. Butryic Acid also contributes to the distinctive taste of vomit. It has tasted like vomit since 1900.
thanks obama
I mean, Ghiradelli is pretty yummy. But I'm American so I could just be used to it.
Ghiradelli is where it's at for US based chocolate. Made in California I'm pretty sure
The San Francisco treat!
Isn't that Zatarans?
GUITTARD IS SUPERIOR!
I like it somewhat because it is about the only widely available chocolate that isn't god awful. That said, it is abysmal for cooking. As with any truly American food, it has too much sugar in it. It ruins everything. Brownies, cake, ice creams, or whatever. Their boxed desserts are fine for some reason. If the dish is dependent on sugar for structure (especially ice cream) it is ruined. Hershey actually has better baking chocolate. It's just cocoa powder. You can open a bag of baking chocolate from Ghiradelli and see sugar mixed into the powder. Why would they do that?
(American here) Baking chocolate in America shouldn't be a powder, though. It's a bar that you melt and stir in, and it indeed contains no sugar. It should be just cocoa solids mixed with cocoa butter.
Cocoa powder or baking cocoa is a powder, and it's supposed to be powdered dry cocoa solids.
I have never seen Ghiardelli's as a powder in a bag. Like, ever. Do you have a link to a picture or an Amazon page?
Also saying "it's terrible for baking because it has too much sugar" is kind of wierd. There isn't just one Ghiardelli chocolate. I mean they make 100% cacao baking chocolate that doesn't have an ounce of sugar in it. Maybe OP just bought the wrong thing.
Yeah I believe Ghiradelli even makes a semi-sweet bar intended for baking.
https://www.ghirardelli.com/chocolate-and-gifts/baking/100-unsweetened-ground-cocoa-%288-oz%29-61703
Oh hey look at that. It exists! TIL.
And linked on that page I found https://www.ghirardelli.com/chocolate-and-gifts/baking/sweet-ground-cocoa-%28105-oz%29-61702 which is the same thing but sweetened
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Ghirardelli-Chocolate-Premium-Baking-Cocoa-Sweet-Ground-10-5-OZ/26441133
For hot chocolate. They make unsweetened cocoa powder. You just bought the wrong thing.
No, I can read. This was in the baking section.
https://www.ghirardelli.com/chocolate-and-gifts/baking/baking-cocoa
You bought the sweetened stuff. I've only ever seen the unsweetened cocoa at my local grocery store.
Sarris chocolate is delicious. That might just be a Pittsburgh thing tho.
My parents were raised in Canonsburg. I was raised on Sarris!
This yinzer agrees. Sarris is amazing. I don’t see too many other fellow Pittsburgh folks on reddit, so hello there!.
Fellow yinzer checking in to agree about Sarris!
Had to Google it, yea it looks like just in PA. I might have to place an order though, looks yummy.
As a EU citizen: Ghirardelli Chocolate Squares are pretty legit in my opinion.
See's Candy or Ghirardelli to name two.
Yeah. See's is pretty good stuff. Very rich and fatty.
Tcho is my pick. But there are dozens and dozens of good options.
I don't know how widely known it is, but Sarris Candies is a good brand.
Hershey's Special Dark is acceptable for occasional snacking, although if you compare it to top-shelf Belgian or Swiss chocolates, you will be disappointed.
Or even compare it to top-shelf American chocolates. Even the Special Dark is the McD's of chocolate.
Russel Stover makes good candy. Also I have to say I think m&ms don't suck. Don't try malted milk balls though. They are terrible.
[deleted]
I'll have to take your word on that. I can't ever associate them with anything other than yuck.
Oh that fingernails on the chalkboard sensation.. in your mouth!! No thanks, Satan.
I'm glad somebody else gets this, it's the same reason I can't eat cereal with "marshmallows". People always look at me like I'm insane when I turn down lucky charms and the like.
Guittard, Chocolove, Ghiradelli,
As an American, the only American chocolate I like is Ghiradelli.
Condolences for going to Atlanta
Ha! It was actually fun, although not hugely impressive. I went to visit my girlfriend at the time so it was worth it on that alone.
My favourite part was walking to the nearby Piggly Wiggly to buy some groceries while she was in class one day, to make her dinner that night. The staff had to help me figure out the money, and were super nice about it. The accents, the hospitality and the sheer fact that there's a shop called a Piggly Wiggly made me feel super Southern for a hot second.
Piggly Wiggly is also all over Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, so it's not just a southern store
A) I appreciate your usage and recognition of Southern culture; I presume your girlfriend at the time is responsible.
B) It is not an impressive city, is very hot, and has horrific traffic. But I'm glad you had a pleasant experience. It does have a few cool things like Coca Cola and the Georgia Aquarium... that's about it.
C) Even though it seems you are no longer dating
girlfriend at the time
you are welcome to come back and visit the south anytime!
No longer dating, but still acquaintances and consider her a great girl, so I have fond enough memories that I would definitely come back!
Yeah American chocolate sucks, it's why they bought Cadburys.
Cadburys has gone downhill though. Much more waxy now.
I don't even think it's just because I've grown up. It's literally not chocolate anymore, it's "Chocolate product" because the cocoa% has gone down too low.
I just bought some recently and it tasted as good as I remember.
Eh. Maybe my tastes did change too much. I just heard it from others too so I thought it wasn't just me.
I don't think it's bad, but I'm a 70%+ person.
Yeh and I suppose it’s cheaper to export the cheap shit than the good stuff
Clearly you haven't had Aldi brand chocolate, it's cheap and delicious.
True, true.
Aldi generally has very good stuff. It's totally worth it to try stuff, either as a substitute for your normal brand, or even new things.
There was a thread on where to get the best chocolate in Berlin and a local said they skip all the overpriced tourist chocolate and go for Aldi's brand
LOL...
For everyday chocolate, Ritter Sport is pretty awesome too... Aldi is probably the best value (Preis-Leistung).
Source: I lived in Germany for 15+ years.
But for these purposes, Aldi chocolate is cheap and good where Hershey Chocolate is cheap and gross.
I'm with you...
Oh for sure, I didn't mean to shoot down Ritter Sport, it's just we have Aldi stores in the US and they import from Germany so I only can compare Aldi chocolate.
About the size of a good sardine.
But at the same time, the UKs extremely cheap low quality chocolate equivalents (Galaxy, Dairy Milk) are better than Hershey's.
I agree we're not comparing gourmet to gourmet, but even mass market to mass market American chocolate is sub-par. Sure you have great chocolate at higher price points, but the vast majority of people aren't eating that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8414488.stm Basically the UK says it has to have 20% Cocoa to be called chocolate and the US says 10%.
Anecdotally the people in my life don't really eat Hershey's. If they buy chocolate they pay up for good stuff, but mostly they just don't eat chocolate much.
Dairy Milk is marketed as higher end here lol. I like it.
Kraft American Cheese
You shut your dirty mouth
According to my Grandfather, Hershey bars used to be really good when they first came out. He said he couldn't hold on to the damn thing for too long before it turned to mush. He often kept them in the "ice box". Then they kept adding wax to it until it was "disgusting" and he never bought one again.
It's true - but cheap chocolate is still better elsewhere. Cadburys or Milka or Ritter beats Hershey's. Mind you Americans make the best sugary crap to put inside said cheap chocolate hands down
Champlain Chocolates out of Vermont makes some great stuff.
But sometimes your just in the mood for a shitty cheeseburger....
First read through I thought you were bashing kraft Mac n cheese and I was about to yeti scream.
Kraft American cheese still tastes good imo, just not like cheese. It’s its own thing.
Yeah I've never eaten a kraft single and thought "Man, this is some good cheese!" and I don't lay it out with the brie and the gouda when I'm making a cheese plate, but it's got its own distinctive flavor that works as a kind of cheesy/salty thing. Plus it melts really well, so it's a go to as a part of my cheese blend for a melt or a grilled cheese.
Known as "cheese food product" ... they can't call it "cheese".
Most, if not all chocolate that's available at a gas station is garbage.
I mean I don’t expect a $1.50 bar to be gourmet. I just expect it to be decent.
You can go there. It contains butrytic acid, which is what gives vomit it's smell.
For €2 you can get a nice bar of Lindt chocolate. It's not that expensive to get good chocolate.
It was invented during the depression with a special proprietary method where they could use old milk and still make it edible, so poor people could afford chocolate.
Well when you get significantly better tasting chocolate for the same price or cheaper it's easy to call American chocolate trash.... Which it absolutely is. Ain't nobody out here comparing gourmet shit.
That's the point. In my country I do expect a 1.50 euro bar to be nice. Maybe not super amazing, but it definitely should be nice at that price point. The shit bars that taste like sugary shit here cost like 20-30 cents.
McDonalds tastes good though. Especially their hash browns and fries.
Most of the garbage "food" is heavily marketed in America, on top of usually being the cheapest option.
People in America are also heavily addicted to sugar Source: am American currently withdrawing from sugar
I can get 45 cent chocolate bar that does not taste like shit though.
*vomit
It's a feature, not a bug.
I agree and you're correct. I was wrong to generalize.
Our £1 Cadbury’s are great tho
I really would, I get a distinctly vomitty kind of taste from it...
Edit: Interestingly, it looks like I'm not the only one that gets that: https://www.elitedaily.com/news/hersheys-chocolate-chemical-in-vomit/1765784
I mean, that's also found in cheeses, but that's not a great selling point for chocolate.
[deleted]
Damn you
Had chocolate cheesecake before, more like frozen chocolate icing than cheesecake.
Poorly made then.
It was for milk chocolate to not spoil so quickly so that it could be mass produced and afforded by poor people. Then they got used to the taste and they Lee it in because it’s the distinct Hershey’s taste and some Americans prefer it.
I dislike the cheeses where it is in concentration; cheddar, cream cheese. All vomity.
Literally never heard either of those described as vomit tasting. Weiiiird
Taste develops as you age. European chocolate tastes expired and bitter to me.
Sure you're not eating dark chocolate? Dunno how you could eat something like Lindt or Cadbury, and think that.
They're both sweeter and creamier than any US made choc.
EDIT: I should have said any mainstream, mass produced US made chocolate.
Oh I know, I've just loved cheddar my whole life and never heard that complaint before, blew my mind a little. Being from the Midwest might have something to do with it.
I don't like most chocolate anymore, unless it's in milk or milkshake form. Just way way too sweet.
Try mixing it with vanilla, it balances it out.
Maybe I'm give it a shot. It's not the worst thing in the world that I stay away from chocolate though, haha.
Everything in moderation. :)
[deleted]
That's fair, but in this case it's an acid that also gives parmesan its distinctive smell, so... Not as understandable.
[deleted]
I wasn't trying to "own" anyone I was pointing out a fallacy that leads to false conclusions. Tell me what is wrong with that??
This is ask reddit not /r/funny. Getting things right does actually matter. Seems it's more about agreeing with everything said.
I went for a trip to the US and brought back Hershey's for my friends to try, since I'd heard about the vomit thing. About half the non-US people who tried it tasted the vomit flavour, myself included, the rest just thought it was regular unremarkable milk chocolate.
just thought it was regular unremarkable milk chocolate.
Because that's what is. Americans do not take Hershey's that seriously at all. We would not recommend it to anybody looking for the best chocolate.
It's the cheap chocolate you take camping or give out a ton of at boring parties.
Yep. It’s used as a cheap chocolate for whatever you want chocolate for. I only ever get it for s’mores.
Also, I routinely bring up the “vomit” thing to people if ever snack size Hershey’s are around because I think it’s blown about 200 percent out of proportion, and most people usually look at me like I’m crazy.
I can “see” where people are coming from with that characterization, but I wouldn’t even call it vomit, it’s just an acidic, almost sour bite. In fact I brought this up to my GF the other day and had her try it. She of course couldn’t taste it, so I pointed out that acidic bite and she said, “Okay?”
Honestly I think the whole thing is propagated by pretentious Europeans who want some objective proof that our chocolate in inferior to theirs when in reality nobody in the US is under any delusion that Hershey’s is good chocolate.
Honestly I think the whole thing is propagated by pretentious Europeans who want some objective proof that our chocolate in inferior to theirs when in reality nobody in the US is under any delusion that Hershey’s is good chocolate.
I am European, living in the US. There's definitely a hint of butyric acid flavour in Hershey's. Part of the reason why it's so obvious might be because at least where I'm from everyone who goes through basic chemistry class in high school has to handle it at least once and it is the worst thing ever.
That said, it's definitely just a hint and does not literally taste like vomit. I think that's just a more noticeable thing because most people would not expect even that hint in any kind of chocolate at all. I don't think it has anything to do with being pretentious, Americans seem to get very defensive about this.
I actually mostly buy Hershey's now, it's super cheap in most stores and I enjoy the flavour a lot nowadays.
> I am European, living in the US. There's definitely a hint of butyric acid flavour in Hershey's. Part of the reason why it's so obvious might be because at least where I'm from everyone who goes through basic chemistry class in high school has to handle it at least once and it is the worst thing ever.
I agree that there is a suggestion of something "odd" derivative of the process they use I think for the milk - the butyric acid flavor. I don't want to make it seem that I disagree. But generally the way it's presented is as if it's a straight up completely intolerable analogue for vomit and that's entirely hyperbolic and "oh my gosh Americans are trash at chocolate."
I wish I could say it didn't feel like a pretentious jab, but it does, mostly because it's always followed up by how Europeans know "real chocolate." And they do, but so do many Americans. It just happens to be trendy to piss on Americans at the moment, and it's derisive. I think the reason we get defensive is just a natural response to being criticized. It's like when you're with your girlfriend and your parents are "reminiscing" about how you were such a slobby person growing up and how your room was always a disaster. In reality, your room was actually clean, but your mother's being dramatic because she was anal about the smallest out of place item. But according to her, it was atrocious, which is now what your girlfriend might believe which reflects poorly on you.
Hershey's is a staple and one that many Americans enjoy for different occasions. It doesn't taste like vomit, though it has a bit of an acidic bite. It's not reflective of the average American's idea of what chocolate is. My biggest frustration honestly is just the anti-American sentiment that I can't help but feels laces this conversation every time it happens.
Don't take this the wrong way but Americans also do get really defensive when it comes to just the hint of being criticised. Imagine it from the other side, decades of being told "America number 1!"and similar things. Some of my American friends get defensive the second you imply America might not be perfect or at least better than the rest of the world in many aspects. They're also equally quick to judge every other country immediately though, no matter how much they actually now about it.
American belief in exceptionalism seems to have done a number on a few of its citizens.
It's just chocolate. Some people like it, some don't. And if you're not used to that quite different taste I can totally see where it'd be even gross to some people. Like I said, I got used to it and even like it now. But Americans for example keep bitching about what they perceive as English food, and its grossly untrue as well.
I wish we could all just get along haha.
No, there really is a vomit like flavour. At least in hershey kisses which is the only version I've tried.
It varies by person. Same with Cilantro. Some people swear it tastes like soap. I don't get that at all, though.
That's different, coriander flavour tasting like soap is completely genetic, whereas the vomit flavour I think depends on if you were brought up eating it or not and so are used to it.
But yeah, coriander is fucking shite.
Nah man cilantro is da bomb
I’m not going to argue, I can understand why people might think so, but it’s far, far overstated. If it wasn’t, Hershey’s wouldn’t sell any chocolate. They’re not in business because people are stupid or have gutter palettes.
I mean no one here at least in my experience really acts like Hershey's is gourmet chocolate, it's chocolate you can buy at a gas station.
Ive had that cadbury milk chocolate that they sell in the uk, It wasnt any good either. Lindt or godiva were way better.
Because some Americans bought Cadbury's and ruined it.
Yea Cadbury's tasted much better 5 or 6 years ago. The shape of the pieces, the packaging, the taste idk just all changed... I still eat it though.
I still like Cadbury. Hell, I still like American Cadbury.
This is true. NZ Cadbury was good when I was there a few years ago, but I heard that got bought out too.
We have good stuff but yeah the big ones are trash. Lowest quality everything, tons of refined sugar. The first 1 euro chocolate bar I bought overseas was definitely a surprise, tasted like a $10 bar from a specialty shop over here.
Yeah, it's the butyric Acid like the article says. It's from the way they process the dairy. I can't eat Hershey's since my palette is sensitive to it. The best nationwide chocolate (meaning it's in grocery stores across the country) you can get in the US is likely Ghirardelli.
Some scotch is heavy in Butyric acid as well. I bought a bottle once that made me gag just from smelling and my mom was completely unphased and thought it was good.
I'll second that Ghirardelli is much better. Definitely avoid the US versions of Cadbury.
US Cadbury thought it would be a good idea to emulate Hershey "because that's what everyone likes".
No. We don't.
Im with you. Literally vomit flavour. My mum brought me a bag of hersheys kisses from her first trip to america and i went from "yay chocolate" to "the fuck is this shit" almost instantly.
It's because it's made with butyric acid, which is found in vomit (among other things)
History lesson, they used an ingredient that allowed them to make the bars cheaper(possibly in order to use older milk products) during WW2 but it made them taste kind of awful, after the war they went back to using actual good ingredients, and the people revolted - "It doesn't taste like I remember it during the War!!" so they added that taste back in. Hersheys also makes chocolate without that ingredient, but their mainstream ones have it.
I thought I was the only one... candy kisses have a bile like after taste.
When Hershey’s first made milk chocolate, it was a trade secret in Switzerland and he tried to replicate it. The only way he could do it was with a lactic acid fermentation, which gives it the sourness. Americans were excited to have chocolate in the US and they adjusted to the flavor. But I’m in total agreement, Hershey’s sucks. Best IMO is Freia (Norwegian)
Nehaus Belgian chocolate is really good.
For the curious, Freia is awful and OP's is just biased to local food, like the Americans who don't taste the literal, chemically-identical vomit aspects of Hershey's. Daim, however, is well worth checking out if you happen across an IKEA.
Yeah definitely vomit. It’s the acid they use to cut down on the amount of cocoa they have to use. American chocolate is fucking awful.
I got heartburn just from reading this comment.
Maybe I don't vomit enough because Hershey's never tasted like vomit to me.
But it is bad chocolate.
I like the small chocolate shop near me that makes theirs on site and it's magnificent.
I wanted some chocolate for my husband's birthday and they didn't have enough of his favorite. They said come back in ten minutes, we'll make some.
I got a full box, twelve, of the freshest chocolate possible.
“Maybe I don’t vomit enough” lol
I totally agree that the stuff tastes bad but that article is incredibly badly thought out. Saying Hersheys contains a substance also found in vomit sounds bad, but vomit is disgusting because of where it comes from, not what it's ingredients are.
Hersheys also contains water, a chemical that makes up the vast majority of vomit. Water is also known as dihydrogen monoxide, and you'd be amazed how many satirical articles scare people by saying things like "Dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is fatal! DHMO is ubiquitous in our environment!". Clever wording can do clever things.
If your vomit is full of water, then that just means you're ingesting too much of the stuff. Cut that toxin out of your diet, and maybe you won't puke as much.
in other news:
It's probably the acidity.
Yup...100% vomit.
No, kidding. Huh, that's weird. Kinda disgusting too. I haven't had American chocolate in years though I don't like the taste of them. I don't remember any vomit taste though so maybe this is a recent development?
Edit: I get nearly 600 upvotes for saying American chocolate is trash and downvoted for saying I don't like the taste of American chocolate. Reddit is a strange place. Lol
It's been that way for years. The "rumour" in the industry (i.e. probably not a rumour but good luck getting them to admit it) is that it was a side effect of the original factory - either location or shoddy chemical practices - and that when they removed it, the consumer didn't like it because it tasted different. So they added it to the recipe.
It doesn't really do anything from a technical perspective, in the same way that Australian chocolate contains specific chemicals to prevent it from melting etc. It's just for taste.
TIL
Thanks, for teaching me something new.
Your vomit must be delicious.
That would probably explain the distinctive vomity taste I get from the liquid nacho cheese at Taco Bell.
American chocolate isn't trash, the lowest bottom-of-the-barrel brand is trash. There is tons of excellent chocolate being made here. Saying American chocolate is all trash is like ignoring the amazing micro-brew industry and judging all American beer by Bud Light.
Yeah but the cheap affordable chocolate is trash. I like to judge on that. When I went to Germany, on my last day I only had 20€ left so I went to the grocery store to see how much chocolate I could bring back and I was able to buy and entire grocery bag full of really really GOOD chocolate. I had souvenirs for all my family and friends
Nestle/Hershey isn't the only cheap chocolate in the United States.
Do you have any recs then? I don’t consider over $2/bar cheap
Dove makes good, cheap, chocolate. You find Ghirardelli bars for a few bucks sometimes too.
Which they will happily do! How erudite.
You're correct. I only meant mass produced chocolate and never considered small batch and local/family chocolate business. I was wrong to generalize.
5 of the top 10 finest chocolatiers in the world are American.
Nope. It's just Hershey and Busch Light in America. We are so lame!
And they're all trash....
No, but you're right. I shouldn't have made such a broad statement. There certainly are good chocolates here in the USA. However, most aren't going to be found in the impulse buy section of the check out lane. I was referring more to chocolates like that and I was wrong to do so.
If you think American Chocolate is trash...you need to try chocolate from China
No it really does taste like vomit. Butyric acid - google it.
There is a lot of excellent chocolate in the USA. Such as Moonstruck Chocolate in Portland. Lots of other companies make good chocolate.
There is plenty of good chocolate made in America. Just because the most popular chocolate is bad doesn't mean it all is.
Actually no, I'd agree, I've tried Hershey's twice, and vomit is weirdly apt.
Like many things, American mass market chocolate is trash, but goddamn America makes good chocolate if you want to look for it. My town has multiple small batch chocolatiers and it’s amazing.
It’s sorta like judging American beer on Budweiser. Yeah, Bud’s a cheap, shitty beer that you can get everywhere. But America is also full of good beer. It’s be like judging Belgian beer on Stella (which to be fair is better than Bud).
You're right. I should have been more specific and said mass market chocolate, that's my fault. I realize there's local shops and as you mentioned small batch shops that are Superior to the mass market stuff.
Hershey’s is trash. You guys, we have 6,000 toothpaste choices...what makes you think there’s only one kind of chocolate?
Ghirardelli
Hershey's is trash, Ghirardelli is delicious.
We make some excellent chocolate in the states. Among the best in the world. It just isn't available at 7-11 and such.
I think it has to be so generic and have so many preservatives, it can be transported anywhere in the US and not melt. When I went to Ireland, I was pleasantly surprised to find out how creamy their chocolate was compared to ours. But then again, their climate is a lot cooler, so it doesn't have to withstand the hot temperatures of a desert.
Oh, yes! The chocolate in Ireland is amazing. We had a lay over in Shannon Ireland on our way to Germany and was able to get out and stretch out legs so I bought thing of Butler's dark chocolate with Irish whiskey in the terminal, because I mean.... Why not? But didn't open them until I was back on the plane and was so sad I didn't get more.
We have good chocolate. It's just not cheap.
To be fair to American chocolate, Hershey's is pretty much bottom tier American chocolate. It's mass produced and cheap but you can get much better chocolate pretty much anywhere in the country.
Do you guys have Milka? Or how does your chocolate compare to Milka?
It is anymore, vast majority isn't even really chocolate and they've started inflating the prices on the not-chocolate. You can get good chocolate here, but it's usually more gourmet/smaller label and a lot pricier.
But I do agree that American chocolate is trash.
It really isn't. Much like beer, you just need to stay away from crap like Hershey's.
To judge all American chocolate based on Hershey's is akin to judging all Australian food by Vegemite. There are a lot (A LOT) better chocolate companies in the US.
It's a real shocker to the tastebuds if you're not used to it. When you've known the taste of good chocolate since childhood and you taste Hersheys there's clearly stuff in there that doesn't belong.
No it literally does..
It contains butyric acid which is found in vomit.
I’m american and even I think it tastes like vomit.
For those looking for great American chocolate, come to the Seattle, Washington area! We have several excellent chocolatiers including Seattle Chocolates, Theo’s, Frans, and Dilettante.
I'll add that to my list of things to do when I'm up that way. I'm always willing to change my opinions on things and willing to try new things for that purpose.
That’s a great attitude to have. If you end up here, the Theo Chocolate Factory has a tour for $10 that happens multiple times a day and you get free samples! They’re pretty cool because they really focus on the cocoa beans and ensuring that they are being benefitting the farmers and being environmentally conscious.
Well most americans are used to it so they like it. I know that I like it. But I don't generally have much foreign chocolate.
vomit is correct, they add butyric acid to the process
Am I the only person who likes Hershey’s and European chocolate?
Nope my wife loves Hershey's chocolate and doesn't like the dark European stuff I buy.
I wouldn't go so far as to say vomit.
The flavor is actually due to butyric acid, which is what makes vomit smell like vomit. So, it's not that far off.
In the early 20th century, there was difficulty getting milk to the chocolate factories before it spoiled. They got around this process by adding butyric acid to the milk to create a controlled spoilage. It had the side effect of making American chocolate tangy. The problem is that Americans got used to this tang. Chocolate is a bit of a drug, so if you mix it with a slightly sour taste, people will crave that sour. Some Americans hate European chocolate for that reason. Hershey's gets fresh milk delivered daily. But if they changed their recipe, people would turn away.
So, there was originally a reason for it. So, that's cool. Now I'm wondering what's wrong with my taste buds that I've never noticed this flavor before.
Did you grow up eating it?
I can't say I did but not for lack of access to it. I never really liked candy growing up so I didn't eat much of anything. It wasn't until I got older (older teens, younger 20s) that I started to get a sweet tooth. I don't buy one specific thing on a regular basis though, I'd rather try all kinds of different things.
OK. I kind of like Hershey's, but don't prefer it. It's still chocolate, if a bit sour.
It comes from them "recycling" milk that has gone bad. I don't know if they still do but yes, Hersheys was using rotten milk in their chocolate. I could always taste that rotten milk too. No Hersheys for me, tyvm.
Saying Hershey's is representative of American chocolate is akin to saying Bud Light is representative of American beer. What could you honestly expect from cheap, mass produced food?
Hershey's was what was mentioned in the post before mine. However, I took that and generalized all chocolate beyond just the Hershey's brand by saying American chocolate. As in, American chocolate in general tastes like trash not just Hershey's. My dislike of American chocolate is a personal opinion, however, as others have pointed out, there is something up with Hershey's specifically.
Why would you use so many words to say so little?
Just to give you something to do. Clearly you're lacking in that department since you spend your time complaining about things that don't matter.
Edit: added more, larger, words for my own entertainment.
you're lacking in that department since you spend your time complaining about things that don't matter.
what, like chocolate?
You're absolutely correct. I won't bother you any further so that you can get back to curating your booger collection.
It's a toenail collection, how many times do I have to tell you?
It literally is, though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-4155658/The-real-reason-American-chocolate-tastes-terrible.html
[deleted]
Sick burn, dude!
[deleted]
Wisconsin makes some of the finest cheeses on the entire planet. They are a bit famous for it. You are the epitome of a uninformed foreigner stereotype.
That we do.
When I visited America I was really excited to try Hershey's as it's referenced in so many of my favourite films
This is called product placement. Product placement is not your friend. Do not trust product placement under any circumstances.
Except for Coca Cola. Greatest thing to come out of Georgia.
Surprise... this is a Tide ad.
My friend widespread diabetes would like to have a word with you
I don't care for plain hershey's chocolate but it works well in s'mores. Saw a YouTube video of some euros trying to make s'mores with all gourmet ingredients. To experience the authentic American lifestyle you need to make s'mores with store brand Graham crackers, cheapo marshmallow and hershey's.
but it works well in s'mores
Nah. We made them with caramel Ghiradellis and let me tell you, we're never going back.
Grew up in America. Even sugar-addicted child-me knew that Hershey’s was somebody’s sick joke. It’s heinous without even needing to compare it to anything
it does have a vomit taste like bile.
After living in Europe for two years, I can't eat Hershey's anymore. It's garbage.
As a Belgian who lived in the US for 7 years I can relate. I tasted that chocolate ONCE. And it tastes like cheese. It's beyond fucked. It would literally be illegal to call it chocolate in Europe. I'm not kidding, there are laws against that.
This!!!
Hershey's the worst!! I lived 4 years in the US and people swore by it and could only eat that stinking "chocolate". It is so gross! And it's not like you can't buy good chocolate.
Am American, can confirm Hershey’s is absolute shit. I only eat milka chocolate
Hershey's is like McDonalds. Pervasive and terrible. The US does have some really amazing artisanal chocolate, though! Hard to find outside of cities/fancy stores, though.
Oh man, Hershey's is gross. So sickly and bland.
Don't get the vomit association.
Hershey's processes the milk that's used for its milk chocolate using some trade secret process (likely to make the chocolate more shelf stable) but the process results in butyric acid being created. This gives Hershey's milk chocolate a sour, 'tangy' flavor that's recognizable to Americans as they grew up eating it, but for those tasting Hershey's chocolate for the first time the butyric acid flavor can come as a surprise. Butyric acid has slightly sweaty smell and flavor and can be found in hard cheeses such as parmesan or aged cheddar, but it's also found in vomit so that's the association that some people make when tasting milk chocolate for the first time.
Huh, I've never heard of this before, and never noticed any vomit flavor in Hershey's.
I see. Thanks for the explanation. I notice the slightly sour taste if I look for it but guess I like it.
There's a strong aftertaste that is exactly like vommit. I tried it once and never again.
The chemical process Hershey invented to conch the chocolate involves a chemical frequently found in vomit.
One of the ingredients (I believe one of the ones used to make it look like "chocolate" rather than brown sludge) is literally the main thing you taste in vomit.
Dunno I don't taste it. Its good, relatively cheap and only 50 calories a pop. 2 with tea in the evening is a good way to unwind after a long day.
If you're American, you can't taste the Butyric acid. Apparently Americans are so used to it that it's added on purpose. Possibly even to other chocolates, which is why Europeans hate American chocolate so much.
It literally has an aftertaste that tastes like vomit to me.
It's not that it actually tastes like vomit, to me at least, it gives me that exact same feeling in the back of my throat like I've just vomited.
Pop in a piece of room temp Hersheys, and just let it melt on your tongue, no chewing. Focus on what you're tasting. You might notice the hint of Parmesan.
Fucking true af. Disappointed 12/10.
Hershey adds butyric acid which gives it a tangy or vomit flavor. If you grew up with it, it isn’t that bad but I never go out of my way for it. There are slightly more expensive American brands that are significantly better tasting to me, but they are admittedly not as widely available (I.e they aren’t in vending machines or smaller convenience stores).
Yeah it's not Cadbury's the og chocolate
Exactly how I feel! Whenever someone asks me why I don’t like American milk chocolate I tell them it’s because it tastes like the taste you get in your mouth after throwing up. Specifically Hershey’s. I can sometimes do it if it has nuts in it but I just stick to dark chocolate in America.
You need the milk chocolate kind.
See we're luck in Canada as we have Dairy Milk and some awesome milk chocolate bars.
Used to live close to Hershey PA where the hersheys factory is. Can vouch that it tastes terrible. Best way to describe it, is that it has a waxy taste to it
Can confirm. Travelled to the US, tried Hersey's. Didn't finish the first bar, had to throw away the second one.
I had never thrown away chocolate in my life before, but it really did taste like vomit :-(
Hershey's is owned by Nestle.
If you're from literally anywhere in Europe, your chocolate is infinitely better than Hershey's. Infinitely.
That's because they originally used slightly soured milk. People got used to the taste so they couldn't change it later, and now intentionally add a sour milk flavor.
Yep went to America very dissapointed with most of the food it's either smothered in cinnamon ,peanut butter or bacon then we gotta deep fry whatever We have made 😩
It's no Vegemite
Hersheys is great in collaboration with something else, but terrible by itself. Kind of like Velveeta
They use a poor quality milk powder so it tastes like spoiled milk
The only time I like Hershey's is on s'mores, honestly. I think the s'mores industry has kept them relevant.
I keep reading how Hershey's wouldn't even be classified as chocolate/a sweet elsewhere.
No, the thing that tastes like vomit is Taco-flavored Doritos... but strangely they're good anyway and I still like them. My daughter and I just refer to them as "Vomit chips".
It actually has some sort of chemical or acid or something in it that is also found in vomit so you thinking that is not as wild as you think.
Hersheys candy does suck, but hersheys icecream is the bomb. See if you can try a hersheys icecream parlor
They actually make it with chemically soured milk to keep it on the shelves longer.
Yeah. Hershey's is ghetto. Marketing works, I guess.
Tbf, Hershey's tastes very different depending on how you get it. The chocolate bars are not good except with graham crackers and marshmallows that have been heated over a wood flame. The old school Hershey's syrup in a can was amazing.
Hershey is trash chocolate. It is popular here because it is very cheap and is very shelf stable. It is also just very heavily advertised, like in those movies. No one I know actually takes it seriously.
I don't taste the vomit personally, though it does have an odd taste, like it is a little off somehow, just not in a way I would describe as vomit.
I walways thought this was weird. I like Hershey's (not like crazy about it but it's fine) and have never gotten the vomit flavor but I hear this complaint all the time. I guess if you don't grow up eating other kinds of chocolate its more noticeable.
Is that what your vomit tastes like? Mind if I have a taste?
Hershey’s taste like vomit to some people (mostly people unaquatinted to American chocolate) because of the milk they use.
It’s part of why Hershey is located where it is, Milton strategically created his factory next to dairy farms so that he could use fresh milk in the chocolate making process, which no other chocolate companies were doing, and Hershey is still the only chocolate company to use fresh milk in their chocolate (aside from small artisanal brands that are popping up, I can’t speak for them).
It sort of came to define the American chocolate taste because along with a very distinct texture the milk helped give the chocolate during the process of tempering, it gave the chocolate a distinct “tangy” flavor.
This became so definitive as the chocolate taste in America the competing chocolatiers started to try to slightly mimicking the taste by adding in different levels of butyric acid, which breaks down fatty acids in milk products.
It’s going to be more noticeable to some and less to others. All depends on people tasting profiles. But the vomit taste is actually quiet subjective, like Japanese people hating root beer.
I grew up in the US, but I never much cared for Hersheys. Other candy bars are much better.
I don't care for the chocolate bar. But, if you get the almond or peanut chocolate bar it tastes so much better.
It is terrible, it's really only ok as a pairing with other foods (peanut butter, almonds/caramel, situated inside a S'mores bar). If you want to feel better about Hershey's, try their Symphony bars - much more "milkier" and similar to European chocolate.
American here. I lived in England finishing high school in 2003-2004, it was there that I learned that the Brits almost exclusively hate Hershey's chocolate. My music teacher was the one who introduced me to the term "vomit-chocs".
My American friend and I were so taken aback, that we ate a bunch of Hershey's kisses in a row to see what they were talking about. After about 5 or 6 you can start to see what they mean, and the taste starts to go south. I'll still eat Hershey's since I grew up with it, but if I think about this phenomenon when I'm eating it, I DEFINITELY can see what the Brits mean.
FYI, there are MUCH better chocolates from America than Hershey's (Ghiradelli comes to mind), but Hershey's is best known because it's everywhere and very cheap. The taste is more of a "spoiled/old milk" sort of taste than vomit IMO, but I totally get where they're saying.
TLDR - Cadbury's chocolate is far superior to Hershey's and I miss it.
Unfortunately the recipe of Cadbury chocolate has gone south since they were sold to an American company and they use cheaper ingredients now...
NOOOOOO!!!
Damn you Todd Stitzer... (my friends dad was Cadbury's CEO until about 2010.) I assume that's about when the recipe change came along?
Cadbury tastes fuckin gross, too.
My cousins from Belgium love Hershey
We use milk that's gone a bit sour, so you do get that buttermilk TANG.
No, I have no idea why.
Yeah it's not good. After you've had shit loads of dark chocolate, American milk chocolate tastes like waxy garbage.
It's true, it's pretty foul.
I think many Americans that have any access to anything besides Hershey's would agree Hershey's is pretty trash tier, but it's ubiquitous and fairly cheap so it's a common thing to get for like parties and such.
That's the butyric acid added to give it a 'tangy' taste and it also acts as a preservative. I much prefer import chocolate without it, but it's way more expensive here in North America.
Vomit is a step up from nutella
Hey now, every country has it's own gustatory peculiarities. Americans like their chocolate with the spicy tang of vomit.
All the large brand name candies are basically garbage.
Fun fact! It actually literally does taste like vomit! The shelf stabilization process used in Hershey's manufacturing creates butyric acid, which is what gives vomit it's taste/smell. Now you can see why Americans are so pissy all the time, even our Cadbury chocolate is manufactured by Hershey's in the states.
Omfg vomit - that’s exactly it. Years ago they started selling it in my UK supermarket and I nearly coughed my guts up when I tasted it. I’m sure America has a wealth of wonderful tasting things but I’m super satisfied with my British/European chocolate.
American chocolate manufacturers put preservatives in that stop it from melting as easily. This preservative is very chemically similar to stuff found in bile. So, yep. I’m from America though, so I don’t notice.
I got a cardboardy taste when I had it. And it left a filmy feeling in my mouth. Ugh.
How much are you selling your vomit for? I'll gladly take it off your hands if it tastes like Hersheys.
Omg I love all chocolate, including the "shitty" Hershey's. Just don't hit me with that white chocolate.
IMO it tastes like wax. Pretty gross.
Hersheys isn't really meant to be eaten on its own, it's usually for cooking and making snores and stuff.
Hershey's appears to have been made by people who have only seen real chocolate but never tasted it.
It actually has an ingredient in it which is basically soured milk (which has a vomit-y taste). We are used to it so most people don’t even notice it, but if you think about it you can taste it. I actually like it though.
I didn’t like UK chocolate because I thought it was too sweet and kind of waxy. I think people just like what they’re used to.
I've been on a chocolate tasting tour at Hersheys. They don't lean away from the vomit taste, in fact, they are pretty proud of it. Of course, they don't outright say that it tastes like vomit, but rather that their chocolate has distinct notes of Parmesan flavor which is that vomit flavor. They say it's due to the type of cows they use for their milk.
Personally, I really like that flavor. Reminds me of Spagehtti-os.
All American chocolate is garbage. I think I read a TIL that explained it, but Hershey's (or some other chocolate manufacturer) used to put some kind of preservative in their chocolate, that unfortunately tastes like vomit. American's developed a taste for vomit. All other chocolate manufacturers began producing vomit chocolate.
Edit: u/CrowdScene explained it better than me below
The syrup or a Hershey's bar/kiss? The syrup is trash but makes good chocolate milk and is okay on ice cream. The knockoff syrup is even worse. I do like the solid milk chocolate products though.
Nothing good comes from Pennsylvania. I'm ashamed one of my fellow Americans didn't warn you.
Yuengling beer bro, also Philly cheesesteaks
A cheesesteak isn't a sandwich. It's just a bukkake of cheese whiz.
If a cheesesteak is a bukkake, then sign me up. I could eat those damn things every day
Note to self: eat foreigners' vomit.
(My ex lived in Switzerland, I'm aware we don't have the greatest chocolate in the world.)
I don't know why Hershey's bars are so popular with foreigners they come here. Nobody eats plain Hershey's chocolate unless they are making a s'more. Take 5's, Whatchamacallits, Zagnuts, Reese's, Pay Days, etc.... there are so many better candy bar options.
I wouldn't say vomit. Chalky plastic sure, but not vomit.
Just on a side note, Herseys moved all there operations to Mexico to cut costs much like Heinz. I’m still boycotting jerseys,Nestles and of course Heinz.
How the hell are you getting vomit from chocolate, even bad chocolate
Gram cracker, with peanut butter, banana, and drizzled with honey.....it's amazing.
Graham cracker unless you mean a very small cracker.
Mmm, smores with 0.035274 ounce crackers are good, but tiny.
So small they almost are calorie free, eat a dozen of them!
/r/theydidthemath
It took me a long time to realised Americans pronounce Graham as "gram" rather than as "grey am"
Yessss! I also find it weird that they pronounce the name Craig to rhyme with Greg.
how else would you pronounce it? Cra-eig? Cray-gee.?
Californian. Gray-am. Only hicks pronounce it "gram".
On mobile, auto correct got me.
Please, Please....stick to metric jokes only.
Gram-negative cracker? Doesn't retain the violet dye when you try to stain it for differentiation.
Or one made with lentil flour.
Then you lot need to stop pronouncing it as Gram, Graham is pronounced differently in the sane world
I think that is how he pronounced it but I would agree. We should avoid dropping letters as that is what French does.
I wish we had Graham crackers in my country... and sour cream. And borax.
Next time, crush up your gram crackers into a bowl, then pour milk on top like cereal. Serious game changer
With sea salt.
I had a friend as a kid that did graham cracker, honey, and Lawry's seasoning salt.
Sounds good. Honey might be a bit much for me, if I'm already getting sugar from the banana.
[deleted]
Am American, hate Hershey’s. Lindt for life.
Am America, love Hershey's and Lindt :(
I too....Am America. USA USA USA USA USA
That's what happens when finally you taste something that's the real deal. Happened to me with steaks. Grew up being served blackened, rubbery, well-done cow slabs so that the meat was "safe." The first time I found out that steaks could be cooked something other than well-done, I wanted to beat my mother with an oar.
I had the exact same experience. Grew up thinking I hated steak, burgers, chicken breast, all kinds of things. Turns out my mom is just a terrible cook!
This! Significant Other’s Dad is a cattle farmer. Medium rare, fresh steaks. The best.
Ya, the George Foreman Grill had me believing I hated steak until I was about 20.
Upvote for “cow slabs” and “oar”. In addition to being funny, there’s some good imagery there. Nice work.
An oar for a whore!
I grew up with medium rare and my inlaws only eat well-done meat but my FIL showed me how to make it correctly. Now we have very tasty well-done meat that's tender, juicy and not black.
It takes 30-40 minutes of indirect cooking (depending on the thickness of the steaks) and then 5 minutes per side of direct to get it nice and hot, but it's terrific.
beat my mother with an oar
But you couldn't because your dad was beating her with jumper cables, right?
Woah, look at moneybags over here with his gourmet chocolates, too good ta sit wif us commanahs an ave imself a Reese’s?
Have you ever tried a Cadbury’s Dairy Milk? I tried a Hershey’s (UK) and it was awful, it just made me love Cadbury’s a lot more since it’s pretty cheap but still nice. How come Hershey’s is so common compared to Cadbury in the US?
I haven’t had a plain Cadbury. I’ve had the ones with that weird filling stuff and I didn’t like that.
Sorry to disagree. Hershey's is bad but so is Lindt. very few companies make decent chocolate anymore.
You chocolate elitists are insufferable. Hershey's isn't the best, but it's good.
I didn’t say you can’t like it.
As a non-American, I fucking love Hershey's. It's my second favourite chocolate brand.
There's something wrong with you, sir.
You mean the Hershey's milk chocolate, right? That stuff is awful. It tastes like spoiled milk to me. Their dark chocolate is okay, though. (Not great, just okay.) I buy the giant bars of it because it's the cheapest decent chocolate I can find.
If you can find their symphony line it is better but mass produced chocolate in the US tends to be bad
Ghiradellis is amazing and you can find it almost everywhere.
Trader Joes chocolate is super cheap and leaps and bounds better than Hershey's!
It's the same chemical that's in parmesan cheese. I'm not sure why it's in chocolate.
You try keeping chocolate stable in Texas, Nevada and Arizona in the summer when it's well over 105°F (40°C).
It's a problem you don't have in Europe.
Well you fucked up by eating a straight up Hershey's chocolate bar. I agree they are not good, but a Hershey's COOKIES AND CREAM candy bar? Best. Candy. Ever. You. Should. Try. It. I. Highly. Recommend. It.
American who grew up on Hersheys.... When I tried chocolate in Europe for the first time, I felt like like I had been lied to all my life. I promptly filled 1/4 of my pack with Milka (may not be the best.... but it was everywhere and sooo good!)
Can confirm. Am American.
It's made with an acid that is literally in Parmesean and human vomit. Americans are just used to bad chocolate.
That sounds like edible death.
So a Reese’s?
Yep. Reese's is a subsidiary of Hershey's. So exactly.
I find all the comments shitting on Hershey's funny, since if he just said Reese's, they probably would have been like, "oh ma gawd, Reese's is the best."
Reese's is the only Hershey thing I can even stomach.
Reese’s absolutely dominates Hershey candy for me, but Cookies n’ Creme has a special place in my heart
A nutella and peanut butter sandwhich. Delicious.
Honestly I find peanut butter and Nutella to be superior to PB&J.
These are my favorite types of edits. The ones where you don’t need to read the following comments to know the bitching that rained on you.
People can be irrational. It's pretty obvious that I just used Hershey as an example for chocolate, just replace my choice with your own. But folks just gotta flood my inbox with arguments about my choice in candy.
Oh absolutely. I told a friend of mine the other day sprite remix is a delicious soda and he called me a flag burner.
No thanks, I’d rather try it with good chocolate.
Why would any non-American eat Hershey's. Stuff is rancid.
peanut butter and oreos
Or any real chocolate.
Two great tastes that taste great together!
Mmm, peanut butter and vomit, a classic flavour.
Would eating a Reese's cup just be easier?
Funnily enough I don't really like Reese's Cups, also since we're talking to non Americans who seem to not understand peanut-butter I doubt they have Reese's Cups.
Try peanut butter with Mrs. Butters-worth syrup. Thank me later.
I'll try it with actual Maple Syrup but I don't go for the corn syrup stuff.
I grew up on that bullshit syrup, I hate it and won't eat it. I eat maple syrup. Once I was of age and learned the difference, with that being said, Mrs. Butters-worth syrup and peanut butter is the shit. I don't know about it with maple syrup though, but let me know if you do =)
For future reference, the non-American equivalent of chocolate is generally Cadbury.
Nutella tastes like shit smells, can't fathom how anyone can eat that paste
Half nutella and half peanut butter sandwich is damn good.
Greetings from Estonia.
Hersheys tastes like ass though. So no thanks.
Suit yourself. I like Hersheys.
You can also achieve be same effect by taking a spoonful of peanut butter then jamming the spoon halfway down your throat so you throw up a little, then swallow. Or regurgitate the whole thing on toast. Would highly recommend.
Hershey's is trash, especially to foreigners who weren't brainwashed to think it's actually chocolate.
Or better yet, try it with good chocolate!
American here... Hersheys is nasty and an embarrassment.
So you mean reeses?
[deleted]
Gonna need video proof of you eating lead paint.
Leave your disgusting vomit-flavoured chocolate out of this
Why you so angry that people like something you don't?
I'm not angry. It's just objectively disgusting.
Subjectively disgusting; there are plenty of people who enjoy Hershey's.
Is it only chocolate-based jokes that Americans have no sense of humour about, or do you get pissy at anything that criticises the tiniest aspect of your culture? Asking for a friend.
Couldn't tell you mate, I have no idea what a humour even is. /s
You misspelled Nutella
K
The best thing to combine Hersey's with is the trash can.
I just got back from studying abroad in Australia. One of the mornings I was there i was putting peanut butter on my apple and my Australian teacher looked over in pure disgust. He said he had never seen that in his life. We had him try it but he wasn’t a fan.
It’s funny, that’s one of the most normal uses of peanut butter outside of sandwiches that I could think of.
You guys slather your apples with peanut butter?
Most definitely. I think you can even get apples and peanut butter at McDonalds.
That sounds like an euphemism.
And it happened right in the middle of study group!
Would explain why the OP couldn't relate.
I just thought he didn't have a dog.
Am American and I do that. Tastes great!
I’d happily eat some banana / peanut butter mix every day if I could have access to the tasty Mexican food y’all have in the states.
We’re suffering here Down Under
As someone who has had Mexican in Australia - yes, you are.
Also try peanut butter and carrot. Perfect.
Oh, and I'm not from the US, I just like to travel a lot.
Also try peanut butter and carrot
Interesting. Sounds really odd, but someone once talked me into trying crushed up tortilla chips on a peanut butter sandwich and that was surprisingly ok. I'd prefer just having crunchy peanut butter, but tortilla chips were fine.
PB and Banana together is often referred to as an Elvis. Elvis Presley had a favorite sandwhich ina fried PB&B. Its similar to a grilled cheese sandwhich.
Needs to have bacon as well to be the elvis sandwich
Which is BTW a fantastic sandwich.
Plus to hasten your demise, you fry the bread in the rendered bacon grease. Or to get a better crust, mix a bit of the bacon grease with some butter and little bit of sugar.
That's ok, because nobody here understands marmite.
Marmite is British. Vegemite is Aussie.
My Dutch friends can’t understand any banana with peanut butter. They can put butter and chocolate sprinkles on carrot cake, but banana butter is just too much....
Hey, don't you start shit about peanut butter and hagelslag. Also, our peanut butter is better.
1) Get banana 2) Get peanut butter 3) Heat up peanut butter 4) Dip banana in peanut butter 5) Never be the same
EDIT: I don't know how to format.....
American here. Our peanut butter on bananas is something like your Vegemite on toast. Reasons for eating such a thing eludes the rest of the world entirely, but the natives love it, so whatevs. Love is love, even in cases of incomprehensible food combinations
Had a colleague that cut an apple in eight pieces and used the pieces to eat peanut butter off the jar.
Peanut butter banana is an amazing combo but it's usually best to slice the banana first.
Elvis Presley started this, seriously,
Wow over 4000 people don't know the amazingness of bananas and peanut butter????
Whatever is going on with kneeling at the national anthem. At this point I have absolutely no idea if this is extra respectful, or some sort of sign of disrespect.
It started as a black guy kneeling in protest of police brutality against blacks. It started shortly after one of the stories about a black teenager being shot by the police but I can't remember which one.
The fact that I can't remember which incident may explain why Kaepernick (yes, I Googled it) felt the need to do something.
It started after Ferguson.
Edit: please stop arguing with a statement. I’m not commenting on right or wrongness, just when it started.
[deleted]
IIRC Kaepernick had been just quietly sitting/not standing up for the anthem for at least some time before finally a reporter noticed it and asked him about it after the game. He never wanted to make as much of a fuss about it, but when asked he said it’s just something I choose not to do and gave his reasons. Soon after he choose to kneel instead after talking with an army veteran about what would be a respectful compromise.
100% correct. There has been so many lies about this whole situation I'm not surprised non-Americans are confused. Most Americans are too, or misinformed.
It sucks that the real reason he knelt is so accessible (right here and a quick Google search), yet it seems a vast majority choose to ignore the truth, because they either don't want to believe it, or would have to admit they were wrong. I think if humility was somehow made out to be "cool," we might stand a chance at eliminating mass ignorance.
Everybody knows why he kneels. Those that want to disagree have to deflect to something else, so they have this 'you are disrespecting the military' angle to do that. Most people won't come out and say "I'm ok with cops killing black people" so they find another way to take issue with the protests.
Which brings us to what I've been told is another American "quirk": the fetishising and worship of our military.
Yes.
This is the real weirdness to me. Being a soldier is a decent, honorable profession, no doubt, but I don’t get why it gets so much more respect than being a firefighter, coal miner, nurse, etc.
Written on mobile, so almost no editing was done.
tl;dr Americans treated Vietnam vets like shit, and we can never make up for that.
I don't know about others but for me it stemmed from classes in public schools and lessons about the Vietnam war. And how protesters behaved towards returning American soldiers.
Calling them traiters, baby killers, rapists, and other vile things. Spitting on them, etc. Whether they were guilty or not. And it was mostly not. Yes there were documented cases of such things occurring. But it wasn't all of them.
Most of the soldiers were drafted and had no real choice. People took out most of their frustrations on returning vets instead of the government. Basically guilty until proven innocent.
I didn't want to be like those protesters, ever. So resolved to myself to always make the distinction between the government and the military. The military follows orders, they are the screwdriver, and not the hand that does the twisting.
And like any tool you treat it with courtesy and respect or it becomes damaged and then a danger in its own right.
So I treat the military with the respect and honor it deserves. It is a difficult and often thankless job. So I thank them, even if they haven't done anything of deserving thanks. Because now it's an all volunteer service to do a job that might kill them or worse. And I know it and so do they.
So it absolutely does me no harm whatsofuckinever to say thank you. And might bolster their spirits in the dark of night when all is silent.
No, I'm not military, health issues (and inadequate grades) prevented me. Also gen x'er. Am 50 now.
Which is funny because it likely didn't even happen.
http://m.startribune.com/the-myth-of-the-spat-upon-war-veteran/157945515/
Basically it started as fiction, and then way after the fact people started "remembering" these incidents that couldn't even happen. Like soldiers from certain regimen saying they were protested right when they walked off the plane, when they didn't even land at public air ports. No evidence has been found to support the stories, but it's what everyone believes.
Well I never witnessed it personally but it did come up in history class in school. On the flip side nothing was said about the Japanese concentration camps in WWII that I remember. I remember learning about that after graduation.
There are high school textbooks that still say Columbus was the only one who thought the earth was round and that American Indians all lived in teepees. Granted those are verifiably false as oppose to just having no evidence that the events happened.
I think I understand what you're saying, but only one of those professions requires you to take the life of another human, and risk having your life taken by another human.
I do not worship the military, but I absolutely understand the phenomenon - few professions put you in a situation like that.
but only one of those professions requires you to take the life of another human, and risk having your life taken by another human.
Honest question (not trolling, genuinely trying to understand) - is the fact that military professions involve death by intentional human action - unlike, say, nurses who will only react to situations outside immediate human control - really what makes the difference? If so, why?
I think it's more about the fact that I cannot imagine something worse than having to take another person's life.
I've always said that my lack of humility is my only flaw.
No that's it. The only one.
;)
[deleted]
I hope you're a teacher
The truth rarely fits into a racist's narrative. It's either that, or simply following Dear Leader, who organizes various disinformation campaigns that the cult repeats without doing any substantive checking on their own. As for humility, I think you're right, but I'd also say we need "being a decent human being" to be cool as well.
Not choosing a side, but I feel that some of those who disagree with Kaepernick do so because they feel that it is never right to dishonor the country by not standing up, facing the flag, and placing your hand over your heart.
I don't feel strongly either way about it, but I was taught that very thing from the day I could understand English. At least in my little corner of the world, anyone who isn't patriotic is lumped in with lowlifes and such.
shrugging off those who run roughshod over the 4th amendment or repeatedly saying "comply" in situations where there isn't any legal reason to isn't patriotic either, but the people who bemoan legally kneeling are usually the ones who also want people to illegally have their rights or lives taken without fanfare or fuss.
Sure, but again, I’m just familiar with the views of some of these people who are so worked up about the kneeling, but I don’t feel that way.
Maybe it’s bad, but I could give a fuck.
I understand where you're coming from, I couldn't care either way, I don't have to say the pledge every day at my job. All that said, I shouldn't have had to when I was in school, and if I disagree with how my country is handling any situation I have a right to protest that. However you take that is on you, but you know the reason for my protest. And you need to accept that I have that right to protest. I'll let Reddit tell you what happens when we aren't allowed to speak with our government, but the tldr is nazis. Just be kind and considerate to everyone you meet and maybe we can make all this bullshit worth it.
Honestly, as a conservative, fuck you Fox News.
Thank you. The ridiculousness "on both sides" has really prevented us from having rational conversations with each other. I hope this can be overcome at some point, but I fear it will take some terrible national crisis to get us to that point.
From what I understand, a very prominent veteran asked to have lunch with him when he was doing the sitting. They actually asked him to kneel as a sign of respect and Kaepernick abliged.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-how-nate-boyer-got-colin-kaepernick-to-go-from-sitting-to-kneeling/amp/
I was always impartial to the kneeling thing, especially since i didnt really care enough to be more informed. I figured if somebody doesn't want to stand for the national anthem, that's there right and there should be no repercussions to come from it. But after knowing the story behind it and all it symbolizes, I'll totally stand (or kneel) behind that guy and his message.
Seriously. And it started all this shit. Even that idiot not inviting the Eagles.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-how-nate-boyer-got-colin-kaepernick-to-go-from-sitting-to-kneeling/amp/
^^ speak w veteran
2016 is after 2014 so he's still technically correct
What other wisdom do you have for us
Half of 99 is 92
I understood that.
🤷🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️🤔
/r/2007scape
Pls explain.
In case no one else is going to explain allow me to hazard a guess. Someone responded to his comment with "/r/2007scape" which is a reference to the previous version of the computer based role-play game RuneScape which some people still play because the new version is a bastardization. In this game 99 is the maximum skill level. Each time you level up a skill the required experience points to level up increase. So, my guess is that the total experience you need to reach level 92 is half of the total you need to reach level 99. Information people would know because of how staggering it is to get to level 92 and still only be halfway to level 99 experience wise. Like I said though, I am guessing
You are correct, 92 is the halfway point to level 99. I never reached 99 in a stat, but my brother did with several.
r/runescape is leaking
<3
In decibels, this is almost correct.
A perfect score is 5/7.
Which is the best type of correct.
Before: 2014
After: 2016
...yup, everything checks out.
So it did happen after Ferguson, dummy ^^^^^^/s
He's technically correct. He could've said it happened after the civil war if he wanted to. Just being a little shit about it though
Wow, it feels like it was just yesterday. 4 years?
That's after.
So he technically wasn’t wrong then ;)
2016 is after 2014
Just checked... 2016 is indeed AFTER 2014!
2016 is after 2014, I'm just sayin.
NFL racism protests by players began in 2015.
I'm not sure of a specific example off handedly, but a 2015 hip hop song goes pretty in depth about it.
BLM really could have picked a better poster boy then Michael Brown, I just can't believe how long the media ran with the lie that Brown had his hands up standing in the street when he was shot and killed. No he was assaulting a police officer who asked him to stop walking in the street.
BLM has the same problems as Occupy Wall Street. No national council to make concrete plans, put forward consistent messages, and organize across the country. Without that it’s just a bunch of individual chapters with conflicting goals and arguments.
Like those women who went and interrupted a Bernie Sanders rally and protesting. This the same Sanders who marched with Martin Luther King and was arrested when he was young protesting for civil rights..
I lost all respect for the BLM movement at that point. Sanders was respectful and let them talk and eventually his people decided to end the rally because of their ridiculous and lengthy disruption. Those idiot girls had no idea what they were saying, who they were interrupting, or what he stood for at all.
They go on about how they're judged by the color of their skin, but that day all they saw was an old white man on a stage and thought, "This is who we need to fight." They had no idea who he was, what he stood for, all the years of fighting he has done for the cause they picked up two days ago. They did to him what they were fighting against—judgement and prejudice of their race—and then they called their disruption and disrespect justice.
Never took them seriously after that. Idiots.
It actually wasn't a Sanders rally. It was a rally about protecting Social Security, and Sanders was invited to speak.
You're right, my mistake!
Well they hardly represent the BLM movement. The majority of BLM activists vocally denounced them and said it actually derails their movement and that now people who have the wrong idea about the BLM. Which clearly has happened. But this could have been much more manageable if their were some sort of centralized authority or organization to lead the movement. Otherwise, you'll just have multiple groups representing the movement with totally different methods and even ideas. So in a way the people who interrupted Sanders actually were and weren't part of the BLM movement.
[deleted]
Source?
yeah it's easy to want to believe that but it could easily be bullshit like the Parkland kids being actors.
The problem with any major protest is that at some point, it gets too large and loses the focus of its message. You can't account for the wide variety of people who don't know why they're protesting.
I mean the civil rights movement was extremely successful with it's organizational skills and keeping a consistent protest and message across the country.
Everybody knows what happened to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, so you can't really blame people for not stepping up as leaders.
But nobody knows about all the countless civil rights movements that never took off.
I doubt there are many leaders who are afraid to become, in any way, prominent because of a fear of assignation.
I’d also add a few names aside from MLK/Malcolm.
Central leadership doing specific actions protesting specific laws. Now, with the internet and social media, anybody can 'represent' BLM and reflect on it in a positive or negative way.
It's also always the loudest & most extreme voices that get heard. If you are pro law enforcement and hear/see a BLM saying how violent repercussions should happen against white people or something of like, you're just allowing the opposition to double down on their beliefs and they become less and less likely to support you. Radicalism is dangerous and in an age of RT & Shares, those are often the only voices heard.
You can't account for the wide variety of people who don't know why they're protesting.
Yeah you can, you can educate them instead of spurring them into reactionary foot soldiers.
Problem for BLM is if they were educated, they'd realize that it's not an actual problem.
You really can't though. Some idiot goes off on Twitter and hashtags blm and it goes viral. What do you do?
Ignore them like i ignore all the idiots on twitter that think how far a message spreads makes it more valid than their own ability to reason an opinion for themselves from the facts of a case.
And a mix of abject apathy and ignorance on the other side of the issue. It's almost as though someone spends great bushels of money to misinform the undereducated in this country or something...hmmmm
FBI crime statistics don't support the BLM narrative.
I think there is an argument here, but it is so general, I am not really sure if I know where we are going.
I don't wanna spark a heated debate, so I left it kind of general. But basically,
1) racial groups commit crimes disproportionately to their representation in the general population and
2) cops firing upon unarmed people (many of which are black) is not very common, but virtually every incident of such is widely reported on (sometimes misleadingly so), which leads to a widespread perception that many cops are racist/ are purposely killing black people disproportionately.
Cops shooting and killing unarmed people is totally messed up and there is racism in this country, but pushing a narrative that relies on emotion over facts doesn't help anyone.
To be technically correct... racial groups are charged and convicted of crimes disproportionately to their representation in the general population.
That's a very important distinction.
You could slice up the statistics and make poor people look like assholes, too.
Data doesn't lie, but it can very often be misleading.
When I dig into these arguments I often find that "arrest rate" is used as the proxy for criminality, which opens a whole new can of worms.
Right? Almost like people are stopped, questioned, arrested, and deprived of freedom more often based on race. Sounds like a can that should be thrown away.
No, it's OK to arrest them more because they commit more crimes. QED.
EDIT: Apparently I have to point out incredibly obvious sarcasm.
Good point, but when people phrase it that way, often they are implying some grand conspiracy to convict and incarcerate minorities which isn't logical (I'm not accusing you, I don't know what you think, I just want to add my 2 cents). Generally if someone is convicted of a crime, it's safe to assume they did it. (Not being convicted doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do it, however.)
To demonstrate my point, I'll use 2 comparible cities, one with a more black police force and one with a mostly white police force that are both on the bottom 2nd percentile for "safety" according to neighborhood scout, and blacks being the largest racial group. Baltimore and North Charleston SC, respectively.
Violent crimes per capita is ≈18 in Baltimore and ≈ 9 in North Charleston.
Obviously this is an anecdotal example and not a perfect comparison, but my point is that generally, the racial makeup of a police force or government (by and large) doesn't change the rate at which crimes are committed. So I don't think that the US has some grand conspiracy to hold down minorities, but rather the socio-economic barriers (some that were definitely imposed by racists in the past; especially in the south, but also ones that are created on their own like single motherhood) that face some races and communities leads to them being much more tempted to break laws more so than those without those unfortunate circumstances.
That is to say, there's usually reasonable explanations for data that doesn't really prove anything at all. I'm fairly sure if you compared all races in identical socio-economic circumstances (if it were somehow possible), there wouldn't be any disparity.
So like you said, you can spin data lots of ways.
I don't think anyone was arguing that the racial makeup of the police force has any causal relationship with the violent crime rate. I think you're right that it is predominately a socio-economic issue that is easily masked and paraded as a racial issue. Personally, I think bias and systemic racism do tip the scales against minorities but it's hard to prove that without seeming to manipulate data to fit the narrative.
Maybe my original comment wasn't clear, the reason I used that factor because in theory a more black police force would mitigate the "grand conspiracy" of trying to oppress blacks since it would not be in their self interest obviously.
And I don't think you understand what the words "systematic racism", if you think it's a factor in the United States. Systematic racism implies rules that are enforced by governments that target specific races. Systematic racism would be the Jim Crow South.
Obviously bias "tip scales". Bias isn't always a bad thing either. Known by another legal term as discretion, it allows officers, judges and courts to punish as they see fit for the mitigating circumstances, limited by lots of legislation like minimum sentencing, parole and repeat offender laws. You cannot and would not want to try to eliminate bias in law enforcement, as nice as it sounds.
And I don't think you understand what the words "systematic racism", if you think it's a factor in the United States.
You're saying systemic racism does not exist in the United States?
Only for the benefit of minorities. Example, affirmative action policies that allow under-qualified minorities get easier acceptance to state colleges and more state scholarship money than their academic pedigree would otherwise say. And you know what? I don't even have a problem with it. It hardly affected me, I built a resume that got me to an excellent college that won't cost me much, and all I had to do was get a few more GPA and SAT points.
Please give me an example of actual systematic racism.
Oh ok. CRA of 1964 fixed everything, I guess! Well I'm not going to work to convince you otherwise, but one day I hope you come to the realization that your perspective is narrow and naive.
Ah, I see. I'm narrow and naive because I require proof of things instead of just assuming they are there because it was fed to me by some professor with a worthless graduate degree.
And It's almost like it's been 54 years since we passed federal legislation that bans government descrimination on the basis of race.
You make the assumption that minorities cannot oppress their own or participate in white supremacy.
You're right it's possible. Anything is possible, but it makes no sense because they would actively be participating in worsening their own lives.
It's like, yes I can shit on my own floor, but with no incentive nor directive to do so, why would I? Why would I make my life and my family's life more difficult (or gross in this analogy) for no reason, when there's no cost or punishment not do so?
People, as animals will also do, will generally act in their own self interest. Black officers, directed by a black police commissioner, regulated by a mostly black city council and black mayor, would not all participate in white supremacy, because there is no incentive to do so, nor reprocussions for not doing so.
So you explain why a mostly black governing body would forward white supremacy?
Like, we all call out Alex Jones for believing in a deep state and the illuminatti and stupid shit like that, but when it comes to white supremacy, people suddenly act like white supremacists are capable of brainwashing normal black people to act against their animalistic self-preservation and tribal instincts and act soley in the interest of people who they've probably never met (or never knew they met) and hold literally no power except that we freak out when a few hundred of them march once a year. Come. On.
It's almost like the poor have fewer opportunities to make a living legally, so they turn to crime more often.
[deleted]
Treated like a dog, act like a dog.
[deleted]
People are the product of their environment . Now imagine your world is one where you grow up with barely enough to get by and losing a little bit might hurt a lot. Imagine that in this world, other people are in a similar situation and if you let them, would take from you. That the only way for you to be sure that you won't be taken advantage of, is to be tougher than somebody who wants what you got and sometimes that escalates. You can't even fault them, because until it ends with a body, the cops won't bother. it's so foreign, it sounds like it should be voiced by the movie trailer guy. Not everybody in this environment lives this way; Most people just keep their head down and hope for not the worst. It's hard to understand if you haven't lived there.
Statistics on crime are frustrating because they can't look at who committed the crimes, only who was arrested for it. So all those unsolved crimes could be white folks but we will never know.
The first point doesn’t have much to do with each person having the right to a fair trial instead of being executed at the decision of one person. And the second point doesn’t matter much when 1) it shouldn’t be happening at all and 2) when it does happen it is disproportionally happening to people of color which makes it a race issue. It should be reported every time it happens, not swept under the rug like so many other crimes in this country. The narrative is emotional because people are literally dying, but it’s backed by facts as well. The fact is, black people are being killed by the police to often. Simple as that. And this isn’t meant to start debate either, just responding to your points with a different perspective
I don't think anyone should act as Judge Dredd either, and sometimes it happens, but I don't think its an epidemic like it is sometimes presented in media.
Sometimes an evil person becomes a cop to flex their newfound power on the people they're supposed to protect; [it happens to people of all races and creeds] (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/8/16752914/police-arizona-philip-brailsford-daniel-shaver), which isn't to defend when it happens or to suggest this problem doesn't affect some people more often than others, but rather to demonstrate that the issue isn't necessarily tied to race 100% of the time.
When you say black people are being killed by police too often, what specifically do you mean? Since you've proffered this claim as "fact," Id be interested to see what the actual numbers look like.
Well what I mean is it’s happening. Which is too often.
Okay so my understanding of what you're saying is that any shooting of a black person by police is unreasonable, regardless of the circumstances?
when it does happen it is disproportionally happening to people of color which makes it a race issue
See that's part of the problem. That this issue occurs disproportionately to people of colour is only relevant if their skin colour is the cause of the issue.
Don't focus on race / colour, focus on poverty. That's the issue.
Your first point might be factually true, but you're not digging deep enough into the causes of crime. When economic levels are held even, there is no disparity in the crime commited by any racial group. Perhaps people of color commit more crimes due to their poor socio-economic status. Moreover they might commit more crimes because there is more policing in black neighborhoods. The fact of the matter is, there are no solid facts to either prove or disprove the claim you're making. And this is one of those problem areas in social sciences where it is hard to quantify whether more crimes are committed because policing itself could be a major factor. Basically, nobody knows the answer because the causal effect chain for both sides are so weak
It's an equation with many variables. Crime correlates highly with poverty and single-motherhood, both of which affect the black population as a whole more than the white population as a whole. There's also the way different American subcultures value education (poor people, young black men, poor + young white men, probably several other groups, don't typically value education as much as second generation Chinese Americans, for example).
Personally, I only think it's valuable to put people into groups based on race insofar as individuals within those groups identify with a larger "group culture." Over 50% of US homicides are committed by African Americans (mostly young men), despite African Americans making up roughly 13% of the population. Most of the victims of those homicides are other African Americans by a large margin. I believe an overarching culture of responsibility - one which values education, one that isn't divided along strict racial boundaries - would benefit everyone. People need to come together over something universal (nation, god, morality, code of conduct, something) instead of fragmenting themselves into groups that don't talk to each other, based on arbitrary characteristics which mean very little.
The more policing in black neighborhoods is not true at all. Most black neighborhoods of a much lower socio-economic status are so underfunded and underpoliced that they basically only ever get there after something has happened. Documentaries have been done on this, not only are they underfunded but people are so unwilling to talk about the what and who when something happens that it's hard to catch anybody, which is probably why most caught cases end up in lock up because it's assumed they're the same people doing the other things that there aren't any answers to.
But there are a lot of facts to disprove what BLM says, which was the original point.
There are just as many to prove that there is disparity in arrest, conviction, and incarceration disproportionately. BLM has a lot more factual evidence than its opposition, which, by the way, why do you care if they try to get what they believe to be equal treatment? Why even bother yourself with a movement which, if successful, results in less of something that might be negative, might not, but either way has very little impact on you?
Why even bother yourself with a movement which, if successful, results in less of something that might be negative, might not, but either way has very little impact on you?
That is not what I've seen from BLM. They seem very intent on burning things down and not allowing free and open discourse. As a group I do not like their behavior, as a motive I can appreciate equal rights but that doesn't appear to be their goal.
So they aren't impacting you, but you think they are dangerous? Do you live in a large metropolitan area with significant numbers of protests impacting you on a regular basis? It just seems like a strange thing to waste your time on unless you have an ulterior motive or direct impact.
Me? I think black people in America are a marginalized population that continues to see disparity in opportunity, income, and freedom, and I support their struggle. Being Irish, my ancestors endured a similar struggle, and I have trouble seeing eye to eye with people that cannot articulate their opposition to that sort of movement--especially if the only impact it might have on them is potentially a slight decrease in advantage over one category of other humans.
That's a very stupid joke of an opposing viewpoint, don't pretend to know how people who disagree with you think if you aren't going to even try to understand them. I'm allowed to be concerned for people in communities I'm not a part of, that's sorta the whole idea of not being racist so I don't have to be the owner of whatever convience store BLM burns down in order to be qualified to think that's a shitty thing to do. My goal AGAIN is the same as the claimed motive for BLM, but they make no movements to providing equal opportunity for black american. I have never heard of a BLM funded drive to get black students to be more interested in finishing high school. I've never seen them push for less black on black violence (which annually kills multipule times more than cops do) and I've never heard of them pushing to get any kind of progress for black american equality, other than the momentary gratification of rioting over something, usually unjustified. I don't give two fucks what your heritage is, how oppressed your ancestors were doesn't tell me anything about you, your views, your lifestyle, or anything else of relevance to BLM and their cause, and to insinuate otherwise would be actually racist.
They're just trying to stop that lol, it's not about pushing a narrative, it's about ending the lawful murder of unarmed citizens without repercussion.
Weird that it somehow became a controversial topic though, I suppose that's where the racism comes into play.
The question of the minute is why anyone would oppose that movement so vehemently when they are literally unimpacted by it. I mean, how about just read something else? Look at a different place on the football field?
Because the movement is based upon lies and is racist in and of itself.
Please talk to a black person sometime and learn why their attitude towards police is the way it is.
Let's not waste our time learning about other people's perspective when we can simply act out of ignorance and contradiction!
I work in a small office with 2 black people. Our boss is very political, so we've all talked about a lot of political issues. Neither of my black coworkers outright fear police. Putting people into a box based on race is counterproductive.
So much for not sparking heated debate lol
Let me guess: your boss is white and a blue lives matter leaning type.
He's a second generation Cuban entrepreneur. Ironic how you imply my boss is a racist without knowing anything about him while simultaneously judging him based on your false-perception about his race. Kinda racist.
Yeah, black people often don't feel comfortable speaking about these opinions in fear go being labeled angry black men/women... and they're especially not going to speak frankly about it at work, talking to their boss.
People tend to be much too defensive and hostile to the average black opinion on how the police conduct business towards them, and the hostility people have towards black people who makes these (extremely common) opinions and experiences known.
When a black person even shares an experience, many white people will say, "How do you know it was because you were black?" And it's impossible to prove to someone who just doesn't want to believe it.
It becomes tiresome and it's risky.
Edit: each downvote proves my point. People's hostility towards these opinions have caused me to get down to voted on this particular comment. I have nothing to lose emotionally, and the only other thing I had to lose by stating this opinion was Reddit Karma. That black guy talking to his boss on the other hand, has a lot more on the line than Reddit karma when he states his opinion.
I hear what you're saying, but just to offer a little context, when I've talked with my coworkers about politics (this topic included), it was almost always after work at someone's house, usually while smoking weed, drinking beer, and watching the proverbial "game." As such, I like to think we talk openly and honestly when we hang out, but again, I can imagine a situation where individuals speak with careful restraint on sensitive issues.
You open to reading a book explaining why, among many other things, why black people who don't trust you won't say what they really know about racial issues?
I'm open to a book recommendation, yes.
There is a major flaw in your post.
Minorities are “arrested” more often than white people, but that assumes that those communities are policed the same way. They are not. Minority communities have more aggressive policing and are prosecuted differently.
No one is going to self report murder, but in studies that self report marijuana use for example, minorities and whites use at a similar rate, but minorities are arrested at a higher rate, convicted at a higher rate and on average are more severely punished.
No argument, just a hungry troll.
Please don't feed.
What crime statistics? The FBI doesn't track killings by police. This site does though:
[deleted]
[deleted]
Got banned from BPT for calling them racists for saying whites cause gun violence. Great group of people they have there
It's always under the pretext of "DAE the blacks are violent criminals???"
I could be wrong.
That assholes are upvoting you is disturbing.
So my theory that r/politics was just a left wing clusterfuck might be true?
I think what is actually the case is that every time these stats were posted it was more or less the same inflammatory stormfront copypasta that was just as out of context as the stuff these same people complained about from "SJWs"
r/politics has a very weird whitelist of sources. They allow redstate/bluestate/breitbart but some government websites are not whitelisted. for the record justice.gov is whitelisted while FBI.gov is not. Their rules specifically say government sources SHOULD be whitelisted (rule 8). https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/whitelist
It is.
Or you could just be making shit up. That's a possibility
lol
Yeah I got a little intense there lol
bans for dogwhistling
Must be a leftist circlejerk
yes they do.
They really don't.
Thanks soros
[deleted]
He's only got a tenth of the wealth of Buffett!?!? No wonder I'm still waiting for my Soros Bucks^(TM)!!!!!!!!
I mean, he’s still worth like $10 billion though. Sure, it ain’t $50 billion, but still. That’s a lotta dough.
[deleted]
Would depend on who owns the most media companies/parent companies.
Different agendas, I suppose.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well buffett isnt blowing hundreds of millions on activist groups as far as I am aware. Buffett is a hoarder dude, doesnt even know how to spend that kind of money. Soros on the other hand....
[deleted]
Consolidated government power (that's the theory anyway). These protestor are "paid" to get people in a frenzy so we as the American population ask our government to do something, anything. Our government then writes a law that restricts certain freedoms and or gives them more control and power.
Not saying I agree with any of that, but our politicians do write legislation that benefits themselves and the wealthy.
progressives to me, generally tend to be for equality of outcome which tends to end up just making things worse. So its not really "equality." Let me ask you this before you start asking me to provide you proof, only to limit my sources because I seriously doubt you cross the line only at infowars. Have you tried looking into this yourself? Also, you don't know what kind of kickbacks these people are receiving behind closed doors lobbying is a thing and the types of people he supports tend to push agendas that believe in a consolidated power for government. You think literally everyone who doesn't like the guy has ZERO reason for it? He is infamous for a reason. I don't like people who use their money to fund activist groups and lobby the government on either side. Soros is a meme at this point so I get why you are defensive because it seems pretty obvious you are trying to frame me as some kind of right wing conspiracy nutcase but it really just shows that you are incapable of recognizing bad behavior from someone who obviously uses his money to divide people and stir shit up. Just because an activist group can be described as "liberal" does not make it automatically good and worth defending. There are plenty of left wing groups that are seriously retarded and hateful.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
Here is a list
Take a look at this list. open borders groups (he shorts currencies), anti Israel groups, anti second amendment groups. Its an extensive list and we could go all day long why these groups are bad for the country.
•Shadow Democratic Party: This is an elaborate network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy iniatives -- to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left
What do you think of this? Its not a myth that this guy is basically trying to secretly politicize shit for some reason and it can be strongly argued that some of these groups do not benefit the country.
[deleted]
I don't agree that the vast majority of informed Americans agree with the progressive agenda in its entirety. I think some progressive values like universal healthcare makes sense until some types of price controls are put into place, or obesity is tackled, or illegal immigration is handled like Trump is handling it. If you are such a fan of universal healthcare does it mean anything to you that Soros funds many open borders groups? Those groups would do more damage to universal healthcare than any other group if they got their way, and he also does this because he loves to short currencies before something crazy happens.
I think comparing a single man to an entire industry is kind of redundant.
And are you arguing that there was no effort to stop Donald Trump just because they failed? I saw so much anti trump propaganda during the campaign, especially on reddit, that it almost made me unplug my internet. It was seriously out of hand. When you start a grass roots campaign and rile up activists like he does you can get a lot done for cheap. Look at Media Matters, who he was involved in. Social media campaigns are cheap. I mean, the progressives and democrats have been convinced that 13 Russian trolls practically swayed an entire election and you are telling me George Soros and the hundreds of millions he spends on political groups couldn't do the same? Because they certainly would argue that and I hope you can reason your way into agreeing with me on that one. I mean, Kanye can go and say something and instantly millions change their mind. I think you are failing to see how easy it is to manipulate uninformed people who think their opinions actually mean something on social media.
[deleted]
Russia pushed both sides, not just Trump, I never said I thought soros was pulling all of the strings lol.
[deleted]
It doesn't matter what your opinion is. It was investigated and it was in the indictments. The played both sides, and I saw more anti trump propaganda. We can agree to disagree there, although its fairly obvious to anyone who is objective which side had more state and corporate generated propaganda.
You realize he has no where the level of civic engagement that people like the Kochs and the Mercers have, yes? Hell, the Kochs legitimately own like half of Congress and the Mercers gave us a president, never heard of Soros-bought politicians though.
I don't agree with that at all, he is not nearly as public about his involvement in the political sphere as those groups are. And I don't like either of them doing it so I don't get why people are acting like I only care about Soros. Soros is a meme despite the truth behind it, and my comment was half way a joke. The majority of Reddit is divided and retarded though. Most are already assuming that I couldn't possibly be objective about people on both sides because I only mentioned one bad guy without going out of my way to prove I am not a right wing conspiracy nutjob, so of course most just assume I am. I mean this site and the people who tend to comment on it are SO TOTALLY INFORMED AND OBJECTIVE.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
Here is a list
Take a look at this list. open borders groups (he shorts currencies), anti Israel groups, anti second amendment groups. Its an extensive list and we could go all day long why these groups are bad for the country.
•Shadow Democratic Party: This is an elaborate network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy iniatives -- to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left
What do you think of this? Its not a myth that this guy is basically trying to secretly politicize shit for some reason and it can be strongly argued that some of these groups do not benefit the country.
I don't argue that he doesn't support groups, all I stated is I've never heard of a congress critter that was bought by Soros. On the other hand, the Koch brothers own half of Congress and constantly buy legislation. That Soros might support a few advocacy groups or lobbyists doesn't even begin to compare to that.
Unless you can point me to legislation that was purchased by Soros? Because I can point to several purchased by the Kochs.
Soros isn't working secretly, he just simply isn't as heavily involved besides writing a paycheck to civil rights groups he agrees with.
I don't know why you linked an extremely partisan website as proof of something. I'd much prefer you go to opensecrets.org and show me the politicians Soros has bought.
Look virtually everyone lobbies, I don't like it either and I never said I did, nor did I ever come close to saying Soros is the only rich person I don't like. What is so partisan about that website? I have seen more sources attacked on reddit than I have anywhere else. I don't think that source contained any inaccurate information. I already explained to you why I used Soros, it was halfway a joke and the guy is the most mainstream infamous example of someone who uses their money to divide and conquer. I am not saying he just lobbies either, he funds small groups, funds online information campaigns, and also has his own group he even self describes as a shadow government. Lets look at this objectively and agree that he along with many others are assholes, and I don't really feel like starting a fantasy league of who is the best at being an asshole. I get your points, but there is nothing wrong with me saying I don't like Soros.
Why?
I see we are working on presumptuousness as a matter of course.
I suppose Zappa was nothing if not a bit presumptuous, but he'd, no doubt, be on the other side of both of these issues from what you seem to be with your bitey two-word namecall.
Im sorry, was your nonsensical analysis of whatever bullshit you are peddling supposed to mean something to me?
Nope, I was just surprised someone who would have so vehemently disagreed with Zappa would use his name as their moniker. Sort of like the time Paul Ryan used Rage Against the Machine's music during his VP campaign, only with a smaller audience.
What are you even saying? Zappa died over 20 years ago you don't know what the hell he would think of anything today. The guy was a contrarian and frankly (pun intended) an asshole. I am a fan of his music and his genius in that aspect, but I couldn't give a single fuck about what the guy thought about anything else. Here is a tip for you, think for yourself and don't look up to celebrities so much that you just stupidly repeat whatever the hell it is you think they would say.
Lolol
>What are you even saying?
>don't look up to celebrities so much that you just stupidly repeat whatever the hell it is you think they would say.
I'm not the one that named myself after a celebrity whose ideals I contradict and then started a negative conversation without provocation.
I will think however I choose, and certainly appreciate your advice.
"I'm not black, but there's a whole lotsa times I wished I could say I'm not white."
I bet he'd say that about your narrative. And I believe my repeating of his words is less than stupid in this instance, even if you choose to disagree.
Maybe you should consider whether or not you are interested in positively contributing to discussions, or just saying random, thoughtless negative things. That's just from my perspective, of course.
I wish you well in your endeavors, and hope you have already found, and continue to find happiness.
Are you stupid or something? I don't understand how my point goes right over your head. You just repeat the same thing twice about me having something related to Frank as a username and how that somehow must mean that disagreeing with him makes me a hypocrite. That was a lot of words for again, a nonsensical comment with no point. Yes I like the album, that doesn't mean I literally have to agree with everything at any degree of separation from Frank. Especially if it is just your opinion on what a dead guy would think 25 years into the future.
Lolololol. I never said you had to agree with anything at all. You like to extrapolate a great deal of knowledge from very little data, and you also do it very rudely. I bet you are a lot of fun at parties. This is a conversation you chose to begin. The choice of username, as insignificant as you would like it to be, is something of an identity. I mean, there are a lot of albums out there. Frank was an asshole, but he was definitely known openly to deplore racism and homophobia. If you are cool with that, fine, I'm just letting you know it sounds weird. I'm not some celebrity fluffing fanboy, I'm responding to you being a dick, by letting you know that the person you chose to represent every comment you ever make on this website with that name (directly or indirectly) was definitely a proponent of racial equality.
I was serious when I wished you happiness. I also hope you find some good understanding and purpose, and maybe stop being so negative.
Frank was an asshole, but he was definitely known openly to deplore racism and homophobia. If you are cool with that, fine, I'm just letting you know it sounds weird.
Now you are implying I am racist based on fuck all. Dude you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. You must be that guy at parties who starts ridiculous conversations just to hear himself talk.
I didn't call you anything, I was just making sure you are aware that he was an activist for racial equality. How you extrapolate that into me calling you anything says more about you than me. Why must you put words in my keyboard, lol?
And that literally had nothing to do with anything so cool? You think I can't see past your subtle implications you sneaky little troll? I like your game, its good, almost as good as mine but not quite lol.
I think the one who starts a petty argument with a snide, snarky, baited comment is the one referred to as a troll. I feed trolls, apparently. This is no game.
oh so you are just stupid then.
Yes, anyone who questions your gallant soliloquy of doucheness is stupid.
Also, just so you know, I upvoted all of your comments, because that’s what I do. I’m here to learn, and try and make things a bit better than they were when I arrived. Just didn’t want you thinking some random third party was out there silently validating or applauding your rude inaccurate negativity lol
I know, its evident so far that you are very optimistic about the pointless things you do and say.
I think we are really making some progress on changing one another's minds.
Yeah it must be great bushels of money that make one side tell people around them to go burn down neighborhoods... HMMMMMM
Why would you care about a group that has so little affect on you, and is trying to get equal representation for a group?
Why take isolated incidents of violence and equate them to the group as a whole when they have clearly stated they do not promote violence?
Surely you've better things to do than conflate a movement that has zero impact on your life if you simply read something else.
You mean watch something else? See something else? There are injustices in this world but the way to correct them is not by burning down neighborhoods or attacking cops.
And only isolated incidences of violence, much like most wrongful deaths are isolated?
Hmmm.....I wonder what happened to the leaders of a black led political movement last time they tried to do those things.
I thought Barack did pretty well tbh, IIRC, if you will, per se.
Yeah but he wasn’t a true radical in the sense of mlk or Malcolm x or blm
This train is never late. It's not an organization. There is no national leader because there is no national group, it's nothing like occupy wall street. It's a saying, a twitter tag that resonated with large groups of people.
What's happened to all the well organised black rights activist groups 🤔
The police, FBI, et al., took them down.
It’s absolutely ridiculous. Hell, they were pushing that story where the guy got killed while holding a shower head. Yea, that’s true. Except the video shows him holding a shower head that looks like a gun and acting like it’s a gun, pointing it at people and pretending to shoot them. Then he does it to a cop who had his gun drawn because people called the cops to report a guy pointing a gun at random people. But no, he was black so obviously it’s a race thing. There are plenty of actual stories where black people got arrested/harassed/abused/hurt/killed by cops because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time and the cop didn’t do his job correctly. Don’t discredit the movement with easily verifiable lies.
This is why you get the dumbasses shrieking for BLM to be listed as a terrorist group
It's how every protest we have fails. Everyone has slightly different demands and it ends up just being people standing around being angry.
Even if lawmakers cared, what do we expect them to do if every other protestor has different demands?
This is what I keep telling them. Last time a tried to explain to someone that a movement needs leadership they said that was nazi thinking. I gave up.
I literally don't believe you were called a Nazi for that. Certainly not in person, maybe by an internet troll.
So OK... Then be that leader. Or join the movement and advocate to end police brutality AND for central leadership.
Or, you can do nothing about police brutality and tell everyone trying to do something that they're doing it wrong.
Your choice.
And they choose really bad representatives and examples of police brutality for the most part.
I don't see why the cops (who know the perp through a long history of arrests) should trust any colored (as is white/black/latino/asian/etc) man with 15+ felony arrests wont shoot them or try to resist and hurt fellow police.
Now them shooting him is a different arguement, but they have more than enough moral standing to be able to draw their weapons in a standoff type situation if they know the perp is a violent offender. They just get jumpy because no one wants to pay for police training any more.
More often than not, it's a shit cop with shit training who shoots the detainee. Take away police funding, soften the police academy, and this is what you get.
honestly, thats where authoritarians have us beat. ITs very helpful for organization purposes to be ...welll. authoritative
I think people associating BLM solely with Michael Brown do so more to discredit the movement at large. It's not even a cohesive movement or organization, but people treat it like it's Hamas.
People treat BLM worse than Hamas :(
[deleted]
You've got to be trolling saying that an actual terrorist group should be treated better than American citizens.
[deleted]
No, it's not just because their enemies make claims about them-- that's quite an obtuse assumption to make. It's about their tract record of using their own citizens as fodder, targeting and killing innocent people, destroying Gaza, spending all their money building tunnels to fuck with Israel instead of helping their own people. Not to mention their belief that Israel should be wiped off the map. If you don't see them as a terrorist organization, then God help you.
Fuck off, nazi.
Lol
You're exactly right. Michael Brown was simply the straw that broke the camel's back regarding 150 years of the police forces of America serving at the pleasure of white people rather than black people. The police has always been around to protect white people from black people, first and foremost.
If you think I'm being a crazy person, do some research concerning the rise of police forces in the aftermath of the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, and how they were used in reconstruction, or, just watch the Netflix documentary 13th.
More recently, the police activity during the LA riots in the 90s.
The police activity in LA is still a huge problem, look at Lee Baca and his campaign of corruption that lasted for years
Oh yeah, lapd's treatment of black people goes way farther back than the Riots of the 90s. Not trying to one-up you, you do bring up a good point.
13th is honestly fantastic. I mean it’s all history I’m familiar with but damn does it put it all in a cohesive, interesting (awful) little package.
How about you read their charter and make up your mind like I have?
Anyone associated with it ( it had a start with three gender queer feminists ) is reprehensible.
Well they don't have a charter first of all. There's no governing structure or official organization either. At best, we have an "about" section of a web page:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
And of course you have a problem with gay people and feminists. People like you are what's reprehensible. Take your hateful, factless bullshit elsewhere.
‘And of course you have a problem with gay people and feminists’
I mean, you literally just made that up about me.
You’re a liar.
And yes, they do have a charter and a start.
On top of a liar, you are ignorant of what you are defending.
[removed]
That's true, but the flip side is a whole bunch of white assholes saying that Tamir Rice absolutely deserved to be shot by a cop 1.8 seconds after the cop showed up on scene. Or how suddenly the fact that Philandro Castile had pot in his system means he deserved to die for reaching for his wallet as requested by the cop.
I don't think anyone here is making the claim that those situations were okay.
That's not what they said at all.
“The kid got the cops called on him because he was running around pointing a gun at people, regardless of whether it was real or fake, that's a level of stupid that shouldn't have happened in the first place. You have police officers coming to a scene where they were told a kid had a gun, not a fake gun, a real gun. The officer claimed the kid reached for his waist and whether you believe that or not doesn't matter. The reality is that the kid gave the impression that he wasn't complying with the police officer.”
How is that not implying he deserved to get shot?!?!?
He said what the kid did was stupid, and
the reality is that the kid gave the impression that he wasn't complying with the police officer
Are either of these false? What the kid did was stupid, and the police officer felt he wasn't complying. If that, being a description of what happened, means to you the they're saying the kid 'deserved' it, then you're kinda just saying that the reality is that the kid deserved it, which I don't think is what they're implying, but that it's totally understandable how the officer reacted. It's a tragedy, but honestly if the kid had behaved differently it never would have happened.
“If the kid would’ve behave differently it never would’ve happened” is literally victim blaming, or saying they deserved it/brought it on themselves
“If the kid would’ve behave differently it never would’ve happened” is literally victim blaming, or saying they deserved it/brought it on themselves
Okay no? Yeah, it's kinda on him for his behavior. I'm not saying that's fair or that he 'deserved it' as you keep stuffing into people's mouths, I'm saying that's the truth, which it is. And I'll fucking say it again he would not have been shot had he behaved differently. You can make stupid remarks or you can own up to the fact you're misunderstanding and forcing political groups generalized idealogies onto everyone in this thread that doesn't hate cops for getting scared.
That person doesn't say that anywhere in that comment.
He implies that the cop was correct to shoot him.
“The kid got the cops called on him because he was running around pointing a gun at people, regardless of whether it was real or fake, that's a level of stupid that shouldn't have happened in the first place. You have police officers coming to a scene where they were told a kid had a gun, not a fake gun, a real gun. The officer claimed the kid reached for his waist and whether you believe that or not doesn't matter. The reality is that the kid gave the impression that he wasn't complying with the police officer.”
How is that not implying he deserved to get shot?!?!?
Wow, you're all up and down this thread being an intentionally ignorant liar. The implication that the child deserved it is of your own making.
Don't put words into people's mouths. You make the situation worse.
“The kid got the cops called on him because he was running around pointing a gun at people, regardless of whether it was real or fake, that's a level of stupid that shouldn't have happened in the first place. You have police officers coming to a scene where they were told a kid had a gun, not a fake gun, a real gun. The officer claimed the kid reached for his waist and whether you believe that or not doesn't matter. The reality is that the kid gave the impression that he wasn't complying with the police officer.”
How is that not implying he deserved to get shot?!?!?
Maybe not here, but I've encountered it in the wild many times.
"It had to have taken more time than the video"
Just tell them to shut the fuck up and post this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeoZkgjCHJ4
Over and over and over. Tamir Rice had 0 seconds to comply with any orders, if any were given, and the officers had less time to evaluate any "threat". Both should be rotting behind bars right now, but we're spineless.
I've encountered a lot of racist crazies in the wild. They're not the norm, just really loud.
Request? Nothing a person pointing a gun at you says is a request.
I'm really not sure what your point is.
bunch of white assholes
found the racist
judging from the down votes it looks like we found about 6 more racists!
Right, because it's a well known thing that black people blame Tamir Rice and Philandro Castile for their deaths.
Also, I'm white.
You got a source for that? I've never heard anybody say that tamir deserved to be shot. Are you sure that's not just your perception of what you think other people think about it?
Here ya go.
In a thread about a police union head saying much the same thing.
“The kid got the cops called on him because he was running around pointing a gun at people, regardless of whether it was real or fake, that's a level of stupid that shouldn't have happened in the first place. You have police officers coming to a scene where they were told a kid had a gun, not a fake gun, a real gun. The officer claimed the kid reached for his waist and whether you believe that or not doesn't matter. The reality is that the kid gave the impression that he wasn't complying with the police officer.”
The relevant quote literally from this thread.
Explaining an understanding what mistakes were made and how the whole thing went down does not mean the kid deserved to die. Waving a gun around in public is the reason he was shot but that doesn't mean he deserved to lose his life. The cops over reacted. It was a mistake to shoot so fast. Just as it was a mistake to point a gun in a park. The 911 caller told the operater they thought it was a toy. The operater told dispatch it was a gun. There were lots of mistakes made that led to this unfortunate outcome. None of that means a 12 year old boy deserved to lose his life. It was an unfortunate turn of events beginning with brandishing the gun. Had he not had the gun in the park he wouldnt have been shot.
Your last sentence is classic victim blaming. Victim blaming = they deserved what they got
And brandishing a gun??? He was a fucking middle school kid playing with a toy at a park
So you didnt see the pics of the toy, or him waving it? Would you advise your kids to play with that toy? Why not? Because some one may think its real and call the cops. There is a reason we have passed laws for the orange tip. This is not the first time this has happened it's just the first time you've been riled up about it. Calm down and look at the facts.
All your assumptions about me are incorrect, FYI
If you can’t have a reasoned discussion without jumping to insane conclusions, I’m gonna go ahead and bow out.
I didn't assume anything about you , I asked you a questions. So you have seen the pictures of the bb gun? You dont think that looks like a real weapon? You are aware that every BB gun is marked "not a toy" and is required to have an orange tip. Yet you still describe it as a toy? You treat bb guns as toys? You would advise your own children to play with that in public wave it around and point at people? You missed my entire post how I explained my feelings about the case and how I do not believe the Tamar deserved to die. You are arguing with yourself. Go ahead and bow out my friend. Seems this topic is over your head.
They actually started with the murder of Trayvon Martin.
No he was assaulting a police officer who ~~asked him to stop walking in the street.~~Tried to stop him as he marched the description (and was in fact) someone who just committed a strong arm robbery
IIRC first he told them to get out of the street, then he realized they were the suspects and backed up to them and asked them to approach the car.
Had Brown been on the sidewalk from the start, he'd probably be alive now.
bullshit. if that was the case the officer wouldn't have tried to cover it up. Ferguson is/was corrupt as fuck
Wasn't there also that DoJ investigation that found the Ferguson police force was corrupt and racist as hell?
The way people treated the officer and condemned based on word of mouth and false testimonies before the autopsy told the truth is probably why he tried to stay under the radar as much as possible.
I’m with the above commentor. It’s bad that a man died. It’s bad that police brutality and racism exists. But Michael brown brought about his own fate, and the physical evidence backs it up. Trevon Martin would be a much better poster boy for the movement
yeah, racist people donated so much money to wilson that it made that cop a millionaire. i have no sympathy for him. he tried to cover his tracks which is a strong indicator of guilt. the story totally changed after the strong reaction from the community. the officer's report was written after he knew what the evidence would support. the entire ferguson police department was found to be corrupt by the doj. if you want to accept the "official" story without question, be my guest but it seems foolish to me.
The only story I accept out of the whole situation is the one the 3 different autopsy’s told. And the DNA samples on the car and the dents in the vehicle demonstrating the struggle.
I don’t think anyone needed to die, and that comes from both Wilson not acting the best he could’ve and MB causing the altercation to be so violent. It’s a gray area, and there is most certainly room to argue that Michael Brown wasn’t innocent in the slightest
if there was clear and definite knowledge of how the event transpired they wouldn't have needed 3 autopsies. but im glad that you have so much blind faith in a "justice" system that was so corrupt that it had to be investigated by the doj.
"a kid randomly tries to jump in an officers car and wrestle his gun away from him, then runs away but randomly turns around and runs back into a hail of gunfire." that story makes absolutely no sense but as long as it makes you feel better, believe whatever you want.
Yeah exactly this. Like, I'm not sure what the expected reaction is to assaulting a cop, but being shot is a very likely reaction. I still don't understand the outrage.
but being shot is a very likely reaction
in America.
Deadly force was the obvious reaction to the situation. Michael Brown was a very big guy, and was running full speed towards the officer, prompting him to fire. If the officer didn't fire he would likely be dead or severely injured.
Wait...a big but unarmed man is a deadly threat against another big but ARMED and backed-up-by-other-ARMED-men? How do you figure??
Imagine a bigass linebacker running as fast as he can toward you. Imagine he has the intent to seriously injure or kill you. Now, what would you do? Would you just sit there without protecting yourself? Or would you try to preserve your own life? I have a hard time believing you wouldn't use the means to protect yourself. The only other option would be to run, which wouldn't work due to the short distance between you and the guy. You could also attempt to fight him, but the probability that you could take down a guy with his strength and momentum is very low.
If the officer didn't protect himself, he would have been severely injured or killed, so he used deadly force in response. If I was in his place, I probably would've froze, but my first thought would be to reach for the trigger because all of my other options were exhausted.
Side note: the officer was not "backed up". No other officers were at the scene and Wilson was facing the threat by himself.
I went back and reread the facts of the case to refresh my memory, and you’re right, he was alone, and also brown turned seemingly out of nowhere and began to rush him, so he probably didn’t have enough time to retreat to his car. At that moment, yeah, it doesn’t seem he had much else he could have done.
However.
The events leading up to that moment had many places where he could have deescalated and possibly avoided the entire thing. The whole situation was a shit show from beginning to end.
As an American, I can't even say being shot for "assaulting" a combat-trained, bullet-proof-vested person hired to "serve and protect" is really all that rational. And even if they were engaged in fisticuffs, there's no reason to aim for a kill spot. At that point you're close enough to shoot to injure and disarm. But then the police department would perhaps be liable for medical bills. Can't have that so let's just shoot the big mass with all the vital organs.
We have several colleges in our town and a few years ago, a campus cop shot a student dead because he was "in fear for his life."
The 18 year old student was stark naked and under the influence of some drug. He was trying to find help. He was obviously unarmed. The cop was armed with a gun, pepper spray and a baton, and outweighed the guy by about 60 lbs.
I'm assuming this is about Gil? That was so ridiculous and I can't believe the officer actually had any fear for his life.
The officer came out of the building with his weapon already drawn. Apparently he felt threatened enough to do that but not threatened enough to get backup before choosing to escalate the situation? Fuck Officer Austin.
Yes. Really fucked up situation.
Boy, it's a good thing we don't have a gun problem in this country, just a "people" problem. /s
There is no such thing as shoot to injure. Shooting an artery in the leg can definitely kill you. Once the guns out it's shoot to kill.
Shooting to "injure and disarm" isn't really possible in the movies, neither is it suggested.
You should shoot someone when you want them to STOP immediately. That means you are in danger of being killed of other bodily harm. If he was at a point where he believed it was possible that he would be killed or badly injured, he needed to stop the threat as soon as possible.
The idea of encouraging police to shoot to "injure and disarm" is an extremely bad idea and would lead to a lot more people being killed. You are either in fear for your life and body, or you're not.
I'm not saying the guy was right or wrong, I don't know that much about the case or anything, and I think militarization of the police is a real issue, but you shouldn't draw a gun without the expectation that it's going to kill someone
[deleted]
Pepper spray in close quarters will affect you just as much as them and tasers have something like a 50% fail rate. A large problem with less than lethal methods are they simply are not reliable enough when you need someone stopped immediately.
Pepper spray, tasers and etc are not reliable for stopping people from attacking you. Pepper spray might hurt really bad but it doesn't force someone to stop.
A tasers was possible a better idea, but if the guy could reasonable feel like he was going to be seriously injured if the tasers failed to stop him, then a gun was in order.
I don't know enough about the case to say have a real opinion on what he should have done, nor was I in his shoes, but I feel like a tasers was probably the correct response to the situation.
That's not really here nor there, because the topic was that life isn't a movie where a cop can just shoot someone in the shoulder and the guy is on the ground but perfectly healthy.
First off, the general understanding is people's accuracy goes to shit under stress. As a result, doctrine is too shoot for hits on target. Any more is hard to impossible while staying effective even for trained people.
Also, in Ferguson the guy was a linebacker. If he's closing the distance and refusing to stop, the most likely injury is blunt force. Plates won't do shit against that.
there's no reason to aim for a kill spot. At that point you're close enough to shoot to injure and disarm.
Yeaaaaa no
Shooting for arms or legs is a pretty sure fire way to hit an artery and then the person bleeds out and dies. Plus it is 100% impractical in every way shape and form
If you think getting shot in the leg is more fatal than being shot in the torso, you might not understand human anatomy.
I literally never said that, I did say there is good chance to hit an artery which is true.
You must not understand how wide a HP round can get after hitting flesh. Also you must be extremely ignorant to think it's easy to hit a limb
I didn't say it was easy but thanks for the personal attack, that definitely helped improve your message.
There was no personal attack?
That's how soft he is
You said I don't understand anatomy(which is weird considering I'm a first responder) and I called you ignorant.
Gonna cry?
for all intents and purposes, there's no such thing as "shoot to injure". It's just not a thing.
i agree that cops in the US should have much better training including but not limited to de-escalation tactics - but there's no universe in which anyone's gonna pull out a 9mm to legshot someone. Guns are deadly force, full stop.
Guns are deadly force, this is true. One should not shoot at someone without full understanding and assumption that death is likely and imminent. Shooting from any distance it makes complete sense that aiming for torso, or hitting torso by chance is common. But if you're within arm's reach of someone I'm to understand that the cop couldn't have shot an arm or foot? Bullshit.
No, it's not bullshit at all. Instead of taking my word for it (which I'm sure you won't), you should read a little about the subject or ask someone who's been in a firefight how realistic your idea sounds.
The first and simplest reason a cop can't "just" shoot an arm or a foot, is that fine motor skills are basically the first thing out the window in a high stress situation. You're not gonna be able to reliably pull off something like that with an attacker coming at you. Not even close. Cops are notoriously bad shots, both because of poor training and because they're typically using handguns, and even when aiming for centre mass chances are they'll whiff a few.
Even if you do manage to land this "arm shot" or "leg shot", you have absolutely no way of knowing whether that will actually stop your attacker (maybe, maybe not - probably not instantly). If it doesn't you're fucked, and if you have your gun out in the first place it should already be a literal life or death situation, so this maneuvre that literally no police force or military on the planet ever practices (for good reason) will then get you killed.
I'm sorry, I know it seems logical to say "just shoot them in the arm or foot", but in practice you should never be shooting at someone's limbs. The chance of missing, or of the bullet passing through/being deflected at an unexpected angle, is way too high. When you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you should have already committed to killing them.
I agree, as someone who just likes realistic cop dramas and the literary genre noir. Always aim for critical mass.
That said, I don't think cops should shoot apparently unarmed assailants, even if they are running at them. That is part of the job of being a cop. In other countries cops don't even carry guns. Batons or Tasers (or learning methods of ducking/deflection/self-protection) would have to serve.
I'm against policing in general, but I don't blame police for the police force any more than I blame soldiers for the military.
But the way that U.S. police officers have been militarized and taught to escalate/taught to be trigger-happy out of constant fear for their lives and racial/class tensions means that they tend to protect and serve themselves more than the people of certain neighborhoods they patrol.
(Also, did you know cops can seize any cash that is present in a vehicle during a drug bust? Even if it's like, a half ounce of weed or something? And the cash might very well be from legit sources of income? Apparently the amount of cash seized by cops during stop-and-frisk drug-arrests exceeded the amount of cash stolen by thieves in armed robberies one year--my roommate is doing his PhD in the subject, I'd have to ask him for details, but I remember being floored hearing that. Holy shit, there is a financial incentive for them to profile and harass!)
If you have a laser pointer, and someone to wrestle with, put it in your pocket and try standing there while they rush at and then tackle/start tussling with you. Pull out the laser pointer and try to turn it on so you immediately hit their leg, while they try to grab it from you.
Odds are really good you'll miss. Congratulations, you've fired a bullet that bounced off the ground and hit a third grader. Or someone's oxygen tank. Or it's not doing anyone any harm because it hit a tree, and now the other person is slamming your head against the ground and you can't stop them.
So while someone is a foot away you should take the time to aim for the smallest target possible instead of the biggest?
Yeah....you make total logical sense...
It's really hard to hit smaller targets, especially when you're hyped up on adrenaline, and especially when those smaller targets are flailing around (as limbs often do). It's also not a guaranteed chance that you'll incapacitate the person, and even if you do, you've likely maimed them for life. Also, limbs have arteries running through them, which let me tell you can bleed like you wouldn't believe. Take a bullet to the thigh, maybe your femur is shattered, maybe your femoral artery gets nicked, maybe the bullet deflects off of your femur into your pelvis... The end.
Most police officers don't train with their guns that often, and the hit rate in most police-involved shootings is pretty poor. So no, if you're going to shoot someone, it should (in my opinion) only be when it's in immediate defense of your life or someone else's, but at that point you should just plan on killing them by: aiming at what you're most likely to hit, in a spot that's most likely to make them quickly stop doing whatever it was they were doing. If you can afford to only wing someone (which often isn't a thing, but hypothetically) you shouldn't have a gun out to begin with.
That's not to say that I support the idea of police killing people willy-nilly, or that police brutality and racism against people of color isn't a terrible stain on our collective conscience. It's horrendous. But if you're going to shoot someone, there are legitimate logistical reasons to aim for their torso.
Most police officers don't train with their guns that often, and the hit rate in most police-involved shootings is pretty poor.
Kind of sounds like they’re not very good at their jobs or well trained, then.
not the parent, but this is true. Some cops in the US are well trained, and some aren't. Most have shockingly little actual firearms training considering that carrying one is one of the first things people associate with the job.
that said, the most elite unit in the world is still not gonna train to shoot legs or really anything other than centre mass. it's just not practical, realistic, effective or in any way a good idea.
This. 100%.
I asked my husband, who used to be Marines infantry, he says that you might aim for the legs if you've got a riot shield you're using to lift/block their upper body so you don't stick your gun out in such a way to make it grabbable, and you might go for a pelvis shot if they've got a helmet or a vest on, but then you shoot them in the chin or whatever gets exposed as they fall. So. Yeah. Heart-liver-lungs or face, outside of special situations.
[deleted]
Real life is not like a movie where someone with rudimentary firearm experience can nail a headshot at 20 meters in a dead sprint with a pistol.
man I remember back in the day when this was the kind of stuff I disliked about TWD
I mean, to some degree yes (in the sense that you don't have to be a crack shot, or practice very often, or practice under stressful conditions with a person maybe trying to stab or shoot you), but even people who are very well trained still aim for the upper torso or front of the face. To do otherwise is just asking for multiple kinds of trouble.
No one well trained aims for the face, except for maybe spec ops guys in very specific situations. Heads are difficult to hit as they tend to move the most during a firefight. Center mass is always the best bet for a stop.
this guy knows what he's talking about, and there's a non-zero chance he's read 'on combat'
No to both, but I have talked to people who know what they're talking about, which is close enough for me!
close enough is good enough. your post was factually correct, and that's all that matters here.
Literally the number one rule of a gun is don't point it at something you do not wish to destroy
[deleted]
But see, opinions aren't facts. So research isn't always a necessity.
I really just hate guns. I'm anti-gun. We've lost all sense of the use and purpose of guns and unless the civilian was brandishing a gun, the police shouldn't pull theirs either. ESPECIALLY if the only option is shoot-to-kill and not shoot-to-injure/disarm. End of opinion.
[deleted]
If you want to change something, you have to understand the issue.
FTFY
I think that's asking too much here. In my opinion, the speed of light is actually 7 MPH. This is indisputable as it's my opinion.
Lol
Well this comment is just all sorts of ignorant lol.
Spoken like someone who has probably never fired a gun, or been in a life threatening situation.
When a deadly threat presents itself to you, you shoot to stop the threat. You don't shoot to "injure an disarm". This isn't hollywood.
Contrary to your name, you speak common sensw
In a world where news is fake news, uncommon sense might be common. Nevermind, you're a Russian troll.
Uhh what.
Exactly.
Was he a deadly threat, though? To a trained, armed, body-armored professional? Not likely.
Aim for a kill spot? Jesus. Life is not a video game.
Shooting something that's moving is a lot harder than Hollywood would make you believe. Shooting to injure and disarm just isn't a realistic proposal.
I can't even say being shot for "assaulting" a combat-trained, bullet-proof-vested person hired to "serve and protect" is really all that rational.
The person attacking you may have a gun, too.
Police are trained to stop dangerous, life-threatening or murderous behavior. They don't shoot for the leg, they are trained to efficiently stop the threat.
It's easy to say we coulda, woulda, shoulda in hindsight, but the heat of the moment is different.
It's pretty simple, play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
Yeah but there was that SWATing incident where the police went to a house and killed the home owner because they thought he had a gun and did not.
Also this.
Tyler Barriss, the 25-year-old man accused of initiating the "swatting" call, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, giving false alarm and interference with a law enforcement officer. A judge has set his bond at $500,000.
Yeah, this guy makes an erratic phone call to police, saying perp has a gun and is dangerous. Police assumed the man had a gun. This guy rightfully so should be charged with manslaughter.
Police do make mistakes, and some police are not good. When cops do good, we forget them. We only remember cops when they do bad. We are more likely to be shot and killed by a fellow citizen of our own ethnic background then we are by a white police officer
The overwhelming majority of police are good. We don't blame all Muslims when 1 crazy whack job commits terrorism do we? We don't blame Christians when Westboro Batist Church is doing crazy shit.
A black man is 19 times more likely kill a policeman than a cop is to kill an unarmed black man.
[removed]
I think this may be the article referenced by the Wikipedia article that I read:
Applying the historical average over the last decade in which 40 percent of all cop-killers were black would yield 21 cops killed by blacks in 2015. An officer’s chance of getting killed by a black person is 0.000033, which is 18.5 times the chance of an unarmed black person getting killed by a cop. After this year’s 72 percent increase in felonious killings of police officers, these ratios will be even more lopsided.
And here is the article that comes from, which was published in the The Washington Post on July 19, 2016 and written by Heather McDonald, the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to City Journal. (She is a graduate of Stanford Law School, and Cambridge and Yale universities).
Wow.
The person attacking you may have a gun, too.
I thought owning a gun is a nationally protected right? No where did you say shooting a gun, or aiming it at the cop.
The issue is the standard for use of force in the US is pretty low. All that the cop has to think is someones life may be in danger. Under such a standard whether they have a gun or not is immaterial, what matter is whether they could be doing something threatening. What makes it murky is depending on who is reaching into their back pocket the cops may perceive a very different thing. Honestly part of the problem is alot of the media attention is on what the objective facts are when the standard is almost entirely subjective. A good example of this is the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida. Based on the way stand your ground is written it was basically impossible that he was going to be convicted. Putting it to trial to appease the public only ends up making it look like the system is rigged, when really the better question in my mind is should stand your ground laws like Florida's stand.
Yes, I agree with you on the Zimmerman shooting. There was no way he'd be convicted with the laws as they were, although I believe he is 100% morally culpable for Martin's death.
Well and that's the real questions that should be getting asked, are stand your ground laws reasonable? Should we set a higher standard for police use of force? But those questions get lost in the objective truth of the case which in most cases doesn't actually matter because so many of the deadly force laws are based only on perception.
Sure. There's a script for these things, operating within the bounds of 'acceptable conversation'. Find a way the dead person 'deserved' the outcome, because then some people can just accept that things worked out correctly (the Just Worlders). Talk about how our laws are encouraging this, on the other hand, means you're some kind of loon.
Are we being honest here? Its implied a person you dont know may have a gun. Even if they dont, you can still beat someone to death. A BP vest does no good when you're KOd.
Regardless, if u play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. Don't assume. I'm some boot licker either. That applies to civilians too
Because "combat trained, bullet proof vested person" is not trained on how to be calm. They are afraid. You can hear it in their recorded voices. They are afraid. They are not in control of themselves or the situation.
You don't shoot to injure. If the gun comes out you're shooting to kill, period. That's how it works for anybody with training. Also, what spots are you talking about to aim for? The leg has the femoral artery which will make you bleed out and die very quickly, arms are hard to hit and don't make any sense to aim for... So that leaves the head?
There is no such thing as a guaranteed kill shot or a guaranteed no kill shot. You could take a shot to the head and survive or take a shot to the leg and end up dying.
It is not that unusual for an assailant to take a shot that eventually proves fatal, but they are so jacked up on adrenaline or whatever that they have 5 to 15 minutes in which to fuck you up before they collapse.
[removed]
You know cops don't have to pull their gun at every fart of wind, right?
This is just really stupid logic and demonstrates the lack of understanding people have when they speak on law enforcement, particularly within the context of the use of force. PD/Sheriff Department/Federal law enforcement couldn’t give a shit about medical bills, it’s specifically earmarked within their budgets. What they do care about is if their LEO was within the right at that moment given the current facts the LEO had on hand to react the way they did. The overwhelming majority of LEOs do. There is no such thing as a ‘disarming shot’. Everywhere on the human body is a potential kill spot. The standard bullet carried by law enforcement is a hollow tip bullet designed to expand and mushroom out upon impact at over 1100 feet per second. Once you shoot someone, several veins, muscle tissue, nerves, bones, organs and arteries are shredded upon impact. Shoot someone in the leg you say? Great, you’ve now severed the femoral artery beyond immediate repair and that someone is going to bleed out in less than 3 minutes (yes, it is THAT fast). The arm also contains arteries, just as easy to bleed out from. Shooting someone in a hand or foot isn’t exactly a viable option, particularly in a life-threatening situation. You’re trying to stop someone from harming you or others, and it’s easy to fight through that pain and still use your other limbs to execute your desires. You shoot to stop the threat, and the quickest way to stop it is to shoot center mass.
The problem with this argument is that a well aimed shot to miss the “kill spot” is incredibly difficult under stressful situations. Most police officers are not combat trained. In a situation like that, your best bet is the largest target, center mass.
What do you think the reaction would be in a different country to assaulting a police officer and trying to take his gun?
Police officers in a lot of other countries don't have guns. That's the point. In the UK, it's only cops in Northern Ireland that generally carry guns.
As far as I kniw, the UK is the only European country where police don't carry guns. So I'm not sure if this is a valid argument.
That's not true at all, tons of European countries have police without guns. The difference is that they also garrison a ton of military to act as police. Which I think would be an absolutely horrific idea in America.
Germany is known for not acting on their own soil, which led to a lot of issues with the Berlin Olympics, since they didn't have dedicated counter terrorism units in their police forces.
The lines between military and law enforcement seems to get a bit blurry elsewhere though.
tons of European countries have police without guns
Only the UK, Ireland and Norway are the only one source
Germany is known for not acting on...
I'll just link this article
have dedicated counter terrorism units
Nah, back in the old days like 1970's (Baader-Meinhof-Gruppe) there was the good old GSG9
And, naturally, Dutch border patrol Koninklijke Marechaussee are equiped with goodies like the MP5 and the HK416
but the German Constitution did not allow the use of German Armed Forces on German soil during peacetime.
That third link supports exactly what I said. GSG9 was made because military can't act on German soil during peacetime. GSG9 are not military.
You're correct it seems about more European police having guns, I was under the impression that a lot more only had special teams with guns, or military police working with them.
I also don't get what you mean with the second link. It's just a page in German listing their equipment.
I figured that, because Germany has a lot of different police forces, this was the easiest way to show they all are armed.
And I think there are no European countries who will use the army against their civilians. Maybe except border patrols (I know that in the Netherlands they are part of the military)
I was reading an article that Belgium cured you has over 40% of their military working for the police
Considering the attacks in Belgium and France, I can understand this. There's only so much extra work you can handle. And most policemen are not really trained for extremities. Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain have the Gendarmery who are a military component with civil jurisdiction. So you're right on that point, I had the Dutch situation in mind. We have police, riot police and the Marechaussee. We only bring in the marines in very hostile situations. De Punt and Boven Smilde
And that is the reason why we have a video of twelve UK police running away from one person.
Didn't London just pass NYC for murders?
Yes..... for a period of two months. There were more murders in NYC the month before and after that.
Isn't the UK the only EU country with a violent crime rate equal to or greater than the US violent crime rate?
Well first off, the UK isn't part of the EU any more. ;)
Also, if you click on the link I provided, you can see that the UK's homicide rate is 1.20 per 100,000 people (compared to 5.35 for the US), so they're not even close. It is a bit on the high side by EU standards, but not by much. It's comparable to Sweden (1.08), France (1.23), and Finland (1.42), but much lower than Belgium (1.85) or Hungary (2.07).
In no particular order...
A.) Didn't realize it was a link because of the re-design. B.) The UK is still part of the EU for another 289 days. C.) There's more to violent crime than murder/intentional homicide. Murder rate is higher in the US than in Britain, but all other violent crimes are higher which brings the total violent crime rate to parity once you convert to like units since the UK likes to list rates per 1,000 people and the US likes to list per 100,000.
Can you provide a source for that? Because it's definitely a fact that gets bandied about online, but isn't accurate.
Actually, the link you provided was my source as well. Once robbery is removed (since it's is applied inconsistently in both countries) both are left with a per 100,000 violent crime rate in the mid 300's.
They're also generally smaller countries with less major cities and populations to control
In all honesty, the casual reference to the role of police as controlling a population is at least like 47% of what is wrong with the United States right now.
Not control neccessarly, but to enforce rules and regulations in an ethical manner. If someone attacks a police officer then I don't have sympathy. If an officer abuses and murders someone in cold blood then we have a problem.
When good cops go out to do their job they need a firearm. Look at how many gangs and drugs that are prevalent throughout the United States. A police officer here couldn't not have a fire arm.
Hey, in sum and substance I agree with you. I am an attorney that does some work in municipal defense, which includes defending police officers. I’ve seen conduct on both sides of that divide. However, there are also distinct problems related to the attitude of many (including police officers) that they are more an occupying military force than a police force. That mentality and the disturbing lack of non-lethal weapons in many police forces around the country are both ingredients in a recipe for disaster.
And yes, I know full well that a taser isn’t perfect, nor are beanbag rounds. It should still be the first thing reached for most situations.
I certainly dont think the system is perfect and of course I think people shouldn't reach for lethality first, but I just dont see inner city cops and cops in bad states not carrying a glock.
Like the UK? They have big cities too.
I never said they didnt. All I'm getting at is America has more cities with higher population densities than others which can lead to a higher crime rate. Officers need weapons in case they should ever be in the situation they do. Most of the time they're not needed but if you're in a situating when you need a gun you'll be happy when you have it. Same reason why I carry pepper spray.
All I'm getting at is America has more cities with higher population densities than others which can lead to a higher crime rate.
Wait, what? American cities are actually notorious for their lack of density. Outside of NYC, there isn't a single US city with more than 10,000 people per square km.
Europe has a few dozen of them.
EDIT: Also, high density doesn't automatically correlate with high crime.
"Europe has a few dozen of them" yeah Europe lol. I'm talking specifically the UK.
If I'm wrong about the city statistics then I'm wrong, but the premise is with America large amount of cities it is more likely for crime to occur. Boise Idaho isnt very dense and you dont see the same crime here you do in Chicago.
And if you want to look at all of Europe i'm pretty sure aside from the UK Norway, Ireland, Iceland, and NZ all have officers not carrying firearms and all of those countries are low population. Let's say all of those countries have a population of 76 million. That's a fair estimate. Now look at America at 325 million. That's a lot less than 1/3 of the population spread over multiple countries.
Also let it be known in northern Ireland officers do carry firearms
that's not what happened though
No, this is exactly what happened with the Brown case
no, its not
And what did happen?
... if you’re black
...and shot by a another black
Nah
The problem is that the people that tell you if an assault happened are the same people that shoot you.
And for a lot of Americans, there's nothing wrong with that system.
It's simple. He assaulted the cop. Then they separated. The cop was in a 3000 lb vehicle that's bullet resistant and had the only gun in the situation. Michael Brown ran away. None of this is in question.
Now, I still think the dude is a fucking moron, but at what point does it NOT become ok to kill him because he fought for a cop's gun? If they found him 5 minutes later? 60? 240 (4 hours)? 1440 (1 day)? At what point does he downgrade from "direct, immediate, clear threat to a person's life" to "scumbag who once threatened someone's life"? At what point does it become a "past action" and not a current one? That's really the issue at hand, imo.
If you asked me, the cop ended his life unjustly because he had plenty of other options to end the situation that didn't end in a death. If the officer simply locked himself in his car until backup arrived, at the very worst, his life was in no danger - since Brown had no weapon.
"He might have" isn't a reason to kill someone, btw. I feel the need to pre-empt "he might have had a weapon" with "and until he produced it, it didn't exist".
The outrage is not about one incident, and probably not having to fear for your freedom and safety around police might be one way for us to describe white privilege.
"You don't know what it's like to be black.....now let me tell you what its like for you being white!"
No one tells us what it's like to be white, just that we have many privileges that we're not even cognizant of. Relationship with law enforcement is one of them, you'd have to be in self-denial not to see that.
"I'm not black, but there's a whole lotsa times I wished I could say I'm not white."
-Eminem
It's Frank Zappa, actually, but that is also a likely scenario.
Ah ok. Eminem said something to the effect of being ashamed of being white, is why I named him.
If you dont have a weapon they are not supposed to use deadly force. We pay them to put themselves in harms way and not kill us because we kniw we fuck up sometimes and need somebody there to help us. When you kill us in a situation that we cannot kill you, it is an abuse of that power.
Are you 15? This is the response of a child.
Ive been in a position to have to use deadly force. This is the response of someone who actually knows what they are talking about. But pls, tell me more about everything you know...
You may have been in such a position to use deadly force, just as countless people have. But those who have trained with firearms know there is no shoot to injure. Once your weapon is drawn, it is only for a kill. Everything I know would take a bit of time. Its hard to condense two tours in a infantry unit.
The point is not to draw if someone doesnt have a deadly weapon...
Considering he was shot by the weapon he was trying to grab...while running away, some people thought the force was excessive, even if Brown wasn't totally innocent.
He was shot in the front. Protip: He wasn't running away. He was charging at the officer. I believe even the Obama Administration investigation of the incident supported that conclusion. Though it's been a while since I have read it.
No, he was shot initially while struggling in the car. He then got up and ran away. He was then shot in the back. Shot with the gun he had wrestled for and given up on. The cop knew he was unarmed.
The Obama administration and every other sensible person believes the initial shooting was indeed justified because Brown charged and then wrestled for the gun (we're told). However, after being shot once, he ran and was gunned down from behind. Whether or not that initial, justified shot would have killed him, no one knows.
This is based off facts and my attempt at objectivity. Whether or not you want to believe me is up to you.
He was then shot in the back.
I suggest you read the DOJ Report:
After the initial shooting inside the SUV, the evidence establishes that Brown ran eastbound on Canfield Drive and Wilson chased after him. The autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back. The autopsy results alone do not indicate the direction Brown was facing when he received two wounds to his right arm, given the mobility of the arm. However, as detailed later in this report, there are no witness accounts that could be relied upon in a prosecution to prove that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away. Witnesses who say so cannot be relied upon in a prosecution because they have given accounts that are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence or are significantly inconsistent with their own prior statements made throughout the investigation.
The cop knew he was unarmed.
Unarmed is not synonymous with "not dangerous".
The Obama administration and every other sensible person believes the initial shooting was indeed justified because Brown charged and then wrestled for the gun (we're told).
The evidence also agrees.
However, after being shot once, he ran and was gunned down from behind.
Nope. No evidence. Even the DOJ Report says you are wrong.
Whether or not that initial, justified shot would have killed him, no one knows.
The initial shot from the car hit his hand and he ran away so I can say that one didn't kill him IIRC, (go through the DOJ Report if you would like), they say the one to the head was the fatal one.
This is based off facts and my attempt at objectivity.
No. No it is not. Stop perpetuating lies.
Whether or not you want to believe me is up to you.
Absolutely NO ONE who looks at the evidence, the DOJ Report, and the Grand Jury Documents believe you. The only people who believe you will be the ones who haven't looked at the evidence and want to perpetuate lies and at worse, racism.
Unarmed is not synonymous with "not dangerous".
That's ridiculous. You could say that about anyone human being. Unarmed means lethal force is not required.
"The evidence also agrees."
Except the officer washed his gun before it could be analysed as evidence.
"The initial shot from the car hit his hand and he ran away so I can say that one didn't kill him IIRC, (go through the DOJ Report if you would like), they say the one to the head was the fatal one."
Which contradicts the autopsy report you yourself provided. Or did he die from a gunshot to the hand?
When the case is based entirely on police testimony and all other testimony is dismissed, plenty of people believe me.
Maybe you should do a little reading of your own?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html
"The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body."
This means Brown was killed after having moved away from the officer, regardless of the direction he was facing when shot. You're right about the entrance wounds, but there is still very valid grounds to question the need for lethal force. Brown was unarmed, which the cop knew, and injured. Explain the need to fire those shots in his arm, neck and head? It wasn't because he was struggling with the officer.
I'm not excusing Brown, but you haven't disputed these points. Be a smug asshole all you like, you're willing ignoring information for the purpose of propagating dishonest propaganda.
You're a level of crazy. Get help.
I provide a legitimate counterargument, and you respond with nothing more than an insult. I think it's pretty obvious who has won this argument. Thanks for conceding.
He was a trained police office being "attacked" by an 18 year old. His first instinct was to go for his gun instead of giving him the ass whooping he deserved? That's the problem.
That's a great armchair analysis.
Especially given the size difference between the two individuals involved.
A 200+ pound giant was rushing towards the relatively smaller officer at full speed. I know my reaction would be to reach for a gun if that happened to me.
Lol. Darren Wilson was the same height, but leaner with more muscle. He was 10 years older and had years of training and experience. Michael Brown was a baby faced 18 year old. You're telling my that officer needed to pull his weapon and kill him when he could've easily taken him?
I dunno, what do you think the odds were? Now what odds would you bet your life on?
I'd whoop an 18 year old's ass, even if he was bigger than me. He still a kid. I have man strength. Now, if I was a trained cop with a baton and taser to go along with my gun? Yeah, I'd win. He'd be alive. Period.
You sound like the perp in this situation. "Yeah i know i could take him, I'm going to charge his ass". And that's how people get killed.
Not to mention Brown had just robbed a store as well.
That's what's nutty to people though. Generally execution isn't a punishment for robbing a store.
An execution would have been handcuffing the dude and shooting him in the face.
This wasn't an execution. From what I recall it was an extremely shitty situation when it was a very volatile subject.
So I'm not saying the police officer acted correctly, but staging it as him deciding to give the man a death penalty for robbing a store is dishonest at best and harmful to the victims of clear police brutally.
You understand that people bringing up the robbery as justification for the shooting is equally dishonest?
not to mention that the officer cleaned his gun afterwards and didn't file any report on the incident until much later. destroying evidence is dishonest if not an outright admission of guilt
Cleaning your gun isnt destroying evidence.
I'm confused, what do you mean?
Do you know what tampering with a crime scene is?
if brown grabbed the gun there would be dna or possibly fingerprints to back that scenario up. as soon as wilson fired, that gun became evidence...which he destroyed immediately
Ohhh I see what you mean.
I don't think that they would have been able to get anything substantial from it. If his prints weren't on the gun, that doesn't mean he didn't try, and if they were they were probably inconclusivly his.
But regardless yeah that's probably tampering with evidence and shady. The whole thing sounds like a long series of fuck ups.
Ohhh I see what you mean.
I don't think that they would have been able to get anything substantial from it. If his prints weren't on the gun, that doesn't mean he didn't try, and if they were they were probably inconclusivly his.
But regardless yeah that's probably tampering with evidence and shady. The whole thing sounds like a long series of fuck ups.
Absolutely wrong.
The officer told them to get out of the middle of the road and the recognized they matched the robbery suspect description so he stopped to make an arrest.
The robbery is the one thing that led to the altercation as Michael Brown didn't want to get arrested and charged. THAT is why he assaulted the officer before he even got out of his car. The evidence, (blood stains in the car) support this.
"but staging it as him deciding to give the man a death penalty for robbing a store is dishonest at best"
This is what I responded to. I agree with it. But I think it is equally dishonest to blame the shooting on the robbery. Why? Because the robbery was not happening at the time. Directly linking the events is ludicrous. What else could you blame with that logic? How many factors play into why an event happens, the when and how of who was where and when? Countless. All of them "contributed" to the shooting as much as the robbery did.
This is the exact same thing as saying Trayvon deserved to die because he like rap music and bought skittles. It's called character assassination. People who are secure in their arguments don't need to resort to such tactics.
But I think it is equally dishonest to blame the shooting on the robbery. Why? Because the robbery was not happening at the time.
No. He was stopped because of the robbery so they are directly relevant.
It's called character assassination.
If you don't want a bad reputation, don't behave terribly. He has no one to blame but himself. He robbed a store. A cop confronted him about it and he then attacked the cop. Don't twist facts to hide the truth. The robbery is the reason he was stopped. The robbery is the reason he attacked the officer. Stop defending bad people. It does not help anyone, let alone the BLM movement.
The officer told them to get out of the middle of the road and the recognized they matched the robbery suspect description so he stopped to make an arrest.
That's interesting that you say that, because in the press conference immediately after the fact the police department stated that he did NOT recognize him as a robbery suspect. Strange. Why did the story change?
The fact is he was speaking out of his ass and rather than acknowledge that, he instantly downvoted you and will now refuse to respond. If his karma drops, expect to see a deleted comment.
Probably because they didn't have all of the facts and there was so much outrage in the neighborhood. But if you read the DOJ Report and the Grand Jury Documents, it is proven there.
My link for the Grand Jury Report has expired but I linked the DOJ Report for you.
Oh yeah, extremely. I posted about it elsewhere. Im not justifying what the cop did. I think both of them probably fucked up
[deleted]
The cop didn't know he'd robbed a story, so the information is irrelevant to the discussion. Also, he shoplifted some cigars, he didn't rob it.
You should watch the security footage from the robbery. He assaults and threatens the clerk when taking the cigars from the counter. It most certainly was not shoplifting.
Not that he deserved to be killed for it, but it's best to speak honestly about such matters.
I'd agree that's more than shoplifting, but the cop did say he didn't know about it until after the altercation.
Still doesn't change the fact that all evidence points to him charging the officer. It's just yet another reason BLM really shouldn't have used him as a poster boy.
Edit: Your downvotes can't change the physical evidence
I didn't make an argument over whether I think the shooting was justified. My argument is that the robbery had nothing to do with it. A lot of people are not law abiding citizens, maybe not to this extent, but in terms of drug use and such. It doesn't mean they're going to murder the next cop they see.
Him charging the police officer is the only plausible justification, I don't see why people have to go for the slam dunk and make it seem like Brown was a bloodthirsty murderer that needed to be put down.
the idea that this kid just ran into a hail of gunfire is ridiculous. i can't believe that people are so eager to just accept it as a legit explanation for what happened
[deleted]
darren wilson destroyed evidence immediately after the incident and didn't make his report until he already knew what the evidence would support. also ferguson had to be investigated by the doj for extreme corruption. that fairy tale wilson concocted proves nothing.
[deleted]
the medical examiner didn't even take any crime scene photos. that whole investigation is suspect so your after-the-fact evidence is less than convincing.
Which shall I take?
The statements of 2 forensics experts, one of which was paid by Brown's family?
Or the unsubstantiated claims of a redditor?
doesn't matter if you're an expert if the evidence you're interpreting is compromised.
still hasn't provided a source showing this
http://www.newsweek.com/crime-scene-medical-examiner-took-no-measurements-photos-brown-287074
[deleted]
You have shown nothing useful here.
neither have you other than parroting a bunch of subjective conclusions based on unreliable evidence
two independent forensic analysts coming to the same exact conclusions
Subjective
Procedure was followed and pictures were taken
Unreliable evidence
Seems like you want to close your ears and ignore any contrary evidence (of which there is plenty). Good with me, enjoy your bubble.
Where is the evidence he was shot while charging and not after? The cop is also huge, he’s 6’5, brown being “huge” isn’t a valid excuse to kill him. And do police officers not have other means to defuse tense situations other than shooting a man to death?
If you think Brown abused his powers by being a criminal, how are you so convinced the police officer didn’t abuse his either
The significance of this wound and related physical evidence is that it places Brown’s right hand within 6 to 9 inches of the barrel of Wilson’s firearm. This physical evidence is thus quite consistent with Wilson’s testimony that Brown was trying to get hold of Wilson’s weapon, creating a fear in Wilson that he was going to get shot.
And then:
At some point in the altercation, it appears undisputed that Brown (and his friend Dorian Johnson) ran away from Wilson. Wilson pursued on foot and, according to Wilson, Brown eventually paused, turned around, and then charged at him.
Corroborated by:
With regard to the wounds on the torso and head, there were no wounds from the back (197:18).
And:
In the ME’s opinion, the first wound was the wound to the thumb, the last was the wound to the top of Brown’s head (197:7). The ME specifically testified that if Brown was bent over, that would be consistent with the entry to the head wounds, although he cautioned that he could not say for certain what position Brown was in at the time he received the wound (166:11).
And:
Here again, this testimony was consistent with Wilson’s testimony. It aligned with Brown charging forward toward Wilson, coming to a halt only when Wilson was able to get a fatal shot to the head. Significantly, the ME’s testimony did not align with those who claimed (before the grand jury or in the media) the Wilson had gunned Brown down in the back.
And:
The grand jury also heard testimony about a second, independent autopsy performed by an forensic expert hired by the Brown family, Michael Baden. Baden testified that his findings were the same as the ME’s (Vol. 23, at 108:1). With regard to the thumb wound suffered by Brown, he concluded that the thumb was just a “few inches” away from Wilson’s gun. He praised the work of a technician who had found in Wilson’s car skin tissue that appeared to be from Michael Brown’s thumb (72:20). Baden also found that Brown’s head was down when the shots were fired (71:2).
And:
Of particular interest for evaluating Wilson’s testimony is the location of the 12 shell casings recovered. Two of them were recovered close to Wilson’s car, conforming to his testimony about his firing two shots there (vol. V, 226:4). After that, the remaining 10 casings were recovered adjacent to (or behind) the path that Wilson said Brown took when charging toward him. This was consistent with Wilson firing a series of shots as Brown rushed toward him, all the while backpedaling to try and increase the distance.
And:
An expert in DNA from the St. Louis County Police Department Crime Law testified that Michael Brown’s DNA was later found on Wilson’s firearm. (Vol. 19, 182:16). It was not possible to determine whether this was due to contact with Brown’s skin, blood, or some other bodily fluid. The interior left front door panel of Wilson’s car also had DNA from Michael Brown on it (185:9).
What'd you have?
Yes, that's fine, but then don't bring up the store robbery as some kind of justification or explanation for what happened.
I never said that. It's not a justification in the slightest and the people who say that are just as wrong as calling it an execution.
However it isn't irrelevant. If the police were under the assumption that he was armed after commiting a robbery, it would be relevant.
I don't know that they thought that. I don't remember a lot about the case. In all honesty I'm assuming that the dude getting arrested probably did panic and did assault the cop and was probably trying to get away. The cop probably had shitty training and panicked, and shot the guy. I think both of them probably fucked up.
It is for assaulting a police officer who is in fear for his life tho.
in fear for his life
It seems a lot of incidents get lumped into this and it becomes a Get Out Of Accountability card. The swatting incident in Kansas the cop claimed fear for his life when an unarmed guy answered his door not knowing anything was wrong. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground that excuses legitimate shootings but doesn't let 'fear for my life' be the go to for every shooting.
We could make them, I dunno, finish the fucking sentence? :)
"I was in fear for my life" should end with "because of XYZ". We just let them utter the magic incantation "Fear for my life" and stop listening. That's why it's so broken.
I agree. But when the court system establishes reasonable defence parameters to justify the shooting, you have to go with the peers decision.
And the United States jury is the rule of law in the American system. Those are the rules of law in it simplist form. They were convinced It was justified. So it was. So was most of America if I'm not mistaken.
Look I'm not an idiot. I know there have been countless cold blooded murders at the hands of American police that said cops should not have gotten away with.
I'm just saying this isnt one. I think police should be trained differently for sure. It should be a 120k a year job at least, and should take a 4 year degree,plus some to get. Because honestly its a tough ass job. Probably one of the top 10 hardest.
I think more understanding should go into the occupation than assumed racism. (#notacop)
Evidence of the assault? And does this assault deserve the outcome of death? Is killing justified now?
Brown's DNA all over the inside of the car and gunshot residue and abrasion injuries on Brown's hands and arms, IIRC.
[deleted]
I'm fine with the assault thing, I understand that happened. My point is that the fact that he robbed a store is irrelevant to what happened next. It's the explanation for why police approached him in the first place, it's not an explanation for why things escalated as they did.
It istablishes that hes already somewhat of a criminal. Also he wouldnt have been pursued if that didn't happen. Things escilated because he started beating up a police officer who is a lot smaller than him. So its really the whole reason he was shot.
The problem us Americans have is that the media and locals turned this into a fucking race war across the country. Including riots and more death. And then the cops/whites get blamed. Even though black people shoot more cops than cops shoot blacks.
It istablishes that hes already somewhat of a criminal.
Yes, but why is that justification for being shot? Lots of people commit non-violent crimes, it doesn't give police justification to shoot them. Stick to the interaction with the police as justification in the case of Michael Brown, not what happened before.
The problem us Americans have is that the media and locals turned this into a fucking race war across the country.
Because black people are 2-3 times more likely to be shot by the police than white people. And it came on the heels of several other high profile incidents (Freddie Gray, Eric Garner) that the black community felt were indicative of the unfair treatment they receive from police.
He wasn't shot for robbing a store. He was shot while in the process of assaulting a police officer who had ordered him to stay back.
[removed]
the problem isnt only racial issues in the police force, its the criminal appeal of Blacks in America. Who even celibrate killing, selling drugs, stealing, etc in Rap music. Think its cool.
This same rap music is pretty popular with the white suburban kids near me. I hear them blasting it on their phones whenever they're hanging out with their friends.
There may be a higher crime rate in the black community in the US, but while you seem think that race is the determining factor, I'd point to poverty and systemic discrimination as the real reasons there.
Poverty doesnt lead to Crime. Systematic Discrimination doesnt exist unless half the blacks arrested today have shit planted on them. Which they don't.
I dont think its a race issue, I think its a culture issue. Look at the Asian community. They came to America in a nearly as bad situation as Blacks. But the culture is to study, try hard, and work hard. Thats why they have a higher median income than most other groups. Thats why they have to do better on SATs than other racial groups.
The same can be said with any other culture. Irish, middle eastern, etc.
But from my experience the people like BLM just want someone/something to blame.
Poverty doesnt lead to Crime.
No? It's just something you're born with? So it's just a wild coincidence that most gangs tend to form in poorer communities, as opposed to wealthy ones?
Look at the Asian community. They came to America in a nearly as bad situation as Blacks.
I'm not saying they weren't discriminated against (they definitely were), but Asians weren't brought over here on slave ships. Asians didn't have their culture and families deliberately ripped apart while in bondage. Asians didn't have their opportunities to get education thwarted at every opportunity. There weren't federal housing policies set up to keep Asians from buying homes in certain neighbourhoods. The federal government didn't decide to pursue a war on drugs that disproportionately (and intentionally in some cases) places black people in prisons. There weren't massive efforts (that still exist today) that exist primarily to discourage or deregister Asian voters.
Black on black crime shouldn’t be used to discredit the reality of police brutality and systematic oppression, because really, black on black crime and systemic oppression are hand in hand. Police killing black people and us getting mad about it is because of how the system that was literally built to hold us to a certain disadvantage, is still doing that.
The war on drugs, built to destroy black communities. Don’t believe me? Nixon said it himself. Some Black communities are the way they are for a reason. Segregation existed and even from its abolishment things haven’t recovered completely.
A 6'4" 292lb 18 year old keeps approaching after you repeatedly tell him to "stop" then he assaults you. At that point, if I'm the cop, I'm putting a stop to this by whatever means. This is not a movie where I can judo-chop him or where I will have time to aim for an extremity, hit the target, and he will discontinue the assault... no, I am assuming I'm in danger of getting my weapon wrestled out of my hands and my life ended. I do not blame the officer one bit. No doubt in my mind that the result would have been the same had the assailant been white, asian, or any other race.
The cop was 6"5.
Did you even know that, or did you fall for the 'giant black guy narrative?'
Oh man, that changes everything. Officer Wilson should have just calmly put down his weapon and administered a swift figure-four leglock to the innocent young kid that was doing absolutely nothing. I see the real narrative now.
So now that you are confronted with the fact that they were both big, you can't admit you were wrong?
Can you admit that most security personnel can take down another person with hurting or killing them? Do you expect a higher standard from law enforcement officers?
The one in the wrong here is Michael Brown for resisting arrest and assaulting an officer. Wilson was trying to investigate a robbery and the suspect did not obey orders and then assaulted him. If I'm the officer, I don't know if this guy has a knife, a gun, is on drugs, or what the situation is exactly. Would you as the officer assume that, even if you were almost the suspects size, that you could take him down to the ground successfully and without getting your gun stolen as well? Or stabbed in the process? Police are trained, but this guy might be an MMA fighter for all you know. This is not a fantasy movie. Again, the way this played out is exactly as it would be if Mike Brown were white, black, or asian.
Again, the details are in dispute. The testimony is that they fought in the car, then Brown ran away, allowing the officer to pull the gun...but then charged the gun. Does that make sense to you?
And if you can't take down a suspect one on one without getting disarmed you shouldn't be a LEO. As someone with a background in martial arts who worked in high level security, it's the expectation for all us. And police are held to a higher standard than we were.
Are you implying that Brown was running away when Wilson shot him? You are mistaken, that or the ballistic evidence is wrong. You might not be as familiar with the case as you think. The physical evidence supports Wilson's testimony. (Brown's family even hired their own independent autopsy, which revealed the same findings). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.af0eac48c32a You seem to have swallowed the "innocent kid gets gunned down by a racist police officer" narrative hook, line and sinker.
Also, a LEO cannot expect to have a 100% success rate in physically engaging and winning against an assailant with so many variables being at play. If you have a background in martial arts, then you should know all it takes is one punch or knee and it's lights out, especially at that size, and it is very dangerous to assume that your opponent has no background in some form of martial arts as well (or knife, or gun, or many factors). Again, this is not a movie or fantasy world where the officer knows all the variables and exactly what mode of force to use.
That is literally not what I said. The testimony the officer said indicated that Brown struggled with the officer for the gun, ran away and then turned around and charged the gun.
You talk about the 'fantasy world' but this is all stuff I've personally done, so I know it CAN be done. If you think life is worth preserving.
I sincerely hope you join the force. You would make a real-life super cop: the ability to read every situation and account for every variable, in the moment, to perfection resulting in the usage of minimal force and physical harm to you and the assailant with 100% success rate.
Thanks for the discussion! It's always interesting to see what people take from these kinds of controversial situations.
Your sarcasm sucks. What you don’t get is that every night in clubs, sports stadiums concert venues and so on thousands of guys do exactly what I’m saying, not to mention military police.
It’s funny how the only group that has a union seems to have these issues
[deleted]
He had 50lbs on him.
Again, the stereotype of the massive black man and the cowering outmatched white man was a narrative the union used brilliantly, and people fell for it.
That's the difference between an NFL QB and an NFL LB.....
You just said 100lbs. You were wrong.
One is an 18 year old kid, the other is a highly trained officer wearing armor and with various weapons. In theory, it's not a fair fight.
[deleted]
I DO apologize for misremembering the weight.
I'm not that guy....
If you're in a position where you feel you are being threatened with bodily harm, you need to take the necessary steps to get out of harm's way. I don't care how much armor you have, if I'm staring down an aggressive 6'4" 290 man coming towards me, my life is in danger.
This is not to understate the frequency and degree of police brutality in America, but in terms of examples the Ferguson shooting isn't the best one. I'm surprised this is the case that sparked a movement instead of Trayvon Martin or Eric Garner.
If you're a 6"5 240lb trained police officer?
Then that other guy is getting beat down with your baton, pepper spray, taser, etc. But he didn't like to carry his non-lethal stuff. He liked his gun.
[deleted]
Ok brah.
It's not a fair fight. That's why the 18 year old is supposed to comply. He is supposed to obey the officer, or his ass will be taken to jail. And if he tries to kill the officer, the officer has the right to use deadly force.
And pretty much all the evidence in that case suggested that Brown was trying to kill or cause massive injury to the officer, after robbing a store, already having assaulted him, and after trying to steal his weapon and fired it in his car. Not a single logical person would claim Michael Brown was right in that case, and if you believe so, then the brainwashing is for real.
Not a single logical person would claim Michael Brown was right in that case, and if you believe so, then the brainwashing is for real.
I thought that too until this thread. It's crazy people are still defending Brown and screaming racism despite all of the evidence.
'He didn't comply' is always the refrain of the bigot.
All they have to say is 'he resisted arrest' and that's enough. You don't look into it, or see if the information makes sense. He deserved to die apparently.
What is your point? 50 pounds is a significant difference in size.
He’s racist. Extremely prejudiced and clearly thinks that police officers aren’t trained to defuse situations like this without killing a man.
Defuse the situation of a criminal punching him in the face?
No of course not, but people need to stop portraying these criminals as innocent children, Michael Brown was literally pushing a store employee around beforehand and then charged at an officer. More like he had a death wish.
Except not all those shot were criminals, Brown is not the only incident. John Crawford committed no crime. He picked up a BB gun in a Wal-Mart and got shot.
what was his motivation for "charging" the officer? reddit always comes up with such inventive ways to explain how mike brown deserved what happened to him.
Probably because the officer gave chase after their first encounter, when Michael Brown reached into his patrol car and struggled with the officer. Why Mike turned and charged the officer, no idea, but he did "charge" the officer, as evidenced by witness testimony and autopsy reports.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html
wilsons testimony doesn't even say that.
"At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I’m shooting at him."
which is it?
I'm not certain what you are trying to prove. Wilson discharged shots at him when Brown first came at him when Wilson was still in his patrol car.
this was supposedly after brown ran away but before he charged at wilson. both were out of the car. that statement indicates that wilson was already shooting before brown stared charging toward him
Trying to grab a cops gun isn't grounds for execution either. It is grounds for the police using lethal force to stop you though.
Until when? If you're 25 feet away, you aren't grabbing shit unless you're Mr. Fantastic. At what point does the cop become legally obligated to resort to non-deadly force, wait for backup, etc to arrest rather than "end the threat". I dunno if Brown would meet whatever threshhold we're gonna come up with, and I'm not implying he would have - I'm legitimately curious where people stand here.
At what point does the cop become legally obligated
After trying to grab a cops gun? When they surrender.
He wasn't killed because he robbed a store. He was killed for assaulting a police officer multiple times, including reaching for the officers gun. There were so many opportunities to stop, but Brown had no chill.
He wasn't killed because he robbed a store.
I know, that's why I was saying it's irrelevant to point it out as some kind of justification, as the poster above seemed to be suggesting. He didn't rob the store at gunpoint or using a knife.
How is it irrelevant? The cops were called because the initial robbery. Then Brown decided to have no chill and fight the cop, and try to steal his gun.
There are so many other illegitimate situations to use as an example of injustice. This was not one of them.
[removed]
Easy on the name calling. My point is that the fact that he robbed a store is an explanation for why police confronted him in the first place (i.e. he wasn't an innocent guy walking down the street) but it should have no bearing on whether or not the cop's actions to use his firearm were justified.
...on video no less
That the cop was completely unaware of....
But the cop didn't know that, so it doesn't matter.
The cop was defending himself, but there was more to the story than just Michael Brown rushing an officer because he asked him to stop walking in the street.
No, he didn't. Earlier in the morning he traded weed for some cigars, the manager of the shop set aside the cigars for MB to pick up later that night. He came back that night to pick up what he paid for. Security cams and witness testimony supports this.
Ok then what about this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2z5-H8NSGA
I don't see anyone stealing anything on that video, and neither do you.
So that is why he must have walked out with a bag of merchandise without paying then pushing an employee. /s
Except that the shop owner himself said that Brown did pay for it.
Stop lying.
[deleted]
Nah man, people are portraying him like he was some innocent kid who was the victim of systematic racism stemming from the brutal police force of America. I'm just saying he was a criminal in the making, and if you are going to be getting involved with crime, violence is one of the many aspects of it usually...
And the other people are portraying him as deserving of death for robbing a store. Not surprisingly, the truth lies in between.
No one is saying he is deserving of death for robbing a store, they are saying it adds to the context of the situation.
So he deserved to die?
Of course not, his death was unfortunate albeit unsurprising given his actions. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
Don't forget this was right after he had robbed a store also.
Actually he is the perfect one. His body was left in the street for hours, the police wouldn't answer questions to the media or community as to what happened, a community that we later found out was fed up with repeated police bad interactions. The cop also didn't carry non-lethal deterrents and escalated the situation at every turn.
So yes, he stole something and in a perfect world would have had a slap on the wrist for a first offender , turned into him dead in the street, exactly the wrong way to deal with this stuff.
T H A N
Looking at non-Americans talk about Black Lives Matter like ( ﾟoﾟ)
jaywalking, well known for being a capital offense.
Also, michael brown was just one example of many examples of police brutality, he's not the sole representative in any sense
BLM online was ran by racists in Australia and Canada has had problems with their leaders stealing funds from colleges.
Unarmed black kid walking in the street? Better pull my service revolver and make sure the kids knows I'm fully intending to kill him no matter what he does.
Yeah, no, that's bullshit. The cops admitted to lying a year after the event.
MB was murdered by the cop. Security cams back up what witnesses said.
You are so wrong it simply must be intentional.
So if someone keeps coming at you after you tell them to stop and then shoot them because they start assaulting you, that's murder?
That's not what happened. The cop shoved MB, MB shoved him back (you know, a normal human reaction), and the cop pulled out his gun and shot him. And continued shooting even after MB ran away.
The cop was a cowardly piece of shit.
Having read the actual case files and autopsy reports that have been released, that's wholly inaccurate. The assault on the officer began before he was even out of his SUV. And MB was never shot in the back, he was initially shot while struggling with the officer in the driver's seat (DNA in the vehicle and gunshot residue on a hand wound on MB confirms this), and was fatally shot while charging the officer. The physical evidence confirmed the officer's version of events. There was no security footage of the actual shooting as far as I've seen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4d7d8c31cebc
The witness statements in that case were maddening, most of the "eyewitnesses" later came out under oath that they had just heard what happened from others, despite claiming initially that they had seen what happened firsthand.
I'm all for keeping cops accountable, and giving those who intentionally kill or otherwise injure people maliciously much harsher punishments than regular folks, but in cases like MB, the officer's life got ruined for defending his life against someone hell bent on seriously injuring or killing him. That's not okay.
This, this, and this.
Ahh yes because cops never lie.
That's why physical evidence is collected. As it generally proves or disproves the versions of stories told by either side. Either there was a massive cover-up, where both the department medical examiner AND an independent medical examiners (HIRED BY THE FAMILY) created fraudulent autopsies to support a false narrative, or.....the cop didn't lie and the evidence as collected and independently verified supported his version of events. Which one seems more likely?
3 autopsies, one of which was by the prosecution (Brown’s family and lawyers) backed up the Cop’s “lies”
its pretty easy to create a narrative that will be supported by the physical evidence if you don't make a report until you actually know what the evidence will support.
Source?
Where’s the source for any of the arguments you support?
You're a misinformed sheep just like the rest of your kind.
[deleted]
MB reached through the driver's window of the officer's car and struggled with him, trying to reach the officer's gun, as evidenced by the gunshots inside the car and the gun abrasion injuries on MB hands and his DNA littered around the car. Eventually MB moved out of the car and I believe he ran, while the officer gave chase. MB then turned around and began to runn full speed at the officer (described as a full on charge by witnesses). MB was a very large person (tall and over 200 pounds I believe), so the officer feared for his life and decided to shoot. The first shots didn't stop Brown, so the officer continued shooting. All reports of Brown having his handa up were discredited during the Grand Jury review (stories were vastly inconsistent and were refuted by reliable and verifiable evidence).
I may have gotten one or two details wrong, as it has been a few years since Ive read on the subject, but Im fairly certain it is all correct.
Don't forget the part where he lay dying and then dead in the streets for hours. No matter how aggressive he was before he was shot a bunch of times, they should have gotten him to the goddamn ambulance after that.
I do agree with this. No matter your take on the shooting itself, the fact that Brown's body was left in the street was horrible.
Keeping in mind that officers are usually allowed days to 'cool off' and collude before creating coherent accounts of what happened with the help of union lawyers, and the bystanders are usually detained until given the incoherent answers they want.
No he was assaulting a police officer who asked him to stop walking in the street.
Michael Brown didn't assault him because the officer asked him to get out of the street. It was because the officer knew Michael Brown matched the robbery suspect description and Michael Brown was going to get arrested.
the "robbery" was never even reported. stop making shit up
Guess you didn't read the DOJ Report then...
As a result, an FPD dispatch call went out over the police radio for a “stealing in progress.” The dispatch recordings and Wilson’s radio transmissions establish that Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101.
And when you point out that Michael Brown wasn't as innocent as they say he was, that perhaps BLM has a problem where people will be skeptical if the movement is based on false pretenses, you get called racist. That it's just "white ego" at work.
He was just a sweet little 7 ft thug boy
Yeah, i totally agree. I live a couple miles from Ferguson. Last year was the second big flare up of protests from BLM. It was over Jason Shockly's trial. (i think that was his name) Basically a heroin dealer tried to run him over then got shot and killed. It's really made me sceptical of all of these protests.
I get that we need police reform but all of the "martyrs" that we see were absolutely terrible people. Because of these two big stories I make a point to view the police brutality stories through the cop's eyes and most of the time you'll find that their action was either justified, or the situation was intense and confusing that led to totally understandable mistakes.
I get that we need police reform but all of the "martyrs" that we see were absolutely terrible people.
This is an oversimplification. Philando Castile did nothing wrong but legally carry a concealed weapon, and he was a well-loved part of his community who never committed a single crime. Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old kid who made a dumb mistake and was killed within seconds of the police pulling up. Sandra Bland was on her way to a new job in a new city when a police officer arrested her for 'refusing to comply' and she mysteriously died in her cell not too long after.
Either way, it doesn't matter that these martyrs were criminals or that they committed crime. White criminals who committed the same crimes weren't killed or shot in the back. And tense as these situations are, even armed men who have killed multiple people are less likely to be shot and killed by cops if they're white.
But the police officer shot him after Brown was walking away...
One apparent projectile was found near the body. There were ten spent .40-caliber casings scattered on the south side of the road near Brown's body. The distribution of the casings, combined with most of the casings being east of the body, was consistent with the officer moving backward while firing.[1] Blood spatter approximately 25 feet behind Brown's body suggested he was moving toward Wilson when he was killed.
Lies.
From pretty far away too. Like much farther away than "fear for my life" territory.
People keep using these arguments, but I don't think there's any evidence brown attacked the cop, or had his hands up.
Well, that's BLM for you.
Yes, and Kaepernick was also a very mediocre poster boy for "kneeling" during the national anthem. He's inarticulate and has an aura of spoiled brat about him. Maybe that's unfair, but that's always been my take of how he's perceived by people against BLM.
I've always wondered how different the perception of the movement would have been if an Ali, Jackie Robinson, etc. were its face instead.
He’s not an inadequate poster boy, you’re just biased and painting him as something others don’t see him to be. I don’t see how he’s “inarticulate”, this seems like some very coated racism. And if Ali, Jackie or anyone did this everyone would still hate them. Why? Because they would be portrayed in media outlets as country-hating demons who need to be silenced
I don't think they really care about any of that, just that their talking heads tell them kneeling is bad so they agree with that, even if the selfsame people pushing this nonsense don't even know the words to anthem.
Lets not forget the NBA player who just got his ass kicked by the police. On one hand, total police brutality. On the other hand, the guy who parks his Mercedes in two handicap spots and started pulling the "do you know who I am?" bullshit when he was asked to move it deserves to get his ass beat.
They have. And they do. White America picks holes it in no matter what. Even Castille was painted as a "one off incident"
That ... STILL does not give a police officer the right to murder him?!
An absolutely 100% justified shooting.
More accurately:
It started with Kaepernick simply not standing at all and staying seated during the song. Then he talked to a soldier who told him "I get what you're doing. Maybe kneeling would be even better, because then you're expressing both respect AND acknowledging that something is broken."
Kaep loved this, so he started kneeling. Then a bunch of racist americans decided that in this one instance, for the first time in history, kneeling was suddenly a sign of disrespect. Despite zero examples of this interpretation in any other situation, they created their own meaning for kneeling simply because it was a black guy who did it.
It's purely racism motivating the outrage against kneeling football players. Nothing more.
It amazes me how so many people have a very strong opinion about this, but don't know or try to seek out the accurate story.
Just spreading hearsay like its the middle ages.
The loudest opinion is the correct one and no one wants to find out they’re wrong. Welcome to America.
It's purely racism motivating the outrage against kneeling football players. Nothing more.
I agree that prejudice is the biggest reason people don’t like the kneeling but I do think some people just think we as Americans should all agree on certain things such as the sanctity of the flag\anthem. It’s not a purely racial context
And when did kneeling for something ever dishonor it's sanctity? Give me an example. I knelt before I asked my wife to marry me. When I was a student athlete, we would all take a knee if an opposing player was injured until they could get help back to their feet. I've knelt in churches without once being kicked out for dishonoring the cross.
But suddenly when a black guy kneels, we're supposed to pretend it's disrespectful? Really?
I don't buy it. Because it's nonsensical.
It's purely racism. Nothing more.
It's not the kneeling that is disrespectful, it is the failure to stand. If the President entered the room and everyone stood up and you remained seated, it would clearly be a sign of disrespect. One of my customers is a retired navy seal and he told me that he sees Kaepernick's stance as unpatriotic because he is choosing not to participate in the national anthem and ignoring the flag and the honor guard that escorts the flag. same thing as not standing up when a bride walks into the church. I totally disagree with him but he isn't a racist. I know him well and that isn't his motivation. It isn't fair or accurate for you to claim to know the motivations of millions of americans.sure some are just racists. but many also just think this is a core value/tradition that we can all agree on. They see the flag as fundamentally american and indispituable. Kaep is saying that America no longer represents the values of all Americans, especially black americans. I agree with him but I can see how his position might offend some and not because hes black.
This is the best explanation I've heard yet for how this is so offensive to so many white conservatives.
It still falls woefully short of being compelling, though, for the following reasons:
It's just icky. The whole thing reeks. If it's not racism, it really, really smells like racism. And if it's not racism, it's still a morally bankrupt position to simply ignore racial injustice in favor of nationalism.
It's not racism. It's disagreement as to whether the system is broken. It's not a FACT that police use more excessive force on blacks. Blacks tend to resist more and commit more crime overall
I get why you'd use a throwaway with that garbage take...
Claiming 'blacks tend to resist more' is not only chicken/egg BS, but a racist statement in itself.
They get targeted more, and due to many not being able to own land or generate wealth for so many years left them in a vicious cycle of poverty. But no shooting them is totally justified, simply because I don't understand the plight brought on to them.
No it's not. It's the truth. Become a police officer and you'll understand.
Also, there are biological differences between the races. Blacks have higher bone density and more testosterone. Therefore they are more violent and dangerous
And apparently the "blue blood" race are a bunch of p*s!
Yeah that's what happens when you can have an actual civilized society, we don't act like violent ape savages
You do though. You're on that side that supports unwarranted police brutality that is often racially motivated.
You're the antithesis of society and the archetype of violent, savage apishness.
So uncivilized.
F off mate. We should behead scum like you.
NYPD had to be told "stop searching people over and over and over and over and over and over and over because of the color of their skin. You've made more stops and searched of black men in that age group by 4x than live in NYC". But you're right, there should TOOOOTALLLY be disagreement.
GTFO.
one of the stories about a black teenager being shot by the police but I can't remember which one.
Fucking hell. Imagine actually having to specify that.
As an American, I don't need to imagine it!
It sucks.
Just another Tuesday here in America, where elementary school kids have to prep for school shooters.
It's the one where the cop went out free at his trial. Help it narrows it down!
The shooting was justified.
it started with him sitting. then he talked to a Vet, and the Vet said it was respectful to kneel. then more players caught on to it then trump finally had to shit on it.
I keep thinking how kneeling is seeing as a sign of disrespect.
Is there any culture in the world where kneeling is seeing as disrespectful?
Because I can't think of any, but I am not an anthropologist so IDK
It's not disrespectful, that's the thing, he was looking for the most respectful option. It didn't matter what motion he used for his protest, he was going to be attacked for it.
At this point half the country doesn't even know why he's protesting, they just think he hates the troops (???).
This is what happens when a geopolitical enemy uses your nations racism to further divide you, and empowers politicians who do so.
they just think he hates the troops (???)
Yet it's okay to mock gold-star families, veterans (McCain, Mueller, etc.), and get soldiers killed for political stunts, because they 'knew what they signed up for.'
The double standard with people is pathetic. The right to protest is in the constitution, as is the freedom of speech -- but somehow those rights are seen as evil in this day and age.
They don't really think he hates the troops. They think he hates racists, like they are. The right wing just uses "hates the troops" as a general lie.
~~KNEEL~~ STAND BEFORE ZOD!
2 billion Catholics are going to have a pissed off jesus if kneeling isn't respectful.
It's not that kneeling specifically is disrespectful, it's that protesting during the anthem is disrespectful. It doesn't particularly matter what form that protest takes, the fact that they're using the time we take to honor the veterans fighting and dying for our country to push personal agendas is the issue.
Maybe because before the anthem starts it says "Please rise and remove your caps" as a show of respect.
It isn't that kneeling is disrespectful.
It's that not standing is.
edit: If someone was laying on the grass during the anthem, it would garner the same reaction. People who are so overly concerned with respecting the flag/anthem doesn't care about what specific thing you do instead of standing. They only care that you're not standing.
So when we're sitting on our couches at home watching these uppity folk kneel.. is that disrespectful?
I think "please rise for the national anthem" usually only applies to people inside the stadium.
An odd distinction to make, is there anywhere that rule is written? Or is it just because it's normal not to do so?
That's a pretty convenient way to hide your hypocrisy
Don't know if it's been said but anything other than standing during the national anthem could be considered disrespectful
And it’s important to point out that it started back when the Obama administration was still in session, and Obama was just a president that didn’t see protests as equivalent to hating one’s own country
Protesting is the most American thing possible.
Seriously I don't understand people who think it's unpatriotic in America. It might be unpatriotic elsewhere but we were basically founded on protests.
Nobody who disagrees with the kneeling thinks the actual act of protesting is wrong. The problem is protesting on company time during a ceremony meant to honor our country and our vets. The method of protest was poor and if it happened at any other time 99% of people wouldn't give a fuck.
The method of protest was poor and if it happened at any other time 99% of people wouldn't give a
That's exactly WHY they protest then. At any other time, it would get no attention at all, people would just shrug it off. This way... yes, some people are only talking about the TIMING of the protest, but other people are at least paying attention to the PURPOSE of the protest.
The method (kneeling) is one of the most respectful things a person can do. A man kneels to propose, a person being knighted kneels before their monarch, people kneel to talk to God.
I'm a vet but I hate how people make the National Anthem out to be for the troops. It's our countries anthem and it's for all of us.
I respect that, but I feel they go hand in hand. It's for all of us but our troops do a lot for us and face a lot of difficulty both in and out of service. If it weren't for our vets life here would be very different so in my mind it's disrespectful to all the poeple of the nation and especially so to those who put their lives on the line to protect it. If you don't agree that's fine, but those are my thoughts and it seems many people are thinking along the same lines.
Thank you for your service
I just think there are bigger things to worry about than some people kneeling during the national anthem. Like how does it affect your life to even put in the effort to care.
if it happened at any other time 99% of people wouldn't give a fuck.
Yep. That's sort of the point.
Things have changed
For the worse
You mean like a normal non-egomaniac leader? Taking protests as...protests? I know...crazy thought there.
So you're saying that this bullshit is 2 years old?
Well under the Obama administration, Congress almost unanimously approved the amendment to H.R 347 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act after the occupy wall street protests.
He made it possible to have the secret service declare any area in the United states a restricted area, and accessing it knowingly (ignorance of the law is no excuse) is against the law.
He didnt explicitly say it would mean one hates their country, he just made it a lot easier to arrest anyone who wanted to protest
Obama was just a president that didn’t see protests as equivalent to hating one’s own country
I think he did when the protests weren't about stuff that he wanted the people to be protesting for. When chik-fil-a tried to protest the idea of supplying abortion pills to their employees, Obama passed law to force them to do so anyway. Typically large cities have more democrats, which is why you tend to see protests being almost entirely against conservatives. What large scale conservative protests can you think of that were allowed to be given a fiar voice on TV more than just one or two times?
Do you truly think those protests the same? One is a protest denying contraception, the other protesting police brutality.
You're asking a person who calls birth control "abortion pills." You already know the answer.
I sincerely thought the poster literally meant "pills you take to abort" and was seriously concerned about Chik-Fil-A. This comment cleared that up for me, thank you!!
Chik-fil-a did not have any issues supplying birth control, they had issues with abortion pills. There is a difference between "the pill" that you take daily to prevent a pregnancy from ever happening, and "the morning after pill" which you take to terminate a fertilized egg. One is technically an abortion, the other isn't.
Calling the morning after pill the “abortion pill” is insane. You’re either purposefully distorting the facts or willfully ignorant of them.
Is the intended use of the pill to terminate a pregnancy?
No, it isn’t. It’s used to prevent pregnancy.
Is it used to ensure the killing of a human life?
If you think contraception (the blocking of conception) is murder, then our views are so apart then we have nothing to talk about.
It's not murder. Murder is a legal term, it's the unlawful killing of a human being. In this case, the killing would be legal, right?
Honestly, I think it's questionable to even call a zygote a human being. It's very difficult for me to see the killing of a living thing, even one with human DNA, as wrong when the living thing doesn't have brain yet.
I am deeply bothered by the one-sided nature of this conversation in some circles. People constantly misrepresent those against abortion as people who hate women, when the reality is that they are just people who think that a human being is losing their life and they want to talk about it, and stop it from happening. Now, I might not agree with them that killing a zygote is wrong, but I do sympathize with them because I think it's unfair that they are being so maliciously mischaracterized.
Zygotes don’t develop until after conception. Contraception blocks conception. There’s a major difference between abortion and contraception. You’re conflating the two issues in a weird way. Plan B is not an abortion pill, it is a contraceptive. It does not deal intend to deal with zygotes.
I kind of feel like you didn't read what I wrote. :(
Zygotes don’t develop until after conception.
Zygote: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
Contraception blocks conception.
In the case of Plan B, it works in 3 ways, and one of those ways is to block a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall.
Plan B is not an abortion pill, it is a contraceptive. It does not deal intend to deal with zygotes.
Taken directly from their website: "It is possible that Plan B One-Step may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)"
The fact that Plan B can be used to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is what makes pro-life people upset.
Source for below with links to research that directly contradicts what you’re suggesting:
What Research Shows Data from recent studies continues to provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation (this also seems to be true for Ella, another emergency contraceptive option). The majority of research claims that the primary way that Plan B works is by preventing or delaying ovulation--if Plan B is taken before ovulation occurs. By not allowing the egg to release, there is nothing available for sperm to fertilize, thus preventing a pregnancy from occurring.
Research also suggests that the progestin (levonorgestrel) in Plan B may help avoid pregnancy by altering the movement of sperm. Some studies report that this progestin can cause cervical mucus to thicken, making it harder for sperm to reach an egg. Additional data reports that the presence of this progestin can cause sperm to become hyperactive or “confused,” thereby affecting the direction in which they swim.
In several research studies, women were given Plan B after determining (via hormone tests) which women had ovulated and which had not. The results all showed that none of the women who took Plan B before ovulation became pregnant (these results really help to emphasize how Plan B works by delaying ovulation). Pregnancies only occurred in women who took Plan B on or after the day of ovulation, and these women became pregnant at the same rate as women who have not taken Plan B. Such results prompted researchers Noé, Croxatto, Salvatierra, and Reyes (2011) to conclude that Plan B “Does not prevent embryo implantation and therefore cannot be labeled as abortifacient.”
In 2007, studies demonstrated evidence that Plan B did not prevent the attachment of human embryos to the uterine wall. Researchers obtained discarded fertilized eggs from fertility clinics. After exposing these eggs to the progestin (found in Plan B) in a simulated environment, results demonstrated that the presence of the progestin did not prevent the eggs from attaching to cells that line the uterus.
So, the majority of research reveals that using Plan B does not cause any changes in the lining of the uterus (endometrium). Because Plan B does not have any effect on the endometrium, researchers have concluded that this emergency contraceptive cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Many researchers have further explained the notion that Plan B does not stop implantation from occurring is probably the reason that it's not 100% effective at preventing an unintended pregnancy--as well as why Plan B is less effective the longer you wait to use it.
Source for below: from PubMed, with links and sources:
The conclusions drawn by this article don't necessarily point to levonorgestrel working by preventing an egg from being released. The study done by Noé (which is arguably the "best" done study) also found that 80%-92% of the women depending on how many days before ovulation they were when they took Plan B, still experienced follicular rupture which is the releasing of the egg. This actually means that Plan B is relatively ineffective at simply delaying ovulation. Elevated hormone levels seem to confirm, that an egg was released in these participants, which further strengthens the evidence that eggs are often still released. It seems to be conclusive that levonorgestrel does reduce the chances of an egg being released, but the closer to ovulation a person is, the less likely that levonorgestrel will actually prevent the egg from being released.
I think that what you're missing (and I didn't know either, until recently) is that "the morning after pill" is the same as the regular birth control pills, it's just a triple(?) dose.
It doesn't cause abortions. You have to take it within a week of having unprotected sex for it to have an effect.
Taken directly from Plan B's website: "It is possible that Plan B One-Step may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)"
Also, I should clarify, I don't personally have a problem with Plan B (I've even bought it before). I am not religious, and never really have been (though I was raised in a Christian home). I don't know how I feel about abortions, but it is very difficult for me to try and argue that a zygote, which doesn't even have a brain yet, is immoral to kill.
Let me be clear, a zygote is a human life, but it's not a human life with a brain... I think that does pose some interesting questions about the ethics of killing it.
The thing is, that (possibly) fertilized egg has hardly started developing at that point. It's (probably) not even a zygote yet! If you wait until after the egg implants then it's too late, plan B just adds to the mother's hormone load. This is no different than wearing a condom, preventing your sperm from reaching the egg. Regular birth control pills are the same chemicals as Plan B, just in a lower dose, and work by the same mechanism. Keep reading the instructions on their website.
This has already been argued into the ground, by the way. Hundreds of lawyers and doctors across the nation have beaten this horse to a bloody pulp, at this point, and the decision was made in most states to allow the sale of Plan B. It's not an "abortion pill" any more than The Pill is or a condom is.
Ask yourself this: do you really want to deny both men and women the ability to control the timing of when they bring a kid into the world? It's not the 1800's any more (or the 1920's or 1940's), we're not lacking in population. Preventing kids from having kids is a good thing, and even a moral thing.
A fertilized egg is a zygote.
A condom prevents fertilization if used correctly, while the morning after pill does not appear to prevent fertilization, as we have study after study which shows that while Plan B (levonorgestrel), only reduces the chances of an egg being released, and that the chances of an egg being released increase the closer to ovulation the woman is when she takes levonorgestrel.
The study done by Noé (which is arguably the "best" done study) also found that 80%-92% of the women depending on how many days before ovulation they were when they took Plan B, still experienced follicular rupture which is the releasing of the egg. This actually means that Plan B is relatively ineffective at simply delaying ovulation. Elevated hormone levels seem to confirm, that an egg was released in these participants, which further strengthens the evidence that eggs are often still released. It seems to be conclusive that levonorgestrel does reduce the chances of an egg being released, but the closer to ovulation a person is, the less likely that levonorgestrel will actually prevent the egg from being released.
Here is an article, with cited sources, for the above info, see their "arguement 2" section.
The fact that a condom prevents fertilization, while levonorgestrel might not, means that one is inherently killing a unique human life, while the other (the condom) prevents the life from ever happening. This is the reason why people typically don't mind condoms, but do mind the morning after pill.
It doesn’t terminate a pregnancy. It prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg so that the sperm never has a chance to inseminate it.
Hmm, when I view your direct response to me, I can see your comment, but when I view my comment from the "permalink", then your comment doesn't show up... how strange.
Anyway, there is ample data which shows that levonorgestrel only reduces the chances of an egg being released, and that the chances of an egg being released increase the closer to ovulation the woman is when she takes levonorgestrel.
The study done by Noé (which is arguably the "best" done study) also found that 80%-92% of the women depending on how many days before ovulation they were when they took Plan B, still experienced follicular rupture which is the releasing of the egg. This actually means that Plan B is relatively ineffective at simply delaying ovulation. Elevated hormone levels seem to confirm, that an egg was released in these participants, which further strengthens the evidence that eggs are often still released. It seems to be conclusive that levonorgestrel does reduce the chances of an egg being released, but the closer to ovulation a person is, the less likely that levonorgestrel will actually prevent the egg from being released.
Here is an article, with cited sources, for the above info, see their "arguement 2" section.
Lol downvoted but no response to a simple question with a simpler answer. Love you man
I responded to him 2 hours ago.
[deleted]
Preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the walls of the uterus.
So in other words, an intended consequence of the morning after pill is to kill a human life.
In other words, morning after pills just turn a 50-50 process into a 90-10 one or 99-1 one.
That doesn't matter when the intended use of the drug is to terminate a human life.
In other words, the intended consequence is to prevent pregnancy from ever occurring. If you are so scientifically illiterate as to assume that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a human, there's really no helping you.
If you are so scientifically illiterate as to assume that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a human
A fertilized egg IS a human being. It has all of the same DNA as a unique human being. A human isn't created by a fertilized egg, the fertilized egg IS the human.
If a fertilized human egg isn't a human being, then what animal do you think it is?
Is a cell from your toenail also a human being? How about a single sperm? A hair? Because all of those things have the exact same genetic qualities as a fertilized egg. They have all the same DNA as a unique human being. Until it is implanted in the uterine lining and begins dividing, it's nothing but genetic flotsam. What you are describing is not a person, but a zygote.
Is a cell from your toenail also a human being?
No, individual cells are not "humans".
A hair?
A hair is not a human being.
Because all of those things have the exact same genetic qualities as a fertilized egg.
A zygote has a unique set of human DNA and can gestate into an adult. Does your hair have it's own unique set of DNA and can you gestate your hair into an adult?
They have all the same DNA as a unique human being.
They cannot ever create any new consciousness.
What you are describing is not a person, but a zygote.
A zygote is still a human being.
[deleted]
the egg hasn't been fucking fertilized.
Taken directly from Plan B's website: "It is possible that Plan B One-Step may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)"
Thank you for the downvote, but your downvote doesn't change science. I am sorry that you put your faith above science.
I didn't downvote you though
[deleted]
Found the incel.
Seriously dude the emergency contraceptive is something nobody ever wants to have to take. It’s nobody’s preferred method of birth control.
But it’s necessary because people make mistakes and shit happens and it’s better than having an unwanted baby.
If you can’t handle the fact that people have active sex lives and occasionally fall foul of their own fertility, keep your shit to yourself and don’t try to moralise other people’s’ sexual decisions.
He's just upset he won't ever get laid with his shitty attitude.
Watch the aggressive language there buddy. Who hurt you? And who are you to want to control what things people use on there own body?
To be fair, that's kind of what they are. Nothing against birth control.
Contraceptive pills prevent implantation, so there is nothing to abort.
And they primarily try to prevent ovulation so theres nothing to fertilize in the first place. Hell that's even how plan b works. Prevent ovulation and if that doesn't work then prevent implantation.
Might not be recalling correctly but I believe it's far less effective at preventing implementation than it is at preventing ovulation.
They're really not, though. Birth control prevents conception, thus there is nothing to abort.
Abortion pills arent the same thing as birth control pills
Are you referring to the conception-stopping pill Plan B when you say “abortion pill?”
Im not referring to anything. It's my first post in this thread.
You used the term “abortion pills” and I asked you what you meant by that; its use is convoluted because some people in this thread are incorrectly referring to Plan B as such. My question was directly related to a phrase in your comment.
Abortion pills are pills that you take that induce abortion. It's really not complicated. It would take you 2 seconds to look it up.
r/badwomensanatomy
One is a protest denying contraception, the other protesting police brutality.
I reject your premise, as Chik-fil-a did not reject the idea of paying for contraception as long as the contraception did not involve abortion. There is a difference between the pills that women take daily or various other methods birth control and "the morning after pill" which is a pill designed to kill an egg that may have been fertilized.
The protest was against the idea that they were forced to pay for a product where the intended use is to killing a human being.
One is a protest denying contraception, the other protesting police brutality.
One protest was against being forced to cover a drug that goes against a persons religion.
The other protest is the subject of massive confirmation bias built on a foundation of literally ignoring evidence.
The other protest is the subject of massive confirmation bias built on a foundation of literally ignoring evidence.
Found the alt-right dick
Absolute lies. You must be looking at different “evidence” to everyone else.
Hey man, they're called "alternative facts" these days and it's unamerican of you to question them!
Yes, I am looking at the facts whereas the people following the confirmation bias are too busy being offended.
Have you done any research on the matter? I have and you know what I found out? I found out just how blatantly wrong this entire crusade has been from the start.
We can start with Ferguson, but that example is too easy. Let's move on to the people who were the named by Kaepernick in his protest. The first one was a guy who was shot by police who was high on PCP with a history of drug addiction and he would not comply with police telling him to get down on the ground.
Case after case we can look at and find a very similar theme here. People, either too fucking drugged out of their minds or too fucking stupid, failing to comply with police commands and getting themselves killed. And this isn't limited to any one race, there's plenty of fucking stupid people of all races doing this and getting themselves shot.
only in the land of the free and the brave where the cops are shooting people for not understanding their stupid orders. You also listed no evidence but hearsay. Some references would help bolster your bullshit claim.
ok, thanks :)
"Get down on the ground" is a pretty fucking clear statement.
Let's look at the two people that Kaepernick called out by name saying he was protesting in their name.
Terence Crutcher was shot and killed by police. The guy was high on PCP and had a history of drug addiction. It was to the point that he wouldn't follow police commands and his erratic behavior ended up getting him shot.
Keith Lamont Scott was another person that Kaepernick was initially using as an example of police officer brutality. He was shot by police after he was seen walking around with a gun in his hand. When police officers ordered him to put the gun down and to get on the ground, he ignored them (seeing a pattern yet?) and due to his refusal to follow police commands, got himself shot.
Seriously, this is the reality of the situation. Yeah, in a perfect world we shouldn't have anyone shot by police but we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where drugs and stupid people live and those stupid people can and will make stupid decisions that can ultimately get them killed.
The few cases out there where the police officers are in the wrong should be the focus, not every time a person gets shot by police. It misrepresents any situation into the belief that police should never be in a situation where their response is to shoot someone.
Fake news
[deleted]
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I've often felt that the March for Life event is usually undercovered. But for people I know who attend in person and give their social circle reminders of it's coming, I would have no clue it was still being held.
It's certainly true that people frame the March for Life as a hate-inspired march denying people's right to choose, but the folks I know who have attended have expressed their views from a position of sympathy for lives being ended prematurely rather than of opression against women. These folks, speaking specifically of those I know personally who are mostly women and whose gender might inform their position on the issue, are not in the extremist/hypocritical camp that suggests women should be punished for their choices or that there should not be increased public spending on safety net programs to help single mothers raise kids or put them into good homes via adoption. Neither do these people I know advocate for white supremacy, mistreatment of immigrants, or the continued presidency of the man one referred to as the "Cheetoh Benito."
Not every conservative protest carries a message of hate or hypocrisy.
It's certainly true that people frame the March for Life as a hate-inspired march denying people's right to choose, but the folks I know who have attended have expressed their views from a position of sympathy for lives being ended prematurely rather than of opression against women.
But they still want to take those rights away from women - so I don't see how it matters how it's "framed."
These folks, speaking specifically of those I know personally who are mostly women and whose gender might inform their position on the issue, are not in the extremist/hypocritical camp that suggests women should be punished for their choices or that there should not be increased public spending on safety net programs to help single mothers raise kids or put them into good homes via adoption.
We already have an overloaded adoption/foster system. I'd also argue that forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy and to give birth to a baby before giving it up for adoption could definitely be construed as a punishment.
Neither do these people I know advocate for white supremacy, mistreatment of immigrants, or the continued presidency of the man one referred to as the "Cheetoh Benito."
Yet how many people there voted for him, do you think?
Going even deeper on this - The GOP has absolutely 0 intention to overturn Roe v Wade. Even if they could do it, they never would. Because they might lose a large and easily manipulated one-issue group of voters. They don't care about babies, they care about the ability to tell those people what to do.
Of those who I know and for whom I have voter knowledge, they all supported Hillary begrudgingly. They disliked her stance on many issues, abortion being a key point of disagreement, but they believed that Trump, and the threat of renewed and expanded armed conflict he seemed to pose was the greater evil. The Catholics even attended a meeting where local bishops advised, without advocating specific candidates, that voters consider all threats to human life and safety in the election (this was a deviation from their normal reminder regarding the abortion debate, and it seems likely that this message was induced by the abnormal threats posed by the Trump candidacy).
These folks don't advocate removing the right of women to choose, they deny that such a right exists. They compare it to the "right" of settlers to kill natives for land in the name of manifest destiny or the "right" of governors to enslave locals in the system of imperiallism or the "right" of government to purify the population via forced sterilization or eugenics or the "right" of one human to own another whose life he has purchased. For them, the life of a human (they don't believe that a fetus is non-human) outweighs the mother's interest in escaping pregnancy. We can disagree with them, but their argument is reasonable (doesn't make it correct) if you start from the presumption that a fetus is a human life.
As for the overloaded foster system, the reason these folks want more funding for these programs is that they want the system not to be overloaded or unweildly. We have the resources to provide for orphaned children, but we spend them on, among other things, (in some minds) unreasonable large military expenditures. Pro-life advocacy, at least as adhered to by the group I know, calls for a reduction in armed conflict and redistribution of resources to help people in need.
Regarding your point on the issue of punishment. It's not that they don't aknowledged the unfortunate circumstances of the mother; this they tend to regard as a tragedy and "there but for luck/grace-of-God go I" deal. They are distinguished from hypocritical pro-life advocates who tolerate abortion as long as the mother was not raped; such hypocrites reveal that they believe women who chose to have sex somehow "deserve" the struggle and risk of labor and delivery and should be forced to endure it. In that way, the hypocrites advocate not the preservation of life but the punishment of women.
Of those who I know and for whom I have voter knowledge, they all supported Hillary begrudgingly. They disliked her stance on many issues, abortion being a key point of disagreement, but they believed that Trump, and the threat of renewed and expanded armed conflict he seemed to pose was the greater evil. The Catholics even attended a meeting where local bishops advised, without advocating specific candidates, that voters consider all threats to human life and safety in the election (this was a deviation from their normal reminder regarding the abortion debate, and it seems likely that this message was induced by the abnormal threats posed by the Trump candidacy).
There's no nice way to say this, but, I don't believe you. I believe that you believe that, but I don't believe that they actually voted for Hillary.
These folks don't advocate removing the right of women to choose, they deny that such a right exists. They compare it to the "right" of settlers to kill natives for land in the name of manifest destiny or the "right" of governors to enslave locals in the system of imperiallism or the "right" of government to purify the population via forced sterilization or eugenics or the "right" of one human to own another whose life he has purchased. For them, the life of a human (they don't believe that a fetus is non-human) outweighs the mother's interest in escaping pregnancy. We can disagree with them, but their argument is reasonable (doesn't make it correct) if you start from the presumption that a fetus is a human life.
They can believe whatever they want, but they are wrong. I find it ironic that forcing someone else to do something they want to do can be somehow compared to "liberating" them from slavery. You can't take someone else's freedom away and call it a favor.
There's also the fact that, legal or not, people will continue to get abortions. Making it more dangerous helps nobody. Unless, of course, you're into punishing the mother.
Regarding your point on the issue of punishment. It's not that they don't aknowledged the unfortunate circumstances of the mother; this they tend to regard as a tragedy and "there but for luck/grace-of-God go I" deal. They are distinguished from hypocritical pro-life advocates who tolerate abortion as long as the mother was not raped; such hypocrites reveal that they believe women who chose to have sex somehow "deserve" the struggle and risk of labor and delivery and should be forced to endure it. In that way, the hypocrites advocate not the preservation of life but the punishment of women.
Yet I wonder how they act themselves when placed in the same situation.
Well said.
The only person I know who attends the March for Life got an abortion at age 19. Next time she goes on a rant against abortion, I'm going to ask her what the criminal penalty should be for getting an abortion, and then remind her that that penalty should be applied to her. The fucking hypocrite.
While I respect those who can recognize their own faults and change their minds on an issue, hypocrisy of that sort definitely bugs me. The "good for me, not for thee" attitude is toxic no matter where we find it. I hope the rant is particularly poingant.
None. Almost conservative protest you see is out of spite for people with progressive mindsets
I'm sorry, but the last "Conservative" protest looked like this, that's why you don't see more.
Sooo...... Yeah........... Conservatives do things like protest others Freedoms, try to stop gay marriage, try to stop the freedom to choose, etc, etc, etc, etc.
They often choose to judge and spread hate, usually under the cover of a twisted misunderstanding of the bible.
Separately, wanna learn a good saying? "When you are used to privilege, Equality feels like Oppression"
That's why conservatives often feel they don't get "fair" coverage, it's because what they are saying is awful.. Hatred and small-mindedness don't deserve a megaphone.....
Also: Before we inevitably get to this part of the argument, Free Speech isn't a "Say whatever you want to and get away with it" card, it simply means you won't be arrested by your gov't for speaking. It does NOT mean you are free from any and all repercussions. So if they think it's unfair they're not getting even coverage? They should try changing what's coming out of their mouths.
As Max Black says: "If you're gonna act like an ass, I'm gonna treat you like an ass."
EDIT:Phrasing.
i walk by conservative protests every day by my work. There’s a women’s center down the street, and usually 4-5 people every day telling every woman that they are going to burn in hell (because the center performs abortions)
Hey, I have to walk by one of these everyday too. Bonus, I have to work with and sit right next to one of the guys that stands out there with a sign that has a picture of an aborted fetus on it and screams at women that are likely going through one of the hardest times in their life.
I have to drive by daily protests at a building with planned parenthood in it that doesnt even provide abortions, just gives referrals.
Preach
The question was "What large scale conservative protests can you think of that were allowed to be given a fair voice on TV more than just one or two times?"
You didn't provide any examples that fit that criteria.
Sooo...... Yeah........... Conservatives do things like protest others Freedoms, try to stop gay marriage, try to stop the freedom to choose, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I'll give you gay marriage. But what is the etc. etc. etc.? And what are "other freedoms"?
You all spread hate under the cover of a twisted misunderstanding of the bible.
That's like saying you spread hate under the cover of misunderstanding what conservatives actually believe. If we could have a conversation without calling each other names or accusing each other of hate I think we'd find that we actually agree on a lot of things being problems, but maybe disagree on the best pathway towards solving those problems. Also, I am a guy who voted for Obama twice, and while I've always felt the wording was a bit disingenuous, I have always supported gay marriage.
When you are used to privilege, Equality feels like Oppression
We don't treat people equally though, we've set up this system where it's okay to say things about certain groups and not okay to say them about other groups... that's inherently not equality, it's an attempt to punish people that you don't like.
That's why we don't give you fair coverage, you're awful.. Hatred doesn't deserve a megaphone.....>
The only group of people that I have ever hated were Christians, and that was only when I was a much bigger supporter of the democrats, fueled largely by my consumption of media which constantly painted Christians as something that I no longer feel was real... Now I realize, if I want to learn about a group of people, I speak to those people, rather than learn about them from people who ideologically disagree with them. I am, and will foreseeably always be non-religious. Luckily, I no longer hate anyone, even Christians, for their religion.
Tea party. Anything Obama, really.
Hmm, yeah I guess the tea party kind of counts. I don't really remember it being as organized or as talked about as the NFL protests, but maybe it's just the changing landscape combined with the fact that I wasn't watching the news as much when I was in high school and college.
Do you have a link for the "anything Obama" protests?
The tea party was actually very organized, but that's because it was astroturfed by the Koch brothers.
"Anything Obama" was more a passing jab at the nonsense like birtherism and such.
Wow, those are drastically difference scenarios.
then trump finally had to shit on it
He and VP Pence made it about the flag and patriotism - they needed to control the narrative.
It's not about the flag, at all. And now NFL will be fining players if they kneel through the anthem.
Don't forget, Trump forgot the words to "God Bless America" at his "Celebration of America" event that he put on after the Eagle's players refused to come to the white house.
I'm all for calling Trump out on his bullshit, but it's not like he exactly lead the bandwagon here. People have been up in arms about the kneeling (either for or against) since long before Trumps tweets about it.
As President, he has greater influence on the NFL. Now, no one seems to expect Trump to use that influence wisely, or to responsibly refrain from butting into things, but that doesn't mean it's okay. It seems his tweets prompted the NFL's recent rule.
It did seem like the kneeling had kinda died down, and Trump mentioning it kind of brought it back. When Trump tweeted about it, Kaepernick was already out of the league, and liberals were boycotting the NFL in protest of either Kaepernick being "blacklisted" or because of the CTE coverup, or both, and the kneeling had mostly stopped.
Then Trump tweeted about it to stir up a shitstorm again. Obviously, in a tight knit profession like sports, employees won't take kindly to the president calling for their friends to lose their jobs, so Trump's tweet sparked a wave of addition kneeling that was more kneeling in spite of Trump and in solidarity with their fellow players than it was in kneeling in protest of police brutality.
It's weird how liberals are boycotting the NFL for the NFL's stance against kneeling, and conservatives are boycotting the NFL for their stance regarding kneeling.
Nah. It was mostly dying down. Nobody was talking about it for the majority of the year, until that orange clown started using it to stir up his easily offended base.
More than just stir up his base, it's a source of racial divide in America and he is tasked with stoking those flames.
True, but other people didn't bully the NFL president until he forced changes.
I don't know if that's true, in fact I think this issue had been largely forgotten by the time Trump raised the issue. That's when entire NFL teams started kneeling, which would not have happened if Trump just let this go.
People were mad before Trump, he did make it a bigger deal tho.
I'd heard of it before Trump, but it sure as hell wasn't a national issue. Just a small football-specific issue that was only really complained about on AM radio.
He took it and ran with it though, the great divider.
vet said it was respectful to kneel
Even recruits going through bct know this isn't true. You always stand (at attention) when reciting anything from a Creed to the pledge of allegiance. Idk where TF you heard that from.
I also heard this in an interview with the vet. He's not lying or something...
More respectful than sitting I guess.
Ty for source tho
Fuck that noise. The flag doesn't belong to the military.
the flag doesn't belong to the military
How did you get that from me saying even recruits know to stand when saying Creeds/pledge??
Kaepernick said he couldn't stand in support of the country, so it is entirely meant out of disrespect to be honest.
Respect is earned, not given. It's as true of countries as it is of people. What's fucked is all the people trying to make it about disrespecting the military, when Kaepernick literally changed his form of protest based on a honest discussion with a service member.
And the US deserves respect. much more than some attention seeking football player who had everything handed to him until he shit on it all, and then got upset at people for reprimanding him for his actions.
If he had literally protested without disrespecting the US, he wouldn't have had an issue, but instead, he protested in a way that spit in the face of the country that gave him everything, and now he's angry and trying to sue people for his actions causing backlash.
quotes from various parties about the kneeling
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/sports/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protests-and-NFL-activism-in-quotes/?utm_term=.7e4c3767cacf
You seem to more about what Kaepernick is feeling more than he does himself. That's pretty impressive.
Huh, and here I thought words literally taken from kaepernick himself would be a good judge of what he believes. I guess we'll just have to go with what you feel it is that his point was instead. It's amazing that you can just know stuff like that.
Can't you respect things you don't support? I don't support other religions, but most of them I do respect.
And that vet was wrong.
The explanation was stupid. "It's respectful to the men and women that died for…blah blah….because we kneel at their graves/memorial to show respect."
Yes, we do. We do it to show respect to soldiers that have died, and for that reason alone.
We don't go to their grave to kneel and protest something unrelated to them.
His positioning, sitting to kneeling, was simply done to lessen the backlash being received. He was not doing anything to show respect, he was kneeling for the purpose to protest.
Showing respect would be standing, hand over heart, and listening to/singing the anthem.
You know the method of protest is wrong, when the only thing that people pay attention to is the METHOD OF PROTEST. People stopped caring about why the protests were happening and focused solely on the method. They overplayed it, and continued to do so.
We don't go to their grave to kneel and protest something unrelated to them.
Dude, it's a football game, not a Veteran's Day parade. The kneeling has literally nothing at all to do with the military. Fox News and the right just framed it that way to silence the message, because the message makes them feel uncomfortable.
Again, it's a football game. It has nothing to do with our troops.
Then why do they feel the need to address his protest in a manner relating it to that?
I didn't bring this point up. Kapernick and that other veteran that told him to kneel did.
I don't care. The only thing I have ever watched is the Super Bowl anyways. Football isn't something I am interested in.
Of course. Because otherwise they'd have to actually address the problem, which is that rampant racism is a problem in this country still.
People are paying attention to the method because that's what their talking heads are telling them to do. They're also intentionally obfuscating the reason for the protest
No matter what method he chose, this would have played out exactly the same.
Motherfucker, that flag means a hell of a lot more than veterans. It's disrespectful to every other American to say that bullshit.
Yes, I realize that.
But that is how it was framed by Kapernick and the other dude being referenced.
So that is why I addressed it in that manner.
You know the method of protest is wrong, when the only thing that people pay attention to is the METHOD OF PROTEST.
It's always optics. They picked a method that gave the other side a chance to spin what the protest meant.
Other things to note: the NFL took a bunch of money from the military to ~~play the anthem before every game.~~ have players stand during the anthem. Before a few years ago this wouldn’t be an issue.
Kaepernick specifically consulted with a veteran to figure out how to respectfully protest during the anthem. Despite this, a lot of people (specifically fox news type people) think he’s disrespecting the flag, and think he’s doing it to protest the military or the flag, when he’s made it clear it’s a protest of treatment of black people.
Kaepernick has never been offered a spot on another team despite being better than plenty of other starting QB’s. His protests got him blacklisted.
One small correction, the NFL has played the anthem for a long time(starting around WWII), but before 2009 and the NFL taking the military money, the teams were still in the locker room while the anthem was going on.
He was offered a spot with the Seahawks, but they wanted him to promise he wouldn't kneel. He wouldn't promise that, so they rescinded the offer.
I have a ton of respect for Kaepernick. He sticks to his guns despite ending what would have been a very lucrative career. And as somebody from Seattle I will no longer support the Seahawks (or the NFL as a whole) since they have decided it's their duty to silence peaceful protest and vilify the pursuit of equality.
the NFL took a bunch of money from the military to play the anthem before every game. Before a few years ago they wouldn’t play the anthem and this wouldn’t be an issue.
Nope. They took money to have the players stand on the sideline instead of wait in the locker room. Professional sports have been playing the anthem for 50+ years.
Worst part is he specifically asked veterans "hey, how can I protest in a way that's not disrespectful" and the answer he got was to take a knee.
Fuck the NFL for blackballing him. I hope he sues them and wins.
Yeah, this is what gets me every. single. time.
What annoys me even more is the number of veterans that are 100% behind Kaepernick's protest vs the number of people that never served that cite disrespect to veterans when taking issue with his protest.
[deleted]
Collusion. One thing is firing the guy. The other thing is all of them getting together and deciding not to hire him
Well, his girlfriend calling former Baltimore Ravens Ray Lewis a house slave definitely isn't helping his situation. I think he has been blackballed, but stupid stunts like that give NFL Team Owners an easy excuse to not hire him.
Then the NFL made it worse via the Streisand Effect, the president got involved, a good quarterback can’t get a job because it’s an Ole boys league, but worse than anything is that it’s gotten to the point where it’s not even about the objective of the protest as much as it’s about the protesting itself.
The fact that there are innumerable instances that could have been what made him start kneeling is EXACTLY why he did.
The fact I can’t remember which incident may explain why Kaepernick felt the need to do something.
I assure you I am not taking this as a chance to shit on you specifically, but this is exactly why he does it.
There are far too many people of all skin colors that don’t know this. It’s what is often coined “white privilege” because whites don’t have this happening to them, so they can afford to be ignorant to it. Blacks, on the other hand, have to live with this kind of stuff daily, and is a legitimate concern to the safety of a large portion of them.
But what started out as a desire to bring to light the injustices of what our LEO and government is actively doing against the minorities in this country, is now been deflected by the historically racist political party that is the GOP. They’ve spun it as disrespectful to our veterans and service men and women, while they continue to actually disrespect them by denying them the proper services and help they need when returning from war.
Edit:
I’m continually getting these intellectually shallow arguments about how whites are also affected by corrupt LEO, as if that justifies them being corrupt.
This thread chain is about why Colin Kaepernick is kneeling, not about how whites are also affected. In fact, I even mentioned this in another reply, how Colin kneeling is bringing to light injustices done by LEO to all races and skin colors.
I’m sorry you’re so astoundingly desperate to deflect this argument that you need this explained to you.
Honestly, I don't think you're shitting on me. I fully believe that this type of event is far too common in certain cities and states - maybe even most of them.
It is against people of all colors. Not to go "all lives matter," I think the African-American community is not only unfairly targeted in this way but in every way by the justice system (as are other minority communities, to a lesser extent, although it can be pretty bad for Hispanics in some pretty heavily Hispanic states like AZ, which still has SB1070).
But a lot of people of all colors are killed by police every year without cause. Sometimes after they call the cops themselves.
Yeah - I took your post as you basically pointing this out. I don't think the other dude was crapping on you, and good on you for not taking it that way!
And what's more is that their privilege allows them to assert that this doesn't happen at all, because they personally never experience it. So not only is it framed as disrespecting the military, but that it's also done so for a reason that many don't believe is even legitimate.
I love seeing common sense after sifting through so many racist remarks in this thread
So not only is it framed as disrespecting the military
It is framed that way in order to silence their message, because that message makes some people uncomfortable.
The kneeling has fuck-all to do with the military. It's a football game, not military parade.
It's a football game, not a political event.
Making America Great Again.
They’ve spun it as disrespectful to our veterans and service men and women
And it has worked like a charm.
You're well spoken and your point is like-able. I dunno who you are, but Reddit needs more of this kind of level-headedness.
There are far too many people of all skin colors that don’t know this.
If you look at victims of police killings by race and sex it is really a sex things as women of any race are rarely killed but many men of every race are killed by the cops
Ehem, you do know that innocent white people get shot and killed by cops as well, don't you?
At best, nobody gives a shit.
At worst, you get called a racist when you speak up about it.
Of course this affects whites people.
Of course white people are shot illegally by police.
But this thread isn’t about that. It’s about what started Colin Kaepernick’s protest.
The fact you need this explained to you is pathetic. Your argument is the weakest, most intellectually shallow attempt at deflection.
Of course, but ...
There is always a "but" with people like you.
I am not making an argument, I am just pointing out an obvious fact, that you failed to note. The facts do not support your argument. And that is why you are wrong.
I am not deflecting, in fact I agree with Kaepernik. I fear he is not going to achieve anything, but he is right and at least he is trying!
You on the other hand are just regurgitating racist propaganda.
Lol whites don't have to deal with it? Might want to tell that to the families of the 457 white citizens cops killed in 2017.
White people don't really have to deal with racial profiling though which is a large contributor to wrongful police fatalities. Black people are shot disproportionately more than white people by police.
White people get shot by the police, but they don't have to deal with the institutionalized racism engrained in the justice system and in frequently in police forces.
Lol whites don't have to deal with it? Might want to tell that to the families of the 457 white citizens cops killed in 2017.
The racists don't give a damn about white victims. That disturbs their false narrative that only blacks are victims, never whites.
No. People care just as much about cops illegally killing white people.
However, this a comment thread about Colin Kaepernick’s reasons for protesting. I shouldn’t have to explain that white people are affected by corrupt cops as well, as that isn’t the subject.
This bullshit reply is the most intellectually shallow argument you dumbasses can come up with.
It’s protesting a imbalanced system that puts black people at a disadvantage, and police brutality is a part of that system. Of course white people can be victims of police brutality, but keep in mind black people are only 13% of the nation, while white people are 60%, but yet police killings are at much higher rate to black people than white and why is that?
This is America, segregation existed not to long ago and its effects linger, and the war on drugs only made things so much worse for black communities because they are specifically targeted, That was Nixon’s plan, carried out through multiple presidents then, to debase black communities and it did have its effects. White and black people do not have the same history here then or now, and it’s not fair to assume so
How many white people are there in the US? How many were killed under justifiable circumstances?
How many black people are there in the US? What percent of unjustifiable murder do they make up in the crime stats?
A cop is 19 times more likely to be killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be killed by a cop.
A cop is 19 times more likely to be killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be killed by a cop.
I wonder why I can't find any factual basis for this claim?
I found it in Wikipedia, or indirectly from there. I've read it a few times, actually, when researching crime statistics. Look there.
I think this may be the article referenced in Wikipedia.
Applying the historical average over the last decade in which 40 percent of all cop-killers were black would yield 21 cops killed by blacks in 2015. An officer’s chance of getting killed by a black person is 0.000033, which is 18.5 times the chance of an unarmed black person getting killed by a cop. After this year’s 72 percent increase in felonious killings of police officers, these ratios will be even more lopsided.
Lol, deflection, figures.
Two reasons:
1.) Crime statistics are based on convictions, including guilty pleas (plea deals). It is more difficult to navigate the criminal justice system if you're poor or black.
2.) Black people have been marginalized and discriminated against for most of American history. This causes a number of societal issues, the same issues you see in every single impoverished community on Earth.
Anywho, if we can back to the subject at hand, do you think it's fair to state "457 white people" were killed by police as an argument that police brutality affects white people more often without addressing the fact that there are many more white people and without specifying which shootings were justifiable? Stop being such a fucking pussy and answer my question.
Bet you didn't think I'd respond, now it's my turn to doubt.
[removed]
Wow, this is the most pathetic response I've ever received on reddit.
There was a story recently of a black man released from prison after serving 17 years for a murder he didn't commit. He was sentenced to life as a 14 year old based on the testimony of corrupt police. Yes, it is entirely possible that bias against black people results in disproportional unfairness in the justice system. In fact, numerous studies show that black people are 6-7 times more likely to be convicted and sentenced more harshly than white people committing the same crime. It is possible for both cops and jurors to be racist.
That said, I did not say that all crimes black people are arrested for is due to racial bias. In fact, you ignored the entirety of my second point. Did your fucking child brain just get tired of reading or do you think you can get away with that shit?
Reread my post. I very clearly stated there were multiple reasons for higher incarceration rates, including the fact that black people do in fact commit the crimes. I provided the historical context that affects some black people and impoverished people across the globe, regardless of race.
"Stop killing people"
People who haven't killed people are persecuted for having the wrong skin color. They don't control the actions of other black people. Stop being so absurd. Go ahead and tell that guy who spent the prime of his life in prison because of racism, tell him to "stop killing people". Even though he's black, he still matters, even if not to people like yourself.
"Suck my dick jackass."
Go fuck yourself you dumbfuck prick. Learn how to read and address the arguments people actually make instead of grabbing onto one thing, distorting it and using it as your entire counterargument like a petulant child.
Oh, and let's not forget! You STILL haven't answered my question. You are a fucking pussy.
I did. Go fuck yourself child.
"Whites don't have this happening to them"
I didn't fucking say that and neither did anyone else.
Your point is fucking bullshit because it COMPLETELY ignores major factors like population size and whether or not the shootings were justified. You're basically excusing every white person of a potential crime they may have been committing. Think about that.
Whites don’t have this happening to them on a regular basis.
I’m sorry you’re legitimately so stupid that I had to clarify that. Please crawl back in your hole.
Use of excessive force by policemen affects all races, not just blacks. Blacks should not be creating a false narrative about racism that statistical studies do not support.
[deleted]
Because there are more white people in general.
As a percentage of their population, African Americans are killed more often.
[deleted]
So, in other words, you want me to keep getting more specific until it supports your argument.
Move along, troll.
[deleted]
The more accurate data includes the general public, because that’s what this whole argument is about.
We’re not discussing how criminals get shot. We’re discussing how the black community is unfairly targeted by LEO through profiling. And in fact, it’s the innocent citizens who are unjustly targeted by corrupt LEO that this is about. Young black men shouldn’t fear for their lives when interacting with LEO, and that is how it is currently. And the reason it’s like that is because, as a percentage of their population, they are more likely to be targeted by LEO, regardless of their actual guilt.
You, on the other hand, are slyly trying to imply that they deserved what they got, because they’re all likely criminals. The irony in that is why you’re a troll.
As I said before, go back in your hole.
He's saying he didn't know what Kaepernick was protesting about which is a failure to actually have a meaningful protest.
Secondly, who are these blacks that this is happening to daily because this is where I'm starting to see a trend here? You mean like in Ferguson where the black kid robbed a convenience store and then attacked a police officer? Or maybe the black guy who was shot because he was high on PCP and wouldn't follow police officers commands?
It's pretty amazing that in damn near every situation that people bring up to "protest", it comes down to stupid people doing stupid things and then getting hurt as a result. Why people choose to ignore police commands and pretend it's not going to get them in trouble is beyond me. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But instead of recognizing who is actually to blame, people pretend that it's "white privilege" and try to make bullshit excuses for it. No, you didn't shot because you are black. You got shot because a police officer with a gun told you to get on the ground and you didn't fucking listen.
It's one of the biggest aspects that is destroying our society right now and it needs to stop. The more that we regress as a society to the concept of "social justice", the more we regress back to witch hunts and religious killings.
And here's MY biggest problem with these situations. People like you, who are not black, are trying to be some white knight for black people. You focus on pretending they are being treated unfairly across the board despite every fact going against it. Meanwhile, you don't speak about the true problems facing households across the board right now which is everything from broken homes to reliance on government assistance.
How about Tamir Rice or Philandro Castile?
Or Eric Garner
Tamir Rice
The kid got the cops called on him because he was running around pointing a gun at people, regardless of whether it was real or fake, that's a level of stupid that shouldn't have happened in the first place. You have police officers coming to a scene where they were told a kid had a gun, not a fake gun, a real gun. The officer claimed the kid reached for his waist and whether you believe that or not doesn't matter. The reality is that the kid gave the impression that he wasn't complying with the police officer.
Yeah, it's a tragedy and no one is arguing that it isn't. I wish the officer wouldn't have fired, but the thing about guns is that even a 12 year old can kill someone with a gun. You can't outsmart a bullet.
Philandro Castile
There are a few incidents that I am conflicted about and some incidents that I clearly see the police officer in the wrong. This one, I am of both minds. The officer was wrong on all counts with his response (shooting). I feel that the officer overreacted but at the same time, the guy in the car should have stopped anything and everything that he was doing. When the police officer says "Don't reach for it", you stop moving. Again, I blame the cop on this one and definitely feel that the officer should have been charged, but at the same time, I wish to use this as an example of how you should take commands from police officers very seriously because they can and will make judgment calls that are not minor (as is obvious in this case).
There are so many cases that involve people not following police commands and ended up getting hurt or killed. In this case, again, I feel it was the officer who overreacted, but it really does become a focal point to understand exactly how important it is to follow police commands.
So we should follow a police officer’s commands perfectly and immediately, even when the officer barely knows what is going on. How about we try to hold police to a better standard rather then be perfect robots for fear of death because police escalate situations.
So we should follow a police officer’s commands perfectly and immediately, even when the officer barely knows what is going on.
Yes. That's why we give police authority. They are authority.
How about we try to hold police to a better standard rather then be perfect robots for fear of death because police escalate situations.
We do hold police to a better standard, which is why we give them authority. The problem is that people like you don't understand that standard and live in world of puppies and kittens where everything works out for the best. In the real world, police officers have to follow procedures because otherwise, they put themselves in situations that increase the risks to their lives.
People like you don't want police officers. You want movie heroes. You want people who are going to risk their lives and then magically come out unscathed. You ignore the realities that police have to face which are that they ARE putting their lives at risk every time they go on duty. There is nothing routine about a routine traffic stop. There is nothing routine about anything.
Lol you're serious. That's the best part about this. You're actually serious.
He doesn't want movie heroes. He wants accountability. He wants them to have an understanding of a situation before they act. He wants them to analyze a situation for an actual threat before taking an action that cannot be undone.
It's fucking HILARIOUS to me that you're throwing yourself on the sword of the Tamir Rice case and then telling the other dude in the argument that he wants "movie heroes".
News flash: If the cops acted more like you suggest, and followed procedures, Tamir Rice would be alive. You don't roll to a stop 6 feet from a suspect with a gun, hop out, tell them to drop the gun, and shoot them as they reach into their waistband for their toy gun, and say you were "just following procedure". Whatever procedure tells you to do that is criminally fucking broken.
Police in many other western countries are much more peaceful and capable of de-escalating situations, so it is not at all unrealistic.
The reality is that the kid gave the impression that he wasn't complying with the police officer.
How is the kid supposed to comply in less than 2 secondes? Seriously, the cops pulled up and shot him less than 2 seconds later. And the cop also told the kid to drop the gun. How is the kid supposed to drop the gun if it's not in his hands but he's not allowed to reach for it?
Oh, and if the cops felt so in danger for their lives, why did they pull up to within 5' of him?
So, in less than 2 seconds, the police pulled up to within' 5 feet of him (which would have already taken more than 2 seconds) and then told him to drop the gun AND drew their weapons and fired (which would have taken more than 2 seconds).
Do you not like facts or are you just changing the situation in order to fit your narrative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeoZkgjCHJ4
It didn't take "more than 2 seconds"
Your facts are wrong because you're a goddamned liar. The kid was shot to death because the cops put themselves in the stupidest possible situation, and their lives are more valuable than his. End of story. There was 0 time to comply with any orders, and even less than 0 time to even evaluate the situation. Both of those officers deserve jail time - they are directly responsible for the death of someone who was not a threat - because they chose to act inappropriately.
You rail on and on about
Yes. That's why we give police authority. They are authority.
That authority doesn't give them the right to completely screw the pooch, end someone's life, and act like nothing happened - as they did here. It is a disgrace on every single American, you, me, my mom - everyone - that we let this kind of shit occur.
If an officer says "license and registration" at the same time he says "don't reach for it" then what are you supposed to do, as a flawed human being, too?
The really damning thing about Philando Castile's death was that the gun lobby remained completely silent.
When an officer says "don't reach for it", the wrong thing to do is reach for anything regardless of what is going on.
And why would the gun lobby speak out? What exactly are they supposed to say?
The fact that you refuse to accept the fact that a nation that literally separated blacks from whites as recently in history as 1954, and had president Nixon recorded saying how drugs should be used to dismantle black communities in 1971, couldn’t even slightly be at a disadvantage to certain people is astounding. That is peak ignorance, you do not know anything, but you assume that because you don’t have an example of people it’s happening to that it doesn’t exist.
You refuse to accept that sometimes things do happen because of racial prejudice, which is thing I as a black man experience myself because I am an inherently flawed human being with invalid first impressions, I admit that.
But a theme in most you just said was assumption. You assume that black people don’t listen therefore they get shot, but how do you know that’s always the case? You assume that social justice is destroying our society, but how could racism not destroy a society? After all, it is the reason why things like social justice exist in the first place. And you kept saying “you” and taking about how we don’t focus on “true problems”, you are again assuming that millions of people only focus on unimportant issues, which things such as racial matters in America are very important, it is not up to you to decide what is and what isn’t, and to act as if people can’t care about more than one thing at once
First off, this is not 1954. It's not 1971. It's almost 50 years later. You can pretend that this is a small amount of time, but the reality is that we had better race relations in the late 90's and early 2000's than we do right now.
You refuse to accept that sometimes things do happen because of racial prejudice
No, I refuse to accept the belief that everytime something bad happens to a black person that it's because of racial prejudice. That's the problem here.
You assume that black people don’t listen therefore they get shot, but how do you know that’s always the case?
I am not assuming. I am literally stating the facts of the case. Hell, many of these situations are recorded and we see exactly what was said and done. So, no, I'm not assuming these things.
You assume that social justice is destroying our society, but how could racism not destroy a society?
What happened in Ferguson? A bunch of upset people fucking rioted, broke into stores, burned cars, etc., all because a black kid was shot and killed. No one gave a single fuck about the facts of the case. No one gave a fuck that the kid had just robbed a convenience store. No one gave a fuck that the kid, through verifiable evidence, had a physical engagement with the police officer. No, they were too busy condemning the officer. That situation was everything that was wrong with social justice. Lies being used and perpetuated by the media to create divide and tension and a government administration condemning the police before even knowing the facts.
When you have BLM walking in the streets screaming "What do we want? Dead Cops!", how exactly do you think that's going to go over with police officer? You start calling for dead cops and you think they are going to be friendly happy people? For fuck's sake, 5 cops were assassinated at a rally in Dallas.
You demonize police officers and guess what happens? People don't want to be police officers. States don't have the funds to pay more, so instead, they have to lower their standards. The majority of police departments are understaffed primarily due to not being able to find viable candidates. You end up resorting to people who will take the job and then everything terrible becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because you have police officers who shouldn't be cops being put in situations that they can't handle.
you are again assuming that millions of people only focus on unimportant issues,
Yes, I am. And yes, they are. The total number of people killed by police in a year is ~1000 people. The number of blacks who are killed by police officers is ~23% of that number which is ~230 blacks. This is what people are fucking rioting for. Twice as many people die each year from falling out of their fucking beds than are killed here and that's not even taking into account the justification for why any of those blacks were killed.
So, yes. They are.
it is not up to you to decide what is and what isn’t, and to act as if people can’t care about more than one thing at once
Well, when they say they are protesting against police brutality, I'm going to be logical and conclude they are protesting about police brutality. I know, crazy concept here.
Oof.
Case-and-point, folks.
which is a failure to actually have a meaningful protest.
OP was from out of this country. The protest occurs during a sport he likely doesn’t watch or keep tabs on. His country have their own media and issues they’re reporting on. Of course he isn’t up to date on our country’s issues.
As for the guy I was replying to, his reply was in irony. Or, at least that’s how it came off. The irony in the plight of minorities being conveniently ignored by the majority, and then used against them to even further ruin their lives.
The protest is meaningful. The sitting US president, although unabashedly racist, had to go so far as to rally his racist followers and party members to condemn these players. Their weapon? Pseudo disrespect to our armed forces. Believe me, the message is getting out, and it’s making its mark. Just because white privilege blinds you from reality, doesn’t make it any less of a successful movement.
Secondly, who are these blacks that this is happening to daily..
First, let’s define “this”, since you left it conveniently vague.
“This”, is anything involving negative interactions between the black community and LEO. This includes, but is not limited to: disproportionate arrest rates, illegal search and seizures, profiling of young black men, disproportionate use of force, disproportionate occurrences of death-by-LEO, harassment, and much more.
And “this”, can occur to literally any black person across the country. And in fact, it occurs most often in the areas with the highest concentration of poor black and other minority communities. The very communities that need the most help, are the ones being overlooked the most by public services.
Which is why I mentioned that the protest is about both LEO and government injustices being done to these communities. Our government doesn’t want to step in and find ways to clean up and help our most needy communities, allowing the perpetual cycle of drugs, abuse, and violence to continue and fester. Then, our LEO come in and take advantage of the situation. Instead of helping these communities, they simply divide families and even further perpetuate the issues in their communities.
In other words, it’s systematic racism. From the top down, these communities face the largest uphill battle to get themselves the chance to be more than what they were born in. But when the ones who should be helping, are actively working against you, that challenge can be damn near impossible.
Colin Kaepernick is kneeling for this reason.
But instead of recognizing who is actually to blame..
Ironic. In a comment string about white privilege, you’re here to say there’s no such thing, thus proving my entire point, and the necessity behind this protest.
In truth, if you actually cared enough to look into the subject beyond the stereotypical Republican “I’m not racist” talking points, you’d see that they aren’t placing all blame on LEO or the government. Many in these communities will admit that there is responsibility on both sides. It’s up to the individual to be a good citizen and follow the law, and it’s up the government to give them a fair chance at doing that. In case you missed, or simply read over, my earlier reply, recall back to how negative aspects of poor communities (drugs, violence, etc) are being perpetuated by the very government that created them.
The vast majority of people in this country don’t choose to be poor, or criminals, or drug addicts. They make decisions that lead them to it, or away from it. But by and large, whites suffer a far less stacked deck than blacks. For some of the most seemingly insignificant reasons, too. And when faced with a deck where some decisions are already made for them, it can be quite the challenge to get a reshuffle.
That’s what Colin Kaepernick is kneeling for.
You got shot because a police officer with a gun told you to get on the ground and you didn’t fucking listen.
Christ. How old are you, honestly?
You seriously think it’s excusable for a LEO to shoot someone because they didn’t get on the fucking ground? The ONLY situation it is excusable for a LEO to shoot someone, is when they are a DIRECT threat to others, themselves, or the LEO. That is the ONLY situation that is okay.
What you just said is, and I quote you:
One of the biggest aspects that is destroying our society right now and it needs to stop.
Never mind that you sound like one of those Sinclair sheep that read off the same bullshit rhetoric for their Republican-backed and bias news station, but you defending a cop for using excessive force on blacks is a massive aspect destroying our society right now.
Also, this issue isn’t even limited to the black community. Some fucking dildo-brained LEO shot an innocent man as a result of a mistaken SWAT call. Some immature gamer pulled a SWAT’ing prank, and an under qualified, emotionally unstable LEO shot and killed an innocent white man literally seconds after opening the door to blinding lights and shouting.
And got away with it.
Despite being a multicultural issue, this is why Colin Kaepernick is kneeling.
People like you, who are not black, are trying to be some white knight for black people.
I’m likely near my word limit, so I’ll close with a reply to this.
People like me are simply sympathetic. People like me are also smart enough to realize this isn’t going to be a race issue for long. People like me notice how quickly this is affecting all communities, and how easily it could happen to me. People like me see this as a human rights issue, and recognize that I don’t have to be actively suffering to want it to end.
People like me aren’t blinded by the convenience of being white in this day and age, and instead choose to use my voice for those that are ignored by people like you.
People like you is why Colin Kaepernick is kneeling.
You’re a great writer and very argumentative. I’d give gold if I could
Thanks, sir. Writing is one of the few true natural talents I have, so I try my best. Combining that with issues I am passionate about is a guilty pleasure.
This is a special kind of stupid, and just reinforces the original point. You’re ignoring the reality, yelling about a couple of isolated incidents, gaslighting about ‘true problems facing households’ like you’re not being white priveledged, and can at least be articulate enough to make it sound like you deserve to speak. Look back at what you wrote, realize that you’re being impossibly ignorant, and then stay out of the conversation for the rest of your insignificant life.
You are doing exactly what I just described and you don't even realize it. Instead of actually bringing ANYTHING to the discussion, you attack me, call me stupid, and telling me not to engage in the conversation.
You don't like what I'm saying, then grow up, be an adult and discuss it.
I can't stress just how your post perfectly accentuates exactly what I was pointing out. When you get to a point where you are telling people that they don't deserve to speak, then you are in the wrong.
You need to do better.
While you’re correct that I attacked you and called you stupid, I also brought several points to the discussion. You’re ignoring those because you’re too hurt by the insults, and trying to turn this around as if I’ve done something wrong other than point out that you’re -likely totally consciously- being an ignorant moron. You don’t deserve to speak because you’re willfully being that person. I’m impressed by your ability to sound intelligent while acting anything but, however it doesn’t change the fact that you said what you said and you’re not just incorrect, but also a piece of shit for saying it.
You have just spent two posts in a row attacking me and not bringing a single fucking argument to the table. You don't like what I'm saying, then grow up and start arguing against it with more than just petty attacks. You can throw petty attacks at me all day and I don't give a shit.
So, you want to have a discussion about it, then start bringing arguments? If all you want to do is throw childish and petty personal attacks, then you are in no position to call me a piece of shit you fucking hypocrite.
Plenty of other users have humored you and provided thoughtful and intelligent arguments point by point to what you said. I’m not interested in also doing that because it only further enables your stupidity, by allowing you to pretend to have any justification for what you said. I’m just here to point out that you’re ignorant, what you said was ill-informed, close minded, fairly racist, and just generally something a shitty person would say. The fact that you’ve only doubled down on the same just proves me correct.
Oof.
Case-and-point, folks.
which is a failure to actually have a meaningful protest.
OP was from out of this country. The protest occurs during a sport he likely doesn’t watch or keep tabs on. His country have their own media and issues they’re reporting on. Of course he isn’t up to date on our country’s issues.
As for the guy I was replying to, his reply was in irony. Or, at least that’s how it came off. The irony in the plight of minorities being conveniently ignored by the majority, and then used against them to even further ruin their lives.
The protest is meaningful. The sitting US president, although unabashedly racist, had to go so far as to rally his racist followers and party members to condemn these players. Their weapon? Pseudo disrespect to our armed forces. Believe me, the message is getting out, and it’s making its mark. Just because white privilege blinds you from reality, doesn’t make it any less of a successful movement.
Secondly, who are these blacks that this is happening to daily..
First, let’s define “this”, since you left it conveniently vague.
“This”, is anything involving negative interactions between the black community and LEO. This includes, but is not limited to: disproportionate arrest rates, illegal search and seizures, profiling of young black men, disproportionate use of force, disproportionate occurrences of death-by-LEO, harassment, and much more.
And “this”, can occur to literally any black person across the country. And in fact, it occurs most often in the areas with the highest concentration of poor black and other minority communities. The very communities that need the most help, are the ones being overlooked the most by public services.
Which is why I mentioned that the protest is about both LEO and government injustices being done to these communities. Our government doesn’t want to step in and find ways to clean up and help our most needy communities, allowing the perpetual cycle of drugs, abuse, and violence to continue and fester. Then, our LEO come in and take advantage of the situation. Instead of helping these communities, they simply divide families and even further perpetuate the issues in their communities.
In other words, it’s systematic racism. From the top down, these communities face the largest uphill battle to get themselves the chance to be more than what they were born in. But when the ones who should be helping, are actively working against you, that challenge can be damn near impossible.
Colin Kaepernick is kneeling for this reason.
But instead of recognizing who is actually to blame..
Ironic. In a comment string about white privilege, you’re here to say there’s no such thing, thus proving my entire point, and the necessity behind this protest.
In truth, if you actually cared enough to look into the subject beyond the stereotypical Republican “I’m not racist” talking points, you’d see that they aren’t placing all blame on LEO or the government. Many in these communities will admit that there is responsibility on both sides. It’s up to the individual to be a good citizen and follow the law, and it’s up the government to give them a fair chance at doing that. In case you missed, or simply read over, my earlier reply, recall back to how negative aspects of poor communities (drugs, violence, etc) are being perpetuated by the very government that created them.
The vast majority of people in this country don’t choose to be poor, or criminals, or drug addicts. They make decisions that lead them to it, or away from it. But by and large, whites suffer a far less stacked deck than blacks. For some of the most seemingly insignificant reasons, too. And when faced with a deck where some decisions are already made for them, it can be quite the challenge to get a reshuffle.
That’s what Colin Kaepernick is kneeling for.
You got shot because a police officer with a gun told you to get on the ground and you didn’t fucking listen.
Christ. How old are you, honestly?
You seriously think it’s excusable for a LEO to shoot someone because they didn’t get on the fucking ground? The ONLY situation it is excusable for a LEO to shoot someone, is when they are a DIRECT threat to others, themselves, or the LEO. That is the ONLY situation that is okay.
What you just said is, and I quote you:
One of the biggest aspects that is destroying our society right now and it needs to stop.
Never mind that you sound like one of those Sinclair sheep that read off the same bullshit rhetoric for their Republican-backed and bias news station, but you defending a cop for using excessive force on blacks is a massive aspect destroying our society right now.
Also, this issue isn’t even limited to the black community. Some fucking dildo-brained LEO shot an innocent man as a result of a mistaken SWAT call. Some immature gamer pulled a SWAT’ing prank, and an under qualified, emotionally unstable LEO shot and killed an innocent white man literally seconds after opening the door to blinding lights and shouting.
And got away with it.
Despite being a multicultural issue, this is why Colin Kaepernick is kneeling.
People like you, who are not black, are trying to be some white knight for black people.
I’m likely near my word limit, so I’ll close with a reply to this.
People like me are simply sympathetic. People like me are also smart enough to realize this isn’t going to be a race issue for long. People like me notice how quickly this is affecting all communities, and how easily it could happen to me. People like me see this as a human rights issue, and recognize that I don’t have to be actively suffering to want it to end.
People like me aren’t blinded by the convenience of being white in this day and age, and instead choose to use my voice for those that are ignored by people like you.
People like you is why Colin Kaepernick is kneeling.
The protest is meaningful. The sitting US president, although unabashedly racist, had to go so far as to rally his racist followers and party members to condemn these players.
What amazes me the most is that having respect of authority and respect for things like the flag somehow turn me into a racist white supremacist.
Yes, the message is getting out and that message is that more and more people like you are getting ignored because you run around screaming "racist" at everything.
For starters, you blurt out about Trump being a racist and the guy literally was praised by Jessie Jackson, won an ellis island award for “patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity” alongside Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks, he opened the first palm beach club that was open to anyone, I could go on and on with his history of racist integration to the point of even the fact that he dated a black woman for god's sake. The whole argument that he's racist is a perfect example of how easily fooled people like you are by the media and how quickly you'll start screaming racism at everything.
And “this”, can occur to literally any black person across the country.
BULLSHIT. You can spew that garbage to your circlejerk friends and they'll blindly agree with you, but in the real world, you literally are pulling shit out of your ass.
You seriously think it’s excusable for a LEO to shoot someone because they didn’t get on the fucking ground?
FUCKING YES. I am not stuttering. I'm not mixing words. I'm saying, if you want to disobey a police officer, then you damn well better be prepared for the outcome. You have got to be the dumbest mother fucker on the planet to think disobeying a police officer is going to turn out well for you.
The ONLY situation it is excusable for a LEO to shoot someone, is when they are a DIRECT threat to others, themselves, or the LEO. That is the ONLY situation that is okay.
And that's exactly what is happening in the vast majority of all cases. The problem is that you want to sympathize with the person who was shot rather than realize that a gun isn't an "i win" situation. You can shoot someone multiple times and still have them be able to attack you. I know it's hard to believe because you've watched movies, but the reality is that you don't just get shot and fall down dead.
People like me are simply sympathetic. People like me are also smart enough to realize this isn’t going to be a race issue for long.
And that's the problem. You are so caught up being sympathetic and apologetic that you don't realize that you are making the problem worse. You create situations where people FEAR police officers because of the stupid actions of other people which you are justifying. Seriously, you are normalizing stupid behavior towards police and then get surprised when people get shot.
People like me aren’t blinded by the convenience of being white in this day and age, and instead choose to use my voice for those that are ignored by people like you.
And people like me aren't blinded by the ignorance of trying to make excuses for stupid behavior. You are reinforcing bad behavior and hiding behind some pathetic social justice which IGNORES facts and reality.
People like you is why Colin Kaepernick is kneeling.
That literally makes no sense at all. All he's done to me is reinforce my belief that groups like BLM and the anthem protests are ridiculous and misguided.
Doubling down in the ignorance, further proving my point, perpetuating stereotypes about people like you, and then topping it off with a healthy dose of stupidity.
Yup, just the reply I expected. Have a good day.
Yes, I argued my points against you and just like I expected, you abandoned the argument, deflected away with personal attacks and didn't address a single thing.
I'm sorry that I have actually researched these situations and drawn my own opinion. That's why I can actually argue these points without resorting to calling people stupid and ignorant.
The killings aren't the end of the problem, they are just a symptom.
White people don't have cops pulling them over/people calling the cops on them randomly just for driving an expensive car, walking alone at night, wearing a hood at night, participating in a cookout in a public park, or ordering a drink at a Starbucks.
These protests aren't about single individual events, so refuting the validity of each individual event isn't a good counterargument. The idea is that police culture as a whole is very racist, and that needs to change.
A lot of people like to argue "well if black people would just stop resisting arrest they'd die less" but they are disproportionately in that situation where they have to choose between complying with a unreasonable and dehumanizing request or not more than whites. "He shouldn't have been wearing his hood" why does wearing a hood warrant police attention?
Additionally, why does solving one problem mean that we can't solve any other problems? Our government is well funded and (usually) well staffed enough that we can and are supposed to be tackling multiple problems at once. Let's assume those two problems you listed are indeed actual problems. If we can fix our criminal justice system, we can actually help alleviate the two "real problems" Americans face. By reducing the number of persons incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, you reduce the number of homes with a missing parent and add another income the house, which then reduces their reliance on government assistance.
(a whole different topic, but 'reliance on government assistance' happens because of wage suppression. these people are working everyday, but you can't accumulate savings or have upward economic mobility off of a minimum wage. minimum wage is woefully insufficient in supplying a livable income for adults in most US cities, but somehow we don't want to raise it?)
White people don't have cops pulling them over/people calling the cops on them randomly just for driving an expensive car, walking alone at night, wearing a hood at night, participating in a cookout in a public park, or ordering a drink at a Starbucks.
And neither to black people. Seriously, what actual evidence do you have to support this? It's some made up belief by people looking for excuses for why they got pulled over or got looked at a second time or whatever. It's perception bias. "It's because I'm black isn't it?" No, it's because you are driving 5 mph down a street at 3AM.
These protests aren't about single individual events, so refuting the validity of each individual event isn't a good counterargument. The idea is that police culture as a whole is very racist, and that needs to change.
I will use the events that people protesting are specifically pointing out. When you use an event as an example and that event clearly shows that the person shot was not following police commands and often times involves high amount of drugs, it's not just cherry picking isolated events.
A lot of people like to argue "well if black people would just stop resisting arrest they'd die less" but they are disproportionately in that situation
And the argument is still valid no matter how many times it happens. That what needs to be realized here and I don't know why people are so blind to it. If a police officer tells you to get down, it doesn't matter if they did the same thing yesterday, two weeks ago or never, you are a fucking moron if you don't do it. This is your life you are talking about and you pretend that some rebellious act of defiance by standing there is more important than not getting shot? It's stupid.
"He shouldn't have been wearing his hood" why does wearing a hood warrant police attention?
Because a hood doesn't warrant police attention and because you made up a story just to pretend something agrees with you. The problem is that you'll gladly ignore any other pertinent information that goes along with a person wearing a hood.
By reducing the number of persons incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, you reduce the number of homes with a missing parent and add another income the house, which then reduces their reliance on government assistance.
Or, you know, you could just be an adult and not break the law in the first place. You have a family and you want to do stupid shit that could land you jail? That's not a problem with police or punishment. That is a fundamental problem with people recognizing what is most important to them. If they choose drugs with the potential of ruining their lives over their family, then it's not a problem with the jail system and fixing that jail system is not going to fix the subsequent problem with families.
The first line of your comment is the reason you think everything we are saying is bogus. If you can't accept the basic fact that American police do in fact racially profile, then there's going to be zero change in this country.
Here are some sources from academic institutions if these will help you stop turning a blind eye.
http://economics.ucr.edu/seminars_colloquia/2006/political_economy_development/KateAntonovics4-10-2006.pdf
https://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/28/stanford-researchers-develop-new-statistical-test-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/
https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cjccj.45.3.367?journalCode=cjccj
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/687518
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00543
http://nclr.ucpress.edu/content/20/2/181
This response is exactly the kind of problem that many people have with the kneeling. The notion that black people are being disproportionately victimized by police is bullshit. You think it's bad that you can't remember a specific situation where a black person was unjustly killed by police? You don't even seem to think this happens to white people! And you didn't mention people of other skin colors either. More white people are killed by police than black people in the United States. Yet your response is to say that people of all skin colors just need to realize this is happening to black people?! More bullshit. None of this is to say racial injustice doesn't exist or that black people aren't ever killed unjustly by police or aren't the victims of police brutality, but there's a whole lot more than you either know or are willing to admit.
If you only look at population by percent, the US is 63% white and 12.3% black. As far as those killed by police, 49% are white and 24% are black. If we look at only that, sure, you could make a claim of disproportionate violence. Most people do stop there. Combining those numbers with never-ending anecdotal evidence and subjective opinions forms a picture of racist police brutality in the US. All of that ignores the fact that black people are involved in 75% of all violent crime, over 50% of all murders, and over 65% of all crime in the United States. If white people committed murder at the same rate as black people, we would have over 25,000 more murders in the US every single year. It's in credible; there's a correlation between shooting at police officers and being shot by them. With that, 43% of officers killed in the line of duty are killed by black people.All that from only 12.3% of the population.
Black people are responsible for over 50% more violent police confrontations, but they end up losing their lives 50% less of the time in those violent confrontations compared to white people. On top of that, 93% of all black homicide victims are killed by other black people - not white people or police. Stating something like black people need to worry daily about being the victim of police violence is an outright lie and is bullshit plain and simple. I'm not saying that black people don't worry about things like this, but I am saying that worry is misplaced, and I would definitely say it's delusional in most cases (though not all). Worrying about something subjectively does not make it an objectively legitimate concern no matter how many people claim to feel the same way.
I don’t even want to bother replying.
I just feel sad for you. I hope you find the help you need.
Facts make a lot of people sad, but that's the amazing thing about facts: they don't care.
If you cared about the truth of the matter, you would read it again, understand what he is saying, research the statistics (easily found online), choose TRUTH, then stop spreading misinformation and contributing to discord, and refocus on REAL problems, such as police brutality to Americans of all races.
Confirming the truth of the matter can be done easily and quickly. Apply that passion of yours to a righteous cause.
First off, despite my edit to the main comment, let me remind you that this is a discussion about why Colin Kaepernick is kneeling at football games.
This was not about any of the following:
In-depth analysis of issues concerning LEO interactions with the general public (as in all demographics).
An attempt to imply that only blacks receive negative treatment from LEO. They do, however, face it on a far more regular basis, which coincidentally is what this post is about.
It most certainly is not a soap box for closeted racists to marginalize the significant issue that blacks face in regards to LEO by doing shit like ALM, or coming to a Reddit thread and detailing the whole point of the post because they feel the need to point out that whites face police brutality as well, despite that it was never implied they didn’t.
Pointing out how all races are affected by police brutality is just worthless. All you’re doing is deflecting from the point of BLM, which is specifically about how blacks are treated by LEO. Yes, we all know that they aren’t the only group, but they are by far the most common. And that’s a fucking issue.
As for the guy above you, he doesn’t know facts. He takes statistics and twists them to his convenience. He isn’t the type of person to have a reasonable conversation, especially when his main argument is that blacks are simply mostly criminals who deserve it. That way of thinking isn’t even hiding his racism, and I will not engage in an argument with such a cancerous human being.
That being said, you should take a look at my post history if you truly don’t think I care about police brutality as an issue that affects all races.
Ironically, if this were a topic about police brutality in general in the USA, something tells me I’d be defending my disdain and expectation for a better trained police force from folks like yourself and the other person. Because to you, it isn’t about finding the truth, it’s about shitting on Democrats and minorities at every opportunity.
I haven't twisted any statistics. If you truly believe so, I greatly encourage you to put forth your own statistics. Saying "blacks are unfairly targeted" is the statement that is actually skewing the facts. That's the kind of thing people say when you only see a very small part of the picture and only look at the specific numbers that you want. On top of that, even though you say that your post wasn't meant to be an in-depth analysis and such (which I agree, it wasn't), your opinion on the matter is just that: an opinion, and it's a very slanted one, unfair one.
As far as your assertion that I believe blacks are "simply mostly criminals who deserve it"? That couldn't be further from the truth. I very clearly stated that none of that was an excuse for any form of existing police brutality in any way. No one deserves to be disrespected, beaten, tortured, or killed because the color of their skin! No exceptions. But that does not ignore the fact that the reason for 99.9% of blacks being killed by police is because those specific black people involved were committing violent acts and/or shooting at police officers before they got shot.
It's also not about shitting on anyone be that Democrats, minorities, or anyone else. In searching for the truth, you cannot avoid the facts. Most of crime and violent crime in the US is committed by black people and not just by "percent of population". There is no assumption or expectation of guilt with that statement. That isn't a generality for "all blacks are criminals" or even to allude to a mindset of treating any black person as "guilty until proven innocent". It is simply a statistic that holds true whether you look at individual areas or the US as a whole. You seem want to ignore things like that because you feel it is somehow "unfair" to black people.
A minority of Redditors feel they must know the facts of a matter to discuss it, hoping they'll encounter others who value truth.
u/VikingPandas is such a person. The reason I suggested you take the time to investigate his assertions is because I can tell you care, at least about articulation — what I don't know is if you care about the truth. I'm hoping so.
I can vouch for the accuracy and truth in u/VikingPandas comments because I independently did as he's obviously done – took the time to research the facts.
Curious about the truth among the claims, I started with Wikipedia and read their articles, then followed links and references, (including national crime statistics by the FBI), as well as other studies and statistics (there is very significant information at The Washington Post).
I returned a few more times to be sure I was accurate in my comments, ultimately realizing the evidence shows that minorities are not targeted more in these type of incidents.
What I do know is that abuses and use of excessive force by police (including murder) are far, far too common. Then, even on the few publicized incidents, the police almost always escape accountability, resulting in unconscionable injustices to citizens. It's upsetting. But it should not be made into a racial issue since these incidents happen to all races, and not disproportionately to black citizens.
So I again challenge you to take a look into the facts. If you do, and if you're fair-minded, you'll conclude that u/VikingPandas accurately presented the truth.
u/ToddPiersal I'm glad that you too seem to share that fact-seeking trait. I admit my initial post was more than a bit, umm, aggressive, but I strongly dislike those who either don't know the facts or are purposely ignoring or altering them, and it's even worse when someone is using those falsehoods to project an inaccurate image of our country to people reading this thread from elsewhere in the world.
I've spent hours upon hours checking hundreds of sources and cross-checking that information against numerous other sources to arrive at my conclusions. I greatly value accurate information far above political opinions. It sounds like you've located sources of your own, but I would be more than happy to share my own. And, as always, I do welcome any who disagree with me to present their own facts and information.
No. He presented stats that were twisted to create an argument that black people bring this upon themselves. He presented an opinion that was clearly based in prejudice.
Just like him, you missed the point. Like him, you’re not worth my time. Because like him, you don’t care about facts, you care about not being wrong and defending your prejudices.
The only fact that matters is that minorities are extremely underserved, and suffer more as a result. That you can’t connect this extremely important fact to the rest of the conversation here, is why I won’t waste my time arguing with people like yourself and the person you tagged. You simply refuse to consider that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and instead keep spouting off bullshit about how the facts say black people are criminals and deserving of the interactions.
Ironic that you folk would come here and try and say white people suffer as well, but then downplay the issue of corrupt and abusive LEO when it comes to how they interact with minority communities. Thankfully it’s also a tell-tale sign that you aren’t capable of having an unbiased discussion, saving me the effort.
You're hopelessly stupid.
Everything he and I said is supported by facts. You're unwilling to consider facts so you can remain ignorantly biased to suit your false narrative.
Fuck off.
Fuck off.
I love being right.
You're not right. You're unintelligent. You ignore facts because they don't agree with the racism that you're spewing. It seems that you're everything you hate, and you're too ignorant to realize it.
Did he have to explain that he was protesting? Because if I would see an American kneeling for his anthem, I would just assume he is trying to be more-patriotic-than-thou.
\^ exactly what he said. Kaep was told to do so as a sign of respect by a former navy seal, too. for the record. it is NOT disrespectful. that's the fucked up right wing narrative brainwash machine.
Yea! What you said!
If he wanted to attend the funeral or offer condolences, that would have show he cared. But to twist a few cases into an accusation of systemic racism without bothering to check the facts of those matters or educate himself on the statistical realities of crime in America is unconscionable, a disservice to everyone who cares about justice and real issues. So many jumped aboard, based on his misperception, pushing this ill-conceived cause with major media trumpeting the storyline, that the truth of it all now needs to be known and Kaepernick's irresponsibility recognized.
Wouldn't it be more symbolic if they got on both knees and put their hands behind their heads?
He wasn't even kneeling at first. He was sitting for it, and someone in the armed forces actually told him to kneel instead as it showed respect while still being a protest.
I can't remember which one.
This makes me so sad.
Your last sentence is exactly why he felt the need to do something.
And then white people made it about themselves but that's another conversation
Don't call them "white people".
By generalizing them this way, it makes them appear larger and more prolific than they really are. You also demonize a lot of innocent people.
It's a small minority of people that are outwardly against the protest. Plenty of white people support Kaepernick.
I agree. I can't stand generalizations. Also, I'm white and I totally support him. If I had been at that phony "celebration of America" Trump held at the WH last week I would have been the third (white) person kneeling.
do you not see the irony in making it about yourself
Dude, context. I was replying to a specific statement and expressing my personal stance while also pointing out that I'm a white person who supports him. Of course in that context my statement is "about myself," how would I get around that?
He actually started by sitting, and another player that was a former member of the United States army discussed it with him and they came to an understanding that kneeling would be a way to show respect while still engaging in peaceful protest.
The kneeling has never been about the anthem or the flag. It is a way of publically and peacefully protesting the way black people are treated by some of America's police. It is only done during the anthem to draw attention to the issue.
Additionally, this subject became a much bigger national story when President Baby Hands decided to begin attacking the NFL and the players who were engaging in these peaceful protests. He called them "SOB's" and tied to protests to disrespecting the military because it earns him political points with his base. He is the agitator behind the story being so big.
[deleted]
got lost
I would say that the message was purposely altered by detractors rather than lost by the protestors.
[deleted]
😎
It also has to do with the media broadcasting any police brutality against blacks.
Yeah, we have racist cops but the media gets the most clicks when it’s a black guy that gets shot or beaten, as opposed to any other race.
I was once an NFL player like you, but then I took a knee.
Ironically, I thought he started kneeling after talking to his buddy that was in the service who said it was actually more respectful to kneel during the national anthem. Everything political got piled on after that.
Its also patriotic as fuck to risk your career to try to improve the country.
Thanks Kap
Then the prez had to chime in
I thought he sat first but then after talking with veterans groups he decided to kneel to show respect but also send a message.
Actually , it started with him sitting on a bench and then after talking to a veteran they decided that kneeling was more respectful while still making the point.
I think it's an important distinction.
It started shortly after one of the stories about a black teenager being shot by the police but I can't remember which one.
Another thing I can't relate to.
about a black teenager being shot by the police but I can't remember which one.
This line makes me so sad because we had so many :(
you forgot to mention that the reason Kaepernick kneeled is generally ignored by most of the people who dislike the kneeling as the White House line is that its just generally disrespectful towards America. If you ask them to elaborate, you pretty much just a "No" and then they continue taking questions
Kaepernick wanted to be edgy. He's an idiot. But luckily smarter guys have taken up the cause for better reasons.
Not to be that guys but wasn't there a massive statistical post about police shootings and such against different groups and basically if you're a white male you're fucked yet the media and everyone says the opposite. It was a while back when the whole BLM stuff was fresh, anyway the fact you let people wander around with firearms when they clearly can't be trusted with a plastic spoon is a mystery to me.
A military VAT told him to do it, can't leave that out
The fact that so many black people have been shot here that you can’t remember which one is concerning, I think. That’s not a comment about you but just the large numbers of shootings that happen here.
It started years earlier when Tim Tebow kneelt during the national anthem after he asked an active member of the military what would be the most respectful way to protest. Kneeling was suggested as it is how you respect a fallen brother in arms, similar to flying a flag at half mast. Except no one cared until Kaepernick.
The outrage behind it seems so idiotic as a non-american.
I wouldn't feel too bad about not remembering. Something like 470 police shootings happened that year and 9 were black. That one just got news attention
Pretty sure the first time it happened was over something petty, but I really can't remember what or why. I know some people took it racial, some took it political, and it just devolved into "What is happening and why?!"
He actually started by sitting down in protest that the country the flag represented would not stand up for its black citizens. But after a long chat with a veteran (former green beret, I believe) was convinced to kneel out of respect for soldiers and veterans, while still breaking tradition for the anthem.
American here. Many Republicans will say that it is disrespectful because it is normal to stand for the anthem. They act like kneeling is an indication that the players are completely anti-military and anti-police. It would appear that they believe that any criticism of police action is anti American.
I personally think that the peaceful protest of kneeling is patriotic. They want to see change because they want their part of the world to be better for all people. They aren’t taking their big paychecks and moving to other places that could be safer for people that look like them (many pro athletes are African Americans). They’re standing up for people here who are statistically more in danger from those who are supposed to protect the citizens. I respect it.
It started as a black guy kneeling…
No. It started as a guy just sitting, chilling and not standing up defiantly. The kneeling started later after some veterans had a chat with him about how what he was protesting isnt exactly related to the flag or what it symbolises and he was being disrespectful. Then, after that, that he switched to kneeling as a form of protest by getting attention that was still a respectful posture.
realistically you wouldn't remember which incident whether it was against blacks or whites but sure
Technically, it started when Tebow protested abortion and not only did no one care, they praised him for being open about his religious beliefs.
correction:
It started as a black guy sitting in protest of police brutality against blacks.
After speaking with a fucking veteran, he switched to kneeling as a sign of respect while still protesting.
In the Army, the flag is a symbol of hope and home for people out in the field. The anthem describes these feelings - it describes the flag being illuminated by the bombs of our enemies and assuring us that America (and by extension our reason to carry on) are still there. A lot of our brothers and sisters died wearing that flag, and the flag flying high above the relative safety of our bases is comforting to people who are deployed.
In the context of war, this is understandable. It becomes problematic when you consider that the US has pretty much been in a perpetual state of war since it's inception - at any given time, entire percentages of our population are likely to be combat veterans. That means that the segment of the population that is most likely to be revered and put on a pedestal puts this object on a pedestal. The Republican party and conservative media have such a firm grip on the balls of veterans and pro-war voters that they've managed to tap into this reverence for the flag and use it to their advantage.
It becomes even more problematic when you consider that our entire country has spent the last century employing the flag as a symbol of American exceptionalism in the fight against evil (the U.S.S.R). The flag is pretty much the single most prolific piece of propaganda you could imagine in this country - our children have to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning, we have to sing the national anthem before every game, there are codes and restrictions on the treatment and display of the flag (which probably isn't out of the norm for most countries), you can find at least one waving on pretty much every suburban street, it's printed on helmets for sports teams and their merchandise, it's printed on products made in America, etc. Hell, I just realized that I have one sitting on my desk literally a foot away from me that I had completely forgotten about.
Imagine if the Axis had won, and what the Germany of today would look like in terms of how prevalent the swastika was, what children were required to do to show respect to it, etc. That's America and our flag. We're zealots with less codification (and obviously less genocide).
Kaepernick became frustrated with the inequity in America - specifically the police brutality, which many have perceived to be disproportionately biased towards members of the black community. To him, and other people who have since supported him, our country is not fulfilling its promise to its people and the flag as a symbol doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to others. Originally he sat down for the anthem, but after being told that was disrespectful and other people were angry about it, he consulted with an Army Ranger who suggested that he kneel instead to still show respect to what other people saw America as. American still said, "fuck you, you're being disrespectful to a piece of cloth that means more to us than the thing it's supposed to represent."
It's a stupid controversy. When I was in the Army, these same people who are crying about black players kneeling for the anthem were the ones racing to their cars/houses to avoid having to stand for the anthem during retreat. They're the same ones doctoring the flags with blue and green lines to counter-protest, the same ones who sit on their asses drinking beer during the anthem when they're at home, and the same people who turn the flag into shirts, shorts, beer can labels, etc. As a veteran, I'm ashamed that other veterans value the flag and anthem more than the lives of people in their country - you show me a service member who would rather save a flag than a dying American citizen and I'll show you someone who doesn't belong in my Army. When a flag dies you can sew another and it's virtually the same thing - when people die you can't recreate them.
tl;dr: It's super disrespectful because people are super asinine and have a fetishistic reverence for a piece of cloth.
Edit: I've been gilded! Thank you very much kind stranger. I'm glad you found my input to be valuable!
Thanks for the explanation.
Both of our countries are English speakers, and in a lot of aspects we are very culturally similar. There are things though with the USA that are still a bit foreign to us Brits sometimes.
The way a lot of Americans think about the anthem and the flag is very differrent. In England there is almost a small sense of shame associated with the flag, partly due to slavery, the empire, and how it has been used by far right groups.
For instance a politician a while ago had to resign because she posted a photo of a house covered in England flags. It is almost sneered at in a way by a lot of people.
I am not saying our attitude is better. I am not sure it is healthy to have a sort of national guilt associated with patriotism either.
I think there needs to be a healthy middle ground - I personally think it's fine to be proud of where you're from, to love your country despite it's faults, and to want to be the best. In my opinion the problem is when doing so blinds us to those faults.
I like patriotism - it's what drives me to want to make my home better. I don't like nationalism, because my country is no better or worse than others simply because I think it is.
I personally think it's fine to be proud of where you're from
As a Brit, I've not been proud of my country for a long while. We have rising poverty levels, our sick and elderly and being treated like shit, racism is once again on the rise, and the Brexit shambles is making us look exactly as ridiculous as we are. So yeah, there's not a lot of to be proud of over here.
But then I saw this story last week, and it made my heart soar a little. THIS is the shit that makes me proud to be British, that a significant number of us embrace other cultures.
I'm rightly critical of the country of my birth, and I'll never be patriotic, but we're going to be ok in the end, I think.
Yea my Paris-based friend said something similar: having a flag is seen as nationalist in France, and it's never displayed at private residences. The obsession with the American flag is really bizzare to them. I dislike that when people critique our country (such as Kaepernick kneeling as a protest of police brutality), they get a lot of shit for lacking blind devotion to our country. Why can't we acknowledge that we're just trying to improve the country? For all our citizens? I mean we market our country about being "land of the free" and we can't shut up about free speech. So what's the problem with kneeling?
Whatta great explanation. Thank you
Thank you for this comment, so much truth.
It's a stupid controversy
Totally agree. Thank you for the comprehensive writeup!
This may seem facetious, but why do you specify that they shouldn't save a flag over an American citizen? Surely one should not put an individual flag over a citizen of any country?
I'm confused by your question. You seem to say exactly what I was saying.
If you were a soldier, and your base was being assaulted, and you saw another person that was in danger, and also saw that your flag was being taken down, I'm saying that any soldier in their right mind would be more inclined to save that other person than to save the flag.
That's exactly why I think this controversy is a bullshit thing for servivemembers to be angry about. A single instance of a symbol or a single rendition of a song are not more valuable than American - or any, for that matter- lives. Kaepernick is protesting what he sees as apathy towards the unjustified killings of Americans by Americans. By placing a song and cloth over their lives (which we would never in a billion years do if these were white people, lets be honest) we're just validating his point.
Edit: I think I understand your question...if it's "why did I feel the need to say that", then the answer is again because of how fanatical Americans are about the flag. I'm not kidding when I say this is Nazi Germany if they had won the war - the flag is the ultimate symbol of American Exceptionalism and manifest destiny, and is positioned in the minds of these fanatics as more important than the lives of Americans.
I can understand the frustration from the black community and the left, but it seems that (in terms of kneeling during the anthem) the anger is being misdirected. The flag is a symbol of our freedom, our country and the ideas of our founding fathers. Moreover, it represents our jurisdiction under wherever the flag flies.
It would be impossible to speak for every American, since we are so diverse (one of the most wonderful aspects of being American, we CAN be as different as we want). But it's safe to say that America does not condone racism. So I believe that kneeling (which IS disrespectful since doing anything BUT standing up with your hand on your heart or over your brow is considered disrespectful) is misguided. It's the utilization of the freedom of speech to disrespect the symbol of all our freedoms.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. protested rasism with speeches. The Black Panthers had their methods. It's important to remember that to combat racism, we need to change the ideals of the individuals who practice it. Being angry at the entire country (which includes the masses of people who also fall victim to racism) is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But it's safe to say that America does not condone racism.
That's kind of the problem though. For many Americans, that's not safe to say at all. The whole point of kneeling is that some of the people who represent the flag (Police) are racist (allegedly). It's not really helped when the President doesn't condemn racism and ignores tragedies when it involves minorities. Not saying I agree or disagree with kneeling. However, to say "But it's safe to say that America does not condone racism." is not accurate. Hell, look at how widely confederate flags are flown. Literally a war over slavery and a belief in racism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.["
It's a utilization of that freedom to point out that the American promise of freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness means different things to different people, or to take it even further, that that promise has been betrayed with regards to certain sections of the American population.
Using the freedom that our armed forces are supposed to be fighting for to point out a perceived inequity in American society--not a perceived slight for one guy, or ten guys, but tens of millions of American citizens is, imo, hardly disrespectful.
super simple breakdown of this thing.
bad things happen that most people aren't aware of or concerned with
person draws attention to bad thing
audience doesn't want to talk about bad thing
audience changes the subject and attack the message format so they don't have to address the bad thing
two sides yell at each other on the internet until someone gets tired and moves on to the next argument
My grandfather is still holding on. He's a veteran, and former fire fighter, but loves football. Any time he visits he will bring up at least once how he is always tempted to sneak a peak at the football games if they're on one of the communal televisions in his community.
The first player that kneeled actually asked a veteran how he could protest without disrespecting the anthem and those in the military. The advice that the veteran gave him was to kneel during the anthem. A veteran told him to kneel so that it would not be disrespectful.
I'll have to look into this and send it to my grandma on Facebook, seeing as she's the only one of the two that's active on any social media. I'm sure she'd appreciate being able to get him back to watching the games, probably bothers her more than him lol
If it helps, I discovered this information on one of Philip Defranco's videos from the last couple of days, and he usually cites his sources in the description.
What does that mean? He loves football but feels compelled to avoid it?
He's in protest due to the kneeling thing, so is refusing to watch it because it's unpatriotic, but also loves football. I almost want to tell him that he should just enjoy it while he can, he's too old to give a shit about that stuff.
[deleted]
I'll try this next time I see him, I have some family graduating from highschool soon, so he should be around and I'll pick his brain about it. It's likely he's moved on since this last season, but who knows? The man is definitely set in his ways.
Or try "America was founded on the right to protest."
No seriously re-read about the Boston tea party. It was a protest. The Founding Fathers were all about protesting. It's the most American thing ever.
This also justifies his right to protest the protest is what I'm saying. It's circular logic, but again, he's very set in his ways. You can point out the fault in reasoning forever, but that's not necessarily going to convince him otherwise. Either way, the only harm really being caused in the situation is he has to pretend to not watch a sport when it's on, which is not a terrible loss.
Ah that's true
He might want to talk to some fellow veterans about it. Most veterans I see say anything on the topic fall into the “if you think I went and fought in a desert on the other side of the world just so some guy could kneel during the anthem… you’d be right” category.
(I know vets aren’t a homogeneous group, so if he only knows super conservative ex-Marines then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
I only know one vet who actually fought and he seemed to dislike it. He supports their ability to do it, but does take it as a middle finger.
He's kind of a conservative ex marine lol. I mean, I have a gay cousin, and was married to a Korean, so he's not unable to be open about things, but he's also very religious and kind of all about the way things "should be." This isn't excusing him being misinformed in the matter, just more so pointing out his mindset, and the echo chamber he resides in. At a certain point it's kind of just accepting that he's kind of fallen into a silly form of protest and it'd be an uphill battle to change his perspective.
I think your dad doesn't understand why he fought in wars.
Hint: he did it so we could say fuck the USA and be allowed to.
Note: I like the USA. It's why I hope we can do better. Anyone who is fine with status quo isn't much of a patriot.
Oh, I think my grandfather knows why he did it and fully supports the right to freely express yourself and protest. If anything, he's exercising the same rights in his protest. Like everything else, he's not going to stop those people from doing what they did/are doing, but he's well within his right to feel the way he does about it and express himself accordingly. I think the whole thing is silly, but both sides have equal right to do what they're doing.
Irony here is that protesting others' free speech is what is actually unpatriotic. But I'm sure you know that, grandpa's will be grandpas
Yes, grandpa's will definitely be grandpa's. Not saying his stance is correct, just that he's welcome to his point of view.
Lots of boomers boycotted the NFL last season because of the kneeling and how "disrespectful" it was. Yes, Faux News told them to.
This is some 1984 shit. People are now abandoning their passions because a talking head told them to? Just how manipulable are these people?
... um. Have you noticed who we elected president?
The thing you have to understand about America is that a lot of us are so dumb it's unbelievable we make it to adulthood without just wandering into the street and getting hit by a car or dying in a horrific shoe-tying accident.
My dad boycotted it because Kaepernick didn't get a starting position. I felt that was a good reason.
Does he stand up at home when the anthem is playing?
I dunno, maybe? He's very proud of his service, and I think he feels as though the kneeling thing was disrespectful, though there are obviously other points of view on the subject. Either way, I wish he'd just get over it and watch football again because it's something he really loves and it sucks that he's been deprived of it, even if it's been his own decision to do so.
Does he not understand that the whole flag worshiping at football games is pretty recent, and pretty much purchased by the various armed forces?
Considering he is a former member of said armed forces, I don't think he sees that as a negative thing necessarily. Not to say this makes his protest any less silly, but I do see his logic, misguided as it is.
I was just thinking that, if he fully understood that this is 10-15 years old at most, he might be better able to see how it's a little silly to completely stop watching sports because some people are turned off by the hypernationalism.
Edit:
I looked up the 10-15 year part, and it looks like I was wrong
Playing the national anthem before regular season games "was not universal in baseball until 1942 and the start of World War II, though some clubs started the practice in 1941," said Michael Teevan, a spokesman for Major League Baseball.
Since then, "the national anthem has been played before virtually every professional — and many collegiate and high school — baseball, football, basketball, hockey and soccer contests in this country," said Marc Leepson, author of Flag: An American Biography and What So Proudly We Hailed: Francis Scott Key, A Life.
In the period after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the anthem took on special meaning at sporting events, and some teams arranged pregame events with survivors and first responders. In some cases, a rendition of America the Beautiful was added, said Elliott J. Gorn, a Loyola University of Chicago historian and co-author of A Brief History of American Sports.
But I also noticed this, regarding Football
One aspect of this history that has spawned some confusion in recent days concerns a change made in 2009.
Until that year, players in primetime games would remain inside their locker rooms while the anthem was sung, due to timing concerns for the television networks. After 2009, the players in primetime games have been on the field during the anthem, McCarthy said.
But this change only affected primetime games. For all other games -- typically held at 1 p.m. or 4 p.m. Eastern -- players had already been stationed on the field for the national anthem. So the 2009 change simply applied to primetime games the rules that had already been in place for daytime games.
Part of the confusion, McCarthy said, may be that television networks often haven’t shown the national anthem being played.
That last bit is really interesting about the change in 2009. I'll send this to him and see what his thoughts are.
This is the K.I.S.S. explanation. And it is the most correct.
most correct
I mean, for a borderline conspiracy theory, it’s not very close to the truth.
One side sees it as a disrespect to the soldiers.
One side sees it as a civil rights issue.
It’s not like the ones against kneeling are thinking “haha fuck black people for getting shot. Let’s silence their opinions!!!”
Lol. Not all, but plenty enough.
If you think more than 1% of the anti kneelers are like that, then you clearly haven’t met a single person like that in your life
If you think that, you clearly haven’t ever been to rural America. I hear these types of statements all the time.
Yeah, I live in rural America.
Yeah. And here we are not talking about the bad thing
Source?
Here’s the biggest one https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1003832766511894528?s=21
That's the best you have? TOP KEK
Stop spreading bullshit because it aligns with your world view.
KISS is for engineering
Didn’t know it was field specific. We used that in the military all the time.
Im just yanking your chain. Engineers get angry when people use KISS, just making fun of them.
This is an amazingly succinct breakdown. I would just like to point out that the NFL's "ruling" (or whatever you wanna call it) is a blatant statement: "Corporate rights are more important than human rights."
I'm not sure many understand the gravity of this slippery slope.
The NFL is a business. Their goal is to make money so they made a standard.
That being said, dredging up this issue with the "ruling" was an incredibly stupid move if they want to make money. I would bet that the nfl ratings will be at record lows this season because of this issue
Not for week 1, it will be all we hear about for a week.
Eh, I don't think so. Football fans can't just turn off their interest in football. We tend to have remarkably short memories when it serves us. I could be wrong, though!
I dunno, ratings have dropped the ladt couple of years.... I think there's gonna be a dramatic drop this year
I'd argue that the NFLs response is more akin to the following:
"Don't use my platform for your own purposes, we spent decades building this juggernaut of an empire, and we will not suffer any risk without our chance at reward"
is a blatant statement: "Corporate rights are more important than human rights."
Not it isn't. It's that you don't have a right to express your political opinion when you are at work. The fact that so many of you feel the need to twist this into something more complicated is beyond me.
No free speech at work, got it. You act like this man was promoting violence and evil. Now bow to your corporate overlords, and don’t come crawling to me when you can’t get their dicks out of your mouth long enough to take a breath.
No free speech at work, got it.
Good since it is a VERY basic tenant of any job.
You act like this man was promoting violence and evil.
Where exactly did I do that? Please point it out.
Now bow to your corporate overlords, and don’t come crawling to me when you can’t get their dicks out of your mouth long enough to take a breath.
Lol, ok there Che. I'm sorry I tried to provide some real world facts, I wasn't aware your world view was so fragile you had to respond with vitriol to protect it.
This is an extremely efficient description.
This can also be applied to every mass shooting event in this country. Nothing gets done about it after all the arguing and blaming then the cycle continues. Good ol’ America....
Or they disagree with the position of the person drawing attention to the issue. When people criticize a cause, it isn't always denial. Sometimes they actually have good counterpoints and see nuances that the other group can't ; )
I wish your comment was more the norm than what I've experienced viewing or participating in these, shall we say, "discussions"
Let me break it down for you with the appropriate opposite bias
Bad things happen
Some people cherrypick certain bad things to create a victimization narrative
Football player takes a highly controversial and political side, essentially stating "systemic racism is to blame for the death of people like me, and it's white people's fault"
People don't like other people implying they're racist, so they say something about it
This is used as further evidence that they're racist
Two sides intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent each other's points because humans are not rational computers, but angry apes. They whip each other into a frenzy.
first off I'm not sure Kap has said "it's white people's fault".
In your story no one is "implying" someone else is racist, in your example the football player is explicitly stating that white people ARE racist, so check the bait in your traps.
we can be angry apes, but we dont have to be
This is idiotic over-simplification
overly simple perhaps, but i don't agree with idiotic...agree to disagree
Agreed. Nice to know not everyone is drinking this KoolAid
I think pretty much everyone's been aware of the police brutality thing for the past decade. It's been in the news every day whether it's an incident, trial, protest, etc. Celebrities constantly talk about it, it features in classes all over academia from grade school to college, and it permeates popular music. This is despite the fact that it really is a pretty small issue compared to things like opiods or suicides which kill waaaay more young people, including black males.
Raising awareness is great but I mean, everyone is aware of police brutality now. Kneeling isn't gonna change peoples' minds about the issues.
aware of or concerned with
How aware can people truly be if it keeps happening and happening and nothing is done to address it? You say kneeling isn't going to change anything? So what's the alternative? Doing nothing? I bet that when people were doing sit-ins at diners there were plenty of people saying that it wasn't going to change anybody's minds.
This is perfect example of the tu quoque logical fallacy.
I think this is mostly correct, but you don’t mention that the method of protest was, by design, controversial. Kaepernick could have kneeled after Touchdowns, in interviews, or any other number of highly visible situations. The form of protest he chose does draw the very most attention, but also risks derailing the discussion. Sinead O’Connor comes to mind as a similar situation.
That's one (extremely biased) interpretation. So then I'll ask, why did they pick the anthem as their means of protest? Why not find a different way to draw attention once the topic changed to respect for the anthem? Wasn't this distracting from their message? Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to change your methods so that people actually talk about the topic you want and not the anthem?
The answer is that the anthem was specifically chosen because they knew it would be controversial and seen as a lack of respect for the anthem/flag/country. When you pick a controversial method because you know it will get people talking then you can't then throw a hissy fit when people discuss and have feelings about your controversial method.
I can't go piss on your lawn and then say "hey, glad I got your attention, I wanted to make sure you're aware that labor laws in the US are horrible." In that scenario you wouldn't just say "oh, good point, I'll just listen to your message and ignore the fact you whipped your dick out and pissed on my lawn to get my attention." No, it doesn't work like that. People would be pissed about me pissing on their lawn even if my "message/cause" was a noble one.
I respectfully disagree that my post is biased. Perhaps based on the context of the higher level comments it could be seen as such but let's switch the context and see if my content holds up.
I'll choose open carry demonstrations.
Activist see bad things happening : gun rights being infringed on with onerous background checks, legal forfeiture if in the midst of a domestic abuse accusation (Gun violence restraining orders in CA for example), but believes that most people don't see these state or federal enactment or enforcement of laws as an erosion of constitutionally protected rights.
Person draws attention to bad thing : by walking down small town america Main Street with a (depending on local laws) loaded or unloaded licensed and legally purchased AR-15, possibly in a tactical outfit, or additional similarly legal side arm holstered. Note that everything listed here is legal and protected by numerous laws and the constitution.
Audience doesn't want to talk about bad thing (bed thing remember is referencing the erosion of gun ownership rights): any number of current events over the past 10 years can justify an emotional response that would preclude constructive conversation by differently minded individuals.
Audience changes the subject and attacks message format : now the activist is being called a domestic terrorist who is inciting fear in a population in order to make a political point. The activist is a danger not because they are mentally unstable and likely to use the weapons on innocents, but they are creating a situation where people have an opportunity to over react and possibility to escalate an encounter with the police with disastrous results. The opponents of the activist petition Youtube or flag the video as inappropriate in order to get the video demonitized or taken down by an automated algorithm.
two sides yell at each other until one side moves on to the next argument : self explanatory.
From this change in context, and application of my content I think it shows that my concise description of how non americans could not understand something frequently brought up on reddit is valid.
I am interested in hearing if you agree or disagree.
I feel like since you took the time to ask specific questions I should address them and not just defend my earlier addition to the conversation.
My understanding is that the anthem was chosen as the time (not means) of protest, because it was visible and difficult to edit out of a live portion of the broadcast. Alternatives such as locker interviews, or press conferences after the game, are generally optional to be included in a post game broadcast and if anything was said or done during that time it is easily edited. Case in point the note card thing done by the Philly player about the white house visit, didnt receive much play live.
As to changing to a different way once the topic changed, it is not the responsibility of the protester to change because their message was warped by opposition. If that were true a politician would have to change their views on a topic of importance to their constituents/supporters any time their opponent rephrased or took their point out of context.
It was distracting to the message but that's a reason to be heard and not interpreted and regurgitated a dozen times. If you change the method of the message too frequently you run the risk of muddling the message, or worse yet giving the appearance of contradicting oneself.
I do not believe the logical response is to change the message, when you are achieving the goal of people talking about your message.
You might be right about the intent but I doubt either of us know what was going on in Kap's head when the decision was made.
Honestly I wouldnt be angry if you pissed on my lawn, I'd simply avail myself of the protection under the law, call the police and have you arrested or ticketed for indecent exposure. Then spray down the pissed on area with my hose and get back to my day, casually wondering what specifically about labor laws made you go to such lengths. After posting the story on reddit for free karma of course.
He specifically changed from sitting to kneeling because a prominent veteran told him that would be a way to still show respect for the flag and anthem, while simultaneously protesting. I can't think of a single time in history before now that kneeling was interpreted as a sign of disrespect. Can you?
Yes. Any and every time you should sit or stand. When a bride walks down the aisle, when a judge enters the courtroom, when greeting a higher rank in the military, when asked to stand for the anthem, etc.
Show me an example of someone kneeling in any of those contexts as a sign of disrespect.
I can't, because nobody would be disrespectful like that. Just like there were no examples during the anthem before the NFL sheep started circle jerking each other.
By your reasoning, failure to conform is automatically disrespectful. Under that reasoning, nobody can ever protest anything without being disrespectful.
Not entirely true, although most protests are indeed in direct conflict with what they're "supposed to" be doing which in many cases is (sometimes justifiable) disrespect.
But no, that wasn't what i was intending to portray which is why i only pointed out scenarios where it would be unequivocally disrespectful: to a bride, judge in their courtroom, etc.
Any and every time you should sit or stand.
That was a tad broad, but yes, in nearly all cases where you "should" do something but instead do something else to make a display and show your disapproval, then yeah, that's disrespectful. Sometimes people deserve disrespect and sometimes a show of a lack of respect is justifiable but that doesn't completely cancel out the fact that it's disrespectful.
I think your definition of disrespectful isn't one that would be generally accepted. If everything is disrespectful, nothing is disrespectful.
Then people refuse to see that the majority of the bad thing that happens to victims of the bad thing are caused by the same group of people as the victims, even when sourced with years of federal data. People don’t want to talk about the actual real problem affecting the victims of bad thing. They point at out-groups which to assign blame so they can avoid in-group responsibility.
And people will start victim blaming the group so they can absolve themselves of all responsibility, despite the fact that the group itself experiences so much internal strife due to both modern-day systemic issues keeping them in their own impoverished circles and the historic systemic issues that placed them there to begin with.
Let's cut the shit and get to what we are talking about. Black on black violence is magnitudes greater of a problem that police on black violence. Data supports it. The country ignores it. The black community is suffering and nobody cares because nobody wants to help with the actual problem. It's easier to blame police because you can't change anything the police do, so it's "out of your hands" and you get to rest on your ass and complain without doing anything. Police shoot white people too. Am I upset about that? Yes, but I'm more concerned with deaths against humans in general. The fact that people have to focus in on one race and blame another race or group is ridiculous. Focus on the actual problem and it will go away.
People aren't really blaming white people, and for the most part, not even the police, though there are some exceptions to that last bit. The problem is that ongoing prejudice against black people and the perception that they're inherently more violent results in more police officers viewing them as threatening and thus more likely to pull a gun on them, even if they're just a kid in the airsoft gun aisle or a regular-ass man being pulled over for a broken tail light.
Violence within the black community is an issue that does need to be resolved, but a lot of that comes from the fact that there are high concentrations of black people in certain impoverished areas. Literally, it's not even an issue of black people seeking out other black people, only that black people are being placed in situations where they're more likely to commit violence while surrounded by other black people. And the reason they're kept in the same neighborhoods and kept in relative poverty are due to both the historical racism that existed that prevented black families from obtaining wealth, and the modern-day prejudices that still exist as a result of slavery and Jim Crow segregation that continues to reduce black people's chances of obtaining wealth to the same degree that white people are able to.
That black on black violence is even brought up is just to absolve non-black people's responsibility to fixing the situation, so all we end up with is a community of people that we've historically kept down, and we tell them that it's their own fault and only they should have to deal with it, from their manufactured impoverished position.
caused by the same group of people as the victims
What group of people is that, exactly?
Black on black violence is a much greater epidemic than police on black violence. Since it is an in-group conflict it should also be more solvable. I really hope you are wondering and not just probing to call me a racist. People who refuse to look at the data in this situation typically use that tactic
thanks for editing this comment, mods.
Innocent black people aren't responsible for violence committed by other black people, bro. Your black on black violence dogwhistle doesn't really address how "the majority of the bad thing that happens to victims of the bad thing are caused by the same group of people as the victims," either, even if we accept skin tone as membership of a group responsible for each other's actions. I'm not going to call you racist for lumping a group of people together based on their skin color. I don't need to.
Innocent black people aren't responsible for violence committed by other black people
You're absolutely right. It's committed by guilty black people. You could've saved yourself time if you just read what you wrote. Innocent people are not guilty, the guilty who acted against them are guilty. You repeated the bones of my argument without even trying then tried to force feed it back to me as if your point of view is different and correct.
Your black on black violence dogwhistle doesn't really address how "the majority of the bad thing that happens to victims of the bad thing are caused by the same group of people as the victims,
You're right about this as well. I don't know how to address it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sexual predators are mostly white. That is a fact I can accept. It is supported by data. If I am going to rally against sexual predation, I am not going to rally against priests. I'm going to rally against the larger group of perpetrators as a whole, who in this case are mostly white men. It is important to identify the perpetrator of the crimes who are in the overwhelming majority if you want to end it.
I'm not going to call you racist for lumping a group of people together based on their skin color. I don't need to.
Yep, there it is. Another moron baiting into race focused hate rather than focusing on helping solve the problem in a positive manner.
Your reasoning is flawed. Specifically, you are committing the tu quoque logical fallacy, which says that you shouldn't care about one thing because some other thing is worse. Taken to its logical conclusion, nobody should care about anything but the very worst thing in the world, and who wants to live in a world where nobody cares about anything but Justin Beiber?
There is another problem with your analogy to sexual predators. Both molesting priests and brutal police are in positions of authority over the people that they molest or brutalize. That makes it both a more pressing problem and one that's easier to address, since there is more control over the training and supervision of priests and police than there is over the population as a whole.
Also, if you're so concerned with black on black violence, you should be more concerned with police brutality of minorities than if you didn't care about black on black violence. Minority crime victims feeling safe going to the police is essential to reducing black on black violence, don't you think?
Finally, you can call me a moron if you want, but saying that innocent black people are responsible for police beating and killing them because other black people commit crimes is what it is.
Your reasoning is flawed. Specifically, you are committing the tu quoque logical fallacy, which says that you shouldn't care about one thing because some other thing is worse.
Nice straw man slippery slope combo. I did not say they should not care about police. But whatever, you've made up your mind.
Also, if you're so concerned with black on black violence, you should be more concerned with police brutality of minorities than if you didn't care about black on black violence. Minority crime victims feeling safe going to the police is essential to reducing black on black violence, don't you think?
Chicken before the egg. If they went to the police in the first place this wouldn't be an issue, you could argue.
Finally, you can call me a moron if you want, but saying that innocent black people are responsible for police beating and killing them because other black people commit crimes is what it is.
Again, I never said innocent people are guilty of the crimes that happened to them. It's pretty daft to come to that conclusion. You are deconstructing my argument with the grace of an infant. You can't metaphorically flail around and see everything so simply. It's not simple. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Nice straw man slippery slope combo. I did not say they should not care about police. But whatever, you've made up your mind.
It's not a straw man slippery slope combo. It's a layman's explanation of the tu quoque logical fallacy. You strongly implied that people should focus their efforts on solving black on black violence, which you claim should be more easily solved because it's within a group that you believe to be homogeneous because of the coincidence of similarity in skin tone.
Chicken before the egg. If they went to the police in the first place this wouldn't be an issue, you could argue.
No, you couldn't argue that, because minorities don't trust the police because of police brutality, not because of intra-racial violence. I mean, you could argue it, but it would make about as much sense as the rest of your arguments.
Again, I never said innocent people are guilty of the crimes that happened to them. It's pretty daft to come to that conclusion. You are deconstructing my argument with the grace of an infant. You can't metaphorically flail around and see everything so simply. It's not simple. Stop putting words into my mouth.
You put these words in your mouth:
the majority of the bad thing that happens to victims of the bad thing are caused by the same group of people as the victims
You thinking or at least insinuating that the only commonality black people have with each other is skin tone is a red flag of ignorance. You have the gall to imply I'm racist, and you continue to say that I claim that innocents are guilty of the crime happening to them. You aren't worth the trouble and I should've stopped feeding you a while ago, troll.
\:D/
The protest wasn't about young black men dying, it was about young black men dying at the hands of people who were sworn to protect them and their rights.
A death at the hands of the enemy is not as hurtful as death at the hands of a friend/parent. Thats why friendly fire deaths in the military hurt the espirit de corps more than losses in an ambush or IED attack.
Just playing the national anthem at sporting events is weird enough. I think we play it for the FA Cup final and before international matches (for both teams). We certainly don't start regular team matches with the national anthem. That's just creepy.
the NHL also plays the Canadian national anthem at a lot of games too though.
Only when Canadian teams are involved. Just like in MLB when the Blue Jays play.
Except in Buffalo, where they play both anthems every game regardless of the opponent.
And if we're playing the Leafs/Habs, half the fans present are Canadian so it makes sense if we play one we have to play the other.
The Bills also play home games in Canada so...
correct
Depends on the teams. I think that if both teams are Canadian, they only play Oh, Canada. I could be wrong on that though.
I think it only has to be one team, but I'm not sure
If one team is Canadian, they play both Oh, Canada and Star Spangled Banner.
If both are Canadian, I think only Oh, Canada is played.
If both are US, only Star Spangled Banner is played.
Then again, I can't afford to go watch too many games. Ticket prices are obscene and then you have to go get Smoke's Double Pork Poutine and beer.
[deleted]
No arguments here. It's really become an international game so why bother with anthems...unless you want to play the anthem of every player. That would make the pre-game so much more interesting.
Yeah, I really hate that.
Yeah, well when I grew up we had to recite the pledge of allegiance to the American flag every morning as children. But fuck commies, am I right?
That one creeped me out when I found out. Is that literally every school in the country? What about super mega liberal private schools or something?
super mega liberal private schools
That's an oxymoron. Private schools here are generally religious schools.
Lol I know - but I assumed there had to be one in existence next to google headquarters or some shit
Funny enough, the God stuff is really the only thing that bothers me about the pledge. There rest of it I can understand as at least representing my ideals.
Every country does their own thing with the NA. India plays theirs before movies
TIL
That sounds horrible.
Why? It’s no different than playing it before sports games
On a side note, people don’t hate single men. They hate you cause you have a terrible personality
I watch a lot of movies. That shit would get old. Also, thanks for that personal attack I am glad you knew me and my situation well enough to make that comment.
EDIT: if it makes you feel any better I do recognize it is a problem with me, I am dealing with them, but regardless I still get grouped in with those red pill shit heads.So, yeah, I am frustrated.
It's weird that they brought that into an unrelated discussion. I'm glad you're working on yourself.
It's like 50 seconds long and plays way before promos, before ads, before the actual movie.
It's really really not a big deal, not like playing it before local sports with 200 cameras closely watching.
No ceremony or anything?
Nop. It plays in a dark theater where no one can see you... Most people just keep talking or using their phone while standing up.
I'm sick of my national anthem and I hear it maybe three times a year.
I think I even read about a disabled person in India getting assaulted for not standing for the national anthem in the cinema
There was even at one point a supreme court ruling that the doors have to be locked during the national anthem to stop people walking in and out of the theatre room.
I believe this is no longer in effect but it is totally nuts.
Here in the UK, it used to be played after films and when BBC 1 shut down for the night
BBC Radio 4 plays the UK's national anthem at the close of each day's broadcasting (1am).
In Ireland they used to play it at the end of nightclubs. All the lucky folks would temporarily stop the kissing, fingering and hand jobs, stand to attention, and then get right back to it once it finished.
When I was in elementary school we used to start out everyday saying the pledge of allegiance. By the time 5th grade rolled around I started to realize how creepy and borderline brainwashy it seems.
Me too. And then it was immediately followed by:
Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.
Then shortly before I graduated high school, they removed the "one state under God" part. People were super pissed. I didn't realize how culty it was until I was older.
It's just military propganda. Like, literally - the US army pays NFL teams millions of dollars every year to play the national anthem and engage in various other displays of overt patriotism (with mandatory participation from the players, which is also only about ten years old as opposed to being some sort of long-standing tradition).
You have a source for that? I literally have never heard that before.
https://thinkprogress.org/nfl-dod-national-anthem-6f682cebc7cd/
Thanks. You da real MVP
The guy quoted in that article is full of crap. The national anthem has been part of the NFL from the beginning. Take a look at the list of Superbowl national anthem performers for the last forty one years.
The only thing that's changed is that the DoD is paying to turn the national anthem into an opportunity to advertise the military, and NFL management has modified the rules to make sure their DoD advertiser gets it's money's worth. The changes may be objectionable, but the playing of the national anthem itself isn't something that's changed.
This might be a better link. In it is a PDF of the millions the DOD has spent in marketing the military at American sporting events.
Wow, this is filled to the brim with misinformation. NFL started as a patriotic company. The colors of the flag are in the logo for fuck sake. The superbowl is known as one of the most patriotic events in American history. It's PART of the brand and it's PART of the product.
There's plenty of people who like their country, unlike you.
You don't have to believe your country is the best in the world to be a patriot. Many people love their country and countrymen despite being unhappy with the state of the union. They wish and strive for progress, and they are the true embodiment of patriotism.
I speak this in broad terms not specific to any individual country.
Wow, this is filled to the brim with misinformation. NFL started as a patriotic company. The colors of the flag are in the logo for fuck sake. The superbowl is known as one of the most patriotic events in American history. It's PART of the brand and it's PART of the product.
There's plenty of people who like their country, unlike you.
There's a word for this attitude, and it isn't patriotism.
I realize how it might seem weird to an outsider but you have to realize just how diverse the US is. There are people from every culture here so we don't have that common background to join us. All we have is the common "American culture" and more specifically just the knowledge that we are here and in this together. Further, unless you were brought in through slavery or are native American, it means your family came here for a reason. For my family it meant safety from a Europe that was progressively becoming more hostile. To know that this was a solution and to see how far we've come from when my ancestors first moved here brings me a huge sense of pride. That's what the anthem represents to me. That's why it's so important to so many people.
Being half native (Canadian) and half American, born, raised, and living in Canada, it can be weird.
My dad left America for Canada during the Nixon days before everything really turned into a shit show. This is a man who enlisted during Vietnam to get the enlistment bonus since he likely would've been drafted anyway, but didn't/couldn't leave America until Nixon came along.
I have several "landed resident" American friends who also escaped Nixon, and just as many, if not more Amerifriends who also fled Dubya's years during the recession.
Something tells me we're going to get a lot more Yanks because of Trump...
I think you should have town/ city pride in a state setting, state (or major city) pride in a national setting, national pride in an international setting. See how each is appropriate at the next highest level? That's how I see it. It's not the only way, but to me small town pride is irrelevant at the national level since very few people are going to be aware of it. Also, at the national level national pride seems rather redundant to me.
It's a fine view point but I don't think a sporting event is the time for that. Presidential inauguration maybe? Since it is a national event that is supposed to bring us all together. I'm not sure national pride really has a place in a sporting event since it isn't a coming together. People get very emotional about winning or losing at those and definitely aren't there because they are coming together with their neighbors as a country. The Olympics do this, and I believe the anthem fits there as it is like a "fight song" for the whole country.
Sporting events I believe can be categorized as an "entertainment event", most people would agree I think. It'd be weird for me to sing the national anthem before a major concert for though.
Not being a real big sports fan (outside of my university hockey team), I see sporting events as a fun thing to do on a Friday/ Saturday night. I get to watch my school kicking another school's ass, and have pride in the school not pride that I live in America. I think that can be applied to professional sports. They are named after cities or states, and competing against other cities or states, so state or city pride makes sense. All the teams are American based and I think very few people outside of the USA are watching. There isn't that international audience I spoke about earlier. So, why have blatant displays of patriotism when the only people seeing it are people already in the country. I can't see it making a statement like it would, again, at the Olympics.
And really, sporting events are just adults playing the same game (very well) that children play. People love watching competition however. Sports, game shows, cooking competitions, video games, the list goes on. I'm just not sure how football became THE place to show off national pride. It's just a game at the end of the day, not a national pride gathering. We have 4th of July for the "Have fun, get together, and party about America" and we have Veteran's and Memorial day for the Military.
You mention the anthem being important to you as it reminds you of your family coming to America and that is a sense of pride for you. My question would be, is it football or the anthem that brings pride. You can have either without the other, do you listen to the anthem when not watching football? Do you only watch football because of a sense of national pride and obligation thanks to the anthem being sung?
I feel like that also alienates alot of new immigrants, who enjoy the food, culture, and way of life in the homeland. The reason so many Americans nowadays are persecuting them and spouting hatred. Telling them they aren't American and to go home. Idk the ultra patriotism/nationalism is creating that divide (and the media).
The N in most sports groups stands for National, so if makes sense really.
And yet, "It's very common at the highschool level to start all sporting events with the anthem. Or at least it was when I was still in school." Those ain't national.
Besides, it makes more sense to me (as a Brit, fwiw) to play the national anthem at international events, rather than national events. But, like most of the other topics in this thread, I freely admit that that opinion is largely simply because that's what I'm used to rather than there necessarily being any inherent logic to it.
I agree with you there. I just meant in the context of sports events in this thread.
It's very common at the highschool level to start all sporting events with the anthem. Or at least it was when I was still in school.
Exactly, this is something that really weirds me out about the US. While they’re at it, why not play the anthem before a theatrical play? A movie? Before a business day?
Why before a sports game
Now the international series (NFL) is having some games in the UK they play both national anthems one after the other, and that follows a pre show concert too (from the game I watched anyway...) The game is already 3 hours long lol, it doesn’t need any further padding out for time!
American sporting events are a big part of American culture. They are seen as opportunities for the country to come together and enjoy sports even when we are politically divided. The anthem and flag are symbols of that unification.
American here; It's creepy as shit. And there are American flags everywhere. It's a constant reminder that you're surrounded by hyper-nationalists who are likely also racist, reactionary, and viciously conservative.
I'm from a liberal state and plenty of people display flags. One side of my family is entirely democrat and they all have flags displayed at their house. They're very supportive of the military and many believe the flag represents their service as well liberty and justice. You're the one making unfounded generalizations and coming off as hyper-sensitive/reactionary to be honest.
Fig 2. - America hypernationalism and exaltation of the military is not a closely tied with any American political party or tendency, but is in fact a normative feature of American culture as a whole.
What's up with this insane bias? You seriously don't understand that American culture is a mixing pot culture? The flag represents all cultures, you dolt. You can be proud of being American and not be racist, in fact, most are that way. You want to point out the .02% of the population that's racist for some reason. And you lunatics wonder why Trump won. It's because you call Americans RACISTS.
Basically perfect illustration of what I'm talking about
See? This is what we have to put up with, all the time, everywhere.
Why your literally saying "its fine when you play this match, but weird for that one" what line is crossed?
When teams from different countries are playing each other it seems reasonable to have some pride in athletes from your country.
When you have two teams from the same country playing each other, its just a circle jerk to show americans you are proud of your other americans for being americans and playing a sport in America.
That's the line thats crossed. World cup, olympics, they are country teams vs country teams so play the national anthems from each.
I think, an nfl game, would make more sense if each team had an anthem thay they played before each game to a) excite fans of the team and b) remind everyone who they are.
Make it something other than a national pride circle jerk where the people you want to convince of the nation's pride aren't even watching.
When you have two teams from the same country playing each other, its just a circle jerk to show americans you are proud of your other americans for being americans and playing a sport in America.
And yet when other Americans notice this and question it, it's called being unpatriotic and not supporting our country.
You're absolutely right that it's ridiculous.
I think this may be my new favorite argument for why we should just watch the teams play sportsball.
Thanks! I'm glad I could help?! Haha, just glad you liked my thoughts.
each team had an anthem thay they played before each game to a) excite fans of the team and b) remind everyone who they are.
Colleges do this, fwiw. But they also do the anthem.
Hell yea they do. I go to RIT and we are the "RIT Tigers". I hear eye of the tiger like 5 times at every hockey game, it's hype as hell.
It's what I based that comment on.
[deleted]
I was at a country concert (not my first choice) and it was after the Vegas shooting. It was the lead singer of staind (Aaron Lewis) playing his new country stuff in a home town show. I live very close to there. He is also good friends with Corey Taylor (Slipknot, stone sour) so he was there too.
Now, the timing of this concert was poor with the shooting having just happened so they spoke about it. Keep in mind this concert had about 500 people there, all backwoods Massachusetts country types. So, we are talking heavy national pride.
They all started chanting "USA USA USA USA" after Lewis spoke about the tragedy and I just couldn't help thinking "Is this really the time to be proud of your country, after an American slaughtered Americans".
A lot of national pride in my eyes is very misplaced.
This answer seems like it might hold some validity, what do you think?
I realize how it might seem weird to an outsider but you have to realize just how diverse the US is. There are people from every culture here so we don't have that common background to join us. All we have is the common "American culture" and more specifically just the knowledge that we are here and in this together. Further, unless you were brought in through slavery or are native American, it means your family came here for a reason. For my family it meant safety from a Europe that was progressively becoming more hostile. To know that this was a solution and to see how far we've come from when my ancestors first moved here brings me a huge sense of pride. That's what the anthem represents to me. That's why it's so important to so many people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0m2ffb/
I don't think I have the authority to really comment on validity. I think it's a viewpoint that someone else has but I do not share it. I think you should have town/ city pride in a state setting, state (or major city) pride in a national setting, national pride in an international setting. See how each is appropriate at the next highest level? That's how I see it. It's not the only way, but to me small town pride is irrelevant at the national level since very few people are going to be aware of it. Also, at the national level national pride seems rather redundant to me.
On the comment directly, It's a fine view point but I don't think a sporting event is the time for that. Presidential inauguration maybe? Since it is a national event that is supposed to bring us all togetther. I'm not sure national pride really has a place in a sporting event since it isn;t a coming together. People get very emotional about winning or losing at those. sporting events I believe can be categorized as an "entertainment event", most people would agree I think. It'd be weird for me to sing the national anthem before a major concert for though.
Not being a real big sports fan (outside of my university hockey team), I see sporting events as a fun thing to do on a friday/ saturday night. I get to watch my school kicking another school's ass, and have pride in the school not pride that I live in america. I think that can be applied to professional sports. They are named after cities or states, and competing against other cities or states, so state or city pride makes sense. All the teams are American based and I think very few people outside of the USA are watching. There isn't that international audience I spoke about earlier. So, why have blatant displays of patriotism when the only people seeing it are people already in the country. I can't see it making a statement like it would at say, the olympics.
And really, sporting events are just adults playing the same game (very well) that children play. People love watching competition however. Sports, game shows, cooking competitions, video games, the list goes on. I'm just not sure how football became THE place to show off national pride. It's just a game at the end of the day.
The comment mentions the anthem being important to them as it reminds them of their family coming to America and that is a sense of pride. My question would be, is it football or the anthem that brings pride. You can have either without, do you listen to the anthem when not watching football? Do you only watch football because of a sense of national pride and obligation?
I think its seen more as a unity thing in American sports(thus the recent uproar)
If people are willing to be enraged. Not just upset, I get that, I don't like when my university looses, but I'm talking ENRAGED over a loss, then they have lost sight of the unity and I think it is no longer a reasonable thing to say about the anthem being sung.
Because national team games are between two nations and they play the anthem for both. Not as strange as playing it for every single game. Also a large part of it is also how global football is in comparison to American sports. In England there are so many non English players playing the national anthem would mean nothing to most of them anyway.
It's not. It's been part of NFL since the start and it's inter-weaved into the promotion. Shit, the colors of the logo are Red, White and Blue. NFL is based in America only, not international. Calling it creepy is just ignorant as fuck. You should understand the premise and concept before you judge things.
Its supposed to be a form of political protest. However, kneeling in general is usually a sign of extreme respect, so idk.
Kaepernick was actually originally sitting during the anthem, but decided to kneel instead after talking to a veteran who suggested it would be more respectful. After all, he's not protesting against the anthem itself, he's just protesting (against police brutality) during the anthem.
Why stand up and project respect for the symbol of a government that treats you like a second class citizen? That's the beauty of this country. For now, that's still a right.
[deleted]
If you don't think that our government treats our minorities differently than everyone else, you haven't been paying attention. Actually owning slaves is illegal, but running a private prison and filling it full of victims of the drug war is profitable. The Slave owners dropped the whips and chains for suits and ties and continue to keep the impoverished of all races (less so with whites) under their boot.
The Trump administration and the conservative media instead is trying really hard to push the narrative that the kneeling is a form of protest against the military, which is not the case.
Yep, sitting is a bit disrespectful imo. Kneeling is super respectful. The outrage makes no sense, except when you understand that if someone is a racist they're really only welcome in one party.
The outrage makes no sense, except when you understand that if someone is a racist they're really only welcome in one party.
Yep, the outrage exists because Kaep's message makes some people feel uncomfortable, so they try to silence him by saying he's disrespecting the troops (at a football game).
Traditionally we're supposed to stand for the anthem. Seems counterintuitive when kneeling is usually a sign of submission. This is one of the only contexts I can think of where the kneel is meant in protest instead.
In football, especially during practice, taking a knee means that you are not active in the play. You do this to listen to a coach or to watch another play in progress and there is no mistaking that you are not on the field or part of the play. So it really means that you are not engaged in the activity. This is the thing, it's not being disrespectful directly it is just saying "I'm not participating in this".
Thanks for pointing this out - "take a knee" has a special meaning in football practice.
The only other "take a knee" times I can remember were for kids who didn't work out or run all summer, and so threw up for the first few days of double sessions. We said they'd mainly been "lifting twelve-ouncers" all summer!
You also take a knee when someone gets injured. I like to think that Kaep taking a knee also meant he believed this country was injured. At least that's how I interpreted part of it.
That's quite interesting to learn, thanks!!
He's not protesting the anthem. Kapernick chose to kneel because it's still respectful to the anthem AND it sends a different message. A message against police brutality.
Yep, this tweet sums it all up https://twitter.com/kdreamcatchers/status/999781373958410240
I’m curious why you believe kneeling is disrespectful?
Edit: genuinely curious, I don’t want to try to change your mind or start a fight.
Edit 2: misread the comment and thought it said disrespectful, whoops
because it's still respectful to the anthem
Might want to read the comment you're replying to again. I skimmed it and saw "disrespectful" as well.
Ahaha I just read it again! I can’t believe I read that wrong lol. I am still curious why anyone would consider kneeling as disrespectful since it’s a peaceful form of submission. Oh well.
You are just supposed to stand. It was not always like that, they used to do the Nazi salute in schools during the pledge before Hitler came around.
It's called the Bellamy salute. You knew this, but chose to call it that anyway.
I'm pretty sure most people don't know that.
I did not actually, but whatever.
My religion teacher (yes, we have mandatory religion class here in Germany) said that kneeling is basically the most unnatural position we have and therefore when you do it it means a lot
A mandatory class teaching you the history and beliefs of the major world religions? That sounds awesome! Wish we had that.
Nope, a class where you learn about your religion and theology. But of course you also learn other points of view
So, a Catholic would learn about Catholacism while a Jew would learn about Judaism? Still sounds great!
Technically speaking yes, but de facto there is only a class for catholics and protestants. The rest has to go to an Ethic class. Legaly speaking all religious groups could have that, but for the Jews there is not enoug demand and there are too many Muslims groups to find a good one
How much respect would you feel toward a country that appears to sanction the murder of your countrymen by its government?
None, but that's not what's happening in the slightest. Police officers shoot people every day-its part of their job. Yes, there have been multiple preventable instances of officers shooting innocent men, however its been flamed far out of proportion to where many people (like you) seem to be insinuating a government-wide conspiracy rather than failings on an individual and local level. Hell, the federal government has literally nothing to do with the police department of anywhere.
OK, I'll bite.
Police officers shoot people every day-its part of their job.
Shooting people happens, but it is absolutely not part of the job. The fact that officers are authorized to use lethal force does not equal the ability to shoot citizens for any infraction. I know several officers who have never discharged their firearm in the line of duty and take pride in that fact. Cops ought to have the ability to defend themselves and the populace from violence, but that is clearly not what we are talking about, to whit:
multiple preventable instances of officers shooting innocent men, however its been flamed far out of proportion
American citizens are DYING. People whose crimes are minor or imagined are being killed without due process of law. In many cases, the offending officers have received little to no consequences, and in this it appears that the government has deemed these actions appropriate. What is an appropriate proportion of outrage?
insinuating a government-wide conspiracy
That's you, baby. I said nothing of the kind.
the federal government has literally nothing to do with the police department of anywhere.
I didn't mention the federal government. However, the Department of Justice provides funding and grants annually to state governments for law enforcement, training, and many other programs. Such funds may be withheld if those governments are failing in their various capacities. Not to mention, the silence from the White House on the subject is deafening.
I see it like this: When a player is injured, it's customary to kneel. So Kaepernick is kneeling as a sign of respect for an injured country that hasn't healed from racial wounds. Maybe I'm reading too much from it, but that's my take. Anything differing from the norms of respect during the anthem could be taken as disrespectful by the nationalists. Really, I think it's just misdirection, and they're just upset by what their protesting.
Yeah, it's a really weird way to protest. Kneeling typically shows greater respect and deference than standing. If the people against it were really savvy they'd say "We really appreciate the extra respect the players are showing by kneeling for the anthem!".
He's not protesting the anthem. That's the point.
It was meant to be a way to protest while also being respectful. People who claim it's disrespectful are trying to change the narrative/misdirect to undermine it.
Depends on who you ask. A lot of the people on the right think it's disrespectful, but IMO at lot of it's based on racism, many of the same people hate BLM and spent a number of years asking for Obama's birth certificate.
It's disrespectful if you're a conservative American who wants free speech only when it doesn't hurt their precious feels.
At this point I have absolutely no idea if this is extra respectful, or some sort of sign of disrespect.
Neither. It's a non-issue being used as a smokescreen for racism.
This guy Americas
[deleted]
Thank you. This is amazing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
To add to the discussion, it was a soldier who suggested to Kaepernick to take a knee. The republicans are ignoring the issue and reason for kneeling and skipping right to disrespecting the flag and vets and apple pie. Some might even say that republicans are simply white nationalists who don't give a damn about minority issues.
Some? A lot of people say that.
I was trying to my hostility, disgust and hatred towards the Right toned down. I have a knee jerk reaction to flame those on the right...my meds are most likely kicking in.
A leftist who needs meds.
Big surprise.
Wow. That's a really big slam you have there. I...I don't think I can recover from such a mighty put down. Boy you got me there big fella.
R E K T
E
K
T
It's a sign of peaceful protest against police brutality.
How though? What do the police have to do with a song?
Well it's not just a song, it's the national anthem. Traditionally one stands with their hand over their heart when it is played. The player who initially decided to kneel was saying that he was unhappy with the way things were going in our country and he wanted to demonstrate that peacefully. That is still what they are saying but some people would like to ignore their true reason for protest.
The thing that no one wants to say is that the players are protesting racism and the people who fight back are racists.
They're kneeling to protest police brutality in the US and the kneeling is a way to protest without being disrespectful to the flag as kneeling is still something you do out of respect to something. However people are still taking offense to it because well...this is America, and everyone gets offended by everything here. Personally I always thought it was kind of weird how we nearly worship the flag like some kind of deity and freak out at the people protesting yet we put the flag on shorts and beach towels and no one bats an eye.
Don’t feel bad, I live here and have no idea what’s going on with that particular headline fodder.
As an American I am just as lost as you.
It's an act of protest that could vaguely be counted as disrespectful, but most of the people decrying it as such live in some brittle glass houses of their own and are really only doing so to avoid actually addressing the real issue being protested (race-based police brutality) because they're too fragile to admit there might be systemic racism in our country nonetheless try and fix it. It's bad spin that the people doing the spinning should really be ashamed of.
Part of it too is I think alot of people find it galling to have someone who is a multimillionaire telling them how bad things are.
Which in itself is logical fallacy as you don't have to suffer from an issue to have an appreciation for it and being an ally in spreading knowledge and support. Further, just because football players are well-paid athletes doesn't mean that they don't know people personally among their friends and families that are impacted by this systemic problem. Non-white people of all pedigrees likely have "me too" stories of times they've been pulled over, questioned, or otherwise treated with suspicion by figures of authority simply due to happening to be not white. To disregard a message simply because you take issue with the messenger is its own form of discrimination.
That's absolutely true, but people don't like having people more fortunate than them tell them how bad they are or how bad things are. I'm not arguing for the legitimacy of dismissing the protest on that basis, I just think there is alot of that dismissal going on.
There is not systemic racism in America. Blacks can, have and do hold positions of authority and respect at all levels, including as president of the United States, despite only being 12% of the US population, and despite underperforming as a group in measures of qualifications. Blacks also have the option to live anywhere they choose and participate in any endeavor they choose.
The claim that there is systemic racism throughout America is clearly false and only serves to create discord in society.
How many times have you been pulled over by a cop while not speeding or otherwise breaking any traffic laws or having damage to your car? How many times have you been asked at a store or venue by security whether you needed help while clearly not getting a helpful vibe from said personnel? How many times have you had the cops called for your very presence in a place where you had every right to be? How many times have people shut up or given you a wide berth when boarding a bus or train?
These things and many others happen every day in this country to blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and numerous other ethnicities. Every person of color has such a story if not several. When the threat to your daily safety is more likely to come from those whose job it is to protect said safety, that is a systemic problem.
How many times have you been pulled over by a cop while not speeding or otherwise breaking any traffic laws or having damage to your car?
Too many times!
How many times have you been asked at a store or venue by security whether you needed help while clearly not getting a helpful vibe from said personnel?
It is a fact that blacks engage in robberies and thefts more than whites, despite being less than 20% of their population size. Just watching the nightly evening news, where crime reports involving blacks is common, colors perspective.
Sometimes actions of a few, as in shoplifting, affect the perception of the larger group — just as teenagers (of any race) sometimes get that same watchful eye.
How many times have people shut up or given you a wide berth when boarding a bus or train?
The same reasoning as above applies here. Look, it would be utopian if all races were treated exactly the same and life was entirely fair, but the reality is that the human condition involves some degree of others applying judgements that are not accurate in individual cases. Some blacks, for instance, are a bit racist towards Asians or Hispanics, or even darker skinned blacks.
I could never eat peanut butter because my allergy makes it come with a healthy side of heartburn and itchy skin.
Then I tried Almond butter. My wallet can't take it.
[deleted]
oh whoops.... replied to the wrong thread....
TLDR for the kneeling (although I'm Canadian not American)
Those who support the players think its a respectful way to protest while those who do not, think they are being disrespectful by protesting at a place that isn't directly related to what they are protesting.
The thing is, it has nothing to do with the flag or national anthem at all. They are protesting how African Americans are treated in America, particularly by police. All the talk about the anthem itself is just to make people forget what it's about.
It's a protest saying they're not proud of their country for the way black Americans have been treated by police. Black protests of any shape or form make many white Americans angry (and have for a long time, most disapproved of Martin Luther King Jr while he was alive)
or some sort of sign of disrespect.
It's not disrespecting the US and it never was. That you (and over a 1000 other people, apparently) are confused just goes to show that repeating false information works.
if you talk to anyone doing it or who is left leaning, its an extra respectful way to raise awareness for police brutality and unfairness treatment of black people.
if you talk to anyone right leaning, its disrespectful to the troops and the country. because thats totally the reason they claimed to be doing it and kneeling is definitely a show of direspect.
Step one: A professional athlete decided to do something to call attention to the disproportionate violence directed at black Americans by the police. He decided that instead of standing during the national anthem, he would kneel during it instead. When people asked him why he did that, he explained.
Step two: instead of just ignoring it, or addressing the issue, or respecting his right to express himself in this way, political figures decided to change the narrative and say that in kneeling during the national anthem, he was disrespecting the flag, the anthem, and the troops who served to protect the country.
Step three: people took sides and started shouting at each other about it.
That's it. That's the whole stupid thing.
This is actually the best explanation around. The two sides are literally accusing each other of unrelated motives at this point, it's a total shit show.
If you're unsure whether it's respectful or not it means that the Republican's distortion of the meaning worked, unfortunately.
tl;dr: racists with microphones are pushing their agenda.
American history for black people has been bullshit, and it's still bullshit. Black people are more likely to be killed for suspicion of shoplifting versus white people getting arrested for mass murder. (Eric Gardner vs. Sideshow Bob)
So as a form of peaceful protest over the continuing murders by police, Colin Kaepernick sat down during the national anthem. A veteran's group asked him to kneel instead.
He lost his career over the kneeling. The cops are still killing black people with impunity. Nobody cared when Tom Brady knelt when it was about abortion.
So why it's confusing is that the right-wingers have tried to repaint the protests as "those black folks just hate America" so they don't have to say "hold on, maybe the police shouldn't be trigger-happy lunatics with no rules of engagement, decked out in more gear than soldiers, and should stop using racial profiling."
Starbucks shut down their chain for a day for racial sensitivity training after one barista was rude to one customer. (insofar as it made the news). There have been no training sessions for any of the police, who investigate themselves, find there's no wrongdoing, and face no consequences.
I know the story behind kneeling during the anthem - what I don't really get is placing your hand over your heart. I don't know of any other western country where this is common practice.
I mean, you could just stand next to it. It's an inanimate object, it won't mind not being addressed in a specific fashion.
If you're talking about the NFL, it's a way for players to protest the current police brutality climate going on here. Colin Kapernick(sp?) began the movement and AFAIK has essentially been blacklisted by the league (I don't really follow football)
It's a form of nonviolent protest, but the issue is that people (read: the ones who say every POC shot by police must have done something to deserve it) are saying it's the ultimate disrespect of the flag and military, even though the protesters have publicly said that's not what it's about, and many veterans are all for this form of protest. Kapernick specially asked a veteran about the best way to protest and the vet was the one who suggested kneeling.
Long story short, the people pissed off about it are using the flag/military as their excuse for being upset about the protest, but in reality, they just don't want POC to have their voices heard.
What’s the process with sporting events in other countries playing their national anthem and other patriotic songs? Does it happen before every event? Do people stand at attention for it?
The US has slowly encouraged more and more blind nationalism over the past hundred years. People have forgotten what the flag represents and take it as a literal idol.
kneeling while black is the only problem
Perhaps more specifically, protesting while being a black athelete. They should stfu and be glad America is gracious enough to offer a way out of the ghetto /s
There are 2 sides.
The kneeling at the flag is to speak to injustices through silent protest.
The correct side is to support their protest by understanding that it is their 1st amendment right, and to acknowledge and work toward resolving the injustice
The wrong side is to see this act as disrespectful and condemn it. They claim we should respect all the superficial acts of patriotism like the anthem, the flag, and military, and history. What they don’t understand is the whole reason the 1st amendment exists is to protect us when we speak out against the country for perceived injustices so that the government can’t retaliate with mistreatment. Protests are supposed to interrupt your life. And through the minor inconvenience of seeing a kneeled player during the national anthem, we are reminded that the country doesn’t equally work for all classes, that some groups face a plethora of obstacles propelled by poverty and can lead to being shot by a cop who misinterpreted the victims intent possibly associated with something as insignificant as the prevalence of melanin in their skin.
Edit: I wanted to mention the military takes an oath to defend the constitution not the flag. The constitution includes free speech. Anyone who tries to silence speech isn’t patriotic.
I mean there is no correct and incorrect side as they are both opinions, but I’d say that the lawfully and morally correct thing to do is respect their protest under the protection of the first amendment, even if one doesn’t agree with their statement.
Right and wrong are based on my opinion
The thing is opinion doesn’t have to be founded on fact. That’s the difference between the 2 views. One is an opinion that it is disrespectful. The other is factual in that protest is a protected right and that blacks are often killed by police when they pose no threat and are often the victims of Stop and Frisk mentality. Stop and Frisk starts to violate the 4th amendment of no unreasonable search and seizures.
Both things can be right.
It’s patriotic to use your rights to create a better country. It isn’t patriotic to silence others to maintain the status quo.
Opinion
Opinion
Okay.
"Extra Respectful"-"Sign of Disrespect". Why absolutes? There can be a middle ground, right?
How about a peaceful protest?
OP said it because kneeling is a general sign of respect, not of protest, which confused them
In America, our tradition is to stand for the national anthem as a sign of respect. You can do whatever you want during the anthem, because this is America and "freedom!" and you won't be dragged off to a prison camp, but most people accept the standing as respect.
As a form of protest, an American football player decided to kneel instead of stand. To everyone that is used to the standing they see it as a disrespect, but just wanted people to take notice of social issues by doing so. In reality, it is still respecting the freedom of America while not standing for inequality.
Basically, it depends on who you ask. Diehard patriots see it disrespecting the country. But plenty of other people see it as exercising the freedom to be able to do what we want, which is the essence of America.
They're not Patriots, they're just nationalistic. A patriot wouldn't be OK with their president having shady ties to the Kremlin.
The only people who are offended at the kneeling are Trump and his basket of deplorables and Fox News. Average americans with an IQ above 90 don't care.
An IQ of 90 is below average, lol.
[deleted]
Like, holy shit, why aren't you guys rioting. Your system is killing you.
There still good stuff to watch on TV, and rioting takes a lot of effort.
I would have to take unpaid vacation days to riot, who can afford that?
Meta
I'm not so sure about the TV part anymore.
I mean the new season of The 100 is out right now 💁♂️
And people made a big ruckus about The Expanse a few weeks ago, so there's that.
^^^watch ^^^it, ^^^it's ^^^really ^^^good
I just started that series on Netflix a few days ago as something to put on while I was asleep. I wind up watching 4 episodes every night because I can't turn away.
Right now, no. There is literally nothing on.
Really? I'm 45 and I feel like we're living in the golden age of TV. There's no way I can even keep up with all the good shows.
My mom has been watching the dynasty reboot and usually I hate the shows she watches but this one is kinda good. Like trashy good, I guess. But I kinda like it...I also feel a little bad about liking it....
We have.... The internet
I still remember in elementary school, my mom telling me “you can’t play on the playground, we don’t have medical insurance.”
No idea what that meant then, but now I realize if I’d gotten hurt our family would be in major debt.
Even now, with insurance, my parents hesitate to bring me to the doctor even if I’m in so much agony that I can’t walk, sit, or lay down.
Say goodbye to Netflix soon with the loss of Net Neutrality; the riots will start then
It's more that we're all one job loss away from being destitute and leaving our jobs to riot will ensure we're promptly fired. The system is designed that way.
Hey, so, for context, I'm an American, and I'm a full-time civil rights activist. (Patreon supporters pay my bills). I spend my time giving speeches, organizing rallies and demonstrations and protests and so on, and writing. I also host a podcast.
We do resist. Last year, we successfully got multiple Republican senators to vote across party lines against Trump's health care "plan," which would have destroyed Obamacare (officially the Affordable Care Act). We did this by making millions of phone calls, protesting, camping out in front of legislators' homes and offices, staging die-ins at hospitals, etc. Obamacare, if you're not familiar, subsidizes the cost of purchasing health insurance. For example, I pay $0.00/month for my health insurance plan, because of my extremely low income and the fact that I chose a bare-bones plan. If I didn't have a subsidy, I think the plan is a couple hundred a month. But, this is really not a great solution. I need heart surgery, I've needed it since 2012, but I haven't gotten it because the portion I would have to pay myself is way out of my budget. I will very likely die decades prematurely if I don't have this surgery. I'm 34.
It's NOT about motivation. The people most affected by our shitty health care system do not have the time or health to revolt. The reason for this is that they are busy working 2 or 3 jobs just to avoid homelessness, and remember, this is while they're sick. They cannot afford to get arrested (literally - they will lose their jobs if they don't show up the next day), many are in physical pain and may have trouble doing things like marching or standing.
I am, of course, talking only about those on the left. Right-wingers do not believe that the government should take the role of ensuring that all people have access to health care. In this country, we have this absurd concept called the Protestant work ethic. Basically, there is this cultural idea in America, especially in the South and Midwest, that if you are successful, it's because you're a moral and pious Christian, and the Christian god favors you for it and has blessed you with great success. Conversely, if you are poor, it's because you're an immoral atheist or religious hypocrite, and the Christian god is punishing you for it. So, there's no reason to get taxpayers involved - this is between you and God, and you deserve what you get. Republican lawmakers, of course, do recognize how absolutely bonkers this is. But, they do not see it as a bad thing. They are, rather, more than happy to exploit this belief, even stoke it, on behalf of their billionaire campaign donors, who desire low taxes. Democrat party lawmakers, and especially people like Senator Bernie Sanders, who is not religious, believe that health care is a right guaranteed to all people.
Like, holy shit, why aren't you guys rioting.
We can't get the time off work.
Well, the real reason is we've lived our whole lives likes this. If the entire country had universal healthcare and then had it taken away, there would be rioting.
Right now people just don't know what they're missing.
This is pretty much it. I hear people going on about how “well we’ve done fine up to this point so it can’t be that bad”. Yeah well it could certainly be a hell of a lot better.
Don't forget, the pinko commie doctors get to mandate your death for the cold in socialist Europe, and you're taxed at 99.9999999999%, and you have to wait 36 years to see them, and you can't take your gun! Worse than slavery and Hitler combined!
(I would hope the /s is apparent, but you never know)
Pretty sure that actually happened in the UK...
Alfie Evans was pulled off life support by the NHS, not his parents.
Well, yeah. This same thing happens everywhere in the world, every day, in every type of medical system. Medical resources are limited in both public and private hospitals and must be allocated somehow. If that kid was in America or the UK, the hospital's/insurance's board would still have looked at the ethical, medical, and financial case to take extraordinary measures and would have almost certainly made the same decision.
The difference is, if that kid was born to a poor family in America, the parents wouldn't even have the option to seek extraordinary measures unless they got very lucky and received some charitable assistance or a compassionate grant.
If the parents had been the ones who made the decision, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But it was the government that made it.
Therein lies the problem
It was the doctors who made the decision, and the courts backed their decision. They did it with the wellbeing of the child in mind. The government had nothing to do with it.
TIL the courts and doctors (in the NHS) aren't part of the government
Doctors arent? you actual cretin, anyone with a brain knew it would have been inhuman to let him get on that plane, the correct decision was made
Good for you, standing up to the monstrous family that just wanted to do what was best for their little boy. How fucking dare they. /s
In seriousness, YOU are not the one qualified to make that decision nor are the doctors or any court. The only people who should be empowered to make end of life decisions are the individual themselves or, failing that, next of kin.
In all seriousness are you suggesting, that 2 people who arent medically trained know better than trained doctors and nurses on whats better for their child? because they dont, that boy (if he survived) would still have no quality of life, it was both the right and merciful choice
In all seriousness are you suggesting, that 2 people who arent medically trained know better than trained doctors and nurses on whats better for their child?
No, I'm saying they were the ones with the right to make the decision, not the doctors.
because they dont, that boy (if he survived) would still have no quality of life, it was both the right and merciful choice
That sounds like an opinion, not a fact
Doctors cannot be compelled to act against the interest of patients. Being the medical decision maker doesn't give you unlimited power over your charge; if you start acting against the benefit or wishes of the person, the courts can and will strip you of that power
Think about the alternative for a minute and you'll see why that is the case.
The alternative would be that someone in a PVS kept being in a PVS
He would have been brain dead, needing machines to keep him alive, thats if he didnt die in the operating table in order to get him on the plane, or die on the plane, or die in italy, that sounds like an ace quality of life
So?
Do you think that means the right to make the decision should be taken from next of kin?
What about the odd cases where the doctors wind up wrong? What if their lives had been ended by the likes of you and Evans' doctors?
but clearly they werent making a mistake this time, it was too much of a risk, his brain was damaged, he couldnt even breathe by himself and when (he mostly likely) died, his parents would have killed their child, on a needless risk.
and yes they should, if I were next to brain dead and living on life support for the rest of my life, I wouldnt expect my next of kin to make a rational choice when in a state of trauma, like his parents were.
but clearly they werent making a mistake this time, it was too much of a risk, his brain was damaged, he couldnt even breathe by himself and when (he mostly likely) died, his parents would have killed their child, on a needless risk.
Oh yeah... Better to kill him in the hospital before his parents get the chance.
and yes they should, if I were next to brain dead and living on life support for the rest of my life, I wouldnt expect my next of kin to make a rational choice when in a state of trauma, like his parents were.
So make those wishes clear, you dingus.
I don't want the government making end-of-life decisions for me.
A child cannot make those wishes. You can make those for yourself, but a child cannot. People educated in the matter have to make them for him when next of kin are unable.
Question for you: Say a child is brain dead (like in the case of Jahi McMath) and their body is kept running for days, months, years... How can you expect people to pay the millions of dollars a DAY to keep this child in a state of not-living? I whole-heartedly feel for the family. I really do. It's a horrible thing to go through and witness and worse: come to terms with that you have to watch someone pull the plug on your baby. No one should have to go through it, but unfortunately it happens. Brain dead IS dead. There is no recovery.
A child cannot make those wishes. You can make those for yourself, but a child cannot. People educated in the matter have to make them for him when next of kin are unable.
His parents were able.
Question for you: Say a child is brain dead (like in the case of Jahi McMath) and their body is kept running for days, months, years... How can you expect people to pay the millions of dollars a DAY to keep this child in a state of not-living?
I don't. That's why I don't want single payer... But if you do want single payer, that's the sort of risk you run up against.
Therefore every parent should have their own insurance company that covers only them and theirs on a case by case basis. I agree that sounds awesome.
And doesn't happen. Anywhere.
That happened after Alfie Evans brain had turned to mush and he was either going to live on as a lava lamp or be taken off support.
The nhs making the decision to stop funding and providing treatment to him is no different than an HMO telling you your insurance claim had been denied.
The rest of his story had to specifically do with a law in England, unrelated to the NHS, that allows the state to intervene in care of a child under any circumstances if that care is deemed negligent, hazardous, or not in the child's best interests. It is mutually exclusive from the NHS as it can be applied to anything - IE finding out you're starving your newborn by putting it on some crazy vegan diet.
So the courts used that law and the medical expertise to make the ruling to pull him off life support. It would have been cruel and selfish of the parents to continue his life.
The nhs making the decision to stop funding and providing treatment to him is no different than an HMO telling you your insurance claim had been denied.
It absolutely was, but not for the reason so many want to claim. The Alfie Evans case had nothing to do with money and everything to do with what the government believed was in the best interest of the child (misguided as some might believe that is).
If it was a money issue they would have been more than happy to let the parents take him to another country.
The nhs making the decision to stop funding and providing treatment to him is no different than an HMO telling you your insurance claim had been denied.
It absolutely was, but not for the reason so many want to claim. The Alfie Evans case had nothing to do with money and everything to do with what the government believed was in the best interest of the child (misguided as some might believe that is).
If it was a money issue they would have been more than happy to let the parents take him to another country.
That happened after Alfie Evans brain had turned to mush and he was either going to live on as a lava lamp or be taken off support.
Why they made the decision is not at question.
The nhs making the decision to stop funding and providing treatment to him is no different than an HMO telling you your insurance claim had been denied.
That may be, but the NHS also flatly denied the parents permission to keep him on life support and either pay for it themselves or move him elsewhere.
So the courts used that law and the medical expertise to make the ruling to pull him off life support. It would have been cruel and selfish of the parents to continue his life.
So by your own words, the state did, in fact, determine he should die
So by your own words, the state did, in fact, determine he should die
It did. But you're completely ignoring the fact that the states decision has nothing to do with NHS.. The decision was made based on policy completely exclusive of the health care system. The intervention in this instance happened to be related to medical issues, but could just have readily been about parents putting their kids in a dog kennel, strapping it to the roof of the car, and then seeing if the car works like a boat.
Doctors have an obligation to report these cases in the UK just like teachers and doctors in the US have an obligation to report child abuse of they suspect it in the US.
If you don't respect the decision, that's totally fine. But the decision was not made as a part of the health care system.
Regardless what you think of it, the Alfie Evans case had nothing to do with socialized medicine. But enjoy your talking point.
Alright it didn't come from socialized medicine... Just the doctors employed by it and the government that runs it
Just the doctors employed by it and the government that runs it
Yes, which could have happened in any healthcare system in the world with a similar child protection law. But feel free to twist a child's death into whatever supports your political views.
Yes, which could have happened in any healthcare system in the world with a similar child protection law. But feel free to twist a child's death into whatever supports your political views.
No sane society would allow their government or its doctors to kill their kid.
Whether it's sane or not wasn't the question.
Would you agree that you could have such an "insane" child protection law even in the most private healthcare system? Or have it be completely illegal in the most socialized one?
No, I don't actually believe a law like that could exist in a country where the government had no hand in the medical field.
Why? All kinds of child protection laws exist in the US where the government can take over medical responsibility for a child--and even take a child away completely--if they believe the parent is not acting in the child's best interest. The only thing that differs is the situations those laws apply.
So what is the basis for your claim? What constitutionally would prevent the passage of such a law, and how specifically does our healthcare system come into it?
Killing someone is mutually exclusive with protecting them.
The government should not have the authority to make end-of-life decisions for someone.
The Terri Schiavo case gives some insight into how US law might view the situation. It was determined that the government can not dictate that someone in a PVS must continue living.
It's entirely reasonable to suggest that the government also cannot dictate someone must die.
Killing someone is mutually exclusive with protecting them.
You've already admitted there are situations where letting them die is the most humane thing to do.
It's entirely reasonable to suggest that the government also cannot dictate someone must die.
What specific part of the decision do you think shows that? Quote it.
You've already admitted there are situations where letting them die is the most humane thing to do.
Yep. But I don't pretend to be qualified to make that decision for anyone but myself or my family.
What specific part of the decision do you think shows that? Quote it.
The part where they struck down the law giving the government the power to make end-of-life decisions for individuals
Yep. But I don't pretend to be qualified to make that decision for anyone but myself or my family.
OK, nobody was suggesting you decide anything for anybody else so we don't have to worry about your qualifications.
The part where they struck down the law giving the government the power to make end-of-life decisions for individuals
Show me that part. Show me the specific wording. And then tell me what in the Constitution would change that would allow it if we expanded socialized medicine in this country.
OK, nobody was suggesting you decide anything for anybody else so we don't have to worry about your qualifications.
I don't pretend the government is qualified either.
No one is qualified to make an end of life choice for another... But next of kin are the best option.
Show me that part. Show me the specific wording. And then tell me what in the Constitution would change that would allow it if we expanded socialized medicine in this country.
Are you familiar with the Schiavo case at all? Do you not remember the law Florida passed to get her put back on a feeding tube and how that law was struck down?
My opposition to socialized medicine is many-layered. Empowering the government to make decisions on my care is not something I'm willing to do.
It's unbelievable to me that people can look at any organ of the US government, hate almost everything it collectively does and then talk about how much they want the government to handle their healthcare.
Are you familiar with the Schiavo case at all? Do you not remember the law Florida passed to get her put back on a feeding tube and how that law was struck down?
You mean the Florida law struck down by the Florida Supreme Court based on the Florida constitution? Not to mention other meaningful differences.
And you still haven't addressed the most meaningful question. Let's say it would be unconstitutional in the US. That still has absolutely nothing to do with expanding socialized medicine. If it's unconstitutional now it would still be unconstitutional if we implemented national healthcare.
The two issues are not related at all.
And you still haven't addressed the most meaningful question. Let's say it would be unconstitutional in the US. That still has absolutely nothing to do with expanding socialized medicine. If it's unconstitutional now it would still be unconstitutional if we implemented national healthcare.
I do not recall actually stating that was the reason I didn't like socialized healthcare. Frankly, however, it's not a question I'd ever even like to have asked.
I have a dozen reasons I don't want socialized healthcare. Fear of having the government in charge of my healthcare is least among them
I do not recall actually stating that was the reason I didn't like socialized healthcare.
So you agree people bringing up Alfie Evans in every thread about socialized medicine is irrelevant and inappropriate. I'm glad we agree.
I have a dozen reasons I don't want socialized healthcare.
Yes, I'm sure they're as well thought out as your other arguments.
So you agree people bringing up Alfie Evans in every thread about socialized medicine is irrelevant and inappropriate. I'm glad we agree.
If it's a misunderstanding about a shit law in the UK, I'd think it would be worth making sure something like that couldn't happen in the US. Yes
Yes, I'm sure they're as well thought out as your other arguments.
You're welcome to write my opinions off, but you need to remember that even though support for government run healthcare is at an all-time high, it's still less than half the population.
If it's a misunderstanding about a shit law in the UK, I'd think it would be worth making sure something like that couldn't happen in the US. Yes
There are lots of places you can discuss what you believe to be shit laws that are actually appropriate.
You're welcome to write my opinions off, but you need to remember that even though support for government run healthcare is at an all-time high, it's still less than half the population.
I don't see what that has to do with the argument, but since you brought it up. A more recent poll:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2018/04/12/National-Politics/Polling/release_517.xml?tid=a_mcntx
There are lots of places you can discuss what you believe to be shit laws that are actually appropriate.
How about an internet retard chamber where nothing we say or do matters?
I don't see what that has to do with the argument,
I was unaware you'd actually made an argument... The quoted text seemed more like a snarky quip regarding my (presumed) arguments against single payer.
A more recent poll:
Intriguing... Two similar polls find two similar results.
How about an internet retard chamber where nothing we say or do matters?
What you say and do always matters.
I was unaware you'd actually made an argument... The quoted text seemed more like a snarky quip regarding my (presumed) arguments against single payer.
The argument was that your opinions almost certainly aren't well supported by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Intriguing... Two similar polls find two similar results.
Wow, your intellectual honesty is.... impressive.
"WHATS IMPORTANT IS THAT LESS THAN HALF THE POPULATION SUPPORTS IT!"
"It's not less than half"
"THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT"
LOL
Wow, your intellectual honesty is.... impressive.
"WHATS IMPORTANT IS THAT LESS THAN HALF THE POPULATION SUPPORTS IT!"
"It's not less than half"
"THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT"
LOL
Are you an idiot? Two polls (one only SLIGHTLY more recent) come up with very similar results.
Difference is the Gallup poll offered more options, but sure... Just dismiss Gallup because WaPo had the poll that supports your argument.
The argument was that your opinions almost certainly aren't well supported by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I won't even bother because the only facts that matter to you are numbers. So things like the US government's singular untrustworthiness likely don't enter into it for you. As well, I'm sure you don't care that two of the most egregious examples of human experimentation in the US were conducted under the guise of government-sponsored Healthcare.
Nor does the hypocrisy of a monopsony on healthcare... Especially where doctors and their salaries are concerned. Doctors in the US make significantly more than almost any other country, but you can expect that to change once the government starts saying "this is all we'll pay for X procedure, your doctors have to take a pay cut, no we don't care that they have $1 million in medical school debt".
No, all you care about is cost... And frankly you just can't beat the cost savings of a monopsony... That's why they're illegal... For everyone but the government
Are you an idiot? Two polls (one only SLIGHTLY more recent) come up with very similar results.
You're the one that suggested there was some important significance specifically to it being under 50%.
Just dismiss Gallup because WaPo had the poll that supports your argument.
LOL I haven't made an argument supported by polls, so you're inventing this out of thin air. I specifically said polls didn't have any relevance to my argument. You're the one that claimed polls supported your argument. I realize it's easy to get confused. Just remember I'm the intelligent good looking one.
Doctors in the US make significantly more than almost any other country, but you can expect that to change once the government starts saying "this is all we'll pay for X procedure, your doctors have to take a pay cut, no we don't care that they have $1 million in medical school debt".
You realize a majority of doctors support single payer healthcare as well, right?
No, all you care about is cost...
LOL What are you basing that on? More stuff you just pull out of your ass.
LOL What are you basing that on? More stuff you just pull out of your ass.
I don't see you addressing any other point I brought up from the layperson standpoint
You realize a majority of doctors support single payer healthcare as well, right?
Slightly more than half support it because of the red tape of dealing with insurance companies. Wonder what their opinions would be if that were streamlined... Or if they knew they could expect a 20% pay cut.
I don't see you addressing any other point I brought up from the layperson standpoint
Really? Your argument is if somebody hasn't brought something up in a single conversation then they don't care about it?
Slightly more than half support it because of the red tape of dealing with insurance companies. Wonder what their opinions would be if that were streamlined...
Oh, we're going to play the "what if" game where we make up random shit.
Or if they knew they could expect a 20% pay cut.
OK, I'll bite. Why could they expect a 20% pay cut?
OK, I'll bite. Why could they expect a 20% pay cut?
That's the approximate difference between the salaries Americans make vs. Most other countries.
- Canada
Canada arrives on this list with specialists earning an average of $161,000 a year while general practitioners earn $107,000 a year. Canada struggles with many of its doctors going to the USA to practice because of higher wages and faces a doctor shortage. This means many doctors are faced with high amounts of patients and often frustrated patients because of wait times.
I have some bad news for you about several US states then.
The Doctors part was to say any further care was futile.
The courts ruled on what to do from there.
Which is highly immoral
Pretty sure that's because keeping him alive was making him suffer undue pain that was incurable and he was under a certain age.
And yet something like that ought to be the parents' decision
While the doctor's decision in this case is debatable, it should not discourage support for universal healthcare. That could absolutely be prevented in a different system than the UK's. It is silly to put off an entire issue meant to protect millions based on one incident. Insurance companies would have stopped paying, so parents wouldn't really have the choice in the current US system anyways.
If parents want to refuse treatment for a life threatening disease for a child because, say, they believe he can be better treated by dunking him in honey should parents be allowed to do that? Should parents be allowed to throw their child against the wall if they wish?
What I'm getting at is do you believe there are any instances the government should supersede the "rights" of a parent to protect a child? If you do, then all we've left to debate is which types of incidents that's appropriate in.
If parents want to refuse treatment for a life threatening disease for a child because, say, they believe he can be better treated by dunking him in honey should parents be allowed to do that? Should parents be allowed to throw their child against the wall if they wish?
You're comparing a parent causing their child's death with a parent attempting to prevent their child's death.
What you're not understanding is that the child was already dead. The patents were torturing a corpse.
So there are two choices... Let the parents continue to hold out hope on their own dime (an American hospital was willing to take his case), or kill the kid.
Rather than give the parents their hope (and a choice in the fate of their son) the UK government declared the child should die.
That's abhorrent.
What's the harm? By your own admission, the child was already dead.
You're not actually in understanding, just trying to use the case to cast the NHS as villians who want to kill people. There's no point in dealing with the likes of you.
Oh I understand.
Kid was brain dead. Doctors said he had no hope. Courts said to kill him.
Brain death = death. The courts couldn't "kill the kid" because the kid was already dead.
The parents and half the population obviously disagree
What's the harm? By your own admission, the child was already dead.
He did demonstrate some spinal reflex to painful stimuli. Given the deteriorated state of his brain it seems likely he didn't feel it, but his hearing, touch, taste and sight were gone. The only thing left in his existence was seizure, with no hope for any recovery.
Is extending the parents' false hope really doing anybody any good? What was the best outcome here? Extending their suffering months or years and then having the same exact outcome? The worst outcome is that Alfie was able, on some very primitive level, to still feel pain (and nothing else), and that would have been his entire existence so his parents could "hope".
How his parents acted was very human, but it's hard to see how it was doing anybody any good. People frequently don't act rationally in situations like that.
You're comparing a parent causing their child's death with a parent attempting to prevent their child's death.
Is there some reason you can't answer the question? It's pretty straightforward. I didn't say if you support those things you have to support what happened with Alfie. Don't be so evasive.
I think if a parent is negligent in taking care of their child, the government ought to step in, yes.
OK. This is the kind of thing that leads to civil discussion.
So the next question I'd ask is, whether you agree personally or not, can you see how some people find that in certain situation the humane thing is to let somebody die rather than live in pain and suffering?
Yes, of course I can. That, however, is a highly personal decision and not something to be dictated by a legislature or law enforcement agency
I mean, it's just combining the two concepts you just agreed with. I'm not here to defend the law, I have no strong opinions regarding it. But could you possibly see how some people, including the doctors most familiar with the case apparently, felt that forcing a child to live and suffer via medical intervention where there was no hope for recovery could be inhumane?
If they want to force their child to suffer for no reason other than selfishness that choice should be taken away from them, it's not right. They didn't kill the child, they just stopped artificially keeping him alive. We don't let parents hurt their kids in any other circumstances so why allow it this time?
That sounds like an opinion...
Do you think all people in persistent vegetative states should be taken off life support?
I don't know about them, but I do believe so. What point is there to keep someone braindead? Why not allow them die? What the hell is your reasoning to force someone stay years in that condition? They are DEAD allready.
I would personally take them off life support.
I would not be so arrogant or presumptuous as to say my opinion is what everyone should do
Can't riot, we gotta work.
A politician in the state of Idaho recently said, "No one has died from not having health insurance." People booed him, but that's the general opinion of U.S. politicians.
Because half the population honestly believes that free healthcare is an infringement on our freedoms. Because they're dumb
Except it is. I want the freedom to choose how to take care of myself.
You can still choose what kind of healthcare you want to receive, or to not receive it at all.
Yeah, but you can't choose not to pay for the universal health care.
Yeah, but you can't choose not to pay for the universal health care.
You can't choose not to pay even higher taxes towards healthcare in the US. Same difference, just more money and you don't get as much for it.
This is too dumb for me to fathom
[deleted]
I happily pay taxes, because I care about more than myself.
Sure, but with the current situation you can't either; the US government already spends a significant amount on healthcare.
I'd be in favor of stopping that.
oh wow, what a horrible thing to pay for, literally less people will dies and the majority of people will be better off.
but I guess you precious dollars are worth more than a life
My precious dollars are, indeed, worth more than the lives of other people I'll never meet.
Just like my life is less important to them than their money.
It's a different culture. Get over it
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
When a policy affects me personally, I'm entitled to argue for or against it.
No, they're not. You can get together with everyone else who believes in universal health care and form a mutual company to take care of each other, and there's not a thing you can do about it. When you get the government to use its tax money to support that insurance, you're forcing your beliefs on others.
But universal health care is legitimately the smart option
I want the freedom to make the choice to be dumb.
Except that accomplishes nothing more than having another insurance company it does nothing for universal acces to healtcare.
But then again your entire country is a lost cause, have fun ridding this ship to the bottom, got enough on our hands as is.
Except that accomplishes nothing more than having another insurance company it does nothing for universal acces to healtcare.
Right, that's your goal, not mine. My criterion is that I have the right to divorce myself completely from your health-care system. If your system needs me to be a participant in order to function, then you need to offer me a hell of a lot more than just my own health care to get that participation.
Your argument is predicated on the notion that universal access to care for all Americans is the goal...
Getting poor people in Mississippi access to care is no more my concern than the healthcare of Estonians is to you.
You care about other British people... Not people in other countries.
Thats how we feel about people in other states in the US... Especially since we have states larger than many countries.
And you can think we're a sinking ship... But there's zero evidence of that.
Estonia has universal healthcare they'll be alright.
Whoosh
Nobody here is making political end of life decisions, if anything your country is leaving people to die for lack of healthcare.
Glad you think so. Stay on your island where your opinion counts. It's terrible and scary over here.
Sorry I don't worship the ground Europe exists on... But frankly your (as in ALL of the European countries') institutions and histories are nothing to envy as far as I'm concerned.
[deleted]
OK, what's your part of the compromise?
[deleted]
Society is the means to the ends of individuals. Individual people are not the means to society's ends, nor to the ends of other people. There is a word for people who exist as the means to other people's ends. That word is slave.
[deleted]
Yeah, just like you're a slave to whatever company you work for because without that company you don't have health insurance which allows you to "afford" healthcare.
Except I can leave any time I want, while I can't stop paying taxes.
Not only that, but you can be fired without cause and your world flipped upside down because you have no legal course of action for being fired for wearing the color of the boss's opposing sports team.
And they have no recourse for me quitting for the same reason.
If you were jobless, you would not be able to afford to live let alone get the proper health care.
Except that I have savings.
It is disgusting that America has so much money that they are willing to spend trillions of dollars on the military who has way more than enough already and not spend more on healthcare so that everyone has proper medical care.
"America" doesn't have money. People in America do. The whole point of money is that the owner gets to do what they want with it.
Why is it that the richest country in the world has extreme amounts of poverty with no way to get out because people like you only care about yourself and not helping out your fellow man?
Because we recognize what I said above, that individuals are paramount, not the collective.
You were born on 3rd base and act like you hit a triple and everyone else just needs to work harder and stop being lazy.
I was born to parents in debt. I started my career in debt. Now I have savings. So, essentially I did hit, well, a double that I'm trying to stretch.
Then some people start out great and get thrown in the depths of poverty because they happen to get sick and can't afford their medical bills and because the way the tables are stacked against them they are stuck, thus continues the cycle all because of selfish assholes only care about themselves.
Yes, people continue to grow and shrink, gain and lose. Better than being stagnant.
What an asinine thing to ask.
So, you don't have a part of the compromise. The compromise amounts to I have to take care of you. That's the problem. I care more about my freedom than your life.
The compromise is that others also have to take care of you. And I'm confident they don't actually care about your life either.
[deleted]
How about a public option? Let people pay into Medicaid. At cost or on a sliding scale. Let's see if private insurers can compete. If they can, great! If not, then the market has spoken. Seems like a win win to me.
OK, so it's a public option. What's the difference between that an a private insurer? If Medicaid loses money, does the government bail it out?
Except you can't. You can't afford it. You're free to die bankrupt if something goes wrong unless you're lucky enough to have a popular Go Fund Me. I have great insurance but it still doesn't cover EVERYTHING. If something catastrophic happens I could end up in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars WITH INSURANCE. That will ruin my life. That will ruin my families lives. How free do you think I'll be then?
You will have equal freedom as now. Freedom is not the ability to do something, it is the right to do something.
As it is now you only have the right to healthcare if you can afford it. It's conditional.
No, you have the right to all health care. You have the ability to get as much as you can afford. No one will stop you from buying health care, it's just that no one will help you.
When the system is set up in a way that the majority of the it's citizens struggle to make ends meet, then the system is then designating which classes have the rights to which services.
No it isn't. A right is not an ability. You have the right to fly to Jupiter, but not the ability. That doesn't mean that the system is denying you the right to fly to Jupiter.
So even if that right is infringed upon so greatly that only a small percentage have access, that's fine?
If a right is infringed upon, it's never fine. If an ability is infringed upon, that's questionable.
So you don't think healthcare, in the wealthiest country on Earth, is a right?
No, I don't. No good or service is ever a right. You only have negative rights: the right to not be murdered, injured, raped, robbed, etc.
How about the freedom not to pay for a military that you dont approve of or social security that you may never get to use?
Riots definitely happen, then everyone complains because it made their commute 30 minutes longer because people were in the freeway, or are horrified a business window got smashed. Or if there's a peaceful protest it's resoundingly ignored by everyone both citizenry and those in charge.
There have been protests etc. (See: March on Wall Street for a big one.) The moment a protest gets violeny or is rumored to be violent, it gets discounted as being led by criminals/thugs. The average person's reaction is, "well, they might have a point, but can't they address it in more civilized way?" Some people are scapegoated and arrested. Politicians bring it up, spend a long time arguing about the way to fix it; not much can get done in the end. (One group wants to expand governmental regulation/increase public spending on healthcare; the other group wants to restrict governmental spending and reinforce private healthcare options. Each tries to block the other side from getting too far.) The problem gets swept under the rug.
Massive oversimplification of course.
Because if we take the time off of work to riot then we will get fired for missing work. Then it's a short trip to financial ruin and living under a bridge.
I literally just got done texting a friend of mine who's scared he has colon cancer because he is pooping blood but doesn't want to go to the doctor because he doesn't have insurance.
There's less invasive (and less expensive) tests that can screen him for cancer. He may want to look into those.
Like, holy shit, why aren't you guys rioting.
America, as you know, is extremely large and has a very distributed population. This makes social actions like protests somewhat more difficult.
There are so many serious illnesses, injuries, and possible disease symptoms I’ve had in the past couple years, and my first thought is always “Oh, I hope that goes away, I can’t afford a doctors visit.”
I had mono for MONTHS, and i didn’t know until someone I shared a drink with got sick and went to the doctor. Because I couldn’t go to a doctor to actually get help or a diagnosis.
To be honest, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that people who are well off receive extraordinarily exceptional healthcare. If you have good insurance or even just have a lot of money, small chest pains will get you sent to a slew of specialists to try to diagnose the problem, usually very quickly. The people who are against universal healthcare are afraid of a downgrade in this quality of care.
Universal health care doesn't remove the ability for the well-off to receive the kind of treatment they get now, it just makes it possible for everyone to receive some treatment.
To be honest, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that people who are well off receive extraordinarily exceptional healthcare.
If you're well off you should probably be even more in favor of universal healthcare. The ones paying the most taxes will benefit the most if we reduce taxes towards public healthcare in the US to levels equivalent to the UK, Canada, and Australia. Plus they'll easily be able to afford supplemental insurance for whatever treatment they like and it should still cost less than whatever they're paying now.
I got my whole knee injury process done by the two guys who do it for the FC Bayern München Players.
It doesn’t get better than this.
Like, holy shit, why aren't you guys rioting. Your system is killing you.
Many, many people are. They just don't look like the riots you want to see, or the people you give credence to. There's also a lot of spin. There is an enormous amount of pushback to many of the things you see wrong with America. It's just that a combination of your own existing preconceptions, a lack of coverage outside of the US, and the biases of the US media have convinced you that either "no one" is rioting, or that those who are are just "ignorant savages tearing up their own things" or "entitled brats who don't even know what they're protesting."
Plus, the riots foreigners seem to want to see on the news (angry mobs of millions of white people carrying torches and pitchforks to D.C. and hurling molotov cocktails at the white house) would not solve the problem. People have been furious and making demands for years, and in fact, many very powerful people within the government have made attempts to change these things (they have failed). The problem is not that no one is demanding changes to the system. It's that the system is specifically designed to resist those demands.
Its’s that the system is specifically design to resist those demands
If ECON101 was an objective look at the many types of economic systems more people would probably get this through their head.
Instead, like every aspect of our lives, we’re told not how things can be better rather than the best they can be. How to improve the system rather than fucking try a different one.
Go up to anyone on the street and ask them how to fix any of our national concerns. I will lay down any sum you like that not a one will suggest tearing everything to the ground and utilizing a system that doesn’t rely on the exploitation of labor for the profit of the property owners. Everyone thinks, because everyone has been assured, that capitalism is the end-all-be-all of economic systems just because it’s the most efficient in terms of production. As if output and profit are the most important things to a human
why aren't you guys rioting
The police will just kill us. Less people to "suck off my tax dollars for their goddamn welfare." If there are a hundred people gathering to protest a thing outside of even a small government building, the police might actually show up with tanks. They have those now.
I come from a "3rd world country" from Ecuador we don't have a great health care system but is ok I guess but when I lived in the US one of my coworkers was telling me of the time when he broke his leg and went to the hospital in a car holding his leg and I was like you should have called an ambulance and he told me he can't because it was crazy expensive in here my grandpa fell in the shower the ambulance came take care of him all free.
I've known people who were driven to the hospital with spine and severe crush/fall injuries (knocked off a ladder and crushed beneath a tree limb), because they couldn't afford an ambulance.
We're brainwashed sheeple.
I've had my pitchfork ready for years...
People in this country are extremely domesticated. Like, if people did riot a ton of the population would start rambling about how violence isn't the answer and how the fact that they rioted means the rioter's grievances aren't worth considering. Really, this country loves the aesthetics of rebellion as much as they like being slaves to business people.
This speaks to me on an emotional level as an American who avoids going to the doctor because I really can't afford it. Quite sad really.
We literally have no idea. If you tell people, they won't believe you. The idea that tax dollars can be used in a productive way is alien to us. We're well trained.
Have you seen the armament our cops have? Have you seen the fucking TANKS?
That's the American way. Small government was kinda their raison d'etre.
except that it’s not even small at all and we could pay for universal health care many times over with a fraction of the defense budget and corporate subsidies ¯_(ツ)_/¯
We could pay for Healthcare right now just with what we currently spend on Healthcare....
Sure and what we should do is cut Social Security and Medicare and the subsidies and just fund defense.
Because most of us are pussified jackasses who would rather work to make what money we can instead of not working and getting arrested in a few days and/or pepper sprayed because we’re peacefully protesting the fucked up conditions in the supposed greatest land in the world.
It’s the greatest land in the world if you’re crooked. That’s for damn sure.
It depends on the state you live in and your income level too. My healthcare is 100% free because I have a certain income bracket and my state (California) offers it through Medi-Cal—but as a whole country, we really do need to fix our healthcare system. We have the best healthcare in the world, but we need to make it available to everyone without having to pay out the ass for it.
They can't afford to risk getting injured rioting.
I have a blood clot and basically I'm just waiting to die. Can't afford to go to the doctor even though I pay $120 a week for insurance. With a $5000 deductible it's useless. Oh and don't get me started on my toothache.
why aren’t you guys rioting
Because we are constantly being fed the lie (that unfortunately too many believe) that the government can’t afford to pay for it.
Despite even by the highest estimates it's still way cheaper than our convoluted system of complex benefits and restrictions, that only certain individuals (the extremely poor, the old, and some ex-military depending on if their local system is somehow significantly above average) have access to, while everyone else has to go to the thieves that call themselves “private health insurers”.
Like, holy shit, why aren't you guys rioting. Your system is killing you.
Because they can't get the time off work, and if they get fired they'll lose their 'insurance' and be even more fucked.
I'd be dead.
I had a bleeding on/near the brain and thought it was a flu until I fell asleep for a long time.
Thankfully I was found passed out by my folks and was taken to hospital.
Yeah, I think I remember looking it up last year and it's about $400 on average a month for health insurance for a single person.
There are a lot of people who live month to month who definitely can't afford that.
I know I could afford that, but it would leave me with not very much left at the end of the month.
My state has something called Medicaid (Wa) for that everyone pays taxes towards, but that only covers low-income families, children, elderly and disabled people.
That's a good start, but not a whole lot of people are eligible for it and you have to go through a difficult process to see if you are eligible.
When I was a tiny kid my mum sneezed one day and there was a teeny amount of blood. She mentions it off hand to the doctor who sent her for scan just as a precaution. Gigantic tumour in her sinuses, couple millimetres away from her brain. lost most of her sense of smell from collateral damage but shes alive. If we were American she'd have put off the scan to save money, she'd be dead as shit and I'd have probably killed myself by now cause god knows my dad wouldn't have picked up the slack.
Its so sad.
Old people are on the public health care system (Medicare) and old people vote. They aren't voting to expand the old people public system or the poor person public system (Medicaid) because they don't want to pay taxes. They also want much more aggressive treatment than most Europeans and demand much more expensive medication regardless of its marginal effectiveness, so its way more expensive than any sensible public health system.
Because to a large segment of the population government health care= death panels. Also taxes are needed to pay for such a healthcare system, and raising taxes for anything other than corporate welfare or the military is essentially sacrilegious.
Because they are convinced that you guys wait 9 months to see a shitty doctor who tells you that your problem isn't serious enough to warrant medical care
why aren't you guys rioting
Rioting means taking time off from work, and the ones who would probably need universal healthcare the most are also the ones who can't afford to take time off.
They aren't rioting because a significant portion of Americans don't want free healthcare. Because omg taxes are so horrible!
It feels normal. You grow up poor, you never know what it's like to go to the doctor with everything. I honestly think the only time I've ever been to the doctor is for emergency services and appointments for birth control.
Also if you even mention anything like this the Americans always come screaming that "it isn't free" because of the taxes and that we are stupid for some reason.
No time to riot, i have to go to work to feed my kids
Cuz the people here live in fear of the government.
No Americans are poor. They are temporarily inconvenienced rich people.
We can't tax to pay for things like healthcare because someday that inconvenienced rich person will totally be wealthy and not want to pay that tax.
Yes, I have been wondering about that, too. But then I look out of my own door, see the social inequality, see how the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer and people mumble and complain but then they just say „well, that‘s how it is!“ and watch sorts tv. Makes me mad and sad at the same time. To know we have the ressources to give every damn person on this blue ball a good life but decide to keep the inequality up just because we are terrified of change. :-(
"But muh freedomssss"
Antifa riots against these exact problems and they get called terrorists.
there are always people that argue that "free healthcare" or "free education" is impossible... obviously it hugely depends on the country but it can be so much better anyway
[deleted]
Please try finding a free clinic to get checked out. It could be something fixable now, but if you wait eventually you'll end up in an ER and the cost will be even worse.
[deleted]
Can you call them and see if maybe they have a mobile care clinic or transportation option? Also, maybe visit some churches.
Like, holy shit, why aren't you guys rioting.
If you protest, or even leave your house, you get shot...well, at least that puts you out of your misery.
[deleted]
There is no such thing as "free" health care.
Nobody thinks there are. Such a tired strawman.
I live in Canada. We pay with both money (taxes)
Canadians pay an average of $1,500 per capita less towards public healthcare compared to Americans.
The vast majority of us are just fine.
I have free health insurance and have been to the doctor like a dozen times this year and not paid a cent... Though thinking about it I may actually owe like $10 for copays...
Only like 8% of the population lacks health insurance. Hardly enough to engender mandatory changes at a national level.
And most of us don't want the US government in charge of our health... Would you?
Only like 8% of the population lacks health insurance. Hardly enough to engender mandatory changes at a national level.
It's 10%. With 30% having difficulty paying medical bills in the past year, hundreds of thousands of medical related bankruptcies, 29% putting off needed treatment due to costs. We're spending $5,000 more per person per year on healthcare compared to countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia. It's unsustainable.
And most of us don't want the US government in charge of our health.
Actually most Americans do support single payer healthcare. And Americans on government healthcare plans report the highest satisfaction with their coverage.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx
Only like 8% of the population lacks health insurance. Hardly enough to engender mandatory changes at a national level.
8% now, prior to the aca which isn't all that great 40% of the US has plans that didn't offer any real coverage. Repealing the aca would bring back those numbers, along with skyrocketing bankruptcy rates again. Premiums are still high, it's not getting any cheaper despite benefits that may have come from the aca.
And most of us don't want the US government in charge of our health... Would you?
Medicare is one of the most highly rated health care programs in the US.
8% now, prior to the aca which isn't all that great 40% of the US has plans that didn't offer any real coverage. Repealing the aca would bring back those numbers, along with skyrocketing bankruptcy rates again. Premiums are still high, it's not getting any cheaper despite benefits that may have come from the aca.
Correct. But that was then and this is now.
Medicare is one of the most highly rated health care programs in the US.
Government-funded health insurance was also what the US government used to hide not one but two human experimentation programs... That we know about.
And we know the government is still not trustworthy at all... So I'll continue thinking there are superior options to federal single payer
Correct. But that was then and this is now.
Right, and now we still have an imperfect system that needs another overhaul because Republicans have no plan and won't work on the current one. Medications are still going through the roof which is a huge problem for people trying to get care, they're are high deductibles on plans, and states where Republicans refused to take the aca are getting fucked left and right because they have minimal access to insurance.
Government-funded health insurance was also what the US government used to hide not one but two human experimentation programs... That we know about.
Ya and all the frogs are gay now too /s. If you trust private individuals any more than the government you're in for a treat. If the government wants to run some crazy experiment, they don't need you to be signed up for health care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
So I'll continue thinking there are superior options to federal single payer
And yet not a fucking single one has been presented to date. Lol
I'm all for other solutions, but when are we going to see this magical free market solution that must be out there? I've been hearing about it for years.
Ya and all the frogs are gay now too /s. If you trust private individuals any more than the government you're in for a treat. If the government wants to run some crazy experiment, they don't need you to be signed up for health care.
Acknowledges the US engages in unethical human experimentation... Doesn't care.
Okay...
And yet not a fucking single one has been presented to date. Lol
But there has...
I'm all for other solutions, but when are we going to see this magical free market solution that must be out there? I've been hearing about it for years.
Switzerland.
Acknowledges the US engages in unethical human experimentation... Doesn't care.
Okay...
Again, you miss the point. The US doesn't need to have you in health care if they wanted to try an unethical experiment. You're argument is moot. If they want to do it, they're going to do it. It has nothing to do with condoning.
Switzerland
Oh, you mean the country that has the Aca on steroids? The one with the extremely heavy handed regulation of the private sector insurance companies and the massive support of health care through public subsidy? The one that mandates compulsory purchase of insurance (kind of counter to free market principles). The that regulates its prices for things like medication? (really against free market principles)
That system? Neat.
Oh, you mean the country that has the Aca on steroids? The one with the extremely heavy handed regulation of the private sector insurance companies and the massive support of health care through public subsidy? The one that mandates compulsory purchase of insurance (kind of counter to free market principles). The that regulates its prices for things like medication? (really against free market principles)
That system? Neat.
Yes, that one. The one that isn't single payer.
You realize that Switzerland is like... The second most expensive health care system in the world right?
To be clear. It cost the patient nothing extra to have the work done. It is not free because health care is supported through taxation. Everyone pays to have healthcare, military, roads etc. You don't need to pay fees for military protection or roads or healthcare.
To be clear. It cost the patient nothing extra to have the work done. It is not free because health care is supported through taxation.
Everybody was already clear on that. But thanks for being the millionth person to clear it up redundantly one more time.
first thing pre cancerous cells are normal in like 65% of pap smears , and they dont lead to cancer. it only means they observed changes, so you would not have had cancer.
Second no person in the US can be denied medical care based on the ability to pay., that has been a law since president reagan had it passed in the early 80's Now also add to it that you are forced to have health insurance now, and your friend is just too lazy to go.
Was there a spread on this in Republican Vogue?
is that a thing?
If you ar implying that post is political, youre nuts.
fyi i was a paramedic for over 11 years , working rescue, you get taught a few things.
No one can be denied emergency medical care. Need evaluation of a serious but not emergent medical issue as an out patient? If you don't have insurance, you'll be asked to pay up front or won't be seen. Hell, even if you have insurance, if you don't have the right plan or are on Medicaid, you might have a hard time getting treatment.
no sorry you cannot be denied TREATMENT not emergency treatment. the law is very specific. Also every hospital has a huge fund for people who cannot afford to pay, you simply have to sign up for it, but many people are either too proud or too uninformed to ever apply. add in to that that ALL people are required to have health insurance right now, and the poorer you are the less you pay, if at all. Now if you want to say its the lower middle class, which gets zero subsidies and what is now the worst health insurance, has a hard time struggling with medical bills, that id agree with.
Since the lower to middle middle class, are now in what are typically catastrophic health care plans only, they are the most marginalized class in lacking health care.
The rich dont care , the lower class get the best plans for free, and the middle is stuck.
How do you know it wasn't ass cancer? also, I have had cell changes in my pap smear and they never zapped anything. They just checked on it again to make sure.
correct. normal treatment here in the us is just monitor for changes. and you wouldnt have an exam thats shows pre cancerous cells on your ass.
I meant colon cancer, genius.
colon cancer is hardly your as, that would be rectal cancer if you mean the asshole. Sorry but as a medic im a little specific.
Because it's not that bad...?
Credit scores. They dont exist in the Netherlands but seem to be quite an important thing in the US.
How as a person lending determine if you can pay back a loan if you don’t have credit history? Or know if it’s good or bad?
Depends on what your current salary is, your past salaries, job stability, bank balance, what kind of loan you want to take out. Also you normally get a loan from a bank, not from some lender(person). Also I've never seen a credit card in my life. We use debit here in the Netherlands, and most supermarkets(for example) don't even accept credit cards
Nevermind the fact that someone can steal your identity, blow up your crefit and screw over your entire life without you knowing.
Ah yes that's another thing non-americans can't relate to. Having something as important and poorly protected as a social security number is really an odd thing.
Biometric passports for all citizens FTW.
Biometric passports
ID-cards is where it's at.
Or that yep.👍
[deleted]
What? How so? In Europe, I don't think there's a single place that indicates race on a national ID card.
A major argument against voter ID cards in America is that they will be more difficult to acquire in lower income neighborhoods (e.g., difficulty traveling to locations, too busy working to get one), effectively disenfranchising poor people.
Not that, it’s that they don’t put the mechanisms in place properly. Need an ID? Place to get it is only open from 1-3 pm on a Wednesday. Everyone is working then.
only open from 1-3 pm on every fifth Wednesday of the month.
FTFY*
Thanks, good edit.
Is there a difference between a regular national ID card and voter ID card? Voting is mandatory where I live. My ID card just shows info on place of birth, date of birth, all that jazz, both on the physical front of the card and on a chip integrated with the card. Changed address and need your bank to know? Go to an office and insert your ID. They only get the info they need (EU privacy ftw) and you don’t need the hassle of stupid forms.
First of all, there is no national ID card, they are individual for every state. Secondly, depending on the state, you may have to pay for your ID and might have to go to specific locations to get it. Those without IDs are generally the poor (statistically more likely to be of a minority ethnicity) because they cannot afford the fee or cannot get enough time to travel to get your ID. The voter ID laws don't require a separate ID but just that you have one.
There isn't a commonly used national ID card. Normally people use driver's licenses as the primary ID. (There are state IDs, but mostly people never get one). And getting a new identifications are a hassle. They cost money, require you to wait a long time (sometimes hours) to get a new thing issued. Many low income people don't have the money/time to spare to obtain adequate Identification in order to vote.
Oh wow. It’s actually illegal in Europe to not have an ID. More and more people here don’t get their driver’s license, so that’s not an option. Because voting and getting an ID is mandatory in Belgium, the fees are really low and it’s not that time consuming. Voting is also always on a Sunday, when nearly all stores are closed in Belgium. No way you could actually force someone to work instead of vote, which is apparently a problem in the US. When you’re below 12, you get a “kid’s ID”. But above that you have to go and get your ID and get it renewed every couple of years.
Even in states like Wisconsin where state IDs are free, can be renewed by mail, and licensing locations are accessible and the lines aren't very long they still can't get away with requiring photo ID for voting because of accusation of racism. I cannot believe that the benefits of having an ID are outweighed by having to weight in a line for half an hour once every 4 years for anyone.
Having to wait in line for half an hour may require a person to travel several tens of miles. If they do not have a car, that is difficult and may need to take public transportation. However public transportation may not be available, may take a long time, or may be too costly. For someone who does not make a lot of money and must work as many hours as possible, having to travel somewhere to get an ID will result in them not working as long as they can (and thus earning less income or even be fired for "poor performance") and potentially cost them a lot of money just to get an ID. And even then, an ID may not be all that useful too that person. It isn't just about waiting in line or the issuance of the ID itself, it is about the entire process of getting an ID and the opportunity cost of doing so (i.e. the time spent getting an ID could be spent elsewhere).
But if they don’t have ID they can’t work. No landlord I know would rent to someone without ID. Can’t get Section 8 vouchers without one, or live in public housing. Can’t buy a car or cash a check at Walmart.
Someone without ID can’t visit the doctor, or get welfare benefits. Then again, if someone applies for welfare and doesn’t have an ID, the welfare office will help them obtain one, and pay for it.
No ID not being fair to the poor is a crappy argument. One has to have ID to survive. Without ID, anyone below the FPL would be sleeping in boxes and eating dirt sammiches. The fact is that 99% of people already have ID. Of course there are exceptions, there always will be but the world isn’t a fair place. But...almost everyone has it and if you don’t it is easy and cheap to obtain.
I have worked in a social service agency for over a decade. I’ve worked with thousands of clients and been in their homes all across the state.
There are definitely jobs many people get that don't require IDs, especially in poorer areas. Landlords will definitely rent to people without IDs (hell I know landlords who won't even write out contracts and take all payments in cash). Many of these people don't have forms of transportation like cars (another obstacle toward obtaining an ID).
Secondly the time spent waiting matters because that's time where you can't work or watch their kids, etc. If a person is deciding between spending hours getting a form of ID or working a few more hours to put food on the table, I wouldn't be surprised if they pick the latter.
I don't know where you get the 99% number, but this link suggests it is more common than you believe.
UK doesn't have ID cards as it feels a bit 1984
What do you use as ID when signing an agreement or contract? Passport, or maybe some kind of social security document?
Passport/driving license/ utility bill
They're not inherently racist, but the pushes to require ID cards for voting are never accompanied by a push to make it easy to get an ID. Not coincidentally, it's only a thing in states that were previously prevented from making laws around voting due to their strong history of civil rights violations.
And we can't have a national ID for reasons I don't care enough to Google, but I blame the Republicans.
[deleted]
Yes, and that one spot in the state where they can get them is open for two hours on a Wednesday.
Free, sure, but most states make it damn tough to acquire.
[deleted]
An ID card itself is not racist. But requiring them to vote is a bad faith attempt to take away a person's right to vote based solely on how likely that person is to vote for the other party (democrats). The "problem" it is supposed to address is virtually nonexistent, but it seems reasonable if you don't really think about it. But its intent is to keep minorities from voting on a technicality, which is racist.
Man, if only any of the intent-divining was true.
Bless your heart.
USA has no federal identification system other than passports which are optional. Nor would most of America support a national ID. Other than the system which purely assigns you a number, to keep track of benefits you get when you are 65, the federal government has no idea you exist at the moment of birth.
Even drivers licenses or proof of age cards?
Neither of those are required in the USA. and if you have one, they are issued by the state and the state doesn't have to share any of it with the federal government (maybe now post 9/11)
So are passports required? Licenses aren't required here either, and are also state/territory issued, though they are shared federally. Without id there's heaps of things you can't do.
no passports are not required. Of course you can't do a lot of things, but those aren't required either.
Those are issued by states. In the US, because of the 10th amendment, each state is effectively a country in an of itself. They have their own constitutions and governments. As such the federal govt has limited jurisdictional authority over only those areas enumerated in article 1, section 8 of the federal constitution.
Here they are issued by states and territories too, but the information and id is still official nation wide.
Rather than having a national data base the states volunteer to share the information with each other.
Biometric really isn't secure. It is like having an unchangeable encryption key. Once someone gets a copy of it you are screwed and there is nothing you can do to change it. There was an instance of a hacker grabbing the thumbprint of a German Defense Minister from a high res photo.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/30/hacker-fakes-german-ministers-fingerprints-using-photos-of-her-hands
Thankfully there are ways to prevent this from happening. There will always be bad people out there, and identity theft is always a risk, but it can be stopped before it spirals out of control. I think it's a good idea to keep a close eye on your credit for this very reason.
That’s another thing. Doesn’t the bank just cover the costs? Has been like that any time I’ve had fraud issues. A quick phone call and the money is credited back in a few hours. Normally followed a few days later by a letter I sign and return just confirming what happened and letting them take it from here and do whatever legal things they want to find whoever did the fraud. Either way, it’s not my problem. I mean, what exactly are you paying bank fees for other than for safely storing your money?
Banks have nothing to do with protecting your credit
If they provide a credit service that is compromised through no negligence of your own, its is their responsibility. At least, in any of the 3 countries (Ireland, Australia, Netherlands) I've lived in in the past 15 years.
Protecting consumers over the interest of a corporation isn't really very popular in the US.
Not from my experience, this is why I use a credit card for all purchases. I had my debit card information stolen and used to make about $1500 in purchases. I didn't get any of that money back until my bank was convinced it wasn't me. A CC company is more like how you describe it.
But then you call the credit bureau and they investigate it, and deal with it.
Not all the time
[deleted]
Corporations are people too!
Depends on what your current salary is, your past salaries, job stability, bank balance, what kind of loan you want to take out.
I mean...that's essentially what a credit score is...
Edit: I get it - that's not exactly what a credit score is. Relax, people.
[deleted]
Its sort of connected. If you have a high salary, reputable employment, and stability, the bank may give you a high credit limit when opening a new credit card, thereby allowing you to operate on a lower utilization percentage.
[deleted]
Oh for sure. I guess my point is that credit score and employment go hand in hand much in the way education and climate change go hand in hand. There's no direct effect of education on climate change, but the more educated people are, the better the climate ends up due to the multitude of other factors in between. Sorry if my analogy came out all wonky.
In either case, lenders are still using criteria to determine your creditworthiness. I don't see how they are appreciably different.
I think it's because they don't pop out a number that all lenders can access. Each institution would have it's own criteria to determine an applicant's creditworthiness instead of organizations that determine everyone's creditworthiness.
I took a 0,5% interest 13k car loan at 18 with no stable job or any kind of payment history. All they cared about if I currently had a full time job. This is Finland and they trust people sometimes even too blindly.
That's happened here before too--but with houses. It effectively caused the '08 crisis. Things are tougher now, but some of the trends from pre-2008 are showing up again.
This explains it really well: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
I took the loan in 2010? If I remember correctly. The interest were so low because of 2008 plunge and people didnt take loans that much anymore, I guess the banks just wanted to get the loans rolling again.
Not even close. Here you can get out of university, get a full time job and get a large loan without ever having a credit card or taking out any other loans before.
There's no gamified gradual credit building process behind it.
Yes they are quite similar. Was just answering the question to how it is done, not how it is different
It is pretty much what a credit score is, although I don't believe a credit score really factors in salary.
I don't earn a high salary. But I have excellent credit. I know people who make two or three times as much as I do, and their credit is in the toilet, because they just rack up debt, they don't manage their money, they complicate their financial health in ways that I don't.
I wonder if Netherland citizens are better overall at finance management? It surprises me to see some people getting into huge credit debts buying cars and shit they can’t afford. Might have been easier if they didn’t see it as cultural norm to begin with or if they weren’t easily given the option to open a credit card account.
Getting a loan or a credit card which allows one to actually use credit is quite hard in the Netherlands.
We have something calles the BKR register, which is a goverment organisation which tracks all debt you currently have. Before people are allowed a loan, they need a positive bkr registration. (Either no debt, or debt which is payable with their current income, or unavoidable debt like a mortage).
that's essentially the same thing though.
Not really, because;
It doesn't give you a score
The registration isn't there anymore after 5 years after you paid your debt. So you could basically have only a registration of you having a mortgage and nothing else.
The registration isn't there anymore after 5 years after you paid your debt. So you could basically have only a registration of you having a mortgage and nothing else.
I wonder what happens to your credit score when you pay off your debt
You get a registration that you paid off that debt on time. And after 5 years the whole registration.
It's not a scoring system but a purely registration system.
Here in portugal for example i dont remember seeing a credit card being used, banks send them home to my parents sometimes and hey have to go there and return the card. The general feel i get from people is, everyone avoids debt like its the plague, loans, credit cards etc. It's mostly for emergencies in my experience ofc.
Dutch Citizen here. I'm not a scientist nor an expert so don't @ me. But I think it's a lot less usual to spend money on credit cards here so we just spend what we have on debit instead of going into lots and lots of red just to get that caror whatever u want.
"It's free money" doesn't feel like a mentality I see here when it comes to credit cards
In what part of the country do you live? Credit cards are really common. Sure, debit cards are way more prevalent, but I know a lot of people that have credit cards and in my opinion most stores accept credit cards.
South-Holland, near Rotterdam. None of the Alber Heijn line supermarkets accept credit cards. Haven't been in a Jumbo that accepted credit cards, but I've heard that they are working on it, same with Lidl. It is somewhat strange, I had friends visiting and they couldn't find a place that accepted credit, but that was a few years ago so things might have changed.
I used to work at a Kruidvat (in Belgium) and I had a shit ton of foreigners who were almost angry that we didn’t accept credit cards. Some Dutch people also gets angry because they can’t find paracetamol at their good old Kruidvat, because only pharmacies are allowed to sell medications, no matter how simple, in Belgium.
I think I only know 1 person with a credit card, I live in the east. They're basicly nonexistent here
We live in Gelderland and most students have a credit card, because they've studied abroad. I never have, so I don't have one. I don't need it and manage just fine with a debit card. Why bother with something that could rack up huge debt, costs money to own, and doesn't bring me that many advantages now?
Also you normally get a loan from a bank, not from some lender(person).
A “lender” typically is a bank, but can also be a person. I’ve never heard of anyone who’s taken a significant loan from a person instead of a bank outside of a close friend or family member, in which case you wouldn’t refer to them as a lender anyway (unless there’s a subsequent legal battle regarding the loan).
Actually if you dont pay bills you get registered at a credit institute here (bkr) and cant borrow a dime till it is repaid and then 5 more years.
I'm Dutch and the only reason I even have a credit card is because I got given one by Schiphol in combination with my premium membership. Came in handy during my stay in the US though:)
Fun thing, in Belgium the bank is liable for the loan if you can't pay it back. It's the bank's job to make sure you don't loan more than you'd be able to pay back. (At least I've heard this, might not be completely true)
I think I’m moving to The Netherlands now. Literally thinking of doing it in October (not because of the lack of credit scores but because the living conditions seem amazing).
You guys are missing out on credit card reward points aka free money
No we still get that, took a flight to Toulouse with my points.
Just the score thing makes no sense.
The score thing essentially a standardized version of what you guys do. Instead of requiring the lender to look up payment history, salary, and all that, they just contact the credit bureau and they give them that information in a numbered scale. Seems more efficient to me.
the system seems skewed to me though - parents opening credit cards in their kids name to make sure they have good credit scores, because it takes years before you have a good credit score. That's seems almost fradulent to me, it's not like you actually made your credit score go up. Plus, I believe the whole dependency on creditcards instead of debet cards encourages unhealthy financial behavior, but that's a whole nother story
While I agree opening credit lines for your children is sort of cheating, if your parents are willing to do this they likely would help you out if you take on too much debt. So the fact you have family that can help out is indirectly reflected in the score which makes it more accurate possibly.
Are your bankruptcy laws similiar to us? Maybe that's one reason ?
Technically that’s Fraud. They can allow you to be authorized users but they’re not supposed to open cards in your name, not to mention you legally have to be 18 to get a credit card, but most companies will not approve you at that age unless you have collateral. I use credit cards for everything, never carry a balance, and I get rewards and fraud protection alongside chargeback benefits.
Usually parents just add their kid as an authorized user to their card
I get interest on my debit account. Free money.
I get interest on my checking account and rewards on my credit cards. Debit cards are awful, I don't know why people would use them when credit cards are available. Usually when I see someone use a debit card, I just assume they're either poor, or not responsible enough for credit cards.
This is all an illusion. The rewards programs exist because people get in debt, making free money for the bank, and thus the rewards are transfered to you, the responsible credit user. But if all people were responsible the rewards and all that "free" money wouldn't exist. In that case you wouldn't be touting the benefits of credit cards.
What is awful about debit cards? Maybe it's different in the US, but I literally have never found anything bad about them in the Netherlands and I've used them all my life. Next to that it's just very practical to be able to see with one tap how much money I have, without having to look at credit cards or anything.
In the US, they don't have the same protections as credit cards. You're liable for more if there's a case of fraud. Also, they're a direct link to your money so if there is fraud, you're out your own money which can cause more problems down the line if you're not as responsible, which tends to be the case with debit card users. For example, if someone gets your debit card and uses it for a $1000 purchase, you're out $1000 in your own account until it gets figured out. Which means, unless you have other accounts, you won't be paying any other bills you might have. If someone gets one of my credit cards and uses it for a $1000 purchase, it really doesn't impact me much. It's not my money they stole and I can function just fine and pay other bills in the meantime.
Well then, fix your system - in EU debit cards have the same protection and it's usually weird for people to have credit card (as why the fuck can't you support your lifestyle with the money you do own?). Also we don't need to "build" credit score when young and irresponsible to later take a home loan. Seems like a times better deal, if you ask me.
Your system seems like it works great for irresponsible people, but doesn't benefit those who are responsible, which seems to be par for the course in Europe. I mean no offense, but you do things so backwards over there.
How does it benefit irresponsible people? To get the home loan, you do need to prove you have stable job and big enough income to cover the monthly payments. As you do for a car, or even a credit card if you do decide to get one. We don't give them out like candy, as it seems you guys do.
Also, nothing responsible about using money you don't have for no good reason. I mean, a loan for a home (we live mostly in apartment blocks), a car, some big medical emergency that wasn't covered by the insurance (and we're talking in the range of 1000-5000 our currency, so about 500-1000 USD), all that is understandable and necessary. However, nothing especially responsible about getting credit cards to buy stuff you should buy with money you already own and are spendable (clothes, games, make-up, those concert tickets, etc.).
I think this is just a case where you simply don't understand it. Credit cards aren't a way to buy things with money you don't have. They're a tool to utilize the money you have in a better way. I have many, many credit cards. I have zero debt. With the rewards I've earned by using my credit cards, I've paid for flights and other things just with the points/cash I've earned by using them. My last few years in college, I didn't pay for any of my books because my Discover card rewards transferred to Amazon dollar for dollar. My American Express card doubles the factory warranty on any electronics bought with it. I have access to airport lounges that others don't. The thing you need to understand is that credit cards aren't for spending money you don't have, they're for utilizing what you do have in a better way. You can stick to your debit cards, I'll stick to the benefits and rewards I earn with my credit cards.
Tbh, credit cards here don't really have rewards (aside from stuff like 2% off in this weird jewelry store that sells ugly earrings starting at 2000€ the pair). Also, the only times I've heard people flying with points they got as reward were people from the US, so it's not common to have that in all of Europe. Although we don't fly so much around either - we can get countries across in one day on the bus/car, which is usually also cheaper.
A credit score essentially ties those things you listed up into one neat package. And we do get loans from banks.
What is the best interest rate you could receive for a car loan, mortgage, personal loan, and credit card?
Car/Personal loan (there's no difference) is apparently somewhere minimal between 3.9% and 4.7% and maximal between 3.9% and 5.5 . This only for fixed amount, flexible credit is even higher with minimal between 4.6% and 8.5% and maximal between 8.2% and 10%.
Mortage is really depended so many factors it's not fun to figure it out. But it's apparently somewhere between 1.1% and 2%
I have a credit card for international purchases and I don't really have interest on my credit card as my purchase with that will be automatically deducted from my bank account. However teh card cost me €1.25 a month with €4.50 every time I get money from an ATM. In contrast, my debit card is currently completly free and will be free in the future, however I will have to pay at least €1.50 per month for my bankaccount.
Debit cards don’t get you rewards or allow you to pay off balances as you want. Maybe I have an unexpected problem with my car and I don’t get paid until next Friday or won’t have the money until next month... no worries, throw it on the card.
I also get points for dining and traveling that I can redeem for cash or 1.5 the amount if I use it on airline tickets.
It is a really amazing thing to have. You just have to be responsible. So far with my current one that I’ve had for a year I have earned $1,000 on it. $500 for signing up and $500 through use.
You can also take advantage of these companies very easily. Most cards have rewards for signing up or incentives that allow you to transfer balances for a very low rate. I have multiple cards that I got for rewards for free travel. I set them all on autopay and use them for subscriptions each month like Spotify.
So if you are aware of how to ‘play the game’ and are responsible with your money... it is beyond me why you wouldn’t be using a credit card for everything possible. The way these credit card companies make money is through the people who are irresponsible and overuse the card without the means of paying it back.
Only in USA. I doubt we get that many benefits from credit cards over here.
This is all an illusion. The rewards programs exist because people get in debt, making free money for the bank, and thus the rewards are transfered to you, the responsible credit user. But if all people were responsible the rewards and all that free cash wouldn't exist. In that case you wouldn't be touting the benefits of credit cards.
Yeah I know. I thought I mentioned that, didn’t I? If you’re responsible it kicks ass.
A credit score basically takes all of that and puts a quantifiable number value on it. Like if you haven't had stable jobs, you don't have money in the bank, you probably used your credit card a lot and didn't pay it off and now your credit is bad and you probably shouldn't get a loan
Most Americans don't have salaries, they have jobs that pay for labor by the hour, and frequently they live paycheck to paycheck. If you are short on hours or between jobs or have an unexpected emergency expense (or want something you can't afford and make poor decisions, sadly) they have credit cards for such occasions.
Wait they don't get their loans from banks?
I think they do. Just the person I was replying to wasn't very clear about it.
How as a person lending determine if you can pay back a loan if you don’t have credit history?
Do people just carry cash?
Debit cards
I misread, I apologize
This exchange has improved my day.
if only more people would be so nice on reddit. FYI, even in india, Credit card is a relatively new thing. Credit scores are being invented but take into consideration actual spending power, bank saving, etc.
in Poland pretty much pays with pay pass (NFC payments), recently Android Pay is getting REALLY popular
I'm having trouble getting change back if I pay with cash sometimes
Really? In switzerland you kind of have to have a credit card, because our debit cards can't pay in the internet (i think because of some missing contracts or whatever). When you want order something online you have to have a credit card (at least pre paid), so it's kind of needed here.
I'm not sure about anyone else but most in our family use iDeal, which is like a direct payment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEAL
Here in America, debt is ingrained in our culture now. Instead of normal money, most everyone just has debt. They carry it around with them, the less you have the better, but very few have none. The person in debt is generally not at fault, it's the circumstance of necessity.
Personally I don't own a credit card, I have no credit score, and I am actually made fun of and shamed for this. You don't have a credit score? How can you afford anything?! This is because I am lucky, my parents paid for my college expenses, and have now given me a private loan so that I could get a house for cheap and remodel it myself. I am a unicorn though, essentially all of my friends owe money to a college.
There is no way to be as successful as I am unless your parents can buy you success. Paying for my college meant I would have to finish college to not disappoint my parents, finishing college meant I could get a great job the second I was done with school, having such a great job allowed me to afford a mortgage, which would have been a lot more expensive if it wasn't a private loan.
It's unfair.
So your banks actually underwrite instead of just taking the shortcut.
Depends on what your current salary is, your past salaries, job stability, bank balance, what kind of loan you want to take out.
This is the same as in the US but (generally, depending on the type of loan) not included the bank balance, and no really assessment of job stability. Past salary for 2 years for home loan. And credit score. Not that much different, credit score maybe replaces past salary, bank balance, and job stability. For last car loan, all they wanted me to provide was current salary and credit score.
Also you normally get a loan from a bank, not from some lender(person).
Same in US.
Also I've never seen a credit card in my life.
In US is advantageous to use them because you can dispute charges more easily and it is more dangerous to use debit cards. I use debit cards with Amazon, to pay bills, and with reputable retailers... but for gas stations (where lots of identity theft happens) I use credit cards.
In the USA, it's not a good idea to use debit cards to buy anything, ever. We don't have great card security (chip cards are very new here and you don't typically need to use a pin, we also just hand our card to servers at restaurants and they walk off with it and bring it back after they run it through). If an electronic skimmer or even a disgruntled waitress got your debit card number and used it to make a large fraudulent purchase, you would generally be protected and get your money back, but it could take months and that might ruin you if you couldn't pay rent or something.
With a credit card, it isn't your money they used fraudulently, so it isn't really your problem. There are just way more financial protections built into using a credit card. Most people pay for everything in credit and pay it off at the end of the month so they don't get charged interest.
Also, the idea that a single chain grocery store would not accept credit cards would be insane in the USA. I can confirm that Lidl and Aldi both accept credit cards at all USA locations.
You've basically just described credit. There are many factors that play into it, but a FICO 8 (soon to be FICO 9) takes your current debts, payment history, credit mix (basically types of debt), length of credit and new credit limit and rolls it all into a single number. FICO 8 currently has an American's medical debt also counted, but that will change once they switch to FICO 9, hopefully soon. Your bank is already doing it, they just aren't giving you your score.
Credit itself isn't a bad thing. Overspending above your means is the problem.
So basically they look at your credit score but just with very slightly less information.
This can happen in the US, it's called manual underwriting. I got my mortgage with no credit score (not a bad credit score, no credit score). Instead of just glancing at a number and making an instant decision whether or not to lend, the lender looks at things that will actually indicate if you are financially responsible. I had to gather up stuff like a year of bank statements, 3 months of check stubs, and proof that I've paid my utilities and rent on time for the last couple of years. It took about a week to get my approval, but to me that's better than running the rat race of paying interest to people for the privilege of being able to pay more interest to people.
???just pay your credit card off every month. No interest payment needed.
This. My credit score is near perfect, and I never paid any interest in my life.
Not just credit cards. What about car loans, signature loans, and basically everything else you need a credit score for? It's all borrowing money and you pay interest when you borrow money.
You realize you don't need to pay interest, right? Just use it more like a debit card (don't spend what you don't have), and pay it in full every month.
Plus you get points/air miles/whatever.
You're assuming I'm just talking about credit cards. I'm commenting on the credit system as a whole. We're told to get a credit card to build our credit so we can buy a car, get a signature loan for a vacation or something, finance a lawn mower, etc. We're told we have to do these things or we won't be able to buy a house. Then, once we've done all those things they tell us since our credit is great we should upgrade our things and buy a nicer car, a bigger house, a new bedroom set, all of which you pay interest on since you borrowed the money to do it. It's like a snake eating its own tail, it never ends
Yes, you don't have to pay interest on credit cards if you work it correctly, but I'm taking about avoiding the credit and lending system almost entirely. The only loan I've ever taken out and will ever take out is my mortgage. Other than that, if I don't have the cash to buy it out right then I can't afford it.
This is similar to my first car purchase. Zero credit history of any kind.
To be fair, some lenders deliberately target people with bad credit score in the US for predatory loans. That's how the 2008 crash came about.
I thought it was the ability to offload those loans under the guise of being less risky loans because of how they were bundled and re sold. Then the groups that bought the repackaged risky loans used them as collateral to take out loans to buy more risky repackaged loans and every trusted the ratings agencies to determine their risk which they proclaimed wasn't that risky.
Well, if the person has had a stable job for some time but no savings, you know he's not that good at saving and thus will have to change his way of life a bit to pay it back.
The credit-history scam just leads people into taking out consumer-credits for no reason at all, which is the ultimate fail in personal finance.
I haven't seen anyone say this, but if it's double, sorry!
In Belgium we have also don't have credit scores and while credit cards exist, most people will not use them for daily purchases. We use debit cards instead. Which has the side effect that you can't get into too much debt without realising.
But we do have a national institution that kind of fills the same position as credit scores, called the 'Centrale voor kredieten' at the National Bank of Belgium (NBB).
Here an overview of all the loans you take out is kept. The entries are made by the banks where you get your credit. Also water and electricity companies and such can report you, if you don't pay your bills. If that happens or happens to often, you can be put on a blacklist. Normally you won't be put on there for a 5 euro bill but people often don't know this is really a thing and end up on the list due to negligance.
Every time you get out a new loan the bank or other money lender is required to check with the center before approving your request. If you are on the blacklist you can pretty much never get a credit card or car loan until the facts expire.
This is very similar to the Netherlands, we just call it "Bureau Krediet Registratie" (Bureau Credit Registration).
It's much harder to fire someone for no reason in other countries, and much harder for an unexpected expense to make you lose all you have. Therefore, their current income and property gives a much better expectation abt their future income.
I have no credit history and I am trying to get some. It has not been easy.
This was me 7 years ago - I just ended up getting a card with a horrible interest rate and made sure to pay it off completely each month. At its core, credit score is literally just a wait-and-don't-fuck-it-up game. Doing nothing but having a history of 100% on-time payments should put you in the top 30% of nationwide credit scores after 4 years.
the loan officer does due dilligence themselves instead of relying on some random corp to be the middle man and just tell you one number to write down. You could literally think of credit scores as outsourcing or hiring a contractor to do financials research and risk analysis.
The netherlands is wierd in regards to housing loans(or at least it was IDK if it is still the case) in the sense thay if you build a house there, it is almost bound to increase in vslue over time because of the high population density.
Looks at your income and past habits and determine from there?
The bank owns tha house until you pay it off. If you don't pay, they get the house. And everything you've paid so far is lost.
In Spain payments are nearly all automatic, directly from your bank account. Salaries also go into your bank account. So they have a lot less trouble with people not paying back money here. Presumably this is why they will give you a 12-year loan on a Kia or a 50-year mortgage.
Credit scores are run by private institutions, not even the govt. Lending has occurred for a lot longer than credit scores existed, institutionalized or p2p. Modern credit scores are just a racket for the banks and their subs.
We don't have credit scores here in Norway, but rather a black / white system of credit marks.
Basically, if you owe someone money, and it goes to collection agencies, and THEN it goes to civil court - you're screwed. What happens is that there's wage garnishment, and you end up on a register which banks will use when deciding whether or not to give you a mortgage, car loan, CC, etc.
But with that said, once your debt is paid off, your score / history should be fine again.
From what I gather, the credit score system in the US is a bit different than this: They build up a score, by using credit and paying back. This is not the case here, where they only report your bad moves.
So as long as you pay your debt, clean slate?
This is way too rational for the US. We like to turn people into felons over marijuana.
Well I would say this doesnt actually make sense if we have an agree that I loan you money and you repay in 1 year. But you take 2 years I think it makes perfect sense that you would have a worse score than someone who paid on time
Worst score, sure - I read further down after making that comment. I only mean it makes zero sense to decimate people for years when they screw up.
That’s more of less the same here. While a bunch of good things can slightly raise your score, for the most part the score is heavily influenced by negative items. If you don’t have any negative items you’ll pretty much always have a high enough score to qualify for loans or credit cards.
Just for the record Norway does have credit scores. Never got one of those letters saying company x or y checked your credit with us and this what we told them? It’s a number between 0 and 100
We do have credit scores in that sense, but it's not really comparable to the US.
Credit rating companies here just checks public registries for your tax numbers (income/wealth) from the past three years, currently registered debt (car and house loans), overdue payment remarks and similar, and distill this into a rating. This rating usually differs slightly between the companies since their algorithms and weighting aren't identical.
Apart from the last three years income/wealth numbers and any overdue payment remarks, there's no historical element to the credit rating. Since we don't have a general credit registry, they don't even know whether you have credit cards, let alone how you use them. The only debt they know about are house and car loans and that's only because the house/car is registered as collateral for the loan.
Yes we do have credit scores in the Netherlands! Never heard of the BKR?
Precies. Alleen niet effectief als je Georgina Verbaan heet.
And that's the exact opposite of the US system.
No it's not. Sure it's a different system. For instance having no credit history won't affect you negatively in the Netherlands. But it is a undeniably a credit score system (and having a bad credit history will affect you badly, just like in the U.S.)
BKR?
They are incredibly important. In business class in the states they advise you to get a credit card the minute you turn 18 and start using it responsibly to build credit. That way, when you need to rent an apartment or buy a car on a loan you will be approved.
Hold on a minute... are you saying there is no credit scoring whatsoever in the Netherlands? Are you sure?
You can get a BKR registration, which happens if miss a payment of a loan of a certain size for x months.
Once you get that, you basically have a "bad credit score" and will have to wait for it to be removed. the big difference with the US would be that BKR does not reward you for credit card use of the like. Someone that paid every loan on time for 30 years has the same rating as a fresh 18 year old that never loaned anything at all.
which happens if miss a payment of a loan of a certain size for x months.
No, BKR registers all credit in your name, from a credit card, to a mortgage. Even mobile plans that come with expensive phones are/will be registered here.
The same credit bureaus operate in Europe. In Spain we have Equifax, TransUnion, etc. But they are only allowed to maintain a list of current debt (what in the US would be known as "collections", not regular debt that you are making payments on, etc.). As soon as you pay the debt it comes off the list.
So the criterion is simple for granting credit here: is you on the list or is you ain't on the list.
I think they probably do exist, but as a confidential thing within financial institutions. I'm in Australia where people never think about or mention credit scores, but a bank employee once told me he had looked me up in some kind of secure system and got a number back.
The TL;DR of credit scores is how well you manage your money. As long as you pay your bills on time, as long as you don't go deep into debt... you won't really need to worry about your credit health.
I've always had good credit, so it doesn't bother me. I've always paid my rent (many people don't know that you can include your rent in your credit history), I've always paid my car payments, my credit card bills. I even went a period without a roof over my head, though I didn't actually have any credit at that time.
A lot of people will not like this, but most of the people who I have known with bad credit, deserved to have bad credit. I'm not talking about people who had something happen to them, like fraud or theft. I'm talking about people who are just bad about money, who don't prioritize, who go out to the bar then wonder why their lights were shut off. People who have been "unfairly evicted" (which seems to be the case with every person who has ever been evicted, they all claim it was unfair).
The credit score system only seems unfair when your credit is low. That's just how it is. It is much easier to maintain a high credit score than it is to dig yourself out of a hole of bad credit.
To me, a credit score determines how trustworthy you are with money. If you borrow money, and promise to pay it back, are you telling the truth, or do you just say that in the moment because you need the cash? I've found that people who tend to be unreliable in this area tend to be unreliable in many other areas of life, I don't believe this is something that can just be compartmentalized.
many people don't know that you can include your rent in your credit history
Is your credit history in the US something you have to actually manually build/add to? Like a CV? Here they just search you up in some sort of central database and they'll know whether you've defaulted on stuff, there's nothing you can do (outside of actually paying your debt, obviously) to affect what the score is
Credit history is more about what is reported to the credit bureaus. I just responded to someone else that I had someone help me add rent to my credit history.
I think it's unfair that rent isn't reported automatically to credit bureaus, but if you have an eviction, it remains on your history for some years. To report rent, you have to go through something like Pinch App. Some other agencies will charge you a fee for doing this
Interesting. I'll have to look into whether that's something you can do here, but I'm fairly sure you can't. It'd certainly be helpful, given that I've rented for like 5.5 years and never missed a payment
That’s pretty much EXACTLY what a credit score is.
Yeah I know, but I'm talking about the fact that you have to include things in it manually somehow (not the actual process of building credit score by taking on debt and then paying it off). Like, I don't need to go and tell somebody that I've never missed a rent payment in my life in order to improve my credit score but apparently that's something you can do there?
I’m not sure what people are talking about. You don’t manually include stuff in your credit report. It’s all behind the scenes/automatic stuff. An employer or landlord might ask for information that’s not in your credit report (like your salary, for instance), but there’s not really a way to add things to the official report.
That said, it is prudent to monitor it to make sure it’s correct. If there’s an error there are ways of correcting it, but it can be cumbersome.
How can you 'add' your rent to your credit score? Never heard of that
I have a close friend who deals with this stuff for work, she helped me add my rental history to this. Prior to that, i had good credit but you couldn't actually see specifically that I made all of my rent payments
It also seems pretty unfair if you're an immigrant with no US credit history.
I don't know how that would work if you're an immigrant. I can only speak for myself really.
Like you never had credit at all, so you can only get cards with a limit where you essentially have to make a payment every time you use them, despite having a well paid job, zero debt and paying everything on time. Whereas under a European type system they would look at your individual budget and give you a decent limit as long as you didn't have any black marks on your credit report.
Credit scores are just the quantification of your reputation as a borrower. You can have a good reputation, a bad reputation, or no/minimal reputation.
That's because everything you do in America is centered around how much debt you have
I would put money on there being some sort of credit score equivalent in the Netherlands, but yeah it does seem to be way more important in the US than anywhere else. Here (New Zealand), you have a credit score but your actual current situation (income, job stability, current debts) is more important when deciding whether or not to extend credit
The reason for credit is saying you are spending money you don't have yet. If you have a payday of $500 at the end of the week, and you are living paycheck to paycheck, then a credit card will carry you though the week, and then you pay the $500 in debt you have on your payday, and start again.
They exist in all countries, they just aren't a publicized/readily known as credit scores outside of North-America, If they didn't every loans company/bank would go bankrupt lending to people without any history of continuous employment...
They exist in a lot of Europe. I know for a fact they exist in France, uk and Ireland and they seem to exist in Germany, Iberia, the Baltics and Scandinavia
It's not whether it exists or not, but whether people have to deal with it on a daily basis. In reddit it seems people are always referencing their credit score as if it were their HP or MP in a Japanese RPG.
Well yeah, in america its a matter of life and death. Being able to borrow money may allow you to get that insulin or inhaler
Wheras here, in the uk, it's pretty much only important to buy a house, our maybe a car
That’s so crazy to me. There’s no way you can buy a house here without good credit. I mean, even with good credit I’m probably not going to be able to afford a house.
I need to move there. I don't have a bad credit score but I don't see myself qualifying for a mortgage anytime soon. How would you guys determine how people qualifying for loans? Just because someone makes a lot of money doesn't mean that they are reliable to pay them back.
credit score determines pretty much everything you can do financially even down to opening a contract for a cell phone.
Actually I think the BKR register is pretty similar. Banks and the like definitely check it before giving you a mortgage or loan. these days even getting a mobile subscription with a phone gets registered as a loan at the BKR.
WHAT??? Excuse me while I pack my bags. My credit score has been like a top 3 reason my life is shitty just because I’ve missed 3 payments on the only credit card I’ve ever had. That I’ve had for 3 years. I can’t do anything because of it.
They dont exist in the Netherlands
Of course they do, or no-one could issue loans. Some people should not be offered normal loans, as they are too high-risk.
From a quick google, the Netherlands has a government institution called the 'BKR', rather than for-profit credit-rating agencies.
Edit and I see comments saying they also judge you on your life circumstances, such as your income and state of your finances.
Doesn't sound like the easy-street that 'no credit ratings' is meant to make me think of.
The big difference is that in most of Europe they only record negative events like late payments and defaults. There's not the same long process of having to build up positive credit and managing utilization etc.
If banks are simpy more hesitant to offer loans, that's a different question.
One way or another, the bank needs to be assured you're good for the loan. No such assurance? No loan. One way or another, that's what it boils down to.
Fellow Dutchman here: can confirm that BKR exists and OP is talking out of their ass. Its purpose is to rate people's credit. You don't pay your debt, you can get slapped with a BKR registration and depending on their status with BKR people absolutely can and do get denied bank loans.
No mate, that can’t be right. If I borrow €120k and pay it back dead on time €11k per month for a year, and you borrow €1000 and miss payment after payment and then default, are you saying that lenders would treat us the same next time?
Thats how equifax makes money.
I am really surprised no one has said maternity leave isn't mandatory. We are trying to have a baby and I have to take short term disability and a second insurance plan to cover myself while in the hospital. I have 6 weeks and then have to go back to work or not get paid.
Now there is FMLA (family medical leave act) that holds my job for 12 additional weeks but it is without pay.
I, for one, had NO IDEA that paid maternity leave isn't a thing in the USA.
Hell, unpaid leave is barely a thing.
That is crazy. Here in Denmark it is possible to take a maternity leave for half a year if you like.
In Estonia parental leave is up to 18 months. Can be taken by either parent. And you get paid the same wage you earned in the last 12 months before the birth up to 3100 EUR which is almost three times the average wage so covers most people.
People still find ways to complain about it but most think its quite good.
wow
-Owen Wilson
What the hell; who and why would they complain about this? It’s a super sweet deal; here in Mexico only women get maternity leave, three months; paid by social security at 60% (but generally most bosses pay you the other 40%); men only have line five days.
I wanna go live there
Some people feel its not socialist enough. Its a rather pragmatic system and there is no wealth redistribution involved. So a person who makes minimum wage will get minimum wage for parental leave and someone considered comfortably in the middle class will get what is considered a rather decent salary paid by the government.
On the other side of the spectrum there are those who get the max benefit and have jobs that can be done from home. They are annoyed that if you still continue to work and earn the parental leave will be decreased… aaaand their complaining worked because starting from this year people who continue to work will still get the parental leave pay at a ratio even if they keep getting a regular salary. Im one of the people who benefits by this change but even I think its skewed to supporting those who can already support themselves.
It is a good way to incentivize raising population which Estonia is in need of
Estonia should export people from Mexico then; no seriously, a lot of people here tend to have at least three children in a very small time lapse.
I can see the complain there, and you are right, its skewed (at least in my point of view).
Here in Mexico it's a little strange; as I mentioned, women get three month maternity leave, it's suposed to be six weeks before the due date and six weeks after, bot a lot of employers allow or ask the mother to be to stay up until one or two weeks before the due date (some women still work up until one or two days before if they are gonna have a c-section) they still get their three months but, at 60% of their wage; here is the catch; a lot of employers only inform about a minimun wage being paid, there are holes in the labor law that allow this, you can earn for example 600 EUR every 15 days but the minimun wage is, let's say 56 EUR every 15 days, and that is the salary your boss informs, that means that your maternity leave is gonna be payed at 60% of that; as I said, most employers still pay the 100% but not all of them.
my brother and his wife had a child. As my brother is CEO of his company they decided to switch the pays. He lowered his pay for minimum wage and payd his wife more, as she was working in same company. After that they recieved about 3000 euros per month from the goverment during that time. Turns out it is legal to do this, but not many people have this opportunity
As a southern neighbor I salute you, our smart brothers.
This is extremely good ;) My wife has got half a year off. But that includes some vacation days and 2 weeks unpaid leave as she didn't want to start work right before Christmas.
For me its worse. I get two days off but I have taken my vacation days so I can be there the first few weeks as well.
Still, 18 months to be split by either parent seems like a good deal. I would have loved to take on a more active role but that's made difficult by our system. Still, I'm not complaining. Its just that I like your system better.
Can confirm, done that. Parenting is fun if you don't have to worry about money.
[deleted]
For many of us in Germany we don't even reach that 3100
The maternity pay is capped at 1800€ in Germany. If you're living in an expensive city, that is not so much. Still cool.
Estonia is a friggin nice country...
Living off of 1800€ in Munich is not gonna run so hot tho
Not sure if you are trolling, but 3100€ are roughly 3650$. Per month. I think you could live very comfortably of that, even in the USA.
Average income in Germany is 40,000 EUR a year before taxes, so no, not trolling. The standard of living is really high though.
I'm from German, too. 40,000 a year breaks down to 3333.33 per month. As you say, this is before taxes. So in the end she has maybe half of that or 2/3? The 3,100 mentioned above are after tax. You don't have to pay taxes for that at all. That is a lot of dough and comfortably to live off.
My response was mainly geared towards the other person that asked if you were trolling for saying most Germans don't make 3100 after taxes. Most people take home somewhere between 2000 and 2500 after taxes in Germany, which is fine to live off of as la single person.
Eh. Not where I live. Unless it's untaxed.
It is.
SF? Sure about that?
Well, in Germany it is. I got it last year and didn't have to pay taxes for it.
Oh Really?
Let me introduce you to
How lovely of them for contributing to solve the aging population problem that’s really the reason behind most of these policies.
Go to one of the 'less desirable' neighborhoods in the US and you'll see exactly what I mean.
4 kids under the age of 5, and on food stamps and section 8 housing. Wtf is that. Why are you pregnant again? You can't even take care of 1 of them.
Oh, I totally get what you mean and sadly in all cultures there’s always people that try to game the system. But they are the exception, not the norm and usually policies have restrictions in place for this very reason. For every person cheating, there are thousands that really need them and those are the ones I care about. Just as I wouldn’t ever want to send an innocent man to jail and because of that some guilty ones are going to scape justice, I’d rather have some assholes leeching for the government, but no one in need left behind. I truly trust that in a society most actually want to contribute and be someone. I trust that I wouldn’t abuse the system if I ever needed it, so I try to extend that same trust to the rest. So far, I’ve only been wrong a handful of times :)
I’ve lived in a few countries, not just the US, and in all I volunteer in those neighborhoods (and in turns it helps me do my job, I’m not a saint) and TBH for every meth addled drug selling leech, there are lots of families trying against all odds to build a better life and their struggle is truly inspiring, and honestly has made me take some very hard looks at myself. With all my circumstances in life I should have achieved a whole lot .
Ok, I really went rambling there, since I’ve been volunteering for so many years, I’m a little bit passionate. I only ever meant to respond that the countries that have these measures literally need them because otherwise people wouldn’t have as many kids and the entire system would collapse, policies aren’t made of the goodness of the government’s heart. The other 2 paragraphs were just my experience and aren’t meant to be taken as anything else. Have a great day.
In Croatia you can have a "complications" sick leave if your pregnancy is difficult or you are doing a hard/dangerous job. It is prescribed by your doctor at any time during the pregnancy.
45 days before the term you can take maternity leave, and at 28 days before the term you must take the leave. The mother stays with the child for 6 months, and for another 6 months the parents decide who wants to stay with the baby. If they choose the father, they get extra 2(I think) months they can use until the child is 7.
If the baby needs special care, the maternity leave can be extended.
Sick leave is paid if the mother is working, maternity leave is paid for both working and non working moms (unemployed get paid less).
In Zagreb mothers who have 3 children under the age of 15 can be employed as moms = literally the city pays them to care for their children.
Even with this, the population is downsizing. If they had only 12 weeks paid leave we would go extinct.
I’m drooling at the mouth, what a luxury!
It's not a luxury, it's a right. The only way there's a chance Americans can claim it is if they stop viewing it as something they should feel ashamed of wanting just because the social systems in the nation are decades behind.
Honestly, I feel thankful for being Danish every single day. Free medical care, free education (often even paid), paid maternity leave etc. Reading about the lack of rights people of other nationalities have make me feel sorry for them and extra grateful myself.
[deleted]
You just come along, you will learn Danish real quick
[deleted]
I feel sorry for you, but hope you come join us happy Danes as soon as you can!
[deleted]
Well I can’t really answer that as I’m a native Danish speaker myself. But Danes are generally very good at English, because we are highly educated, and our language and country are so small - international trade and cooperation are vital things to us. So you would not have any issues communicating with people until you learn Danish. Also, there are many English words in Danish, and as the language evolves it only gets more international. Especially slang among young people are very “danglish” (Danish + English). Yes haha, except the actual Danish Pastries are way better than the ones in other countries. Danish bakerys are the real MVPs
[deleted]
Well as soon as you learn Danish, you won’t have trouble finding a nursing job in a hospital. We need more nurses.
Where else would you be drooling from?
In Canada we take a full year lol
you can actually take 18 months now, but for the same amount of EI.
[deleted]
some employees offer top up on EI. my friend got 90% of her salary (government employee).
In Canada you get 55% of your salary for up to a year (35 weeks of that can be shared with your partner) to a maximum of $547/week, or 33% of your salary for up to 18 months (61 weeks that can be shared) to a maximum of $328/week. Your choice which option you take, the total dollar amount is basically the same either way.
Half a year with full pay, and another half year with lower support ("dagpenge").
Czech Republic again. 6 months mandatory, then up to 4 years of parental leave, that can be switched between mother and father. And well, the father gets 2 weeks of paternity leave (paid) when the child is born.
The 2 weeks are new. I support that - definitely great addition
Oh yea? Well, we have... more prisoners than you do!
[deleted]
I just checked the exact rules, and you can actually take a year with full pay. The government pays it; if the company pays for some of the time, the government obviously won’t during that period. You can even extend the leave after a year but then you pay gets smaller.
True, but you also have campaigns like Do it for Denmark
My friend just had to put her 3-month old baby into daycare. They have whole daycares for infants. It's so bizarre. Plus, it costs more than their home mortgage every month (about $2k). But it gets much less expensive outside the city, like, $500-700/month.
Is this where the men get to take off too? My wife is from Brazil and the women get a couple of months off there with pay. She couldn't believe we don't in the USA.
In Canada, I had a year.
And no medical bills from the hospital.
In the UK you can take up to a year, or you can split the year up however you want between parents, so you could both be off (paid) for 6 months if you wanted.
Worth mentioning that the pay is only 90% for the first six weeks (which is as good as being paid in full), but then the next 33 weeks are paid at £145.18 or 90% of your average weekly earnings, whichever is lower. If you've got a decent-paying job, £145 a week would seem like a pittance.
If you only get statutory maternity pay.
That's what we're talking about though - I thought we were comparing America's statutory maternity pay with other countries? If we're comparing maternity pay as a whole rather than the legal minimums then it's worth mentioning that (some) Americans get that too.
That hardly paints it fairly. In the UK most men can only get two weeks of paternity leave at their usual pay rate, and it's up to your employer if they're willing to cover that, otherwise you get 90% of your weekly wage or £145.10, whichever is Lower.
If you want to do Shared Parental Leave, you have rights to take up to a year split between you, and up to 39 weeks split between you, but it's also at those same pay rates (in other words, barely half of the living wage.)
Most employers are pretty decent with Maternity leave, and many will match your current rate for 6 months or more. But shared leave isn't often included in those terms of your contract.
Wth? 6 months old baby needs to have parental care. We have 2-4 years paid leave (same amount, you can split it into 2, 3 or 4 years) in czech republic and I wouldn't like to have it shorter.
See this is crazy to me. You just get paid 2-4 years for having a kid? I think America's needs to be lengthened but why should you expect to be paid that long while not doing any work. How can companies even afford that? You're going to need to train people to replace employees if they are gone for that long of time so you're paying double for 1 job.
I feel like I must be misunderstanding because 2-4 years is equally insane as America's just in the other direction.
In most countries the maternity/parental leave is paid by the government, not the employer. They still need to replace the person, true, but they aren't paying their salary. Some companies do shore up the government benefits (which are typically not 100% of your salary) with some additional pay, but it is at their discretion and is seen as a perk.
More citizens means more taxpayers, so long-term, the government making the investment makes sense, and there are usually lots of other subsidies for families too.
Yeah. I'm not being a dick about it but I dont see where all this extra money comes from.
Not spending billions on military helps. Also you hope to raise people with healthy family relationships so it pays off long term.
If the us stopped leading all these coalitions who is gonna pick up the financial slack?
You asked where others take money. It was not a political commentary. You can redistribute money to various purposes.
Slashing the mil budget to, say half (300bn USD) and giving the money to parents with newborns (4M a year) comes to 75K a pop and that's decent.
It's the overall orientation and social norms though. Different attitude to things, valuing different path and qualities in life... Not like we can solve it here
Your last statement is exactly what my wife is saying to me right now. Its uncanny.
Government pays this, not the company. Because government is us, and we know children are the best investment.
Lucky!
I just started a new job in Ireland and was reading through employee rights and all the HR mumbo jumbo and I was amazed that paid maternity leave was 26 weeks. I knew it was paid I just didn't realise it was that long!
I love Ireland, would love to live there sometime.
Here its 12 weeks IF you are eligible for it, and it's not required to be paid.
Better add my flower to the vase. NZ is 26 week paid leave for primary carer (be it mother, father, adoptive parents for kids under 6, grandparents etc). Then one year leave on top of that where they must hold your position for if you wish to come back. To clarify, it is a percentage of your pay (70 % ?) Not your full pay. Are some of you taking time off and not getting financial support for it?
If you qualify in the us you get 12 weeks
In Canada, parents get 18 months. The first 8 weeks ( maybe 12 ) are specifically for the mother, but beyond that, patents can't choose to split the rest however they want.
The mother gets 15 weeks.
Parents can choose to either split an additional 35 weeks or 61 weeks between them, at different pay rates depending on which option they choose. The total dollar amount is basically the same regardless of which you choose.
Ahh, thank you. I couldn't remember the details and didn't want to look it up.
In (most of) Canada we now get 18 months. Most of which is sharable with dad
14 weeks, bro
That is rough, bro.
In Canada you can have up to 1 year and 6 months.
That is great but how is it paid for? Does the government reinburse you your salary for 6 months, or does your company? If the latter, how the heck do they afford to pay an employee for 6 months with no work?
I totally agree with paid maternity and paternity leave, I just don't understand how it works. Especially if working for a small business.
Many I know get almost a year by also using vacation and A-kasse. Denmark too.
That's crazy.
I worked at a job recently, and if I was never late or sick for 1 year I got 1 day of paid time off.
Of course I never got that one day of paid time off. I ended up late for work because of traffic. So I was stuck working Monday-Saturday for 8 hours a day until I quit.
Is Denmark taking applicants?
You are welcome here
In America, if you're not working you're therefor not profitable and fired.
Isn't it actually 12 months? Where you can split half/half with your partner if you are the father of the child?
Yeah, but you guys have the highest cancer rate in the world.
What the fuck? How does the company justify keeping a useless worker on their payroll for that long? Sounds like a great way to lose money.
Seriously. In most of the country they can and will just fire a woman for having a baby.
not 'just' they have to come up with an excuse other than that.
In many states they don't have to give an excuse at all.
True. I think most states at at-will now. But if you announce that you're pregnant then get fired 'for no reason' afterwards you're opening your company up to the lawsuit anyway. If there isn't documentation from before showing that you're a poor worker or that you were in line to be fired anyway the court is likely to take your side.
If you work at a company with less than 50 employees on site, then you can (and probably will) be fired for getting pregnant, it's totally legal. Small businesses have few restrictions like that, and the employee has no legal remedy.
It is 50 for many things, like COBRA, but it is only 15 for pregnancy.
See The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
You're right, thank you for the correction, it is 15.
And some states have even lower thresholds or none at all.
As a European, to me this reads like something out of a dystopian novel.
You guys are crazy.
In the US pregnancy is covered under two acts. The first is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Under this if they fire you 'for' being pregnant, then they are in violation of the law. It basically covers you the same as anyone else with a disability and kinda puts you in a protected class. Again nothing stopping them from firing you for unrelated reasons but it can not legally be done because you are pregnant.
The 50 employees or more thing is for the second one, Family Leave and Medical Act - requiring them to offer unpaid leave.
[deleted]
A company I worked for a while back had a large layoff and 30% of the company was let go. Afterwards we noticed that all of the pregnant woman were included in that group...there were like six. Maybe it was a coincidence...but it seemed odd to us that not one was kept on.
I was a bit wrong, it's actually only 15 employees. But if you work at a place with less than 15 employees on site, they are exempt from the PDA and can (and do, in my experience) fire all pregnant women (although usually there is some encouragement to re-apply after six months or so).
[deleted]
Well, most women in the US take less than 12 unpaid weeks. I think the average is 7 weeks. Considering how expensive onboarding and turnover are, in a lot of cases, it's actually much cheaper and more efficient to let someone take a few weeks unpaid leave than it is to replace them, train the replacement, and wait for the replacement to get up to speed. And because raises now are usually only available when switching jobs, a new hire will almost certainly want a higher wage than the person who has been there for five years and has never gotten a raise. I explained a bit down thread how my mom's small business handled this issue.
[deleted]
In Canada at least the problem is simply resolved by having Mat Leave jobs - these are jobs with set timescales where both parties understand that when the pregnant woman comes back that contract is finished. Works pretty well. Also, the 16 months refers to how long a woman can be away from a job and be guaranteed to still have it when she comes back. Benefits last a lot less than that and after the first 3 months or so they slowly reduce each month. Most women don't take 16 months. A cool addendum to this is that this time can be shared with the partner, so the mother can take 8 months, then the father the other 8 if they like.
We're not talking about other countries, we're talking about the US, where women take an average of seven weeks. It astounds me how many people gleefully advocate shutting women out of small businesses. I have lots of pregnant/new mom friends and I don't know anyone who asked for more than 10 weeks. It takes 3-4 months to get a great employee up to speed.
Other countries have systems in place to control for this situation, small businesses neither shutter when women get pregnant nor refuse to hire women outright.
[deleted]
By "gleefully advocating shutting women out of small businesses" I'm referring to the people (like many on here) who vehemently defend firing women for getting pregnant as being pro-business, and those who defend not hiring women of childbearing age (2/3 of working women) to mitigate the risk of having to fire them later. I personally know a small business owner who openly advocates never hiring women for this reason, and it's a sentiment I hear a lot down here (the deep south); my boss has mentioned being "uncomfortable" with my "situation" (being a 27 year old woman) a few times, in addition to being open about not believing that mothers should work.
This sounds bad on the surface, but if you are one of 14 employees and five or six women get pregnant at the same time, but the company must continue to pay them even though they're not they're providing their labor and services, they could sink the whole company and all 15 of you lose your job. That maternity leave money doesn't just fall from the sky. A larger company is more able to absorb that cost into their overhead.
Federally yes. Many states have similar or even more protective statutes as well. I think 44 or so states have state statutes prohibiting pregnancy discriminaiton.
Those discrimination protection laws may as well not exist because there's nothing at all from stopping the employer from saying "we are no longer in need of your services" and not giving a reason. The only way a company can be held accountable for discriminatory hiring practices is if a group of people can prove a record of systemic discrimination. And that's practically impossible to prove in a court of law.
in my country you have to pay out 6 months of pay for every 5 years worked at that company, if they want to fire you.
Fun fact: if you (individually) regularly work on products / services across state lines (package things for out of state, prepare documents for out of state, etc), you're still covered unser the FLA even at a smaller company.
Of course, as with almost all labor rights, good luck getting that to help in practice.
[deleted]
I agree with you to a certain extent, but it's unfortunate that in practice this equates to most small businesses refusing to hire women of childbearing age (also legal at that small size). Other countries manage such issues flawlessly, it is a bit strange that in the US there's such a huge swath of people gleefully advocating for shutting 2/3 of women out of so many jobs.
Like I said, it's only good in a system with no government funded leave. I'd prefer a system with government funded leave.
Yes, of course. I hope I didn't sound like I wasn't seeing your stance. I've seen this several times, and it's always kind of depressing to hear people say "it's totally fair to shut women out of employment" when there are so many options even for small businesses.
My mom owned a small business and when her single staff member had a baby, they planned ahead for 3-4 weeks of the employee being fully out of the office, and then worked with her to have a good 1/2 office 1/2 work from home situation for a few months. It worked great for both of them, because the employee was a treasured part of the business, and turnover is ridiculously expensive. If my mom had just replaced her, it would have taken twice as long for the new person to get up to speed as the staff member was out of the office.
Conversely, my one of my boyfriend's close buddies owns a thriving small business that just refuses to hire any women of any age because "they might get pregnant", and is very defensive about how it's "a public service to encourage moms to bond with their babies".
There is so much speculation in that statement. You are assuming that companies wouldn't hire women.. when in reality they would just not pay them for the time that they need off.. You are turning a small thing that sucks into a huge ordeal that is pure speculation. You also say that other countries pull this off flawlessly? How would you know that? How would you know the struggles of every small business in every other country that offers mandatory paid maternity leave? Also how can you speak to know how huge swaths of people feel about shutting out 2/3 of women from getting jobs? when the figure isn't even true or accurate? Are 2/3 of women in USA unemployed? No. You can't honestly believe that people are "gleeful" about women not being able to be hired because they are of "childbearing age?" This is why liberalism and feminism in America are failing.
Maternity leave is already unpaid in the US. 2/3 of working women are under 50/of childbearing age, so just because you don't give a fuck that we're the only country without paid maternity leave doesn't mean that it's a "small issue" for 2/3 of half the population, it just means you don't give a fuck. Most women do eventually have children, and "leave the workforce when you get pregnant or don't reproduce" isn't exactly a great message to be sending society.
I can send you some info on how the rest of the world deals with maternity leave if you don't care enough to google it yourself.
My wife was paid on her maternity leave with both children, in the US. Just because the government doesn't demand it, or pay for it, doesn't mean a lot of employers don't offer it. You are either lying or ignorant when you say that no one in the US gets paid parental leave.
It's great that your wife is wealthy, but if you're not a mid-level professional, it doesn't exist. If you're a waitress, work for a non-profit, or have another job that nets less than the median income, your company isn't going to pay your maternity leave.
Even if you ARE a mid-level professional, lots of companies are just not ok with leave. I'm a college educated professional making around the median income, and my employer routinely no longer needs the services of women who apply for FMLA.
You're also a dumbass lying to prove a dumbass point.. an employer cannot fire someone for applying for FMLA.. that is the easiest lawsuit in the world and the woman will win that every time.. please "professional," let me know the name of your employer, whom "routinely" fires women that apply for FMLA. I will pay for the lawyers for all of those women.
Companies under a certain size are ALWAYS excepted from following regulations like that.
Look at it from the small business' perspective. Here's a person who's perfectly suited for the job, and since there's no redundancy in the office, nobody else can do their job.
What's this? They'll be unable to work for three months? Well, time to start taking resumes for someone who'll be able to show up and do the work instead.
In America, a job isn't a welfare program, it's someone being hired by the boss to help the boss make more money than the staff member costs the company. I hire you for $20/hr to help me make $100/hr. If suddenly, you can't help me make at least $20/hr, there's no reason to keep you aboard.
So women must choose a career or a child? They should not be able to do both, even though its self evidently better for a family and better for the economy in general? Seems terribly short sighted.
No, but it shouldn't really be the company's burden to bear.
Short sightedness is the American way...
I didn't say anything about "should," but let's consider that part of the issue.
Adding a person to your family is a major expenditure of time and money. Making a new family member is a major expenditure of effort and a strain on health. It's not like a flu; it doesn't just happen on its own. There are many choices that lead up to, "I will keep this child and name her Jennifer."
The expense of just bringing a viable baby to term is more significant than a two-week family road trip from Florida to Washington DC and back; the level of planning needs to be at least that involved, including making sure your employer has a plan for your absence, and making sure you'll have a job when you get back.
Society didn't come up with the idea of housewives out of whole cloth; it used to be the primary method of making sure pregnant women had support from conception of their child until it turned 18 and moved away or got a job. Now, the situation is much more complex, especially when the freedoms of the pregnant mother and the employer are in a clash.
[deleted]
Which is why in the UK the government provides maternity/paternity pay, although it is common for companies to offer an increased rate in its place.
You're getting downvoted to oblivion, but what you say does make rational sense in a cold harsh capitalist system that gives no fucks about people as individuals.
I'm thinking government subsidized family leave may be the way to go to lessen the financial burden on small businesses, and make hiring child-bearing women less of a risk.
a cold harsh capitalist system that gives no fucks about people as individuals
Thank you. Ironically, it's because it gives a ton of fucks about the rights of individuals that it gives no fucks about their needs. Nobody has the right to take something you've earned lawfully and say, "you can't have that, someone else needs it." Third-person theft is still theft.
But, just as there are charities for the homeless, the poor, and the broken, an employer is always free to give up some of their profits to keep an absent employee on staff or even on paid leave. And since there isn't a magic wealth number where kind-hearted entrepreneurs become bloodthirsty corporate hacks, you'll find such companies salted throughout the marketplace at every size.
Businesses that are profitable enough to give paid maternity leave without being forced to are either competitively efficient or lack similarly efficient competitors. If those extra profits are taken by taxation to pay maternity leave for staff of other companies not efficient or noble enough to pay leave for their own staff, they may end their own paid leave program. Their own staff must then rely on public assistance. The result is, once again, third-person theft, where the Sheriff of Nottingham tries to beat Robin Hood at his own game.
I'm in favor of a tax system where poor and rich alike get the exact same dollar amount refunded on their taxes. Obviously, such a refund would mean far more to the poor than the rich. It would eliminate tax loopholes and political favorites, and it would end the fear of the tax man through simple transparency. It would be detente in the class war, and a starting point for discussions about systemic fixes, public or private.
At-will means you can't give any reason to fire, but you can comfortably give no reason. A pregnant woman can absolutely be fired in an at-will state and there's nothing to be done, so long as the employer gives no reason.
Every state but Montana.
My girlfriend is American. This is one of the reasons I will never live there. It's frustrating enough feeling dependent on your job to pay your mortgage, etc.. It would stress me out knowing that I could be fired at any moment without a reason.
I didn’t like her shoes so I fired her.
That's why you keep documentation on every employee showing they're a poor worker, right from the get go. Then when you fire someone for a shitty reason, you're covered.
At-Will Employment. It's utter bullshit.
They can't explicitly fire you for certain reasons, like age or disability. But they can fire you because your shirt's red and your boss doesn't like red that day.
Right to work! The most misleading, anti-worker legislation there is. Such bullshit.
How do they get around FMLA?
They can't, but FMLA is not the same as paid leave - it's more of a last resort. It means you use any vacation/sick time first, then the rest of it is unpaid. Tremendous blow to household income.
Right, I understand and agree with that.
But the comment chain was about women just getting fired for having a baby and the comment I replied mentioned no excuse was even needed. That is not how I understand FMLA to work. No doubt women lose their jobs just from having a baby. And that is definitely wrong. But I don’t think it’s quite as common as the impression being given and when it does happen there needs to be some excuse given for why that person was fired. Often it will require a decent amount of documentation leading up the the firing too.
"At will employment" at your service. "We're downsizing that department." "We're taking the position in a different direction." "Performance issues." Any of these could be given as reasons when the real one was "she got pregnant." It'd be hell to prove it was a problem in court, so the issues stay.
EDIT: to clarify, no, you can't easily fire someone while they are actively out taking FMLA. It would be pretty easy to fire someone who had declared they were pregnant, but had not yet filed to take time off or FMLA.
Eh. Without documentation any half worthwhile lawyer should be able to tear those excuses up.
Does the company have record of ongoing performance issues such as documented write ups or corrections, poor performance evals? Sure. Easy enough to fire for that and hard to challenge. Does the company’s records show nothing but sterling performance and then all of a sudden there are performance issues coincidentally right around the pregnancy? Enjoy that check. Most companies would settle before they fought that.
Now, some months later? Sure. Although it’s likely if they were still wanting to fire her months after returning then there legitimately was some issues beyond her having had a child. Fired when she gives them notice of her pregnancy or while out on FMLA? I have a hard time with that one. Only thing I can think is maybe some small tyrant run business and the woman just took the illegal firing without seeking counsel.
Hell, my wife had an employee that was absolute shit at her job. After months of documented coaching and counseling they put her on a PIP and she was well on her way to getting let go.
“Lol pregnant”
And she stayed employed. And continued to be employed for months after returning because they had to show documentation after the pregnancy of her continued poor performance.
Maybe I am wrong, I certainly am not a lawyer. But at will doesn’t really work quite as easily for businesses as it’s made out to on Reddit. Especially for minorities, women, or older folks. Anyone that EOC would support (so not younger white males).
Lawyers cost money. If you've just been fired, that's not something you have in excess.
But you do raise some good points - and that's why most larger businesses insist on heavy HR documentation for all employee performance issues.
FYI, plaintiffs attorneys in these situations usually work off of commission (a share of the winnings), so usually not that hard to get an attorney in the scenario described above. (Any plaintiffs attorney would jump at a case as described, easy money.)
You might not be able to fire them, but you can lay somebody off who is on FMLA. My previous employer did that to somebody who was on maternity leave. It was scummy and sketchy as hell, but legally allowed because it was part of a larger layoff.
to be fair though the overwhelming majority of Americans make significantly more than their counterparts in other countries would and the cost of living is generally much lower in most of the country than elsewhere in the world. So, theoretically they should be able to afford to take unpaid leave.
You'd think so, wouldn't you - but remember all the things we DON'T have that a lot of people take for granted.
My inhaler costs $69 (USD) in New Zealand - here, it's almost $400. Certain conditions are more expensive than others, but for people with HIV or diabetes (chronic conditions), medication can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars a month, even with insurance.
We don't have good public transit in most places, so everyone drives everywhere - two car families are common (with all their maintenance/insurance/registration). (Sidenote: I live in a state where we bicker over the cost and how to maintain our roads, so we kind of...don't. I didn't have to do expensive maintenance/ replacement related to driving on shitty roads near as often when I lived in different states.)
Our lack of worker protections means there's very much a cloud of uncertainty over most workers, most of the time. Even if a family thinks they'll be OK relying on just the husband's income for a while, the husband might lose his job at the drop of a hat, too.
Our tremendous debt! We have many laws against predatory lending that have only taught the politicians and loan sharks to be craftier. There's a lot of shady stuff that is 100% legal here, such as "payday loans," which target the poor, have huge interest rates, and can keep them in a cycle of debt and poverty forever. Also, as alluded to above, it's super expensive to get sick here, even if you do have insurance (woe to those who do not). So medical debt, sometimes the thousands of dollars per year, weighs on many people, as well.
I'm curious what kind of inhaler costs $400? The most expensive one I know of is Advair and that's only like $250.
ONLY like $250. Maybe you're operating at a higher income level than me, but I think that's nothing to sneeze at.
Here's mine:
https://imgur.com/a/5iPGDQ4
Well when you compare it to paying $20-$25k in taxes towards healthcare (which is what plans like Bernie's would have resulted in us paying) it's not a very large amount of money.
Did you read anything that people from around the world posted about what they do not understand about the US? Like that fact that we pay so much for so little...getting less care than about any other country in the world. Who cares if it's Bernie's plan or something else? Other countries do this whole "pursuit of happiness" and "not dying of preventable/treatable stuff" so much better than us. We could really do better here in the US of A than we do.
I never said we couldn't, but there are a number of factors that play into the higher cost of healthcare in the US. The biggest one is that a lot of those countries pay their healthcare employees extremely low wages. For example a new grad RN (which is a 2 or 4 year college degree) makes less than what would be minimum wage in a lot of US cities (they make about $13/hr). Since labor makes up more than 50% of healthcare costs and RN's are by far the most plentiful healthcare employee you realize that a majority of the increased healthcare costs in the US are due to the fact that our RN's make 2-3x what they make in the UK.
Yet, those RNs don't have to spend the next 20 yes of their lives paying off debt. And they don't have to spend a huge percentage of their wages on premiums and out of pocket costs if they do need to go to the doctor. I haven't fact checked your wage statement, and I'm about to head to bed, but nonetheless, read what the international community of saying about us. It's kind of eye opening when you hear from so many people that don't spend their lives steeped in US corporate / political propaganda.
My wife and I both have nursing degrees and the total cost of our nursing bachelors was less than $30k each. If it takes you 20 years to pay off $30k when you start at $65k then you're an idiot.
We make roughly $40k more than our UK counterparts so even if we maxed out our annual out of pocket max AND considered the cost of our education each of us could afford to pay both every year and we would still make more than our UK counterparts.
Just google "average wage of a US RN (it's about $65k) then google the UK RN pay scale. New RN's start at around $27k and after a few years of experience they end up at around $35-40k. My wife and I both started at $70k and my wife is now over $80k with 4 years of experience.
One more thing; the cost of a Nursing degree in the UK is actually higher than it is at most state schools in the US.
Times change, and the cost of college has risen. Most people pay considerably more than $30K for a Bachelor's degree these days.
If you have a combined income north of $150K, you are probably not in the same boat as a lot of the people facing high premium / high deductible plans. Healthcare can still get crazy if you get in a bad car accident or have a complicated birth or something, but you probably wouldn't have to spend months paying off a single ER visit (or get sent to collections if life went sideways) - and yes, that happens frequently to lots of people with lousy insurance and/or low/medium wages.
Cost of schooling isn't exactly 1:1 US vs UK (or other countries), but it does appear to be more than some places in the US, and less than others. This article from the BBC (from 2 yrs ago) gives some comparative examples.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35745324
Normal albuterol can be 50-75, airduo is about $100, flovent is $250ish, sybicort is $345 advair and serevent are $400 without insurance. And advair and serevent are 2x a day and have 60 doses/30 days for each pack. So that's 400 a month, and symbicort is 4x a day, 120 doses for that 345 you shelled out. For a month of meds for a condition that can EASILY kill, especially children.
Reasons why I will NEVER be against universal health care. No child should be terrified of dying because their meds are expensive and some asshat could set off an attack with perfume, a cigarette, bad car exhaust, getting sick or pollen they come into contact by just playing with their friends and trying to be a normal fucking kid.
All prices pulled from goodrx.
This is illegal under the FMLA (for most workers). They need another excuse.
Yes, but you can't say its because she's having a baby though. The system works.
"Drastic decline in performance metrics regarding their attendance in the office."
Yeah but if the excuse IS pregnancy they can easily get sued. So they either don’t give a reason, or find a different reason.
“Right to work” states. Looking at you, Arizona.
That's not true, according to federal law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_States
The excuse can be something as stupid as "didn't throw away their coffee cup right away" or "missed a project by one day (if it was possible to get the project done on time not being a thing that matters)" though.
No one's arguing with that. It's been said several times by both myself and others that they can be fired for any reason but that it can't be because of the pregnancy.
Ya, I posted this before I read the rest of the comment chain. Sorry about that.
That's not difficult.
"She uh...didn't fit in with the corporate culture here. Yeah. That's it!"
Not in an At Will state. I mean sure they can’t outright say “you’re fired for being pregnant.” But it’s so hard to prove that they fired you for being pregnant that it’s easier to just draw unemployment and look for something else.
Hey, that's a nice purple shirt! Unfortunately today is no-purple-shirts day. Sorry. Clear out your desk.
Not with at will employment
Even with at will employment. Read the rest of the comments there. You CAN'T be fired just for being pregnant. They have to at least come up with an alternative excuse.
In many states it’s at will employment. As long as you can’t prove they’re firing you - or even underpaying you or mistreating you or guilting you into working for more than your pay demands - because you’re a pregnant woman then they can get away with it.
When my wife got pregnant, she was working at Petsmart. Her store manager told her that the moment she started taking time off for anything, she was going to be unemployed. The only reason she kept her job is b/c the district manager knew her from when she worked at Petco and brought her over after she left there. He made a call and kept the asshole at bay until after my son was born, then got her transferred to another location.
It’s nice that you think that but plenty of companies do it anyways. Head over to the BabyBumps sub trust me it happens enough to be a problem.
Your position has been eliminated. Don't look at the position that is the same as your position but with a different name.
No they do not
Read up on Right to Work states. They can literally fire you for anything.
Source: I live in one (Tennessee)
Not true. They can fire you for anything that isn't protected. They can't fire you for being gay, for being a woman, OR for being pregnant. There are probably 2 dozen comments in this same chain already explaining that fact. They can fire you for 'no reason' but they can't fire you for 'being pregnant'.
Not true.
They can, but firing a pregnant woman would look so so so so so so so bad. Every company I've ever worked for has absolutely bent over backwards for pregnant women to avoid that minefield.
Yeah, no.
Besides it being a protected class federally, most states (I think something like 44) have parallel state level protections.
Even in at at-will state, firing a pregnant lady, even if they give no reason or a different reason is incredibly dangerous for the company, especially if they have no or very little documentation of performance issues.
Pregnancy discrimination is generally the easiest form of employment discrimination to prove.
Our employment practices could stand to be improved quite a bit, but they aren't nearly as bad as people like to make them out to be. There are significantly more protections in most states than people seem to think there are.
From what I’ve seen at past employers and personal experience (my wife), those protections are pretty thin.
In my wife’s case, she informed her boss (at a major publishing firm) that she was pregnant. By the time she made it back to her office the “we’ve decided to take your role in another direction “ email was waiting.
We spoke to an employment lawyer who advised us that those sorts of cases are generally not worth pursuing because:
A they are likely to be lengthy cases, with significant legal costs and an uncertain outcome B in (the lawyer’s) experience judges tend to side with companies in the absence of clear proof (such as a damning email) C to even attempt the case my wife would have had to forfeit her severance, which comes with an ‘I am happy and won’t sue you ‘ clause
The state was New Jersey, but I’ve seen similar shitty treatment in a couple states over the years.
I mean, it might be dangerous of the pregnant lady in question has the knowledge and resources to bring a suit against them, but what if she doesn't?
No one hates Americans like other Americans.
That's not true at all... It's actually illegal to do that
surely no one would ever do something illegal :o
Do you think that people do illegal things only in the US?
And employers NEVER do illegal things like changing people's hours to avoid paying overtime, illegal deductions for damaged/stolen items or discriminate with hiring in the first place.
The employer may SAY they fired the employee for another reason if they're not an idiot but too many places scramble to find ANY reason to get rid of pregnant women and new mothers.
The discussion was about what's legal. Of course people do illegal things in every country in the world.
And that argument is meaningless. Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And by making that argument it's belittling the problem by saying "oh, it's illegal, so it shouldn't be happening".
Of course people do illegal things in every country in the world.
That completely ignores the fact that this is a very American problem that cripples the ability of working mothers to stay in and thrive in the workplace and deters many from re-entering the workforce at all.
Someone said a company can do something that they can't actually legally do.
It's that simple.
You want to say that people do illegal things, then go for it. But I don't see why you'd have to be sarcastic and snide about it, when the guy above you was just pointing out the law.
No part of what I said was sarcastic or snide.
And it being illegal doesnt stop them from doing it. It just means there's consequences if they get caught.
Sure. Did you know that in the US, if you don't like someone, you can just go up to them and gouge out their eyes with a potato peeler?
> No part of what I said was sarcastic or snide.
"And employers NEVER do illegal things"
Ok, man.
Valid. Thought you were referring to the comment immediately before the comment about sarcasm.
Women (and specifically pregnant women) are a protected class. Even if it’s at-will they can’t fire someone for pregnancy. Even with a bullshit excuse that’s a lawsuit ready to happen and you’ll have no problem finding a lawyer who will gladly take it.
That's what "at will" is a about tho. You can fire someone at any time for any reason. Of course they don't write down "because she had a baby." Also, we are not talking about pregnant women - there's not much they can do about it when she's out on leave. But when she has that baby and keeps coming in late, or having to call out cause the baby is sick, or needing long breaks to take the baby to the doctor, then they can be fired like anyone else. And they certainly will.
All of those cases are separate from what was being discussed though, it was being claimed you’ll be fired for being pregnant.
And yes, they don’t write down “because she had a baby” but if someone, with no history performance issues, gets fired when they get pregnant/have a baby, even if they come up with a bullshit excuse, is looking at a lawsuit. You’ll find a lawyer no problem to take the case.
> You can fire someone at any time for any reason.
This is not true. And that's why...
> Of course they don't write down "because she had a baby."
So they lie and cheat because they're breaking the law? That's a far cry from saying that there's no law.
I mean, I’m pretty sure they can’t actually fire you for having a baby. But in my experience at least, once a woman has a baby, companies do tend to start noticing a lot of “drops in productivity” from them.
This is a blatant lie.
This is demonstrably untrue.
I mean, I understand. It makes them more likely to need to unpredictably take days off for the next 18 years in addition to the 8-12 weeks leave that they might take after delivery.
Or avoid hiring then in the first place.
This comment is utter bullshit and there is no actual evidence to back up your claim.
This is bullshit.
pregnant women are a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
I have worked white collar in Japan for 5 years.
My first contract was 9 paid off days per year not including national holidays, of which there are few. Five are decided by the company, 4 are decided by me. The ones decided by me are expected to be on golden week, where you take 2 days off to connect national holidays in order to get a week off.
Those paid days include everything from sick days to anything with your kids. Essentially you get golden week amd one more week of your choice, 2 weeks per year total, and you keep the 2 extra days for emergenecies and if you get sick.
Naturally only having 2 effective sick days per year means people are working sick year round, getting others sick. Moreso, the Japanese workday is typically 9 hours, not 8, not including 1 hour break time, so expect your day with commute to be 12 hours daily.
The thing is, it's like this everywhere and I don't think anyone does more than 6 hours of work throughout the day, unless you work in a gruelling industry.
Each year it goes up 1 day. I now have 14 paid days, but you're looked down upon for taking them. Each year I schedule a 2 week vacation (previous years my boss was nice enough to allow me to take unpaid days) and everyone in the office asks me how I was went when I got back and expects "omiyage" (basically trinkets or usually food from where you visit) when you get back.
Despite all this, I find it better than working in the US, because I get paid alright, have all the (other) benefits you'd expect of a 1st world country, and my co-workers are there to actually help and not try to get me fired.
The trade-offs are so clear as day.
We're basically just a third world country and a first world country sharing the same geographic space.
Wow, this statement makes so much sense in such a sad way...
I was thinking about "Human development index" as a reasonable way to compare nations.
But, the disparity of the various social campaigns of the last 10 years got me thinking there has got to be a more to it. Of course, this kind of thing is not my specialty, and people have already thought about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI
I'm not making as much money as I would like for my position, but I have unlimited* paid sick days and OT (I'm salary so after 45hr) is converted to paid vacation time on top of my 2 weeks already...I could leave and earn more, but then lose all the freedom.
Here in Aus we get 4 weeks annual leave or more plus 3 months full time maternity/paternity leave plus some other stuff for lower income earners.... And I still think it should be more.
Here's what you get for your average response if you suggest anything near that:
"Why is it the businesses responsibility to cover YOUR time off? Have all the unpaid time off you want but why should the company be required to pay you while you sit at home. Maternity leave? It wasn't the companies decision to knock you up, why should we pay for it? You should be responsible and plan ahead. And paternity leave? That's hilarious. You're a man, not a stay at home dad. Feel free to take all the time off but don't expect to be paid for it or a job when you come back."
That's the general mindset we get to work with. So finding an employer that offers time off, especially over 2 weeks per year, is amazing.
I just looked up the Aus and US birth rates... their 1.83 and 1.84 respectively. So not even at replacement levels.
Usually good parenting entitlements / gov support programs are hand in hand with the lower birth rates so I find it is odd that it's so difficult for American families. Eventually there will have to be a change because it's hard to have family values if you can't even replace yourselves without immigration.
Re the business argument you do now have laws against unfair dismissal of pregnant women and I'm sure some companies would have good parenting policies in place as part of being an employer of choice.
I guess it's acceptable for employers to pay for holiday leave as an entitlement but it's not their choice for YOU to go to the Bahamas. Why should they pay you for that? It is shitty though how the company seems to be more valuable than people. I do hope it changes because if it doesn't then America will need to get more comfortable with immigration!
In relation to the holiday, it's considered part of the work package. Both sides know that you're employed to make the company money. If they didn't make more than they're spending on you, they wouldn't exist. So when it comes to your contract, you have to look at things beyond just what you're being paid, and so does the company; annual leave is considered in most other countries to be an important aspect of maintaining a healthy workforce, which is important for all sides. So it's government mandated at a minimum amount, paid, to prevent it being used as a way to not let people be prevented from that health benefit by their inability to afford not being paid for a week.
Same goes for maternity; you want healthy kids and a healthy future, give them time to get sorted when they're young, give mothers time to recover so they're healthy enough to have MORE kids, and so on.
It's the benefit of actually having unions in countries that didn't demonise the organisation of the working class for their own representation.
It's always amazed me that a country that prides itself on being so free and democratic has failed so horrendously to utilise collective bargaining in other areas of life outside of politics. Like healthcare and employment.
Is 2 weeks of paid vacation (per year, i guess?) below average, average or above average?
For most professional salary jobs, two weeks is standard if you get vacation. Some may do 1 week for the first year or some other "probationary" period.
Hell, unpaid leave is barely a thing.
It's no wonder that you're all snapping and killing each other with automatic rifles.
[deleted]
You can make it automatic no problem with a little ingenuity!
If i didn't have 4 weeks away from my co-workers a year, i'd be snapping necks too.
I'm sure all those teen and twenty-something men are mad about maternity leave policy.
Did I say that the shootings were the result of maternity leave policy?
I mean, maybe if their moms had spent more time with them as babies (courtesy of paid leave), they would be more well-adjusted? Or maybe the older ones lost it without adequate vacation time?
Mostly /s.
Yeah, I'll get 12 weeks unpaid (FMLA) if I have a baby, and I'm goddam lucky compared to a lot of American women. So assuming you are able to work until the day you give birth (spoiler: not always feasible!), you'll be putting a 3-month old in daycare. Which, :( - I can't imagine leaving such a tiny baby to go back to work but I'll have to.
I did - worked Friday night and gave birth Monday morning. Got six weeks medical leave (unpaid) and went back to work. 'Murica!
I went back to work after three whole weeks of maternity leave (unpaid, of course). I needed my job, and we needed the money. I work on commission, so there's no benefits at all, let alone maternity leave.
I mean, it is but it’s usually permanent lol
honestly, "leave" is barely a thing
my first job had like 3 days of vacation a year
Sick days too, what's really sad is the amount that don't even have to worry about any of this because they can't find a job.
Ive been working since i was 16, now 30 and have taken 13 days of "vacation" in my life. All 13 were terminal leave for the military.
I had to quit a job for a dr appointment.
For anyone curious, the average full-time American worker gets two weeks paid vacation a year, and that is effectively shrinking because full-time work is diminishing. Company's do not have to pay part-time employees over minimum, or give them benefits (like a company dental plan), so the number of jobs the average American has is increasing, while the return is the same. If you ever hear someone talk about the "shrinking middle class" it is because of these problems.
2 weeks sounds high. I'm full time and get 40 hours pto a year...
I took three days off to go to Yosemite a few years ago (I live close by) and we hitchhiked when we were there. We got picked up by a couple of German people on vacation and they kept asking us to verify all the horrible things they've heard about the US are true... which they were. School is unaffordable, healthcare is unaffordable, and we had no PTO. They had something like three or four weeks paid vacation they were spending traveling around the USA. They seemed to feel pretty bad for us.
Where is this???
I’m on my second job and I have considerably less paid leave at this job than my previous and I still have 22 days of paid leave.
Literally everywhere in the US???? It’s not mandated to have paid leave or any leave.
I know someone who went back to work less than a week after giving birth. Makes me so angry for her that she had no choice but to do that.
While not a job, my mom tells me that she went to class on a Wednesday, had me on a Thursday, missed Friday, and then was back in class on Monday. While my mother is a...weird...individual, I think situations like that are a good example of the attitude here in the states. When people find this out, they’re a bit horrified—but mostly incredibly impressed.
Most jobs it's "We'll miss you! Reapply whenever you're willing to GO BACK TO WORK, YOU LAZY BREEDER."
Leaving is allowed, however.
even your guys paid leave is criminally low, I hear people talk about 10 days? standard in the uk is around 25 + all bank holidays (national holidays)
I don't even get paid sick leave. I had surgery last year and had to use my vacation time to get paid. I needed the paycheck because my deductible for the surgery was $6900 out of pocket.
I do not have a bad job either. My job requires a degree and experience and pays decent.
My manager popped out a baby and came back in like a month and a half.
As a male I was back 4 days after we had my son "We need you back in as soon as possible"
The morning after i had my daughter my husband's boss told him he needed to come to work and he couldn't understand why he'd need the next day off, the baby was born yesterday. We had a 4 year old. Lemme just leave him home alone since he can't stay at the hospital and come to my minimum wage plumbers "helper" job for the next 8-?? hours. They ended up giving him a total of 4 days off unpaid edit my mistake, it was 2 unpaid days bc 2 of the 4 were the weekend* and said get back to work or you're fired.
I was fired (rather than written up, which was the normal course of action for calling out at the restaurant id been working at for 4 years) for failing to get half of a shift covered, not the whole shift, just half, for personal reasons. I was 5 months pregnant. Fired, via removal from online schedule app, not a phone call, message, meeting. Nothing. It wouldn't be out of place to say i was one of the better servers we had. Half an uncovered shift, which i called in about as soon as the opening manager got in,4 hrs before open. I'm sure being pregnant had noooothing to do with it. Was almost fired for calling out when my son, at 18 months, fractured his leg too.
Tldr: don't work in the service industry.
Same with paid leave. Unless you're a police man who killed somebody without probable cause, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country
Doesn't that map just scream USA #1?!
That's how benefits really work in America. Some are drug addicts popping doctor proscribed drugs the rest jus live out lives and pay premiums year in and year out. But when you start getting old and sick you start thinking I can't afford to be sick then your employer might realize your sick and they can fire you for whatever reason, then offer you cobra insurance which means you pay for it all and costs more than unemployment...this is when people end up getting diagnosed, while uninsured, then if you get another job they insurance won't cover a preexisting condition. So you can work 20 years in a place, pay insurance., lose job, get sick and find another insured job but it doesn't cover your illness. Fucking crooks.
Unless you’re a cop and you kill a black person. Fucking America
My fiancé and I are getting married in 2019 and plan to start our family kinda right away. I haven't even had a child yet and I am all ready to demand paternal rights. It's hypocritical to claim family values and not respect maternal/paternal leave. Sometimes the idiocy makes being American hard. I think we should openly challenge the values of the politicians who oppose it.
18 months in Canada. And the health care costs for the birth are free. Love me my socialism.
If you qualify (having a baby is one of these qualifications), then under the FMLA you are allowed to take leave for 12 weeks in a period of 12 months. You must also have to have worked for the company at least a year.
Yep, I sure do wish it was. I get 4 weeks of paid vacation a year which is more than a lot of people but I wish I could just be like hey, my work is covered, can you just not pay for me a couple days?
I get the unpaid part, because whatever. But, what do mothers do?? You cannot go to work the day after giving birth, you can barely move!
And what happens with the baby?? Who is taking care of it??
My understanding of the subject was that women had to get a leave of some weeks with reduced pay, but if I understood you correctly, that is absolutely crazy.
Usually, people rely on daycare or have relatives/grandparents take care of it -- assuming there's no stay-at-home parent.
That's why the daycare industry is huge in the US.
I mean, we also use daycare in my country, but when the child is already 6 months old at least. Leaving a week old baby in daycare is gut wrenching and seriously upsetting to learn about.
Very telling that this is up voted well over 3k times
My friend from Sweden still sometimes casually mentions his "summer vacation" from work, and me and all our other friends always have to do a mental double take.
In 1996 my mom was pregnant with me and went on a relatively short leave, around 6-7 weeks, when she came back the temp had claimed her job permanently and she had been demoted. This prompted her to quit and start her own business though so I guess it worked out okay :)
You've never heard of FMLA? Medical leave is required, up to 12 weeks, for employees > 1 year that work at least 24 hours per week. Employers with < 50 employees are exempt.
Further, it covers 60% of working Americans.
Not everyone works for a large company.
"Not everyone" is your straw man. You said it's "barely a thing", yet 60% of Americans qualify for it.
https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/survey/FMLA_Survey_factsheet.pdf
True. We only just guaranteed paid sick leave for workers in New Jersey within the last month. You get 1 hour of paid leave for every 30 you work, but can't exceed 40 hours of sick leave in a year as per recently signed state law.
Exactly, employers already do their best to make sure you stay part-time, so they don't have to provide health insurance, so even unpaid maternity leave isn't mandated for many Americans. Your employer doesn't even have to provide unpaid maternity leave unless you've been at the same job for a year, the company has to have 50+ workers within a 75 mile radius, and you have to have worked 1250 hours in the last year.
It exists in certain jobs as part of specialized compensation packages (in work contracts) -- most of which are already highly-paid to begin with. The parents who can least afford to take off from work are the ones stuck with unpaid leave, and are also (by extension) the ones least likely to use all of what little they can get. There's even something of a stigma associated with taking that time off, especially for the father (if Paternal leave is available at all).
Inevitable John Oliver video on the subject.
Even worse: AFAIK, there are some people in positions of power who feel that the current system is far too generous O_O
Yeah...
We know you just had a baby, vag still leaking amniotic fluid and blood, but you'll still be here on Monday, right?
The thing though is that it's a choice.
My company does not offer any paid paternity or maternity leave. Which is crazy to me as apart from that they are a phenomenal company, they go out of their way to help employees in every way but that. One of my former coworkers talked to the CEO about it and he basically said he felt like they were doing enough for employees already and wasn't looking to discuss the topic.
Kinda sucks, got a lot of really talented young women at our company that basically just plan to leave whenever they start their family. Me and my SO don't plan to have kids so it doesn't really affect me at all, but I still think its a weird line to draw in the sand.
From the employer's perspective it's not entirely weird.
You have someone who you have to pay anywhere from 4-12 weeks worth of salary and see zero return on this payment. On top of that, they will then need to hire and train another person or reallocate job positions to accommodate for the fact that you're now out of an employee for a set period of time.
Does it suck for the employee? I'm sure it does. Does it suck for the employer? Also yes.
So, what you're saying is ethical practices suck for employers.
Ethical is a matter of perspective here. An employer has no obligation to pay someone for a job when they are not doing that job, regardless of the circumstances.
Let me understand your point of view. Parental leave, sick days, and vacation days shouldn't be an obligation since the employee isn't "doing the job."
Leaving the ethical side of treating an employee like a person aside, do you understand the bias that point of view creates when hiring?
No, I don't think it's an obligation to provide paid parental leave, sick days or vacation days.
Those are perks that an employee should negotiate with an employer as part of their employment agreement. Employers offer these perks to secure important employees from their competitors. Most employers increase paid vacation day accrual based on time spent with the company as rewards for being a loyal employee as well.
I'm not sure where you assume that an employer not paying for time off means that the employer is no longer "treating the employee like a person."
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
It's literally a human right. I'm not sure how you can't see the ethical issue with your argument.
The US is the only developed country that has no mandated paid vacation, which is pretty much why it's being discussed in this topic along with student debt and bankruptcy due to medical bills. It's fucked up and only Americans can somehow justify it.
From reading this, it sounds like the periodic holidays are with pay and not the rest and leisure part. I may be reading it wrong, but that's what I'm gathering. I still don't agree however I could see how it could be justified due to messing with the average work week but I digress.
We just have fundamental differences it seems. I don't think a business is your caretaker and has no obligation to pay you for anything if you're not doing your job. You can take a sick day however it doesn't mean the employer should be required to pay you for your day off. You can take a vacation, however it doesn't mean the employer should have to pay you to be not at work. Same goes for every other instance.
We can justify it because freedom is a two way street. You are free to work with employers who offer vacation packages while employers are free to offer jobs without them. It's always a mutual agreement and having the government force these types of things I don't think is ethical.
You think it's "fucked up" that we have no mandated paid vacation. I think it's equally "fucked up" that you would force someone who owns a business to pay for people to take days off if you don't want it.
UN's "Universal Human Rights" pamphlet doesn't prove anything. They're just guidelines that they want other nations to follow, however some seem contradictory, incomplete or incompatible with many nation's already existing laws.
Even worse: AFAIK, there are some people in positions of power who feel that the current system is far too generous O_O
"You should be so grateful to have a job you should pay US!"
It can create a bias against hiring married women or women in general. As a business owner we want to be as generous as possible with parental leave for both genders, but the bottom line is that if I'm giving 2-3 months of paid leave that's 3 months of salary that is a loss for my company.
Now I'm willing to pay that out because I think it's the right thing to do, and because I think it is good for the country and the world for people to have kids and lots of them. Also because I like my employees and I don't want to lose them.
Furthermore, if I have a handful of my employees who all get pregnant around the same time, I could get stuck with paying for a full staff with a fraction of the workforce. It's a hard balance to strike that only big corporations with tons of money can really afford, and even then what they are paying for is for the PR that they are a conscientious progressive company. For a small or medium sized company it's a bigger risk to offer such generous parental leave, even when we want to.
All in all this can create a bias against hiring people who want to start families, which I don't think is good for society. It's a tough nut to crack.
You know it wouldn’t create a bias against hiring women if society EXPECTED men to stay with the newborn as much as the mother is expected, and I for one am all for letting taxes pay for some of the leave if it means being able to watch over and care for a new generation. America needs to change how our tax dollars are spent anyways.
I'm not sure that extending paternal leave is all there is to solve this. In this case, the bias would be only for young, unmarried professionals, making an age/marital status more desirable than the rest of them.
Well biologically speaking women physically need to recover from giving birth; have to breastfeed if they so choose; and in generally have a different biological and instinctual need to be physically with the child. A father also needs to be present, especially during mom's physical recovery, but ultimately the expectation of the mother being present in those first few weeks is more prevalent than that of a father for a reason.
This isn't to say that a Father isn't otherwise crucial for the child, or that he shouldn't have the right to take paternity leave; but to say that there should be equal expectation for both as if their situation were exactly the same would be absurd.
Personally I want to be able to afford to give both male and female employers the same amount of parental leave, but we will have to cross that bridge when we get there. Again it is a matter of whether we can afford it.
Do you think it is not necessary for mothers to be as close to their newborns as they are now, or that it can be substituted with a father and a baby bottle?
Well that’s not at all what I said
This is so true. In China women have 98-128 days of paid maternity leave (partly paid out of social security, partly paid by employer), and you can't fire them except under extreme and rare circumstances for the duration of pregnancy and nursing period (1 year after birth). It created a huge bias against married women, especially business owners don't want to be straddled with a slacking employee for 22 months and can't fire them at all
that salary is generally provided by the government (businesses might pay into a maternal leave insurance fund or the like as well, but that would be something you'd be doing for all employees, not just women).
There's still a cost involved to the business for arranging cover during that time (not sure if a subsidy is provided or not) but I think over the long term it works out better for all parties.
The person being brought in to cover for the person caring for their newborn is supposed to be someone gaining experience. This is what interns and the like we're created for. After gaining that experience they are free to begin their own bussinesses. Since there is supposed to be a need for more now since there is more people.
But then greed happened
I've done mat leave cover before myself, and normally it's people who work through temping agencies who are looking for a permanent job. Sometimes companies will hire mat leave cover themselves via direct job adverts.
Mat leave positions are great if you're down on your luck because not so many people apply for them, and they're the 'foot in the door' - if you work for a company for 6+ months they get to know you, they enjoy working with you, and when they have a full-time position come up they'll ask you first. The vast majority of people I know who were doing mat leave cover ended up employed full-time at the company where they were working.
Not in Los Angeles which is where my business is based. If my employees were to get pregnant I would pay them out of the business.
Well, yeah, but that's why all the non-Americans are saying your system over there is broken.
More babies = good for society = something the government should provide assistance with. Someone else's kid is gonna be policing the streets and wiping your ass when you're old, y'know? We all need each other to function and live well.
Obviously a small business can't be responsible for the families of all of their employees - that's an unreasonable burden for any business to bear. That's why in other countries it's set up so you can work together - businesses have to deal with the costs involved in covering that position for a while, but these aren't cripplingly expensive and at the end of it they get the return of one experienced and valuable employee and a new trained staff member who generally goes straight to the top of their hiring list when a position opens (cutting future recruitment costs). Govt covers most of the direct payments to the employee for mat leave and gets an extra body. Employees have to spend time training a replacement but are able to spend time with their families and feel much more satisfied and less stressed when they return to work (and happy worker = productive worker).
Over the long-term it works out much better than just 'come back as quickly as possible'. Employers aren't so stressed about it (meaning they can focus on more productive ventures) and employees aren't so stressed either (meaning they can focus more on their actual jobs while at work).
yeah maybe if we put a fraction of our defense budget into a subsidy for parental leave we'd be in better shape.
America would be great if part of the "defense" budget were distributed to education, health, and infrastructure.
we would need our allies in Europe and North America to step up their own defense game so that we can afford to have our armed forces be slightly less massive.
Do you really think the last few military conflicts the US fabricated would've even happened if the US didn't commit to them? Was the money (and lives) well spent?
I think it is incredibly naive to think that there aren't nations in the world who would go back to medieval style invasion and annexation complete with raping and pillaging if the world of diplomacy wasn't backed by enormous military forces, which the US of course funds in its vast majority.
Russia straight up invaded and annexed Crimea a couple of years because they saw the opportunity and said lol fuck it.
[deleted]
Lol
Just work harder and everyone can live comfortably. Don’t you dare ask how, just believe it and antagonize anyone who tells you otherwise.
Far too generous? Fucking psychopaths. Whoever said that lack any trace of empathy.
Dude I'm a normal income kind of person and I have paid paternity leave. You just have to want it
Awesome. It's still the exception in this country, not the rule.
there is no rule, that's kinda the point. We have freedom. That doesn't mean everything is rosy all the time
It is far too generous. Maternity leave should be a topic to be agreed upon by employer and employee. If you don't like a company's policy on maternity leave, don't work there. It's that simple.
Sorry if I sound dumb but why should a business be expected to pay you to have a baby? Paid leave sort of baffles me as you aren't doing any work or contributing to the company in any way
Because it's good for your bottom line ultimately. Nobody can afford to have kids so there are no more kids and eventually no more customers. Or citizens for your country. But thats long term problems. There are a plethora of short term problems as well.
Yeah it's not government mandated. Many companies supply it anyway but not all do and very few offer paternity leave options.
My company is only a couple years old and hasn’t had any women have kids yet. We didn’t have any maternity leave policy on the books. I was able to successfully campaign for “parental bonding leave” instead of maternity leave, just in time for one of them men in my department to have his first kid. It blew his mind, he had never anticipated being able to take more than two weeks of vacation time home with his kid, and he got abruptly handed 10 weeks of fully paid time off to be taken whenever is most convienent for him and his wife.
The thing is, on top of being more fair and equitable to offer leave to both genders, it helps me as a young woman in the company if men take leave for their children as well. If everyone is an equal risk of leaving for 2.5 months, I’m no longer looked as as a liability due to my uterus. It’s better for everyone, including my company. We have a hell of a time recruiting qualified employees, and having paternity leave as a benefit has already gotten the attention of a few candidates.
he got abruptly handed 10 weeks of fully paid time off
That's unreal. If this is in the US it's in the probably less than 1% of jobs that are so generous.
I’m no longer looked as as a liability due to my uterus.
It's so sad that this has to be said...but I'm glad times are changing and there is growing gender equality in the workplace overall. Good for you.
How is the company able to afford paying for people to not come to work for 2.5 months? Honest question
We don't expect enough from our US companies. If it's a newer company, it likely has venture capitalists. I suppose there is such a thing as progressive investors. That would be my guess.
Unfortunately, most companies are giving their revenues to investors rather than investing in their workers. In turn, most investors will only invest with companies doing that. It's understandable, and the only thing I can see as a fix is tax reform.
As the other commenter speculated, we are venture capital funded. Also, payroll is a tiny, tiny fraction of our operating costs. I spend easily 5x my salary in supplies every month, so if I was out for months it would just save money. The hit to productivity is rough, but we are growing quickly and hiring constantly, so we plan to put a new hire on the project that is being abandoned and then when the other guy gets back we will give him something else to work on.
You're company sounds really great to work for, and you should be proud of what you're achieving:)
That's basically what happened with us. We had no maternity leave policy until one of our employees was like "I'm having a baby" and then they went "oh shit, we should probably set up a maternity leave policy."
You are brilliant.
Damn, that is brilliant work on your part. Well done!
You’re a wonderful person. I hope you have a fantastic day
Be careful what you wish for, though: women's participation in the workforce has declined in almost every country that has a law mandating paid family leave (even where both men and women get the same leave). This results in less qualified women over time and more men at top positions (eg: the US has 40% more women in positions of business and political prominence than Norway - who is seeing women's participation decrease quickly).
(https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/trump-budget-paid-leave-calder-opinion/index.html, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-007-9023-0)
So? What is the problem?
I've never heard of a professional level job that didn't offer paternity leave. It seems like mostly a service/professional split for both maternity and paternity.
I've never heard of any job OFFERING it, but I've only worked in the service industry so that's probably why. My job was "generous" and gave me 2 days...
I've never heard of any job OFFERING it, but I've only worked in the service industry so that's probably why. My job was "generous" and gave me 2 days...
I've never heard of any job OFFERING it, but I've only worked in the service industry so that's probably why. My job was "generous" and gave me 2 days...
Many companies supply it anyway but not all do and very few offer paternity leave options
I've never encountered a company that offered paid maternity (or paternity) leave.
Shit, I got 2 weeks paternity and was stoked
There are a few states like NY and CA where it is government mandated.
it is one of the reasons the stats that could be used to support the wage gap even exist. men don't make more money that woman women don't get paid to have babies and that puts a big deficit in earnings of an entire age group of women.
My company (one of the largest banks in the world) just started a 10 week paternity leave so things are changing.
Why would paternity leave be a thing? Men aren't the ones who have to grow and push out a wriggling, screaming, mini human through a canal less then half the size, that previously was used for pleasure. If you say that someone else should be with mom and baby for a few weeks while mom recovers, that's was grandma and grandpa are for.
Someone has to go out and earn money, because the recovery time that mom needs is not as much as she should have, I can agree to that.
Both my parents work middle class/physical labor jobs. I can remember that when my little sister was born dad went back to work the next day and my grandparents helped my mom and me with the baby til moms maternity leave was finished. This was in the mid 90's, so I think her maternity leave was a couple months and my grandparents considered that generous. Mom and dad never complained about dad going back to work, but my mom was not ready to go back yet and complained about that. Then my sister and I were off to our grandparents house everyday for "daycare".
Not everyone has grandparents or a family to help them out. And many grandparents aren't retired so they can't be fulltime caregivers. I hope you realize your situation is very unique and your family is very fortunate to have those resources available to them for free. Most people don't have that. People are advocating for paid family leave, so you can still earn money while taking care of your newborn.
I think you're misunderstanding. In most countries, paternity leave isn't at the same time as maternity leave – there's just "parental leave" which can be taken by any parent. The other parent is working.
In my country (Norway), for example, there's one year of (paid) parental leave that can be split between the mother and father. The mother has to take three months, and the dad has to take 14 weeks, the rest can be split however we want.
We do actually have two weeks of paid paternity leave right after the birth too, though, specifically to help out the mother and child. I'm not sure why you mention grandma and grandpa there; how can they help out (unless they're so old they're retired)? Do Americans get paid time off if they get a new grandchild? If so, why not give that time off to the dad instead?
I simply don't understand your comment.
At my company we have “birthing mother” leave, which is taken by, uh, birthing mothers to heal. On top of that, we have “parental bonding” leave, which can be taken any time in the first year after birth or adoption of a child by either gender. So if you’re a birthing mom, you take your specific leave before/during/after birth, and then your parental bonding time for the rest of it. If you’re a father, most of them wait until their wife is done with maternity leave and then they take over childcare for the duration. If you adopt I assume you’d take that time immediately for family bonding, that hasn’t happened yet.
Not all of us have our parents around. In fact, i don’t think anyone at my company grew up in this city, I don’t think there are any grandparents available for childcare in my company.
Paternal leave is so that dad has a chance to get to know his baby and bond with it, and to keep the little one at home with a parent as long as possible. It’s paid, so it isn’t taking any money out of the family funds, and it is the most fair way to allot leave in a mixed gendered workplace. It’s also a powerful recruiting perk.
Just looked this up yesterday, 6% of American employers offer full pay during maternity leave, partial pay was ed by something like \~60% of employers.
Honestly, this shouldn't be something handled/offered by individual employers, but should be implemented and funded as a national standard. Either forcing employers to offer maternity/paternity leave—or leaving employees at the mercy of their employers—gives the employer too much power in the employer/worker relationship, via dependencies on the part of the worker, and is an economic drain, especially for small businesses.
From Finnish-American author Anu Partanen's 2016 book The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life:
But to me, having come from Finland, once again the roots of the problem didn't seem emotional or psychological. It seemed simple and structural. American society, despite all its high-tech innovation and mobility, just doesn't provide the basic support structures for families—support structures that all Nordic countries provide absolutely as a matter of course to everyone, as does nearly every modern wealthy country on the planet.
[This] brings me to the third kind of relationship that confused me in America: the relationship between people and their employers. […] Gradually it dawned on me how much people in America depended on their employers for all sorts of things that were unimaginable to me: medical care, health savings accounts, and pension contributions, to name the most obvious. The result was that employers ended up having far more power in the relationship than the employee. In America jeopardizing your relationship with your employer carried personal risks that extend far beyond the workplace, to a degree unthinkable where I came from. […]
People throughout the Nordic countries are far less concerned that such requests [e.g. parental leave, vacation, or reduced hours for childrearing] will reflect badly with their employers or have negative repercussions for their careers. The reason is quite simple: In the Nordic countries the basics of health care and other social benefits and essential services simply do not depend on one's employment to the degree they do in the United States.
By now I was used to hearing the Nordic countries dismissed as "socialist nanny states." But ironically it was here in America that businesses trying to manufacture products and make a buck had somehow gotten saddled with the nanny's job of taking care of their employees' health. Surely, I though, Milton Friedman, the great free-market economist, must be turning in his grave! From a Nordic perspective, it seemed ludicrous to burden for-profit companies with the responsibility of providing employees with such a fundamental, complicated, and expensive social service.
People in the United States were aware of this contradiction, of course […] But no one seemed to be talking about the […] unhealthy dependence on employers that this creates among employees receiving, or hoping to receive, these benefits. It was an old-fashioned and oppressive sort of dependence, it seemed to me, completely at odds with the modern era of liberty and opportunity. I could see the consequences in the lives of everyone I knew.
…
I also wondered if this situation might not be intimately tied to a fourth fundamental relationship in America: the one between government and citizen. So much of the political debate in the United States revolved, at its core, around the idea that having too much government created a culture of dependency among its citizens, and that the result of this dependency was to ruin families and businesses. But while America might indeed have too much government and be suffocating under an unhealthy culture of dependency, it seemed to me that the size of the government wasn't so much the issue. Rather, it was how government was being used, and to what end. From a Nordic perspective, America's problem wasn't too much modernity. It was too little.
The fast-paced, stressful nature of modern life in a globalized world might be inevitable, but leaving people to muddle through it by falling back on old-fashioned family- and village-based support structures that no longer functioned the way they once did—that was no longer inevitable. The more I experienced life in the United States, the more I began to think that what Nordic societies had figured out was how to take modernity even further—further than America had. […] The Nordic nations had found an approach to government that deployed policies in a smarter way to create in individual citizens not a culture of dependency, but rather, a new culture of personal self-sufficiency that matched modern life. The result had been to put into daily practice the very ideals that many Americans could only fantasize about achieving in their personal lives: real freedom, real independence, and real opportunity. […] With some smart policy choices, the United States could surely achieve similar results.
Thanks for this! It puts into words my thoughts on our healthcare system.
The whole book is great and well worth the easy read.
And how long is that maternity leave?
It depends on who you work for, but it's not guaranteed by law.
Yeah, we really hate families over here. We pretend to support them, but let's be real. Anytime you're spending with your family is time you're not making the shareholders richer.
It's not. I have a coworker who had a baby recently and all my other conservative male co-workers were talking shit about how women get two months paid vacation for having a baby, and how unfair it is, how hard men work etc etc...bullshit, and with a pissed off face. Anyway we were all out at lunch a few months after she had the baby and she explained that those two months without any pay were a huge strain on their family. My conservative co-workers stayed quiet.
People that think it's a vacation have never had kids
That’s so stupid. In my country (not even the most progressive out there) you are entitled to 2 years + 126 days of maternity leave and you’re getting paid 85% of your previous salary. You’re also basically untouchable during that time, as no company would risk the fines they would be slapped with.
Edit- oh if you return to work faster, the government will add a certain amount to your salary.
2 years and 3 months?! Jesus fucking Christ. I consider myself pretty liberal, but that's a lot of time off.
You get 63 days prenatal, 63 days postnatal and 2 years to raise the kid (3 if he’s sick). The 2 years period can be split between the parents.
It's not mandated by federal law but some companies and states have it.
Please, Maternity Leave is socialist. We don't care about kids once they come out of the womb. That's just silly. If we gave women maternity leave we'd be admitting they have a condition that needs help and that they might be humans. Fuck that.
They're lucky to get unpaid time off and still have a job. It was a big concession from the Corporations to not just fire women as soon as they got pregnant. Now you want them to pay for the kid too? Fucking Hippie.
/s in case you all missed it.
"This is why we shouldn't EMPLOY women at all! At some point, they want to get married and have kids. They take time off after birth, but isn't that what wet nurses and chambermaids are for? Then they want more flexible hours. I've got two kids who are ages... uh, they both go to elementary school, I think... and I don't try to leave work early to pick them up after school. That's their mother's job."
"I used to have some help that took care of them for me, but thanks Lincoln..."
We only have 18 months paid parental leave here in socialist Sweden, but you have Dunkin donuts so it's pretty much a tie I guess?
No maternity leave, no paternity leave (on a federal level, some progressive states have small leaves).
And without insurance births cost tens of thousands of dollars. With insurance it's still quite expensive for most people
The US economic system is extremely capitalist-driven. Meaning, everything is for sale. Everything. Nothing is off limits or given for free. From health care to medications to education (even k-12) and government (via fees taxes etc), loans (even for higher education), even road work are all private for profit industries everyone must pony up and pay for individually at market rate. Everything is up for sale here. It’s honestly fucked. We have commercials for things that are probably unheard of in other parts of the world. We also don’t have humane leave policies because they are not profitable for businesses. Everybody is either out to make a buck, or homeless. It’s the American way, and at this point we are the laughing stock of the developed world.
Honest question, where in the world do things and service not cost money? You speak as if the US was the only such place.
In other nations the government subsidizes things that your average person can’t afford to pay for on their own, like the medical costs associated with having a child. Here, money is the main factor in almost every decision.
yeah but those things cost money in those other nations.
The funding model is fundamentally different for many services believed to be human rights outside of the US. A system everyone pays into is cheaper than trying to pay it as an individual, and doesn’t involve enormous debt, as almost anyone in the us who needs complicated medical care eventually accrues at loan shark interest rates. It’s nuts for someone who is just trying to have a child or has a serious illness
My wife makes more money than me. If we want to have a baby she wouldn't get any paid maternity leave so we would have to take a 60% pay cut while she was unable to work. My medical insurance deductible is $6900 so before a baby even left the hospital I would have to pay $6900 out of pocket while my wife also wasn't working.
When she goes back to work daycare costs up to $25k/year in my area.
Money is 100% of the reason we currently have no kids and we both make above average salaries. We are not poor and still can't afford it on the US system.
Delivering a baby at a hospital costs money in the US too? This truly is the issue I have the most problems with relating to.
I'm a dad from Oslo, Norway. Here's our rundown of the above costs:
Workers rights are virtually non existent. Land of the free.
That simply isn’t true and you know it. There’s federally mandated legislation guaranteeing all employees basic rights such as fair wages, privacy rights, discrimination laws, safety laws, anti harassment laws, etc.
https://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/employees-rights-101.html
And not only that, but many states and/or companies will even exceed the federal minimums. Here’s a source you can use to check any states you wish to compare:
https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/state-employment-and-labor-laws/
And by the way, I’ve worked in Ireland and in Spain, as well as the state of Nebraska. Both these countries have more power in the employee at the expense of the employer whereas the US has more power to the employer at the expense of the employee.
But US salaries and PPP per capita are also higher than the EU (besides tax haven countries).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
The only ones you’ll noticed ranked higher than the US are tax/bank havens: Monaco, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, and Ireland. If Ireland surprised you, here’s an article on their 12.5% corporate tax rate that draws in many US firms, such as the bank I worked at. (FYI - the EU is pissed at Ireland and says they need to raise the corporate tax rate to follow EU law)
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-is-the-world-s-biggest-corporate-tax-haven-say-academics-1.3528401?mode=amp
Europeans will disagree with any argument that the US is better in any way than the EU, regardless of how small it is and regardless of how much evidence is presented. Groupthink is a serious issue in Western Europe.
Any by “disagree,” I just mean “not like it.”
And by the way, I’ve worked in Ireland and in Spain, as well as the state of Nebraska. Both these countries have more power in the employee at the expense of the employer whereas the US has more power to the employer at the expense of the employee.
Confused as to why you think this disproves what I said rather than the opposite...
Because you said, “The US has virtually no employee rights.” And it clearly does.
When I worked in Ireland, I think I averaged 4 days per year more than Nebraska? Something like that.
And Spain I have days off all the time, but the pay isn’t as high as the US (as with most EU countries).
So, I’m just trying to point out: While the US may not have quite as many employee rights as somewhere like the EU, we still have them. And as a trade-off, salaries and PPP per capita is generally higher in the US.
And I know that wasn’t enough time to read my sources...
So, I’m just trying to point out: While the US may not have quite as many employee rights as somewhere like the EU, we still have them
Oh, you think someone saying "virtually none" is the same as "none"
And I know that wasn’t enough time to read my sources...
Well I'm from Ireland so don't need to be lectured on our laws, but regardless I would have to be certain you understood why I said in the first place.
Our employment laws are very basic and do not compare favorably with the rest of the developed world. I love my country, but this is a fact. Our GDP looks good on a ranking system, but much of our wealth is top heavy. I would rather our country break into the top 10 for the World Happiness Report the United Nations publishes every year.
Some companies are starting to bring in more family-friendly paid maternity leave, but at the national level, we're in the same company as Papua New Guinea and a bunch of tiny islands in the South Pacific.
I know a guy that got fired from a security job because the new guard no showed and he wasn't coming in while his wife was in labor. They made him choose between his job and his wife in labor, his kid. He chose right. They violated religious rights of Muslims as well. Denied all holiday requests but the Baptist got Saturday off for church in the morning and he was the new dude. I never got any time off because "atheists don't celebrate holiday's." all of that for 13 an hour. Stay away from the US most places are like this.
You think that’s bad, it’s about 30k for a birth here.
My company spans all of North America, Europe and Asia. We get periodic emails about policy changes. Last year I got to read about all of the maternity AND paternity leave extensions (for fathers-to-be) in Canada, all paid, for up to 3 months. Meanwhile we get 2 weeks for mothers and nothing for fathers in the US. Same. Fucking. Company.
Note: It might have been partial pay after a certain point, I can't remember, but much better than what the US employees get.
What if I told you that many Americans only get 10 days of paid vacation a year?
[deleted]
Which, let's be real here, means that the people who have jobs that pay very well, and who likely have the most resources, are also more likely to have parental leave as well.
Even normal maternity leave isn't even a thing here. Generally they just fire you unless you're in a really nice job. Men absolutely never get maternity leave. To even ask would be laughed at here. It's very sad.
Men absolutely never get maternity leave.
Of course not! They should get paternity leave though ;)
I teach a workforce development course for English learners here in the States and when we talk about FMLA, students inevitably think they are misunderstanding me when I try to explain that the law only makes sure you have a job to come back to, but doesn't require paid leave.
Its not a Federally mandated thing, and a lot of businesses big and small don't do anything more than the bare requirements placed by the law (which basically shake out to your boss not being permitted to fire you for 12 weeks after you give birth). A few companies are cool though, and give their employees a lot of time off and good benefits... but that's just it, its up to the business to decide its own internal policy on this matter, and if the Republicans had their way it would be like that for everything.
But it is a thing, just not mandatory.
A proper company will over 6-10 weeks paid Maternity leave, some offer paid Paternity leave too...
Every corporate job I've had since 2012 has offered some sort of paid leave.
Yeah, it's nuts. Also, I don't know what people in other countries pay for childcare, but for me it's more than double my mortgage.
Here in Oslo, Norway, the maximum daycare fee is mandated by law to not exceed $360 per month (public or private daycare alike).
Holy shit. I pay 1600 American for 2 kids.
When my daughter was born, my wife was only paid out her sick days and vacation days. No paid leave. Meaning when she got back to work, she had ZERO sick days and ZERO vacation left for an entire year. I had to go back to work the next day. I fucked up way more than I care to tell due to lack of sleep. Missed quite a few payments on our credit lines since her pay ran out very fast and I was the only source of income, with a mortgage at that. Don't have a baby in this country.
America has the fewest amount of holidays/time off in first world countries.
Kinda barbaric isn't it. Being a Male in the us military even they are generous to at least give the guys 10days of free paid leave per child. Women of I remember right get 12weeks if I remember right. Think it has to do more with us being having a salary.
I think the reason why women get more maternity leave is that they are the ones ripping apart their body in the process, which requires more healing time than the non-ripping of body parts for men.
Yes without a doubt I agree. I just enjoy it gives the couple some days together to get this life changing event situated. There's been talk about getting the male a few extra days onto of the 10 since sometimes complications can come about and does days the child has to stay extra days in the hospital.
What? Are you telling me that members of different genders have different needs and might require different accommodations?
Don't be sexist.
it can be, like my husband gets a week per year he is at his company. so he will have 5 weeks of paternity leave. I have short term disability. It depends on the company.
And I knew 7 years ago when I started with my company they didn't do it. And I never got a new job. I like my company otherwise.....
Wait...having a baby counts as a disability??
kinda but no there are packages for pregnancy specifically. It just falls under short term disability.
you get 6 weeks for a normal birth or 8 weeks for a C-section. and it can cover you for up to 6 months if there are complications before or after birth. Like if my doctor says I need to be on bed rest for 3 weeks prior to delivery. It will protect me during that time.
If anyone sees anything I mis-say please let me know. I am in the process of sorting this out for myself.
Short Term Disability basically covers any sort of medical issue that can recovered from in a month or two. Pregnancy, severely broken bone, recovery from an operation, etc.
Well it will certainly disable your ability to sleep, I can tell you that.
Wait...having a baby counts as a disability??
It can. Companies that offer disability leave include some verbiage that defines a disability as either being unable to work due to your own disability, being unable to work due to needing to provide care to someone else, or the birth of a child. That’s how FMLA (the Family Medical Leave Act) defines it, so for companies that are bound by that regulation they are often just offering the minimum amount required by law. And of course, the FMLA regulations don’t apply to all businesses, in which case they are free to come up with their own policies.
It really should. Babies suck!
i dont know where is not a thing a the USA. Been employed up and down the east coast.
They're referring to the fact that it's not required by law. In many other countries, your employer is required to pay you for maternity leave for a certain amount of time.
I've never had a job that didn't offer it, I've worked in a few different states.
That's nice for you, but it's still not the norm. The coasts tend to be more progressive.
It's a thing, it's not legally mandated. Some people have very good bennefitd some have none, depends where they work.
we JUST got paternal leave for fathers now too. What a time, to be alive
I recently went to a job interview where they made a point mid interview to tell me that there was no holiday pay at that company except in one state where it is legally required.
America, we're all about fucking the worker.
I still don't get what people do with their very young children. Do they send weeks old infants to daycare centres?
Or leave them with a friend/family member.
It is a thing and pretty common.
Just not mandated by the government.
I was curious at how common it is, so I googled and found this report
Average length of paid parental leave offered to full-time employees at full pay, is 4.1 weeks (median: 3.0 weeks)
So, probably not great for the vast majority of Americans?
Every company its been 26 weeks with short term disability and none of these companies have been particularly good with employees.
Anecdotal sure.
Out of curiosity, were you unaware as a resident outside the US, or as a US resident that hasn't needed to look into paid leave?
If outside the US, what country? I'm kind of tired of living here. Even our news is just mocking our elected president now. It's just dumb drama here.
Seriously, it's ridiculous and causes so many post-natal issues. And there's not really a hope for change any time soon either.
Some employers are adding in a better maternity/paternity benefit to attract and retain employees, but it's not mandated and those employers are few and far between.
Much more common in white collar careers, much less common in blue collar and low-wage careers.
Maternity leave, AFLAC (income insurance due to injury/illness), and HSAs (pre-tax “savings accounts” earmarked for health care bills) are the perceived differences between “good” insurance coverage and the ones offered in low-wage careers.
You obviously have never experienced real freedom.
For the record, that's sarcasm, and I'm Canadian.
We also have zero guaranteed vacation days.
As a nation, there is a significant population of people in the USA who are against immigration, maternity leave, and abortions. I think the endgame is that they want the USA to be one person who has the wealth of the entire nation eating the unwanted children of mothers who cannot afford to raise them. The problem is that all of the baby eaters think that they'll be the last baby eater among baby eaters.
I work in a doctor's office and I see mothers returning to work within a week of giving birth regularly. Christ I hate this country sometimes
Paternity leave is nonexistent. I got 10 days from the military (calendar days, not working days, BTW) and my civilian buddies were all clamoring at how nice that must have been and how if they even got leave, it was 5-7 days AT MOST.
We enjoy our freedoms in the United States. The freedom to die without healthcare, the freedom to have the highest child mortality rates in the western world, the freedom to live a life of debt servitude over medical bills and students loans, the freedom to be fired from work for taking a sick day, the freedom to... well, you get the point. We are very free here. Not not like you oppressed commies in Europe and the UK.
Even in Japan paid (okay, it is a percentage of your wage normally but still) maternity leave is a thing, and Japan is pretty much the "don't take days off EVER" capital of the world.
It's us, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Lesotho who have no paid maternity leave.
You might notice one of those countries is very different from the others...
In America, we force the people that could use time off to work and don't let those who need the time enough hours to work. Many women have to go back to work in the same month they give birth in. Unless they for want any sick or personal days for the next year.
As I understand it, paid vacation is hardly a thing as well.
Usually 10 days a year. So 40 hours a week and only 10 fucking measly days of vacation. Unless you're some high up management position or in a particularly stressful position, then you may get up to 4 weeks of PTO
I get 10 days after I've been here 5 years. Till then it's 5 days a year. 3 sick days, too. Best job I've had, I get not just PTO but insurance too!
My current job (govt) and my prior job (corporate) both started out at 10 days/yr and it goes up after like 5 years. Currently I'm at 15 days/yr and I think after July 1 I go up to 20 days. My partner has been with her companya bit longer and gets 22 days base but it accumulates hourly so with all the overtime she gets it's actually more than that.
Well that's good to hear that it goes up, I'm just starting to get in the workforce so I've got a lot to learn about how it works
[deleted]
Here in DK, 5 weeks is the norm and national holidays are always paid. Maternity leave is obviously (by our standards) a given.
Who told you that? Every job I've had included maternity leave as part of the benefits package. It absolutely is a thing here.
Because the U.S. is hell for workers but heaven for Big Corporations. And, it's been built that way on purpose because all that anybody seems to care about is the money coming into the U.S. itself. If the money makes it the government, middleclass or the poor doesn't matter. All the matters is that money comes into the country so a high GDP can be boasted about.
It is, but it’s usually really short and some employers get bitchy about it. Paternity leave isn’t a thing, though, but it should be! You guys are so lucky.
To be fair we have it just no where near everyone has it and it’s not required by law.
It is in many jobs.
It very much is, its just not required by law. Sure, alot of the low-paying jobs like fast food work don't give it(though they're sure as hell not about to make you come into work or fire you-they just won't schedule you for awhile), but the vast majority of good-quality jobs know they'd lose half their workforce at least if they didn't do it. Sure, the amount of time varies, but its there.
Mandatory leave isnt a thing, companies can still offer it though.
It's sort of a thing, but not a mandatory thing. In the US, policy agenda is sometimes pushed in a "let's set the example and see if private industry will follow suite" kind of way - so right now, federal government employees and military members get mat/pat leave and private employers are free to negotiate whatever kind of leave agreement they want with their employees. Hopefully the result will be that the hundreds of thousands of federal employees will tell their family/friends who will then demand the same benefit from their private employers. Hopefully the government won't have to mandate minimum mat/pat leave because mandating things is never good - especially when it can result in people getting laid off.
private employers are free to negotiate whatever kind of leave agreement they want with their employees
From what I know of the state of unions in the US, though, that's usually on an individual basis and not collective negotiations, right?
Yes, although that is ever-changing as well. I think most people here are okay with unions but not okay with having to join one or pay dues to one as a condition of employment.
It isn't madated on a nationwide level, but many states have their own laws on it. And many companies offer it (7 weeks for my company).
It's not but it should. American worker rights have been eroded and now crushed under the weight of profit.
At least in California you have to give unpaid leave and disability insurance covers some of it. I had my second-in-command out for 3 months recently.
It'd be nice to see paid maternity leave being more universal, but for small companies it's sometimes impossible. I only have 4 employees aside from myself. To pay full salary for someone who's gone for 3 months, plus salary for their replacement and training time and lost productivity, just isn't feasible.
And before anyone gets upset about me not caring about my employees, my own pay is the first place any cuts come from. That particular employee has taken home more annual pay than me at least once.
The vast majority of jobs do have paid maternity leave. ESPECIALLY if you're in a union.
Edit: Also OP gets 6 weeks paid...with an option to take another 12 weeks unpaid. How did everyone jump to NO maternity leave?
Edit: Also OP gets 6 weeks paid...with an option to take another 12 weeks unpaid. How did everyone jump to NO maternity leave?
No idea, but in many countries you get one year of paid leave, so six weeks might sound like virtually no leave.
Some states, like California, have paid family leave but it is up to the individual states right now.
paid maternity leave isn't a thing in the USA
Well, that's because it is a thing
It is a thing here, it's just generally treated as a benefit like vacation days and the such because it isn't mandated by the government. As a result people who work low paying/non salary jobs typically don't get it. I've personally never worked a job that didn't offer paid maternity leave. Hell, my current job offers paternity leave to all new fathers too, and it's not like anyone in our office makes crazy money.
It is a thing.. there is just a lot of hype about it not being mandatory.. most if not all respectable employers offer large amounts of time for maternity leave in the USA.
Most companies will offer it, so it certainly is "a thing", just not federally mandated.
Paid time off is barely a thing as well unless you're high up
So much of our economic system of today was built during the early 20th century, which ran on the idea of the husband going to work and the wife staying at home with the kids. They didn't factor in maternity leave (because what are you leaving if you don't work in the first place?). People are still clinging to this idea with clenched fists, unfortunately.
It is, it just isn't universal. I'm lucky enough to work for a company that provides both paid maternity and paternity leave but a lot of people dont
It is - it just isn't federally mandated.
The US has more self-employed and hourly people than most other countries, and making leave an entitlement is kind of a non-starter because people only care as long as they assume someone else is paying for it.
It is a thing but depends on your job. I get paid paternity leave for mine, for example.
It's a big issue and one that has me from even considering kids.
I heard of a person going to Germany for the expressed purpose of getting a job and immediately getting pregnant. She didn't finish her probationary period, and now her Visa is in jeopardy.
It is a thing if you work for a company that isn't a bag of assholes.
It is a thing in some industries. Others are just slower to adapt. I’d honestly just get a new job just to teach them a lesson and force the system to change
In lower skilled jobs, it's fairly common for employers to just fire the woman when she would otherwise be taking maternity leave. Some women just assume they were fired after giving birth and start looking for new employment once they feel they're able to. At least, this happens where I live locally.
Not for anybody, unless your company is super progressive. Government workers don't get any either.
I'm sorry wtf? Here in Italy you must take a maternity leave that is, at least, long from 2 months before the birth to 3 months after the birth. And it can even be longer in certain cases.
You can't go back to work, and while on leave you still get paid normally as if you were working
Same in Germany. 6 weeks before, 8 weeks after, fully paid. They won't take you back any earlier because you're not insured. If you developed complications e.g. premature labour or after the birth something like a womb infection, your employer would be in a heap of shit.
Then you get 12 months which can be split how you like with your partner at 67% pay. You can also stretch this out by working part time. In total you can up to 3 years unpaid, with your job safe.
I thought that was good - it's better than the UK, which is where I had my first.
The Czech Republic has a choice of 2, 3, or 4 years for maternity or paternity leave. You obviously don't get full salary, but you do get some money and your job is held.
Edit: /u/magicak made my statement more clear
The same exact position is held only for the period of the 28 weeks, that till for another 2.5 year, has to offer a job at the similar conditions, but not the same position
How do smaller companies manage that? At my last job, I was the purchasing department. I don't mean I ran the department....I was the entire department. If I was to suddenly take even a month off they would be in a world of hurt.
They hire a temp worker. They advertise the position as a temp position and will usually cite maternity leave if that’s the reason it’s only temporary.
Do the temp workers still qualify for maternity leave from their temp agency?
Unless the temp agency is shady, yes. A job is a job, and all workers deserve the same rights.
That's amazing. You'd be hard pressed to find temp workers or even part time workers getting any sort of benefits here at all.
Which is pretty much why we have temps and part-timers.
you're blowing my fragile american mind here
so the university where i graduated (austria): secretary went into maternity leave. her temp "replacement" came, and left for maternity leave.
now, no kidding: the next temp replacement ALSO went into maternity leave.
i think they wanted to make a point there, it seems unlikely to have happened entirely randomly. who knows though.
edit: added country
A close friend of my family is a vet a clinic and had the same thing happen to him last year.
Is the company still paying her salary or is the government?
Government, obviously.
[deleted]
Serious question - why would they hire women of childbearing age if they have to pay some of their income for YEARS - with NO return - when they decide to have a kid?
In most countries the parental leave is split. Hiring a woman carries almost the same risks as hiring a man.
Because women cannot magically bear children without the sperm of a man. So the PARENTS have leave.
Somehow the United States seems to think that having children is strictly a woman’s issue, as if the father has zero responsibility for the child.
My mom had 4 kids in 7 years, you'd lose her for a decade
Your mom: I'm back!
New boss: Who the fuck are you?
Imagine how many times the TPS cover sheets have changed in her absence.
They would still hire women because they have to (it's illegal to discriminate based on gender, and super illegal to ask if they're planning on having kids in the interview). And, at least in my country, dads also get paid leave (I took four months myself, as a dad), so it's not like hiring men only solves the problem. And, of course, because the government foots part of the bill.
But still, this is obviously one large reason for discrimination against women in the labor force all over the world, the "glass ceiling" in women's careers, etc.
so it's not like hiring men only solves the problem
Probably be less of a problem in most cultures.
Because their governments aren't shit, and are looking out for the greater good of society and not some corporate bottom line?
I think they’re asking from the point of view of a business. I can see problems where women of child bearing age have trouble finding work because businesses consider the risk of losing them for months to years to be too high to hire them. Not that this is a reason to deny maternity leave, of course.
The business would get fined for discrimination.
If that person’s point of view was reoriented towards the business view that both parent are responsible for the child and both parents have leave (maternity and paternity leave), you would see that hiring male or female employees that are at an age when most are having children bears the same risk.
From the business’ point of view, it would seem to be far riskier to hire men at any age because they can “bear” children at any age.
I understand that. But my answer still stands. Because they are a product of a culture for which money and the bottom line is not the holiest of grails, and where taking care of employees is simply the assumed and expected thing to do.
I get that it's hard to imagine that such a place exists, but it does. And its basically "everywhere in the modern world besides America."
If you think the rest of the world isn't motivated by money first like the States, you're sorely mistaken.
Wake me when the States' manifestation of being motivated by money is taxes that pay for universal healthcare, education, and actually humane labor laws, then.
You're using one sided evidence to try and prove your point. Plenty of shitty things happen in Europe because people pursue profit over all else. Becoming a dominant auto manufacturer by blatantly cheating environmental regulations is totally evidence of a culture that places societal good over financial gain, ja?
Signed, a European.
Most of the countries that have those policies (at least in the EU) offer parental leave instead of just maternal leave. Both parents can go on leave at any given moment.
So you'd rather them not be able to work at ALL hardly over denying them that and allowing them to make money easier in between? Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I’m not arguing FOR this outcome, only pointing it out as a likelihood.
Right but I mean....you said it's not a reason to deny maternity leave, meaning you'd be in favor of it being mandated if I understand right (correct me if I am wrong), even fully being aware of the consequences that could arise from such a policy. It's a little bit silly I think from that perspective.
the question though is: Why would a corporation hire that person if they knew they'd be playing leave for them?
And the answer remains:
Because their governments (and they) aren't shit, and are looking out for the greater good of society and not some corporate bottom line?
That's our deal breaker. We need that money to buy bombs.
In the US if you've worked as a temp for multiple years you are not a temp. Microsoft got beat with that bat.
I feel like that could be tough. I get it, but I mean the guy they hired to take my job was employed with us for 6 months before I left, and most of that time was spent bringing him up to date on each client, establishing his relationship with them....etc. And this was a guy that was already super qualified and had worked for years in the same field. I feel like it would be super tough to have a temp worker fill that role.
It might be tough sure - but that’s just part of running a business in the civilized western world. You HAVE to take care of your employees and that includes hiring temp workers to cover your employees on maternity leave. If it’s hard on your business; tough titties. Business owners know it’s a situation they will probably have to face when they start their business.
Americans (generally) care WAY more about business success than taking care of employees. I doubt we’ll see significant changes in maternity policy anytime soon.
I know. That’s my point. In the CIVILIZED western world this is the case. America is a complete shit show of every man for himself and honestly it’s disgusting. The attitude of “I got mine so fuck off” is gross, and for a “Christian” nation it completely contradicts the basic fundamental elements of the religion.
Are you done? We have a huge economy to run and it's not going to run itself. Back to work.
It's harder in the short-run, but more beneficial in the long-run. I mean, businesses used to make people work 14-16 hours per day, with barely any breaks, and no days off. Then they figured out this is actually not the most productive in the long-term.
They actually didn't figure that one out. Unions fought tooth and nail with business owners for the 40-hour week, weekends, and basic labor rights, and that was a little more than a hundred years ago. We take it for granted, but that shit costed way more than we give it credit for.
At first, yes, but later one the businesses too realised this was more beneficial long-term.
Maybe they say so now, but how many companies treated workers like that in 19th century?
Those right were literally bought by blood and tears, using lethal force against strikers by either business owners or government was possible and used.
What people need to understand is that people are willing to work hard only under certain conditions.
If I have to spend an absurd amount of time "working", then I won't work as hard. I'll do the minimum, and chill the rest of the time.
If I can't take a maternity leave, then I'll be a zombie everyday until the baby is old enough that he can sleep a whole night. Count on me to do the bare, bare minimum.
And it's the same thing for a variety of problems.
Truth is, workers are people. They're here to work, yes, but they also have to live. If they can't, then you'll have a shit employee that isn't productive for shit.
That's why a lot of the countries at the top of the productivity list have a lot less hours worked compared to the US (around 400h/year less).
It's paid by government not the company.
Its not so much the pay as it is the quality of the job the worker would do.
Actually he is not lying. You get paid about 70% of your salary for the period of 28 week, but than till the kids age of 2 or 3 or 4 (you can choose), you still get some rather smaller money from the state. The total amount remains the same. what is not true, is the situation with the job. The same exact position is held only for the period of the 28 weeks, that till for another 2.5 year, has to offer a job at the similar conditions, but not the same position.
[deleted]
See, I wouldn't take even a week of straight-up unpaid leave unless I absolutely had to.
I like the Czech Republic the more I hear about it. Only got to visit once, a night in Prague. I must go back.
What’s their, uhh, immigration policy? Can I come over?
Czech Republic has the lowest unemployment out of EU, more opened positions then actual unemployed people (only two countries in the world has this situation, Japan and Czech Republic). Czech out (pun intended) jobs.cz, lower income is outweighted by lower cost of, well, everything. Immigration for study or work is fairly easy unless you come from Afghanistan or some other high risk country.
in Lithuania we have 1 year covered 100% of salary, 2nd year 80% of salary. I actually thought it is mostly the same in hole Europe. seems that I was wrong.
[deleted]
The lowest unemployment rate in Europe - companies struggle to find employees.
How does a small business - like, a mom&pop shop - handle that? Do they just count their employees and try to keep 4 years' pay for about half of them in savings just in case half of them start a family, or is there some subsidy from the government on it? I guess what I'm asking is, how it is guaranteed (if the employer fails to pay, would the gov step in and pay while punishing the employer) and how do employers generally adjust (has there been a measurable increase in discriminatory hiring practices?)
In Germany, income above 55,000 euros is taxed at 42%, so a lot of that money comes from government subsidy.
Most of those 4 years is paid by the state and it's only a fraction of their wage. The employer only pays the first 28 week (70% of salary).
has there been a measurable increase in discriminatory hiring practices?
No, from what I read on Reddit they are less sexist then in the US.
Serious question. What in the hell stops people from applying for jobs, while pregnant but not showing, working a week, then getting 4 years off with pay?
Nothing really, though you'd have to pass probation first (usually 3 months)? This happens at my job (work in Prague).
this seems crazy. so much changes over 4 years in any industry. you'd be like a brand new employee at my workplace if you took 4 years off.
Some people don't return to the same job.
that's insane.. who the hell pays for it?
A quick Google search told me they get 28 weeks. Not saying op is a liar but op is a liar.
I looked it up too after this comment, and it looks like you didn't look far enough, cause in the article it explains that you get 28 weeks fully paid, but can also take years off with paternal leave, with a smaller monthly allowance, and have your job held
Mmk but I'm still not seeing anything suggesting they can get up to 4 years.
Really? Cause in the first article I came across it explains you can choose between 1-4 year paternal leave but the yearly pay is reduced for each extra year you take. Regardless, 3 years is probably extremely helpful to new parents.
We can it's called "materska dovolena" maternity holiday, not technically maternity leave which is shorter. It's optional you don't have to take it, some don't but the vast majority do until the kid goes to kindergarten.
That's still over half a year. Someone's gotta pay for it, plus find and hire someone else to do that person's job temporarily for half the year while they're out.
Government pays your salary during maternal/paternal leave.
so taxpayers pay it.
Obviously, that's how government works.
Right, but many people think of "the government pays for it" as if the government has a magic money tree that comes from nowhere. (many members of Congress seem to think that too, hence the massive deficits).
Somebody at some point is going to have to pay for it all... most likely our children and grandchildren (and their children and grandchildren).
Well yes, obviously
But you know what? Population growth helps the economy, so it's in the interest of taxpayers to give incentives to mothers.
One of the reasons population has been shrinking in Italy in recent years is the introduction of a new temporary work contract that doesn't include maternity leave, so it's harder for the younger population to plan for children.
I don't even want children but I strongly support paid maternity and paternity leave, I'm glad we have it in Italy and I'm glad my taxes go into that.
Getting out what you put in.
Income tax in Germany over 55,000 euros/year is 42%, so it's subsidized by the government
ouch. 42%? That'd cause an armed revolt here.
lol it definitely would, but after moving over here (as an American from the south) and seeing their quality of life it makes so much sense to me. Their college is paid for fully, if they go into a trade instead of traditional college it's paid for fully (including internships paying you and typically offering a job after you graduate so you're not working at Burger King with a degree), pilot training is paid for fully since everyone over here expects their training to be paid for etc. You can't get fired for being sick. Worker's rights are held to a high standard and your social life/free time is prioritized as well as your work life.
And then you're also not going to go into an insane amount of debt if you get sick, and the government helps take care of your family when you have kids so you don't see a lot of the poverty that's common in the US. Food is also insanely cheap compared to the US.
Obviously every system has its downsides, Germany's no exception, but I'd rather have a little less "spending money" (lets get real - i'm actually using that to pay off my six figure college debt anyways) if that means there is an opportunity to live in an environment with a much higher quality of life.
After the 28 weeks, you basically have a fixed amount (paid by from salary taxation which is quite high, you don't get this benefit if you freelance and don't pay extra maternity insurance) which you can divide into up to 4 years (getting proportionately less money monthly).
Likely to do with trying to increase the population growth is my guess?
2-4 years is more than enough time to have a second kid. What happens if people just keep having kids?
I think it's not cumulative, but overlaps when you have more kids. But yeah you can literally keep knocking out kids and not work for years. A friend of ours got the timing spot on(2 years) but we won't manage to and the missus will probably go back to work for a year before stopping again for another 2 years. Helps keep the birthrate up I suppose. You get the same money spread over two or four years, it's not that much but it helps, about 30% of the average wage in Prague.
Just curious how do people feel about people who take 4 years leave then just pop back in the office after 4 years? Things change so much depending on your industry.
It's a double edge sword because many companies may have a preference against hiring females. Regardless of what laws are passed to prevent this
And us men can take a chunk of that if the missus wants to go back to work.
I just wonder,If communism, had any thing to do with it, and sooner or later, All this things will disappear.
I think that’s great, curious though how does the business do well with someone gone for 2 years who will come back? Are there employment services that send someone to cover the work?
UsA really is a third world country in that regard.
My college professor was teaching until the day before she gave birth and was only out for 6 weeks. I remember feeling super worried because during class she kept taking deep breaths and holding her belly! This was in the US btw
Well here in italy only if you go longer than the usual 5 months you have a reduction in pay, but your job is still safe. But during the 5 months you are considered as "working", thus receive 100% of the pay, benefits etc etc
*jots down Germany in list of places to move to *
Just dealing with bare-knuckles practicality here: what do small business owners do from a personnel perspective? They need someone to do whatever job, and there's only one of them. So they have to hire another person when their employee goes on maternity leave. What happens when the original person comes back?
They just hire 'for maternity leave'. So only a short term position. Or someone gets temporarily promoted into the vacant role.
But what about financially? I'm a small business owner and I'm certainly not big enough to be able to afford to pay a temp worker AND a maternity leave employee. It's just not in the cards for me.
The Elterngeld which is the money paid during the longer period is paid by the government.
Apparently for the 14 week period this is paid mostly by the employer, with a small supplement paid by health insurance, but I expect there might be some kind of offset for small businesses. I know there is in the UK but I don't know much about how the German system is financed apart from what I've just googled.
Employer only pays the first six weeks of any sick leave, after that your health insurance takes over.
It's not classed as sick leave, this is a separate thing. You're correct for sick leave though.
Ahh, okay, that's what I expected. I'm guessing, then, that businesses in those systems are a lot more careful about hiring or don't keep large workforces.
I couldn't tell you because I don't know what the norm is in the US. Perhaps someone who has experienced both could say more.
In Sweden the government pays your parental leave. Below are quotes from the branch that handles payments. You have 90 days per parent that can't be traded and 300 that you can divide as you please. To maximize benefit from the system you need to tinker a lot but that's a different story.
Parental benefit is paid out for 480 days for one child. For 390 days, the compensation is based on the income one has (days at the sickness benefit level). For the other 90 days, the compensation is SEK 180 per day (days at the minimum level)
They’re called temp workers. Very common.
My sister lives in France and she's had a year off for each of her kids births. The USA is so ass-backwards on parental leave, it's depressing.
You get time BEFORE you give birth??? And you get PAID for all of the leave?? The US has warped my sense of child bearing....
The time before the birth threw me a little, I have to admit, because in the UK while you can leave early, it's not mandated and it comes off your time at the other end, so a lot of people try to work as close to the end as they can in order to squeeze out more time with their child. For me even if I forwent the 6 weeks pre-birth, I don't gain anything afterwards, so it's completely in my interest to take it. I have about 5 weeks left until I finish, and I thought I'd be going crazy and wanting to work but actually I'm glad I'll soon be done, I'm just getting big and uncomfortable and it's hard to do my job effectively and concentrate.
This is a shitty question, but would that practice every lead an employer to hire a man over a woman? I know I've heard of situations in America where employees are (illegally or immorally, im not sure) asked if they plan on getting pregnant when they are hired. It seems wrong and sexist, but then I can also see how this would be a huge issue for a company if an employee was out for 5 months, and still being paid. Is the government involved in paying them, or the employer?
Ever? Probably. Commonly? Not according to my experience, including other people I know. Especially as the largest paid portion (14 months) can be split between either parent, so hiring a man isn't a guarantee he won't disappear for a year or more. I believe the up to 3 years unpaid job protection also applies to either parent (or both?) But I'm not 100% sure on that one.
I actually have no idea who pays. I know in the UK, if a business makes under a certain amount of revenue then the maternity pay is refunded by the government, but I don't know the ins and outs of who funds what in Germany. I would imagine that something similar happens, it might also be covered by the employee's health insurance (which is a legal requirement, and usually arranged through the employer) - I know that long term sick leave is, when my husband was out of work for a while last year, health insurance kicked in after 6 weeks and started paying his (slightly reduced) salary instead, and it was a bit of a pain to sort out.
I mean, I did get asked by my employer (and he acknowledged he wasn't allowed to ask) in a jokey manner if I plan to have more kids - and I laughed and gave a noncommittal response, because seriously, you're not allowed to ask that. But it doesn't seem to stop my company from hiring more women than men and fairly often of the age where children are a distinct possibility.
I guess for some unethical companies it might be a concern, but for most companies it's taken as a given and they see the long term benefit of the employee, rather than worrying about them taking a year out.
The 14 weeks mandatory are paid by the employer, the 14 months at 67% split to a maximum of 12:2 come from the government. Both parents have the right for 3 years leave with job protection inbetween said 2-12 months partially paid can fall. In that time you are also allowed to work part time wherever you want as long as you work less than I think 30 hours a week (on average in a month) while having a right to work at your usual job with a reduced time of 15-30 hours per week if you want to.
As an option you can also half your monthyl government support to double the length as long as you work part time and if both parents work 4 months like that, you get an additional 4 months bonus support.
So basically you can have both parents work for 30 hours in their own job for 18 months while being supported by the government with 33% of their former income (up to a certain amount) as support from the government (and their usual working wage for 30h contracts) plus another 18 months unpaid leave. Plus 14 weeks full income for the woman, 6 pre birth and 8 post.
I know I've heard of situations in America where employees are (illegally or immorally, im not sure) asked if they plan on getting pregnant when they are hired.
Almost definitely illegal: https://www.workplacefairness.org/family-responsibilities-discrimination#8
And also almost definitively immoral ;)
Both is also true for germany. Ask someone if they plan to have kids and you've suddenly summoned HRs worst nightmare.
In Sweden I heard the mother can take a year paid leave and the partner can take 6 months, which can be taken at any time in the first 8 years of the child's life. So the mom can rest and the partner can help out with other children/stuff or they take turns, or the partner just gives the extra 6 months to the mother anyway.
It makes sense, it should help to cut down on discrimination as well if both parents have an entitlement to leave.
If I was fluent in German, I think I would move there after college. I keep hearing these awesome things about Germany, and I loved hearing about German culture and such when I took German in high school. America just seems to keep becoming a shit show compared to the EU, even though my city is pretty decent.
A lot of companies operate in English now, so it's actually not a bad idea to look at options, if the language is your main barrier, depending on your field. They are desperate for young graduates because of the ageing population. You could always just come for a year or two if you think you'd miss your family/home culture. I don't think German is actually too hard of a language to pick up, either. I bet if you came over and took some language courses you could get by in a couple of months and be fluent in 6-12 depending on how determined you are to learn. Or you could be like a lot of us and get stuck at the "getting by" stage for years because you keep meaning to attend a class but it's too much hassle and you don't really NEED it :P
I would imagine that construction would still be in German. I'm studying project management, and I live in the best city in the US for it (Seattle) so I don't really want to move because of the jobs.
When I was taking German I felt like I could've gotten by if I visited Germany. Now, I would struggle hardcore but I would survive. I imagine I could move with a friend of mine that went there for an exchange year, so she's really good at the language.
Is it hard to move to Germany from the US? I'm actually really interested now.
I don't know. Sorry. I moved from the UK and it was super easy because EU. I have lots of friends here from the US, though, so it can't be that hard. I think if you have a potential job lined up that's the main barrier as they would sort you out a visa. I guess there's nothing to lose from looking? And if nothing is suitable, then nothing is lost. You can normally interview via Skype so you could even get all the way to that stage and then decide if you wanted to.
My husband does project management here, in English :) But in a different industry.
Thanks! I found a website make-it-in-germany and from the looks of it, it seems super easy. I will definitely be investigating moving here when I graduate.
I'm a German living in Berlin, which surely is the city in Germany with the most English speakers. In my free time I speak probably 2/3 of the time English and only 1/3 German. There are simply too many people from all over Europe, the US and Australia here.
Many companies make use of this fact and either use English as the main language or are very accepting of foreigners who aren't fluent in German. I would always suggest researching a lot and maybe even traveling here for a few weeks, before making the decision to move. But it should be relatively straight forward to find a job - if your qualifications are half decent - and once you have the job offer, getting a visa isn't terribly hard either. Judging by the amount of Americans and Australians here without any apparent qualifications, they seem to be giving visas out for free.
There are a ton of american or generally international youtubers talking about their life in germany. Maybe check that out.
I'm still in university, but a lot of technical master's programs are being switched to english at the moment and there are quite a lot of international students, mainly from china, india, and southern europe who don't speak german that well. Since not all of them will return to their homelands after graduating, I have to imagine that there's a market for people who can manage all these skilled people without fluency in german.
Keep in mind that wages at high qualification levels are probably considerably lower in germany that in the US. But at least you get some free time to spend it.
The UK is slightly better than it was now that shared parental leave is a thing.
Yes, that wasn't in place when I had my first and I think it's a useful policy. All the couples I know who have taken a chunk of leave each seem to have a far more equal split of childcare responsibilities and don't have the same competitive "my role is worse, you have it so easy" thing going on because they have each been in the other's shoes, and I think that's pretty helpful for the health and stability of your relationship.
That sounds amazing and reasonable
Reasonable is the hidden middle name of most germans...
I always think its awful how there is only 2 weeks for paternity leave here (UK) one good thing though is that paternity can be taken by anyone, so my mum had 2 weeks paternity with my sister because she was one of my sisters birthing partners. So from baby being born she was around to help them out.
The UK has shared parental leave now, so mother and father can split it. I didn't know other family members could take paternity leave though, that's cool. Is that only if the father isn't around, or even if he is?
Well my BIL is around, I guess it’s down to your workplace but if you’re being somebodies birthing partner you can apply for paternity leave, my Mum works for our local council as a carer but they were more than happy with her taking some time off for my sister.
The difference is that other countries view human beings as human beings. In the US, we view them as a thing businesses can use to make more money.
I'm curious how Germany balances maternity leave with employees discriminating against women of childbearing age (without the employers directly saying they are discriminating against potential mothers)?
Not sure. Doesn't seem to be an issue. Possibly because the majority of the period can be split any way between the parents, so in theory a new father could take 3 years off if he wanted to, too.
It seems to be paid by the employer. Wouldn't that hurt small businesses? Such as, it's easier for a large company to figure that a percentage of their workforce will be on child bonding leave, but a small startup would be unable to bear the obligation.
Or is it paid through some sort of mandatory insurance or governmental program? In which case I can see it being much easier on small businesses.
The 14 week period is paid by the employer with a small subsidy from health insurance. Whether there's extra support with these costs for small businesses, I don't know. The main 12 month period is paid by the government.
That sounds like heaven :( I wish.
Jeeze... my job gives 2 weeks paid maternity/paternity, then two more weeks at 75% pay and then two more weeks at 50% pay. So 6 weeks total, and averages out to 75% paid during that time. Anything more than that and you’re using FMLA time which is basically unpaid.
Here in Ontario we can get up to 1.5 years mat leave now, although you get the same pay you would at 1 year, just stretched out.
Haha are you kidding me? I worked up until the day before my water broke!
If you developed complications e.g. premature labour or after the birth something like a womb infection, your employer would be in a heap of shit.
This would be a great way to get American companies on board with this.
I’m in America. I worked until a week before my due date at Starbucks, standing and lifting etc.
Edit: oh, and then the maternity leave is 60% of normal pay for up to 3 months. Then nothing.
With my 4 kids, I worked up to 3-24 hours before the kids were born. maternity leave was 4-6 weeks at 60% pay.
Seems like the American way...
So horrible. Why isn’t this a main talking point with presidential picks instead of managing women’s vaginas and gays people’s rights?
You know what, Germany seems pretty nice. Can I come?
I mean they are crying out for qualified young people, many large companies even operate in English and German isn't very difficult for English speakers to learn, so why not? Someone else mentioned www.make-it-in-germany.com , which is a government site aimed at foreigners who are interested in moving to Germany.
Are you young and have some high level qualifications? If so, please come.
We don’t have children yet because of unpaid maternity leave. It is true that FMLA is unpaid, however (I guess depending on the state) I can claim unemployment benefits at 60% of my pay rate counted against accrued time off. We can’t afford for me to take that pay cut. So here we are, childless drones for the retiring boomers.
There are women in the U.S., land of the free, that give birth on the weekends with induced labor and are back at work on Monday.
Baby usually goes to daycare.
But does this apply to, say, a dishwasher in a restaurant?
If they have a contract and earn over €450 a month, yes. Most people do - to earn less than €450 is classed as a "mini job" and usually is very part time - e.g. 10 hours per week or less. So some service staff are employed on a minijob basis, especially if it's a second job, or they are students for example, but others have contracts, especially if it's their main job.
If it's a minijob then you don't get the social benefits so you also wouldn't get the job guaranteed. However, you'd still have health insurance, because everybody is required to have it, whether it's as a dependant on your working spouse's insurance, or whether you get it as a technically unemployed person. So you would still be protected from working during the 14 week mother-protection period, and this would be paid (I don't know whether it's the €300 minimum or whether it's based on what you've earned previously) and then I believe you still get the 12 months paid too, just at the minimum rate of €300 per month.
Wow.
Curious - What happens if things change after three years, and when you get back your job simply doesn't exist anymore? Say the company has pivoted and no longer offers the same products/services they did when you went on leave, and the position you had before is simply no longer necessary?
Is the company required to train you for a new role? What if the company had financial difficulty and was forced to lay off a lot of people while you were on leave? What if you WOULD have been one of those layoffs, but you're on leave? Is your job still guaranteed when you get back?
They have to offer you a comparable role. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but you can't be effectively demoted. I don't think you can be made redundant either, even if you would technically have been had you been present and working. But I don't know exactly how this works. It might be it's possible if the company can prove that the dismissal was not pregnancy/leave related.
One of my friends did exactly this - after maternity leave she came back and took a totally different role in a different part of the company.
Damn that sounds really good - 14 weeks fully paid and option to extend the 12 months with working part-time, amazing flexibility!
Must be nice...
Forgive my American ignorance, but what does the job do in the mean time with no one to fill the position? Do they hire a temp? What about in highly trained fields like medicine? You still hire a temp to fill in the woman/mans spot until they return?
Yes you would hire somebody on a temporary basis (maternity cover). I guess they would get a locum in a hospital, private practices might have to close, but possibly a doctor working in that environment might be self employed and have a different situation anyway.
with your job safe
This is the biggest part. In NA people are seen as equipment, a liability. And most places run on as few staff as possible so the shareholders, who don't work at the job, can get their paychecks too. So either the rest of the staff has to work harder to make up for the loss of a staff member, or the easier route is to just fire the new parent and hire someone "more reliable".
Time off before would be fantastic! I worked all the way up to the day before my daughter was born. While I was in the hospital just waiting around to dilate more, you know, in labor, my office called me TWICE to ask questions that apparently I only knew the answers to. My husband was soooo mad that they called and that I answered.
That could have been avoided if I had left a few weeks before and was able to prep them more for my absence. But, alas, I couldn't because I would have had to eat up waaaaay to much vacation time OR not get paid at all.
Damn that sucks. The mentality behind the payed time off is that there is a need to prepare for the new born, and in no way witholding pay from a soon-to-be mother is a doable thing.
Maternity leave doesn't even influence your vacation. Maybe this is due to the diverse mentaltiy here in europe.
Heck, regarding vacation: there must be an obligatory vacation (depending on the job, from 2 weeks to a month minimum), and you can't work. You're forced to go on vacation when it's time
One of my coworkers is due to give birth next week and she is still working. America is a mess for anyone wanting to have children.
America is a mess for anyone who's not rich.
If you're one missed paycheck away fom being bankrupt you aren't rich.
I look at America and think to myself ""this is not a first world country."
Also, a middle-class income will make you a God in a poor country, which is the premise of the article, but obviously, in America you can't afford very much at all. And that's the point.
I look at this comment and think to myself "this asshole could use some perspective"
How civil.
Having children is terrible enough.
If it was like that in the U.S. women would never be hired in the first place. Women are already turned down because of the possibility they might get pregnant and take the 12 unpaid weeks off. It’s disgusting.
Welp, that sucks.
Maybe for low level jobs, if you break out for $16/hour they actually start caring.
Lol wtf is paid leave
What?
To a number of Americans, the idea that you would pay someone when they aren't even working is ridiculous.
Like, I'm not working this Saturday or Sunday, should my employer pay me for 7 days of work when I've only come into the office for 5 of those days?
But, a woman who chooses to have a kid and will at some point stop working, she gets to be paid not to work?
I'm not agreeing with this position, just saying that the idea of paid leave is foreign to a lot of us - if you're at work, you get paid. If you're not at work, you don't get paid.
From an online source:
At some point, nearly everyone will need to take time away from work to deal with a serious personal or family illness, or to care for a new child.
But only 15 percent of workers in the United States have access to paid family leave through their employers, and fewer than 40 percent have access to personal medical leave through employer-provided short-term disability insurance.
Our nation’s public policies are failing to meet the needs of workers and their families. Unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides important job protections, but it is available to fewer than 60 percent of workers — and many can’t afford to take it.
So, a lot of women can't be fired for taking time off following a pregnancy, but they certainly won't be paid for it. Thus, a lot of women feel pressure to return to work as soon as possible. Many two-income families depend on her working to keep the family afloat.
I see. Well, here it's normal to pay someone if they're on leave, for different reasons. The most common ones are sickness and pregnancy.
Maybe it's because it's we have an idea that working is not a "privilege", but a right that everyone should have
Do you have a lot of small businesses or do you have predominantly large businesses?
Italian companies are in the majority small - medium ( 60 - 70 people max)
To specify, the government is involved with paying employees on medical leave. All contracts are national (unionized). There are processes and certificates and paperwork involved. It’s not like the companies just deal it out alone.
[deleted]
Our constitution say that working is a right, thus the state must protect it (setting minimum standard for pay, vacatiom etc)
[deleted]
It's simple: everyone has the right to work. As such, the state must do what it can to protect this right: assicurate fair wage, assicurate basic worker right (vacation, maternity leave, sick leave, pension, etc etc).
If you are disabled and cannot work, are you violating your own right to work
You're making a dumb assuntion. It's like saying you have the right to vote, but if you don't you're violating your right to vote. See how it makes no sense? You have a right to work, not an obligation: if you don't work becaue it's your own choice, so be it. If you don't work because you can't (disability, can't find a job or other circumstances that prevent you from working) then the state has the obligation to find a way to support you.
It's a simple fact of human dignity based on the conception that people work to live, don't live to work and thus they should be treated equally and fairly ( which means having worker rights) on the work place
[deleted]
Indeed, it's the state objective to find a way to accomodate everyone and produce them a job. The money comes from different sources, depending on the situation (for example, during the 2008 recession, in order to amplify the social benefits nets, the defense budget was cut)
According to our consitution. "working is a right upon which the Republic is founded [....] and is the Insitution objective to provide [...] the citizien with it" (it's kinda hard to traduce, due to how the phrases are worded, that's the best i could)
Naturally no one can say "i renounce my right to work", but anyone can say "i don't want to exercise my right to work" (thus not working).
This runs deeps. You will see the same attitude towards people who are disabled or injured, as well as to worker protection against being fired.
You can draw plenty of parallels to the rest of American society, the most devasting being universal healthcare.
Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!
Surely you have paid leave if you're ill though. It's kind of like that. If you have a newborn kid you have to take time off, as would be the case if you were too ill to work.
In the US?
No. You might get a couple sick days during the year (sometimes paid, sometimes unpaid) if you're salaried, but that's it unless you work a really good job and are skilled labour your employer is going out of their way to make happy. And you don't even get that if you're working for a wage, you just get a "if you get sick too many times we'll fire you, and we certainly aren't gonna pay you for not being here" warning.
This is really crazy.
Surely you have paid leave if you're ill though
Yes, I have two days a year...
This just seems unrealistic. If you're sick enough to be off work then usually it's more than 2 days just for that one illness.
The owner of the company is afraid that if we have more than two sick days we'll be tempted to take them as vacation days. Apparently one person at his previous company admitting to doing this has soured him on the whole idea in perpetuity. Still, could be worse. When I started here we didn't have any sick days. Our new HR director basically harassed the owner until he capitulated and agreed to two days as a kind of "compromise".
Here if we are off more than 2 days in a row we need to get a doctor's certificate which proves we are ill. We then normally get signed off for a week, sometimes 2 weeks (or longer if your illness or injury is bad.) In certain industries, especially if the company could lose money, you have to provide a note on the second consecutive day of illness. My company requires this. It was a weird kind of culture shock to go to the doctor with a bad cold, but it's normal here.
What a fucking dream! Oh my god.
ikr, the fact that even getting the note wasnt a huge (financial) deal is shocking too
Yeah it doesn't cost anything. Usually takes an hour or so of waiting around in a doctor's office, but you're sick, so you have nothing better to do anyway.
It depends on your job.
Some jobs (especially a salaried position, where you are paid a yearly salary) will give employees a set number of sick days per year.
Some jobs are paid strictly hourly and you are only paid for the exact number of hours that you are at work, doing your job, creating widgets. If you're not there, for any reason (pregnancy, illness, taking time off to travel), you don't get paid for those hours.
No, I don’t. If I don’t come into the office I do not get paid.
In my decade of work experience I’ve only had 1 job that offered paid time off/sick leave. It was a “bucket” system and I was graciously given 9 days. (Bucket system is basically saying you have these 9 days to use as you see fit.)
If I’m sick I go to work sick. Actually, fun story I’m sick and in the office right now.
German here. I’m self-employed right now, but when I was a salaried employee I got 30 days off plus bank holidays and unlimited sick time as required.
I don't want to bring up US law as I'm not familiar with it, but there's different time frames. The paid leave in my country is one of the longest in the world, albeit only for "permanent contracts", namely 1 or 2 years. I'm not entirely sure without looking it up. But on top of that it can be extended for 1 year if the employer is negligent in its duty to help find said employer another job - a duty that obviously depends very heavily on circumstance (if you hire someone else in a position this person could have a job in, why not transfer them instead?), but also includes providing schooling if necessary. Mind you, this illness can be completely unrelated to their work.
The cruel side to this is that the difference between permanent and temporary contracts is really huge in my country, in fact some of the largest in UNESCO. Young and uneducated people are far more likely to have these kind of contracts and are basically completely screwed. Not to mention that getting a mortgage is a nightmare with temporary contracts.
I remember my professor telling about how he presented this multiple times over his career and people were always amazed by it - even in Europe. But of course, especially Americans are a polar opposite. I think their leave was about 1-2 weeks and not even in all states. Again, my memory is foggy on that part.
Most office jobs have some paid sick time but almost no service industry jobs do. It's lovely that people handling your food feel like they have to come to work sick because they can't afford not to work.
Lol. I get 10 days per year paid. That is sick days and vacation days all in one. And that’s more than a lot of people get.
But... you kind of do get paid for weekends, at least if you earn a salary. If you're paid hourly then you could argue that you don't get paid for the days you're not there. But with a salaried position you get the same amount every month regardless of how many actual workdays there were in that month. Don't you? That's how it works in Europe, anyway. Of course, you might get paid overtime if you came in at the weekend (but you also might not.)
If you're in a salaried position, then yes, you're likely paid every two weeks the same amount, as long as you do your job normally.
One large issue, though, is that maternity leave is needed most by people who aren't salaried and can least afford to take any unpaid time off.
It hurts everyone to not work AND not get paid, but poorer people are more likely to be living hand to mouth and need to resume working as soon as possible.
I was working while I was in labor in the hospital to save as much vacation time as possible...
Worst part is I work at what is considered a good company when it comes to maternity leave benefits.
Damn. That would be the fast lane to a giantic lawsuit and a $$$ rich $$$ compensation here
In India, it’s 6 months (with pay) plus most companies will allow you to take additional vacation time off, they cover hospital bills and there’s provisions for work from home and company provided and paid for crèche facilities. Even adoptive and parents having a child via surrogate are given, if I recall correctly, 12 weeks paid time off.
I'm just curious, how do companies afford to pay someone to not work for so long? I think paid maternity leave sounds good on paper, but it just seems crazy that someone could have a baby, not work for half of the year and get paid for it, and then get pregnant again and then take another half year off the next year and keep getting paid for it. How does the company afford that, especially if it's a smaller business that might not have super huge profits?
Why do you think it is company paying it? Nobody expects employer to pay. We pay it with tax money. You know, the same one that pays our education and health care and infrastructure. You even asking this question tells me how deep the hate for taxes are in USA. You people rather suffer than learn to share collectively.
"Sounds good on paper" my arse. We have been doing this system for decades and manage. What more proof do you need?
[deleted]
Yes, every American who can't phatom the idea that it is paid by taxes.
is the rate capped? I could see it being quite ridiculous if you're matching some CEO's pay for months out of taxes.
Jeez I was just asking a question. I had no idea it was funded by taxes because surprise, we don't have a system like this in the US and I have never really delved deeply into it. In fact I'm actually very open to increasing taxes for the betterment of society as a whole. But thanks for assuming I just hate taxes and all 300 million of us are exactly the same and all hate them.
I'm 34 weeks pregnant and in the US. I'm working up until I go into labor so I can save my 12 weeks (unpaid) leave for time for recovery and bonding with the baby. It would have been AMAZING to start my leave already. Oh well. Maybe someday the US will catch up.
There’s a lot of things I absolutely love about my country, but the way we run it and the way we treat our citizens, is not one of them.
USA, we need to be more like Italy. And Canada. And the UK. And please can we just work together to fix our fucking country and take it back from these assholes who are continually fucking us over?
take it back from these assholes
That’s the hard part, my dude. It’s so bad you can’t even vote with your wallet these days. :(
In Finland it is four months for mother, one month is before birth. Then begins parent leave that lasts until child is about nine months, and parents can choose which one uses it (mostly it is still mother). You will get paid about 80% of your salary by government. And after that you can have a "home stay" (I don't know proper term in English for it) with a small support from government until child is three years old. This can be part time too, so you can work only part time. Again, parents can choose who uses it if they decide to use it. All this time you will keep your job.
Addition to maternity leave, when child is born fathers can have a small leave too, about three weeks.
Here paternity leaves is a week, that you can use how you want (even single days) for 5 months after the birth
My 2nd child is being born next week on Thursday. My wife is working wednesday. She will be getting paid on FMLA with her remaining PTO time. She is not coming back and staying home with this one for at least 6 months before she gets another job.
I am taking 3.5 weeks off starting in about 25 minutes. I think I can take up to 6 but I don't have that much time banked I have only been on this job for 1.5 years. I have it probably better than 90% of the rest of my fellow Americans because I work for the government and have exceptional benefits and time off. I don't get paid as much as I did in the private sector but for a family man you can't beat it...in America. Of course most of the European countries would riot if they got cut down to my level of work life balance.
My 2nd child is being born next week on Thursday. My wife is working wednesday.
So a C-section – what would she do if you weren't having one of those? Just work until the water breaks?
Lol yup, she works at a hospital so wouldn't be to big of a deal😀 Next week she is going to have someone with her all shift and she isn't going to be allowed to do much anyway, so it is pretty much free money.
I'm in the US. My biology teacher is due tomorrow and plans on teaching until she gives birth.
I literally want to cry. My fiance and I are thinking we want to start trying for a baby in a year. I work for a big company and as a woman I get 8 weeks at full pay, split between before and after giving birth. I'm required to take 1 week prior to due date. I could do up to 4 weeks prior to due day but then I'd have less time after with the baby.
My fiance works for a non-profit. He is a child and family therapist there and the organization's sole purpose is child welfare and mental health. He gets 1 day of paternity leave. It's obscene.
Nope. My wife had twins and they had to spend extra time in the NICU for being born early.
So by the time our children came home for the first day, effectively newborns, my wife and I were expected to start working fulltime or lose our jobs.
America the "free".
Free from working right! That's what the founder fathers meant...right guys?
What? That’s amazing. I worked until basically I went into labor and felt lucky I was financially stable enough to take 12 weeks off after my kid was born. I knew the US was behind but I didn’t know how far behind everyone else we really are.
We Americans value results (aka money) over relationships. However this mindset is slowly starting to change.
yeah but money it's just a mean to an end (having a good life). Not the end itself
Totally agree with you.
now see, here in America we don't subscribe to that there socialism. we believe that women should pop the baby out and be ready for their next shift in 12 hours (only sort of joking, I've heard many stories where women were told to come into work the next day)
ive heard horror stories where the woman will schedule her leave and everything, yet the kid is born early so she has to work like a whole week after giving birth
Corporations run America, not people. And corporations don't like paying employees who aren't working. We had to create a law (FMLA) just to prevent the companies from firing women who were on leave after giving birth.
Yeah but in America, if you're not working, you're lazy. Doesn't matter what else is going on in your life.
A lot of women go back when their doctor clears them. If you can afford it, you stay home for 6 weeks after a vaginal delivery. 8 for C-section. I know way to many women who go back after 2 weeks.
I'm not saying I disagree, but how can small companies afford that?
Because they don't have to pay the maternity leave. The government does, trought the company
That makes so much more sense now
I got 2 days off when my son was born.
Not in America. I've seen women working right up until their water burst and as soon as they're able to stand and move around without being in pain they are back at work. Sad, but true.
My friend's wife just had a baby at the end of May.
She took the week off before her due date and she has to go back to work in about 3 months.
Bartender/server in a chain restaurant. We had a server work the night before she went into labor and was back at work after two weeks.
Wow! That would be awesome.. I worked right up until the day I went into labor. That's normal for a lot of working class Americans. And paid maternity leave? 😂 😂
LOL I worked with someone as a server in a restaurant who went back to work the same day after giving birth because they wouldn't give her the shift off an she needed the money anyway. Maternity leave isn't a thing here.
One of my female co-workers in the US took 6 days off after having twins. She made more money than her husband so she went back to work after 6 days and her husband took some vacation time to stay home with the babies. They couldn't afford the medical bills on the twins with her not working.
Damn. Well, tbh here there are no medical bills (apart from buying certain medication) to worry about. Public health ftw
This is so amazing to me. I worked for my entire pregnancy up until 2 days before my due date because my boss said if I wanted the 3 months leave after birth (unpaid) I couldn't take off any sooner than that. If I did, it would count towards my 3 months post birth and I really wanted all the time I could with her. I just thought this was normal. Reading through these comments has left me completely dumbfounded.
America sure is land of the free
Who pays you?
The government, thought the company
Wow. That is awesome.
This country is fucking crazy man.
In every job I’ve had we get 5 paid sick days per year. We are allowed to call out sick 5 days out a full work year which is roughly 2% of the time you’re at work. It’s insane. That includes going to doctor appointments or injuries. It’s madness.
Damn. Here it depends on seniority: less than 6 years, only 3 months of sick leave/ year.
After 6 years you have 6 months / year.
Naturally if you abuse them you can get fired and end up in jail, as the sick leabe is paid partially by the state
Yeah I think the most you can do here is carry over whatever hours you don’t use tk the next year, but everyone I’ve talked to gets 40 hours sick time a year and 80-120 hours vacation per her, unless you’ve been at the company over ten years and then you get like 160 hours. And then you tend to get guilt tripped if you take time off for vacation or you call in sick. It’s wild.
Long live paid leave!
I think Sweden still has around 480 days of maternity/paternity leave that you can split between the parents. roughly speaking the government pays you 80% of your previous salary (to a point ofc) during this time. 90 of the days must be used by the dad though.
Can you imagine being a person that is actually against having a regulation that enforces that? We have millions of them.
Forcing you to leave seems as odd as not allowing you to leave to me.
it's because it's assumed you are going to need the time to adjust your life with the newborn.
If you don't need thet time because you're already organized, then you can "relax" (as much a you could with a newborn :P) during the time to recover from pregnancy stress
Well, it's also a way to stop discrimination. If you don't have to take the leave, the employer knows they have leverage, and vulnerable workers will feel pressured to not take leave.
That goes for gender discrimination too. In my country, there's a year of parental leave that can be split between the parents, but the mother has to take three months, and the dad has to take 14 weeks. Unsurprisingly, the mother takes the most of it, which is unsurprising, but almost all fathers take just 14 weeks. It used to be 10 weeks, and lots of men were pressured by their employers to not take more than that.
Does the employer pay or does social security pay?
The state pay, not the employer
That would be easier for the employer to support. I think in the US if paid maternity is offered, the employer will have to pay.
Oh. No no, the employer doesn't have to pay anything (only certain types of business have to pay, but still even in that case is 20% employer 80%s tate)
In the US or in the Italy?
Tbh the state paying maternity benefits is how it should be, otherwise it creates a huge discrimination problem
I was referring to Italy
Most of my friends here in the states in professional jobs & blue collar all worked until the day they when into labor to utilize as much time of that 6 week window ( which is usually saved from vacation days) to heal. Multiple mothers I know broke water AT WORK Dads get no time here. It's awful. It's considered "short term disability" if you want to try & get 60% of your check for up to 3 months. Most blue collar folks just have to quit working unless they file for FMLA which is no pay anyway but protects your job for 12 weeks.
Yeah we only get that excited about babies before they're born. Then immediately afterward they're classified as a net-loss in American society.
A colleague just had a baby. She worked up until she left to the hospital to have the baby.
A pregnant girl at my work worked right up until her due date. She's expected to be back full swing in less than 2 months.
Holy. Shit. (american here)
2 months before birth, eh? I'm at 34 weeks now and just so I get my full 12 weeks with the baby, I will work right up until I have her (or my due date, whichever comes first). To give more info, I work full time, full duty as a nurse on an inpatient hospital floor. My hubs is using his vacation time so he can spend about two weeks home with me. It's a system where the government tries to tell the woman what they should do with the fetus yet once the baby is born, noone really cares what's best. Hopefully it will change by the time my baby has a baby.
I hear a lot of things about Italy on TV, in reality.. What are your projections for the stability of your country in general and does it feel like the good outweighs the bad?
Things look good right now. Naturally the government is new, so we'll have to wait and see how they do
Is there any research into how that has effected female employment? As a hiring manager I would be really afraid to hire a women if at any time she could be gone for 5 months.
Not really. People don't make a fuss about maternity and don't worry about it too much. Probably because it's part of the system and people (including employers) are used to it
The people advocating for maternity leave in the USA are the same people advocating for open borders and they don't see why these interests might conflict
Ah, well that really helps to explain the economic growth and prosperity of Italy.
But fathers get 3 days
A week. Well, the women get maternity leave because she is the one that is pregnant
In italy, husband got 3 days 🤷♀️
Did you do it before october 2017? Because that's when it was prolonged from 3 to 7 days
After... boh
Did your husband asked for it? There is a form with the INPS to ask
Ecco trovato. 4 gg scusa. https://www.inps.it/nuovoportaleinps/default.aspx?itemdir=50584
Ah pensavo fossero 3 + 4
Ha this is so different than the US. Lady in my department was pregnant and couldn't take leave until the baby. The baby was late so for like, 2 weeks after her due date she came to work every day just waiting to go into labor.
I’m not a fan of required leave though...I’ll probably go back because I’m bored and I don’t want someone telling me I can’t.
In the US there is no legal requirement for maternity leave, it's up to individual businesses. The are also no legal requirements for vacation, again it's up to the individual businesses. Because of this there are a lot of businesses that don't offer any maternity leave or vacation which means that lots of new parents either return to work immediately or lose their job. Even if you do get maternity leave or vacation they don't have to pay you anything for that time so poorer families (that can't afford a babysitter) can't afford to take the leave given to them so they return to work anyways.
We can fire a person if they take more than 12 weeks unpaid leave. So you get 11 weeks unpaid and your job back. Horay.
Here you get 20 weeks of paid leave and your job back once you return.
That situation sucks ass, how are you supposed to live during those unpaid 11 weeks? Burning though your saving?
Who pays your salary while on maternity leave? The government or your employer?
ngl, i dont think that system wouldnt work in america. Paid leave for both genders would be great, but if a company expects a woman to be forced to not work after giving birth, i feel theyd be more hesitant to hire women (which aint good). Hell, people here in the US have already admitted that theyll give raises to men over women, just because they "know" the men are more likely to work the whole year (which is bs).
Wow. In the US you have to fight to get a fraction of your pay for 6 weeks. I can't even imagine real leave.
Here in Norway you need to take three weeks before birth and a minimum of 10 weeks after. You can get up to 49 weeks of paid leave in total fof each child. You also get an extra hour of paid break pr day to feed your child until it is a year old.
Wow! I can't imagine the whole ordeal of getting childcare ready for a 6 week old.
We get 39 weeks, the first 6 paid 90% of normal wages then £150(ish) a week for the 33 weeks after, it's not much at all but its something! You can also take 52 weeks in total and take the last chunk unpaid.
[deleted]
And pay off the medical bills from giving birth.
*America considers it normal
You guys need to change this, it's not good human.
But taking time off causes chaos for the company! /s
I work at a private nursery and it's £68 a day for babies. Like teeny tiny no walk or talk babies. I find it awful that they're with staff all day. All those milestones you miss and the relationships they build. It makes me wonder why they bother to have children.
This is considered normal in America. I took years off and now my career is a mess. I'll straighten it out but I'll never catch up to women who don't have kids or just put them in daycare at a month old.
Makes me wonder why you bother working at a nursery with an attitude like that. Hopefully the other staff at your nursery are more understanding than you.
I, for one, had to go back to work at 12 weeks post partum because 1. I carry the health insurance for my family 2. My family needs my income and 3. I was not built to be a stay at home mother.
You need to realise the above poster is talking in £, and so is not American. You cannot judge her "attitude" according to your standards. In Britain the first 12 weeks are taken off at 90% salary. You'd be idiotic not to take that.
I did know that the poster was British. I am from the United States. I would absolutely love the maternity leave you (and the rest of the developed world) have, but our elected officials are morons. I took more issue with being judged for using daycare instead of staying home with my child.
My mum works with the babies at work, it is horrible. They can be (and a lot are) there from 6am to 6pm starting at 6 weeks (though the youngest was less than 4 weeks as the mother needed to go back to work). They spend 4 years of their lives that way, go to school and lose what is essentially a part of their family - that is sad.
The babies themselves aren't bad.
The babies are adorable. It awful when they reach out for staff rather than an adult from home though.
Because I'm a supply teacher at the moment and work where I get put. The staff and kids are lovely. Plus my opinion doesn't change my professionalism.
Secondly in the UK you get 26 weeks off. We get free health care. My point was more, why have a child and then only see them at bedtimes and weekends until they're 18 and let someone else bring them up.
Higher number of single parent households means you don't have the second pair of hands helping. More dual income households resulting in neither being home to help with the kid.
It's not the businesses problem though when it comes to your personal life.
I was glad to put my kids in daycare. Babies are super hard to take care of-- I was glad of the help of experts.
[deleted]
why are you being dismissive? I'm not sure where you are going with this.
never mind-- username checks out.
I’m uk and had an American friend have a baby the same month as me. I got to stay off work with my baby for almost a year while she had to go back to work when the baby was only 6 weeks old. It absolutely broke my heat that she had to do that because a 6 week old baby still needs almost constant care and attention. How’s a six week old supposed to be look after properly in a day care without just being left unattended for ages? I’m currently off work with my second baby while having a 1 year old and even I struggle to give them both enough attention.
I started having a panic attack at work as I was discussing my maternity leave options with the HR representative. I worked in an extremely progressive city with really good benefit, but even then I was having to save and piece together different types of leave and get everything signed off by medical professionals. The HR rep basically glared at me and said she didn't know why I was freaking out, she went back to work two weeks after her baby was born and it was fine.
Two. Weeks.
I ended up not going back to work.
I'm currently freaking out about my FMLA i got approved 8 weeks of maternity leave but we have no relative here and no day care near us will take a baby that young. I'm also scared about losing my job, I'll probably end up not going back and leaving work before time.
Some lady's have told me they can hold my place 1 year but they don't always do it.
FMLA only covers 12 weeks. That's all they are required to hold it for (if you qualify). Some companies offer STD, sabbatical, or other similar things. But that's totally up to them, it's not required.
Union can but not always will hold are place 1 year without pay. That's why a lot of ladies wait till the last day of there pregnancy to get there 6-8 weeks of FMLA and then go to sing papers to have there place hold. I think it's mostly because of company loyalty they now a lot of people don't last more then a moth and would prefer to hold a place for someone who has worked years with them, then have to hire 10 people and see if one of them stays.
Perhaps your union. Not all of them. It depends on contract and what all was negotiated.
Exactly but sometimes they won't. This baby was a surprise for us after being told I was infertile, we have no family here and still don't know if we can afford to have me at home but we might have no other option. If they don't hold my place I'll just have to quit and then look for another job (it took me 5 months to find the one I have now).
My sister and I raised our daughters as siblings not cousins for their first 2-3 years. She was a single mom, I suddenly found myself single. We moved in together to help. Two adults is much easier. We worked it out that there was more money avaliabe if I worked and she watched the kids. Daycare is outrageous. That might not be an option for you and need a different plan. There's a sub here that you might find helpful r/ povertyfinance t
There's a lot of information on how to make it and/or save money besides "skipping the starbucks" that you never get because it cost more than you have to begin with.
Thanks, the problem for us is more of who is going to take care of the baby if no daycare will receive a baby that's not 6 months or older and I have to go back to work after 6 months. Starbucks?? What's that lol. We now how to budget a lot, coming from really low income families helped a lot. We both lived in Mexico before my SO was born there and then came here at 15, i was taken there when I was 10, we can have a 2 week of grocerys spending $40-60. But we depend in my income for cloths, extra stuff (toys, trips, school) And with a 6 year old it's not easy. SO has other job options but doesn't want to take them because of the hours (4am to sometimes to 10pm)
Good luck hon. There's always a chance things could turn out the best.
That’s what my husband and I did. I quit work to watch our newborns because daycare is much more expensive than older children and I had twins. If I kept working all that money would have just ended up paying for daycare.
Thankfully my dad is retired so he is first up for child care. I also have an aunt that wants in the babysitting rotation. Gotta love free child care!
And when my sister actually has a baby I don't work Mondays so I know I will getting that child every Monday.
Most day cares/nurseries don't take babies under six months, so if you don't have a relative who can take care of the baby for you, you usually have to stop working or trade days/nights with your partner for the first six months of the baby's life.
Where are you at? Every daycare I've seen starts at 6 weeks. (Excluding in home daycare)
Agreed, daycares all over the US take 6 week olds all the time. The problem is finding a spot because of the provider:infant ratio (in my state, 1:3 under 2 years old) meaning so few spots, so you have to pick the school and make a paid reservation as soon as soon as she finds out she's pregnant.
I used to be a nanny in a big northeastern city, and my specialty was infants under six months because daycares in my city didn't take babies under six months. I had a ton of short-term contracts doing that because waiting lists can be more than a year long there.
I'm still a long way from having kids, but I can't even imagine what entrusting the care of my six week old to a third party would feel like.
At our current daycare, it's $280/week for an infant. It's ridiculous.
It's $450/week for an infant for us out far in the suburbs, $700/week for our friends near NYC.
Private in-home care can be cheaper, but we like the socialization a corporate center provides.
That is ridiculous. You can get an au pair for $200 who is 100% focused on your child alone, in the comfort of your house. I was an au pair a few years ago. Looked after 3 kids, one who was too young for school.
Totally focused? So did you live with and/or eat with the family?
Au Pairs normally do, yes.
So it's not really $200. You'd have to have the space in your home to have an Au Pair. Just one individual raises many utilities. Are you buying the food for them? That is more money if you do.
Oh yes, Au Pairs are not a cheap option. Just cheaper than other forms of childcare.
Generally you provide them with room, board and a small amount of spending money and set time off. They also tend to be young and unqualified (most people use them for school aged children, not tiny babies) and you're basically expected to be the responsible adult for them. They are adults, but young, and occasionally need help or guidance particularly as they are often new to the country, that's what the scheme is designed to be about really.
Totally focused? So did you live with and/or eat with the family?
Yup! So the extra cost of food for me. But I don't each mucj
More like $200 a day.
Yes, it's an option, but having someone living in my home 24/7/365 was a total turnoff for me. Other families have gone this route and loved it though.
I paid that for infant care back in 2009 - and that was, by far, the least expensive option for infant care in my area. Most places I looked at were $315 - $390/week (metro NYC).
I think the earliest Australian daycares will allow is 6 months. Six weeks old is crazy!
Early Head Starts and many home daycares take as young as 2 weeks.
That's why I'm a stay at home dad, paying for daycare for our daughter (born 1 month premature), after my wife's maternity leave ended, was going to cost more than I made per month. Since all my medical and dental was through my wife's company I had no reason to stay at my job since paying for newborn care cost so much.
Of course I live in California where everything costs "Holy crap! That's the price?!?!" compared to a lot of states.
Not forgetting Paternity leave and shared parental leave. Yet the US doesn’t seem to have statutory maternity leave. It feels crazy
If self-employed, you only get the 39 weeks, but that's way more than I plan on taking. It's 90% of your wages or £145.18 a week, whichever is less, but that's more than enough to keep you comfortably afloat if your partner is working. I really regret complaining that my chap only gets 2 weeks off now...
My baby was in daycare at 8 weeks, (manager was generous and gave me 2 extra weeks off passed as vacation) but yeah, also waiting list was 10 months so I was in the moment I knew I was pregnant!
It is soooo hard to leave a TINY infant at 6 weeks in day care. :(
That's if you can afford child care, the average cost of child care for one kid annually in my state is $ 7,500.
I had a baby 10 months ago in an "up and coming city" (one of those "50 people move here per day!" places), and I've now been on a wait list for three different day cares for just over 16 months. If the extra cost doesn't kill you, the waiting does...
It sucks. You have to hunt down day care when you're pregnant - fun times! Where I work, you get six weeks (medical) leave after childbirth; you can take up to 12 weeks (FMLA) but of course it's not paid. After both babies I went back to work after six weeks because I couldn't afford NOT to.
My former boss had to do awful things to his schedule to accommodate his son being born and the first 18 weeks of life. His wife worked for a small business and they demanded she come back as soon as she was out of the hospital. He kept taking random days off or leaving in the middle of the day to go pick her up from work and take her back to the hospital for recovery issues. Took all of his vacation and doubled his WFH days to try to balance.
They were on a waiting list for daycare that only took kids 18+ weeks old. An incredibly convenient coincidence, his father in law decided to retire abruptly when kiddo was 8 weeks old and managed him from then until the daycare took him.
What an utter nightmare it was to hear about, I can't even imagine what they were feeling going through it.
Added on to that there's pretty much zero help with finding affordable childcare. It runs about $2k a month in my area.
I'm intrigued is there any help when the kids are older?
In the UK at 3 every child get 15hrs per week free childcare (to use at a preschool, private nursery, registered childminder etc) 30 if both parents are working over 16 hours a week.
I have never hears of such a policy! There’s nothing like that in the US as far as I know.
Nothing, if you are lucky there might be a cheapish afterschool program. In reality the only "help" anyone gets is a child tax credit of about $2k ish a year
Why do you think other people should be forced to give you money for a voluntary decision you made?
Do you want humanity to continue or no? Because when you're 90, you're going to need that voluntary decision's outcome to sponge bath you.
I don't, I do think it's a very good bonus that either your own employers or the government considers it a priority to encourage that people don't quit work all together though.
I don't have kids, probably won't have kids, but you have to see that if you treat people right society as a whole will be better off.
Because we live in a society and a society is supposed to take care of the most vulnerable members of that society.
Obviously.
Because the human society that we are all a part of needs new humans to function. Making those humans means some people need to get pregnant. So society needs to support them withthat.
Im CF and plan to stay CF my whole life. But you have to see that not only is this current system inhumane, but also it further divides the rich and lower classes. My close friend wants children but he knows that children are for people that are more than financially stable, its for upper middle class and for rich people.
Wow that's crazy. Here in Australia because I worked full time while I was pregnant I was entitled to paid parental leave once I gave birth to my daughter which essentially meant I was given 12k paid out over a few months from the government. Even when that money ran out I was still entitled to government parenting benefits to go towards raising my child, so I was able to have 12 months maternity leave and then find alternative part time work. Even now I still receive government parental payments despite the fact both me and my partner work. We also have the new childcare subsidy in place so instead of paying $103 a day for daycare I only pay around $17 and the Government pays the excess. The idea of having to take out insurance just to spend time caring for a newborn baffles me completely.
and to recover!! your body doesn't bounce back in a day. I told my husband I would move out of the US if he ever agreed. He likes it here.
Exactly this! I had a postpartum haemorrhage and needed emergency surgery along with blood and iron transfusions. It was months before I felt normal again, there's no way I would have been ok physically back at work so quickly
The thought of a swollen vagina, no sleep and a crying child and then having to go back to work is enough for me to say fuck that. No kids for me.
The funny thing is that the US government obviously want women as baby factories but won’t do anything to make it easier to raise or have a child.
Hey, come to Europe! Ofc, all countries are different, all have mandatory leave a least a few months and then you can get up to a year or a few at lower rate, but not unpaid. We think women are entitled to care for their babies. And the concept of baby caregiver isn't popular at all - you get a extended family member to see the baby while you take care of the house or get a power nap.
Only if it were so easy.
I had to go back to work less than a week after giving birth, my employer didn't qualify for FMLA so those days unpaid sucked.
Also sucked 3 days after going back to work having another unpaid week off when I ended up in ICU from complications.
Me and my wife would move out of the US but it's hard for us to get work visas in most other countries. China is one of the only easy options and I'm not sure that would be better.
Jobs in europe are scarce unless you are in a specifically sought after field. Workers have lots more benefits in europe and as a result companies don't do a lot of hiring
Yeah my wife could possibly get a job in certain European countries but I'm a pilot and my job is a definite no over there. Pilot jobs are very competitive in Europe. They don't need to hire foreigners.
If your wife got a job here you would be eligible to work on your dependant visa, so companies would see you as a domestic hire instead of an international one.
I’m having this same battle. Would literally move to any country he wanted—he likes it here too much
Locally, it made the news when someone found an infant left alone in a car with the windows down. He was 7 days old, and the mother had no maternity leave (she was told to return to work or be fired). She couldn't afford a babysitter, and couldn't afford to lose her job, so she left him in the car. She and her co-workers would take turns going to check in on him. One of the co-workers was interviewed and said that she had brought her infant to work a few times, too, but then the employer instituted a new policy of no babies in the break room, so the baby stayed in the car instead.
Every aspect of that story makes me sad.
That’s all kinds of fucked up.
I'm moving to Australia I 'll deal with the things that want to kill me. It's absurd that when my wife has our baby in the fall she only gets six weeks but oh wait she only gets 60% of her pay because it's short term disability and then after that she doesn't get paid at all which is insane.
Just FYI, not sure how common it is, but when I took short term disability, it was actually a week less than it initially looked like, because you had to be out of work for a full week before benefits could start. So you might want to check if there's a similar "waiting week" in your wife's policy.
There is I forgot to mention that thank you for that heads up!
Just didn't want it to come as a nasty surprise to anyone else!
On the other hand.
Australia’s maternity leave is paid at minimum wage. So, depending on your income level, 6 weeks at 60% and 12 more unpaid may actually be the better deal.
Fathers only get 2 weeks. Again, at minimum wage. I’m sure lots of Australian fathers would instantly trade that in for the 12 unpaid weeks Americans get.
Actually Australian men re just as entitled to women to receive paid/unpaid leave. Just need to be primary carer. So we planned (later didn’t do it) for me to take the 10 weeks mat leave my employer gave me (above and beyond), the 18 weeks min wage from the government, then my husband take 52 weeks unpaid leave from his job when I went back to work. He also got 2 weeks paid from govt when I had the baby and another 2 weeks paid by his employer (above and beyond). TLDR: it’s actually great in Australia. And the 18 week paid period is increasing over the next few years.
Yeah I can see that. Luckily for us dads in the military now we get a nice 21 days for paternity
THIS is AMAZING and has left me speechless. I think my workplace would allow me 12 weeks if I have a child. You can also pay monthly for short-term disability or long-term, which you can use when you have a child.. but I think that is only 50 dollars a day you get paid..
The whole 12K thing is blowing me away.. that is what I made in a year with my first job.
Good- now start tipping over burning cars and demanding government act the way most of the world takes for granted!
American here. I was fired from my 10 year, full time job for being put on bed rest due to pregnancy complications.
I'm super jealous of Australia and you.
That’s super illegal here.
Our U.S. policies are designed by many Christians in government. Christians say they love children. I think they would prefer it if the church raised them, however, and not their parents or the government.
Christians only love children when they're in the womb. They don't care once they're born.
Well they are sinners at this point. Duh!
That's not true. But so many Christians have an irrational fear and loathing of the government, yet based on how well government services work in OTHER countries, this fear and loathing is not rational.
You also have to be old enough to remember the Welfare mistakes of the past in the U.S. Here's a short List of Welfare Mistakes from the 1960s and 70s:
Not requiring job training or college while the recipient was on Welfare.
Large housing projects concentrating the poor in some of the worst parts of cities, often far from mass transit, so how could they easily get to work or college without a car?
Local governments allowing nothing but liquor stores to accumulate in low income areas without a lid on their expansion. In the meantime, these areas were cheated of basic stores like supermarkets.
Policing based on an absence of building relationships with these communities.
Prison punishments for drug offenses not based on the scientific understanding that drug, nicotine, and alcohol addictions are complex diseases.
Cuts to school funding over the years that made it more difficult for the children of poor parents to get a good education, and be prepared to enter an adulthood with different options than their parents' options.
Allowing tobacco companies to advertise their products everywhere - on TV, in print, and on radio - which helped lead poor people into that nicotine addiction, thus giving them another way to throw money away on non-necessities and ruin their health in the process, which costs the taxpayers more money because we pay for their cigarette illnesses.
Christians don't hate kids. They just just tend to come at problems from a "Bible first" and "church first" perspective. Why? Because they're taught that's their only purpose on earth - to convert everyone to Christianity.
Not just Christians. Specifically, it is a Puritan tradition that places holy value on hard work. Puritans believed that manual labor literally purified the soul, and those traditions have been embraced by the USA's "bootstrap mentality."
You’re probably a bit young, but the bush administration really pushed the personal responsibility thing while gutting social programs. It used to be better than now apparently.
Old enough to remember the first Bush Presidential campaign. This aspect of our zeitgeist is as old as our colonies.
You can see echoes of it through everything from campaign speeches to pulp novels throughout American history. The Reagan administration really served to enshrine the concept as a means of devaluing American citizens, but it's always been there.
Lol fair enough. I’m getting to the age now where everyone on reddit feels younger than me. There’s the assumption by a lot of people that things have always been as they are now and they forget that things like the social safety net was a good thing.
A feeling I am learning quite well my own self. I get ya man, for sure.
They do not want women to work, they want women to be homemakers.
Some Christian preachers teach this, that's true.
WHAT THE FUCK! It's worse here that I thought! My wife quit working for 2 years after our child was born but I had to work my as of to pay the bills.
There’s a reason the USA has a maternal mortality rate almost 5 times what your’s is, and this is certainly a contributor. Of course, it doesn’t affect rich women so who gives a fuck.
Ha! I lost government assistance for day care for my kids because I started working!
USA! USA! USA!
It's honestly sickening. Especially in a country where bible thumpers and the left alike, idolize and promote family values yet when it comes to starting a family, they say "do that on your own time". Makes me embarrassed to know my country operates this way.
This kind of thing us extremely looked down upon here in the US. It's considered leaching off the system. People think we should roll back anything inherently close to this because we've become "a welfare state". It's truly sad. Many people genuinely believe the majority of people that get government benefits are cheating the system.
How easy is it to migrate to Australia? It sounds like a wonderful place
[deleted]
This is really good to know. Spouse and I (Americans) have been trying to figure out what other English-speaking country we could live in, but we don’t have in-demand jobs. I’m college educated, he’s not.
Guns are toys here, we’re having a baby in January and my employer offers no paid maternity leave, and our politics has everyone hating and being mean to each other. I can’t take all this nastiness and negativity and violence. I want out.
Wait, is $100+/day pretty average for daycare over there?
Yes. We pay $125 per day in a big city. But govt gives you a 50% rebate until your family income gets to about 180k per year, it gradually reduces after that.
Shit. I think I need to talk to my accountant.
Lol my mom was going to work up until the day she had me. Took a week and then went back to work.
Only problem I have with maternity/ paternity leave is people who come back expecting to be promoted to where their Peers are. If you want to take half a year off to have a baby (which should be fine and you shouldn't loose your job) you shouldn't expect to be making as much as someone who was working that whole time.
Yes. But if the person that comes back is smarter/more capable than the one who has been working the last 6 months then they could be more valuable to the company and be paid more. Pay shouldn’t be on tenure - should be based on performance and capability.
Yea exactly. But xperience in a lot of fields is very valuable.
There you go - mooching off the government!
/s
As an Australian who lives in a country town, I can not relate to $103 a day for daycare. $103 for four days a week maybe but not a day.
I think the last census showed that the average Australian income was $650 a week. I can not fathom how childcare would be affordable for a single mother on only $650.
I live in a country town in regional nsw. Our daycare fees were $98 a day previously but with the CCR & CCB I was only paying $23.71 a day. Now the centre has raised its fees to $103 because of the subsidy. But because my combined family income is under $65000 and because of how many hours we work we are now actually paying a few dollars less than we were before.
12k over a few months? does this amount change based on income? Gone are the days of Baby bonuses, but this 12k sounds great! My wife works full time so wondering if we should take a plunge on another baby =) Source: am living in Australia
So usually the 12k is paid to the employer who then pays it out either weekly or fortnightly. The weekly ammount received is $695 although it's it's paid for 18 weeks. my old employer just put the whole 12k straight into my account which I then put in my savings and spread it out over 6 months. She has to meet the work test. Just look up paid parental leave.
I have a question: What is the company you work for supposed to do with your job for an entire year? Maternity leave is good, and parents deserve it, but if you leave your job for 12 months, they have to train somebody to replace you. Then when your leave is over, you come back - what now? The company has 2 people that do the same job. Should they just fire the replacement person after they spent 3 months training them? Or keep someone whose job is already filled by someone else?
In my view, the 12 months should be welcomed by the employer. Typically they will hire someone else on, on a contract basis, giving the employer an easy-out if that person ends up being a bad-hire. The contract employee gets 12 months of experience that they might not have gotten otherwise, and if they are a good employee, a business will typically try to find a good spot for them within the organization. If anything, that person gets good experience and a good reference at the end of it all.
But the company loses, because they had to spend months training this new person. This doesn't happen in all cases, but when someone in upper-level management has a child, it is a MASSIVE blow to the company. So much so, that there is bias in hiring women who are of childbearing age, because companies have to factor in the cost of compensating for maternity leave
The company I work for offers 2 weeks of maternity leave. Yes it's a little short, but the company can effectively work around it, so we can hire people without worrying about their childbearing plans in the future
[deleted]
Holy shit that is an incredible amount of time. I think it's awesome that mothers get so much time to recover and chill with their baby, but I bet the discrimination is even more prevalent there. If I was looking to promote a woman to high management, and one candidate was 28 years old while the other was 41 (all else equal), I couldn't in good conscience pick the young one knowing that decision will cost the company so dramatically if/when she has kids.
[deleted]
It's highly illegal here, too. But I've seen it happen firsthand. The way to help those potential mothers not be discriminated against is to allow companies to hire them without sacrificing productivity (because companies will never voluntarily sacrifice productivity)
Also thanks for discussing this with me instead of telling me I'm wrong. That happens a lot
[deleted]
I'm in the software field, so this may be an atypical experience, but working remotely has pretty dramatically changed the maternity leave system for the better. We had our team lead take off 2 weeks for his new son, and that definitely could have been a hot mess. But he would check his email every couple hours or so, and anything we needed him for critically he could find a few minutes to help out.
Lots of industries could implement a "Work remotely but just do your job enough so that we can work around you being gone" policy, and I think this would go a long way toward reducing that discrimination
Infosec field here. I also run a team and am part of an escalations team, where say, a client decides to walk for a techincal reason, it's my job to hop on a call and find a solution.
If I were to take more than a week off it would be a major shitstorm, but fortunately working from home is almost always a part of any tech related field. Thankfully, my company offers unlimited PTO and 6 weeks paternity leave. Given that I have all of theses options, including working from home, paternity leave is a lot more manageable for both sides.
Senior exec here. You replace them the same way you'd replace anyone who left, got sick, or took leave. If you can't replace an employee with six months' notice, you're a shit manager and you don't deserve your job.
Also, countries with maternity leave typically also have far more generous vacation and sick leave benefits than the US. So we're already used to having to cover any job for a couple of months out of the year. Cross-pollinating skills and knowledge is just part of the workplace as a result.
As for what happens to replacements, these roles are advertised as maternity leave placements. People who apply for them know the job has an end date. It's just another fixed-term hire. Now, if the person is well regarded, they may well get another job at the company, as other jobs become vacant towards the end of their term. But the maternity leave placement is understood by all parties as a temporary one, but that suits enough people that they can still be filled.
Interesting insight. This makes sense! Thank you
It’s called a maternity locum. Pretty standard.
Because some people don't feel their tax dollars should go to you making the life choice of having a baby. You are a grown up, I shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of you having children. No wonder the cost of living is obscene in Australia.
Obscene? I don’t think so.
Anyway, it’s not a life choice for one person. Some people recognize that it’s important to have babies for the mere survival of the human race.
Edit. Oh. Of course. you’re a troll
Actually I have several children. We planned, we saved. I stayed home for first 2 full time then the next 2 we planned and saved again and WE payed for me to stay home for 3 months with each. I did not in anyway expect the government (also know as other tax payers) to pick up the tab. YOU want babies you pay for them.
*Edit: oh you're one of those that think you are entitled.
Thanks for telling what I think.
We had 150k in the bank before we had our first. My wife took thirteen months off work. Our household income is close to 200k. Having government subsidies keeps us both gainfully employed in highly trained jobs. You and I might be so lucky to have those, but there are many people whose situation could be much worse, and is in the states demonstrably so, if there wasn’t a childcare rebate, or five hundred bucks a week maternity leave.
Thank you for assuming what I make. We make $63,000 and still did it without handouts from other people's hard work and sweat. Really.... You TOOK money from people that made far less than you to help keep up your cushy lifestyle. Nice......
Uh, no. We pay taxes, and one year of our taxes pay for about five years of rebate. Considering that we have been working for about fifteen years each, I’m ok with our previous years taxes paying for a couple of years of childcare rebates and maternity leave. It means that we aren’t embittered whiny fucks like yourself who only thinks of one person and can’t see that paying taxes means that everyone in society benefits. That’s how you get roads, hospitals, schools, healthcare, defense. You guys missed the memo that paying into these things pays dividends that exceed the dollar payout. In this case it has been calculated that giving childcare rebates actually makes the economy money. But you probably don’t believe me because you are so entrenched in your little American bubble that pounds into your uneducated little brains that taxation is theft. If you don’t like taxation, move to a country that doesn’t make you pay taxes. Guaranteed there’s even worse infrastructure and public health than whatever shit hole that forces women to leave their babies in the car while they work. Like the US.
I don't mind paying taxes at all. There you go assuming again. Hey no need to get hateful if you want to pay in taxes in ONE YEAR that would keep your wives maternity leave for 5 years. You keep it up big guy. Some like to bend over and grab their ankles.
Ever had cancer? Know someone who did? How much was their hospital stay? My mum had cancer. Know what the hospital bill was? Zero. Guess how much the bill was when we had our baby and it was a Caesar? Zero. I’ll pay taxes all my life happily if it means I get to see my mum. And the same goes so that my wife had zero complications and some of the worlds best healthcare. Sometimes you just have to pay the money to unfuck yourself. Which you just don’t get.
We are getting out what we pay in over the years. Same with healthcare, pensions and education. With our flat 30% tax rate.
Cheap food, cheap lives. (see also: the US maternal mortality rate)
Yeah but the trade-off is Australia doesn't allow free speech or self expression. I mean, they censored syringes out of Bioshock! No wonder they couldn't beat the Emus!
Sure we do.
You’re a dickhead.
The prime minister is a cant
The church is full of dick heads.
None of those things are illegal to say.
The thing is, you guys had to write a constitution, which replaced centuries of common law. We, being part of the commonwealth, did not have to go to such drastic measures. We still have a constitution. But it’s not as broad as yours. It doesn’t have to be. But, when you hear some talking head on the news saying something like “the Australian (or british) constitution doesn’t protect free speech” it doesn’t have to in the same way yours does. It’s a different system, based off the same idea that the marketplace of ideas is a good thing.
Your examples aren't free speech, it's just low effort trolling. Free speech excercized correctly takes down corruption or points it out, and that's where you guys are failing.
Really? Give me an example.
That's your job.
Nooo. You made the claim. You provide the evidence. As Hitchens said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’ve given you the jurisprudence explanation as to why we do in fact have free speech. You show me how that proves false with any evidence. Even a newspaper article. But, I’m assuming you could even name an Australian newspaper without googling it. You’ve just heard something from fox and friends and you are parroting it without having done any more research or applied any thought to the situation.
But your examples of free speech never landed anyone in prison. You need to find examples where they do.
Are we talking about the same Australia?
I'm just going to sound like a dick.
You had a child you couldn't afford.
No? How can you not afford something that is free?
Free because they rely on government handouts.
..which they pay for with taxes.
Based off all the handouts they're mentioning, they're still making out.
Why should I pay for others bad decisions?
Example:
I shouldn't have to pay for someone's 3rd child as well as their first 2. Why the fuck did they have a 3rd if they were already getting government handouts for the first 2?
Watch documentaries about hunger in America and food stamps/ebt. Of course there's people on it who are truly facing hard times and struggling, in that case it's great. It's great for the kids too.
But why on Earth do you have so many children so close in age and ARE PREGNANT AGAIN??? One lady in a video I watched for class had 4 children and was pregnant with her 5th. Complaining that food stamps aren't enough to live on and that there's no good grocery stores in her area. She was living in section 8 housing, receiving money from the government for her kids, and food stamps.
Why the fuck am I paying for this ladies continual bad choices in life?
Can I get some government handouts to pay for my meals this week? Or my rent? Maybe my cell phone bill too?
We have handouts to pay for meals and rent in Australia. It's called centrelink. I'm glad my taxes go towards it.
Honestly... in Bulgaria maternity leave is almost two years, all paid. And you get to keep your job.
Damn, that's a long time. I feel like the person would almost have to completely re-learn their job by the time they returned.
He's also apparently kinda wrong.
From http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-best-parental-leave-2016-11
"Bulgarians are given up to 410 days of paid maternity leave at 90 percent of the mother's salary, 45 days of which must be taken prior to the birth of the child. Parents are also eligible for a second year of paid parental leave at a minimum salary."
I'd say technically right, it wasn't said at full salary. But thanks for the additional info. That's a whole lot of maternity leave. And the beginning of that article was depressing talking about how shitty the US system is.
Yep, that could be an issue. Oh, and if you have twins it's even longer.
How do employers deal with the absence from an operational standpoint? Does the work just not get done? Does the employer get paid by the government to hire a temporary worker to do the work? What if the work is highly specialized? What if the temp gets pregnant--is her job protected?
I mean I hear this "your job is safe" stuff all the time but literally no one has ever explained the logistics or the impact to the business of maintaining a non productive worker while their position sits vacant and unable to be filled for years.
No, the employer has to find a solution on their own. If it's a private business the government has no place hiring a substitute. There are possibly 6-7 months in which the employer has to find someone else, hell, they even have time to completely train a new person in that period.
Yeah temps are often the answer. I’ve never heard of a temp getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. I imagine that’s rare and it would mean the original person was probably gone for 9 months or so.
A temp is replacing my friend while she’s gone for 6 months. Then friend will work part-time and they’ll keep the temp if she’s any good.
You see plenty of ads that say the job is only a 1 year contract or whatever while the person you’re replacing is on leave.
Is the employer required to pay it? Or is it government funded?
That doesn't even make sense. What if you get a job at McDonald's and nine months later you go on leave.
That's literally rewarding you for your personal lifestyle choices. I have no issue with keeping your job, I think that's totally reasonable, but two years of paid vacation? That's insane.
And yes, I know what parents do, it's not that hard.
It's not vacation if you need to take care of a small child.
but your getting paid, is there like a limit? what if you just got pregnant all the friggin time?
You get a child extra. The state is paying you for your kids. I don't know any women that would want kids non-stop, but if she was to get a kid as soon as maternity leave ends, then yes, she can be home forever. You also get a child bonus income for every child you have so you can just stay home and take care of them.
Shit that's what the nanny is for.
...or you take care of your own?
Or you get a nanny. Or daycare or whatever.
[deleted]
America is going down a path of what basically looks like stupid libertarianism.
Far too many people's politics basically sounds like zero-thought selfishness that stands for nothing.
There is no political framework to Donald Trump for instance, it's essentially summarized as "fuck them, what about me?". Immigrants, minorities, kids, old people, etc... Fuck them all, what about me!?
They've been led down this path by liar politicians that will say anything to get elected coordinating with right wing media talking bullshit to support those lies.
The result is the unintelligible horseshit that is Trumpism.
Far too many people's politics basically sounds like zero-thought selfishness that stands for nothing.
This is America. :/
America has always been laissaiz faire libertarian compared to Euro countries. As an American Libertarian it's hard for me to understand why I might have to pay to take care of someone 500km from me whom is having a child; that's their responsibility, not mine. (govt asst) However, I understand and have empathy towards maternity/paternity leave; it just shouldn't be something the employer is footed the bill for, the employer didn't have a baby, nor is the baby a guaranteed future worker of said establishment. In my mind it is theft to ask the employer to pay for an employees private decisions. (Employer asst)
This view makes so little sense though. I live in a society, and we have to determine what works best for that society in order for my experience in it to be as good as possible.
You "pay" for someone else's use of roads, hospitals, schools, etc because they pay for yours. The further away you get from a system like this, the worse off society is as a whole. Supporting mothers, children, sick people, old people has a net positive affect on everything, including your own life.
That isn't to say you can't make that choice now to check-out and live apart from society and all the tolls and taxes that come with it, but to pretend that anything is "their responsibility, not mine." ignores how the modern world was built.
You wouldn't typing on a message board if other people didn't set it all up for you within the system that you would work to oppose. It just doesn't add up for me.
So why do people with your mentality, never leave the most libertarian place on the planet for a "better" society? You never go. You want to stay here and change HERE. Why? (Hint: I know why)
No idea what you are talking about.
Where exactly is "the most libertarian place on the planet"?? Liberia?
If you mean the USA, I don't live there.... if you think the USA is the most libertarian place in the world, you're off your fucking rocker, or totally full of shit... hard to say which.
You want to stay here and change HERE.
If you're the libertarian, you're the one that's trying to change everything. Not me. As my examples above clearly demonstrated, there is no such thing as real world libertarianism.
That shit was left behind before the stone age.
I don't live there.
Then mind your business.
Lol. What? No one was specificly talking about the US. Nice weasel move though, coward.
The other option for getting social security paid is immigrants, which America hasn’t had a problem attracting. It doesn’t have to be domestic babies that replace aging populations.
We make our own retirement or die poor on social security. I worked hard to get where I’m at and I don’t want to pay even more taxes so that people can procreate, get paid leave because they made an irresponsible decision as a professional, and then have a job when they get back. I think that businesses should offer unpaid sabbaticals by law but any pay should be a benefit at the owners discretion. My opinion would be different if and only if it was paid for by the ultra wealthy and corporations (as a percentage of revenue as opposed to profit) with over a billion in assets. How things are now tho wouldn’t be alright. It’s unfair to businesses. Particularly small businesses. It’s unfair to co-workers who have to pick up the parents slack. If you want a kid, be responsible and do it before you take a job. If you can’t afford to do that, you probably can’t afford to raise a kid proper.
During the second year mothers get a percentage of the minimum wage, and it's paid from their health insurance. It's not unfair to businesses, not even to small businesses - I work for one and we are doing just fine with 2 employees on maternity leave currently. Also, the entire country's economic system hasn't collapsed on itself just because people decide to have kids.
Hahah. Is this a joke, or do some Americans proper think like this?
100% developing country mentality. Taxes are evil because taxes fund corrupt politicians and they just fuck you over. Add in some propaganda and the U.S. Americans are like WE ARE A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY ~~with a 3x higher maternity death rate than Canada~~ I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW. Meanwhile every other developed country's government is like: more kids is good, they pay taxes.
I’m not joking. Don’t make your decisions my problem. I don’t make my decisions your problem. It’s mixed. A lot of people agree with me and a lot don’t.
If you want a kid, be responsible and do it before you take a job. If you can’t afford to do that, you probably can’t afford to raise a kid proper.
How the fuck do you expect people to be able to afford kids if they have them before they take a job? Do you honestly expect all women to quit their jobs every time they get pregnant, and then get another one...when? As soon as their literally torn up genitals heal? When they're done birthing all the kids they're going to have in their lives? Do both parents give up their incomes as they prepare to raise a child? How exactly should this work, in your mind?
How... do you profit from people having a good education?
[deleted]
People who have a good education aren't stuck in dead end jobs taking opioids because they lack social mobility...
Haha! That escalated quickly.
Like is your question for real?
Like totally.
People who are able (and I don't mean in a monetary aspect) and willing to pursue education are an asset to their community. Be it trade school (which, in Switzerland, most people go to) or uni of applied sciences or a uni. You can't rob someone of knowledge. Educated people are more likely to make informed choices.
edit: also like I personally profit off of good inventions, no?
Cool, sure. How are you profiting off of these people? How much are you making?
[deleted]
Lol you dont know what words mean so you misuse them. The dictionary definition of profit is to benefit financially.. it's what the word means. If it's American to know and use terms correctly, then that's 1 more reason to be proud to be an American.
Plenty of countries have the things you list. I'm happy to hear that you get to enjoy them in the country in which you live.
[deleted]
What?? That's a sub definition of the primary definition of financial gain. To profit commonly means to make money. Most of the English speaking world understands this.. it's right there in the dictionary link you provided.
You should have said benefit instead of profit if you didnt want to confuse readers.
This has become a silly and trivial point of contention.
Countries need young people because they need productive people, for instance to fund pensions.
Marriage has benefits too and that's personal lifestyle choice as well.
America has no parental leave, but I'm sure it's not alone. Obviously North Ko...
OK, that's just because of communism. But some countries have basically no rights for women, so of course Saudi...
I meant Syr...
Iran? Iraq?
I know using Africa is cheating, but...
I give up.
American who don't think maternity leave is a good idea will just use this as proof that communistic parental leave ruins countries. And if you tell them the west plundered those countries for decades they call you a racist and white people hater. We are way beyond reason.
[deleted]
I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. You seem to be saying "You can make more money in three months in America than in three years in North Korea, therefore America has paid maternity leave", but that doesn't make any sense.
My point was that paid parental leave exists in just about every country on Earth, from the richest to the poorest, except in the United States (and Suriname, and Papua New Guinea, according to Wikipedia).
That’s because the idea of any job, no matter what it pays or what you do, not giving every employee paid sick, maternity and paternity leave is some kind of crazy third world country slavery bullshit to the vast majority of first world countries.
I’d imagine most non Americans have no idea that’s a thing in America.
crazy third world country slavery
I live in the third world and we have paid maternity leave, thank you very much
/r/murderedbywords
Actually, America and Papua New Guinea are the only two countries that don't offer paid maternity leave. So even third world slavery countries offer something the US doesn't.
How the hell have corporations in America managed to convince so many Americans that these basic rights are unnecessary and better for the worker to not have? I don't understand how American people accept these horrible working conditions instead of revolting en masse to demand better working conditions.
Americans tend to put property rights ahead of human rights.
Once you understand that a lot more of what happens here makes sense. It's still not right, but at least it makes sense.
Property rights are human rights.
See? Like that
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
- Ronald Wright
No American would argue it is better for the worker to not have someone pay you for an extended period of time after you have a child. Obviously we like free stuff as much as anyone else. But many Americans believe it is wrong to force someone legally to pay you while you aren't working. Many large companies do offer paid maternity leave, it just isn't mandated by law.
This is how I feel. I'm for maternity leave but I want consistent competent employees that dont leave for a year.
Cause revolting means I'm not at work.
I honestly didn't until I started hanging around the pregnancy forums on reddit.
Me and my wife make above average salaries in our 30s in America and aren't sure if we can have kids. Neither one of us get any paid sick time or maternity/paternity leave. Our medical bill deductible is $6900 so we would have to pay that out of pocket somehow while not getting paychecks.
I know women in the US who have gone back to work less than a week after having twins. Most men I know take zero time off for the baby other than the day of the birth to get their wife to the hospital.
We can't afford the medical bills if we take a bunch of unpaid time off.
That's if the pregnancy and birth are in the same calendar year. If not, you'll be paying towards two separate deductibles. I just gave birth in May, so about half the pregnancy was on one plan year and half was on another -_-
That's one of our fears too. We've seriously thought about trying to time it so most of the pregnancy is in the same year. My worst nightmare would be getting a $6900 bill in December then another $6900 bill right away in January.
I had one of my kids in March. TOTAL BULLSHIT.
Are you saving for retirement? Pft you have money.
^^^\s
It's definitely something you have to plan for. We waited until our mid-30s to have kids, and we had already decided several years ago that I was going to focus on my career, and my wife did not want a career. She tried it, and it was not for her. I had saved the ~$8,000 in copays and out-of-pocket that I would need to cover for the birth of our next child (the first time, it did not occur to me that once the per-person out-of-pocket maximum for my wife was reached, they would start counting my newborn), but I just switched jobs and got an insurance plan that pays 100% of all maternity-related expenses. Soup to nuts. Zero out of pocket. $8,000 buys a pretty decent trap/sporting clay shotgun, so daddy was stoked. Well, $8,000 buys most of a decent shotgun. I had to cough up another few thousand to get my Beretta DT11 :D
I don't have any paternity leave officially, but I can more or less do what I want. So there's the perfect solution: Get a job that pays well where nobody expects you to show up at certain times at certain places, and nobody cares what you do as long as you keep making money for the company.
Yeah not everyone has the luxury of finding such a wonderful job. Even working in the medical field, you're more than likely not going to have benefits like that.
The medical field might be the worst as far as autonomy and flexibility. Doctors, nurses and technicians work crazy hours and have to go to physical buildings.
A shotgun is $8k?
Trap and skeet guns get expensive fast. You can do just fine on a much smaller budget, but top end Krieghoffs, Berettas, and Benellis are pricey. Look up MSRP for a Beretta DT-11. They run from ~$9k-12k+ depending. You can spend $50,000 on a bespoke high end sporting shotgun.
I started a new job in accounting, professional field, reasonable pay... I have 5 days paid sick leave and 5 days vacation leave for the year, and I think we get maybe 7 or 8 holidays paid. It's also salary so.. no overtime and I started during tax season with mandatory 55 hour/6 day work weeks. This is a decent job in my part of the country and boy does that suck.
The whole concept of salaried workers not getting paid overtime is another bizarre situation.
I don't even get paid for those extra hours really, that almost 4 month period drives my actual hourly rate down by a couple dollars.
My employer said the other day, "you know, if you had any plans this summer and wanted to take a few days off, that'd be okay, even a week, maybe around the 4th of July since we're usually slow. We'll try to find a way to be okay without you for a few days."
Oh, cool, thanks, I can take a few days off but only when we're gonna be slow and it coincides with a normal day off and you "promise" not to bug me? Not to mention, I've been working here for 8 FUCKING YEARS, but NOW it's finally okay to take a few days off and I KNOW it's because I told him I would happily leave that job, without notice, if I got a better offer.
Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. I'm irreplaceable here since I set up almost all the systems so only I know how to do most things here. Even the corporate office that helps the franchise owners train new hires calls me to train the corporate people. Also, he only recently said he would, "start paying you overtime that you've been asking for" (hey, dipshit, that's not a "perk" I want, it's Federal law).
If you're irreplaceable it sounds like you're in a good negotiation position.
And he hasnt been assertive about what he wants at all or has and got punked down since he's been at the place 8 years. Fuck that folks. Stand up for yourselves.
Trust me, I've brought it up. I've tried to introduce new or underutilized revenue streams as a way to augment my pay. One of my main responsibilities is designing print marketing collateral. I don't think the shop charges enough for fair market value, sometimes waiving the design-related fees altogether. I've said, "you jump straight to throwing in free work, if you don't want their money then let me tell them the price and keep the extra fee. If they think it's too much, I'll reduce it, but don't provide a service and NOT charge them for it, especially when it's a professional-level service".
I've been told, "No, I can't do that, I have overhead, I have other bills to pay, I can't give you that money."
"Yeah, but it's either you're going to charge nothing or you let me make beer money charging a quarter of the market rate for this."
"Nope, can't do it, overhead."
Like, for real? You don't want their money, but you won't let me have it either, and you won't even wait for the customer to say "that's too much" before waiving the fee outright?
The guy I work for is a prick. I've fought hard to climb the ladder and he won't budge, so I did the opposite: I embedded my roots so deep into this place that it will do a tremendous amount of damage to the company if I leave, and now that I'm at that point I've made it very clear that I will leave at the drop of a hat when the time is right.
A lot of things about the U.S. sound like third world country problems to those living in first world countries. The U.S. for all it's progress in things like tech is very behind culturally. I'm mean they haven't even formed a true democracy yet, they're still a republic that's hanging onto an old and rather outdated constitution.
The U.S. actually does make much more sense if you view it as an exceptionally rich second-world (or even third-world) country. You've got shitty race relations, the levels of crime & violence, the levels of police violence, the unhinged political system they have, and the apparent lack of empathy or willingness to look after unfortunates in society - it all sounds like some unpleasant African nation (I know, I grew up in an unpleasant African nation). Admittedly these are all the negatives of America with no positive points, which obviously does make it sound awful; but most First World countries don't have to deal with this stuff
i have this weird suspicion it might correlate to the fuckton more people the U.S. has
Why would that corelate?
To some degree yes but American culture is waaaay more to blame. Well that and the Republican party which is against many forms of socitial progress.
Naw, you're wrong.
Good argument man, you really got me there.
Our race relations are way better than in Europe. It is still acceptable over there to throw banana peels at black athletes. And that's in Western Europe! We're light years ahead of Europe when it comes to race relations.
The British are still denying the atrocities they committed in Kenya in the 50s. The only reason people think it's worse here is because we don't try to sweep it under the rug to "keep up appearances".
As a bearded brown Aussie male, I felt a lot more racial tension during my 6 months in the US, than I have ever in Australia, the UK, or NZ.
I get treated like any other person in Australia, UK, and NZ, but did not feel the same in the US.
Racism is still a thing over here obviously, let's not kid ourselves - but I'd be curious to know where you heard that it's acceptable to throw banana peels at a black athlete. It's quite possible that that did happen in Europe, but it's really not acceptable in the slightest.
https://deadspin.com/racist-dutch-soccer-fans-throw-inflatable-banana-at-bla-1688283860
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the-beautiful-blog/atalanta-fans-throw-bananas-knife-like-object-ac-milan-kevin-constant-nigel-de-jong-blog-entry-1.1788126
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/05/09/310990212/spain-fines-team-of-racist-banana-throwing-fan-but-is-it-enough
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_association_football
That Wikipedia page includes a very long list of racist incidents in Europe, as opposed to the short section for the US. Europe has a long way to go.
Like I said, I'm quite sure this shit happens - all countries have wankers living in them, some of whom are also racists. None of that's widely accepted in Europe though.
On the other side of the Atlantic, we have Mr Trump (who, may I add, has the support of neo-Nazis) openly spouting anti-Mexican rhetoric, and then getting elected as president by his overwhelmingly white supporters. In the UK, we have a not-dissimilar politician: his name is Nigel Farage, and he is mostly seen as a dangerous lunatic who fortunately seems to have dropped out of politics for the moment. Again, this sort of behaviour doesn't seem to be widely accepted in America, but the fact that somebody can be as openly xenophobic as Trump and have really any sort of hope of becoming president says quite a lot.
It's also probably worth adding that most of Europe (quite possibly all of it, now I think of it, though I don't know enough to say for certain) had abandoned formal racial segregation by the late 20th century.
That couldn't possibly be because football is played much more, and given a much higher cultural emphasis, than it is in the US?
Mate stop chatting shit
Joke's on you, we don't follow that thing anymore either.
Well besides the Second amendment. That seems to be followed pretty religiously.
The U.S. for all it's progress in things like tech
They still send cheques in the mail, though.
I'm mean they haven't even formed a true democracy yet, they're still a republic that's hanging onto an old and rather outdated constitution.
We became a "full democracy" after passing the 17th amendment to our constitution, which kind of tackles both of your points, unless I'm misunderstanding your post.
Also, I'm not sure what definition of "republic" you're using.
We became a "full democracy" after passing the 17th amendment to our constitution
Full democracy is when the people vote directly on their candidates and not on representatives. That means that the real numerical majority of people chooses the president.
and every citizen has a vote directly on what laws are passed. Full democracy is a point I agree with. Remove the middle man so to speak (congress), and let the people vote on whatever issues are brought before them. However, then we don't have kingmakers, superpacs, or career politicians. So highly unlikely to see the light of day.
The problem there is, there'd be a shit ton of votes, and that would likely make the process ironically enough less democratic in many cases. Direct democracy is inefficient, and frankly has many flaws.
You're going to talk to me about flaws when not one, but two, presidents have been sworn in without winning the popular vote? Flaws I can deal with. Losing an election while winning the popular vote is much larger then a flaw.
I think I was a bit unclear there, so sorry about that: I definitely agree that on major decisions such as voting for the head of state, it should be the majority vote.
HOWEVER. What I'm saying I disagree with is your point of direct democracy: if every single issue was a vote for everybody, voter turnout would be low, and on many issues, only those with an incentive to vote for them would turn up (mostly), which would make the results gained from such events not accurately reflect what the majority of the populace believes.
That would be a direct democracy, and there aren't many examples of that existing the world today because it's hard to get working for anything more than a small group of people. You also have the danger of mob-rule, where the majority oppresses the minorities. This is one of the reasons for a Constitution, to protect the rights of all citizens, including from themselves/the majority.
Full democracy is when the people vote directly on their candidates and not on representatives.
No that would be a direct democracy. I purposefully used a vague term "full democracy" in response to /u/GazLord's use of the term "true democracy", both of which are non-existent terms. If /u/GazLord wanted to say the US is "very behind culturally" because we are a Republic instead of a Democracy, then he should at least define the terms he's using. Because otherwise what he says makes no damned sense since the majority of first-world Western nations are also Constitutional Democratic Republics just like us. So how can we be worse due to our government if they're based off the same system? /u/GazLord if you're reading this, you're a moron and you have no idea what you're talking about.
That means that the real numerical majority of people chooses the president.
No that would be proportional representation. If you're referring to the Electoral College, then you should say that explicitly unless you're afraid of being called out.
The Electoral College only applies to the President, is made up of representatives, and the president is not hereditary like in a Monarchy. Hence we are a Republic.
Our legislature which makes our laws is made up of representatives which are voted in directly. Hence we are also a Democracy. (But it is still not proportional representation because of gerrymandering)
And of course because we have a Constitution to protect the rights of all citizens from abuse of power (which for example can occur from mob-rule by the majority which you risk having in a direct-democracy), we are therefore a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC (or a constitutional representative democracy if you prefer) like most other first world nations.
It's not one or the other people.
Oh, I was trying to explain what he meant by "true democracy", I had no idea you understood him but was just being petty with a foreigner not knowing the right terms. My bad.
No worries. Thanks for being so cordial.
Do you know any source that could be useful to tackle and try to understand the American Constitution from the standpoint of an alien?
Ted Cruz, is that you?
Sadly no.
Well I like not being Ted Cruz but I'd also appreciate if he did read the constitution.
"A common definition of "republic" is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them" — we are that. [...] The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. [...] But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy."
Quick google search showed me that. Good luck, Pississippi2.
Ha that's rich. I'll take our old and outdated Constitution over the British having every facet of their lives spied on. And the government telling you what words are offensive and you can't say. People get arrested over mean twitter posts! Fuck that. Our Constitution is amazing, and those of us who are smart enough realize it's our only real power against the government.
Lol, the US doesn't spy on its citizens? The President doesn't constantly berate the media about what he thinks is offensive?
Yea and he doesn't put people in handcuffs for it like the backward U.K. We also don't have a million CCTV cameras on the street watching your every move, and censorship filters on the internet. I'm glad we have our Constitution so we don't become Airstrip One like the U.K.
Bit of a daft cunt really aren't you?
I've been meaning to ask...How is old Big Brother by the way?
No he's pretty much speaking the truth. Individual liberty and property rights priceless, an intrusive nanny state is evil.
Keep telling me how it works where I live mate, that'll change reality for sure!
In a thread full of Europeans telling Americans how it is in America.
As a Brit, I agree with you a fair bit, the state of our nation is not great insofar as freedom of expression and surveillance is concerned. However, what the hell has their point got to do with the UK?
its crazy, when i requested my vacation (1 week) my boss nearly flipped. How could I possibly want to leave the company and everyone hanging? The shame they instill on you for wanting to take off when you should, or even when youre sick. I missed 2 days of work and these people were flipping their lid. Its insanity. Cant wait to gtfo of either this country or just find a job that treats humans like humans.
Most normal American's wouldn't put up with it either. There's a reason shitty companies have high overturn rates. I'm not exactly applying to fortune 500 companies but my current company, plus every other one I've worked for, offered maternity leave and in most cases also sick leave. I just got a job that starts me off with 15 days PTO (plus 9 holidays) that increases every year (plus being able to roll over 40 hours on top of it).
(for the curious I'm 4 years out of college).
People need to learn to protect themselves from predatory companies.
Well, I think it's batshit crazy to expect a company to pay for someone that's not working.
If a company has exclusive use of an asset, they still have to pay holding costs for its maintenance and downtime. Doesn't matter if it's a car, a photocopier, or a person. It's no crazier to pay a person who isn't working (if that's within accepted parameters for rest and recovery) than it is to pay lease and parking costs for a car that's not being used overnight.
.... you can't be serious.
A person that isn't doing a job for you isn't an unused asset. They're on their own time (or working for someone else). There's no comparison. It's not a "car that's not being used overnight". It's paying for a car someone else is using and for which you are receiving zero benefit.
You own the car. You are paying for that ownership. You don't own a worker. all you pay for is their labor when they are working for you. If they aren't doing your labor there's no reason to pay them.
Usually, the government is the one that pays.
... government pays for maternity leave?
Yes.
Wait so the idea that your job doesn't pay you when your not working is "third world slavery bullshit"?
Edit: seriously guys, you think that not having paid sick leave is the same as slavery? I'm not even sure what to say to that.
You want sick people working because they can’t afford to take time off when they need it and new parents unable to afford to spend time with the baby?
Yeah, people here do. It sucks.
I never said that, but to compare it to slavery is stupid.
Comparing pregnancy to disability and illness is also stupid. No one goes out of their way to become sick or disabled, but plenty try to get pregnant.
That wasn't the point being made. I said that saying not giving people paid sick leave is slavery is a stupid comparison.
I guess the original commenter was referring to working conditions in America in general. Because in comparison to other developed countries, they‘re ridiculously bad.
I feel like when people talk like this it's because they cherry pick parts of the US labor system and assume all parts of it suck. I'd much rather be working in the US than the UK. Even if I didn't get any paid time off. I literally make triple what I would for doing the same job in the UK. So I could just work a year and then take 2 years off while coming out the same. Most people get good benefits and most people get PTO even though it's not law.
Sure you have things like a higher minimum wage there, but at the same time there are cities in the US where a burger cook makes more than a college grad does working under the NHS.
Technically it may not be third world. And it definitely isnt slavery. But its undeniably bullshit.
Bullshit I could agree with but to compare it to slavery is like when people call everyone that disagrees with them a nazi
It really is amazing how far apart people have drifted on this issue. I like the idea of paid maternity leave as part of a compensation package but the idea that everyone has a right to be paid for not working sounds insane to me. But I sound insane to most of the people in this thread.
Exactly, you apparently support slavery because you don't understand why people should be paid not to work.
You're not sure what to say because there is nothing to say.
In a way, as a guy who has no interest in kids or being married anytime soon, it makes sense. Why reward people for getting pregnant and not being able to work? It's a personal choice
On the other hand it's kind of fucked up. I think you should have your job waiting for you post partum, but getting paid to have a baby is something difficult to justify in a capitalistic society
Its not difficult to justify, when you're very pregnant you can't work and need rest. shortly after the baby is born both mum and dad need time to bond and care for it, you can't stick a newborn in daycare. Everyone should be able to have a a baby without worrying about money or a job.
I don't want kids either but that doesn't mean I'm going to deny anyone else the chance. That mindset is fucked up.
you can't stick a newborn in daycare.
And yet countless Americans do. It’s disgusting that so many don’t have a choice and mothers are separated from their 6-week old 9-5 5x a week. It’s unbelievable. It’s no wonder Americans have no empathy and love for other Americans anymore. It’s no wonder they’re forcibly separating illegal migrants from their children, they do it to their own citizens. It’s no wonder they shoot each other. The love and warmth Americans are born with is squeezed out of them by society from the get-go.
I understand why you need rest, I'm not debating that at all. What I am debating is paying people for their time off, which to me doesn't necessarily make a ton of sense. I'm not an owner of a company but I'd imagine it'd be a nightmare to pay someone for 6 months because they had a kid, they come back for a year and do it again. I'm not denying people a chance to have kids, I just don't know that your employer should have to pay for you to do so, especially on a societal level where you are creating more of a burden on the system by having kids in this day and age. I'd say you should have kids if you can afford to, including having enough saved to take the time off work. But no, I would never say you lose your job for that, it should be waiting for you when you get back.
The benefit is that it shifts emotional/monetary stress from individuals, who often can't handle one/either, and moves it onto corporations who can generally absorb the lost MUCH more comfortably. Obviously this improves society's mental health as a whole. It boils down to America's capitalism first view vs citizens/society first view that the rest of the first-world has
While I agree that our corporations need to pay more into the system (taxes wise), I don't necessarily think they should be rewarding people for their life choices. Unless you want to also give single people with no plans of children 6 months off to relax and have paid vacation as well.
I'm really just playing devils advocate here, but seriously though the maternity leave outside of the US takes it too far IMO, and in the US there should be at least 3 months given. But its still kind of a grey area to me because, like I said, its a choice to have a kid and a burden on society not a benefit. If you make it mandatory, then small businesses could literally go out of business right there by having to pay maternity leave and hire another employee at the same time.
I just don't know that your employer should have to pay for you to do so
The government pays, not the employer (although obviously the employer needs to adapt to the missing employee, which is not without its costs).
If you want a child, it is your responsibility, not mine, not your employers.
It’s not about rewarding mothers, it’s about supporting them for supporting your country’s future. Society needs children to become future taxpayers, workers and to become the care home staff that wipe your butt when you’re old. Society needs to support and encourage growth of population and so its prosperity. Look at upcoming countries with booming populations and a cultural sense of love and support for children- Vietnam, Thailand, India, etc. which will be successful in the future. But look at stagnant countries with poor birth rates such as Japan, Korea, much of Europe even the US. The stagnant countries will struggle with economy and innovation and the global power will shift to those parts of Asia.
tl;dr Countries fail to prosper when there aren’t enough children born. Society needs to support mothers.
Is it a corporations job or responsibility to help society in that way? I don't think so... they shouldn't hurt society or destroy the environment, definitely not,
I don't buy that we need more children. I don't even buy that we have to get old.
How is it difficult to justify? We are a society of humans. Humans dont last forever. We have to make new ones. The way we make new ones is through pregnancy. Pregnancy and caring for new humans often prevents a parent from working. So as a society we need to find a way to support people making new humans.
right (actually, maybe unless we reinvest in the right tech), but why does a corporation have to pay for it again? not the government? just doesn't necessarily make sense the employer pays for your time off, is all I'm saying. they should be on unemployment for a while if you think its a societal level problem. corporations shouldn't have that role unless they are quite large
Because those corporations benefit from being part of a decent society, with educated healthy citizens, law and order and so on. In most nations part of the social contract is that employers provide some element of maternity and or paternity care, in addition to the state. Having kids isnt a choice in the same way choosing to be vegetarian is, or choosing to follow a particular religion. Its how the human race cpntinues to exist. It is not optional. Its necessary.
I mean, right now, yes its how we continue to exist. But there are 7 billion people on the planet, its not a necessity for everyone to have multiple kids. Anyway, we aren't debating that at all, the topic at hand is whether or not corporations should be responsible for paying you while you make the choice to have kids. On a societal level, you can claim its not a choice, sure. But on a personal level, which is your relationship with an employer, its undeniably a choice to have a kid. I still don't fully buy that just because corporations exist due to society existing they need to pay for aspects of society like having kids. I think it should fall more on the government to pay for leave like unemployment services and the like. After a few kids, your pay would be reduced / you would need to plan and save to have kids. Otherwise, you could just simply work for a year or so and have a kid, take 6 months of free pay, work a year or so, have a kid, have to retrain after another 6 months off, etc, etc. and it just saps a small business. Maybe once a corporation scales up to a "societal" level, meaning it is large enough past some arbitrary limit, I can see paying for maternity leave not being an issue. But I just don't think it should be mandatory, or that it should mostly fall on the government if your arguments are based on maintaining a society.
So outrageous a concept nobody thinks it's real. Welcome to America in 2018.
And ye Americans are higher paid, have a lower unemployment rate, and higher job satisfaction than Europeans...
And yet Europeans are overall more satisfied with their lives. Weird.
Lol yea the fracturing EU and the rise of right wing governments in Europe is strong evidence of that.
Lol yea the fracturing USA and the rise of right wing governments in America is strong evidence of that.
FTFY
IDK man, I just read about how happy people are in The Netherlands, Denmark, and Scandinavia. Doesn't seem so bad.
Of course, I have family from Sweden that have mentioned that people in rural areas are becoming right-wing fascists. So that's scary, and probably due to Russia.
The idea that work is the only important aspect of a person's life strikes me as a very American attitude...
Sources please?
There is many parts of europe where the opposite is true
i cant wrap my head around that. So wjhat happens when a woman is in late stages of pregnancy? Does she go to work every day with her belly up to her chin? And when she goes to give birth, do women get right back on their feet and back to work? No hospital rest, home bonding with child? What about breastfeeding, taking care for an infant...? It sounds really insane. If they tried instating that where I live, there would be an uproar of unheard of proportions.
a lot of women work up till they their water breaks......a lot of time at work.....
Where i work most ladies almost give birth there, i do housekeeping in a hotel so imagine how hard it is at 40 weeks still have to clean 17 rooms a day or get fired.
I got medical restrictions from my obgyn but still at 4 months the work I have to do is to much and I don't know if I'll be able to stay all my pregnancy, I'm being the example to follow for others because they thought there was no way for them to be on light duty and im glad more co-worker are following.
Keep in mind that here in America a LOT of employers operate on this sort of "bare minimum" model. They hire the bare minimum amount of employees and make sure to pay the absolute bare minimum down to the cent. It creates an environment at work where if one person leaves for an extended period of time, it's almost a catastrophe because so much work has to then be thrown on somebody else. This is part of why we get bare minimum vacation time, bare minimum benefits, bare minimum maternity leave. The way the American business operates is just honestly not sustainable at all and somehow it's the reality we live in. If you run your business completely legally here, you are up to your eyeballs in taxes as the employer, so your employees are fucked as a result. It's so engrained into the culture now, even if they were to shake things up, employers would just continue to naturally try to screw over their employers because it's the only way a lot of places even stay open.
I waited tables until 38 weeks. Ha. Luckily because my partner maked enough i mostly stay home now. Our financial situation still sucks though. I would literally just be paying for daycare if i went back to work, so why would i?
[deleted]
by that logic- if you cant afford to leave work when you are sick you probably cant afford the massive cost of being sick, therefore you shouldnt be sick. So if employers payed people less, they couldnt afford not to work so they would work more, would take no days off for sick leave, or god forbid, free days, and they wouldnt have families.
Canada here.
I took a year and a few months off. Maternity leave was 12 months, medical leave was 4 ish months. It was paid and I still had a job to come back to when I was done.
And you don’t pay anything out of pocket anytime you go to the hospital. You just pay monthly for your medical service plan. It’s $70 or so bucks a month per adult but I think they’re reducing that. (My husbands benefits even covers the MSP so we don’t even pay that monthly)
Canada here as well. As the father, I got more parental leave than OP!
YEA YEA YEA RUB IN YOUR MEDICAL AND NON-TRUMP CANADA......:)
Don’t fret! Trump won’t be around forever. But as for your medical system? Yeaaahhh can’t help you there
It almost got fixed but a lot of people got in the way of Obamacare being what Obama actually wanted it to be.
WELL, one of his campaign promises was to get paid maternity leave. It hasn't been spoken about since the elections but maybe one day, before I give birth, it will happen (not holding my breath)
Wait where do you live that you have to pay for a Medical Service Plan? I live in Ontario and I've never heard of that.
B.C. is the only province in Canada that still charges a flat rate health tax. In this system, families who make $30,000 annually pay the same rate as families who make over a million dollars annually.
They've cut that in half now. I used to pay $75 as a single guy, it's now $37.50 which is nice. Not sure about families though.
I wasn’t sure what the new rates were. work benefits covers all that anyways for us. I’m glad to hear it’s gone down!
Holy shit I'm so jealous. At my work it's around $350 a month for insurance but you have a $45 co pay every time you go to the doctor ($95 for a specialist $500 for the ER). If your spouse is on your plan and a kid it costs 1400 a MONTH. That price is the same if you have 1 kid or 3. We also only get a few months of Maternity leave and the father just a few days/ a week at most. :(
You also have 900 different insurance plans you can choose from that have different prices. I have the best one my employer provides.
Just an idea I had an emergency gallbladder surgery and after insurance it cost me around $6,000
Man, I think it's worth it just to not have to deal with calculating co-pays and premiums, etc. Also, $1400 a month! That's the price of rent or daycare! I know you guys earn more down there to a similar job up here but I'm wondering if it just averages out after all that.
It's doubley crap because the MSP premiums go into general funds, not even health care specifically.
What are your taxes like aside from that then? I pay about 20% income tax and then I think like 15% hst on everything.
I’m not an accountant so I’m not sure how to answer your question because I’m self employed and the amount of tax I pay is credited against my business expenses. If I have enough expenses to claim I don’t pay anything at tax time.
We don’t do HST here. We do PST and GST. I only collect GST off my sales and that’s 5%.
They just changed it to 18 months in Ontario. You get the same amount of money whether you choose the 12 month or the 18 month option so that’s not great but finding a daycare spot for a kid under 18 months can be very difficult so it’s worth it for a lot of people.
That’s across Canada, as it’s a federal regulation.
[deleted]
Does your maternity leave apply every time?
Parental leave is tied to Employment Insurance. You are required to work a certain amount of hours with a company before being eligible for leave (I believe it is 600). If you work 600 then go on leave, you will be eligible for parental benefits for the next 12 months (or 18, depending on the option you take).
The situation of a second kid though makes it a little messy. If you get pregnant right after your first kid and then give birth before returning to work, you may be eligible for leave, but I don't think any of benefits will be paid. You would have to return to work for 600 hours before the second child is born to actually be eligible for benefits.
Does the government actually pay the leave for you?
You are required to pay into employment insurance on any income you earn and all parental leave benefits are paid out of EI. If you just think of paying into EI as tax, then yes, the government pays it.
I can see how that would work, at least if your salary is reasonably low.
It's based on a percentage of salary up to a maximum amount of around 2k/month.
[deleted]
I don't really see how that math works out. On an 18 month plan, you only receive up to 33% of your weekly salary, up to a maximum of 328/week. This is only ~25k/18 months (taxable as well, so a little less than that). Assuming you did that 3x over, you would be at 75k total over your 3 kids.
The way your weekly salary is calculated also messes with this as well. To determine your weekly salary, it uses your average salary over a specified number of weeks (In places of low unemployment, that is 22 weeks). Assuming you only work 15 weeks (40 hours * 15 weeks = 600 hours), they would calculate the other 7 weeks as 0 salary. If my math is right, you would need to be earning a salary of 75k before you manage to hit max benefits by only working 15 weeks. Best case scenario in your example is you manage to earn 1 full years of salary from EI, spread out over 6 years.
[deleted]
It still comes out to ~35k a year to live on with the 12 month plan,
Maximum amount on the 12 month plan is 547/week, which works out to about 28k/year, which is about 24k after tax.
Also, to achieve max benefits only working 15 weeks, you need to pull ~75k annual salary, so EI is only paying you about 30% of what your normal salary would be.
[deleted]
You still earn money during the 600 hours you work, thus ~35k a year lifestyle
Technically its 35k per year+3.5 months, but ok, I'll grant you that
1/.55 = 1.88 times salary to reach maximum benefit. 1.88 * 547 = 994, * 52wk = 51716.
My 75k value is due to how benefits are calculated and the ideal scenario where you only work 15 weeks and still qualify for max benefits.
If you only worked 15 weeks at 51k/year. You earned a total of 51k * 15/52 = ~15k. If you are in an area of low unemployment though, they take average your top 22 weeks worked to calculate your EI. So (15 weeks * 994/week + 7 weeks * 0)/22 weeks = 677 average per week. This would only qualify you for 370/week or 20k annually.
To earn max benefits and only work 15 weeks, ~75k annual salary seems to be the threshold when you average your 15 weeks of working over a 22 week period.
[deleted]
supposedly the benefit is 35 weeks (over a period of 52 weeks)
It's not explained clearly, but there are 15 weeks of paid maternal leave that can only be taken by the mother. There is a separate pool of 35 weeks that can be split between either parent. The mom could take 25 and the dad 10 for example. If only the mom took it, they can claim 50 weeks of benefits over a 52 week period.
There are two options available for receiving parental benefits: standard or extended.
**Standard parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 35 weeks and must be claimed within a 52 week period (12 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The weekly benefit rate is 55% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 35 weeks of standard parental benefits.
**Extended parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 61 weeks and must be claimed within a 78-week period (18 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The benefit rate is 33% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 61 weeks of extended parental benefits.
Canadians may be eligible to receive Employment Insurance (EI) maternity or parental benefits if:
*you are employed in insurable employment (a job where you are registered into a payroll where your contributions are deducted after each paycheque) ; and * To be eligible for EI parental benefits, each parent who applies for benefits must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment
Both parents can apply for EI parental benefits but they have to share the benefits.
Standard parental benefits are paid at a weekly benefit rate of 55% of your average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum amount. For 2018, this means that you can receive a maximum amount of $547 per week
Extended parental benefits are paid at a weekly benefit rate of 33% of your average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum amount. For 2018, this means that you can receive a maximum amount of $328 per week
So to answer your questions: to receive EI, the parent would have to go back to work and work 600 hours or insurance earnings. Self employed people also qualify for this program if they register for it. Even if you have 12 kids this rule still applies. It’s not your employer that pays it. You pay for it when it gets deducted from your paycheque by your employer who then pays the remittances from the all employees at the same they do payroll and also remit taxes, CPP (Canadian Pension Plan), and any work benefits.
For some people (like me). I only made contributions to Ei for 2 years when I was employed before I went on maternity leave and then when I did self employment I opted not to contribute anymore since I’ll never use EI again.
[deleted]
Well. I don’t know about you but I definitely don’t plan on having 12 kids and those people that do are far and few between. Sure they can work the system but only for a year -18 months and then they have 12 kids to feed so as a business it doesn’t make sense. The maternity benefits don’t overlap.
Also, only 15% of Canadians are self employed and lot of them would prefer to pay premiums because they have higher risk jobs as contractors (they can hurt themselves at work, etc.) who would feel safer being able to have the EI safety net in the event they can’t work. Whereas a freelancer like myself who doesn’t plan on collecting a maternity leave again has no need for it. Of course if I decided to opt in now that I’m self employed, I can never opt out. So that’s why I’m deciding not to opt back in
[deleted]
Nobody has ruined it for us yet! We’re getting a pretty sweet deal with the uccb
Also it's not just maternity leave! I think somewhere around 9 months is able to be split however between the two parents!
Who does your job while you are out for a year? Also isn't it your husband's job to provide for you while you are taking care of a newborn and not the governments responsibility?
Some workplaces hire replacements, other places might not hire someone to cover your position, it depends on the employer. When I was on mat leave my office hired someone on a one year contract and once I returned to work their job was done. When they were hired they were explicitly told it was a one year contract. Also the government isn't really paying for you to spend a year at home, they are more so the money manager. We all pay in to something called employment insurance on each paycheque which you then get paid from when you are off. The amount you get paid depends on how much you worked in the previous year so you get out of it what you put in. You can take up to 52 weeks off at up to 55% of your normal salary to a maximum amount and your job is guaranteed to be waiting for you when the 52 weeks are up. Employers can top you up to your full salary if they choose to. I was lucky and received 5 months at full pay because my employer does that. My husband also had that option so he took the last 4 months of leave at full pay when I returned to work. I have to say we are both pretty thankful that we live in a country that allowed us to do that, I can't imagine sending a 6 week old to daycare!!!
Yes I forgot to mention EI.
Now that I’m older I definitely appreciate everything Canada has to offer when you raise a family here.
Mat cover contracts are a great way to get a fast leg up in a new company or adjacent skillset
Canadian maternity leave is paid for out of employment insurance. You can only draw from EI if you've paid EI. So don't think of it like "the government" paying for it. You're being paid back your own money. I've been making EI contributions for 17 years and never gotten a cent back
I was going to school and not working, and as soon as I got a job after university i only made contributions for two years before I claimed maternity leave and then when it was up I went back to work only for a few months before I became self employed and stopped contributing to EI. I definitely didn’t pay over $16,000 in contributions in the 2 years I was paying into it ..
They put up job posts with a specific contract term; 12 months - 16 months. Which works great for some people especially in high pay jobs because a lot of people prefer secure job, but for some people this means less competition and a foot in the door, or a job until they can find a better job.
And quite frankly, The government supports every Canadian wether they have a working spouse or not. And it’s BOTH of our jobs to take care of a newborn and they also allow him paternity leave at his job so we can spend time together with our baby. We are also entitled to a child benefit every single month from the government. Some families get between $100 and $1500 (depending on the number of children,age of the child and your annual income -in your in addition to maternity leave and medical benefits. )
My husband could well provide for us (he has an amazing government job) even if we weren’t getting these benefits, but I guess we have an amazing government system.
[deleted]
nothing to do with the fact that Canada only has 33+/- million people yet is always being compared to countries that have at least ten times the amount of people because of its geographical size? Imagine Canada to be a little smaller than California
Yeah I don't know why you're being downvoted... People like to compare Canada to places like the United States despite being a relatively tiny country in terms of population. Of course we don't have dozens of enormous multinational corporations... We have a population that is a tenth of the size..
My guess is that people just don't understand what it is that I was saying... I don't always express myself as eloquently as I would like. Either that, or they're just assholes.
Some people aren't even eligible for FMLA. You have to have worked there a year, for over (average) 24 hours a week, and the company has to have 50 employees in 75 miles.
Didn't know that. Thankfully my company fits those parameters.
I came here to say this. I live in Canada, where you have an option to either leave for 12 months at 55% of your salary or 18 months at 33% of your salary (salary covered by Employment Insurance, i.e. Federal Government). There are a few catches in the system (like having to be employed for a minimum amount of weeks before leaving, and there's a maximum they will pay if you make more than 55k a year) but the idea of not being able to spend the first year of my babe's life with him would just be awful.
I have to remind myself how good we have it in those regards (and many others!)
Edit: forgot words
So how does maternity leave work in America? Dont you get paid?
But only 15 percent of workers in the United States have access to paid family leave through their employers, and fewer than 40 percent have access to personal medical leave through employer-provided short-term disability insurance.
We have the FMLA:
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) is a United States labor law requiring covered employers to provide employees with job-protected and unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons. These include pregnancy, adoption, foster care placement of a child, personal or family illness, or family military leave
The bolded section is my emphasis. If you qualify under the FMLA (the Wikipedia article covers the requirements - have to have worked there over a year, put in a minimum number of hours, etc.), you can stop working for pregnancy up to 12 weeks, and they won't explicitly fire you for taking time off, but your employer is not required to pay you for leave. Some companies do, but many do not.
So, having a baby is expensive - in addition to the actual medical costs of going to the hospital, you also have to have enough savings so that you can still pay for basic things like rent/mortgage, food, gas, and other bills while the mother is not working.
There's often a lot of pressure for mothers to return to work as soon as possible, to supplement the family income, so many mothers will resume their job after a few months or less, depending on the position and their economic situation.
But, at least we aren't as bad as we used to be, when a mother might be a secretary at a company, then she takes 3 months off from work while she has a baby, and returns only to find out that she's been replaced by a new employee permanently.
I have not been with my company for a year and I will not get maternity leave. They will pay out my accrued vacation and then they can fire me, or not. If they let me keep my job, they will pay me $0 for the duration that I am out and charge me the money that they normally pay toward my health insurance, which will be about $1200/month cost for me just to keep my insurance. Childbirth will cost me $6k out of pocket with insurance.
I've had 3 kids. My 1st I got 2 weeks, my 2nd I got 6 days my 3rd I was working the day I got out of the hospital.
I really wish we had at least 3 months of mandatory Fmla if you are pregnant.
DAMN....I'm sorry.
Coming from a formerly socialist country, yeah, that always put me off. Here we have a full paid leave, it's even better than Canada.
From what I hear, simply giving birth at a hospital isn't free in the US either.
From what I hear, simply giving birth at a hospital isn't free in the US either.
Ya. It's really expensive, especially if you don't have insurance:
But the $30,000 (£20,000) invoice that I was so afraid of is what an American woman gets billed on average for giving birth naturally. The total bill for a Caesarean section, meanwhile, tops $50,000
The US is by far the most expensive place in the world to give birth or to receive any medical treatment as there is no publicly financed health services as in most developed countries.
What’s even more disturbing is that maternal outcomes are not great for American women compared to other first world countries.
Probably has more to do with obesity than anything else.
No, poverty and lack of access to prenatal care for the poorest.
Possibly lack of maternity leave as well as you can wind up with complications from being too active too soon after birth.
No? Obesity doesn’t contribute?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3544893/
Can you demonstrate that access to prenatal care has decreased? Or that it is worse in other countries?
I was referring to the point that it's the main cause, I didn't mean that it doesn't ever contribute.
Here is one such study showing that access to prenatal care is poor in the US and contributes strongly to maternal mortality rates:
http://thehoustonindicators.org/health/people/maternal-mortality-prenatal-care/
Did you read the “study?”
It does not show that prenatal care is poor in the US. It shows that the maternal mortality rate is poor in the US— a fact that we both realize is true.
“The U.S. now ranks 50th, alongside third world nations, for maternal mortality, meaning 49 countries are better at keeping new mothers alive (CDC, 2012). Research has shown that approximately 70% of maternal deaths could be averted if women had access to essential maternity and basic health care services (UNICEF, 2012).”
This is a hilarious bait and switch. The UNICEF article they cited doesn’t even mention the US! That 70% figure is global (and btw the UNICEF article doesn’t demonstrate this)— which makes sense when you look at the regional distribution of maternal mortality. Vast majority are in regions where access to prenatal care/ care in general is obviously limited.
Seriously, the authors should be ashamed. They’re blatantly lying about their sources.
There's another tab which shows percentage of women accessing prenatal care in the US. It was just one example, if you google prenatal care maternal mortality US lots of results come up. I'm aware the 70% figure is global, and includes nations where medical access is much worse.
I don't really have any more energy to invest in this discussion, but if you are interested, there is information out there. I was originally looking for an article I remember reading which cited other studies but I couldn't find it. So I guess I was a bit lazy in selecting a source to cite. But it's not a debated link, it's quite well known.
[deleted]
Oh just 3k. No bigs.
Eeeexceept... If your pregnancy spans a calendar year, that's now double. Thanks yearly deductible!
If you can’t afford 3g to give birth good luck supporting your child.
Maybe you should get your financial house in order before you choose to have a baby.
Aren't you a sweetheart
Just doing what I can!
People make terrible financial decisions all the time. That doesn’t mean there’s something systemically wrong with public policy.
Would the US benefit from a public multipayer? Probably. We already have that for the very poor and the old. Probably wouldn’t be that prohibitively expensive to extend that to the middle class.
But come on people, a little planning would go a long way. Millions of households have children every year without ruining themselves financially.
I'm just glad someone has finally told the not wealthy that they aren't worthy of breeding.
Need more fine stock in the bloodlines
Accept the consequences of your decisions and keep moving.
I bought the best insurance plan available from my employer, and total out-of-pocket was $8,000. $4,000 per family member, $8,000 maximum for the whole family. That is similar to my current healthcare plan, and it is not shitty. It's a cadillac plan. No HMO + FSA bullshit or any of that, pure PPO. It costs me over $700 a month and my employer over $1,000 a month for this plan. Our healthcare system is terrible. There is absolutely no defending it.
Then maybe you should have forgone your employers plan and enrolled in a marketplace plan.
That depends on your state. Not everyone has the option.
[deleted]
Do you have insurance?
It's not $20k, let's be fair. Not by the time you factor in insurance and haggling (which is a total WTF concept, actually) But I've heard it is often around about $2-4k. And that's insane by itself to most of the rest of us.
The total bill that my insurance company wound up paying for the birth of my first daughter was almost $80,000. $79k and change. That was in 2015. I paid about $8,000 of it (out-of-pocket maximum). Natural birth without even an epidural, though my wife did need minor surgery afterwards as the placenta failed to detach.
That does not count the $500 per month I was paying out of pocket through the whole pregnancy for doctor's visits and medication (she was high-risk due to our age, we're mid-30s). And that was with insurance, the $500 a month was just copays. I also had/have excellent insurance that costs me over $700 a month and costs my employer over $1,000 a month. Our healthcare system is easily the worst in the world measured by outcome per dollar.
Yeah it seems very financially inefficient. It's like people always complain that other countries pay more or have higher taxes, but my taxes don't compare to what I hear about people paying in healthcare costs directly.
[deleted]
So they really can be that high? Do you have to pay that or is some of it covered by insurance? Every time I see these kinds of figures on reddit people poo-poo them, that's all.
[deleted]
No worries. The whole insurance thing in the US just seems so variable that it's really hard to understand from the outside (I'm sure it's no easier to understand when you live there!)
Here we just pay a flat 14% of our salary and everything is covered, including any dependants. Sometimes there are a few € to pay for prescriptions or towards special items (like I had to get a custom made device to straighten my finger after an operation) but it's never more than €30 in one go. It's simple to understand because everyone on public insurance has the same situation. It's different if you earn over €60k because then you have to have private insurance but even then I think almost everything is covered, the only difference is you pay upfront and get reimbursed.
What happens if you you can’t pay? Do they repossess the baby?!??!??
You go into medical debt
I suppose it's the same as any medical procedure in the US - they give it to you, along with a huge bill.
No, but they can ruin you financially. For people without insurance or with bad insurance, they can be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars for what would be trivial care in other countries. If they can't pay, it gets sent to collections, and with the insane cost of medicine here, that can sometimes mean getting your wages garnished for years (or the rest of your life, if it was a large enough bill). It can be discharged through bankruptcy, but then of course your credit is destroyed so getting a loan, leasing anything, or even getting a credit card can be damn near impossible, and with so many Americans being forced to live on credit due to depressed wages, this is bad news, obviously.
Nothing in the U.S. is free. Gotta pull yourself up by your bootstraps say those with money and power (and those brainwashed by the before mentioned people) and that's enough to stop any actual progress in the U.S. as far as workers rights. The "commies" defense works for socialization.
At least we're not starving to death, like happens in communism. Could be worse.
Actual Russians didn't get starved to death to be fair. Just everybody who wasn't Russian. Though that doesn't really make it better...
But ya it could always be worse. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better though.
Get a job.
What's that got to do with this? You're on reddit too mate.
Apparently people who disagree with you are "brainwashed". Stop being a moron.
Or it's because they blindly follow people who keep implementing things that are bad for them. The Liberal party isn't great either but at least it hasn't put two nutjobs into power.
Lower taxes and a smaller government are good for me, not bad. I know what I want, and I vote that way. I'm not blindly voting for a party.
You realize taxes have barely been lowered for anybody who's not rich under Trump's leadership and that the taxcut will stop being useful to those who aren't rich in a very short period of time too right? If you didn't then you're exactly as I described, a blind follower.
I do agree his tax cuts didn't go far enough. I'd like to see a 10% flat tax. Further, I am not looking the gov't to give tax cuts only to the non-rich. The rich pay a huge share of taxes, thus they should get a huge share of the tax cut.
The rich pay much less taxes percentagewise then the middleclass and even the poor. So no they don't pay a "huge share" of taxes. They pay a huge amount but not a huge share. Anyways sure everyone should get the same tax cut, the issue is that Trump's tax cut was a massive cut for the rich and barely a cut at all for those who aren't.
Oh and the cut that affects the non-rich is going to drop in barely any time at all. Only the cut that helps the rich and massivly raises the deficit is permenant.
Oh god no! Thankfully we planned on having kids at this time in our lives and saved accordingly.
This is what baffles me about the prolife lobby. They don't want people to have abortions because every life is precious but then they don't support the parent in keeping that child. No parental leave, childcare costs etc
The key idea is to deny women autonomy.
I've not seen a single person with this viewpoint, but I'm sure you can back that up.
Yes it is definitely my job to explain things to people on the internet.
So, you made it up. Not a surprise.
Oh honey.
It's 100% about that. Give birth no matter what! Raped? Fuck you birth the rape baby!
What? Birth control?! Oh Lord Jesus no. That would be against my religious beliefs. Get back into breeding position woman!
Source?
Fucking life. My eyes. Ears. Common sense. Google. Duckduckgo. Askjeeves. Dogpile. Yahoo. AOL search. The republican party platform. Old white men ruling on pregnancy. Every republican in Congress.
So, nothing. Surprise.
Many of them consider pregnancy a punishment for a “sinful lifestyle” and are actually happy when it results in women having to spend all their time away from the baby working to afford the baby. They intentionally actively push away the mothers after they have the baby (that they may have been tricked into keeping by these people)
It's about being punished for making the decision to have sex if your not ready for a kid. The kid is your punishment
Being against murdering babies and being against a government safety net are not contradictory stances.
Being against abortion and against policies that will encourage women to carry pregnancies to term are contradictory stances.
They're not at all. Just because I believe government should make taking an innocent life illegal does not mean I must also believe that government should be providing for the needs of people.
So you don't see any connection whatsoever between the high cost of delivering a baby, lack of maternity leave, the expense of child care, and the reason women might choose abortion? OK.
I'm against abortion too, but I also think that maybe, just maybe, if our country were just a tiny bit easier on working mothers, maybe there would be fewer abortions.
I see the connection, but its not my responsibility to help with those costs and I don't think the gov't should take my money or the money of others to pay for those costs. They are not contradictory stances.
Just because I think something should be illegal because it harms another, does not mean I must necessarily think that government or myself must make people's lives easier so they don't break that law.
In other words, your philosophy is "Screw you, I got mine." This is why pro-choicers think we don't care about kids who are already born... in your case, they're actually right.
I "care" about people who aren't my friends/family to the extent I think it should be illegal for others to harm them or take their property. However, I don't think they are my responsibility.
Yeah, we unfortunately have to collectivize a bit for things like military, currency, courts, roads, but I believe such enforced collectivization should be extremely limited.
Guess none of that "who is my neighbor" stuff that Jesus said really made an impression on you, huh?
I'm an atheist, so no.
An atheist who's against abortion? Wow, don't think I've ever met one before.
I am pro-choice. and yea it sucks the states don't want to help. especially when these kids are the future of the country. But I thankfully am in a place where we planned for children, I didn't get knocked up at a young age. We have the income and savings to support a child and it have a great life. Hell, I want t o adopt our second child since we can give a kid a good life and a loving home. But first I need to get pregnant <3<3<3
Can’t fathom this. It’s fairly normal here in Australia to take a full year off work for each child, and for a good proportion of that to be paid. Hell even I as the Dad get a reasonable amount of time off (it’s paid parental leave, not strictly maternity leave).
My wife is American incidentally. Despite loving her homeland she admits that the overall quality of life in Australia is absolutely superior to that in the US ... minor quibbles like not having access to Amazon Prime aside ;)
So, how does the job go on for a full year? If there is a temporary replacement brought in, how does that work with jobs with a clearance or a design component where there is a ton of nuance? I know that productivity isn't the goal for many cultures, companies, or people, but I would think that innovation and productivity suffers at least a little bit with each baby born coming with a full year out of someone's work contributions?
Maybe I'm just super American about it all, but I really don't know how I feel - on the one hand, happy families make happy employees and better societies, but OTOH, I've covered for people on leave and it is a burden, and I don't entirely know why a parent should be granted more leave because they made the choice to have a kid. I really can see it from many angles
I’m not sure about other jobs but at my workplace, the person hired is usually aware it’s maternity cover- which means they have the job for about a year.
In the US, a temp for maternity leave is very "white collar" centric. As in, I've never known of a temp being brought in for a waitressing job or manual labor. On the other end, I wonder how a really high-up job is replaced temporarily? Like a military position where there is a clearance or something. I just wonder if all jobs can have a temp for a year, and what the repercussions are for jobs that can't. It's just a foreign approach to me, and I've seen a lot of bloat and inefficiency happen while one person is taking months and months of leave from a job they worked for 7 years to get the hang of.... but then again, it's less common where I live in the US
I think jobs like you mentioned would have procedures in place for parental leave. Certainly in my workplace after having 6 staff members go on parental leave, they've been replaced by all single men! So it can be disruptive but I would rather have the right to have paremtal leave then the American way. After all, we work to live life!
That makes sense, definitely! I am trying to expose myself to various points-of-view and hear from people with parental leave policies that I"m not familiar with - I don't think my capitalistic American ass's viewpoint is the best, not by a long shot. But it's just so ingrained in me that anything anyone gets extra, like extra leave for having a kid, isn't fair to the rest of us. Hard mindset to un-see, so thank you for your POV!
You could argue the same about the portion of your tax that goes towards schools and universities: I don't have kids so why should I pay for them to be educated? But, a more educated population still benefits YOU directly, in the form of higher wages (meaning more tax money collected which funds infrastructure and services you use), lower crime and a more cohesive society generally.
Many studies show that infants who are looked after in person, by the parents, in the first few years of life gain a lifetime benefit from it. They end up healthier, wealthier and happier on average. And that effect added up over millions of people benefits the whole society, including you.
I'm familiar with the American mindset, having lived around a quarter of my life in the US (and three quarters in other countries, mostly Australia and Japan). I just think Americans tend to overstate the negatives of things like this, and understate the positives. There's always an excuse as to why things can't change ("oh, it's impossible for America to switch fully to the metric system because X" or "universal healthcare could never work here because Y", as if their problems are unique to the US). But other countries show that large scale changes can be done without significantly disrupting the economy or society at large.
For one, though, once a child is already in the world, s/he is entitled to education, happiness, and a life of safety. Having kids is not a guaranteed right, but existing as a kid comes with protections. Beyond a certain age, though, that's precisely why I'm not a proponent of free tuition for college, or lengthy paid maternity leave. I acknowledge the classism and problems with my mindset, though.
I worked at a place for 7 years, where a woman took maternity leave literally every calendar year. So, she got paid for nearly a year of work when she wasn't contributing to the company at all. There has to be a balance - while leave is good for moms, babies, and society, at what point is it sensible? 4 months for 2 kids? 1 year for 7 kids? Again, I know that mindset is problematic for sure.
As for the push to change, I think that the first question should be: is this something we collectively value? Other countries do, but are those the aggregate goals of this nation, or do we truly prioritize things like individual choice? Those are questions I don't really have the answer to, and can see from so many sides.
I worked at a place for 7 years, where a woman took maternity leave literally every calendar year.
A close co-worker of mine in Australia had three kids over five years, and was away a year for each. So effectively only two years actually at work over the five years. It was a conversation point and we poked some light-hearted fun at her, but no one thinks it wasn't 'fair'.
So, she got paid for nearly a year of work when she wasn't contributing to the company at all.
Sure, but why does the company care? They aren't paying for her leave, the government is. As far as the company is concerned they are paying her zero and it's no skin off their nose, other than maintaining her HR record.
You could argue that it hurts everyone indirectly via taxes, but I don't think many would agree with that in most countries - the benefit to people's lives is significant, and the impact is so minute compared to the big ticket expenses the government has. Indeed, taxes are lower now than they were in decades past when we didn't have parental leave (because the economy as a whole is doing well). In Australia's case at least, the government WANTS you to have babies (and will actively pay you a lump sum, separate to parental leave, to do so). Otherwise our population would be in decline (like most developed countries, our natural birth rate is below replacement and so growth is totally dependent on immigration alone). More babies = more future taxpayers = better for everyone.
As for the push to change, I think that the first question should be: is this something we collectively value? Other countries do, but are those the aggregate goals of this nation, or do we truly prioritize things like individual choice?
That's fair enough. But I will say having lived in six countries in my life, the 'personal choice' in America is often kinda an illusion. Taking healthcare as one example, my health insurer in the US is effectively chosen for me because my employer offers a particular plan. Yes I could go outside of that plan if I truly wanted, but the cost differential makes it infeasible. And then, every time I want to use it, I have to double check whether the doctor/hospital/clinic is in network or out of network etc. etc. And there's so much paperwork and billing mistakes and just fiddling around with administrative crap to get anything done. It's confusing as hell. Whereas in a universal system I can literally walk into ANY doctor, ANY hospital, ANY clinic in the country and be fully covered. In practice, I have MORE choice when it comes to where I can actually go for healthcare, because the cost is exactly the same to me no matter what. I can choose based on quality and convenience, rather than worrying about the financial aspects.
There are also parts of living in America that have nothing to do with personal choice which could be radically streamlined and made simpler, but aren't. Filing taxes is one example. You don't have a choice of paying tax. But doing your tax return in the US is ridiculously complex and time consuming compared to elsewhere. In Australia it's "log on to government website, confirm details that have been prefilled for you are correct, click OK, done". In the US it's "fill out the forms yourself, or use third party software that you often have to PAY for, or get an accountant or tax agent to do it". Why can't you just go to irs.gov and do it for free on there like you could in any other country? Why do I need to file separate returns for each state I worked in during the year, when other countries manage to do a unified form that covers all states/provinces? Stuff like that. After almost a decade living in the US, I have to say America is the land of paperwork and needless complexity. That stuff fills up your life and takes away from other more enjoyable things you could be doing. Imagine taxes being a 5 minute, paperless chore once a year, and not having to deal with 'open enrollment' periods for insurance etc. each November.
Anyway, a bit of a rant from me there, sorry about that. I do respect that it's absolutely up to each country to choose what they value. But in some cases I think Americans reject change just because it's change, even if it would materially make their lives better and doesn't impact the ability to make personal choices.
If you're looking into new viewpoints, I highly recommend Anu Partanen's 2016 book The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life. She's a Finnish writer who emigrated to the U.S. for family reasons, and writes from the perspective of wanting to see the U.S. succeed and improve, by effectively learning from other countries where possible.
A big key is the effective use of governance, with the possibility of economy of scale for benefits (similar to how a city can pave all the roads much more cheaply than individual property owners paving their frontage). In many of the Nordic countries, for example, maternity/paternity leave is paid by through national taxes, rather than by the individual employer. Maternity/paternity leave—and longer vacation times—also give the option in some industries of allowing new blood in, which becomes more crucial as people work and live longer, and as the job market shrinks through automation.
In the U.S. there has been a push since the '70s to demonize governance in all its forms, which really only serves wealthy/powerful interests. Governance is needed to account for externalities (e.g. pollution), but it must be effective (and much of the U.S. government is ineffective).
Another good book, also from 2016, is American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper by professors Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson.
I mean the employee pays into the fund that they are getting paid out from, so how exactly are they getting extra in your eyes? Do people that have to take LTD get 'extra' as well?
Because people who choose not to have kids don't get leave. Having a child isn't the only thing that people would like to take time off work for, and it just seems like, frankly, you do get extra time off from work, often with pay and a guaranteed spot when back, for that choice. And while the employer doesn't pay for it, IME, coworkers definitely pick up the slack and make up for the time that their coworker is off work. I know that's the wrong way to view it, but it's what always comes back to my mind when I think about it
I mean it would be your choice to have a kid or not so I don't really get that argument (I mean my tax dollars go to alot of things that I may not use or don't agree with, it's part of living in a society).
If your employer is not staffing adequately for individuals when the individual is away then that is on your employer (and frankly would be a crappy employer in my view), and not the employee's responsibility. Yours is definitely a 'crabs in a bucket' way of thinking of things.
I mean the fact that you would put the blame on the individual leaving as opposed to the fact that your employer decided to save costs and not hire someone to backfill the position shows where your head is at. It's fair that you think that way as that is the environment you grew up and live in, but I think you are directing the blame to the wrong individual.
Those are all very fair points, well made. I agree that my mindset isn't the best, and yet, I can't help but see it as unfair that someone gets a lot of extra leave for the choice of parenthood, and I am exempt from spending my free time getting paid to spend it as I'd like
No worries, you do seem open to other views which is great. And ahahah parenthood equaling free time, good one :-)
I guess for me, I see it that a society has to have the next generation, because that's how it keeps moving. The next generation are going to be economically unproductive and basically incapable of fending for themselves for at least 10 years - and with modern educational standards (which, again, does benefit the whole society because someone who has been to school is more valuable than someone who only has an elementary education) this is closer to 20. Somebody has to put in the work to care for, encourage and generally raise them during this time - and that is parents. I think it's a valuable input to a society, and I think it's right that a government should support that by supporting good parental leave policies. It's not really about giving some people more than others, it's more about enabling people to work and live.
If you like, people who are parents and choose to have a child are choosing to take on a huge chunk of work, unpaid, in order to benefit society as a whole. Nobody has to choose that, it's not like in the past when it was basically seen as compulsory. Of course, most parents don't choose to have children as some kind of selfless act - they also do so because it's beneficial to them personally - they like children, they want a family, they think it will be fun, whatever - but just because somebody enjoys something, should they not be compensated for it? That's like saying if you enjoy your job, why should your employer pay you? You work there because you like to. Well, maybe, but you also go there for the money, and if you didn't get paid, you'd struggle to feed, house, clothe yourself etc and your quality of work would go down - you'd probably have to look for another job. Employers pay their workers in order to compensate them for their work, but also because we live in a society where people need money to live and the standard way of getting money is through paid work. The employer pays the worker which enables the worker to live which enables them to perform well at work. It's a circle.
I guess I don't see it as unfair that parents get leave because the work of looking after children means that parents have different needs to other workers. What's fair is not always what's equal. If a person had a disability which enabled them to do some work but not as much as a non-disabled person, I also would think it would be fair for them to be paid as much and/or get the same rights as the non-disabled person, because it's not laziness preventing them from putting more in, but circumstance.
And lastly parental leave isn't inherently unfair because if it's universal, it's granted to everyone who is in need of it. If you had a child, you'd get the same leave too.
You’re welcome! I totally understand your point of view. Especially as I’ve never understood how a country like America doesn’t have parental leave but seeing how it can disrupt the work flow, I can understand why American businesses, especially smaller ones, would be hesitant in introducing it.
My dad was a fire chief and when he was out on leave or vacation the assistant chief was acting chief. They would only call my dad if something very major happened. Most high up jobs probably have someone competent below them who will take over some of the decision making.
Hi, commenter who you replied to here.
I can't speak for every industry, but I've worked in IT (software engineer and consultant) and in various government roles (some with relatively high security clearances) and never encountered a problem with this. I have quite specialised knowledge (expert in a software package that probably only around 50 people globally know as well as I do), but nonetheless, there's always someone else that has basically the same skills available, or can be trained up. Either within the company, or an external contractor. You mention that clearances may be a problem but in the government-centric locations where high level clearance is required, there are plenty of people who have one ready to go.
Firstly, all OECD countries outside the US grant everyone 4-6 weeks annual leave/vacation as a legal minimum anyway. So any given employee in any position will always be gone for a month or two a year, and someone else would have to cover for them during that time anyway. This is just the same thing but for a more extended period. It's something managers do every day.
Secondly, no business should be so reliant on a single person that they couldn't continue without them (after all, you might get hit by a bus tomorrow, or choose to quit and take up a different job). Obviously there would be a drop in productivity for an unexpected loss of a position, but for something like parental leave, you know many months in advance when it will be happening, so there's plenty of time for any necessary transition to occur.
There might be some niche cases where someone is absolutely critical, sure, and in those cases the company might ask you very nicely if you could maybe not take parental leave. But I think that would be exceedingly rare, given that the company is gonna know about it well in advance. And even in that case, they can't force you not to take leave, and they can't penalise you for taking it - it's a universal legal entitlement, just like normal annual leave/vacation.
I get what you mean about picking up the slack for a pregnant co-worker when I only have two weeks off to look forward to, but should I ever want a kid I'd be happy to have the extra time in return. Would you feel better about it if everybody got additional paid time off, not just new parents? Say 4-6 weeks per year as a baseline. Not even necessarily at full pay, maybe 75%.
As a culture, I wish us Americans valued a better work/life balance. I think everyone's health would benefit, both mental and physical.
That's my preferred approach: PTO, to be used however you choose. Because having maternity leave be a separate thing entirely, IMO, really does lead to discrimination of hiring women of childbearing age (whether or not they will actually use it) and isn't really fair to those who choose to not have children. I think just an allotment of paid time off is far more fair, and has worked out best in the places I've worked, personally.
Those are some good points, though I personally wouldn't have a problem with six months to a year of paid parental leave (for both moms and dads, to reduce discrimination). It wouldn't be fair to deny them that just because not everyone will choose to get to use it. I would just want everybody else to also have more paid time off.
They just have to make it work, and for the vast majority of jobs it just works out. No system is without problems.
Now, on the other hand, a point for how it may increase productivity, I've heard it said that a lot of intelligence potential is lost in the US because so many women just don't go back to work after having a kid. Good maternity and daycare programs means more women in the workforce ultimately.
Wife and I both got a full year of paid leave when we had a kid in Japan...wife could have had another year if we were unable to secure daycare.
Oddly though, have an Australian friend who wants to trade his 2 weeks of dad leave for my 12 weeks of unpaid leave...
I mostly use Amazon prime because I work 14 hour days and don't want to waste time going to the store. If I lived somewhere that I could work less I wouldn't be as upset about losing Amazon prime.
STD gives you 6 weeks, FMLA is another for 12 weeks total. If you have a C-section you are get an extra 3 weeks to recover...
You don't get more time if you end up tearing with a natural delivery... found that out the hard way. If you have desk job and a standing desk, I recommend you request it is adjusted now...
FMLA is only another 12 weeks if you live in certain states. In most states, the STD is part of FMLA and they do not stack.
Most states don't have short term disability for pregnancy. That's a fancy California thing.
I've never seen a professional employer that didn't offer it though.
True, it's pretty common for employers to offer it, but it can be expensive and there's an exclusion for how long it takes to pay out for pregnancy leave. A handful of states have a STD fund paid by employment taxes which covers everyone.
Yeah. Mine has a 30 day waiting period, which means it'll only cover 2 weeks. Makes me livid.
USA. I get 20 days paid leave, 13 federal holiday off, and 14 days paid sick leave. This is not the norm. The more money you make in the USA the more paid leave benefits you get.
My husbands company is based out of the US. Back in March he had someone up from the states and I was visiting him at the office. I was talking about how I was dreading going back to work and that at 1 year of age my daughter seems so young to be without me all day.
She was genuinely shocked to hear that I got 1 year PAID to stay home with my child after she was born.
About 20 years ago, I chose to have an abortion rather than go through a pregnancy without health insurance. My employer at the time didn’t offer maternity care as part of its health insurance. My income was too high for Medicaid. Paying out of pocket for insurance was out of the question.
Would you have had the baby if you could've? If so, this is absolutely appalling and I'm so sorry you had to go through that regardless of how you felt. So shit.
I absolutely would have had the baby. Unfortunately $300 was easier to come by than the thousands it would have cost to have the baby.
That is just so utterly disgusting that you had to make that kind of choice. Having to pick money over another human is something you absolutely should not have had to do. I'm in the UK so this isn't an issue here at all, I think that's why I feel so sad about your situation, I can't even fathom it. I'm sorry for your loss :(
It was and still is heartbreaking. Anyone who thinks women have abortions on a whim are worse than scum. I did it because I didn’t have a choice. Even six years later when my daughter was born, I went home with an approximately 8k hospital bill since they had to keep her a few extra nights. My insurance didn’t consider the light treatment for jaundice medically necessary.
I'm sat here on Paternity leave holding my 2 week old little boy absolutely horrified at what you're saying (from the UK).
My partner and him had to stay in the hospital a total of 3 nights, partially for her bloodloss but also because he had Jaundice and wasn't feeding properly, so I can really empathize with you. To come home with 8ks worth of debt is truly awful :(
It was not a decision I made without thought. It was the most difficult decision of my life.
When my children were born, my husband had to take unpaid leave so he could be there at the hospital with me. When I was discharged, I drove myself and the baby home since we couldn’t afford him taking more time off.
I had a kidney stone in 2012 and had to have it removed. I’ve got that 15k sitting on my credit report because I haven’t been able to make any payments since my divorce. Our insurance at the time only covered 20% of the costs.
My wife just started back yesterday after a crazy C-section. She medically couldn't go back to work until this week, and she's been on medically-ordered bed rest since Feb 2. FMLA only covers an additional 4 weeks for C-sections, (and when you're on leave, you only get 60% of your paycheck) so we've been living on just my income for the last few weeks with two more family members who require expensive specialized formula because of their reflux.
It's not easy.
Edit: Clarification
If you took that much time off in the USA (even to have a baby) by the time you went back they wouldn't even remember you and you might get security/cops called on you for trespassing CAUSE YOUR ASS BEEN FIRED.
Ditto here and my partner works for a similar place. Since he won’t be giving birth, no chance in hell he’ll get any time off unless he takes vacation time. Paternity leave is not thing because of course your wife will just stay home and care for a newborn alone while healing from the physical trauma that can be childbirth.
I am so thankful that my husband gets 5 weeks paid. and his company is so loose that they will let him work from home for as long as he needs to. (hell they let him work from home one day a week, for the past 2 years, to take care of our puppy) So at least one of the parents can be home for a bit. i am hoping to overlap our time off. Maybe have him use a week first with me and then when i go back he uses the other 4 weeks.
My Dad is retired and offered to watch our future baby so YEY free child care but my father is not someone I can see interacting with a baby at this point in his life. I kinda wish mine future baby wasn't the re-learning baby.
But leaving a 6 week old baby with my dad, i can't wrap my head around it.....at least I am not paying for it.
That is slowly changing.
My company just updated their policy. Women now receive 6 week paid maternity leave and men get two weeks.
I don't foresee my company doing that......
You should look for employment at a place that does offer that, if it is important to you. Free market and all
I think it helps that my company is a Global company.
You are lucky you are getting the six weeks paid. I got paid for none and had to use my one weeks paid vacation and then go back to work.
I am only getting that because I am getting a second insurance policy on myself
USA here.
My wife worked until the day she had our son, only had two weeks of maternity leave with her company, and had to use all of her PTO (paid time off). She then used FMLA and got six weeks of 66.7% pay, and then took the final five weeks of time at home completely unpaid.
This was and is completely unacceptable in 2018 in one of the (if not the) richest country in the world.
FMLA (family medical leave act)
I assumed FMLA (fuck my life, America)
I wish i could upvote this more than once!!
I have to take short term disability and a second insurance plan to cover myself while in the hospital. I have 6 weeks and then have to go back to work or not get paid. Now there is FMLA (family medical leave act) that holds my job for 12 additional weeks but it is without pay.
From my understanding, the STD and FMLA run concurrently so you'd only have an additional 6 weeks off.
I'm not 100% sure but my girlfriend got the full 12 weeks FMLA and 6 weeks for maternity. Her company does paid maternity and she just wasn't ready to go back.
Hell then she got surgery (unrelated) and went on real short term disability. This kid was born in August and she still hasn't gone back to work.
Now, 12 weeks was unpaid but still.
It's 6 months for women in Ireland, Men only get 2 weeks. Women can also take an extra 3 months but without pay.
12 concurrent weeks, might wanna check that out with HR
"maternity leave" doesn't even exist here; there's pregnancy leave and parental leave.
From what I gather the US fuses pregnancy leave and parental leave together into "maternity leave" which is so strangely done that in a lot places females who adopt get "maternity leave" but males do not—that is surely unjustifiable.
So here there are two ones; pregnancy leave you'll get even if you give up for adoption but won't get if you adopt and parental leave you'll get if you adopt or if you're the co-parent with someone else who gives birth.
take the extra 12 weeks? I don't know, I don't have a kid. Six weeks seems like a very short time to recover from childbirth.
oh agreed
It depends on a lot of factors. With my first, it took me almost three months to feel normal again after his mostly uncomplicated vaginal birth. My second son is 7 weeks old, and I felt right as rain after no more than two weeks. I am a SAHP so I don’t need to worry about work leave, but it’s atrociously unfair the state of leave in this country. (And medical bills, cripes, I was in the hospital 24 hours and they billed my insurance almost $10K... but that’s something else entirely.)
And if you think FMLA is guaranteed to 'hold your job', you're gonna have a bad time. Many companies start plotting to can your ass as soon as you file FMLA because they're greedy fucks and it's hard to prove wrongful termination.
Hey, Swaziland, Lesotho, and Papua New Guinea don't have paid maternity leave, either. Why doesn't anybody jump all over them about it? /s
Yeah America is shit with giving people time off from work, let alone paying them for it.
Want a child? Yay! Now suck it up and drag your recently ravaged body back to work or you’re fired. It’s such bullshit also let’s start giving paternity leave too please!
My mum had a mate who gave birth on a Thursday and had to go to work on a Monday. Also when my grandma died my uncle only got 3 days off to travel to England from the west coast. He had to leave the same night the funeral took place.
[deleted]
If she hadn't turned up they would have fired her.
[deleted]
I meant she would have gotten fired if she took more time off.
[deleted]
What kind of logic is that? That's like saying you shouldn't move from a 1 bedroom apartment to a 3 bedroom house because if you lose your job you can't pay the rent. If she had lost her job she could have been redundant for up to year because no one will hire a woman with a newborn.
[deleted]
What does that have to do with affording a child? Also where in the world does someone get a year and a half of paid maternity leave?
Juuusst too late for my kids, but my employer just started offering maternal and paternal leave and the older Republicans can't stop bitching about millennial entitlement... My private employer made a compensation decision... I thought you guys liked that?
Thanks for not fully funding social security past 2037 by the way... It's not a hard thing to solve and the sooner we do the cheaper the fix, assholes.
I hate this. Your job should be held for a year. There should be at least six weeks of paid leave an dthe rest can be pto or unpaid. A supervisor's wife recently had a baby. His supervisor said he could go home and see it and come back to work tomorrow. He almost quit right there he was so mad. Needless to say he took a ton of leave instead so he could be with his wife and new baby. I suspect he's not coming back.
I'm a father and was given 8 weeks paid leave to take care of my newborn. Living in a blue state with a good employer has its benefits.
My sister's employers were gracious enough to let her take off 3 weeks unpaid. What a country we live in.
Wow, expecting first child in November, we live in Scotland. Wife will be off for 12 months, six months full pay then 3 months half pay . For the last few months we use some savings or just claim the state maternity which is about £560 a month . Don’t get me wrong my wife’s company have a really top notch maternity package , where my employer would only pay a % of their salary for say 3 months then it’s six months state maternity pay from the government . In Scotland the government also give each new baby a ‘baby box’ it has all the starting basics - thermometers , changing mats, cloths etc etc . Everyone’s entitled to it . Which is nice , not all families can afford the best stuff etc and lets us set a bit of equality right from the get go.
That's because Americans have this perception that anything that doesn't directly beneift you is unnecessary. And corporations don't want to pay you maternity leave, so you think the politicians they own are going to try and pass laws supporting it?
i did tho got flamed for it ... also leave in general has 0 mandatory days by law
Its terrible. You get more time for a C section, 12 weeks I believe. But still. Leaving your newborn at home is really awful.
Wait till you hear about paternity leave
New York now has paid FMLA.
I’m from Canada and it amazes me how short maternity leave is for my US coworkers. In Canada maternity leave is one year. I’m not sure what percentage of their pay parents receive for their paid time off (no kids here!)
You get up to 55% of your normal salary paid out biweekly to a maximum of $547/week. Your employer can choose to top up that salary if they want as well.
I saved up PTO for a year leading up to the birth. I exhausted that and most of my sick time to take the full 12 weeks (FMLA) and get paid for it. Luckily, my company offered "Babies in the Workplace" and I was able to bring my babe into work until he was 6 months old. Additionally, I was lucky to be able to quit and become a FTM once he was 6 months old. It's a total distraction, but as a working parent that didn't want to put my kid in daycare, it was heaven.
My company wouldn't even let me roll over 2 days from the prior year for my honeymoon......
Also paternity leave. Here in sweden the mother has to take some sort of minimum leave then the parents can split the remaining leave however they want between them
I got to take 2 of my 4 weeks of PTO when my son was born.
Thank god my mom is around and helping my wife out while I'm back at work. A newborn and a 21 month old ain't a walk in the park
A colleague of mine had 9 months maternity leave (although to be fair some of that at the end were just regular days off).
Wow. In Canada it was ~$100 a night to upgrade from semi private to a private room, which I didn't take. So I walked in with a fat wife and walked out with a baby and a skinny wife. That was it. As for paternity leave, I took 4 months and it paid the same as unemployment. ~$2k a month.
holy crap, in the UK its standard to get a Year off, fully paid for some and maybe 50% pay for the rest in some companies.
I can't imagine having to have taken insurance to have a kid, the NHS is great for under 65's, not so great for over 65's
Having just had a baby last year I have to say this is one program I'd really like to see implemented in USA. As a father I deserve just as much time off as my wife to bond with the child but we get a measly 6 weeks while she got 6 months. I understand some of her time is granted for recovery but still, it's kind of bullshit father's only get 1 1/2 months.
i take it her company gives 6 months
You got six weeks? Damn son, you're working for a mighty generous company. I don't even get PTO. At all.
You got six weeks? Damn son, you're working for a mighty generous company. I don't even get PTO. At all.
It's state disability. 60% pay.
What state?
The bigger one is cost of birth. You have to pay about $3k-,$30k depending on insurance just to take it home from hospital.
I'm gonna go with the nipples. The US culture has a rather bizarre obsession with female nipples (male nipples are totally fine). You can show how much skin you want, and any suggestive pose, clothing or talk is fine too but holy shit hide the fucking nipple!
[deleted]
Even better, I once saw a tv show where a trans woman was getting breast implants, the first half of the surgery was uncensored, but as soon as they put the actual implant inside her chest, boom, blurred nipples. Wtf?
[deleted]
On the brightside, it does seem very progressive of them to recognize them as a woman’s nipples.
I chortled.
Something else I dont understand is the hypocrisy of the media about it. Sure, we'll make a show whose whole premise is to have people naked doing stuff but let's blur everything. Make people swear on tv, but put a beep and blur the lips.
I mean, I'm advocating neither for or against those things on tv, but pick a side and stick with it!
Yeah, there seems to be an influx lately of shows that are about people doing normal reality TV stuff (dating shows, survival shows, etc) but naked. I really don't understand what the point is when to the viewer it looks exactly the same, and to the people on the show they get used to it pretty quickly and don't really act any different
They blurred everything but the nipples? That doesn't seem right...
Hah, just realised my phrasing is awkward there. Should've been "Whole chest cut open and everything, but the nipples were still blurred"
Watched a documentary about a japanese serial killer once that got out of jail. They were showing pictures of his (first?) victim, a woman. Totally cut up, it was bloody and gory, disgustingly displayed. But luckily the nipples were blurred.
I imagine it’s down to something legal with telecom broadcasters rather than just ‘eww nipple’
You should watch Ru Paul’s Drag Race. There’s some magic invisible rule where a man’s nipples become blur-worthy just because there’s enough make-up and women’s clothes surrounding it.
We can't show our natural bodies, but absolutely brutal violence is totally okay. It's pretty fucked up!
Sex is bad, m'kay!
So true, so true.
The Puritan legacy at its finest, har har!
An advertisement for fake breasts on busses in Denmark https://www.nygart.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/busreklame-1024x682.jpg
legitament question: are women allowed to show their nips where you live? Im not even joking right now this sounds so alien to me
In a lot of places (Europe, in general, for one) it's a lot more acceptable. Ads on TV/print etc will have that stuff in full display, nude beaches are common and so on.
you just blew my mind...
Prepare to have it blown further. It is actually legal to be a topless female in most of the USA, but because people are so unused to it everyone will freak the fuck out if you do it. Check out this cool map of topless laws in the usa:
http://gotopless.org/topless-laws
Well shit, I'm gonna be sharing this with everyone I know. It's like the grand inversion of the whole 'oddly specific law' party trick.
I'm gonna be sharing this with everyone I know.
I don't have words for how happy I feel reading this. Made my day. :)
oddly specific law
Like that scene from that transformers movie about sleeping with minors.
Have a version that the color defficient can read?
Not that I could find, and I will admit I don't know much of anything about color-blindness only that green+red is a bad combo... So I just went ahead and made a monochromatic map on my own in MS Paint. I hope this helps!
Edit: made a more direct link for clarity. Zoom in too see the "colors" easier. https://s22.postimg.cc/up0mzg40v/Best_Attempt_at_Color-_Neutral_Topless_Map.png
Holy crap you're awesome
I'd darken the ambiguous ones a bit. Maybe make them striped? They're hard to see as they are.
Very cool of you to make a colorblind friendly map!
It was actually dotted, but on mobile imgur seems to disregard that and make them solid colors, so I reuploaded it elsewhere. Now if you zoom it it should be a bit more obvious. Let me know if it is any easier? I will keep the stripes in mind for the future, though!
It’s actually usually banned on a city level so be sure to check before trying. A weirdly good way to tell if it’s legal is looking at middle aged women at Pride…
Yeah even in places where it is definitely legal, people are probably not used to it and you can have the police called on you. The police aren't used to it either and just assume it is illegal because that is what is the general idea anyway. So you end up getting arrested for indecent exposure or disturbing the peace. They will likely drop the charges after finding out it's legal, but it is a huge inconvenience and a good sign of how far behind we are as a society.
Exactly. I usually follow the rule of not being the first topless woman. I also limit where I do it because catcalling is bad enough when I’m wearing a shirt
Just here to let you know that ads like this are being played on national television during the day. Link
Yeah those models didn't get those bodies by eating a ton of cheese I'll tell you that much
I’ve been eating cheese wrong this whole time.
That’s quite the biscuit ad.
The fact that so many more women in Europe are willing to go topless on camera because of the stigma and future roadblocks to employment that goes with being topless on camera, is a major cause for the perception among Americans that European women are hotter than American women.
Its really common to see in media like in european produced movies and tv shows... Art aswell of course. Its also not uncommon for a woman to go topless when sunbathing....
This reminds me of a censored painting of Narcissus and Echo. I’m not sure whether the altering was done by the Catholic Church or to make the painting “safe for American viewing.” I was, however, certain that it was hilarious that someone felt the need to censor a solitary breast that wasn’t even the focus of the work.
Blew more than my mind...
Yo where do you live how come I live in Europe and ain't never seen the whole dang tiddy
Depends a bit on the country, but overall we don’t almost get a stroke when we see a whole titty. I’ve seen topless women at lakes in Berlin, but I know my own country (Belgium) is a bit prudish, especially in the North.
Here in Spain it's pretty common for girls from to be topless on the beach. I can tell you that were I live around 40/50% of all women I see on the beach go topless. It's not a big deal AT ALL. They tan and swim like this, and only covers themselves when leaving or if they want to buy something from the "chiringuito" (a tiny bar/cafe on the beach).
That means you get to see a lot of nice bodies but also big saggy breasts. Again, it's perfectly natural and I don't have any problem with that. It's all about being confortable on the beach.
i cant even imagine the sunlight on my nipples
[deleted]
If an American high school teacher showed this in class, they'd likely be fired, the school could get sued, and the teacher (if male) would probably get arrested.
I hate America.
Wow and she's sexy af too. That wouldn't fly in Australia/NZ that's for sure.
I live in the Netherlands and yesterday when I went to the beach there was a lady casually sitting half-naked. It's not frowned upon and it shouldn't. People want to sunbathe and get brown.
Netherlands
People want to sunbathe and get brown.
Ehm...
In the few weeks we have sun we sure make use of it!
They are not. But here its more linear ramp up to that point. In american culture, I can see what I consider soft-core porn, yet the nipple is blurred. Its like you can do anything, as long as you hide that one specific detail. Its not so much about out in public as it is about movies and advertisement. Does that make any sense?
Edit: Though Im not sure, I need to look up the law. But I suppose it begs the question if "allowed" means in the legal sense, or in the sense of what is socially acceptable.
[deleted]
Uhm I don't want to sound like a dick but this is because some Muslims can't handle it and pester people who are topless. When I was young (mid nineties) it was very normal to see boobs on the beach.
Implying that Muslims are more prudish than other religious people ... oh my.
It‘s literally the same as with Christians. If they‘re very religious, they‘ll care. But for example, my dad is Muslim, and if he saw a topless woman at the beach, he‘d find it hilarious. He’d probably just laugh and point her out to me. It‘s just a matter of how religious someone is, and not of what their religion is. You‘re just generalizing.
This is 100% your prejudice and 0% facts. Maybe you don‘t want to sound like a dick, but you are.
This is a thread about differences between countries and here you are with your moral high ground, spouting opinions like they're facts and pestering this guy for probably talking about his personal experience. You're the prejudiced one.
If you want to find an example of what he's saying, just type "burkini" on the French google. Last summer it became absolutely huge because there was a lot of tension between Muslims and non-muslims over muslim men forcing their wives to wear burkas on beaches because it was impure to show skin. Here in France in the summer there are hundreds of cases of Muslim men insulting and/or assaulting women who dare to go out on the beach in a bikini.
And yes it does matter what their religion is. In France, Muslims are way more intolerant and prudish than Christians and atheists. That's because French Christians (more than 35% of the population) are progressives when it comes to women's rights while Muslims still have a long way to go on that front.
Remember this thread is about cultural differences between countries, so your blanket statement "100% opinion 0% fact" is only applicable to yourself.
It was absolutely ludicrous of him to say that the reason women can‘t show their nipples anymore is Muslims. That‘s what he said, and it’s bullshit. I pointed that out. Don‘t make this about something it‘s not.
[deleted]
If that really is a fact, then provide a proper source. Because if you don‘t, this might as well be something you just made up. Saying that something is true doesn‘t prove that it is.
Also, you‘re missing the point - even if that‘s true (I doubt it), it still doesn‘t mean that the statement „the reason women can‘t show their tits in public anymore is Muslims“ is anything but absurd.
Even if what you're saying is true, a lot of European countries aren't religious at all anymore. So things like this almost always comes from muslim immigrants and not the local population, which is where this view comes from (and I can't say they're wrong).
It's not that all muslims have these views, but the people that do and refuse to adapt to the local culture are almost always muslims, which helps spread the idea all muslims are bad. There's a reason more and more eu countries are moving to the right politically.
The fact fundamentalist christians would likely act the same simply isn't an issue for these countries, they're extremely rare over here. So if he says mainly muslims are harrassing women he's actually right, regardless of what misleading conclusions that could lead to.
This will probably also get downvoted because I said something negative in relation to muslims though.
I agree completely.
I have to add that I don't agree that "you see this less than in the 80s because muslims". Just trying to explain why people are targeting them specifically.
[deleted]
They do? Who said that? Every single Muslim? They told you that? When? Where? Can I look that up?
There are Americans who think black people should die. Does this mean that „They [Americans] say that black people should die“ is a correct statement?
Blanket statements like that just make it painfully obvious how much of a bigot you are.
[deleted]
Nothing about your analogy works since we're not even discussing extremism.
That‘s the thing. We are. Because guess what, moderate Muslims don‘t give a shit about what other people wear. Just like moderate Christians, moderate Jews, etc.
Likewise, there‘s lots of Christian people in western countries who disagree with people showing nipples. Does your argument also hold true against Christians? Of course not. Because it‘s a generalization, and those suck.
[deleted]
This survey isn‘t even about immigrants. You‘re assuming that Muslims are completely unable to adapt and assimilate to another culture. Which is ludicrous.
Yeah reading shit in the newspaper is prejudice...
Lmao. What did you read? „Topless sunbathing now banned due to pressure from Muslim community“?
Yeah exactly that and not "topless women being harrased by men in Islamic religious outfits"
Oh, only Muslims? That’s funny. I thought it was just men in general.
You're both ignorant !
Eh? Why am I ignorant?
Your statement is incorrect and uninformed.
That men in general aren’t on their best behavior when it comes to boobage?
In Spain not really (though its weird to also see a male nipple besides in advertising), but I'd say a majority of women sunbathe topless in the beaches.
Lol I live in Ohio and it's legal here (not saying many people do it....)
It's actually perfectly legal in most places in America, but not even the cops realize it. I remember reading about a woman successfully suing the state of NY for being arrested 14 times for public nudity even though it wasn't a crime.
legitament
I feel like someone needs to tell you it's legitimate.
I think hiding the nipple is fine but the inconsistency is what gets me. You can be as vulgar as you want but it only becomes an issue if the nipple is shown.
We used to have naked women in our newspapers in the UK. Page three of The Sun.
We’re weird about all things dress related actually. I remember being sent to the office in middle school for wearing shorts where the ends of the legs rested above my knees. I was a transfer student... on my second day... and I was a dude... I sat for thirty minutes waiting for the adults to figure out what the fuck to do...
My baby sister HATES this with every ounce of her being. She is 9. Every time she sees a guy walking around with a shirt off she is instantly pissed. She does not see the difference between man nipples and woman nipples and does not think it's fair. She isn't wrong, I just think her outrage is adorable. I love her.
But they have to be covered up, or children might be exposed to them! Think how traumatic that would be!!
I follow this FtM transsexual on instagram and he has to wear tape over his nipples which is weird because he's flat as any cisgendered man you'd see in the street and passes easily.
Can I see your nipples?
Yes.
It would be the same if ears were always hidden.
Basically there is a group of literal moms who decide the rating of TV and movies. Death and shooting pg13
A single nip "XXX"
Yes, we have a weird thing about women's nipples, but in many parts or the US, including New York City, women can legally go topless in public.
Note: anywhere a man can go topless a woman most likely can too.
There is a Trope for that...
My theory on this is American culture used to be very adverse to showing skin. Men less so than women, but it was both genders. As things slowly progressed, people pushed the boundary by slowly showing more skin. Levels that would have been considedered nudity in the 19th century. When it came to breasts, people slowly pushed to exposing more and more, and at some point the rule was basically it's not nudity if the nipples are covered by clothing. That way they can have underboob and standard cleavage at the same time, especially common in scifi and ancient history movies. That's how they keep it from being shameful nudity by not showing nipples. The problem here can't be separated from America's weird relation to nudity. Like nudity seems to imply sex in the American mind, so we must not have it to protect the kids. Millenials seem to be the generation to maybe finally make the leap into not being so socially uncomfortable with seeing the human body naked, with shows like Game of Thrones becoming very popular, when they would have caused an uproar 30 years ago.
I highly recommend going with nipples.
showing boobs would be considered flashing in the UK too, breastfeeding would be acceptable I guess. I mean covering boobs is found in many countries and then a lot more flesh covering... Iran....
You need a night out in Newcastle mate.
But for TV we can show full frontal for medical/educational reasons and post watershed for other scenarios.
Pretty much everything related to education. Middle/High school separation, for one thing. In Russia, you usually stay with the same class from 1st grade to 11th (though some people may elect to leave after 9th to enter trade school, but this is considered a loser's way), at least in big cities (a village school may not have teachers for upper grades, obviously).
Next, college application process. Cover letters? WTF even that is? Why do colleges need them? In Russia, you just show your end-of-school exam grades (Unified Government Examination), and if they are above some level, you're in (though some more prestigious or specialized higher education institutions (like theatre/movies/musical education) are allowed to hold their own additional entrance exams).
Dorms. Everyone in America lives in dorms when in university/college. OK, so do some people here, the ones who came from another city. But if you live in a big city here, you probably will not leave it to get higher education, so you probably will live with your parents until you can get a job and rent a flat, which only usually happens during the last few years of the education.
Paid education and students debt. You may say what you like about Russia, but our higher education is still mostly free. If you have low grades, you may pay to be placed in a "commercial" education class, but people who do this are frowned upon by the rest of the students. Even if you do, the price of education is so far below American one (even adjusting for salary differences) that students' debt is not even a problem here. Of course, one might question quality of such education, but American companies seem to love to snap up Russian programmers, at least, so I guess our education is not particularly shitty.
Majors/minors. It's such a big deal in a lot of fiction, for example. But even though I read about it a lot of times, I still don't quite get it, along with class selection. In Russia, you choose a specialization when you enroll (e.g. Applied Math), and from the day one to the end, all students in your group will attend the same classes and take the same tests and exams. American system seems like a computer game's research tree to me - "you must unlock A, B and C before studying D", and somehow, it's your burden to keep track of what classes you attended and got grades in. WTF. Here, you just get a ready-made complete curriculum, no need to do anything but study. If you feel you chose a wrong specialization in the beginning, you might change it, and then things become a bit complicated, but it only happens rarely, and usually only right after the first semester.
College system confuses me too. In Australia you decide what you are going to study at the end of high school, apply to University, if you have the right score you are accepted into the course, then you study for 3 or 4 years in that specialty - engineering / business / science / arts / etc. I don't know what college kids are doing in their first few years in the US system. I hear mention of gaining credits and having compulsory subjects that are common to all students regardless of majors?? I just assumed the first couple of years was like an additional two years of high school, whereby you can't choose your subjects? Maybe someone can clarify
The first couple years you basically just get a bunch of prerequisites out of the way. Like ECON 101 is a prerequisite for ALOT of classes in accounting, finance, supply chain, etc. Then I don’t know how other colleges do it, but my college requires you to take a certain amount of credits in these categories to sort of give you a more rounded education. The categories are like humanities, US diversity, and one more I can’t think of right now. So these are your like philosophy courses, world religion courses, African American studies, and stuff like that. But each category has maybe 50+ classes that can count towards your credit requirement so we have ALOT of freedom when it comes to what classes we want to take. But I go to a pretty big college so that’s probably not the norm.
So the first couple years of college, most kids just get those types of classes out of the way. Then the last few years we buckle down and take all our major related classes. But as long you’re not trying to take a course before you took its prerequisites, you can pretty much do the classes in any order you want. I just know most of my friends and I decided to do it this way.
I can see the positives of trying to make students more rounded, but to me it feels like high school already took care of this. Did you feel like this delayed you doing what you wanted to do? Given that college is so expensive, I feel like they could just skip that process and allow students to go straight into their majors
Well like I said I go to a big college that offers a ton of courses, so you can always find something your interested in even if it’s not directly related to your major. Like I’m a business major but I’m also interested in philosophy and political science, so I used those classes as an opportunity to explore those areas. High school sort of does this but not nearly to the same degree. There’s a big difference between learning psychology from and actual PhD vs learning psychology from a random high school teacher. I think those classes are worth it. It also lets some students explore different majors if they’re not entirely sure of what they want to do when they first enter college.
fair call, I guess over here we are expected to know our life plan by the age of 18 without being able to test the waters. It's a big expectation at that age. I remember being 14 or 15 in high school ang having to choose senior subjects with a view to what I would then be doing in University (needing the required subjects to get the right score) and then for the rest of my life. I was so daunted I wanted to drop out at one stage
We are too. You still have to choose a 4 year major when you’re 18. But it’s not uncommon at all for students to change majors after their first year or first semester.
That's another thing that confuses me - why are your bachelor degrees a 4 year program? Is it the prerequisites thing? Because I'm pretty sure that almost all European degree programs are 3 years to get to the same standard, unless you go straight into a combined BSc/MSc type program. Must add to the cost problem too, an extra 25% of expense.
Not the original person, but a current college student: in my experience, degree programs take 4 years for 2 main reasons. First, there's the "red tape" of needing prerequisites to take other classes--those naturally slow people down, since it's pretty rare in my experience to be able to take a prereq with the next class. Second, most colleges in the states limit you to 16 credit hours a semester (supposedly to prevent overworking yourself, but I've seen mad men do almost 30 hours a semester and almost wind up in the hospital a few times. Double majors are crazy people). My school charges an extra amount of tuition for every credit hour over 16 during the fall/spring, and financial aid doesn't cover summer/interim classes, so a lot of people are forced into the slow lane.
You have to pay extra to take more classes so you can graduate faster? That really sucks. I'm also US and at my uni if you're enrolled full-time (12 hours or more, though you pretty much have to average 15+ hours a semester to graduate on time), tuition doesn't go up.
Though I guess that has its own issues, because a lot of students are pressured into taking more hours than they can handle so they can get the most of their tuition.
[deleted]
College I'm at is up to 16 hours without tuition increase. It varies from school to school, I'd assume, considering I've checked multiple times with my student finance department and I always hear the same thing.
Professor + academic adviser here. I’ll usually sign off of a student wants to take 18 credits (if they have a good GPA) but anything beyond that just leads to overwork and it’s highly likely they’d end up dropping that 6th course anyway.
Our school did that too. Full time tution basically allowed you to take as many units as you wanted each quarter without added cost, BUT you were limited to 12 (min for full time) during the initial registration period, only after everyone has registered were you allowed to pickup more units. Most people just stick with 12 afaik.
I also go to a college like this but the first 18 credits are included in tuition and it's something like $1495 per credit after that. This is actually the standard, as far as I know, for private schools and public schools just establish a minimum credit requirement for the max tuition rate.
You have to pay extra to take more classes so you can graduate faster?
I've never encountered that before. I've gone to 3 different colleges (in Texas).
The norm I've heard is that you have to go to your academic advisor to get approval to take more than 18 credit hours (approx. 5-6 classes) per semester, so that they can make sure the student will succeed and not overload themselves (like taking 6 difficult classes that have high time commitments, e.g. Physics, Calculus, Mechanical Engineering)
This comment seems to confirm that: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0me2kd/
I wouldn't say 16hrs is a common limit. Every semester I average about 16.5 credit hours and my university sets a limit at 21 credit hours. I don't see how it would be possible to get a STEM degree in 4 years with a cap at 16 per semester.
I get looked at funny for wanting to do 16 hours (advisors try to limit me at 15 a semester). Degrees are kinda... skimpy? I guess is the right word? My bachelors is 124 credit hours total, spread out over 8 semesters--which is 16 hours a semester, if you don't do summer classes.
My alma mater had a 21 credit hour limit for students. Except the engineering school. They limited you to 18.
15 or 16 hours is pretty common, though.
I did 25 for one Semester, it wasn't so bad. I managed to get 3 classes mwf and 2 on tue/thur. Even with that i had to jump through a bunch of hoops because no one does more than 15.
There's no way you had 5 classes that were each 5 credit hours. I've never even heard of a 5 credit hour class. I've taken classes that required 6hrs in lab/lecture and were still only 4 credits.
Most universities usually have 3 or 4 credit hour classes. One professor I had talked about 5 credit hour classes when he was doing his bachelors. At least at his university, 5 CH classes met once per day Mon-Fri.
Well, if you've never heard of it obviously i'm mistaken. I could send you my transcript, but then we would have to have a tiresome debate about its veracity. Sorry you don't believe me internet stranger.
What major, if I may ask? I'm in game design, so out-of-class work is typically a couple hours to every hour in class. The double major was a Bachelor of Fine Arts (think game design/animation double major on crack), so it was an absurd amount of work.
Criminal Justice. I was in a "retraining" program. They gave me 12 months at 75% pay and paid for 12 months of school. Ground out an AA in that time. Pro tip, do not take child psych and abnormal psych at the same time. Combined with sleep deprivation you start seeing children of the corn everywhere.
I have 2 AA degrees, neither is worth the paper it's printed on. My current job required a 4 year degree, or one year of customer service experience. My 2 years as a "sandwich artist" was more valuable than my 3 years of college.
Hows that for murrica
At this point, I'm banking on my portfolio being worth more than the paper my AA/Bachelor's is printed on, because most people I ask don't care WHAT I have a degree in, they just want to see I HAVE a degree. Also, I'd like to try living somewhere else. I hear studios in Canada are lovely this time of decade
Our Bachelors programs are 4 years because of the general education requirements. Here's a comparison of the University of Melbourne's Mechanical Engineering degree and Rutgers University's Mechanical Engineering degree.
University of Melbourne:
Rutgers University:
I'd just like to point out that the university of Melbourne is probably the university in Australia that is most similar to the American system, and actually models it's undergrad degrees off of the American system, at least in part. It's called the 'Melbourne model' and is designed to put out 'more rounded' students by offering modules outside of someone's major. Melbourne uni students also have pre-requisite modules for all degrees, even masters programs (in the example cited, Calc 1 is one of those).
You need to complete a Bachelor of Arts/science/biomedicine/environments (now design)/ commerce/music before you can go on to do a masters degree in anything (engineering, law, medicine, international relations...etc etc). So the degree you quoted is actually a Bachelor of science with a major in engineering, but to be able to call themselves an engineer, Melbourne university graduates actually have to go back to uni and complete a masters degree (usually another 2 years of full time study on top of a minimum 3 year bachelors).
Source: attended Melbourne Uni for 6 years and was employed to provide course advice to new students.
[deleted]
I didn't do a 'general' subject in my undergrad but I did do 'interdisciplinary foundation subjects' with sweeping names like ' globalisation' which are meant to introduce us to politics, philosophy, social science etc.
I think you said you were in Australia? With a government test that every one takes? And it is specialized to the major you want to pursue?
I don't know how different areas of your country work, but the states are, well, states. Founded on the belief they can govern themselves with sweeping nationwide legislature from the central governement occasionally interfering. This leads to wildly, wildly different educations. As an example, some states don't teach evolution while others hit it in like 4th grade (9 y/o). We haslve the SATs which most everyone take but that is a very small part of college entrance and also incredibly general. College acceptance is focused more highly on total performance through high school (ability to commit to high performance over a long period) which is conveniently also 4 years (typically).
I think the added first year of rounding students out is to get everyone on the same level to start. American university is also very 'plato's unuversity' inspired, where a well rounded education was THE education.
In short, getting an A average in some american high schools would be a D equivalent in others due to the differences across the board. Colleges would just see two A students (one from good school, one from bad). They are not equivalent, be need to be made equals, since schools don't want to award degrees to people that will lower the prestige.
In Australia, we also have states, which govern their own secondary education. However there are national standards that all students are supposed to be hitting at the same time (this isn't necessarily the reality, as there's a whole host of factors that create inequality in our schools).
In Australia, the tests that everyone takes at the end of high school to get into university are administered by each state. For example I did the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) while someone in New South Wales would complete the High School Certificate (HSC). Many do the International Baccalaureate instead though. These are typically the final 2 years of high school (year 11 and 12), although some high performing students start in year 10. These are end of school certificates- there are compulsory subjects (like English), and then other subjects that you can choose (for example I did maths, biology and physics). These subjects are pre-requisites to get into some university courses (each course is different as to its requirements), and are used in conjunction with your ATAR (Australian Tertiary Admission Rank) for university entry. The ATAR is literally a ranking of students based on academic results, and is reflected in a number score (99.95 being the highest attainable).
Each year universities use the ATAR to decide who gets into which courses (depending on which courses a person has applied to and put down as their 1st/2nd 3rd etc preference). The more competitive/sought after universities generally have much higher ATARs that they demand- for example Melbourne University doesn't take many people with an ATAR under 85 (this is considered pretty high and respectable, IMO). Your ATAR score only counts for admission to university in the first few years after you finish school (3 years, IIRC). After this, universities can use whatever criteria they want.
The other factors that universities might take into consideration are things like disability, coming from a rural area, coming from a disadvantaged background, underrepresented high schools, coming from an indigenous background, etc. Basically having one of these factors acting 'against you' means that the university might take a second look at your application even if it wasn't as competitive as other students.
So basically, to keep prestige, the top universities only take the top performing students. And the less prestigious universities take a wider array of students. Rinse and repeat.
I should note that Australians have a student loan system administered by the government which has super low interest and you don't have to pay back until you earn over a certain threshold. This makes university much more accessible in the short term, but you're generally taking on many years of high debt (for example my BA and MA cost $75k.)
A lot of what you said is very similar to the system I have experience here in the states.
These are typically the final 2 years of high school (year 11 and 12), although some high performing students start in year 10. These are end of school certificates- there are compulsory subjects (like English), and then other subjects that you can choose (for example I did maths, biology and physics). These subjects are pre-requisites to get into some university courses (each course is different as to its requirements)
We have this, they are called AP classes (advanced placement) and are above honors level in difficultly (in most cases). Since these classes are not taken by all the students, and typically a small percentage, they are only offered in well funded schools that can afford to have a teacher teaching a class for 8 students. which I expanded upon in another comment:
It's a pretty aggressive cycle of, poor areas can't afford good teachers, which leads to low performance, which leads to kids not caring or being prepared with a solid education. Property value decreases since peoe who can afford to leave do, which in turn is less tax dollars for the school. Rinse and repeat. You can't just dump money on a poor area and fix problems, so the standards to be met.are decreased instead. The government can't be barring an entire town's population from a high school diploma because they are too poor to afford a good school. Is the diploma worth much? No, but good luck getting any job without one.
Is the college admission process based mostly on the test scores at the end or the total high school performance (cumulative GPA from the full 4 years?). From what I know universities here focus mostly on that, and due to the massive difference between schools two students might be accepted because of their A average but are no where near equal. Thus justifying the need for a lot of the prerequisites. Most people don't really end up having a problem with them since the under prepared students catch up and the high performing students get a nice GPA pad.
There is a HUGE push back on standardized testing since research shows it doesn't correlate to college performance. These exams do affect classrooms where the teachers have to "teach to the test" and adds stress to students for little to no payoff. Universities still look at them but they are becoming either optional or not asked for at all. I think that movement is going to be growing though and eventually it will just be the essays, high school GPA, and extra-curricular activities.
We also do national rankings by percentile, and the underrepresented stuff you had mentioned. Higher level institutes also take higher level students than a random public school. I took at 50k for all my degree stuff, so similar there as well.
The systems are very similar actually. The big thing to me is the massive difference between schools in the country that mean universities need the prereqs. Also, nobody wants to get to college and learn that they grew up in a shitty area and therefore need to pay for an extra year of school (despite being from a shitty area and likely have less financial stability to begin with), so everyone does them to make it "fair".
I should say, I liked them and am glad I had to take those prereqs. They helped me shape my own opinions for my own reasons, not just copying others. I know who I was coming out of high school, and that person would have done anything to not take those.
We have this, they are called AP classes (advanced placement) and are above honors level in difficultly (in most cases).
We don't have anything similar to AP classes in Australia. For example: to get into Bachelor of Pharmacy in my state, a pre-requisite class was Year 12 Chemistry. Just the stock-standard "Chemistry" class that anybody could take, regardless of what they planned to do after graduating high school. I did Year 12 Chemistry, which theoretically means that I learned as much about Chemistry as anybody else that did Year 12 Chemistry at any other school. There are no "advanced Chemistry", "advanced English" etc. like the USA has. If I didn't do year 12 Chemistry and still wanted to do a B. in Pharm, I could have also done a bridging course before the first semester of university and gotten in that way. And then the first few weeks of Chemistry 100 (first year University course) was basically just a summary of my entire Year 12 Chemistry anyway, just to get everyone up to the same level.
The college admission process in Australia is based solely on the end of year exams and your grades in the final year of high school. Whatever I did in PE when I was 13 (Year 8) didn't matter. No such things as admission letters. All you need is your ATAR to be below cutoff, and you're in.
Ap classes can count for college credit, like the atar?
Ours is 9th to 12th that matters, nothing before
Ohhhhh so that's why American children choose to suffer!
College credit literally isn't a major thing in Australia. For the bachelor degree you choose, the courses that make up the degree are all chosen for you. You need to pass all the classes to pass the course but excelling in high school gets you nothing more than a good work ethic and a foot into the course you want.
The only time college credit matters here is if you switch degrees; for example if you completed Physiology 100 as a first year as part of your degree and wanted to switch to another degree that had Physiology 100 as a course requirement you don't have to do it again -- but you'd have to catch up on all the other classes that you missed. And if you switched to a course that didn't need Physiology 100, then you wasted your time and money.
Only the final year of high school is taken into consideration for university entry but of course if you don't do well before year 12 that makes it harder.
Huh, weird, all Bulgarian bachelors are also 4 years, although the last year is almost always some kind of internship
You can also do a work placement year in a lot of UK universities, and they're often a really good idea - I know my friends who did one found it a really valuable experience. But it's not compulsory, and you still study all the same stuff - just with an extra year of applied experience before your final year of study.
Think it’s because it’s the prerequisites. I’m going to uni in NZ but I’m from the US and took my prerequisites back home before applying to the NZ uni. My BSc is only 3 years and I entered as a 2nd year because of the papers I took back home
European bachelors should actually be higher standard because we take care of those rounded prerequisites in high school.
I believe it is just based on the credit hours that the university determines for the degree. I believe most bachelor degrees require 120 credit hours at a minimum, which as the university maps out assume that it will take students 4 years to complete (averages to 30 credit hours a year or 15 per semester). That said you can graduate early as long as you meet the requirements. For instance I had some prerequisites completed from AP courses in high school and was able to graduate in 3 years instead of 4 (also ended up taking 20 credits my last semester, with approval from my advisor).
My major typically takes 5 years because i have to sit for an exam afterward and i need 225 college credits. So I'm double majoring which is how most handle it. It's typically 180 though.
Some students will take 5 classes at a time to finish early. You have to be really smart and or super dedicated to pull that off.
It's totally the pre req thing. I changed my major after my freshman year when I found out I suck at high level chemistry and I also spent a year abroad which counted for nothing but finishing some minor stuff and racking up credits. So I basically completed my entire Econ major in 2 years, give or take a class or two.
With a European degree it can be hard to get higher ed in other countries because the degrees are 3 years, in my experience. When I applied for phds, all my applications said that they did not accept a 3 year degree.
I don’t know enough about your programs to really answer why. Prerequisite classes aren’t a thing in Europe though?? That’s weird.
The idea is that the prerequisite was your high school.
A lot of prequisites are things like being unable to take the 2nd semester of calculus without passing the 1st semester but they're also things like being unable to take a journalism course without proving you can pass a basic English literature course. Though for a lot of schools and if you were smart about it in high school, you can either test out of a course or just skip it... For example, in high school, I took the AP courses so I never had to take a history course in university and I didn't have to take Spanish because I tested out of those two courses in my final year of university.
In the UK the 'basic Eng Lit course' in your example would have been English at A level in the last two years of secondary school. Without that you'd have never been accepted for the University journalism course. I always assumed that's what SATs and the whole GPA thing that is equally alien to me were for.
GPA is just a way of seeing your average grade over your years of high school. SATs should give that information but if you do really badly in math but get a perfect score in the English portion, it all rounds out to be around average.
Any subject other than English and math up to a algebra/geometry level (so absolutely no calculus or statistics or any other kinds of mathematics) would be under the SAT subject tests which aren't mandatory... I'm actually not sure if the SAT subject tests have optional math portions...
There's also people who take the SATs over and over again to get higher scores and universities often just look at the students top score so that sometimes makes people seem more competent than they actually are, even if they spend all their time studying grammar rules and have never read a book in their lives.
Yeah I get what they are we just don’t really pay any attention to them at all. What counts here are your results from your GCSEs, the exams taken at age 16; and A-levels taken at 18 just before you leave school. People are often given conditional offers for uni based on their projected grades and if they don’t get those grades they don’t get the place.
That's scary to me. At 16, I was a straight A student... At 18, I almost didn't graduate because my school required 4 years of math and I almost failed my calculus class (ended up getting the highest grade on the final exam and just barely passed) but I had already been accepted into university and they said they were cool with it so long as I graduated by their start date. Under your way of doing it, I wouldn't have been accepted into the school I'd already registered for.
You could also have had an unconditional offer in our system. It depends on a number of factors.
You're telling me they'll let you sign up for abstract linear algebra right out of high school? With maybe only 1 or calc classes in HS?
You don't sign up for abstract algebra or linear algebra, you sign up for a bachelor program in math and then abstract algebra is part of the full math curriculum.
American here, and I’m a college professor. Our high schools don’t necessarily line up with college curricula. For example, I teach an introductory level marketing course for first or second-year undergrads, most of whom are working toward a business degree. My students generally don’t take any business classes in high school, and if they do, it’s never marketing. It’s always accounting or something.
(US high school business classes, in my experience, are what you take if you’re not “good enough” for shit like Latin 3 or Pre-Calc.)
Business classes are seen as much the same thing in the UK as far as I know, to do business you'd do something like Maths, Economics and History.
Depending on the course, the first year will introduce or not introduce topics to students depending on whether they're 'expected' to have studied it as a subject or if they're expected to prove their aptitude by taking a harder subject.
High school education varies extensively across the states. What someone learns in Alabama is vastly different from someone in California. So essentially the prereq classes are to get everyone on the same "level" of education.
Isn't that literally the point of a department of education? To set national standards, and let each state determine how they want to get there? I mean, I know your current sec for education is a nutbag, but still, is the concept not there?
You can (in the UK at least), do a foundation year - if you decide halfway through your A-levels that you want to study a science rather than an arts subject, but you don't have time to switch to the right prerequisite A-levels, you might spend a year on a foundation course, but it's pretty rare.
everything is not even standard at state level. or even district level.
for the internatoinal A level in exam, you technically can, coz it is just text-based. so you just sign up for it and take.
The standard is incredibly low. Unbelievably low.
So while some schools are just at the standard, others are well beyond it. This is due to tax dollars available, economic class, town, county, state governments setting higher standards. Its like minimum wage, government min is like $7 I think (maybe 5.50)? My state is $13. And we definitely have areas you could live comfy on $13, it isn't a 'inflated for cost of living' min wage.
Short anecdote, out national exams (SATs) are out of 800 (thete are 2 for a combined possible score of 1600, reading and math). My town's high school was considered very good. Neighboring town, probably okay. This is in the same, northeast state. Im pulling a B In my school. My cousin, in the neighboring town has above an A average (honors courses typically in my area have added weight, so a normal A+ becomes an A++, and allows the average to go over a normal '4.0'). Now, these high schools arent bad, and his is definetely better than the center city schools, but are different in ranking, and about a 10 minute drive from each other.
When it comes time for the SATs and we take the same math exam and I score a 730, he gets a 400(ish). How does an A++ student score that much lower than a B student? We are taking the same classes, both in precalculus at the time. I've heard and learned topics he's never seen. This is town by town in what's considered a "good education" state. From one state to another the differences can be absolutely insane.
I...whut? How? Why? I’m not trying to be arrogantly European here or anything, but how is this even vaguely efficient or equitable? Or logical? Had I wanted, I could have applied for uni in Germany or the Netherlands- completely foreign countries with entirely different education systems and be accepted and expect to be of roughly equivalent in content knowledge and ability to a local student (barring the fact that I speak neither German or Dutch, but even then, a lot of uni level courses are in English) - but it’s not possible for two kids in neighbouring towns to get comparable educations? I mean, that makes a lot of the circus around university applications more understandable, because they can’t assume you have any kind of grounding and have to start fresh - so devise a process to filter as needed. But surely this kind of thing is also an arseache for employers?
I can only assume that the number of high schools >> number of colleges so name recognition can go a lot farther as thete are less to know.
Disclaimer, I'm very near the end of my Master's degree so I don't have real job application experience yet HOWEVER, I have worked in a workforce education research group for the majority of my college career which is where I speak from. I've headed a publication and worked on several others, so, I think I have a fairly good grasp without the first hand experience.
Something I'm more familiar with: It's wild how different schools can be. The town I live in my parents own a home worth roughly 450k (we arent that well off. We built it outselves, as my dad works construction, as do his friends and family [first generation portugeese immigrants, at around the age of 10, trade school in the states]). The land we built it on, completely uncleared and unimproved (it was a piece of a forest), less than an acre of it, cost nearly the same as the 2 story home we sold in the neighboring city suburb. That same house in the neighboring town I spoke about originally is worth about 350k (we considered building there), while in any of the suburbs of the nearest major city (whete we lived prior) we are talking 300k. None of those areas are significantly different in terms of crime, scenerary, convenience. 10 min drives between them all.
The reason the cost so much different is the school systems though. It's really a major selling point, if not the selling point, of most homes. How good is the school near here? Where can my kid go to school? We end up pay more taxes on our home than the mortgage (granted we saved a lot by not having labor costs), but still.
In my opinion our public schools are not free. My parents spent roughly an additional 150k so me and my sister could go to a good high school. If they were free, all schools would be similar enough that it wouldn't matter.
It's a pretty aggressive cycle of, poor areas can't afford good teachers, which leads to low performance, which leads to kids not caring or being prepared with a solid education. Property value decreases since peoe who can afford to leave do, which in turn is less tax dollars for the school. Rinse and repeat. You can't just dump money on a poor area and fix problems, so the standards to be met.are decreased instead. The government can't be barring an entire town's population from a high school diploma because they are too poor to afford a good school. Is the diploma worth much? No, but good luck getting any job without one.
And from what I've read in a few sociology books, good teachers even with good pay (from government funding) don't want to work in the dillapitated schools full of children that just don't want to learn. Good teachers want good students, that's the joy of teaching is it not? The system works in reverse in other places. Good school -> good students -> property value increases (people want to move thete for their kids sake) -> more taxes -> better school.
Rinse and repeat until neighboring towns are wildly different from each other. To kick it up a notch further you are almost always required to go to school in the town you live in unless none is present, then it's closest distance. There is also the rare school choice system which focuses mainly on getting bright students out of the city and into better high schools to hopefully turn the tide on poverty rates in certain areas. So you are stuck unless you can afford to move somewhere better, but you can't, that's why your stuck in a progressively worse primary school system to start.
As we all know, the American way is "I got mine through hard work, so you go get yours, and if you don't, you're lazy" so we just shrug and look away from poor areas claiming they are lazy, or if the parents cared they'd get better jobs, or the KIDS should be trying harder in school to get ahead and get out like a 12 y/o should recognize that. They end up with a nothing diploma, no further education goals since the initial experience was so bad, and have kids in the same area to start the cycle again. It's sad.
Cool stat, 5 years ago out capital city, washington DC had the highest high school drop out rate in the country. Only 41% last year was an improvement.
I didn't hit your point super hard. But yea, application process suffers hard.
Most everything I think suffers hard from State vs. Federal governments but that's really the basis of the countries politics.
The main issue you have in the US isn't even about the results they achieve. I believe that it is that you can't trust that all the kids know and were taught roughly the same things.
Here in France, a kid with a Bac S (maths and science) in say Lilles, and one with a bac S in Marseille should have exactly the same knowledge.
If you could get into their brain and hear exactly what they heard in classes, it should match. Not in the same ways, of course each teachers are their own methods, but in the end they would have learned the exact same concepts. (not exactly, some teacher are able to cover more than others, but I'd say a strong 90% match).
While in the US, that doesn't exist. A kid in Los Angeles and a kid in middle-of-nowhere, Arkansas could have two different set of knowledge, even if they have the same electives.
Which is also insane in another dimension. For a nation that I believe move a lot from state to state, how a kid can keep up when they change school????
I can't speak on state to state but I know we had a student expelled from my school who went to the inner city school and really turned his grades around, even with being arrested a few times!
education is mostly handled by state (or local) governments. the feds keep out of it.
Smaller high schools here can't really provide a solid foundation, which is part of what makes college more expensive when they have to go back and teach stuff many people learned in high school. The high school down the road from mine graduated 9 people and half of them probably couldn't pass an 8th grade math class. The valedictorian had an 89 average.
So, if they go to college, they'll have to take 2 or 3 classes to be equivalent to where most people in my high school graduated, and that's just math. We're graduating uneducated people because their life is better with a diploma and they would just drop out if held to correct standards.
Pre-req is like telling someone they need to take and pass Calculus 1 before they take Calculus 2.
It's a money grab to ensure they get extra time and semesters worth of tuition from you. Before the postwar period, etc. You could do various bachelors in 2-3 years; with a few more-involved ones taking 4 full yeas, etc. The next generation, once everyone began encouraging their kids to co to u iverwiry, they simply moved the bar up to be a four year standard. Making sure that they get theirs, no matter what the students major in.
I teach in a four year undergrad program. If my students split their final two semesters (30 credits) over three summers, they could probably graduate in three years. But from what I understand (based on what students tell me), financial aid doesn’t usually pay for summer courses.
You don't have to choose right away but it helps. I didn't officially declare a major until my senior year of college, second semester I think. But before that I figured I would take the business major classes since I didn't know what I wanted to do and that's like the default major. I'm 30 now and still don't know what I want to be when I grow up...
18? We didn't have to declare our majors until end of our sophomore year at my college.
Depends on where you go. My first college (RIT), I applied directly into a major and got to work on it right away. I transferred to a state liberal-arts school which didn't expect students to declare a major until sophomore or junior year, I think, although you would start working on the requirements before you declared.
As a high school student in the UK with American citizenship, Id like to also point out that the content you learn in high school is very different to university level content. Some subjects you'll do minors in don't even exist at high school level. A bug factor pushing me from UK universities is that you have to apply to do a course you essentially have no idea whether you'll like or not. I may like high school physics but that doesn't tell me shit about engineering at university. I think the 2 years of minors really helps you make sure you don't make a decision you'll regret and end up hating your degree.
I'm at university in the UK and we choose our course when applying. So I'm doing the same thing for 4 years (the usual length of a degree here is 3 years but an extra year is added if you opt to do a year abroad). My department allows me to take one half-module (runs for half the year instead of the full year; most of my modules are half modules) outside of the department each year, except for first year - which is fully compulsory modules with no choice whatsoever - and the third, which will be my year abroad, is the only year actually I'll be able to take modules for interest rather than justifying how they're related to my degree, as I would have to with the half-modules (unless it's languages or from a specific "approved" department which I get a list of from the dept).
And damn it, I just want to learn a bit of linguistics without dedicating 3+ years to it for a degree. I envy the freedom you get in American colleges.
But I guess in the end I am here to get a degree, and I should probably be concentrating on that.
My wife's 4 year degree from Brazil was all classes related to her degree. I don't see how geography, history, art, and other general classes help with my IT degree. When I apply for jobs, they care about my IT skills and nothing else.
Idk, I feel like you can study philosophy out of books without all the expense. Would also remove any incidental bias a teacher can have towards their preference. Philosophy is really just asking big questions without definitive answers and seeking the most rational course. I can see history having a huge difference between what you learn in high school and what you learn from someone who has dedicated their lives to its study. Just don't see that kind of possibility for philosophy or even art classes. You have access to all that information anyway, why pay the exorbitant fees for the pleasure of hearing someone else repeat it to you?
You could say that about literally anything. "Why would I pay for a calculus class when I can just look up how to do it online!"
the point is to expose yourself to multitudes of different opinions. usa universities tend to place high priority on having a diverse student body, because the point of classes isn't to be lectured at by a professor, but to engage with the other students.
I took a political theory class that was essentially a philosophy class. I got a lot out of it and would not have been able to learn the material as well on my own. The professor carefully selected what was read and in what order to best prepare us for the more complex subjects. Philosophers build off each other, so it's necessary to kind of follow along an idea's development to really understand the later writers.
In particular, this class centered on theories of natural law and political eschatology as told by Eric Voeglin (a man who fled to (and taught in) Louisiana when the Nazis decided his work was worth an execution). Dude's writing was multilingual, heavily researched, and super fucking dense; but it was a magnificent work. I barely understood portions even with the background reading and needed the Professor (a member of the school's Eric Voeglin Society) to explain some references to foregin texts.
The university also offered classes from the political realist perspective, and students who focused on leaning political theory could get well-researched classes on both subjects.
I could describe Voeglin's work in a manner sufficient to fit into an old school encyclopedia article (dude thought the most legitimate leaders were those whose ideas reflected the ideas held by the people and argued that any attempt to bring about heaven on earth, "imminantizing the eschaton," would result in failure accompanying massive suffering [remember the Nazis did not like this guy for calling our their gameplan]). That short description sucks though. His ideas aren't actually that simple and don't carry their naturally persuasive weight unless read in context with an understanding of at least most of his reference points.
I never felt cheated by that course. I would have felt cheated by a course that just handed us Plato's Republic or Symposium though. Some stuff is suitable for a high school student, other stuff warrants an expert's lecture and Socratic process.
I think philosophy is great example of course that benefits heavily from being taught by a true expert...
Some of Kant's philosophy, for example, is really hard to grasp if you're taking an intro philosophy class. And being able to learn directly from someone who understands it helps alot more than just reading it out of a book.
High school education is not very standard in the US. There are many students who, despite doing well on aptitude exams and having acceptable grades, are woefully unprepared for college. This even includes students in top programs - by and large we are unprepared in writing, math, and chemistry (among other subjects) compared to the competency reached by grade 12 in other countries.
When people on Reddit joke that the only thing they learned in high school is that “the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell” they’re not exaggerating. If you think our political and pharmaceutical systems are corrupt and incompetent, you’ll be shocked by what goes on in education.
When people on Reddit joke that the only thing they learned in high school is that “the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell” they’re not exaggerating. If you think our political and pharmaceutical systems are corrupt and incompetent, you’ll be shocked by what goes on in education.
Because most students don't give a shit or try, let's not try and make this seem like a conspiracy.
Depends where you’re from... I transferred from my local public high school to a boarding college prep school, went to a top 10 program for my major (non-science) and yet still this is all I remember from HS bio. When I got to college I couldn’t pass the chemistry qualifying exam. I tested all the way into discrete math because my school actually cared about mathematics though... it’s not like I could have tested out of multi variable calc if I never tried in HS, lol.
You would think high school would take care of this. But it seems like mor and more the standards get lowered. A high school kid in California only needs to pass basic arithmetic and fail less than a couple classes and they will give them their diploma. I went to Community College for my first two years to save money and it was startling to see how many basic algebra classes there were. And at the same time higher level math would be offered once every other semester so you had to time it really well.
This is the answer.
Standards across the nation are not uniform, so colleges have to make sure that every student gets to square 1 before they start training in their particular focus.
Students that went to good high schools have an edge over the others, because they will ace the early classes easily.
High school education in the United States of America is up to the individual states, not the national federal government. As a matter of fact even when the federal government does try to have some national standards individual states push back against it. As a result you end up getting some kids that got a halfway decent education but others who think that the dinosaurs and humans live together in the garden with Adam and Eve
California used to have something called an “Exit Exam” which was required along with all the classes to get a diploma. It was 8th grade level Math and English. Parents groups sued stating that it was unfair... blah blah blah.... and now California doesn’t have an exit exam.
Having said that, you can get a good education 99% of the high schools in the US if you apply yourself. You can even get a couple years of college credit through the AP programs depending on your school. But if you want to fuck off through school, you can squeak by and get a diploma but college will most likely bend you over. Generally speaking.
You would think high school would take care of this.
Have you considered the fact that some ideas are simply not teachable to 17 year olds?
but to me it feels like high school already took care of this
The problem here is that just because there's a standard curriculum for high schools doesn't mean everyone gets even close to a similar education. Public schools vary from great to "how is this considered school?". Universities have to make up for this and actually get students more rounded. Plus, there's a lot more focus on "what do you want to do?" rather than "what are you good at and what jobs are available?". This is why we have so many people with bachelors degrees working jobs that don't require a degree while also having millions of openings for skilled work simultaneously. As someone who just graduated, collegiate education in America is very, very, fucked up currently.
People don't necessarily know what they are interested in pursuing as a degree when they are 18 so a lot of those intro courses can be a good chance to get exposure to different subjects. Not many public schools have some of the more esoteric subjects like Semiotics so how would someone know that it interests them if they haven't had any previous exposure?
Thanks, that was my question too.
What happens when someone wants to change their focus? Also, is there a way to get a second degree in another field?
Yes you can double major. You can also have minor or focus in addition to your primary degree at lot of schools. In regards to changing majors it really depend on a lot of things. Some majors have some overlapping courses. There is some overlapping coursework for Biology and Chemistry so it's to switch between those than it would to go from one of those to being an English major. A lot of majors have a certain course tree of required courses where advanced ones are dependent on prerequisites of more fundamental courses on the subject so if you switch earlier it is easier to get on the track than if you switch later. If you change your major it will either require a pretty brutal course load or maybe some extra semesters. Also you can end up in grad school for something different than your major if you knock out certain grad school prerequisite courses.
If you don’t like your declared area of study, you can change it. Typically at the end of every semester. Getting two degrees at the same time is a “double major”, you have to be pretty super human to pull that off. My friend for example got computer science and mathematics, you have to take all classes required for both.
I encourage my students to double major. Lots of programs have courses that will “double dip”, or count for two majors.
Yep, I do the same and at the very least suggest a minor you can usually get with just a few extra classes.
Yeah I doubled I business and economics. Only added about 4 extra courses to my load, and I would have had to take at least 3 other courses anyway to have enough credits to graduate, so it was a no brainier. That being said, nobody cares that I had two majors instead of one.
The way my college did it was we took a few fun, easier, and interesting major courses in the beginning with all the "well rounded education" stuff. I don't think many schools bar you from your major the first year and only allow you to start 2nd onward. Different majors typically have different "rounding out classes" so you need to know if you are staying in it (ie take a class or 2). A liberal arts major wouldn't need to take philosophy 101 but maybe a basic science course.
Personally, I went into college not wanting to take any of those and just do my degree (physics w/ math minor). Those rounding out classes have helped so much with perspective on issues, writing ability (huge in science and engineering. Publications, manuals, communicating with clients, emails), and anticipating breakdowns of communication early so anything in writing comes out clearer the first time with no backtracking to explain miscommunications.
Their value is underplayed by "lone geniuses" who think having no interpersonal skills but good grades in major only classes are going to be enough to get a job in the current market. Anyone with an engineering degree can do the work, or learn to do it on the job if it's specialized. Peoe ttpically aren't going to be hired if you can't communicate and be likable to your higher ups or coworkers.
It certainly felt like I was just being delayed with with some of the "general education" classes my university required us to take before we could apply for major classes.
For example, my school required an additional two semesters of English classes (basically was a literature/writing class); in high school we already had four years of English. The two English classes I took at university felt less impactful than some of the English classes I took during high school.
Then again, some of the elective classes I took that were not related to my major or minor were actually some of my favorite classes during University. It was nice to break up the schedule of focusing on one-two major subjects with something I was interested in that didn't necessarily relate to what I wanted to actually do with my education.
It’s also not like you CAN’T take classes related to your major right away. You do go straight into your major, you just have to take some other “general education” classes at the same time, as described by other commenters. So it’s not like the first two years are only random classes and then you go into your major.
You've never been in an American high school. It's sad, really, how little high schoolers are taught. I blame "No Child Left Behind" which was a law put into place during the Bush administration that requires students to pass standardized tests to move on to the next grade, and teacher performance evaluation is based on how many kids pass the tests. So the teachers don't actually teach the subject they've been assigned to teach the way it was taught 15 years ago, they just teach the bits and pieces that will be on the test. It's not uncommon for college freshmen to lack the basic skill necessary to write an essay.
That's why "prereqs" or "general education" classes have become mandatory. Kids are arriving to college without any of the tools they need, so you have to spend two years of your college education just to get to an even playing field.
Have you been to his HS? I'd wager it's not any better.
If he's not American, I'd wager his is in fact, way better.
He said he was from Russia. I'll take the public HS I went to in Minnesota over a speculative Russian public HS any day.
Yeah, but when did you graduate? My school was bomb when I graduated 15 years ago. Now? Now so much.
2003, my best friend still teaches there. It's still a nice suburb. I don't understand why everyone thinks US high schools are some global embarrassment. Sure, they don't measure up to Scandinavia, even in Minnesota or other high achieving states. But they are perfectly acceptable for a first world nation outside of our inner cities where the education system certainly isn't the root of the problem.
38th among developed countries doesn't really strike me as "good enough," but to each their own.
http://observer.com/2018/01/how-american-students-truly-rank-in-international-testing/
Ah yes, opinion pieces on an online "journalism" site is exactly where I go for my metrics.
Fuck the United Nations right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index#2015
Or how about this metric: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#/media/File:BarPlot_by_Category_-_Country_of_Birth.svg
University's in the U.S. are still based around gaining knowledge over being an apprenticeship for your future career. There are schools that give you specific knowledge for a career and some people go to those. Essentially, there's a lot of people that go to Universities in the U.S. that don't need to.
But high school is limited, college offers the add on students being able to literally find any of their interests, or even create their own major. I've know 15-20 people my year who've worked out their own major and curriculum.
Also, while it's nice that Europe/aus/Canada has cheaper college, the US hosts a large majority of the best (private/public) colleges in the world.
but to me it feels like high school already took care of this
Unless you went to a *really* good high school, it didn't.
Ah you see you are missing a key factor here. From what l've heard American schools are a year or a bit more behind European and I assume Australian students when they graduate high school. That's why they have to take these subjects and do 4 years in Bachelor's instead of 3 like we do.
You would think that high school would prepare kids for this, but that's not always true. Public Elementary and High School education in the US is pretty tragic. Schools have a wide range in quality depending on your school district. Some districts are so under budget that many elective classes are non-existent. Some students even struggle with fundamentals like reading and writing. These intro courses at the universities also usually have some basic requirements like writing, science, and math classes just to make sure you're at a similar level to your peers at the college. This helps make sure that regardless of your lower education, you should be able to grasp the basics of University level classes. And if not, the college weeds you out early. Trust me, the US education sucks and is waaaay too expensive, but the required classes do make some sense to me given our current system.
I mean it's not just about making you more "well rounded". Multi-disciplinary learning tends to be very useful out in the real world, and it's a good way for students to get enough exposure to different things to pick up a second major (or at least a minor). And a lot of students at the very least end up switching majors as a result.
I think that part, at least, is pretty good.
Also, no high school is going to offer most of the specialized classes you could take at college, they just don't have the student density to support that much variety.
It's not about making students more rounded, it's about making money under the guise of standardizing the educational foundation at any given school.
It isn't that you can't start your major until you do the Gen Ed requirements, you do both simultaneously. So I just finished my freshman year of college and I took one computer science course in each term (which is what my major will be), but I also took courses in English, Art History, Religious Studies, Math, and Economics. Next year I'll be taking more courses that go towards my major, but also elective classes in other subjects. I would honestly hate going to college if all I could study was my major, being able to take interesting classes on any topic I want is the best part of college.
It really isn't like high school at all, because in college you aren't taking a general english class, you're taking "Dystopian Literature" or something, and there are no Religious Studies or Art History classes at most high schools. The way these classes are taught is also very different, they're usually much more challenging, cover more material, and go more in depth.
Most students can get their general education units at a community college. It's much cheaper and in some states free. So you can do two years at your local community college and then transfer to a university to get your degree.
but to me it feels like high school already took care of this.
Haha, oh no. No no no.
Highschool is useless.
We do have AP classes in highschool (like IB) which can be used for college credits. Depending on what you take/how many and your schools requirements, you can be already 1 year ahead in your first year of college.
This is all really subjective depending on the college. Different schools do different amount of this even in the same major. Some people take AP (Advanced Placement, Google it) courses in high school that get them out of some of these courses in college. I did this with AP Language (basically an English class) to get me out of a Rhetorics class in my first year of college. I'd be happy to talk more about this if you're curious.
high school already took care of this
I'm going to uni in the US right now. Part of the reason they push general education stuff is because lots of schools don't adequately prepare students for uni. I study accounting and I've had peers misspell "business" and be completely inept at summarising a ledger in formal/professional writing.
Another argument, coming from the angle of social mobility, to be made here is that the first two years make you a "jack of all trades" and the education can translate better beyond your area of study in the event that you choose a different career.
given that college is so expensive
This might be the point at some schools because they're making money off the students. I'm a little less cynical and don't think this is the main reason, but it certainly exists.
you would think that its takes care of it but it doesnt because highschool is made to be bare line to easy. thats what college needs to do it more. ALso they wanna keep us their longer for more tuition dollars.
This also depends on your specific school/program. I was an English literature major and the only general ed. requirements I had were to take 1 math course of any level (I literally took a class I had taken in high school) and 1 foreign language or science class, I took Spanish because I had already studied it for the past 3 years. That and everyone had to take 1 theology class because it was a Catholic school. I knocked all of those out year 1 and the next 3 years I would basically just take 3 English classes and 2 classes of my choice or things that went towards my minor.
Macquarie University does a similar thing, where you have to take 2 units outside of your department. So it's not exactly unheard of in Aus
I think it’s stupid we have to take classes most have taken and understand. It’s just a way for them to get more money. With us having to take the ACT, I think they should base classes around that. Low scores take those classes, high scores can skip them. I had two years wasted taking classes that I slept through.
High schools vary a lot in the United States. If Universities went straight into their majors the dropout rate would be higher as some students wouldn't acclimate. It gets students to a baseline level before bending them over.
Both the highschool and the college educational systems are responsible for delaying.
Yes, I'm against general education requirements, but there's really no way to get rid of them. Far too many people either support general education requirements, or don't care enough to do anything about it. The problem is that every college in the US requires general education courses, so it would be a massive cultural shift to try to get rid of them.
Do you feel like by the end of high school you were/are ready to go straight into studying a major? I'm not sure if I am, maybe that's due to an inefficient high school system.
I can see the positives of trying to make students more rounded, but to me it feels like high school already took care of this.
The problem here is that a lot of high schools don't take care of this anymore. A lot of low-income areas can barely maintain the core subjects, much less arts and phys ed. In fact, in our area, a neighboring borough no longer *has* a high school. They educate their students until 6th grade, then older students go to another school district. In the metro area near my parents, they have been dealing with vermin- and mold-infested school buildings for the past two years. And by mold infested, I mean that there were mushrooms growing up and down the halls.
The problem with this is that in America college went from education to job training because of expense and the desire to hurry workers through because you as a company don’t wanna train.
High school should take care of this, but we're fucking idiots with no sense of urgency that would rather just let kids jerk off for four years than to make them learn.
Part of this was to delay entry into the economy because we had a surplus of laborers - I suspect moving forward (especially with the oncoming economic bloodbath that is the retirement of baby boomers/gen x'ers) this will change and we'll want more people in the economy. Until we don't again.
I only had to take like 3 of those geneds because I got credit for them during highschool. Because of that I get to graduate in 3 years instead of 4. This is totally reasonable for anyone who is smart enough for college; not doing it is lazy. EDIT: Graduating with a degree in two majors*
Slight tangent: my schooling was super cheap and people who are going crazy deep in debt have only themselves to blame.
Honestly, the first year courses that I took were almost the same as my high school courses that had been over the same subject. Maybe they might go a little more in depth, but not often.
Generally you won't have to many of those that don't directly pertain to your major, but you will still have a large amount of introductory courses for your major.
A rather large category at my university for required credits was simply courses related to my major, which as a CS was basically all of them. But for instance, math, business, accounting, and physics were classes that fit into that area along with CS courses that weren't directly related to my specialization.
The primary reason why people try to get as many of them out of the way early on is because they are trying to minimize the amount classes they have to take for their later years and many do not require prerequisites. Many of them can be gotten out of the way with AP classes as well taken in highschool.
I can see the positives of trying to make students more rounded, but to me it feels like high school already took care of this.
Personally, I think that is where the issue is. Our high schools don't really take care of that anymore. Our high school focuses a lot on current math and history. The history stuff is cool but I feel like 6-8 years of in depth history is kind of unnecessary.
The first few years of college for US is essentially a baseline of requirements to enter into any major. They have required number of science, math, english credits you must earn. Then they tell you what classes qualify for those credits. You can choose what you want to take as long as it is in the right bucket.
It goes way more in depth than high school classes generally do though.
Also it's important to note that you can get out of having to do that if you take AP (advanced placement) classes in high school, which give you college credit if you do well enough in them.
Yes.
You have to keep in mind that the high school education varies greatly. Not all schools prepare their students as well for University, so part of doing a "core curriculum" is basically "did you actually learn shit in high school?"
Honestly? In my experience there's a ton of gatekeeping in us colleges either way. Like, aside from the massive number of unrelated gen-eds we're required to take, almost every major at the school I went to had bs overly demanding or unrelated courses and extra requirements in the first year of the degree. I hate everything about the US college system.
I feel like the gen Ed’s actually really helped me. I was a bio major and taking classes in earth sciences/geography/ history really helped me. I feel that I can see how everything is interconnected a lot better.
likewise, it allows for some fun easy “slough” classes. History of rock and roll, stress management, etc.
If you expect American high schools to do fuck all in terms of education, I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it actually discourages a lot of people from going to college in the US. My degree is in IT, but there are general classes that have zero to do with my field nor were they needed to get into my IT classes.
For me the general education compulsory classes were awful. If I’m not interested in a subject then it’s a lot of work for me to get myself to focus and study it, so when I’m forced into classes that I have 0 interest in I struggle a little bit. If I could have just only taken the classes related to what I WANTED to study I would have been much better off as a student.
Not op but yes absolutely, my pre req classes were just the things I learned in high school with extra homework.
I could’ve shaved 2 years and thousands of dollars off my college career if I didn’t have to waste my time with those classes. Non of them are even close to being related of useful for my major
Definitely! I feel like the majority of the classes that I've taken have not had an impact on me learning my major. I also think that even some of the classes I have to take that are kind of related to my major are unnecessary. For example, I've taken a ton of humanities and cultural classes for a degree in engineering. These obviously don't directly impact engineering. But I also think that the math classes I've taken could have been condensed as well. I haven't used the majority of what I learned in calculus 2 or 3. I also took ordinary differential equations as well as partial differential equations. I will never need to know partial differential equations for any of my engineering classes. So many classes could be eliminated or condensed but then universities wouldn't make as much money
Well they were all too busy trying not to get shot to learn to get well rounded I guess.
You’re taking early prerequisites the first year. Like physics and calculus for all engineering students, start branching and getting more specific in your 3rd or 4th semester. And everyone on campus has to take foreign language, history, composition and literature so you knock those out early as well since you need to fill out your schedule. Last year will be almost all in your major
[deleted]
Here in the UK, like in US High School, people learn those skills prior to University. We have options to do an American style course (liberal arts, but only 50 people in my huge university year do that) as well as the occasional other module (I took one in art history this year), but we focus otherwise on a single subject and just gain an in-depth knowledge of that. It’s more about teaching you how to think than actually giving you factual subject information you need in life.
It should have, but because of standardized testing high school is little more than rote memorization. Plus in college you get more of a discussion style environment as opposed to the lecture environment in high school (or in the case of science breadth requirements, more hands on)
but to me it feels like high school already took care of this
Well, in a lot of places in the American public school system it's "covered" but not thoroughly so.
In my years as an undergrad, I was shocked by the number of students who somehow made it to the university level. I would proofread papers of classmates who could not for the life of them write a complex sentence or follow basic grammar rules. I would study with classmates who "hated this 'math shit" in my personal finance class that was required for all students.
I got the feeling that freshman year in University, depending on where you go in the US anyway, is more of a "catch-up" year for many that the public school system had failed.
It is basically like high school again. I'm sure it differs a bit between schools but it's pretty ridiculous. If I'm paying, I should be able to pick my classes. The fact that "core courses" exist makes no sense. While I don't think they're necessary, pre-requisites at least make some sort of class. But if my major is chemistry, I should not have to take English or art classes. We did that in high school. If I need supplemental assistance in those subjects, I can choose to take them. But I probably shouldn't even be in college if I still need that.
Related note: somehow I had to take a composition 101 (intro) class in college because of some credit issue. I was able to sort it out after I attended the first class because I could not sit through a semester of it. They had us constructing sentences. Like they had a sheet full of sentences the equivalent of "I is smart" and we had to figure out what was wrong with it.
This was a required intro class for all students. How???
This seems to be a point of pretty large contention. The US as a whole determined that a "well-rounded, liberal arts" style of education was what it wanted, as most universities follow this. But you are absolutely right that this delays students from taking the classes specific to their degree, which is very expensive in the American system.
I do think it's best that all students be exposed to at least the basics of psychology and sociology, economics, statistics, history, and others. It should make them better as people, citizens, and employees. That said, we get degrees to get a job these days, not specifically to better ourselves, so many students are frustrated they are forced to take classes in subjects not directly related to their chosen area of study. And I understand that, too.
You honestly can if you play your cards right. I went into college knowing I couldn't afford to stay very long and my school had a loophole where if you took more than the average amount of classes, at a certain point you wouldn't be charged more per class. By taking ONLY classes that went toward my major as well as being a prerequisite, I pretty much started out doing studies for my major. Plus by hitting the ground running and taking more classes than "regular" I graduated with a major and a minor in 3 and a half years while most at my school average 5.
You do kind of get shafted when you do that, though, because by taking classes that counted in several categories (for my major AND as a general education class, for example) I had to take some bullshit classes toward the end because I literally didn't have enough credits/hadn't taken enough classes to graduate.
But $$$$$$$
My major required your standard 12 credits (4 classes) of health/phys-ed, social studies, and humanities courses. When I was done wasting almost a semester of credits ($7800) with those, then finished all the remaning credits for my degree, I was left with 12 extra credits of 'whatever' to fulfill the 128 credits I needed to graduate. I took all classes pertaining to my major and minor (biotechnology and biochemistry).
Why the fuck did I have to take 12 credits of worthless nonsense? Why the fuck did I have an addition 12 credits leftover at the end to take random shit with? 24 credits of nonsense, which is like $16,000 I pissed away.
The first year is basically prerequisites that apply to a lot of subjects. They need the classes as a foundation for bigger subjects. You wouldn't want to force someone into engineering if they'd only taken pre calculus for example. The pre requisites make sure everyone in the next year are on relatively the same playing field and have the same background support. It's a solid logic for education. You don't want to toss someone who doesn't know how to swim in the deep end of the pool- you'd potentially kill them. By teaching them to swim first, they are more likely to be able to swim at the deep end.
Personally, I think a liberal arts degree is of mass importance. The things you learn in introductory courses outside of your specialization won’t give you as much applied knowledge as you would like, but without realizing it you’ll be using some of the knowledge you learned from those courses in your field. Notably philosophy and psychology. While they may not be the best fields to choose for a specialization, they will absolutely help you with rationalization and human understanding. I would argue this is important in every field.
Interestingly, American high schools usually offer classes that can transfer as college credits. So, it's not unlikely that incoming college students can have already satisfied some of these course requirements through AP Classes (as they are called, it's actually a trademark of a company called College Board). Taking a class like AP World History in high school and getting a good grade on the exam can result in that student meeting a college history requirement if their university accepts the credit.
Here High School is more about rote memorization of facts -- "here's the information, be sure you can regurgitate it for the test."
College is much more about understanding how to think. College Professors aren't impressed that you can get the right answer for the test. They want to know that you understand why it's the right answer and how we've proven that it's the right answer. They want you to show that you can think independently and research out new information and make solid conclusions from data.
That's why they expect your education to be well rounded. It's not about preparing you for a job, it's about preparing you to evolve that job into something new.
This isn't 100% across the board though -- depending on the university or your major, most of your pre-req's can be waived through getting a high enough score on AP or IB exams taken in high school and dual enrollment (taking classes at a local community college while still in high school so you can graduate with your high school diploma and potentially an AA) is getting increasingly popular. I took the about as many AP classes as I could in high school and had to take maybe 1 pre-req that was unrelated to my major.
but to me it feels like high school already took care of this.
You think high school sufficiently exposed you to high level thinking?
When I was doing it, I resisted it and thought it was stupid. After all, the point of college is to prepare you for a job, why not only study what you need for that job?
After I graduated, I learned that college was for giving you a more well rounded education, the kind of knowledge that the government couldn't justify forcing everyone to earn in high school but that a reasonable person would want to know for problem solving.
I now see that college has become very confused. We either need to stop giving the impression that everyone needs it and just let them learn on the job, or we need to make it free so that it can be like optional extended high school, but it'd be silly not do it and everyone would be smarter and more prepared to make important political decisions.
There are a couple systems in US high schools where you can gain college level credits by taking advanced history/math/English/Science classes. One is taking advanced placement (AP) classes in high school. Then you take the AP test and if you pass it, you gain the college credits. There's also something called Dual Enrollment where high school students can take college classes at the same time as they're taking high school classes. There was one more way to get college credits in high school, but I can't remember what it was.
Those classes are typically "harder" than the regular math, science, etc classes, so if you can't get the grades/do the work, you can't pass the class.
I managed to skip some English and Science credits, but my history credits didn't count for some stupid reason.
You are over estimating American high schools.
Insofar that the value of a university degree is the critical thinking skills on top of whatever specialized knowledge you're learning, even if whatever you're learning in humanities classes (assuming you aren't studying humanities) doesn't seem directly relevant to your specialization it is, generally, useful knowledge. For instance, the landscape architecture GE I took as a freshman in undergrad where we just learned about famous gardens, styles, and influences seemed like just trivia at the time but actually taught me quite a bit about value systems of a few different cultures and religions that has helped me understand why people do some of the things that they do.
Honestly, this largely varies depending on what institution you attend. For example, where I go, many students already have AP/ IB credit, and can skip “intro” classes, going straight into more difficult/ major classes. Again, depending on where you go, there may be a small effort by the university to attempt to have their students be “well rounded”, or you maybe have to spend entire semesters taking social science/ humanities classes as an engineering major, which of course has its pros/ cons.
Not really. The course difficulty gets above high school level after the first year.
And the core curriculum is quite flexible. You have to take science, but you can pick from a dozen different courses spanning different areas of study.
This flexibility gives students to try new fields of study. It can introduce a student to a subject they might not have tried otherwise.
The reason we have these classes that have nothing to do with our major is because classes are so expensive. The schools here operate like a business and there is a fuck ton of corruption at the administrative level. Most schools don't give a shit about academic achievement and just use the school as a way to fund sports so they can make even more money off that. And then they get so pissed at the thought of paying these student athletes who make them millions of dollars, so much they can't even take gifts from sponsors or coaches.
They say "But look at this expensive tuition we pay!". Bitch your the school and your tuition cost way more than it has any right to, they don't even cover living expenses most if the time and the kids are not allowed to have jobs. There was a basketball player for the University of Kentucky some years ago who talked about how ironic it was he would be in the national championship where people payed thousands of dollars a seat to come watch him and the team's play, and he was going to bed hungry most nights. And guess what people chastised the hell out of him. The amount of ncaa apologist and fanboys is sickening.
Student athletes get the worst of the American university meat grinder, and the very people who worship and get so much enjoyment out if these kids are the very same ones who are happy that they revive no pay to out their bodies on the line for their enjoyment. That's why I avoid college sports like the plague. This shit is grotesque and in future years people will wonder why in the fuck we allowed it to happen for so long. Just like slavery.
high school took care of this
You overestimate high school in the US
High school is mostly a joke. It’s a prison for teenagers and 90% of all effort is geared toward keeping horny, violent sociopaths from fucking and murdering each other, not necessarily in that order. Smart kids learn more outside of school than inside it. College basically starts with semi-literate monsters and somehow molds them into more or less functional adults.
Did you feel like this delayed you doing what you wanted to do?
Absolutely. It's why many drop out. It is at least 1/3 of your time wasted on the same shit you already learned in high school, except you get to pay for it and waste your time doing it.
High school did not take care of it.
Apparently there is a thing of American students being standouts/big fish in high school and finding that they don't know how to cope in college. You can't take for granted that someone got a good foundational education in American high school. I'm American and this baffles me too... college is not hard, especially "college" generally and not elite/prestigious schools specifically.
Most people i knew were taking a mix of their prereqs and major classes at the same time over all semesters.
Yeah, really depends on the program, I think. Both the college programs I tried were actually really front-loaded with major classes to get people up to speed. Classes still got more specialized as you went along, but it's not like the first two years were just an extension of high school.
What the fuck is US diversity? Also, African American studies and world religions. None of these sound like prerequisites unless you're specializing in some type of history or humanities degree.
US Diversity is just a broad category that includes classes like African American studies, American Indian studies, Asian american culture, etc. US Diversity isn't a class of it's own, just a category of classes. And maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I said that the first few years we get prerequisites out of the way AND these other classes we are required to take. African American studies isn't a prereq for any business or engineering classes, but it's required to satisfy so many US Diversity classes, for example.
I took my college classes backwards because they didn't have prerequisites for the levels(which was surprising to me but I never asked questions nor did they, so I just went along with it). I took my senior seminar during my 2nd year and I took the intro class in my 4th year.
Didn't graduate though. School policy regarding scheduling and credits changed and they tossed in some extra requirements for my major which weren't acceptable because it was basically "continue working but you won't meet the requirements" or "stop working and meet the requirements". I obviously chose work because I didn't have the luxury of not working(financial aid helped me, but my salary was helping my family).
Now I'm just trying to finish up by qualifying to apply for Harvard Extension School to get undergrad out of the way but at least I get to keep working(I pretty much have five years of work experience and not the menial sort).
I (as an Australian in university) am so confused
About what?
The categories are like humanities, US diversity, and one more I can’t think of right now. So these are your like philosophy courses, world religion courses, African American studies, and stuff like that
Is this a joke
Oncoming rant...
Where I went to college, on top of your prerequisites and credit requirements for your major and such, you had to choose and complete a "theme" which consisted of 5 upper-level classes (out of something like 10 to choose from).
The "themes" were subjects like anthropology or economics. But then why not work that into a minor or something? Why do I have to complete 5 upper-level courses on a single subject that doesn't even have to relate to my degree?
At the time I was planning on starting a company in the baseball industry after graduation. My major was business management and minor was entrepreneurship so I actually thought the "Sports" theme would fit really well into my education and preparation for this business I was planning.
One of the classes I chose was sports physics because it sounded really interesting. It was taught by a very heavily-accented German guy and was basically advanced physics using objects loosely related to a sport. Same with sports statistics; highly advanced and way over my head, and just happened to use numbers loosely related to sports to perform highly complex statistical analysis that I had no prior education in. In sports economics, the professor had us do a fantasy football draft and we got graded in part on our teams' performance, which I thought was complete bullshit.
In the end, the toughest classes I took in college were fucking sports classes. As you can tell, I'm not thrilled with the quality of education I received from that university.
End of rant.
Thanks for explaining this - but it still strikes me as weird.
I went to a really small college and it was exactly the same, except of course there were maybe 12 classes to choose from in each subject instead of 50. . .
my college requires you to take a certain amount of credits in these categories to sort of give you a more rounded education. The categories are like humanities, US diversity, and one more I can’t think of right now. So these are your like philosophy courses, world religion courses, African American studies, and stuff like that
And the reason for that is that your highschools can't be relied upon to have already provided that rounded education. So about two thirds of the first two years are wasted on stuff everybody should've known already causing worse degrees in your actual specialty.
High schools employ teachers with a teaching degree. Colleges emply PhD's. There is a massive difference between learning from a teacher who is teaching straight from a text book and learning from someone who actually does research in the field. It's 100% not the same.
I'm sorry that you're american. Our teachers actually have master degrees in their subjects as well as teaching degrees.
Don't get me wrong. Our teachers are the same way. But the difference between someone with a masters and someone who is actively conducting research in the field they are studying is still massive.
There is absolutely no reason to burden an actual researcher with teaching duties and we mostly avoid that.
You cannot actually believe that any bachelor student could possibly gain anything from learning "Electrical Engineering 302" from whomever is the top guy than from a guy who actually has some idea about how to teach. That's ridiculous.
They aren't required to do it. A vast majority of my professors just do it because they enjoy teaching. And aside from lecturing, office hours, and writing tests, it's not that much work at all. Teaching assistants do all the busy work. And you already said in your other comment that learning from someone with a Masters is better than learning from a textbook. Yet learning from a PhD isn't better than learning from someone with a masters? That logic doesn't follow.
Yet learning from a PhD isn't better than learning from someone with a masters?
This is about universities where the teacher usually have PhDs. not sure what point you're failing to make here.
I literally just told that it is not required in most cases. And it's much less about simply understanding what they're teaching and more about how they are able to teach it. I learn so much more from a PhD professor talking about their own research and how it applies to the subject over a teacher who is just teaching a curriculum.
I literally just told that it is not required in most cases.
I literally just told you how it is. But certainly not in all cases, sure, what's the point again?
And it's much less about simply understanding what they're teaching and more about how they are able to teach it. I learn so much more from a PhD professor talking about their own research and how it applies to the subject over a teacher who is just teaching a curriculum.
You don't anything you need if you learn from someone only talking about his own research. That's ridiculous. You're getting a bachelor degree. You need to learn the most basic foundations of whatever your major is, learning about someones cutting edge research is just a distraction.
If you honestly can't recognize the benefits of teaching off of experience instead of teaching off of education, then you are too far gone for us to even have this conversation.
You honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A Bachelor degrees teaches the absolute basics anyone needs. Someone who is a good teacher is much more qualified to teach this. Obviously he'd have to have at least a PhD in university.
Obviously he'd have to have at least a PhD in university.
????????????????????????????????????????????????
So is learning from a phd or a masters better? Make up your mind already.
[deleted]
And true.
I always wondered why you have to do Mickey Mouse courses before beginning your true subjects... always boggles my mind.
Yup that's the same with my school in Vancouver.
There's generally two models:
Model A) There's basically a pre-set of courses you have to take, but you might be able to choose the order you take them in (Major-related vs electives)
Model B) You're given a few must-takes (econ101 for econ), must satisfy a certain amount of credits in your major of focus , maybe some credits going into other broad categories (like humanities in your example), and the rest could be anything.
It varies but in some majors you take core classes in your major with the common curricula as a freshman (first year).
sort of give you a more rounded education
Isn't that sort of the point of high school, though? It seems to me like your whole education system is designed to screw you over - HS should have given you the rounded education you need, but because your HS system is crap you en up needing several semesters worth of extra higher education, which you have to pay an insane amount for. So much would be taken care of if you would simply fix your high school system!
High school does give you a rounded education. But it's not nearly as in depth as college courses. And in college you have a lot more freedom to take the classes you're interested in.
https://www.google.com/search?q=alot&tbm=isch
Thats weird though imo. I go to uni because i want to learn a skill they teach, otherwise i'd go work somewhere else. Uni isnt school
You also have Basics. Basically taking Algrebra, and English courses again because our US Education system isn't good enough for students to remember the shit they learned in High School so they have to take them again in College.
Why do you call college univeristy?
University's are groups of colleges where at least one offers 4 year degrees (BA) and the others in the group are graduate schools (Masters) State colleges generally only offer 2 year degrees (AA) College is just a broad term we use interchangably with both state schools and Universities.
So for example I started at a state school and got my AA and then transferred to UCF (university of central florida) to complete my BA. While I'm at UCF, Im technically enrolled in the College of Public Health Affairs, which is the college within UCF that offers my BA program. If I go to graduate school it will likely also be at UCF, but a different college.
Wow, typing that out confused myself no wonder our college system seems crazy to everyone else.
I go to a university in Canada. My university offers Bachelor's, Master's and PhD's. I am a BA student so I fall under the college of the Arts so I understand the different colleges that are in a university. Below universities we have colleges. They offer diplomas that are typically completed in 2 or 3 years. Some colleges offer univeristy degrees.
Pretty similar to ours then. We just don't reffer to only 2 year schools as college. We use that term more interchangeably with any school someone is completing beyond high school.
What the fuck is African American studies?
Exactly what it sounds like lol. I took it a couple semesters ago to satisfy my US Diversity requirements. We just learned about the struggles of African Americans all the way from the slave trade until modern day. It was pretty interesting.
[deleted]
Okay.
[deleted]
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, taking General Ed courses in college honestly makes you question what the point of high school was.
I hear mention of gaining credits and having compulsory subjects that are common to all students regardless of majors??
University is more than job training, it is designed to create educated citizens. You don't need to study literature and history to be an engineer, but they're very useful for answering question about why we should build things, and what the highest goals of engineering and design should be.
Unfortunately, increasing demand for job training means that those classes are filled with students who lack the interest and aptitude for that kind of high level thinking.
Canadian here. One thing I like about the North American university system is that there’s more freedom to learn what I like. I’m a business student, and I have X amount of business classes I have to take. After taking a few core, introductory classes, I have the option to take any number of marketing, accounting, finance, HR, etc classes to learn what I want to learn. I’m also required to take a number of non-business electives, which are my choice and are intended to add non-business knowledge and make graduating university students more rounded people.
I’m not just pushed into a list of classes because that’s what everyone else in my faculty are taking. I have freedom and choices to make to learn the things I want to learn. I really do enjoy and appreciate that freedom
What if someone doesn't know what they want to study at the end of high school? Or if they start one specialty and realize they hate it and want to change to a different one?
Then they start all over again. We in Australia have the same system as Europe and Russia.
What if they were studying Electrical Engineering and decided to switch to Computer Science? If they've taken Calculus I and II and say Intro Digital Design or other classes common between the courses of study, do they just take that full class again?
At most Australian universities you can do that easily, I don't think these posters know what they are talking about. My current degree program (science statistics major) shared alot of courses with my old program (calc I, II kind of thing) so I was able to get a full credit transfer when I changed. All the major universities in my state (Queensland) work the same way. I think it's very similar to the American system.
yea of course you can get credit for classes that are in common with 2 programs. I didnt say that you couldnt lol.
The college determines which classes and exams you passed are similar enough to classes in your desired major switch and if they meet a certain criteria (i.e. it's similar/same enough) your credits get transferred and you don't take that class again. However, you have to pass the "leftover" classes you didn't have. I mean, it's actually the same thing across the globe, no one in their right mind would make a student take a subject twice.
Yeah, that's what the US is doing. Sometimes you can use your wasted credits as "General Education" courses of which there's quite a few hours.
I have a quick unrelated question if you don't mind, since I kind of find these differences fascinating. How does your high school education work in a nutshell? I find your class taking a bit confusing. Does every student have to take some classes, or does it mostly have to do with categories i.e. at least 3 humanities etc.
Can you take trigonometry, algebra and geometry, but not take statistics and pre-calculus? Can you take US history but not World history? Basically, what's mandatory across the entire nation?
In my country for an example, all classes were required period. You can't cherry pick anything in the curriculum and every gymnasium follows the same program. So I don't quite know what it means to take AP Physics and Chemistry. Can I opt out of Biology then?
It depends greatly on where you are, but there's some flexibility, but not a lot in my experience.
Here it was always basically, you took English every year, and it was English I and English II, then you could choose between English classes where the main difference is which decade the book you read is from.
You got to choose Spanish or French.
You were either on the "high" or "low" math track, So, you either did math half as fast or had time for Pre-calc and Calculus.
There's a set of classes called specials and you got to pick 2 a year and that's choir, band, art, gym, etc. Technically, you could put other academic classes in if they were going at the same time.
There's also some classes you can take for college credit and they either bring college professors in (adjunct professors really) or put you in a van and run you out to the school.
You're also heavily limited by when classes are, so it's a very illusion of choice kind of thing. Sometimes you can block out 3 hours for votech style classes.
If it's the same unit or very a similar unit, you can easily get an exemption.
Students at many schools don't declare a major until their junior year. Most of the early classes they take will apply to a similar major.
Shit man you don't even have to have the right scores. SEAS saved my poverty-stricken, regional ass
US Unis like students to be "well rounded" but say you take 40 classes during your entire time at college, maybe 7 of those max will not be related to your major and are just general education (gen ed). This includes stuff like science, language, English etc.
In Australia you decide what you are going to study at the end of high school, apply to University, if you have the right score you are accepted into the course, then you study for 3 or 4 years in that specialty - engineering / business / science / arts / etc.
that's basically exactly how it works in the US too though.
I had an experience in France similar to leglesslegolas's comment.
The first two years in IT college taught us math, physics, electronics, IT-oriented english and programming theory, while the third year was completely concrete programming oriented and the two last years are about specific stuff depending on your major (Security, Management, Embedded systems...).
We did also have
You mean yall dont have to take philosophy, history, biology classes unless they are what you are studying in the first place?
Correct, I did a manual arts degree and the only 'theory' shit I had to do was learning some history of arts and how to market your art. Later did a business degree and the only non-business related subjects I did were the free-choice electives, but we were encouraged to make that business related, otherwise what's the point of paying to study something that does not lead to a job in your related area. If I want to learn about philosophy and biology our of general interest, I would take an online course in my spare time
I'm jealous. I feel like I'm being extorted.
There are university programs that focus JUST on the subject of your degree (like nursing schools that only teach nursing), but I believe they are less common than "Liberal Arts" programs, where the idea is to not only teach you your subject...but give you a basic knowledge of alot of different things. Making you "well rounded" as a person. But those pre-recs can be different per major. For example, at my university, everyone had to take 2-3 writing classes, but not everyone had to take speech (I did as part of my major). So, the first few years for me was a mix of pre-requisite classes mandated by the university, and pre-requisite classes mandated by my major that I had to take to qualify for the advanced classes specific to my major.
For those first 2 years, we are taking stupid classes that we took the previous 11 years. It's so dumb.
The first couple of years are more like A-levels. Their system is a bit behind other nations, unless someone has done all “AP” subjects.
I once helped someone out with a college essay online. It was a shade below the level we had for GCSE. This person was majoring in English.
I had a long discussion with a British co-worker about this (I'm American) and I'm assuming the Australian system is probably similar to theirs. He said in England you basically only have 3 years of college/university and it's all related to your specialized field of study.
In America, 4 years is the expected minimum for university, but 5 is more common because people have to work to pay for it and other reasons. But our first 2 years is basically a continuation of high school type general education, just as you assumed. The root problem is that our grade school system is far behind those of other countries. However, if you want to become a professional in a field such as engineering, you will be competing in the industry against people from other countries, so you have to spend the first few years of university playing catch-up.
The stupid part is that some programs such as art history or film still have to take many of these same classes even if they really won't need to know things like...physics. The "requirement" is really just a cash grab by the university. Curriculums have been running this way for so long that people don't really second guess it anymore. The guy getting a film degree takes the physics course anyway because otherwise he won't get a degree, and the university is happy to pocket the extra money.
This is why trade schools are starting to become more popular. People are getting wise to the fact that large/old universities are sort of scamming people out of money in exchange for a piece of paper saying you're certified while leaving you with a lackluster skillset and no experience. Trade schools typically provide students with much more specialized training in their field, take a shorter time to graduate, and cost less. Fortunately, more employers are starting to understand this too. In the past, many employers would scoff at a trade school graduate.
That's pretty frustrating having to pay for subjects that have zero to do with your course and you could end up failing, which will bring down your GPA
Yes. It's a huge waste of time and money. I really didn't need to take chemistry, speech (you just get in front of an audience and give a presentation), film study. I'm a programmer. I will literally never use anything I learned in those courses, if anything was even learned at all.
It is like high school. The first year of uni is basically like our year 12.
At least this is what it seems from the topics covered in classes
I went to an engineering school where everyone took the same math, physics, and chemistry classes with minor electives the first two years. This gave time for some physics majors to switch to mechanical engineering or some chemistry majors to switch to metallurgical without really wasting their time taking the wrong classes
It was explained to me that undergrad degrees were all pretty generic and designed to give everyone the same base - hence everyone doing basics like philosophy and maths, the major/minors is just to give a taste at what your interests might be. Then if you want to be taken seriously, you get in to grad school for a specific area of work to gain the necessary technical knowledge.
Because in Australia we actually specialize our undergrad degrees and focus your attention straight away on necessary technical knowledge, our bachelor degrees are actually enough to get you into work of your chosen profession.
My understanding is that you should look to Melbourne University's new study model for the 'American model'.
First 3 years are a bunch of prerequisite subjects that give you no real degree (at least not one that well get you hired). Then study another 1-2 years to get a 'hireable' degree.
Ridiculous cash grab and upset many students top my understanding.
I'm an American. I'll try to explain and throw in a little story about why the system is bullshit. The first few years of college is basically taking these introductory courses, which cover basic things that will be important in your chosen major. Majoring in finance? Take these math classes, an intorductory business class, and a class that teachesypu how to use Microsoft. Majoring in chemistry? Take this basic English class (you need it to know how to write essays,) this algebra class, and an introductory lab course where we teach you lab safety! Some students choose to get these classes out of the way by enrolling first to a community college, then transfering those credits to a 4 year university.
What the fuck is a community college? Well, it's like... mini college. They don't offer the usual 4+ year degrees that normal universities offer. At most, from a community college you can get a 2 year associates degree or a certification of some sort. Community colleges also offer these prerequisite courses that are required in order to take higher level classes. Mostly things like low to mid level math and english classes, or introductory courses into a subject matter. Introductory computer courses, basic economics or business classes, basic science classes, things like that. Community college is, like you said, an addition to high school classes (and at about the same level.)
Now, not all students do transfer out of community college and only chose to get a 2 year associates degree. These are typically for jobs like dental assistants, nursing assistants, and what I wanted to go to school for: veterinary technology (like a nurse for a veterinarian.) So I went to a community college and was saddled with a list of prerequisite classes that I had to finish before I started the vet tech classes. In order to get into the vet tech classes, I had to get a 3.0 GPA or higher in these prerequisites. The prerequisite classes, however, would not give me enough credits to consider me a "full time student" which in turn, caused me to be given less money from financial aid. I struggled in my classes (due to unrelated stress) and ended up having to retake certain ones the following semester. Again, without a full course load (I supplemented a little by taking some other "fun" classes) I wasn't given much financial aid.
Well, with community college, you don't have to start school in the "fall" semester (August/September is when school starts in the US.) And can start in "spring" semester, which starts in January after winter break. That's what I did. Because i did this, I couldn't start the vet tech program right away and would have to either supplement another semester with non-essential classes to stay legally enrolled in school, or drop out and reapply, which could cause me to lose the credits I had already gained, and put me lower on the "list."
What list? Well this vet tech program only allowed a certain number of students to apply and be accepted at a time, despite how popular it was. Some of the classes were only available at certain campuses (community colleges often have different campuses spread out around the county to make it more accessible to students.) Except, I didn't have the money to go to college, much less the money to commute to these other campuses. I ended up dropping out because it just wasn't worth it to keep wasting money I didn't have.
Tl;dr: don't go to school in the US. Its not worth it, kids.
[deleted]
Basically this. The standard in secondary schools is much lower in the US. Basically the knowledge of a lot of students entering college would not be enough for admission in other countries. So the university will give a more "rounded" education because of how little knowledge in comparison is gained in high school.
[deleted]
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks them having to pay for an equivalent secondary education is a feature not a bug.
Speaking of math in University. My wife teaches freshmen it. Looking at the course any C student for the leaving cert would get an A. (I think the leaving is the same as A levels)
“Gen Eds” short for General Education.
You can pick your schedule and take these whenever you want but most people get them out of the way in the first two years (while also taking degree-specific courses). The idea is to establish a baseline for what every Bachelor’s degree holder knows. College level Calculus, Biology, Literature, etc.
Yeah, we have to take "gen ed" or general education classes. A US History, Comp I & II, algebra, public speaking, a few humanities, two sciences w/o lab and one with. That's how it was for me, anyway. It can vary but that's the idea. Then you get started on your major.
Only thing about this is i was a complete fucktard in high school. Who knows what i would have selected.
What your reftering to is breath electives. We have them here in Canada too. You have a major/program/feild of study that has classes you must take related to your field. But then you also need electives - classes that teach non-feild related stuff. The idea is that you become a more rounded thinker and have skills outside your train that might be useful. Although I don't think 21st century novels are going to help me in comp sec.
I'm confused, what you described sounds exactly like a US university. Some people won't pick their major until a year or 2 in but it's fairly uncommon and not really encouraged because you'll get behind on the classes you need to take to fulfill your major and probably will end up having to stay for am extra semester or extra year.
Majoring is a thing in Australia too although I think it might not be a thing for all universities or perhaps might not be mandatory? I just got an email sometime in second or third year suggesting I major in electronics based on the subjects I've studied with a sample curriculum and was pretty much like sure let's do that. Did have to figure out my enrollments and electives on my own but mostly because I did a weird double degree (each school decided I belonged to the other school) and was almost never on campus.
In college and highschool there are a set of courses everybody needs to do, sadly this is in Canada as well as the U.S.
I'll give you a Canadian's view as that's where i live. In highschool you need to do 4 courses of English (unless you take an extra year that means you have to take an English course every year of High School... which is annoying as you've pretty much learned everything you need as somebody who isn't going into writing by the second course), 3 courses of math, a few things out of different "related sets", a French course, a Gym course, a history course, a business course and a Geography course. And, these just the ones I remember, there was more.
In college you just need to complete an English test or if you fail an English course though. Which is still annoying due to the previously mentioned issue of "why does anybody need to do more English stuff past the second course in highschool"
We never had to do English exams upon entering university...I went to a small university on the east coast of Canada. We DID need to do a placement exam for mathematics, to see if you should start in calculus or do a pre-calc class first.
While we are at it, I never took geography in high school. My school did have some compulsory classes (Math from grades 9 to 11, English from 9 to 12, gym, science in 9 and 10, one science topic such as chemistry, physics, or biology, taken in grade 11 or 12, history), and the rest of the time was filled up with classes you got to pick for each term. I had so much science on the brain that my other pics were things like sewing/fashion design/political science/law-- the easy classes.
School in Canada is provincially controlled, so the courses are not standardized across the board.
It's possible we're just from different provinces, I'm an Ontarian. Probably should have mentioned that in my main post I guess because ya, you're right that things aren't the same in every province.
A lot depends on your major. I was a biology major and for all of the science majors when I was in school you had to plan your curriculum well in advance to fit in all of the requirements for your major; if you didn’t focus on your major starting in the first semester you wouldn’t be able to finish in four years. Some of my friends in other areas (photography, literature, etc...) had a lot more flexibility/less focus.
There are a TON of classes that all majors are forced to take. Composition 1 and 2, some sort of history class, at least 1 math course, a social science, a literature course, and maybe some more i'm missing.
The point of having mandatory courses that don't relate to your specialty is to provide students with a well rounded education. It also helps build important skills/knowledge that is required in any job (i.e. essay writing, economics 101). Being very good at something is important, but at the expense of not knowing fundamentals of very basic things creates a bubble.
[deleted]
obviously in many countries that is exactly what Uni is. The creation of a well rounded citizen happens in high school. What you choose to do after that (in my country and many others) is to specialise. There is no time and money expended on broadening your general knowledge
Here (Slovakia) in University we have 3 (Bc)+ 2 years (Masters) and it's the same you study your specialty. But also there are few required classes like economics, basic of law etc. Plus why also have specialized highschools, so you can study for example electrical stuff instead of just generic.
We don't really have much freedom in what classes you take. You have to take few from each group and it basically means you almost have to choose all of them.
On a really basic level tje first couple of years at making sure your high school wasn't trash at teaching you.
US colleges come in a couple flavors. Liberal arts colleges have a baseline requirement in basically every subject. Other colleges actually just specialize their students. And technical schools are there to teach an actual trade.
It's more competitive in the US. Everything is some sort of tie breaker. At my school, for example, not everyone who wants to do computer science gets to. You have to get top grades in pre reqs like calculus to get into the major.
It depends on the college. You typically have non-major courses you have to take, and electives outside your major and inside it that you have to fill, but as far as I know most schools don't require you to front load the non-major courses.
Here is what my college schedule looked like (over 5 years, Computer Science Major):
1st Year:
Computer Science Orientation
Accelerated Introduction to Computer Science
English I
Calculus I
Weight Training
Introduction to Archaeology
Introduction to Discrete Structures
Introduction to Data Structures
Computer Organization & Assembly Language
Begineers Taekwondo and Hapkido
Themes in Western Civilization
American Government and Politics
2nd Year:
Calculus II
Beginners Archery
Ancient & Medieval Europe
Software Development Methods
Introduction to Theoretical Computer Science
Introduction to Computer Architecture
Beginers Bowling
Introduction to Operating Systems
Computers & Society
Logic
Calculus III (Linear Algebra)
Recreational Mathematics
Introduction to Parallel Programming
Racquetball & Squash
3rd Year:
System Software Project
Introduction to Algorithms
Introduction to Philosophy
Introduction to Coding Theory
Programming Languages
Artificial Intelligence
Introduction to Signal Processing
Digital Systems
Chemistry I
English II
4th Year:
Advanced Computer Architecture
Advanced Operating Systems
Microprocessors
Language and Mind
Statistics
Database Systems
Software Engineering
Technical and Scientific Communication
Physics I
5th Year:
Biology I
Introduction to Computation Theory
Philosophy of Science
Business Law I
Business Law II
CS Directed Study
Introduction to Cryptography
Whew!
As you can see, there is a decent mix of class types throughout. Actually it was my 5th year that was rather light on classes in my major, with only 2, as I was just working on completing out the electives I needed to graduate.
Your class list looks...interesting? We don't have credits for sports classes in Canada.
Holy shit, that would never happen here. Subjects like "Themes in Western Civilization" and "American Government and Politics" would never be undertaken by a Computer science major
The idea that is popular in the US is to get a "liberal" education. This doesn't mean liberal in the political sense. But more like broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
In other words, for one to participate in and understand the world and our democracy and government, it's good to know a bit about a lot of stuff. If one were to just go to college for say, computer programming, and learned nothing else, one would not be as well equipped to understand, say, a news article on climate change that makes the case that climate change is fake. If all I knew was how to code in Java, this news article could say anything, and I'd have no basis to question it. So maybe I vote for a guy that believes climate change is fake and doesn't do anything to prevent it and the issues it can cause. This is just an example, I'm sure such a thing wouldn't happen in real life.
So anyway, that's the idea of it. Does it actually work is another question. I think in many cases it does, but people in our culture don't value knowledge and learning and searching for truth as much as they should IMO. So clearly, it's not entirely effective. But it does do some good. So is it better to have it overall? I think so. But I can definitely see how people who are just going to school to learn what they came to learn (EG physics) would think it's weird. Like, you're going to school to be a physicist, but you're taking French cinema? WTF?
In the US most people choose their major whenever applying to a school. Then you get accepted into that program or not. Freshman year wa stotal bs though. It's all review from high school. You can test out of the classes but they archly give you any notice or even make you aware of this fact. I think it's a cash grab.
I'll tell you how it works in Canada, which is a pseudo-American system. At my university we needed 120 credits to graduate. Each class was 3 credits a semester...So you take 5 classes each semester, two semesters a year, for 4 years to graduate.
When you go to school, you are accepted in the faculty you applied to (Science, Arts, Fine Arts, Business, Engineering, etc.). Once there, you need to take at least 63 credits (as I remember) for a major in a subject. Lets take Chemistry for example. I had to take 63 credits worth of chemistry subjects to get a major over 4 years...some of these were general first and second year sciences (calculus classes, physics, etc), and as you study more and more, they become more specific (organometallic chemistry, crystallography, etc.).
Remember you need 120 credits total! Well that means you need a minor to go along with your major...a minor is about 27 credits (from what I can remember). Most people choose a minor which overlaps, such as math or physics in the case of chemistry. The amount of overlap permissible is stated in our yearly course offering book.
We also had to do distribution credits, which means you need 6 credits from the 3 other disciplines, languages, social sciences, and humanities, over 4 years. This works out to a class each semester in an area other than pure science for three years.
Now remember when I said your major, minor, and distribution requirements tally up to 120 credits when you graduate? You can choose to do it differently...I did an honours, which is just Chemistry for 84 credits worth, but you skip needing a minor. You can also do a double major instead, or a triple minor, to graduate.
This system allows you to choose the classes which interest you especially in the upper years, or in the intro classes. Sure, I had to learn organic chemistry from level 1 to 4, but I also got to choose all the inorganic chemistry subjects I wanted in the 3/4th years, as well as studying Classical Heroes, Political Science, and German. Actually, because I was doing an honours degree, I didn't have much choice in my chemistry classes- I had to take nearly everything my university offered just to get up to 84 credits. I think the only subject I didn't take was 4th year solid state organic or the like.
EDIT: I just wanted to let you know that I know of many engineers who's programs were all mapped out and chosen for them from the beginning. You do a chem eng degree? Here are your 4 years, with all the same students in each class, and no distribution choices. Sounds a bit harsh to me!
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Most colleges/universities in the US have "core curriculum" that each student must take regardless of major. Usually an English class or two, some basic math like Calculus (if they didn't take it in HS) or Statistics, a general history class or two, maybe some Foreign Language and some Physical Education classes, etc. Then 2nd half of 2nd year or beginning of 3rd year, most students declare a major and take mostly classes for their major until they graduate.
You choose your classes in high school. High school has different levels of subjects. College and high school have certain core classes that everyone must take. It’s suppose to be a general higher learning area. I do like that you can switch things up in college. Most 18 year olds don’t know what they want to do for a career.
Universities in Australia are moving towards the US system as well. The university I graduated from offers a choice of a few bachelors degrees followed by a masters which gets a specialization - eg if you wanted to be an engineer you would get a bachelors degree in science followed by a masters i engineering. I graduated before this system was introduced though so can't comment on whether the new system offers any benefits.
I don't know what college kids are doing in their first few years in the US system
Melbourne Uni basically use the US system... It's interesting. You need to do general classes that aren't related to your course at all.
The first two years are prerequisites. This is why we have community colleges, too (much cheaper, can complete AA or AS and transfer--Associate's of Arts or Associate's of Science--as a junior to four-year-university). Or you can do these first two years at a university.
Community colleges also have certification programs in a wide variety of "non-academic" skilled fields (trades, etc), that you can do. Some of these can land you well-paying jobs (as an EMT or a physical therapist, etc, although obviously you can get any level of education in some things you can get a certification in at a 2-year college). As another example, I have a Master's in Fine Arts; if I went back and did a certification in say, digital editing, combined with my MFA and history of being an educator/experience, I'd be more well-placed to begin a job editing (particularly if I began by freelancing and built up a portfolio) than I would without having gone back for the certification. Community colleges can be great resources (and if you teach as an adjunct at one--and you will almost certainly be an adjunct, almost anywhere, the McJob of higher education, welcome to the new slave-scholar class--you can get free classes to go back and do something else that doesn't require years of schooling and life-wrecking debt to get paid under $20,000 a year with no benefits).
At university, you are given flexibility in what classes you can choose for your major, which I think is great (it also means if asked you should be able to say what you specialized in within your field). However, because this could produce wildly uneven results, there are certain goals (you have to learn some cultural background of what you're studying, some historical background, have a writing-heavy class with junior or senior thesis, etc.) that everyone must meet to fill requirements of every major. You must look at the course catalog, decide what classes sound interesting, and see if they fulfill any requirements you need to graduate. (You also need a certain number of credits).
This system actually makes sense--the first two years are both standardized, and well-rounded (you have to study a bit of everything). It's not all the same, though--for example, you get to choose which physical science you do (I took geology twice because I loooove plate tectonics and like the table of elements, but I could not get through memorizing rocks. I could not. I kept falling asleep. It probably didn't help I had the same teacher both times). I ended up doing molecular and environmental biology at the last minute and loved it. (I got free junior college because my dad was a professor, so taking whatever random classes I liked without even thinking about a degree was something I did from the age of thirteen; this probably later looked crazy on my transcripts, as I racked up so many credits in writing, art, and drama, and a few random interests, and dropped so much stuff I got bored with).
So, when you start junior year, you're supposed to have finished your prereqs (NOT put a few you hate off until senior year!), which means you should be pretty well-rounded and the first half of your education had quite a few standardized classes that all your peers took (believe me, I know, I teach intro comp and intro to literature for composition at the moment and so many students dread them; everyone has to take them). I'd much prefer to teach any type of creative writing or any other kind of literature courses, or ESL or Spanish (except, in spite of my long experience teaching them, I am not academically certified to teach in those fields, which I'd have to do half of master's to be, and still get paid $2,200 a class with no benefits, no thanks). I am certified to teach any type of creative writing or literature, but adjuncts don't get the fun courses. MOVING ON.
Once you get to college and do your major, you have to pay attention to meeting those certain requirements, but otherwise you get to pick which classes you take for your major. I'm sure in STEM fields some of these things were standardized, but in the humanities there's such a wide range of choice, you can choose (for example, I specialized in poetry and American Literature, French literary theory and criticism, advanced grammar, logic, post-colonial literature, and literature in film; other people focused on Victorian British literature, fiction and playwriting, and so on). I really liked having the option to choose.
A minor is just a sub-specialization that you take half the amount of credits for a major. Since I thought I was doing a minor in Spanish I didn't pay too much attention to core required classes. Right as I was graduating in English my (inattentive) modern languages adviser advised me that oops, I was two classes away from another major in Spanish, but they were only offered Spring semester (i.e., nearly a year from my graduation for my major in English). Since I didn't want to stick around in that town, I took the minor.
I since kind of want to go back and do the two classes, since I have lived in Spain and Mexico for a combination of years, speak better Spanish than ever, and it would probably be more enjoyable than teaching English, to be honest. Unless you publish and become an elite you get stuck in the trenches. SO MANY PAPERS. I will probably have to go back to school for MORE SCHOOLING (yes, I did more school after this--not without a scholarship, I was not going to be that stupid--and got a multigenre MFA in creative writing, which is a terminal degree that means I can teach at a university; nevertheless, I will likely end up teaching high school, considering we have become an adjunct nation, the Boomers aren't retiring, and the rate of new hires is abysmal).
So yes, I will have to go back and do more schooling and pass a series of qualifying exams (which for some reason will expect me to know high levels of math; I called the licensing board and asked why this was, because when was the last time I did math, I'm going to have to spend forever brushing up, and was given some kind of quavery-voiced reason about "what if a math teacher was sick and you had to cover?" WHAT? WHAT ABOUT MY CLASSES? Also, ever heard of SUBSTITUTES? There must be a better reason). Anyway, yes, I would have to go back and do more schooling to teach public school, but then I'd be guaranteed at least $50,000 a year with benefits somewhere (not my state, my state ranks very low in education and starts people at like $25,000, for this reason they hire people here without certification, because who the fuck would want to be certified here), even though I'd still put in countless hours of toil into a vastly underpaid, underrated job, torn among students, parents and administrators (latter two being the worst) and dealing with so much standardized testing (this, apart from anything else--except for maybe the fact that I never went to high school--is why I don't want to teach high school), but at least I would not be a starving adjunct, so that would be something.
But I would rather teach high school Spanish. Because PAPERS.
So, I might want to complete those two classes, and then do my certification. And I didn't get the double major because I failed to realize how many classes I was taking (I liked taking classes) and also, my adviser (whose job it was to advise me what to do--that's why we have curricular advisers, to help us plan our course loads and schedules) failed to notice that she might tell me I could just do a major until I was graduating with a minor, which just made my eyelid twitch.
There you go.
SIMPLE.
Really depends on your degree track! I went to a state school and I have my general electives that were more specialized than the math, language, science, and history I got in high school!
I got a sheet a paper at my first advising session which had suggested electives within my major (which was music) and then also required electives. The electives I took the be a "well rounded citizen" were classes like, math for liberal arts (music majors couldn't take the harder math or Composition classes?), Comp I and II (which some people take in high school), Gender, Race and Sexuality, Narrative Exploration, Philosophy, Econ, Psychology, Comparative Politics, I got my science and non-major art credit in high school. For the most part I took one or two of these a semester and the rest were music classes for my degree! There were some required music classes I could choose from like what ensemble I was in or my elective music history class (You had to take 3 and 2 of them were non-negotiable), you also got a choice for what your second music business class was! So it's pretty spelled out for you - in my experience. I just filled out my page and had no issues. I had two semesters where I was only taking music classes!
Of course the music degree at my school requires a lot of credits so I graduated with something like 30 more than the minimum to graduate.
In the US, the bachelor's degree is usually 4 years, whereas in Australia it's usually three, so I think that's a difference as well.
i live in Canada but the system here is similar. About 50% of your courseload is inflexible. Another 30% is flexible - you choose courses that are related to your major, out of a pool of options. I.e. if you are studying to be a lawyer and want to specialize in divorce law, you'd likely choose a bunch of courses related to that, and some others that just sound interesting. Then you'd have 20% of your courses in whatever subject under the sun interests you, from any discipline you want. Anthropology, physics, Chinese literature.
You can take that route in the US, or you can start as general education. Either way, there are a certain number of courses every college student has to take, regardless of their major, so if someone enters without a major, they'd just take those classes. They aren't necessarily specific courses you can't choose, they're generally more broad: a language, a math, an English, a History, a science, a cultural study, etc. You can test out of the lower-level ones for a higher level course. The thing is, American high schools vary wildly. Two people can have the same grades to get into college, and be at pretty different levels education wise. Grades and standardized tests can only tell so much. There are people who enter college with all Cs from high school who are entirely prepared for college level work, and students who enter with straight As who are not. A lot of those general education classes are weed-out classes, too, or to get bright but underserved students up to speed. People who were "star students" in high school flunk English 101 pretty frequently, or 101 level science courses. And colleges want to turn out well-rounded, capable students (ok, at least in theory). What use is a doctor who can't write in full sentences, or someone with a polysci degree who doesn't know about any cultures outside of what high school textbooks taught them about their own? Useless! Granted, yes, this is making up for failures of the K-12 education system, but at the moment, it is how it is, and colleges can't change that, they can only make sure they maintain and turn out a competent graduating class. I entered my first year of college with an astounding number of people who scored higher than me on exams and had better grade than me in high school, but genuinely couldn't write a paper, had never read a book cover-to-cover, had zero concept of history or geography, and didn't know very basic scientific concepts. IDK about Australia, but in the US, most of those exams that determine where you can go to college mostly measures how well you can do math and read short passages. But for most fields of study, figuring equations and being barely literate aren't enough. Those gen ed classes make sure people in college actually belong there, instead of throwing them into science or business classes just because they have OK scores and "want to."
if you have the right score you are accepted into the course
For some reason US schools no longer work like that and one of the biggest factors in determining where you get in is, believe it or not, your race. The biggest factor by far though is your class / family income unless you're applying to a school with enough money that they can give you enough money regardless of your financial situation (this is only the top schools though). Even then it still matters because rich kids can get SAT tutors to help them get better test scores, among a lot of other things. I'm sure a lot of non-Americans would be appalled by the race thing though. The east Asian immigrants who raised very smart and hard-working children here in the US are definitely appalled by it since they're the ones getting hurt the most (too many high-scoring, talented Asian American student-athletes with hobbies so they are much less likely to get into the top schools and end up going to much worse schools). Very few schools are purely merit-based and don't consider class or race, CalTech being one of them. As a result, CalTech's undegraduate (i.e. bachelor track) class is 43% Asian American despite them making up only 5% of the overall population.
You still do a major in most bachelor programs in Australia though.
Some places in Europe allow for SOME choices, but AT MOST, only few subjects. Like 3-4 mandatory, and 1 of choice per semester. Still way simpler than American ones.
Here in Belgium literally the only requirement to get into university is finishing high school. Anyone is free to try and it's not very expensive (with extra financial support if you're poor).
all degrees require core classes basically. so the first year or two your just taking basic math or english/composition classes, psych, religious studies (for religious universities), history, art courses. Very similar to classes you probably already took in high school.
After that you can take your major specific courses for the remainder of your academic career. Most people don't get that far until the 2nd or 3rd year of studies because we're too busy taking core classes required by the university. Of course your core classes serve as pre-reqs to your higher level classes but most of them seem a waste of time tbh.
Yeah but even in Australia we have core subjects and electives in most degrees. Eg in my Law degree there were core subjects that were compulsory for everyone and then a smaller number of electives and everyone had to pick I think it was 6 electives to do over 4th and 5th year. And say in an Arts degree, you still have to pick a major within Arts (eg Politics or History or a language) and you have no set subject but just have to pick X number of subjects in the Arts faculty and X of those have to be in your chosen major. It’s only in really structured degrees like Engineering that you don’t have as much choice and even they have some electives I think!
Engineering US student here.. I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I took specialty classes all 4 years. Freshman year may have been heavy on general education classes but those only made up maybe 20% of my education in college. I know other majors have a higher percentage of Electives/General classes but to say the first 2-3 years are just extensions of high school with no specialization is completely inaccurate. Unless you are liberal arts I guess but thats kind of a waste of money anyway
I'm talking about the post just below yours, by u/Suza751, but maybe Engineering is exempt from that sort of curriculum
Understand that much of US university education is subsidized by government loans. Since the government will payout this money, without reservation, the university system has taken advantage of this by insisting that every student take a set number of courses. It is just a way for the university to funnel in all the tax payer money it can get. One upside is that it can be used to funnel money into otherwise unprofitable programs (e.g. arts).
Source: University Admin
For the major/minor bit:
When you are enroll into a school you signal your intent to study a certain subject, your major. And in a four year college the courses will be broken into lower division and upper division. To graduate with a major in say Math you would have to complete a list of required upper division courses, and also take some number of electives.
But to be able to take the upper division courses you need to first Declare your major. To declare your major you need to complete all the lower division prerequisites, for example the want you to take Intro to Linear Algebra as a lower division course before you take Linear Algebra as an upper division course. Also to declare your major you need to meet the minimum required scores. If you don’t meet those scores you have to choose a different major.
Additionally the university may have a list of general education requirements that have nothing to do with your major, classes which are required for you to graduate, but that can be taken when we you’d like. At my school those classes included Politics, History, Chemistry, Math, Physics, Economics, Language, Physical Education, American Cultures, and a few I don’t remember. There was a vast amount of choice in those subjects for which class you could take, some had prerequisite and some didn’t
I know plenty of people who when they enrolled said that wanted to do Computer Science as their major, but after two years found they couldn’t meet the grade requirement, and so switched majors to something like Business or Education, or Political Science.
Also you can Major in multiple subjects. Two is pretty common.
Minors are like miniature majors. Maybe half as many classes to take. Minors show up on your transcript but usually not your diploma. They’re a way to gain knowledge in some field. Many people do a minor in s completely unrelated field that interests them.
As for keeping track of grades and your progression, it’s pretty easy now with computers. You pick your classes either yourself or with an advisor, and then follow up with them as needed.
A lot of the time minors are also a way to specialize your Major in ways that aren't available in undergraduate programs. For example I majored in Art History and minored in Arts Management, essentially making my major more grounded in business and administration than pure academics l.
I know a lot of people in liberal arts majors who sprinkle in business or computer science programs to give them a competitive edge when graduating.
Hi, I’m doing history of art (in the UK). What was it like in America? Sadly, we don’t have the opportunity to do arts/heritage management in undergrad, so I’ll have to do an MA that incorporates that.
So you just apply to a college and say "I want to study science." Then once there you figure out what you want to do in science?
In Ireland each of our courses has a specific course outline which has all the modules you will do during the course. A lot of science and engineering courses don't allow you choice in your modules, unless your course branches (e.g. robotics vs computers vs electronics).
My course was a BSc.Ed and I "majored" in 3 different science subjects which I can also teach. The only choice I got was to chose between persuing chemistry or physics.
Most degree programs will have a course scheduled with map of required courses, but there can be a lot of flexibility. There are lower division electives that can be fulfilled by a wide variety of courses l, typically in the first two years and might be 25-33% of your courses.
Many times there are upper division degree specific electives that allow for flexibility. For example I was a chemistry major and the upper division electives let you specialize with organic, inorganic, nuclear, or analytical chemistry courses.
Every school is a little different of course. For the University of California schools you have the option to state your intended area of study when you apply, but unless it is an impacted major (a very popular program that has more student than seats) it doesn't really matter. When you are enrolled you are officially undeclared, and can study whatever you want. When you apply you aren't saying "I want to study science" and then later figure out you like Chemistry for example. Instead its "I want to study at UCLA because I am awesome and so is UCLA". You generally have until the end of your second year to declare a major.
Granted many people do apply as you said and then narrow there focus, but its not necessary at all.
Each of the majors has a specific course outline, and typically some electives. So like you would take all of the classes from column A, and from column B you would take the courses that interest you. This would be in addition to any of the prerequisites for those classes and the separate general education requirements.
There is a caveat that in one school you may have many colleges each of which has its own speciality. UCSB has the College of Creative Studies, College of Engineering, and College of Letters and Sciences. You would be admitted to one, L & S for example, and then the majors in those other colleges would be off limits to you. You could still take classes, if there are seats available.
Also separate to all this is Community College. CC are 2 year schools that are inexpensive that provide certificates and Associates Degrees. You can take classes at a CC and then transfer into a 4 year school and those credits will mostly transfer with you. For example I didn't know what I wanted to study, also my high school grades were terrible, so I went to CC. I figured out I liked sciencey stuff and got Associates Degrees in Physics Math and Engineering, as well as a certificate that guaranteed me admission into a public 4 year school in California, provided I picked a major and stuck to it.
In one sense I like the freedom, but then in another I don't. In Ireland when you're sitting your Leaving Cert (state exams in your final year of secondary school), you fill out what's called a CAO form. On your CAO form you put down preferences of college courses you want to do, in order of preference. Your grades in your Leaving Cert results then are awarded "points". You need to have achieved a minimum level of points for each course. For example when I did my LC my course required 425 points (out of 625 max you can obtain). However, say there's a course with 20 places and 30 people apply and are all eligible, they don't give those spots to the top 20 results, instead they are raffled off. The Monday after the LC results come out, you get an "offer" from the CAO for your course which you can accept or decline. If you decline they open up that space to one of the people who weren't successful in the first round offers. If you don't get enough points for your top choice, you'll be offered the next highest preference course on your CAO list.
There is no personal statements/letters with "I want to go to UL because its amazing". And each undergrad course costs the student the same (iirc €3000 "student contribution" for the year).
This is similar to "matching" here in the states, which happens with graduating medical students and residency programs they applied to.
Interesting. I like the raffle concept. Here the eligibility determination is a little fuzzy. If you have perfect grades you might get into what you want, but maybe not. There are a ton of factors that determine if you get in, and at a certain level there are just so many students applying that its just random chance. If you decline you admittance it just goes to someone on the waitlist.
At the UC's each semester tuition covers as many or as few classes as you want to take. This semester its about $7000, not including housing/food/supplies/insurance.
It's more like you apply to college and say "I intend to major in Chemistry".
Your school will say, ok you can do that in about 2 years once you have satisfied the following conditions:
1) Take all the compulsory basic chemistry fundamental courses
2) Usually take some other science courses other than chemistry. Can satisfy with, say, physics and bio 101.
3) A couple courses designated in English, some in history, math, etc. Usually they'll ask you to do about 2 of each category.
4) Fill out your remaining credits with just about anything else. Probably around 6 courses or so of your choosing.
If your score is high enough, you will be accepted to the major and will give you access to start applying for 3rd/4th year Chemistry courses, which would of course be pre-requisites to you getting that degree. If you don't, usually it means you just take more lower level courses until your GPA climbs up or you swap majors (and then work on the prerequisites of those).
I just think its crazy that you have to do 'general' courses like history and English etc. To me, there are fundamentals that should be taught prior to entering college. I think it also impacts your education systems in other ways. Like yoi have to go to grad school to become a doctor or a physio or lawyer. Here, you can do 4 years of undergrad and be qualified as a doctor or physio. While you don't technically go to "grad school" to become a lawyer, you do have to sit the bar exam after you graduate with a law degree.
I read this like 5 times and it still looks so complicated, I think the way you worded them. I dunno if I got it but basically, what you're saying is, you get level 1 (lower div) courses before you get to level 2 (upper div). Level 1 courses have a certain number of units, and let's say to pass level 1, you gotta have 70% of the total number of units from level 1 courses you got before you get to level 2 courses. But if you don't meet that number, you have to choose a different major.
So, does this mean you can't repeat courses or at least take them for summer?
[deleted]
I see. It's mostly the same with my education here in Asia. The difference is 'you just need to take the correct level 1 classes'. I mean, I don't have to 'take the correct ones', because we can't really take 'the wrong ones'. We're given a flowchart so we see which classes we will be taking. Besides that, the enrollment/student information system only shows the classes we're allowed to take.
Yeah sorry it was written in a sort of stream of consciousness and isn’t exactly clear. This is also pretty particular to my schools system, the US is large and there is variety.
Classes are 17 weeks and there are two semesters a year, as well as an optional accelerated summer.
So for me to declare the major I had to complete three particular physics classes and four particular math classes. Those had to have an average grade of 2.0 (out of 4.0). Those courses also satisfied the lower division requirements for physics.
The lower division courses are recommended prerequisites for the upper division courses.
The classes that count for your degree are the upper division courses.
For the upper division courses I had to complete 7 particular physics courses (two are lab courses) as well as one physics elective course. There were maybe 10 different electives to choose from. I also had to complete two upper division courses in a major that wasn’t physics. I took education and math courses. The upper division courses have to have a average of 3.0 out of 4.
While taking all these courses there are also a number of university requirements separate from your major, the general education classes. Typically you take two or three technical classes (the hard ones in your major) a semester as well as one or two of the general ed classes.
If I got to the end of lower division with a score too low overall I can retake classes (there are limits to this and its demoralizing) or I can change majors. However you can only retake a class that you fail. If you get a bad score, but don’t fail, your stuck.
Ohhh I get it now. Thank you!
Additionally the university may have a list of general education requirements that have nothing to do with your major, classes which are required for you to graduate, but that can be taken when we you’d like.
Question: Knowing how much you're paying for these classes, isn't being required to study something completely irrelevant somewhat insulting? I know a guy studying Medicine in Texas who's 100% sure he wants to be nothing but a doctor, but he's forced to take two Art classes, and one of this options is a class about nothing but the Beatles. How's that even a proper cultural background?
This is a legit question that comes up frequently. There are many answers on both sides, it’s pretty personal.
I think the idea is to provide students a broad base. Maybe sometimes they take it too far.
Having to take two art classes doesn’t sound too bad. Medical classes are tough as nails, a semester of only medicine could be brutal. Having the option to take a class where you talk about and listen to music doesn’t really sound too onerous.
Yeah but it sounds like it should be optional. This dude was enraged they were making him waste time with that stuff when he could, without them, graduate more than one semester early, but there's no way around those classes in his university at least. I'm Spanish and all my classes were somethingsomething Law (law school), and sure, they were a pain in the ass, but I'd be pissed if they forced me to study nonsense on top of it all.
The problem with making it optional is that then people wouldn’t take it. The solution they give is to have lots options for those classes.
So all your college classes were xx law. Which is great. But that seems to mean that your only exposure to classes in history, art, math, science, literature was in pre-college or was in college but only as it applied to law. The argument is that not having that exposure is a disservice, that a student not taking some version of these classes in higher education is somehow lacking, relatively speaking.
What sort of disservice? Specially in a private college, not a public one. In a private business you should be able to purchase what you want, packing additional services in a fee is in fact considered here as anticompetitive and forbidden because of it. And if it were such a great service to students to study all that, then they would take them. At least give people the option to do extra stuff related to their major OR extra classes.
Like you said, in a private business you can do whatever you want.
The disservice in a public one is basically that the students aren’t coming out with the profile you want, not the citizens you want to be putting into the world.
If a private school is doing something similar, but I feel like maybe it’s more reputation based. If you’re a great engineering school and your students come out as amazing engineers who never took classes in economics or communications or art, well maybe your students don’t do as well in the workforce. Maybe they’re harder for coworkers to get along with or they can’t communicate as clearly, or there ideas are more constrained. I don’t know. If you are Stanford, a great private school, then you are crafting your students to be ambassadors of Stanford to the outside world by making them take certain classes.
This is a private school in Texas but I don't remember the name (could ask I guess) and I'm 100% unfamiliar with the reputation any of them has, so I can't say.
Regardless, this seems to be a very unique USA system, and you don't see engineers from Japan or France having more issues to communicate with their coworkers than the ones from the USA. It seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If highschool didn't give you enough of a cultural/social background, it seems highschool is what needs fixing, rather than shoehorning more highschool well into your adulthood.
I've been told those classes are basically identical to similar ones in highschool btw, if they're greatly different in presentation or requirements or etc, I'm unaware and apologize in that case. My knowledge is very second hand.
Yeah no problem. Lots of the classes are similar as the highschool ones but go into more depth. Others cover in detail areas that are mentioned in passing in high school I had an entire class on how equity versus equality impact pedagogy in the education of inner city youth. A friend had a class on the different architectural styles of the ancient world. Those aren’t really highschool material.
We had those exact classes (architectural styles of the ancient world) in highschool. Then again, I'm from Europe, so it's not particularly notable. We also had classes on sociology and ethics, though most likely not as in depth at all. But would that "in depth" be needed at all if you're gonna be designing bridges or vaccinating cows, after all??
This isn't how it worked at my school at all... You didn't need to take lower division classes before declaring your major, most people did that before starting. And you also didn't need to be in the major in most cases to take upper division classes, although every class was different, some only allowed students of that major (in lower and upper division) and some required prerequisites.
I imagine that even without the hard requirements, your school wouldn't allow anyone to take 3rd year accounting without some sort of restrictions like Accounting 101 + X amount of credits under the business faculty umbrella.
Like I said it really depends on the class, and the professor.
I just read this, and as a person who was born in the US, I didn’t understand a single thing you just wrote.
Okay.
Am from Honduras, works the same way. Basically you go to whoever takes would-be students and tell them you want to study X thing in their university, present your High School diploma, and they give you a class plan. That is, which classes you will take and when you will take them, in the following 4-12 years. That’s it, you’re in college, so you follow that plan, or take it semi randomly, since most carreer classes have one or more requisite classes. Carreer classes meaning classes that are essential to your “major”, with electives or general classes added in. Electives being something like languages (you have to take a language, but it’s up to you which one to take), art oriented classes, music oriented classes, physical education classes, when you study Business, Engineering, Medicine, etc. Unrelated to your field, just for the sake of knowledge.
But you always know what you have taken, and can’t take classes outside of your plan. You can switch carreer plans, but that means that you basically threw away 3-6 months and possibly money down the drain, since they don’t really count for your new carreer path.
Yeah it's easy, but it leaves a lot of people lost and they have to pay extra money for those stupid Gen Ed classes that we don't want to take.
While many people don't like taking those general education requirements, they are important. Some of those classes are terrible, and some are great. One of their official goals is providing a well rounded education, its been said that it leads to creative thinkers. Personally I think they are important because they expose you to new topics, to different ways of thinking, and force you to learn how to communicate. Compared to many schools in Europe, the US puts a strong emphasis on general education in college/university. If this emphasis was really a negative, then US schools wouldn't so consistently dominate the world rankings.
They also get you to possibly lean towards a different degree. When I went to college I wanted to be a child psychologist, and then I took a lot of science/health classes like nutrition and anatomy and behavioral health and realized I liked the science part of behavior. Eight years later I have a BS in Psychology and an MA in Behavioral Neuroscience. I would have completely gone the therapy route if it wasn't for those electives and mandatory science classes.
I'm from the UK and for us thats what sixth form is for. Once you go to university you've already had a long time to decide what you want to do there.
For example I studied chemistry, higher maths, biology, and graphic design at sixth form and then went on to just study chemistry at university.
Yeah I'm actually super supportive of a broad amount of into classes. It is also how I learned that I'm good at stats but not algebra type math, which helped my math anxiety a ton.
That all sounds ridiculous and complicated. Here in the UK I chose what I wanted to study, applied to study that subject, was accepted on the basis of that subject. I have compulsory classes each year, and then a handful of electives to make up the rest of my credits, but they are all within my subject. So, I could take French dialectal linguistics in one specific semester, or I could take a class on French philosophy, or on French Medieval literature. But I'm studying French, so only one of those. The only exception is that my university will allow us to swap out one class per year (up to 1/4 of our credits) for classes in another language, no matter our subject.
Okay. What if in your sixth form you decided you wanted to study math more than anything in the world, got into that great math program at the schoool you wanted, and then in your first year you realized you hate studying math. Sure you like the elegance and the answers, but you despise proofs. Do you just drop out?
Your university will often let you start a new course, from the beginning. Technically you will have dropped your course and reenrolled, just not actually dropped out of university. Alternatively some universities will let you transfer part way through a course - for example, let's take a friend of mine who studied engineering. He did that for two full years out of three then decided that he couldn't possibly take another minute and he wanted to study pure maths instead. He applied to a different university and they let him skip the first year, because of the content covered in his engineering degree. People don't swap very often as all, though, and it is quite common if you don't like it to just drop out and reapply because a school which is good for maths might not be so great for anything else.
I know a lot of people who transferred to another course in their first and second years because they realised what they were doing wasn't right for them.
Yes
But to be able to take the upper division courses you need to first Declare your major.
Ooh! I know this one! I DECLARE ECONOMICS!!!
Nah that’s how you declare bankruptcy.
Everyone living in dorms is not quite correct. You can choose where you want to but it is a bit more economical to live in one. I lived off campus but was a bit older and had the financial means to do so.
My school's policy was that if you were not a commuter (defined by parents address being some distance from the school or something), you were required to spend your first 2 years living in dorms, and could find other housing after that.
Probably not a bad idea. Gets you involved with a lot of people. I was in the Army (US) so just had spent four years around a lot of people living in the barracks. So a little space was nice.
Do you have to share rooms? That always struck me as being either brilliant or appalling
Depends on the dorm. There are dorms with single rooms, but they typically cost more.
A lot of movies and TV shows revolve around elite schools that have students from all over the country and even world. That's what most people are exposed to. And those are schools where most people stay in dorms.
It's not only elite schools. My university is a safety school in the middle of a cornfield and it's got well over 10k international students.
it's a bit more economical to live in one
Living in the dorms is twice expensive as renting the average apartment where I am, but the school requires you to do a year in the dorms unless you have a permanent residence in the city.
I lived off campus but was a bit older and had the financial means to do so.
this is interesting to me. I live and go to college in CA and it’s way cheaper to live off campus than on campus. my on-campus housing last year was literally double my tuition.
I did an exchange program in Russia the summer I was working on all my college applications, and my older host sister liked to read over them and ask a bunch of questions about them and stuff and I don't think I've ever felt a greater envy than when she explained to me how the process works in Russia. It's so much simpler! And makes more sense! Agh!
It is kind of like a game tech tree now that I think about it
Yeah, I had never thought of it that way while I was in school myself but it's an excellent comparison.
In Argentina college is free, you don't have to have any kind of previous education that needs to be certain number, just the high-school degree. You can get in and become a doctor if you want, for free (you pay for books and stuff like that). You can be born in the worst place ever but as long as you have a high school degree you are in. There are also private colleges but you don't have to have a high score before that. You do an exam and if you pass you are in. And usually, they are not hard.
Health care is also free, even if you are not a citizen. Sure, private health is waaay better, but you won't die in the streets... Probably.
Argentina sounds better than I've imagined. Maybe I should come there at some point in my life.
Visiting is nice, living here... Eh. It's OK. It's a beautiful country with a lot of culture, but also an awful economy, cossrup leaders and insecurity.
I hope it gets better soon!
Sounds just like India
And Brazil
US schools get so many qualified applicants that they need more than just grades to decide who to admit, because everyone applying pretty much has perfect grades.
People live in dorms because they usually move to go to the college. Lots more people live in suburban areas from from any college in the US.
I agree fuck debt, but the amount of debt is usually a bit exaggerated and most college educated Americans make more than enough to make that debt worth it post college.
Last point is probably a cultural difference. Americans highly value independent thought and intellectual curiosity. I was in engineering, so I had a lot of courses I was required to take, but I could decide the order as long as I had already taken the prerequisites for the class. Once I had completed the core curriculum, I was given more freedom to study more specialized topics in high level classes. I also had to take some humanities and those were pretty much whatever I wanted (like history of the Byzantine Empire). Frankly the flexibility in the American University curriculum is a strength.
US schools get so many qualified applicants that they need more than just grades to decide who to admit, because everyone applying pretty much has perfect grades.
Do you honestly think other countries dont ? Populations might be lower, but amount of schools naturally is too. And the school grades are irrelevant, the thing the above guy is talking about (atleast in my country, but i assume in Russia too since it sounds identical) is national exams that are evaluated on a relative % system, i.e. its not 99% if you got 99% of the answers correct, its 99% if you got more correct answers than 99% of other students taking the test that year. So Universities requiring certain scores will always have limited amount of applicants and can adjust that limit by adjusting the score.
Americans highly value independent thought and intellectual curiosity.
That is absolutely laughable and kinda elitist (and so is a lot of your post for that matter), especially coming from a country that elected trump for president..
But universities in europe generally have elective classes you chose too, they're just usually connected to your main course rather than whatever you like. Given the supposed massive costs of education, i'm surprised people would take classes on random stuff that wont give them professional skills, just for personal interest. Especially in this information age where you can pretty easily study such stuff on your own.
US schools get so many qualified applicants that they need more than just grades to decide who to admit, because everyone applying pretty much has perfect grades.
Do you honestly think other countries dont ? Populations might be lower, but amount of schools naturally is too.
What you're missing is how many people apply to top US schools. My university has over 10k international students and it's just a run-of-the-mill state school, not even an elite private institution.
I couldn't find acceptance rates for Russian schools, but for UK schools like Oxford and Cambridge (which have a reputation as top tier) the acceptance rate is ~20%, or three times that of comparable US universities.
i'm surprised people would take classes on random stuff that wont give them professional skills, just for personal interest
College isn't just about jobs training, despite the cost. The purpose of College is to teach you how to think critically, not just to make you a stembot.
If you think I'm an elitist, you're right. Not everyone who applies to top schools in the US gets in. I can't speak for the people that elected Trump, but the US does have some of the best universities in the world (not that Europe doesn't, the US just has more). I met quite a few international students during my time at school. The ability to take any electives I wanted was a core piece of my experience in higher education.
And the school grades are irrelevant, the thing the above guy is talking about (atleast in my country, but i assume in Russia too since it sounds identical) is national exams that are evaluated on a relative % system, i.e. its not 99% if you got 99% of the answers correct, its 99% if you got more correct answers than 99% of other students taking the test that year.
Actually, that's not true for Russia. At each subject you can get 100 points, which is 100% correct answers (well, it's a little bit more complicated than this, but still), and university usually require 3 subject to enroll, so it's not uncommon in the most popular universities, that they have more applicants with 300 points, that they can admit, so this this universities hold an additional exam
US schools use more than grades and SAT to increase the diversity at their schools. It's not like there are enough perfect SAT scores to fill all the top schools. Realistically, if we used just SAT colleges would be mostly Asians and rich white kids which then makes the school look bad.
Realistically, if we used just SAT colleges would be mostly Asians and rich white kids which then makes the school look bad.
rich white kids
?????????????????????
I don't understand your question marks. Those demographics tend to score higher on the SAT, and colleges prefer to have more ethnic and socioeconomic diversity than they would in a purely score-based system. Most schools are pretty open about that.
I'm a filthy european so I don't quite relate. Everyone's white here and nobody cares if a STEM program is 90% male because the grades made them so. Why would it make the school look bad?
That's a complex question that has to do with lots of racial tension and the history of the United States that I wouldn't be able to do justice to.
I would say go to /r/askhistorians but I don't think they deal with recent questions. Maybe you might find some luck in /r/nostupidquestions? But that'd require parsing through a lot of bad answers before you get a good one
Thanks for replying! My very very limited knowledge makes me ask, does it by any chance have something to do with the fact black children or rather non-white children were segregated in schools i.e. they weren't allowed due to racism? So colleges don't want to make it seem like the times haven't changed?
I'm a little worried the question wouldn't be taken seriously if I asked. I don't want to create any tension making it seem like I'm questioning racism and trying to push minorities away from education, I just genuinely can't relate due to my country's demographics.
Maybe what I can do is give a piece of the puzzle, but this isn't all-encompassing.
A demographic that's very prevalent in higher education is the Asian demographic. Without giving any actual numbers, they are very over represented in college for the actual percentage of the US population they are. My personal opinion on why that is has to do with something I'll get into in a bit: wealth.
We already know how "white and black" people came into America. Europeans colonized the Americas and brought in Africans as slaves. Europeans mixed and matched between different countries until you got the "white" people who are a conglomeration of many different ethnic personalities. While bad records did affect Europeans, it hit Africans harder. We can guess, but the records on which Africans came from which area within Africa have not been kept well over these past few hundreds of years.
Back in the day, the ending of slavery didn't mean the end of black oppression, that was a long and hard battle that's still being fought today (though nobody can seriously argue that we haven't made leaps and bounds). Now freed black men and women had no schooling or education on their options, nor did they have any wealth to make their own way through life, so many black people ended up just going back and working the same jobs they used to before the (start of the) end of slavery. White-former-slave owners were still able to amass more and more wealth.
Through the passage of time, while more black people have made their way into the upper echelons of the USA, you still see many of them living in the same ghettos that their ancestors lived in, living just as poor with no easy way to get out.
Wealth=power and power=upward mobility. College costs a lot in the US and even with all of the need-based funding, you don't see the same percentages of black people in college that you do with black people in the country. In an ideal world, you would have that.
I hooked in talking about Asians but then digressed immediately, but Asians immigrated en masse into the US at a later time than Europeans and Africans. Over time it has gotten increasingly harder to legally immigrate into the US, but having a lot of money is a good enticer. These wealthy Asians are able to invest more money into their kids educations and then these kids end up having a better education. These kids then end up being able to go to more prestigious universities and to university in general, without any financial barriers.
Hope that helps a bit! This in no way did justice to a real explanation, but I hoped this little bit will help you out. Also this is all coming from my memory, so please research more on your own if interested and lemme know what I'm misremembering!
That's very informative! You helped me at least have a start and some background information before delving into deeper conversations about these issues. Thank you!
There are a lot of different factors that go into that, but the short version is that schools don't want to been seen as being a barrier to economic mobility, especially along racial lines. The best companies to work for all recruit at top schools, so if you don't admit black people you're effectively preventing them from access to those top jobs (even if only because they scored lower). Theres probably also a bit of racism behind not wanting your school to be "too Asian", especially given how many races get thrown under that umbrella.
nvm, just stereotype of rich white kids that buy their degrees in private colleges and do not give a fuck about edu went too far :D
I know enough kids that dropped 3k on SAT prep that I don't feel bad saying it. It wasn't mean to be derogatory though, just a comment on how things play out without colleges making adjustments. Children of donors, children of famous people, URM, athletes all need to be let in for the college to function and look like it's functioning.
everyone applying pretty much has perfect grades
Well that sounds like a problem. Your median should really not be the same (or nearly the same) as your upper limit.
Okay so, I went to one of these elite colleges. I was in the top 10 of my high school class of 500 people. Of about 32,000 applicants, they accepted around 2,000. Of those 32,000, lets say about 8,000 were definitely qualified to be there. So the school pretty much gets to pick and choose who they accept, and can sculpt the class to be composed of exactly who they want.
We don't but some allowances make it that way. For instance, I got into college with a B average while most of my college peers had straight A's. But since I went to a slightly better school, my B average was weighted a little higher.
Also, it's kinda hard to fix. It's not that everyone in the country gets perfect grades, it's that only the people with high grades apply.
So, I'm not American myself and from the way OP described how it works in Russia, I assume it's similar to how it works here. That is, there are multiple available universities, but most are more or less equivalent. Some may be stronger in a given field, but rarely to a point where it completely outshines the others, especially at undergrad levels... if you're doing graduate studies, then sure, you probably want to go to the university with the best expert in the field you want to study.
Since all universities are more or less equivalent, the median for the people who apply to a given university is pretty close to the median of all people who apply to all universities.
In the states, there are a very small number of "elite" universities, and there are a bunch of community colleges, which seem to be regarded as much worse than the elite universities. As such, those elite universities receive applications from the top students from all over the country. So even if the median for the general population is far lower than the upper limit, the people who apply to those elite universities aren't the general population, they are the cream of the crop.
But this flexibility is nothing american. To me it seems like the russian system is the "unnormal" one. In most of central Europa as far as Im aware (atleast in germany for sure) we have both segregation from elementary to "high school" (middle and high being combined) as well as a flexible university schedule.
The last point includes having majors/minors and picking your courses yourself (some subjects have more option than others: see philosophy vs economics). You also dont need to take unnecessary courses in basic knowledge if it doesnt fit your subjects, as in: a history major with other humanities does not take "econ 101", since he has no use for it. This can be both advantageous and disadvantagous though.
To sum it up, to me it seems that, apart from the costs and elitism (very generally speaking), the american and european are way closer together. And Id agree that it may well be a cultural difference, however, specifically between the usually thrown around terms of west and east and not USA and Europe.
Middle/High school separation
For the most part, there isn't a separation. A high school will typically be fed by one or a few different middle schools, which are fed from one or a few elementary schools. So you will more than likely have friends that you school with all of your life, from elementary school to high school graduation.
College Application Process
This is because there are so many students apply for a college, especially a prestigious college, and at a certain point, grades just don't differentiate enough. And not every college will ask for a cover letter/essay. The college I applied to just asked to see my transcript and that was it. Got accepted and that was about it.
Dorms
It's seen as a step to living by yourself, a step to growing up. You're not renting an apartment yet, but you're not living with your parents. And it isn't everyone living in a dorm either. You have commuters who live with their parents and people living off campus (in or around the city but not in a dorm). And, at least in my school, after the first year, you typically move out of the dorms and into an apartment/flat. There wouldn't be enough room for everyone to live in a dorm at my college.
Paid education/student debt
In the states, college is in a weird place right now. It's both seen as a luxury and as something that's the "next step" in life, culturally. You don't need to go to college. But a lot of times, college is a way to skip 10 years of working up the ladder. When I graduate next spring, I can be part way up the corporate ladder instead of starting on the bottom rung. And there are also jobs that just require a degree no matter what. Jobs that need the formalized learning that college gives.
Plus, a lot of people don't like the idea of paying for someone else's college, so it can't be subsidized through the government as easily. Public institutions are already getting money from their government, but it's not enough for college to be free.
And specifically on programming, it's one of the weird professions where you don't need a degree to get into it, but it's preferred. If you can show you know what you're doing, you're hired, degree or certification or not.
Majors/minors
Majors are like your "specialization", where you choose your specialization/major. Once you choose your major, you have to compete all of the required classes in that major to graduate. This includes a set of general electives (classes that are supposed to make a student, no matter the major, more rounded as an indvidual), core classes (typically takes up most of your classes throughout college and are the classes that most relate to your major), and then open electives (not all majors have this, but some do because the required classes don't fill out a minimum number of credit hours to be accredited).
You can take this in any order. You want have your general electives/open electives at the end of your time in college? Go ahead. Wanna finish them off as early as possible? That works too!
For the core classes, they build up on each other. For math, you wouldn't do Calculus without know how to do Algebra, right? So that's why it all seems like you unlock more classes as you go on, because you're learning the base material before going into a more advanced class. And you may see it as a burden for keeping track of classes, but it really isn't. There's enough resources that allows students to quickly look at what they've done and what they need to do (including all prerequisites for future classes, which are typically already incorporated into your core classes) to graduate.
And this more open system is free to changes as you go along. You majored in something you hate? Even if it's 3 years into your major? You can always change into something else (I've seen exactly that happen, from engineering to english).
If you have other questions, feel free to ask!
Middle/High school separation
For the most part, there isn't a separation. A high school will typically be fed by one or a few different middle schools, which are fed from one or a few elementary schools. So you will more than likely have friends that you school with all of your life, from elementary school to high school graduation.
The "separation" they're talking about is the fact that middle schools exist at all. A lot of countries only have elementary and high schools (often called primary and secondary schools). The total time at school is usually about the same, you just spend more years at each one.
Okay then. That has to do with a few different reasons. Sometimes, the school couldn't fit all of the students into one building, and the surrounding land to expand on is owned by people, so they'd just build another school for a different age group instead. A lot of schools were built when the population of the county was 100 million less than it was today, if not older, so they didn't account for that much expansion in the population. Plus, at least to me, there's a major difference between elementary school (5-11 years old), middle school (11-14 years old), and high school (14-18 years old) aged kids, so the separation seems appropriate.
And, at least in Russia (the country where the question asker was from), it's not like there isn't a separation of grades in their schools, because they also go through elementary, middle, and high schools. It just happens that they're in the same building. And that is not completely uncommon here either, though typically through private or rural schools.
On universities... compulsory meal plans and in some places you also HAVE to live on campus in your first year!
I studied in America for a year . I had to buy a mini fridge for my room because my entire block (over 100 people) had one kitchen with one fridge stuffed full of people's food.
The dorms also turned off all the heating, electricity and water over Christmas. I wasn't informed that until November! I was planning on staying at the Uni.
Exactly how it is in Brazil...
When I was in college in Canada, I spent way too much time trying to make the perfect class schedules. Would rather have had someone make it for me. But it is nice when you can choose all afternoon classes and get to sleep in every day.
America has the self scheduling too. I always loaded up a few days to free up days off. Two days heavy classes, day off. One day for study and maybe one class, then three day weekend.
Wow. Brit here. Monday to Friday 9-6 for me for my undergrad classes.
Choosing when you want lectures? Boggles my mind!!
Many lower division courses will have multiple lectures and discussion sections to choose from. As you get into upper division or more specialized courses there will be one lecture and maybe you can choose which discussion section or lab time slot assignment.
Ah right. I just chose my course and turned up. Handed a full schedule for four years. Aside from the rare optional module, pretty much my choices.
We can still do that, you either show up or you don't. The best thing I ever realized in University.
Recent high school grad here, I laughed at the cover letter part. That's only the tip of the iceberg. All told, the college application process took dozens of pages of writing for essays and supplements for each school, plus scholarship essays and hours filling out background information. The process also cost nearly $1000 in the end, as each school has an application fee ($50-$100) plus a fee to send them your transcript, and your SAT and/or ACT score. It cost me $200 to send all my colleges the transcript from my community college summer English class that I took when I was 16.
In the end I went to Cal Poly which doesn't even require a personal essay.
Most schools in the US will give you a ready-made complete curriculum, but you're not beholden to it. When I enrolled they handed us a 4-year plan for math majors that covers everything in the correct order, but most people deviate from it for one reason or another. (For example, most math majors already took Calculus in high school, and that was most of the 1st year of the plan).
Universities in big cities in America sound similar to your experience - not a lot of people live in dorms, and often live with their parents. The difference is that's a minority of schools - a lot of schools in America are in the middle of nowhere, so there aren't a ton of people who have the option of living at home. I went to an in-state school, but it was still 2 hours from my parents house. Additionally, while most schools require that Freshmen live in dorms, most students only live in them for the required 1 year, because it's usually cheaper to get an apartment.
In Russia, you usually stay with the same class from 1st grade to 11th
Depends on where you are in America, but if you're in a smaller town, you'll end up going to the same elementary/middle/high school with the same kids.
Cover letters
Cover letters are used all over, not just America, for a good reason-- they help your school get acquainted with you, and, if it's a decent school, vice-versa.
Dorms
Most AA/early BA students live with their parents, and (those that can afford to) some get flats. Flats are just SO expensive, especially on top of school fees, that most BA students opt to live in dorms.
Paid education and students debt
I would do ungodly things for free education. Plz send halp.
Majors/minors
Americans have choice! Loads of it! Everyone is different, and have different interests. One of the most brilliant men I know changed his major three times while getting his Bachelor's; as a result, he's highly well-rounded, having gotten to experience different tracks of education all at once, and plenty of casual American students do the same thing. We're not limited to a single track, and I wouldn't give that up for the world. That being said, it's an utter pain in the ass to keep track of everything, but we have full-time advisers to help with just that.
I hope this helps!
In Denmark we don’t use cover letters either. Neither for bachelors or masters, but they’re often a part of the process for PhD.
Everything until PhD is pure grades.
How about upward mobility. If you are poor and working a side job you might have lower grades. If we only looked at grades, the rich people with access to tutors would only get into the best schools.
Our education is free and you’re getting paid to study by the state (and while you’re living at home it’s scaling on your parents income). And side jobs are actually more common here amongst ‘richer areas’.
Tutors are used, but not really widely. And once you graduate with your bachelor then you’re guaranteed entrance to your natural master (everyone who goes to university also gets a masters around here. Our system is a bit different)
So competition is mainly to get into popular undergrad degrees such as some business majors, medicine, molecular biochem and the like.
How are grades related to money, everybody goes to the public school.
I would do ungodly things for free education. Plz send halp.
Are you ready to seize the means of education, comrade?
I have a question. Can you go to any elementary/middle/high school you want (provided you get accepted)? Because that's how it works in my country, but from what I've seen about US in TV shows and internet, it seems like you have to visit specific school in your district or something like that.
It depends on if the school is public or private.
Public schools are run by the government and are free to attend. The school you go to is based on where you live, so you don't really have a choice. Private schools are independently run and charge for tuition. You can go to any private school you get accepted to.
You can go to any non-private ('private' as in, 'you must be accepted'. Schools based on area are much more common) elm/mid/high school you so desire, without acceptance procedures.
Wasn't there episode of simpsons where they pretended to live in a different place so their kids could go to school there? (https://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Waverly_Hills,_9-0-2-1-D%27oh)
I think I've also read on reddit something about poorer people getting worse education because they have to go to worse schools because their funding is somehow related to wealth of the district. And that makes the inequality worse.
A public school assigned to your address is required to take you in. If you want to go to different public school you can apply, and if they have room after the students that addresses are assigned to that other school, they may accept you.
Cover letters are used all over, not just America, for a good reason-- they help your school get acquainted with you, and, if it's a decent school, vice-versa.
Care to back up that claim? Cause i've never heard them used anywhere in europe. Dont see how they "help your school get acquainted with you" either, beyond giving information to discriminate by gender/wealth/color/etc.
The important part should be education and talent to that point, not how well you (or anyone you hire) is at pretending to be hardworking, motivated or hungry for knowledge in print.
You call it well rounded. We call it a waste.
Because of your 'rounding' what is a 3 year degree in the rest of the world is 4 years in the US.
And what use does an engineer have for classical history? Give them a negotiations or quality managment of something worth while
This is a lot similar to the system in Turkey. I also find the american system confusing. By the way, hi neighbour!
Not everyone lives in dorms. Usually just freshman do, after that you find an apartment. And I think some colleges require even the freshman from the same town to live in the dorms.
Education has turned into more of racket in the west. More so in the United States.
I'm an American and I'm confused
if you check out /r/applyingtocollege , you will either be clear or even more confused
I'm at a college orientation rn so we'll see how it goes
Holy cow that’s a lot and I’m on mobile so be ready for some typos. But I’ll give it a shot.
We do stay with the same class from 1st grade through the end of high school. Are you under the impression that we split up after middle school or something?
Cover letters are really only required for a private college of some sort or a really prestigious school. I go to a state college and I didn’t have to do any of that stuff.
The US is a lot more spread out than Europe. I go to a college relatively close to my home, but it’s still a 45 minute drive each way and I’m not about to spend that much gas money or time. I have a lot of friends that actually do live at home. It’s not uncommon. idk about other countries, but in America, going to college is a pretty huge step when it comes to your independence/ maturity. Living away from your parents at college is kind of like a trial run for when you graduate and you move out for good I guess. And also, living in the dorms freshman year is fun as fuck. I wish I could go back tbh.
Yeah our college debt problem is fucked. No explanation for that really.
As for class selection, ours is kind of similar I think. Obviously we choose a major when we enter college. Then the college usually has a certain number of credits that you need to acquire before you can graduate. But they offer a lot more classes than you need credits for, so you have some freedom when it comes to choosing what you want to learn. Like for my major I’m choosing to finish my degree up with some cyber security and data management courses, while foregoing some courses in programming for example. But if I wanted to take more programming classes I could just choose to take those. Then on top of your major, you can also choose to do a minor which is just like kind of supplemental to your major. So if I’m in business school I might choose to major in Finance and minor in Management. Then I could tell employers that I’m very familiar with finance and that I’ve also taken a few Management courses.
Idk the whole degree system is a bit more complicated than that but that’s the gist of it.
I'm an American who has spent a lot of time in Russia, so let me explain the same class thing. In the U.S., sure, we remain with our same grade members, which are often hundreds of people. In Russia, I understand that it is not uncommon to remain with the same CLASSROOM's worth of people, like 20 or so, for the whole time you're in school. Imagine being with the same homeroom members for 12 grades for everything. Classmates, "odnoklassniki," end up being very close to each other after this time. It is a really significant cultural difference.
I understand that it is not uncommon to remain with the same CLASSROOM's worth of people, like 20 or so, for the whole time you're in school.
Definitely not uncommon elsewhere in Europe.
Wow, that's just insane to me. I knew some twins in high school who took the same coursework schedule like 90% of their high school years and we all thought it was exhausting to see the same person (your sibling) every single hour of the day.
Wait dont you have an class with which you have your core classes in the US? wtf.
You often take the same classes as a few people so you're familiar, but everyone is an adult doing their own thing. Nobody is forcing you to be with the same 20 people all the time and you can take courses out of order or with different professors.
I like how you say that as if we're the weirdos lol. How do you guys meet new people if you're stuck with the same few kids?
About 30% are in different classes based on choice like 3. Language (after danish and english ) and other. And you meet people at schoolbased parties.
No. That would be seen as weird in the US. Even in high school or middle school, there are classes like Band, Painting, Newspaper, Student Government, Cooking, Sports. Not everyone will have the same interests as you. In the US you are required to take a certain number of classes in each subject and pass them to get a diploma. Everyone has leftover slots to fill with other coursework. You are free to fill in those slots how you want.
Oh okay. I just assumed he meant class as in your graduating class. I didn’t know that graduating classes weren’t a thing over there. Interesting.
Graduating classes are still a thing over there (let's call them "grades"). It's more like, we don't have solid small class groups within those grades that remain together all the way through school. Do you follow?
Are you under the impression that we split up after middle school or something?
Kinda, yeah. Transition to high school is portrayed as such a big deal in various fiction that I was thinking it's something more than just going to the next grade?
For those that live in bigger cities (for reference I grew up in the suburbs of LA), high school introduces kids to a ton more students.
Basically, during elementary school, class sizes are smaller and one city may have 10 to 12 elementary schools. Then during middle/Junior high school the city may only have 2 to 4 schools where all of those 10 to 12 elementary schools need to be condensed into a more population dense school. Then for high school, there may only be 1 or 2 high schools in that same city. So now all kids or half the kids in the entire city are now at one school. You meet more people that you might have never met during your previous years of schooling.
This is my experience in a rather populated area, but for the most part if a city has over 100,000 people, there will be a similar pattern of multiple elementary schools, fewer middle schools, and 1 to 2 high schools.
Do all people who end one elementary school go to same middle school and then to same high school?
Usually you go to the school closest to you. So you'll go to middle school and high school with kids from the same area.
We do stay with the same class from 1st grade through the end of high school.
You did? Granted, my family moved between every grade up until 4th, and then again when I entered high school, so I can't really count that. But 4 years of high school, and I can count on one hand the number of students who were in all the same classes as me.
I meant class as in graduating class. Like I had ~160 people that I went from 1st grade through 12th grade with. Not literally in the same class room. But apparently in Russia they do literally stay in the same classroom with the same 20 people throughout all their schooling.
Not in a literal physical room, but with the same group of 20 or so people, yeah. That's how it is in Croatia from grades 1-8 and then 1-4 of high school.
Oh okay yeah I get what you're saying then. I do know that a lot of the students I graduated with had known each other since grade school, so that makes sense. Never applied to me, like I said we moved a lot.
I wonder if these are really small towns that people are talking about. In my town of 200K there were so many schools that if someone moved a couple blocks it was more convenient to change schools
We do stay with the same class from 1st grade through the end of high school. Are you under the impression that we split up after middle school or something?
To be fair, this varies by city/state/school system. If you have a single school that serves all of the K through 12 grades, sure, it's quite possible -- but not all of them do this.
I gotta be honest that sounds hella inflexible and boring. Zero control over your classes within your specialization. Are you saying anyone who wants to study computer science for instance all take the exact same classes? That sounds really silly. Even something like “Applied Math” that’s a broad ass topic. There are multiple things you could do with it. If you have some control over your classes you can focus on things your interested in within that specialization category...
Also staying in the same class with the same people your whole life up to 11th grade sounds like a recipe for a narrow world view. Not something to be particularly proud of...
I guess too each their own. Cost of education bit 100% you win. Education costs here are fucking stupid and getting worse. I have zero defense for that and wouldn’t even attempt it if I did.
In my country the Universities are not generic, but specialized in some topic. Be it information technology, electrotechnics etc. So if you go to IT at the start everybody basically has the same classes. For example we had Mathematical analysis in first grade. This is considered as something people get kicked out for (you can repeat the class only once). Then there were some basic programming classes, networks, logical circuits (or whatever it is in Eng), and then each "division" has some specialization so Networks, Applied informatics, etc. And each had some more classes for their thing.
But most of the time there wasn't much freedom. You could do additional classes, but there was minimum you had to do, and there was almost all required. Only last 2 years there was more to choose from.
Then we had some classes required like economics, and shit like that, that nobody cared about. I live in small country, so Universities here are not that big, we were like 500 people in 1 year and maybe 100 finished the Masters.
It's not perfect.
And the whole school structure here is Elementary school (9 years), High school (4 years), University (3 + 2). High schools are already focusing on some topics, but we also have generic gymnasiums that cover everything from Biology to programming.
And then there are 8 year Gymnasium where you kind of cheat the system by 1 year, as you go there from 5th grade from elementary school and end in 8 years.
This is in Slovakia and there is a lot of problems in it, but it's "free".
I gotta be honest that sounds hella inflexible and boring. Zero control over your classes within your specialization. Are you saying anyone who wants to study computer science for instance all take the exact same classes?
Yes. That's how it is in several EU countries as well, that I know of. You have very few gen ed classes and all the others are specialized to what you're studying.
I honestly like the fact that college is "inflexible and boring".
Our high schools (gymnasiums) are made up of entirely required subjects and you can't for an example take European History, AP Physics and whatever your class names are called. Everyone has to study everything. This means you can't for an example take "Trigonometry". The only class that exists is Mathematics. This means every student will learn the entire math curriculum. You have to do all social studies classes. All humanities. All STEM. You can only choose if you want a STEM-focused or a humanities-focused program, which means you might take arts for 2 years instead of 4 but that doesn't mean you'll skip some material. You'll just have a shorter amount of time available for covering a time period.
That's why I'd literally shoot myself if I had to take a history class when I already chose my major as Mathematics. HS makes you study every single class and I'm going to college to specialize, not to be a well-rounded individual since HS already took care of that.
i mean you might shoot yourself if you had to take a history class, but other people might appreciate the chance to take a class that they’re interested in outside their major
I kind of just went with history as an example, but what I meant was our high school already forces us to study everything. From our perspective, taking a class outside your major in college is a waste of time. After spending 4 years of broadening our horizons, the only time we get to specialize is in college so it makes no sense to use that time to further broaden our knowledge, we'll never specialize in anything then.
You might study everything on a broad level, but I highly doubt you, in high school, spend an entire semester studying the details of a specific period of centuries in history in a specific geographic area, learning from an expert on the topic, or an entire semester on the writings of a specific philosopher. I get your perspective, but the American liberal arts system lets us mix a bit and engage with people who think differently, and we still manage to specialize. I personally don't think it's fair to require everybody to know exactly what they want to do when they enter college. I was a Computer Science student but being able to take specific history, philosophy, and literature classes and engage and debate other students and professors was really nice. Maybe it wouldn't work for you, but it works for many of us.
This is key here. When I graduated, I majored in Political Science but had taken a lot of business courses and economics courses. When I wasn't able to find work in Politics, I started a career in business. I think our way is better for a changing economy because its not all just 100% one thing or the other.
I'm American born and raised, and the college system/higher education system still confuses the hell out of me. To be honest, there are very few people who actually understand it well lol
[deleted]
For someone who already knows what they want to do at the end of high school the UK system would be better but for people who don't know the US system is better. How many 18 year olds really know what they want to do? Especially since there are some subjects we never get exposed to in high school in the US (like geology, neuroscience, anthropology...). I had never taken a geology class before my freshman year at University and I liked it so I switched to that major. If I had had to pick a major while starting and not be able to switch, I wouldn't have ended up in the one I find the most interesting.
The US system lets you double-major or change majors (as long as you switch in your first or second year), which I think is great.
As for your last paragraph, it's like that in the US too. For example first year chemistry majors will be taking mostly the same chemistry classes but 3rd and 4th year students have more choices and flexibility for the upper level classes.
Not to mention we have general education college classes in the USA. My wife got a business degree in Brazil and every one of her classes related to her degree. Here in the USA we have to take 2 years of dumb classes that don't even related to our degrees. It's so stupid. To make matters worse, they are classes we have taken majority of our life in grade school.
Here in the USA we have to take 2 years of dumb classes that don't even related to our degrees.
That depends on your school and major. My major had a grand total of 5 GE classes (6 if you count the class to fulfill your writing requirement). Every other class was either a prereq teaching you skills you needed for advanced classes in your major, or the aforementioned major classes themselves.
In the US you can live with your parents instead of the dorms
It's weird because almost everything you just described is why I (and a lot of Americans) loved college so much here. It's the perfect time to break out and become the adult you were born to be. Think you want to study chemistry? Oh chemistry sucks I actually like architecture! Also my college you only had to live in the dorm for the first year and then most people move off campus.
Not all of these things are true in Canada (we still have "highschool" and higher eduction then that does cost money) but at least we've got some of the good stuff. For example, I also had no idea there was anywhere in the world where one needed to write up a coverletter or resume to get into college.
Middle/High school separation, for one thing.
In the US, middle school is usually the last grades students are in just one class.
Switching classes (departmentalization) allows each teacher to specialize in their subject. Also, some students are smarter than others. If all students do poorly on math exams, you know it's the math teacher is the problem.
US Schools also have differentiation, which means students are divided into classes based on how well they do on tests.
Comparing the math scores of a class that tends to perform poorly on test to a class that tends to perform highly is not a good tool for evaluating the teachers.
In Russia, you usually stay with the same class from 1st grade to 11th
I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you have the same 30 kids in a class for each grade?
What if someone moves out of the district?
In Russia, you just show your end-of-school exam grades (Unified Government Examination)
Most schools in the US work like that. We have two companies that make tests: the ACT and the SAT. Most schools, especially public schools will admit students with a particular score.
Some US schools only let you take generic classes until you pass certain tests.
Dorms.
Most people aren't in cities in the US. I'm surprised, given the size of Russia, that people aren't similarly spread out. I drove 40 miles a day to college, but anything more than 20 is considered a long way.
Our college town's populations are sometimes half college students.
Schools usually require freshmen to live on campus. They say it helps with the transition. I think it's mostly a money grab.
from the day one to the end, all students in your group will attend the same classes and take the same tests and exams.
A few US schools do this. It's generally referred to as a "cohort group".
American system seems like a computer game's research tree to me - "you must unlock A, B and C before studying D", and somehow, it's your burden to keep track of what classes you attended and got grades in.
You usually get an advisor, but you can generally declare a concentration on Day 1. Your advisor is supposed to help you get the right classes. The school, broadly, usually keeps track of classes and grades for you.
The main difference is you have options. You can pick which classes you take. This means you might have the choice between: Regression Analysis, Stochastic Processes, or Time Series Analysis; but you have to take one.
You also might need to have Sociology 101, Anthropology 101, or Psychology 101, but you get to choose which one. If you like, you can usually work this system to complete 2 or 3 related "majors" with classes the overlap.
Do you have the same 30 kids in a class for each grade?
What if someone moves out of the district?
Yes.
Well, people move. But if you don't move, you stay with the same group. If someone moves to my town, they get assigned a class and that's that.
For example, you move to Zagreb with your kid and enroll him in the first grade. There are 80 kids in the first grade in that school. So those 80 kids get divided to 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D. Your kid will be placed in one of those, for example 1D. And he'll be 'D' for the rest of elementary school unless, for whatever reason, you want to switch him out if he's being bullied, etc.
So first period D has Math, C has English, B has History, A has Gym. Second period D has History, etc... All together.
middle/ high school separation is pretty common, its not just the US. Asia and western europe do it.
colleges in the US are a big deal. pretty much everyone goes to school somewhere they dont live so dorms are necessary. even going to state school means youre traveling a few hours on average to get there. There are no cover letters, but applications (for none public schools at least) are done holistically. theyre not simply about grades. youre required to write essays about yourself to show who you are and they also look at leadership and extra curriculars. thats how someone who may not have a perfect SAT score but shows a lot of initiative and leadership abilities can get into Harvard over some quiet kid with no social skills but a perfect SAT.
The whole majors and minors thing isn't as confusing as you make it seem. For example, if a person wants to major in Criminal Justice, they'll start out taking introductory courses, and than move on to more advanced courses. Its the same with any other major. Its also very easy to keep track of which courses you need to take, and which courses require prerequisites. You just log into the college website, and it lists all the courses required for your degree. If you click on a course, it will tell you if it requires a prerequisite. One annoying thing is general education requirements, which are courses outside of your major. These typically include courses in psychology, sociology, history, math, literature, and science.
Even though having a major is required, having a minor is optional. For example, if a person chooses to minor in Legal Studies, they would take a sequence of law courses. Most college students don't have a minor.
Dorms. Everyone in America lives in dorms when in university/college. OK, so do some people here, the ones who came from another city. But if you live in a big city here, you probably will not leave it to get higher education, so you probably will live with your parents until you can get a job and rent a flat, which only usually happens during the last few years of the education.
So people live in dorms mostly for the experience. It is definitely not required. I graduated from College in the US and lived with my parents the entire time. Others might opt to rent an apartment together.
Majors and Minors aren't really what you're thinking either. A "major" is basically equivalent to the "specialization" you talk about. The main difference being you don't have to declare it as soon as you enroll. Once you actually choose your specialization, you'll have an adviser who will tell you what classes you need to enroll in. Mine had my transcript and basically gave me a list of classes I needed to take.
It's required by some unis if you are from out of town for 1-2 years. Exceptions can be if you live in town with parents, your older sibling also attends (for money reasons), or if you are a non traditional student (older, married, have kids, in the military, etc).
Then some universities don't care.
In an American liberal arts college you have a set of classes you have to take (all the basics plus your required classes for your specialization) and then you have a list of classes that fulfill your electives.
Basically your major is your specialization as you described and your electives are th ings that interest you specifically in that specialization. Keep in mind part of this is so that you can choose a class that interests you.
And some credits are basically the liberal arts courses you're going to take but if you don't want to take technical drawing you can take art history. They both count as a culture or art course. Saved my ass in college because I draw lime a drunken hobo but I memorize real good.
Keeping track of what you need to take isn't hard because you're talking only a couple classes a year that are off script and most colleges have something to let you review your credits earned and an advisor to remind you if you forgot to take a course l.
I agree with everything you’ve said here except the compulsory, tracked education. Due to the structure of my particular English program, I was able to get my BA, a minor in Anthropology, and a certificate degree in Teaching English as a Second Language. You can explore your interests within your field and differentiate yourself in interesting, and often useful, ways that can express your professional skills and interests to potential employers right on the resume and right after graduating.
Same in Bulgaria. 1st-12th grade, you can change schools at 4th and 7th you can go to a specialised college or stay. Then Uni.
Damn the same people for 11 grades. You must have some hardcore friendships but also hardcore bullying
That's true. But it also easier for teachers to see if something wrong with kid. This classes usually reffered by letters (like 1A, 1B etc., it's called "parallel"), and each class have a teacher to supervise it. It's a teacher that teach something (like mine was math teacher), and he or she solves problems in her class, contact parents and organise group activities. It usually the same teacher, they "take" class at 5th grade, and stay with it till graduation, so it's basically like you're have a third parent :D
In most school here you don't have to live in a dorm if you're local or above 18. I lived down the road from my university and just commuted and lived with my parents for a few years. It's just something universities do to try and mitigate students from being drunk assholes all the time. But that, sadly, should be none of the schools business if a student wants to do that. If our drinking laws weren't so puritanical I don't think the "collage crazy drunk" would be such a feared concept.
. Middle/High school separation, for one thing. In Russia, you usually stay with the same class from 1st grade to 11th
That really depends on where you live and how big the school is. When I was in school K-12(ages 5-18) all went to the same school building. Our class sizes were around 50-65 kids per grade. The other 9 schools in the country were the same. The school in town had multiple schools for grades K-6, 3 for 7th-9th and 1 for grades 10-12. Their graduating class sizes were 600-700 students. Having all grades in the same building would have required a large campus to have enough room for more than 8,000 students. The real estate just isn't there. They would have to knock down multiple city blocks in order to build a campus large enough. My high school grew and is still growing due to multiple housing developments going up in their school district. They didn't have enough room for all of the influx of new students even after building up the old school. They eventually built a new building for grades 9-12 and use the old building for K-8.
Just to clear some things up, as an American;
-Not every student lives in dorms. Just if you travel out of the area. But due to all colleges basically being privately owned, the stuff taught varies drastically. It’d be like the college in your town doesn’t teach the path you want to go, so you move elsewhere. Or the town nearby only had a really shitty college, so you go to a better one elsewhere. For me personally, I wanted to study Japanese. Only one college in my state had that as a major (only as a minor; which basically means you can study it but wont get a degree). So I moved several hours away to study what i wanted to.
-Majors is just the course you’re studying, minors is like a thing you’re studying as well but dont plan to make a career of it. But it looks good on a resume if you’re, for example, a major in criminal psychology and a minor in ethics. Or something.
-The reason classes are all split up per person is due to conflicting schedules. School up until college is on a set schedule, but in college you can choose to take only morning classes, only classes on certain days, etc, which causes you to vary from other students in the same major. Also many students take college level courses in high school that exempt them from taking that class in college. I did this, and it allowed me to skip three classes.
-Yeah keeping track of grades sucks
Majors are the exact same as specializations only you get to choose what classes you take, so long as they fit the requirements of the major. For example, I majored in Liberal Arts and the requirements for that were taking 21 credits (around 7 classes) of any liberal arts discipline and then taking on a liberal arts minor as well (same idea as a major, just requires less credits).
In general, US colleges require 120 credits to receive a degree: 40 for your major, 40 all University core classes (classes that everyone has to take like basic math, science, humanities) and 40 electives. It's really not that weird, the only thing I can see seeming weird is the fact that you get to choose all your classes and make your own schedule each semester.
I gotta day as an immigrant I’m super jealous of the major and minor options. I wish I got my undergrad here and got a chance to explore my interests instead of being locked in in a government selected program for a profession I chose when I was 15. At least I got the US grad school experience.
Re: the major/minor thing, teachers and administrators are assigned a batch of students to be their advisor.
So once or twice a year, you go meet someone who has no idea who you are, looks at your grades and graduation requirements, and asks you what the fuck you're doing. You say I'll get em next time, they stamp something, and then go back to their actual job duties.
I think it's better at a small school, but faculty at a big school can't be fucked to care.
Dorms. Everyone in America lives in dorms when in university/college.
That isn't true. Most American university students are commuter students. There just aren't enough dorms for everyone.
We have people that explain what classes we need to take because the system is so complicated.
The difference between a major and minor is pretty confusing, and there's also a difference between a minor and a specialization in medical study. A major is your main area of study that requires the largest number of relevant classes. A minor requires less classes, but you still earn a degree. And if you take specialized classes at a school within the school, you can earn an honors designation with your major!
Certainly sounds less complcated, more logical and way cheaper.
In Russia, you choose a specialization when you enroll (e.g. Applied Math), and from the day one to the end, all students in your group will attend the same classes and take the same tests and exams. American system seems like a computer game's research tree to me - "you must unlock A, B and C before studying D", and somehow, it's your burden to keep track of what classes you attended and got grades in. WTF. Here, you just get a ready-made complete curriculum, no need to do anything but study.
This sounds worse than what we have in the US honestly. Personal experience here, but I studied Computer Science in university. I had a fairly large list of required classes, just to make sure that I knew what I needed to know, but I was then required to take several electives, and this allowed me to customize my schooling to some extent.
Going into very low detail about how operating systems deal with security isn't something that every programmer needs to understand, so it shouldn't be part of the standard curriculum, yet if you are interested in it, you can take electives that go into that low level, so you understand it and can apply it.
Likewise, every software engineer should understand the polynomial hierarchy (a way to classify how "hard" problems are to solve with computers), but very few of them will need to learn and understand parameterized complexity and the W-hierarchy, so it makes sense to force everyone to take a class that covers the polynomial hierarchy, but to give an optional elective that covers parameterized complexity for those students who wish to learn it.
Just a remark about the cover letter thing. For most people in the USA the cover letter doesn't matter in the slightest. If you have the grades and the test scores you will get into most universities without putting any effort into the cover letter. However, many people grow up in extremely disadvantageous situations and the cover letter allows those students to tell their story to the university people and they can showcase their perseverance, dedication, sacrifice, etc. At least that's how I see it as an american
Here in Latvia most of things touched is much closer to USA type.
Well i didn't knew russia has education system similar to that of india
Dorms
Some colleges are more "commuter schools" and everyone just commutes on campus for classes and only a few stay/live in dorms. Many schools have dorms, but only for first or second year and maybe some grad students. At the school I went to, everyone was pretty much required to live in a dorm first year so you could get the college experience and then you were free to live wherever afterwards.
Paid education and students debt.
Like everything in America, everything is independent. The Federal gov't made availability of student loans very easy 5 years ago and as such, schools have an incentive to raise prices because students can and will pay it. Many students get scholarships to drastically reduce the 'sticker price' of their education, but some schools are just super expensive. It's not uncommon to go to 4 years of undergrad and then graduate school for 1-3 years and graduate with $250,000 in student loans to pay back. It's not exactly common, but it's not uncommon.
Majors/minors.
What you described at your school is pretty much what it's like, except that each school also has "core curriculum" that students must take outside their major and many students don't pick a major until 2nd or 3rd year after getting all the core classes out of the way. When you pick a major, you often have the same people in most of your classes, just as you described (though some schools are pretty large, so you might not. My Wife's university had something like 50,000 students whereas mine had 1700).
WTF even that is?
This is the part I started reading your comment with a Russian accent.
I do like how they do pre-med though, I think having a degree before you get your medical training helps give you a foundation, gets the partying out of your system a bit and just means you're that bit older/ more mature by the time you start seeing patients
To be honest, the Russian system sounds very strange to me (European)
but our higher education is still mostly free. If you have low grades
It is also pretty abysmal by comparison to the USA and UK.
Russia and Brazil are very similar :D
Though I am too a bit baffled by the US ed system, the points you rise are I think actually great.
Staying in the same class - well okay maybe that is a good thing and I can't rise any valid counterpoint, but I have changed class 3 times between 1 - 11th class which is a standard thing and I got rid of all the bullies and dicks and any other distracting factors and remained friends with people I cared about plus got a new set of people to get to know.
Cover letters? That's the stuff, although it is not common where I come from I highly support such system. Your grades do not speak of your interest and capabilities in some area, especially if that area is not exactly taught or your teacher is a dick. An example - I had a friend who was a superb programmer and worked on real commercial projects since he was 15, hell there is Linux distribution that flashes his name on boot screen because he commited to kernel when he was 17. Naturally he wanted to get a CS degree but didn't get in because all he had to show was his leaving report which showed he did terribly in maths (which is an important part of CS as you might imagine). Now, was he bad at math? Truth is no one knows because we accused our teacher of improper conduct so he chose to let us all fail... And now lots of people that wanted to get in tech-related schools are pretty much fucked because they take only leaving reports in consideration.
Dorms - again I think this depends on personal preference, but I have lived in dorm/rented flat since 14 as my school was pretty far away. I dare to claim that I have acquired most of the adult "daily operation" stuff by the age of 17 and was pretty much independent by that time which was certainly great (although I still really suck at this whole adulting game). Although it's just my belief I think this is the best way towards independence, as you are not directly thrown into it, it is more like easing into it.
Paid education - okay I believe that everyone should have access to education based on their capabilities, not financial situation as that only promotes poorness amongst poor. But I also believe in very tough entrance exams/criteria.
Major/minor programs - My uni is about to implement them, so again some personal opinion on this matter - almost everyone here is already doing double degree simulatneously (because job market is fucked and so is our future) and it really sucks trying to juggle two different schools but with major/minor they create the program with this in mind so it won't happen that you will have to travel across the whole town 4 times per day and have 3 different exams on the same day. It is really common for people to get "adjacent" or related degree to their first one even now (I study law and lots of folks are getting economics or politology degree, I plan to take bachelors degree in computer science as I would like to persue career in software/IP law) and major/minor has this in mind instead of students and that's just great I think we are losing a lot by staying only inside the scope of one field.
As I said, the whole edu system is strange to me but not in areas you have chosen, I would aim more at charter schools for example (because what the fuck). But again it's all based on my personal preferences
This was informative, thanks for sharing
This was informative, thanks for sharing
I think in most cases I'd rather pay for a US college degree over a free Russian degree
Some of my favorite chemistry and physics professors are Russian so I wouldn't question Russian education as at very least equal to American
Huh, I'm Brazilian and our educational system is pretty much what you described for Russia. Except this moronic administration is trying to make it exactly like the US (no, seriously. They want to apply the same stuff that is drowning the US folk in debt here)
Can you ask Putin to put a bug in Trump’s ear about this free education?
Bad bot
I want to go back to a village school may not have teachers for upper grades obviously.
That’s totally not obvious to me. You’re saying if I grew up in a small town in Russia in 2018 that there is a chance that if I wanted to go to high school I may have to travel to a larger town? Wow.
College is seen here as a time where you are first given a lot of freedom to sort things out for yourself while still giving you some safety barriers to navigate those things. College here isn't seen as a means to educating you for a specific job, but educating you how to think and do independent learning on things you don't know. Not to say you won't learn what you need to excel in your field, but you're going to learn a lot more too.
From my experience, programmers educated in Russia tend to be very good at their trade, but understand less why they're doing something, only that it is what works. Colleges in America want you to understand the why first and foremost, so that you know why you do the thing that works and why it works and hopefully that will lead to insight on how to create the next evolution.
To explain American college better, to get a degree here, you will have to take certain core classes that will give you a well rounded education. In fact, it's not well known, but some students only take the core classes and get what is called a "general studies" degree. If you want more than that, you'll have to pick a major. If you want a degree in Computer Science or Mathematics, you pick that and that becomes your major. Some students along the way find out they really enjoy another subject and end up taking enough additional classes to get a "minor". It's a much less formal thing and basically just says "I didn't get a degree in this, but I am highly knowledgable in the subject." It's not really recommended to pick a minor because it just adds work for not much additional gain, but sometimes there's enough overlap in courses that a Biology major might be able to get a Chemistry or Physics minor with one or two additional classes. Usually, it's that someone switched subjects late in their degree path and ended up with enough classes for the minor but not a real degree in the original field of study.
Picking the classes isn't as difficult as it sounds. You'll be given a list of all the classes you need to take for your major before your first year and you'll work with an advisor to help make sure that you're getting the classes you need when you need them. They will also give you a typical four year plan that shows how you should attempt to structure your classes so they all fall at the right times. Where most of your freedom comes is in your electives -- the additional classes you have to take to get your degree but are allowed choices. For instance, you may have to take some kind of physical education class, but it can be something common like swimming or something not so common like sailing. If you have a computer science degree, something like compiliers will be a required class, but you could chose a class in Computational Methods or Numerical Analysis. You also have several classes that will be "take anything you want here, it doesn't matter" that you are expected to use to explore other fields of study but most students use to take more in depth classes in their major.
Each semester you'll meet with the advisor and go over the classes you have and the ones you need, and they will council you on what you should be planning to take next year. They might know that without Calculus 232 you won't be able to get into that advanced AI class you need to graduate and the AI class is only offered once every two years, so you need to take that Calculus class now so you aren't stuck in school an extra year.
Again, American college expects you to be an adult and be an interactive partner in your own education, not a child who just does what they're told.
American system seems like a computer game's research tree to me - "you must unlock A, B and C before studying D"
damn, that's actually pretty spot on.
Also transferring between colleges (trees) might cause some loss of credits
[deleted]
Being 4'11", I both fear and respect you.
I'm Dutch, 1.80m, and never wore high heels in my life which is fairly normal in the Netherlands.
You can't bike with that shit.
I'm Portuguese, also 1.80m, and also never wore high heels in my life.
Oh, I should mention, I'm a dude.
If you were stealing my comment, at least you could have properly spelled Croatian.
Croissant
Did i spell it correctly ?
It’s Cravat
Well I'm not and you're really really really really short for your sex you know that?
Maybe you should get that checked out together with that weird thing you do where you're not wearing gratuitous amounts of hair gel—conform to your gender roles goddamnit.
1.80m is by no measure "really x4 short" for males. The average Dutch male may be 1.84m but 1.80m is in most countries above average.
Yeah I'm poking fun at the height of Dutch people and it's flagrantly exaggerated. I often see on the internet that most Dutch females are above 1.80m which is just not true at all.
That all the bourgeois males wear frigging hairgel and smel like it is absolutely true though—Jesus Christ.
Wow...You are an absolute prick.
I'm Dutch
Kom op man, geef die Amerikanen nou niet het verkeerde beeld van ons
Vriendelijkheid is landverraad.
Er komt een Tsunami van vriendelijke Amerikanen die onze cultuur niet willen respecteren — en maar glimlachen.
Dit was lomp en gemeen. Je zou je moeten schamen.
Ik heb echt geen idee wat er mis mee is en waarom iedereen zo boos is maar ik geniet maar van de aandacht die ik er van krijg.
Nederlanders zijn bovengemiddeld lang. De gemiddelde lengte van mannen wereldwijd is maar ongeveer 1,70m, of 1,75 in Europa. Bovendien is lengte voor mannen min of meer wat gewicht is voor vrouwen - niet een onderwerp om grapjes over te maken.
Daarnaast is er de generalisatie van Portugezen in de tweede helft. Dit is discriminatie op basis van nationaliteit, en het is net zo oneerlijk als racisme of sexisme. Het is lomp en oneerlijk.
Edit: en wat betreft "conform to your gender roles, goddammit" dat is sexisme, wat nu pas bijna een kwart eeuw niet meer acceptabel is in Nederland dus het is je vergeven dat je dit hebt gemist.
Nederlanders zijn bovengemiddeld lang. De gemiddelde lengte van mannen wereldwijd is maar ongeveer 1,70m, of 1,75 in Europa. Bovendien is lengte voor mannen min of meer wat gewicht is voor vrouwen - niet een onderwerp om grapjes over te maken.
Ik dacht altijd dat dat een internetstereotype was — ga me niet vertellen dat dat nog echt speelt.
Daarnaast is er de generalisatie van Portugezen in de tweede helft. Dit is discriminatie op basis van nationaliteit, en het is net zo oneerlijk als racisme of sexisme. Het is lomp en oneerlijk.
Nee, dat gaat over Nederlandse mannetjes, dat hairgel dragen.
Geen idee of Portugezen het ook doen maar je ruikt het praktisch op straat hier. Het is ook de helft van de tijd in zo'n dodelijk-wapenkapsel.
Is every single one of you continuing the satire or are you all just lacking basic perception? I mean, telling a guy that 1.80m is really really short is obviously a pisstake, not of the guy but Dutch cultural norms (horrible hair gel included).
r/gatekeeping
Time between "I'm Dutch" and the word "bike", 0.5 nanoseconds. :-D
The last time I used a bike is actually at least 20 years ago.
It's mostly public transport, legs, and a longboard for me—the last is so possibly even more impossible with high heels.
Not with that kind of attitude. We Americans can run in high heels. How else would we escape the escaped dinosaurs.
u/Myfourcats1
I need you to open Paddock 9
I love how in American films female action characters often wear high heels and you're just "not supposed to question it" or how Sarah Kerrigan has high heels growing out of her carapace.
same length, dutch too, i alove wearing high heels, biking with it is easy just pretend youre on bare feet
Say, do normal, then you're already doing crazy enough.
Pfah, high heels—only Eva Jinek is mad enough for that.
I am (F) 6'2", have never worn heels, can't get them to fit my giant man feet (13-14 mens,) but would love to :(
There are some Drag Queens like RuPaul that have a similar height to you. They bust out some awesome heels. There must be an option for you out there!
Absolutely. There are, and I have ordered shoes off the internet, but it came with a bunch of issues aside from fit. The colours were off what they looked like online, the textures were horrible, some were just hideous. I bought eight pairs and returned six. If I lived closer to a city centre, I'd probably be able to find something more easily, but I live rurally on a island.
Also, google drag queen shoes. I wouldn't wear any of those irl.
Wasn't there a whole musical made about high heels and boots for drag queens? Like some guys shoe shop/factory was about to go out of business but then he met a drag queen at a bar and they started working together and made a successful business?
Muh self inflicted gendered oppression.
Your spine doesn't love it.
It's not something I would do frequently, but I'd like to have the option!
You can't bike with that shit.
checks out
I totally want to design a heel friendly pedal now.
[removed]
I'm sorry I can't handle the amount of freedom like the freedom to recite a theocratic pledge of allegiance as a six year old that those units would bring.
My godless commie units work just fine.
By the time we get to high school it’s allowed to be optional.
I think they really drilled the fear of the Soviet Union coming to destroy everything into the Baby Boomers back in the day, and hence a lot of xenophobia. Meanwhile Europe was rebuilding from horrible wars and doing a lot of introspection and seem to agree that “gee, that sucked, let’s avoid that”. Henceforth a lot of differences of opinions.
I read that as 180m and was like, "Damn, met my soulmate on Reddit."
Qualifications for soulmate: must be able to literally crush my enemies. Beneath her feet That is all.
Yeah you can it's fine, as long as you don't use your feet to stop or slow down, which would likely ruin the shoes.
Okay, you can't skateboard with high heels.
Also you can't walk in them; that weird form of locomotion when wearing them is not becoming of the name "walking".
I used to be like that, but then something happened to me one day as I was getting healthier, now wearing heels is seriously no big deal. Something to do with body composition and centre of mass, not muscle tone (I think).
[removed]
Yes, when I was still at House Absolute.
I thought you wore wooden shoes.
I tried those more often than high heels and I'm not entirely decided on the matter which of both is more diabolically uncomfortable.
They were also never actually the common man's footwear and they were only used in a specialized trade where it actually made sense to have shoes made of wood.
This is the most Dutch thing I've read this year.
I'm also always on time, never wear makeup, work part-time, don't spend any money and do not believe that the concepts of honesty and friendliness are unifiable and I choose the former.
Just got to Amsterdam Bikes Bikes everywhere
Haha nice
Teas hoes and hair? Or tea shoes and hair?
The air; the e, a, s, o, s, a, n, d and h are silent.
Sounds hot!
The air; the e, a, s, o, s, a, n, d and h are silent.
Sounds cool!
As another 4'11" person, I can say that the Netherlands is terrifying.
Im 5'2" and I agree
Being 4'10, both fear and I respect you. That's how it works, right?
Hello fellow 4'11" person!
Hello fellow 4’11” redditor!
5'0 here, I feel you :(
Under 5 feet? To the front of the line you go! (Regarding potential dates)
To be fair, that's not uniquely an American thing. The average height for American women is 5'3", which is the same as the average Australian female. British women are only slightly taller, at 5'3.5"
Edit: [Source] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide)
Where are you getting those numbers? 5'3 is super short here. Average for women is 5'6 last I heard, 5'9 for men.
I'm 5'6 and taller than most women I meet.
Is it regional then? I'm seriously struggling to think of where all these 5'0 and 5'1 women are to make the average 5'3.
There’s a ton in California.
I live in the US, Missouri.
I've been all over both coasts, maybe that's it? Ya'll are short lol.
Really, all over both coasts? Because I'm the tallest woman on my dad's side (of, like, 20+ women) at 5'6" because Mexican genes run way short.
From other replies it seems like the Hispanic population is what's lowering the average height. The shortest woman on one side of my family is 5'9...
Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Native populations... Your family is abnormally tall, and therefore the outliers. It's strange you try to generalize the entire country's population height based off your family.
I'm not? I just brought that up to counter your bringing up your family. Like I said earlier, my roommate at 5'5 is the shortest person I know, aside from one ex. Average height of the women I know (about 30-40 of them) is probably 5'7
That's so interesting. I'm not sure if you live in an ethnic bubble or what, but a vast majority of races' average woman's height is 5'5" or below (with most, based on a cursory glance through the Wikipedia article on this, being closer to 5'3"). Only the Scandinavian and some eastern Slavic countries are above that average.
I mean, I'm a 5'10.5 woman, and the shortest woman in my family (on either of my parents' sides) is 5'6. While I absolutely know that most women are shorter than I am, it still boggles my mind that 5'3 would be the average - I always thought 5'5 was the average. The vast majority of my female friends are between 5'4 and 5'7, with more being taller than 5'7 than shorter than 5'4.
What a weird bubble I seem to live in.
Right, I would think the average was 5'5" as well, but then I think of both my mom and sister who are 5'3" or slightly shorter. It would seem that most women are around my height (5'6") but then again, both my roommates/best friends in college were 5'10"-5'11". Selective mating probably plays a factor to some degree, I have zero data to back this up, but it's reasonable, given our cultural expectations, that taller women tend to go for taller men, bringing their offspring height up, and so on and so forth. A positive feedback system, per say.
Except me! 😂
I doubt the average is 5'3" but I'm in Texas and see woman under that all the time.
People massively overestimate their (and others) height.
Due to various hospital checkups I know for a fact that I am 5’3” yet people don’t believe me, they think I’m at least 3-4 inches taller.
I'm a guy who is an honest 5'5" and I've had people argue with me.
That can't be right, I'm 6' and you're barely shorter than me!
Bro, you are 5'8" at best, and that's okay, calm down.
I'm 5'10" and the number of guys who are shorter than me but say they're 6' is funny.
I'm 6'0" on the dot, and several of my friends who are clearly 5'10" say they are 6'0". It's weird.
A friend of min is 6'. She says she's 5'12". It's not always easy being a tall woman.
I’m 5’11 7/8”. I claim I’m 6’0” cause it is easier to say and close enough. But technically I’m a filthy liar.
I'm 5'9.75" but I say I'm 5'10"
I'M LIVING A LIE!
self-esteem is rough. and dating under 6' in the new millennium is a fibber's game. XD
i'm 5'10" and always claim it. my dad is 6'2" and i'm not sad. rather, i'm happy i only got a few of my mom's short genes. she's 5'4".
Both you and your mom are average heights, so I don't see how you could feel sad.
It's about chicks not parents
Well dang, if you can't find someone who is into you at all, your height is not the problem.
Yup solid 5'10'' here and girls are the ones more often wrong in my experience. I think it is often because they forget that their true height is often much shorter then their "shoe height".
Nothing like a 5'4'' girl wearing 4''+ heals telling me that I'm a bunch shorter then I am because I'm wearing super flat running shoes. No you think we are about the same height because you are on your tippy toes. Take the shoes off, you'll shrink.
I'm 5'10(f,) barefoot and I must have extra long legs because I find legroom the thing that bothers me most. In Baltimore I'm super tall in NYC there are a lot more of us.
Have a Berger Cookie for me, please.
I keep hearing about how great they are...I really need to see for myself.
Shit if you didn't grow up on them, maybe not. It's a loooot of chocolate.
I'm a hair under 5'11 and a woman. I constantly get men slightly shorter than me insisting "what? you're at least 6'1, because you're taller than me and I'm six feet."
As a short guy, I've always undersold my shortness. I'm 5' 7" but always say I'm shorter. It helps the illusion when my wife is 5' 10" and wears heels. I can only imagine the ball busting she gets for towering over me, but we're both confident people so it's not awkward.
I’m 6’3”, and if I’m feeling like a dick when people ask me, I say 6’0” even.
i get this. i am a legit 6'4" and have had guys that are like 5'9" tell me they are over 6 feet while i tower over them
they're being polite to you. accept their pity and move on
Yup.
I'm 6'2"- 6'3" depending on shoes.
I meet people all the time that say "Wow, you're pretty tall".
When I say "Yeah, I'm 6'2"" they go on about how I must be taller than that because they themselves are 6" tall and I'm much taller than they are.
No bro. You're 5'10", that's why I'm 4 inches taller than you.
Men seem to have this obsession with being 6' tall.
I personally love being 5'10''. It's the average height of American men...basically it means that everything fits me. Airplane seats? no problem, cars? fit me wonderfully, clothes? Everything is my size!, etc.
I'm legit 6' and it sucks, everything is 2 inches too fucking small. I feel for people that are actually tall.
it's a dating thing. the meat market claims 6' as the minimum required male height. XD
I'm actually 6' on the dot which is really quite tall for an Asian ethnic and always thought that ideal height should be relative.
It's kinda strange to see some couples who are like 6'2" (M) and 5'1" (F). From behind, they look like a checkmark holding hands.
Yeah I'm 6'4" wife is 5'2" people comment on it regularly.
I've seen worse (better?). My cousin is 6'5". His wife... 4'11".
My husband is 6’4 while I’m 5’0. I’ve been mistaken for his daughter several times. :/
As another 6’2-6’3 guy, I relate to this hard. It’s even more annoying when someone the same size as me (or sometimes slightly smaller) tries telling me he’s 6’4.... come on bro you’re fooling nobody
I have a cousin that maintains he's 6'5", but we're the exact same height. It's laughable how insistent he is that I don't know how tall I am.
I'm right about your height and people don't often tell me I must be taller, but when they ask and I say 6'2" (or 6'3" - truthfully I think I'm about 6'2.5") I just get "really?". Like, does everyone think I'm lying? I don't understand the point of the question.
My goodness yes! I knew a guy who claimed he was 6’3”. I have friends that are 6’5”. This guy was maybe 5’11 in a good day? My 6’ friend was definitely taller.
He’d brag about it all the time and it was really hard not to snicker.
I dated a girl who was 5'2. She came up to like, my armpit. My roommate is 5'5 and definitely on the short side. Actually, come to think of it, she's the shortest girl I actually know, outside my ex. Also, are you always wearing heels?
When my now-ex and I got together I was looking at his driver's license (I think we were comparing goofy pics or something) and his license said he was 5'10" or something (it's self-reported, at least in some states). I started laughing and he was like "What?" "Um...I'm 5'7" and you are shorter than me." He didn't believe me. We had to measure. He's like, 5' 5.5" at BEST. Heh.
Lots of people probably do that intentionally. I'm a woman who is 6'2" and I've had shorter men try very hard to tell me that I must be 6'4" because they are "definitely" 6'2"!
[Here.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide)
Now I want to know what population they measured for that. Anything under 5'4 for a girl is short. She'll stand out as being short too. Did they measure old people or something?
Probably depends a bit on where you live in the U.S. I'm 5'6" and tower over most of the women around me. I've always been considered fairly tall from the time I was a child.
Non-hispanic white women in the U.S. average 5'5". The other populations measured shorter.
Average height for an American woman is (and has been for a while) 5'3.8".
Being female and 5'6" or taller in the US puts her in the 78.4 percentile.
As someone who has dated a few 5'6''+ girls they are more rare then many think. A lot of US girls wear shoes that make then 1-3'' taller at all times...(think shoes like this, this, or this.
So basically when all the 5'3-4'' girls always wear wedges (I have three older sisters who do this all the time...at least when I see them) than it's easy to think there are a lot more 5'6'' girls out there. Don't believe it!
Are you including Hispanic women? They tend to be much shorter and there are a lot of them in the US.
Well, they average it out. Say 9 people are 5'5 and one is like, 4'0, You'd say that most people are 5'5 and that that is the average, but the statistics would say much lower.
Hispanic populations are shorter than average.
5' 4" is the average American height for women, statistically speaking, according to the source listed by \u\JMS1991
According to the CDC, it's 5'5 (just checked). No idea where the Wiki article is sourcing 5'3 from.
I'm not sure where 5'3" comes from either...the data on wiki states 5'4", with a further breakdown by ethnicity.
Yeah. In the UK its normally quoted at 5'6 for women and as a 5'4 guy it definitely seems to be correct.
5’3 is definitely short in the UK. I’m just under 5’4 and it’s really unusual for me to meet someone shorter than me
我身高一米七十六公分。还算可以吧？
I imagine that "women" include shrinked older ladies. Also Asian-Americans probably lower the average a bit as well.
That slates all American as a single group, or a racial group, so it's way off depending on what state you in. Come to Cali and your in the land of the little people, come to mass and the land of the giants.
Funny, I was short in PA, tall in CT... CA is too big to get a feel for in the little time I've spent. 5'10" measured.
Wierd, I was in San Fran and I just saw the tip of a lot of people's heads, and in mass I'm about average height at 6'0
SF has a significantly higher Asian population which may contribute. No idea.
TIL the average woman here is like 2.5" shorter than I thought. On the other hand though, I probably suck at guessing a person's height just by looking at them
Yesss, I'm average for my country!
All hail Britannia
Then why do people call me short when I’m 5’2?!
shit I'm a giant.
The average height for American women is 5'3"
Ya, I'm average!
No way, I'm 5'3 in Aus and I'm always one of the smallest. Very rarely do I meet somebody shorter.
AAAAND here I am at 6'2"
Wow, I had no idea the average height for American women was that short. I'm 5'7" and I knew I was a bit taller than average but I didn't realize by how much.
Oh. I'm the average height for men in US/Canada. Neat. But, I'm a woman, so it's kinda...interesting.
That figure is observably incorrect.
What makes you say that? [Here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide) is my source.
Not youmakemesoangry but, maybe they live in an area with few Asian people. The US averages go up about 1 to 2 inches without Asians. This combined with the normal 1-2 inch height exaggeration and this person may think that the average height for women is ~5'8".
What does that even mean?
It means that it doesn't line up with his small scoped personal experience.
Sure but Brits are short as fuck.
Don't know where you get your info haha
One of 4 brothers who are all over 6ft2. British as you like.
That isn't true at all.
Women in America also have this bizarre insecurity that they can't be taller than men they date while wearing heels. It's an absolute deal breaker for many of them.
Women wanting men to be taller than them has been pretty consistent everywhere I've heard of.
Desiring a man taller than them is one thing. Taller than them while wearing shoes that make you appear 5" taller is another. As is openly demanding something people have no control over in their dating profiles. I prefer women with a full head of hair, and I like boobs but I'd never write in a dating profile "baldies swipe left" or "C cup or larger only".
You wouldn't. But most guys I know wouldn't go on a date with a girl unless she posted lots of profile pics that includes her body type.
Wanting to see what someone actually looks like isn't demanding anything overly specific of their body though, just what they look like in general.
Taller than them while wearing shoes that make you appear 5" taller is another.
I am so tall, I will take what I can get. I envy women who have this much choice.
Princess complex
Nice name tho, hopefully we have a good year this year
Yeah - I know it's not all women, but it must be extremely discouraging to see dating app bios that say "if you're under 6' don't even talk to me." Like, you can cure cancer or look like Brad Pitt, nothing you ever do will make you a valid option to her simply because of your height.
And 6' is a pretty unrealistic expectation for something people don't have control over. I can understand not being physically attracted to someone shorter than you, but its another to demand someone be at least 3-5" taller than them in most cases. Imagine the shit a man would get if they said don't talk to me if you weigh more than me.
When I was using dating apps I contemplated putting something like that on my profile after seeing all the height requirements women were putting on their's. It seems like such a double standard that some women would be okay with having a height requirement but would throw a fit if they saw a guy with a weight requirement
Most women don't want to date men who weigh less than them.
Tbh, that's only because you are dutch. American women are not exactly short. Actually, I'm Spanish, and 1.75 for a woman is quite tall here. But I'm, 1.79 (I'm a man), and I remember that in the Netherlands, almost every man and woman were taller than me. Here in Spain I almost never see a woman taller than me.
The dutch are offcourse on average the tallest people in the world.
I'm Dutch. I'm 1.60. I'm the tiny girl everywhere I go xD
[deleted]
Heheh, I have spent a couple of month in the northern part of Norway, and most people there were very short (for Dutch standards). They were Sami though, not the standard tall, blonde Norwegians. Anyway, I never felt so comfortable about my height as I did there! I was completely normal! I miss that.
I’m 5’2” in the US and considered short, not average. I could be wrong, but I think it depends on the race. 5’3” may be the “average” American, but the average white, American female is actually 5’5”-5’6”.
As a male of 187 centimeters, or 6'2, I have literally never been called tall here in the Netherlands. Went to the USA a year ago with three Dutch mates, all equal height or taller. Felt like we were in a gang or rockband the way everyone looked at us in awe.
6'0" is the bare minimum for "tall" in the US, I'm 6'0" (1.83m). You can tell because that's what all the women demand in their dating bios, "if you're under 6'0" swipe left xoxo".
All my friends are around my height but I notice when I go to more populated cities that I am actually taller than most, despite feeling average at home.
5'8" swedish male here
Im sad
168cm (5'6) Finnish male here
I'm happy
Come to asia.You will be happy.
Definitely depends which country. Asia is so large and diverse that height can vary quite a bit.
Spanish people and Dutch people are both Europeans, but you wouldn't exactly group them under similar height.
[deleted]
Dem genghis genes
I'm a 1.90 tall Dutch male. Living in Taiwan was interesting. Let's say I had the opening tune of 'Attack on Titan' play in my head often.
Same bruh
6"4 dutch guy here, I am groot
..... Being french I hate you northerners. You tall lanklets x)
I've been to the Netherlands because of my Dutch girlfriend. In Argentina the average height is 1.79m. I'm 1.82. I go to the Netherlands and I'm instantly feeling tiny. WHAT DO YOU PUT IN YOUR CHEESE AND KROKETS, PEOPLE?
Proud "tall" Dutch woman here. 1.76 according to my ID and tend to add around 10 cm to that with heels. I've had people ask me how my SO feels about that. He's like, 2 meter something. We're good.
I’m 5’8” (and part Dutch by heritage haha) and need to move to the Netherlands. I love heels and wear them anyway but American men are really varied in height and my 5’7” ex had a huge issue with me wearing heels.
As a short man at a towering height of 5'5", I for one don't give a shit about a woman's height anymore. Heels or no heels. I say, wear them.
[deleted]
lemme get another hug?
Ugh, any guy who is that threatened by a woman wearing heels is weak. Good he's your ex :)
Also, people who are my height (1,65m), complaining that they're short.
In Brazil, I'm just average.
Are you a male or a female?
Just got back from Amsterdam. I'm 5'1" and felt like a child compared to all the Dutch women.
I think I remember reading somewhere that the Dutch are the tallest people on Earth on average, so this makes sense.
You dutchies are just super tall. Probably have to be, otherwise the windmills would have eaten you all centuries ago. They only chase small prey.
Hahaha yeah, never thought about that. I'm 6'2 apparently, I thought I was like 5'8 bc I didn't understand the measurement conversion and had only heard that 6'2 was like SUPER tall. Lol, I was the shortest guy in my class.
It's not SUPER tall. It's just moderately tall. You don't get into super tall until you're past around 6'7 or something
Exactly. Basketball player size is super tall. Just seems like people think that way.
I'd consider 6'2" sort of the beginning of the tall range personally.
5'9"-6'2" is probably average range
For the US.
[deleted]
No, the Dutch food intake became better. It used to be that the Dutch were the smallest people in Europe, but thanks to trading the food became more plentiful. Scientists also think it depends on the diet. The Dutch have always ate a lot of fish and (cow) milk. Obviously, there are still some holes in that theory, but the Dutch did grow taller on average more than other similar populations, going from the shortest to the tallest population in Europe.
No, the Dutch food intake became better. It used to be that the Dutch were the smallest people in Europe, but thanks to trading the food became more plentiful. Scientists also think it depends on the diet. The Dutch have always ate a lot of fish and (cow) milk. Obviously, there are still some holes in that theory, but the Dutch did grow taller on average more than other similar populations, going from the shortest to the tallest population in Europe.
im ~2m tall, i feel my neck is permanently tilted downwards from having to look down at everyone all the time. lol
My sister is the same height as you, she is so sick of people calling her short and tiny, haha.
I mean, I'm 1.96, and I still see dudes (and the occasional ladies) literally looking down on me, we're pretty tall people.
I'm 6' and love rocking my tall heels. Short stilletoes, ridiculous 6" heels, whatever. Fuck em all.
Being dutch in America is definetely the opposite problem
Dutch people are tall and a short documentary has been popping up on my YouTube feed every other day for a few months now ugh
My family is Dutch. I’m 5’6’’ and I have to look up at all my family members. I’m considered the short one
I hear the clubbing scene can occasionally be terrifying when all the drunk people start jumping up and down to that one song.
'narcotic' by liquido? (I had to look up what it's called. It's just the 'tu tu tu tu tu tudu du' song.)
Is that not accompanied by grabbing your fellow drunk friends around the shoulders and jumping in other countries? Is that a Dutch thing?
I think I've never heard the song while abroad. But it's a thing that you just háve to do, quickly find a safe spot for your beer or down it when you hear the song coming on...
I thought you people wore wooden shoes, not heels.
I'm 1.58m and my boyfriend is Dutch - I feel that pain every time I visit him and see his friends
Wait, are Dutch women usually tall?
Dutch people in general are super tall. One of the tallest countries in the world. The average man is 6' and the average woman is 5'6".
not a woman, but isnt the great thing about being tall that you dont need them?
[deleted]
Can you provide further insight to this and the usual/common length of heels people use?
I'm as a man absolutely baffled about heels and their prominence. (Bafflement proportional to height of said heels)
They're bad for feet/ankles/joints and hard to walk properly in (granted, these effects are again proportional to height of said heels) and such.
I get it, people may like how they look and like how they make you taller but to me it seems that the downsides outweigh the benefits.
I am 5ft nothing and cannot wear heels at all. I have small size 2 feet (UK, idk about USA conversions) and they're stupidly narrow as well so it's hard to get regular shoes to fit, let alone heels. Regardless, I don't feel obligated to wear them either in everyday life or for special occasions/workwear and don't see why I should. My mates wear heels sometimes, but it's not really seen a big deal either way or not where I live.
[deleted]
So it's that simple?
Man, I was expecting some bizarre reasoning but this makes complete sense to me.
Well, I'm glad to be proven wrong. Kudos to you.
[deleted]
Er, the thing that made sense was your explanation, not the reason for wearing heels. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
The reason itself, in that it's a formal and cultural thing, makes sense in a way that formal and cultural things don't have to make sense-it's just the way things are and have been, and also subject to change.
They're still considered nicer shoes. I don't wear them to the club or anything (how do other women even survive that?), but I do wear them to weddings or the like where flats just aren't as elegant.
I'd also wear them more often if I found them more comfortable because I still feel like I look better in them overall and they're just pretty shoes.
Dutch girl of 6'1 (185) here. I can still wear heels easily without having to worry too much about that. It helps that my boyfriend is 6'4 (196). Which I'm glad for because somehow finding heel-less shoes at size 43 is really difficult? (If you dont want to wear sneakers at least).
visiting Amsterdam as a 152cm (5') woman was quite an adventure.
I visited the Netherlands a few years ago. Did not know so many tall people existed
Thats not an American thing, its a Dutch thing. Go anywhere else in Europe and you'll hear similar things.
I’m you’re same height but I’m in Costa Rica where men’s average height is 1.58m and women are 1.56m and I dream of eventually living in a place where my height is normal. So jealous of you
I’m 5’8’’ American and tend to tower over most of my friends if I even wear tennis shoes that have a lip to them. I never care about towering over people - and I have never understood the girls that do care.
Ahem.... Pics? :P
I would tell you the argument you just made but I would probably be banned off Reddit just for pointing it out; so I'm just saying, there's an argument in that
Might sound a bit pretentious but 1.75m is not that tall for a woman in Europe according to me at all.
Here in western Michigan there are a lot of Dutch folks :) my wife is 5'10" and she wears heels sometime :)
As a 6'6" male, bring on them heels. I'm tired of having to double over just to give a hug.
As an american, it is also incredibly strange to me that girls are obsessed with being shorter than their man. Im "tall" but Ima rock my heels all over the place. I love being the tallest lol
Oh man that would drive me nuts. I hate it when people are too much taller than me. (Like over 6"1')
Ok but that's like being from Siberia and wondering about board shorts and flip flops. You're the tallest country, (IIRC), so this won't be an American specific comparison.
If you are really interested in a unique experience you should go to Guatemala, you will feel double your normal height
I love your country. Almost had a chance to live there if my company had done better business, but as a 5'6" guy I'd have no chance of finding a date even though I don't mind dating taller women.
As a Dutchman who's only 1.78m, sometimes I wish I lived in America.
Don't care. 5'10". I wear 2 inch wedge boots daily. And heels when I get all fancy. It helps my friends are also taller.
Am american, large majority of my family is dutch. I am 6'6. But i am also one of the short ones in the family.
God I’m so jealous. I’m also 5’9 and not only am I American, I live in Los Angeles where everyone is a struggling actor and shorter even than the typical American. It seems like 80% of men here are exactly 5’10.
I am 5'4". I feel normal here. I can wear heels and still not be as tall as my husband which I like.
Of Dutch decent, about 6'2". Never felt short until I went to NL. (But people think I'm cute there because of my very weird accent when I speak Dutch.)
That explains why I'm so tall for a girl. I'm Dutch as well.
I'm a pretty tall dude (190cm) and in Holland/Germany I too had to look up. Was pretty weird, I'm used to being the tallest around in my country.
This fascinates me. I'm a 5'10" American. In your country I'd be short. In China I'd be very tall. Here in the US I'm just an average dude.
I went to the Philippines once and felt like a celebrity cuz i was taller than everyone. And white...
As a short man (5'7), I am never moving to Denmark
I'm Dutch too! but I'm only 5'3 :(
Clearly I need to move to Netherlands.
Currently I live in Finland and I have to order shoes from overseas (usually Germany) because no shops stock them in my size.
Kudos for both imperial and metric units. As a non-American, one big issue I have when reading Reddit is all those feet and inches.
Dutch woman at 1m 80 checking in haha
Looks like I need to go to your country, I am 6'5" and trans and would love to be less freakishly tall
Yeah, that's plain bullshit and you know it. I don't know how you got that many upvotes but average height for males in your country is still about 5 11. In fact, only 5 cm more than your height (which is FAR FAR above average for females in any country of the world). So you either just happen to have a group of friends taller of average or you are just lying trying to fish for compliments for you height
The average Dutch woman is 5'6" or 5'7" depending on which study you choose according to Wikipedia. But I also read and experienced that most people overestimate their own and other people's height. The average Dutch person won't believe those numbers of Wikipedia (I know about 20 of them that were surprised about this when I told them 5 seconds ago). So either OP has tall friends or they all think they're tall, but she is still a solid 2 inches taller than the average Dutch woman.
[deleted]
Uhu. To be fair, you do notice that the average Dutchman is slightly taller but it's not like everyone here is 5" taller than the rest of the world.
Allotted number of sick days.
Doing 60+ hours per week just to survive.
Pitiful amount of vacation days.
I just started a new contract, asked for a couple of days off next month. Instead I get a lecture about commitment from my new boss, including her bragging she hasn't taken a single day off in the past two years. FML.
[removed]
Exactly why I posted that comment - this IS a typical American corporate mentality. And, precisely why I became a contractor: so I could deliver what the client needs and then leave.
Oh, you want me to stay late tonight or work on a weekend? Sure, time and a half is cool too.
It's actually ego in my experience. So many people want to one up each other. I have a coworker who constantly tries to point how they worked more hours, or have taken less days off, or how little sleep they get so me being tired is apparently not justified like it is for them.
I just point out how I have a much more exciting at home life and actually save my money up so I don't need to work as many hours, and that I take more days off cause I hate being at work and am not hurting finacially, or that a shitty sleep schedule is actually really bad for your health.
My at home life isn't all that much more exciting, but I would rather be at home bored staring at the wall than at work slaving away to make my company billions.
[removed]
Ya, there is just so many different types of people that no matter what, we will see this same thing for different reasons.
Everyone wants to look cool, so they will rationalize somehow what they are doing as the best way or they being better than others because of it for varying reasons.
"Oh you only work 60h I work 80h that is really tough!" "Oh, you work 80? Try 100h!"
I just smile thinking about such suckers when I clock out after 39 hrs on a friday
About six years back I was working a job that regularly had me and everyone else on my team at 80-100 hour weeks. The daily routine was essentially: wake up, go to work, come home, sleep. Luckily we'd have a half hour break in there (we should have had two, but most people would voluntarily skip it and hide it from management simply because it would let us get home and get to sleep faster). Over the course of that 18 months or so, I had been spending the rare and "slow" 60-hour-or-less weeks campaigning for more employees and putting my efforts at home into keeping my relationship with my fiancée together and applying for school. Luckily, the second one worked out and I was accepted to a good school for undergrad. I was 26 at the time.
Good schools are expensive, and this one required that I live in NYC (which I was shocked to find the other day is only the second most expensive place to live in the country), and so I committed myself to putting all of the money that I could together. The past year-and-a-half of work had given me a nice chunk of savings, since I rarely had the time or social life to spend all of the overtime pay I was making. I left my job, moved to the city, and completely failed to find a job that would pay me what I needed to survive anywhere near campus. In retrospect, there were more affordable places to live, but I hadn't done my research, which is a moot point because and I couldn't find any job without a degree. I spent four months on various volunteer cleanups from the damage done by Hurricane Sandy hoping that I'd be able to leverage it into long-term work (an easy 40-hour week, would have been a vacation except it was a lot more physically demanding than my previous job), but none of those prospects panned out. In four months, I had gone through all of my savings and I returned hat-in-hand to Las Vegas to live with my folks while I got my shit together.
Upon returning, I quickly snapped up as much work as I could, trying desperately to get what I needed to survive. For about another 18 months, I worked simultaneously as a teacher's aide in a charter school in Henderson, a cage cashier for a casino, and a musician at night in a little tiki bar on Fremont Street. The variety of jobs broke up the monotony, but the workload was back up to 80-100 hours per week. Working these three jobs, I wasn't even over the poverty line, so it took a minute to get what I calculated at the bare minimum to survive taking maximum student loans.
Here we are, five years after that and I finally graduated with my physics degree, ready to finally get all of those jobs. Except I can't, because calculating to an optimistic bare minimum means that you're going to run overages, so the school won't release my diploma or my transcripts until I fork over ~$22,000 in full. So the plan now is to snatch up some crap jobs and once again launch into the world of 80-100 hour weeks in hopes that I can pay off my debt as quickly as possible so I can actually use the degree that I've worked so hard to get.
I guess the point of this all is that you're absolutely correct: the conversation that I've perpetuated in the above is totally asinine and promotes some sort of trading-pride-for-dignity culture, but I hope that I've been able to at least demonstrate that, for a lot of us, the hours-per-week thing is something to be proud of, because we're doing the best we can with what we have available, and the odds are against us and just maybe because everybody loves an underdog. I'm not looking forward to being back in the psychological mess that is the 16-hour day, but it's what I need to do in order to keep putting one foot ahead of the other, to make incremental progress, and to maybe, maybe earn a career where I can go home at 5 o'clock.
You will find a depressing amount of stories almost exactly like mine in this country, but the fact is that I wouldn't trade it. It's made me who I am; it's made me more equipped to deal with a world where everyone wants to take advantage of the wage-slave, and it's made me more understanding of those who have it worse off than I do. Hell, I'm one of the lucky ones. I got to study what I love for a little while, and maybe I'll be able to afford another chunk of time to pursue my Ph. D. after my debt is gone. I guess the point of all of this is to help people understand the mentality - it's not just some broad machismo one-upsmanship (though I suppose that always depends on who you ask); it's just how we get by.
Dude your story is crazy and I have only respect for your determination, if I were you I would rather commit suicide that to work like this. I find it crazy how you can work 100 hours per week and still live near to poverty line.
Hey, that's very kind of you to say. I don't relish the prospect of going back into it, but like I said, I'm one of the lucky ones. Lets grab a beer if you're ever in the city. :D
"Oh you only work 60h I work 80h that is really tough!" "Oh, you work 80? Try 100h!"
I just smile thinking about such suckers when I clock out after 39 hrs on a friday
I will say, this is mostly for people that are: 1) In sales 2) In corporate/central side of a business 3) Lawyers/doctors This is usually a result of their product being tied only to qualitative things, so the 'it must be good, it took a lot of time' mentality takes over. This is less true for engineers and whatnot; you better get your stuff done on time and under budget.
If you work a job hourly, oftentimes your are scrambling for 'more hours'; I know plenty of bartenders/landscapers/etc. that have to work to get a living wage's worth of shifts.
For some reason in the US, there's this ideal that everyone should be a workaholic, and 40 hours/week is the minimum you should be doing. Its insane. I just can't focus that fucking long on one thing, much less put in that many hours. I wish I could, but I can't.
To be fair, they can't focus that long either. It's been discussed a lot, but I think the last article I read on this said that the average person was only truly working for 3-4 hours out of an 8 hour work day. Obviously you have some jobs where that isn't the case, but you're right that there is a workaholic culture here in the US. A lot of people believe they're way more productive than they are.
When I got a job at [Pizza place that's repairing roads] I said "Part time, Low hours" was what I wanted/needed. They had me scheduled for 38 hr/week, almost 10hr days. I quit after 4 days for that plus other reasons.
Edit: also no breaks, policy says you get like 3 breaks a day but when I asked somebody about it they said "we don't really do that here."
40 hours is a lot, but it's okay, you get used to it. an occasional 50 hour week in busy periods, with paid overtime? doable. anything over that? hell to the no.
FHL too, because it looks a bit shit.
[deleted]
Every single day.
Having no life and being a corporate slave is really nothing to brag about.
Literally had my monthly meeting with my line manager today. One of the things we discussed was that she was pleased that I booked some annual leave because she was going to hassle me to take some. Also, she was getting hassled by her line manager to take more as well.
I think I shall stay this side of the Atlantic. It's warmer! :D
some people live to work, not work to live. it's crazy.
Many of us don't have a choice. If I asked to reduce my hours 20% and reduce my pay proportionally, they'd just fire me and find someone else. Depending on the market, it's either shit loads of extra hours, or nothing. We don't choose these hours.
If I have to work, my dream hours would be 30 hours a week (or less), 3 ten hour shifts tue, wed, thur.
Having 4 days off a week is amazing, so let me have that during the weekend please. Instead if I want 4 days off I have to work three 12's Fri, Sat, Sun. When everyone else I know has those days off.
totally agree. I just meant that boss bragging about not taking a single day off in 2 years that's definitely a choice
Having to work to live is just as crazy to me. A lot of people are stuck in that loop. Like me.
Where's the live to live button?
My boss reminds me every time I cough that he has only taken about 4 sick days in his entire life.
My boss is the same way. He says he's never taken a sick day so why should we? He has come in with the flu and infected the rest of us several times.
Such a horrible mentality.
including her bragging she hasn't taken a single day off in the past two years.
Like wow. You want a cookie for that? If you think that is something you should be proud of and boasting about, then you don't have your priorities in order.
Just because she enjoys being a slave to her work doesn't mean she should force other people to also.
Yikes.
I work an alternative job, I get whenever I want off, like 10 days soom. No pay, and low wages, but stress free. Not bad if you can afford it.
I posted elsewhere - it varies by industry/company. I get 20+2 annually, which roll over; work 35 hour weeks with overtime after; and get 12 annual sick days which roll over indefinitely (I think I have 78 right now).
The fact that sick days are a thing at all is what you should be concerned about!
I agree with you, but if you're looking for why that is, I think for most it's not a huge issue and the sick days they have are enough. It definitely impacts poorer people more though. This is something that generally is legislated on a state level, and indeed some states do guarantee it.
People can lie if you have some allergies you cant just not work for 2 months
You have to be signed off by a doctor that you are unfit for work. You can't just make it up.
Yeah thats difference in america every job I have worked out I could just call in say im sick
Most places that I have worked in Europe, you call in sick and your supervisor can give you first 3 days paid sick leave and if you are sick longer you have to go see a nurse or a doctor.
Oh so you want it all combined into your PTO? Fine with the company.
Sick days are sweet because you can get paid to sick at home and watch tv if you have the flu or something (or you can get paid to call in and fuck around)
Once you’re out of sick time, and still sick you just don’t get paid for it. It really varies company to company though
My husband works 80 hours a week. And MAYBE gets his weekends off. But he is on call during the weekend. So if he gets a call, he has to go. My husbands friend works over 100 hours a week and hardly ever gets weekends off. He is thinking of working with my husbands company so he can have some time off.
That sounds like a very stressfull life. I hope they find some rest and piece in their time off.
He gets 3 weeks of vacation a year now (it was just two) (oh and btw that can't be taken all at once.) I make sure he takes his vacations just to get a mental health break at least. I've read about other countries and how the work weeks aren't as brutal and they are allowed maternity leave and have good vacation times, etc and it makes me so sad that we cannot have that here in the US.
Didn't people do a revolution to stop this shit like 80 years ago??? How is this even legal?
I think what you are referring to is when everyone protested about getting paid overtime for working over 40 hours a week. But for some reason (despite psychological studies showing how bad it is to work over 40 hours a week) in america, a lot of people are pushed to work over 40 hours. Employers dont care if their employees are being worked to death.
And apparently, they don't care that their overworked pilots or nurses, or operators of heavy mashinery do a fatal mistake and they have to pay millions in damages, that is much more than hiring an extra.
My sick days are the weekends I get off :(
I pray I get sick on my days off so I don't have to go to work sick. You're not alone friend.
Pitiful amount of vacation days.
If you're even lucky enough to get vacation at all...
Some American workers have their allotted vacation paid out depending on how long they have been with their employer. The first fully worked calendar year will most times award (the correct word) a week of vacation time. Want two weeks? See you in 3-5 years, depending. Going for three weeks (gasp)? They will need 7-10 years of service to qualify. And that is where it will typically top out. Why would you need more than three weeks? Use some of that third week as sick time; just hope that it doesn't get used too early in the year, or it will run out after three incidents. Hooray, USA! /s
At my old job I needed 10 years to go from 1 week to 2 weeks vacation. I left after 1.5 years..
Sounds like my job. Start with 10 days, after 5 years you get a whole extra two days. At 10 years I think you cap out at 15 or 20 days and then that's it. 10 years to get at MOST two and a half weeks off per year.
Yeesh! That isn't an uncommon progression, either. While at the same time, you were supposed to be grateful for even that much time off.
What company/industry gives you no PTO?
The company I worked for switched to unlimited PTO this year. They still monitor how much you're taking off (basically taking advantage of the new policy), but if your supervisor okays it then you're good. It's been really great, especially for people with kids.
So did mine, best choice ever. We were all kind of skeptical at first but it's all good now. Even when we had PTO though, every employee started with 120 hours on day 1, which went up to as high as 6 weeks based on seniority.
Me and my wife met an Australian couple in Italy while on Vacation. Apparently Australians get up to 8 weeks paid vacation. We only get 2. So jealous.
It's 4 weeks / year for most people in Australia. 8 would be nice! I think it's 6 in Denmark. Not aware of anywhere with 8.
Australian here. A full time employee here gets, by law: 20 days of Annual Leave, to use whenever you want. 8 days of public holidays - the day off on specific days like New Years Day, Australia Day, Christmas day etc. 10 days of sick/personal/carers leave (although in the first year it's usually 8 days).
My current employer pays me for 38hrs per week and have defined that reasonable overtime amounts to two hours per week - and if I work more than that eg 45hrs in a week, they let me accrue those extra hours as extra time-off - but not all employers do that - I just have a fantastic one :)
Additionally, I could have another week (or two) of paid time off if I asked for it, and took a small paycut to cover that. It's tempting, that's for sure.
I mean the only ones you hear on reddit are the awful 80hr, no time off, no sick days etc. Until I hear otherwise, 40hr with ~20 vacation days and a few more sick days is basically expected
Right?? Where do these people work?
2 of my coworkers are trying to take care of past debt and 1 of them has needed to work 70-80 hours a week to keep up with bills. The other needs at least 60-70 hours.
Recently they passed a bill in my area that doesn't allow us to work over 60 worked hours in a week. Many people at my company has had to figure out loopholes in order to get as big of a check as they can. Like "worked hours" doesn't include breaks and lunches so technically we can get over 60 hours depending on what hours you work and subtract those hours from your total hours to figure out how high you can go.
We also are only allowed 40 paid sick hours a year. Which is actually nice but apparently that sucks compared to other places on earth.
I've used my 40 and have to wait several months before I can take a sick day off.
So, I dont get sick days, in fact if I'm sick im generally still required to show up or else I could lose my job. Probably wouldnt happen if I did it one time but god forbid I am sick more than once. So I just go to work feeling like shit.
55 hours a week, but I do just fine, certainly not teetering on survival.
2 weeks(10 days) vacation time. That vacation time cannot be used to call in sick either. Gotta be scheduled at least a couple weeks out, a month is best. And it's my fault if I dont find coverage or actively make sure I am covered when Im gone. My last vacation I spent the first 3 days making sure I was covered due to factors out of my control. I should note this probably isnt the norm all over America. My job just sucks.
It sounds like you just have a terrible job /:
It pays well enough, like I said im doing more than surviving. But I am currently looking to change it up.
I’ve been there. I used to work in oil and it was lots of $$$$ but it wears you down quick. Sometimes the money isn’t worth it
My company regularly fires employees who use more than 75% of their time off a year, and using up all of your unpaid time off results in immediate termination.
In turn, Americans mock a lot of European countries for what they see as free money and vacation days for tiny amounts of work. America has a historical focus on hard work and has disdain for what it sees as handouts.
As an American those are stupid people and not a single person I know would refuse those things.
Also an American; the majority of the people I know that get that much vacation time bitch about it because they have no idea what to do with that much vacation time.
Americans like to work - even if money wasn't an issue. It's not because we're corporate slaves or have been indoctrinated. We have a strong history of being industrious and taking pride in our accomplishments at work. Further, working has provided us with a sense of purpose.
There's nothing wrong with liking that and wanting to do it. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with liking the more European style of vacation management. There's no need to mock either side or feel pity for either side.
Ya that's why I said they were stupid, especially when it doesn't effect you why mock others for what they have.
American 2 years out of college. 25 days PTO and 10 holidays.
What's the difference between PTO and holidays? Holidays = public holidays?
Yes, Public holidays.
I was a paramedic in Chicago after University. I got 3 paid vacation days per year. 3. And I couldn't use them until I'd been there for a whole year. Zero paid sick days. It makes it difficult to love my county sometimes. Even worse is maternity leave. Even my current company, a NGO that is fairly progressive, gives women just 2 paid weeks off when they have a child. It's insanity.
I have 5 personal days and 6 sick days per year. But they fucked with me and documented 2 of my training days when I was out of the building as "personal days".
I only had 11 precious days (assuming I get sick 6 times and can show them a doctor's note) - and they stole 2 from me!
Can confirm. Worse is at my job, you have to earn the vacation hours (20 hours = 1 vacation hour, up to 40 for part-timers and 80 for full-timers) and the hours expire at the end of the fiscal year. For us, that’s May 31. If any of us have summer plans, you had better save up for them...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-09-02/hardest-working-countries-ranked-by-hours-worked-per-year
According to actual data, the average worker in the US works ~35 hours per week, just slightly higher than your Finland. I've never heard of anyone working 60+ hours a week "just to survive," but I guess you know better than Americans. /s
A lot of companies are getting rid of earned/limited time off. "Just stay home sick/take vacation when you need it." It sounds nice, but there's a lot of data showing that people take less time off with that kind of policy. If you accrue a 20 days off per year you feel entitled to them, so you'll use them. If there is no formal policy, people tend to take maybe a 1 week vacation and sick days here and there, adding up to less.
My company technically has no sick days (but we can WFH at manager discretion unofficially or take vacation days). Two weeks ago I was sick enough to need antibiotics and I took one day WFH and tried not to fall out of my office chairs the other days. I got in trouble for being late to work because I was too sick to take the bus and had to wait for a ride to the train.
I have an allotted number of sick days; currently live in Ireland. It's not completely a US thing.
That said, it wouldn't be possible here to swap sick days for holidays/sick days wouldn't come out of your holidays etc. But HR would get involved if I exceeded my maximum days.
That's like that a lot in the UK
It really depends on where you work. I don’t work 60+ hours to survive. My 40 is plenty and any overtime is gravy.
I have three weeks of vacation time and one week of sick leave. If you are sick and don’t have any sick days left you are not expected to work you just don’t get paid.
I’m 24 and didn’t go to college.
I get 3ish weeks of vacation and 40 hours a year of sick pay. Any sick days after that 40 are unpaid and you are only allowed 5. Your 6th one they fire you.
If you don't call in sick and don't show up, it counts as 2 days.
That sounds like an awful policy. I’m glad my company doesn’t operate that way.
It is. I forgot, also if you are late, even by 5 minutes, it counts as a half day. So as the saying goes at my job, if your 5 minutes late you may as well be 3 hours late.
You should quit?
Many days I fantasize about such things, but the reality is I'll be hard pressed to find a better job with similar pay.
Ultimately though, I am thinking daily about things I can do to get out of working for someone else while also making enough money to live life. I'm just not as creative as I used to be, nor courageous. So I haven't come up with anything yet unfortunately.
Been full time at the same job for almost 4 years. No vacation days, no sick days, about to get health insurance for the 1st time in a decade. I would love to have a pitiful amount of vacation days. Going out of town for a family wedding next month. Gotta get there,, get a hotel room, get a gift, and miss 5 unpaid days of work. I need a new country lol
I'm American. I work forty hours but I can choose how many in which days and can do some from home. I get four weeks of vacation, eleven paid holidays, and ten days paid personal time. I can take additional unpaid time. It has been that way at every job I've had. The only thing is, I would never take all that time off at once. If the company felt they didn't need me for two months they might decide they don't need me
It's not like we enjoy it.
Where i work we get 5 days vacation a year and i work 60+ hours every week, sometimes 70 but i cant ever really take my vacation because if you remove someone who does 60 hours, that business is gonna fall apart without me being there and my employees cant get overtime while im gone so who do they expect to cover my shifts? Doesnt make any sense and its very frustrating. I just want to go to sleep man im so tired
I wish more people would join unions. But that's another part of American culture I don't get. Unions get horrible reps. But, I'm 24 and make a generous salary with good benefits and bonuses as well as time off and work/life balance(due to the generous salary)
I'm just out of high school and got a summer job before college, and I did some math. If I just kept this job and didn't go to college, I would have to work two jobs to stay a decent amount above the poverty line. I'm currently working ~30 hours a week at 9 dollars an hour, which half of that money would basically go to rent, which is around $1000 a monrh where I'm at. But because I'm still a dependent it's not a horrible wage as my only expenses are gas and food.
[deleted]
But I thought all Americans were slaves?! You mean if you have a skill and work towards a good job you're treated well?? Shocking
Yeah, why doesn’t everybody just go to college? It’s not like it costs an insane amount of money in the US.
I didn't go to college.
My husband's vacation days are a joke. He gets 14 max and they have to be earned. One 8 hour shift worked gets you 4 vacation hours and the days have to be used by the end of the year or you lose them. No payout.
4 hours of vacation for 8 hours of work? I can't remember exactly our accrual rate, but it basically equates to you having to work 40 hours a week every workday all year in order to get all of your vacation.
Days off you do not accrue, so you have to work overtime in order to get all your vacation if you take any days off. Although our vacation rolls over and anything over 400 hours can get cashed out.
I was wrong. It's not 4 hours. It's 30 minutes. And yes he works a crap ton of overtime.
Ya that sounds similar to our accrual rate. Which increases with your seniority. So when you hit the years where they up your total vacation the accrual rate increases to match that in order to accrue it by the end of the year.
This is actually a big, big deal.
It's the reason so may people here are utterly miserable fucking assholes. Life is hard for a lot of people in the US.
Just something I have noticed. If you ask an American how many hours they work, if they are going to say more than the regular, they seem to default to 60. I don't know what it is about that number.
If they're working 5 12-hour days or 6 10-hour days, that would be 60. Depending on their industry, that wouldn't be completely out of the norm for working hours.
Again I am not saying people don't do it. Just that its nowhere near the norm. However, were I to ask around, it seems like everyone works 60 hour weeks. I get a giggle because they usually want to get brunch on Saturday yet I need to swing by the office, and I don't claim I work 60 hours a week.
Just my experience, YMMV.
college debt
And its close friend, medical debt.
Can confirm. Just graduated medical school with six figures in debt and can’t afford medical insurance. Oh, the irony. Oh, America.
Can not confirm. Just graduated medical school all paid by the government and got paid 810$ each month while doing it, also by the government, and now I don't have to worry about medical insurance because guess what. All paid. Oh, Denmark.
Nah, that makes too much sense for us here in the good ol’ states. We’re too busy giving tax breaks to millionaires and telling poor people to work a fourth job so they can afford a roof over their head.
Hey man, millionaires EARNED that status by being born into the right family at the right time!
Edit: it appears I have some looking at stats to do about the current millionaires. /u/darkslayer114 has provided me with a link. Original comment was made out of anger and sarcasm but I'm interested to read the link later. It won't load on my phone and I'm at work.
Man, I screwed up when choosing my parents.
At least you didn't choose to be gay, black, & living in the Southern U.S.
I was a bit hesitant when I chose to be white and straight but now I think I made the right call.
Being gay is overrated anyway, that's why i decided to be a turtle.
Some species of turtle live longer anyway.
Relevant xkcd.
I really messed up when I decided to be an attack helicopter. Now I just have the Taliban shooting at me all the time. Such is life.
Also what's known as "Hard Mode"
At least you didn't choose to be gay, black, & living in the Southern U.S.
"You must have been a bad person in your past life."
I hate that many people actually think this way.
Sorry Titus
In the 40s
I hope you learned your lesson.
99% of us did, friend.
Yeah, you should just demand that everyone else in the States give you the money collectively for other stuff instead, that's a lot less selfish.
Plus, they had a small loan of a million dollars from their father.
a small loan
From what I understand, something like 67% of millionaires are self made. However I'm sure they came from a good starting point.
EDIT: corrected stats
EDIT 2: Source
"Self-made" is a bit of misnomer. If you're born into a rich family and become super rich, that counts as self-made. And that's how most millionaires are. They're not exactly heirs to a fortune, but they were rich growing up and got all the advantages and connections that come with wealth. Graduating from the 1% to the .01% isn’t perceived as being all that impressive.
It's extremely unlikely you get a poor person who ends up a millionaire. That doesn't happen much in America. Or anywhere.
Oh I fully agree. still not inherited, but definitely got a huge advantage
You must think America was just full of millionaires 200 years ago for this to be true. Most of the current elderly millionaires you see are self-made, born in poverty types. It's their entitled kids that make people forget those humble origins.
You must think America was just full of millionaires 200 years ago for this to be true.
Not millionaires(because inflation and a hundred dollars back then was a huge amount) but there were slave owners and others who were born spaves
Most of the current elderly millionaires you see are self-made, born in poverty types. It's their entitled kids that make people forget those humble origins.
Which ones were born in poverty? which of them had no parents to come home to because both parents were working multiple jobs for more than 12 hours a day, without unions or benefits of any kind?
Also some major differences were government programs and barriers to entry into the market. The government at the time was giving huge breaks and incentives for small businesses to start. Now however those benefits are gone and the barrier to entry has increased, from disproportional licensing. For example, in Britain why does a grandma have to pay the same 100k for a bakery license (such as a sell cakes to birthdays) as a huge corporation does, when the corporation has way bigger costs to the regulation department. Also due to increasing specialization and technology it takes millions to start a company in newer sectors.
Lmfao. If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you
Sorry, can't help that you're an idiot. If you keep reading some one else actually posted the stats that prove this but I feel like your mind is made up regardless of what the facts say.
There can’t be any facts to disprove my position because I’m always right. Which by extension means you’re wrong.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but, you got a link? Genuinely curious and would like to see some stats.
Correction not quite as high but still a decent amount. its about 67% precent are self made, and only about 8% inherited their wealth. Im guessing the remaining 25% started close.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html
Inflation boyz, doctors and lawyers can generally become millionaires if they make good use of saving money and not blowing it. Plenty of other jobs make similar money.... i feel if you looked at maybe 10-20million+ you would see a different trend
Yeah, I know a couple of millionaires. They just seem like regular guys but they own a lot of land for hunting and have a boat. Most of their friends/acquaintances have no idea that they're millionaires. Millionaire is the new middle-class. Thanks, inflation!
Exactly, a half decent job will get you to millionaire status if you know how to invest.
Inflation boyz?
I have a friend who's a doctor and she literally spends like 700$ a day on food and clothes and on stuff from amazon. And no savings. Like wtf
2/3 of Forbes 400 rich people were born into at least a million dollars of wealth
millionaire isnt the same as being in the 1% those are 2 different levels
Yes I know, but I was in a similar thread last week about a very similar topic, and the article I read said there really wasn't data on what percentage of "millionaires" were born into money or made it on their own. And I noticed the article you provided was very brief and did not provide a source. So it leaves one to wonder. But the article I read said we DO have concrete data on the Forbes 400 because they are real people with real statistics and data, so it was a valuable sample pool.
They want you to think that but it's not usually true. For example, Trump got tons of help from daddy both with connections and money. And, then Trump got so much more inheritance money then his siblings that he probably could have been in the same position moneywise that he was before his reign of terror over the U.S. began just by putting his inheritence into a high intrest bank account.
congrats you used one example. Having over a million in assets isnt as impressive as it used to be. Its still a lot dont get me wrong. Most millionaires arent trumps who got loaned a million dollars.
He actually got loaned around 14 million dollars. A million just rolls off the tongue better.
And it was one of those "loans" you don't have to pay off...
And had his dad bail him out of being a shitty casino owner... A few times
Give or take a few million, it’s no big deal.
naw, he was lent a million USD but it was decades ago. If your were to estimate how much spending power it would have TODAY due to inflation it would be around 13mil.
["Donald Trump admitted in a 2007 deposition that he borrowed at least $9 million from his future inheritance when he encountered financial difficulties."] (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/03/trumps-false-claim-he-built-his-empire-with-a-small-loan-from-his-father/)
most
Please cite your sources.
please look at my original comment which has a source showing that 67% are self made
most millionaires did not inherit their money though.
Gonna bet they weren't born under a bridge either.
Sure, but most millionaires are just regular people that worked hard and were smart with money their whole life.
Being a millionaire(net worth of over 1 million) doesnt make you rich or anything either, that's really not a ton of money any more especially looking as t retirement and such.
It seems like about $1.2M USD in net worth puts you into the top 10%. I think being in the top 10% for net worth or coming damn close is rich. Not like super wealthy, but definitely rich.
Also, your argument about millionaires being regular people who just worked hard is ignoring any of the deeper points about their background. It oversimplifies it as if all it takes to be rich is working hard and being smart with money.
Net worth of a million American dollsa
Most people weren't born under bridges.
Almost all inherited wealth is squandered by the second generation.
Their parents probably worked hard to give their kid a good life.
While you are not wrong in the logic, most millionaires today are first generation rich!! Many people are self made millionaires, and didn’t inherit the money from wealthy parents!! You are talking about the billionaires!!
If you could give your kids a better life than you had, would you?
Sure. But here's the thing: I want to do that for other peoples' kids too.
Who is stopping you from spending your own money how you see fit?
Hey man, I might win that lottery and these protections and breaks thr rich get will eventually apply to me.
You know when people complain about this... what exactly do they think that those people should do?
Or they worked hard...?
Some of them did for sure. And some were born lucky. The status of rich people isn't nearly as important as many like to make it sound. When we're talking about tax increases on the rich in the US we're talking about brackets. The way us taxes work is income is only taxed at the higher bracket after a certain amount. So we could increase the tax rate by 5% for income over let's say 5 million and your first 4.99 million dollars would be taxed at the other rates.
Basically I guess what I'm trying to say is I have a hard time feeling bad about people who make millions of dollars making a couple percent less.
Well yeah, it isn't your money to feel bad about...
As much as I agree that sometimes wealth isn't earned and people are just lucky, I still can't advocate for literal theft. Increasing tax percentages just because someone has more than you is theft.
How about increasing tax percentages because our nation is a mess. Infrastructure, schooling, Healthcare.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you how our tax brackets work. If a 3% increase for example at the highest bracket could help why wouldn't we? It's not like it's 3% across the board.
a 3% increase for example at the highest bracket could help why wouldn't we? It's not like it's 3% across the board.
Let someone else pay for it, right? You don't want to but are happy to spend other people's money just fine.
I pay my taxes. If you don't have something to add then why comment?
[deleted]
after so many dollars, they just aren't needed anymore, they are less important the more you earn.
That is literally your opinion. You can't tell other people how to feel about their own property.
And since we fund tons of things via taxes, and tax everyone, we need to choose how much to take from each person. So taking the least important dollars first wins out.
In your opinion. Why is your opinion more important than the opinion of the person who wants to keep their money?
Also
tax everyone
Something like 55% of the US does not pay any federal income tax. However, the top 20% will pay 80% of all taxes. Seems like if you're going to be at all fair, then everyone should be paying.
That is literally your opinion.
Well… yeah. Of course it's my opinion. Not sure why that's a talking point for you. Just offering the perspective of those who are in favor of a progressive tax system.
The so-called winners of our system have benefitted greatly from our infrastructure. So I believe it's fine to ask more of them. That, along with the argument above that dollars are less important the more you get past zero, are why a progressive system makes sense for me.
Something like 55% of the US does not pay any federal income tax. However, the top 20% will pay 80% of all taxes. Seems like if you're going to be at all fair, then everyone should be paying.
Now we're discussing the sliding bar of how progressive the tax system is. There are valid arguments to make on how much do we tax each bracket, how many brackets (I think we need more on the high end to continually increase taxes only on hyper wealthy).
Seems like if you're going to be at all fair, then everyone should be paying.
Honestly, I'm not that focused on fair. It's not fair that CEO's make 300x's more than their employees. They should make a lot… they drive tremendous value for their company… but it's gotten out of line. It's not fair that full time workers still need government benefits to make ends meet. But it's where we are.
Those who aren't paying federal income tax aren't because they don't have enough money to live on. I'm fine with the CEO who has benefitted tremendously from the system subsidizing the less fortunate. And let's not forget, we're talking federal income tax right now. Everyone pays sales tax, property tax (directly or indirectly), some unbracketed city or state income taxes, etc…
Cheers
No. No it is not.
Oh, I forgot. It's only coercion, since the person hands over their money 'voluntarily' under the threat of force from the government.
Freedom
[deleted]
[removed]
But why though?
Because he's an idiotic incel that only knows how to communicate like a shit flinging gorilla.
What? I don't... you realize Dahh is being Sarcastic right?
Not sarcastic enough apparently considering that his post history with multiple comments like that got his account banned.
Wait... holy shit he isn't sarcastic? He actually thinks all that freedom bolloks is true?
He had multiple posts saying people/their families should be killed and was pretty active on braincels so I'll just let all that speak for itself.
and telling those poor people that it's their own fault and are clearly doing something wrong to be in that situation.
Shoosh. America numba 1
Literally true.
BOOTSTRAPS I SAY BOOOOOOTSTRAAAAPS...
Fuck I hate this country more and more every day... Natural born, lived here all my life and I'm getting to the point of "America I really do love you, but I don't think I can fucking stand to be around you."
Same here. Went to Europe recently and didn’t want to come back lol
Would you rather live in a country where you dont have access to food or reddit and you die of malaria at 4 years old? I understand the US has shortcomings but it's a little irritating when citizens say they hate America, when chances are you've had a relatively comfortable life.
I'm not comparing America to a an African country. I'm comparing it to say Canada, Germany, the UK, France, The Netherlands, Russia, Japan, Australia, and pretty much every other industrialized nation in the world.
We are the richest (though not for long if we keep this shit up) country in the world however...
So you are right, I'm glad I don't live in a country where I can die of malaria at 4 years. I'll just die of other health problems because I can't afford to pay for the doctor. I'll just not have kids because I'm too busy paying off student loan debt, and even if I didn't have that I can't afford to have the kid because child care is as much if not more than rent. I'll just be sure to keep my kid around parents who think their child doesn't need a vaccine while the ocean level is rising and wild fires are burning because people don't think the jury is in on climate change because fuck science.... I can keep going.... but I think you get my point.
Yes the US is a first world country, but it sure doesn't treat it's average citizens like it. Just the wealthy and corporations.
And I should add, it might be better to get malaria in some of those 'other' countries. Some have universal healthcare and I won't have to worry about going broke to get treated for it.
[deleted]
Ok it seems that you didn't read my comment very closely and just replied out of anger, i never said the US was better than Europe, i never mentioned ANYTHING political so i dont know where socialism came into playand i definitely never mentioned the American Dream. In fact i said that the US has its shortcomings. I just dont agree with people saying they hate this country when they could be so, so much worse off living elsewhere.
Both situations have pros and cons
[deleted]
We have a military budget of $600 billion dollars and Trump proposed to increase it to $681 billion in 2019...so that would be a good place to start.
Also, the reason the costs of education have risen so much is because the government will give any amount of loans to any student without even considering if they’ll be able to pay it back. This in turn allows schools to raise tuition to basically any price they want because the government will pay for it regardless.
Denmark has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world.
They also have some of the highest individual tax rates in the world.
This seems to be lost on many. Yes, you graduate at a disadvantage in the U.S. with student loan debt (assuming you aren't military on the GI Bill). You also have a higher lifetime retained earnings potential that will eventually offset that. Whether via taxes or loans, we all pay.
I should put my comment in context. I didn't mean to imply that Americans are better off with lower individual tax rates. I meant to point out that while Denmark has low corporate tax rates, their high individual rates more than make up for that lost revenue. Because of this Danes enjoy a cheaper cost of living and more robust social programs. I'd gladly pay a 60% individual rate of it meant rent was low, medical coverage was universal, and my countrymen were guaranteed against poverty.
I acknowledge the point you were intending to make in context, but you cannot divorce stated social benefits of such unusually high individual taxation from the potential lifestyle impediments it presents as income is reduced. For instance, there was a reason France was hemorrhaging millionaires in recent years, certainly prior to Macron. Someone with high income would have more choice in a developed country with less onerous taxation. It may be advantageous to be poor (assuming one doesn't have the education or ambition to scale the socioeconomic ladder) in a nation with high income taxes and more safety nets, but not so much when earning potential is high. Again, I feel we may just have different priorities and this isn't meant to castigate Denmark.
I'm not certain about the cheaper cost of living, unless you meant it in a different manner than I infer? Very little about Denmark was cheap when I visited.
Maybe earning potential isn't everything?
The rich have to "pad" the system for themselves somehow. We out here. And we comin.
Hey, cut rich people a break. This one dude got a lot of shit for being wealthy, when it was all self made. He just got a small, $1 million dollar loan from his father and pulled himself up by his bootstraps to build a business.
Really it's the story of the American dream! Poor people can look up to him and think "I can do it too!"
Poor people just need to get a small $1 million loan from their parents and build their own business too. I really don't get why more people don't do this.
A social revolution is necessary
Problems with it is in Europe what countries have like 300 million people living in it. I'm all for socialized healthcare or at least much cheaper healthcare (somehow that actually works)
I currently have no insurance so I just gotta hope I dont get seriously sick or injured or else I'm even more fucked on top of the 10k I owe the government for college
I don't get the thing with more people, since everyone pays taxes anyway. So even though the costs are higher, there's also more people to pay for it. That's how it works, everyone pays for everyone.
since everyone pays taxes anyway.
No they don't. The US tax system is built to overwhelmingly tax the wealthy while some 55% of the population pays no income tax at all (and may get refunds for this tax they didn't pay). You can't build an entitlement on such an unfunded foundation as "just tax the rich more, they won't miss it."
Well, then it's the tax system that's not working, not the concept of universal healthcare. I never said to tax the rich more. I live in Denmark, where everyone pays at least 38% income tax. The rich pay an additional 25% or so (not quite sure about the exact number), which I'm personally very much against. That's not the point though, the point is that everyone pays taxes, even I, as a student on student income (which is funded through taxes), pay 39% income tax. If universal healthcare doesn't work, because not everyone pays taxes, then universal healthcare is not the problem.
I'm saying it's probably more difficult to implement in. I'm all for it but people cant act like there arent any drawbacks beyond paying more in taxes. It's probably a lot harder to set in place with a bigger population. Yeah theres more money but theres also more people to treat.
I'm not knowledgable on it this is just what I understand about it.
Yeah and with the growing amount of people who reside in the lowest tax bracket more people doesn't necessarily mean more money collected from taxes
Oh, of course bigger systems are harder to manage, no doubt about it. But that, to me, is just an argument to make the system more streamlined in terms of bureaucracy than anything else (which is something that we in Denmark should definitely consider).
More people means more tax revenue. It also means even more patients and demand when the government negotiates prices for medical services. Which is one of the reasons places like France literally pay less per person for medical care than we do.
It's something that would be best left to individual states on balance than the federal government, all of whom are either smaller or perfectly in line with individual European countries in terms of population, and in some cases gdp too.
Half the shit we do in this country doesn't make sense and nothing is being done about it(also nothing can be done, we don't run this country).
Fuck. Or spending more money than the next what was it ten militaries? And they're all allies. Or was it defunding education to pay something else...the more I learn what actually gets passed by our Congress the more I wonder what my sons generation is going to deal with.
We’re too busy giving tax breaks to ~~millionaires~~ billionaires...
FTFY
Did someone say "Draining the swamp" ? 🌝
Funny how many people hate on those with money, sure some didn't earn it but if you look at it, most of those with stupid money created jobs, paid more than their fair share of taxes % wise compared to the lower income. The top 30% of earners are the only ones who pay more into the system than they get out of it. Someone has to pay for war or welfare.
Maybe that’s because the remaining people don’t even have enough money to be buried by their children. I’ll be in the top 1% when I start making money and I’d gladly pay higher taxes if it helped poor people get health insurance.
Call me selfish then but I am more of the mind, you get what you earn. Caused me some issues but mostly with lower income people. I am top 3% in Canada and top 0.5% for my age and location. I do agree on the free healthcare for all, I fully support that, it is the rest of everything and especially the marginal tax brackets. That bugs me the most, do well in life and be punished for it.
It’s my opinion that we should all have a decent minimum Standard of living. Not everyone can become a business owner, executive, doctor, lawyer, etc. There will always be someone that has to do the “lower skilled” jobs...the problem is that in the US we don’t pay them enough money to make a living AND we don’t give them health insurance, etc. Also, the idea that poor people don’t work hard is absurd. Here people can work 2 jobs and still only live paycheck to paycheck.
It’s my opinion that we should all have a decent minimum Standard of living.
As an American you are in the top 1% of the world. Feel free to send your money to India, Djibouti, etc because they're not anywhere near your standard of luxurious living.
America, fuck you! Coming around to take your mother fucking pay yeah! America, fuck you! Cuz capitalists goootta get paid! Students your time is through, cuz now your tuition is due! America, fuck you! You shoulda come out of a rich vjay!
[deleted]
If you're a resident of Denmark... you're paying 60% in terms of income tax.
:DD
this.
you hear about europe's socialism all the time, but not their taxes, or things like how finland forces military service out of high school, and others.
What is wrong with taxes that pay for essential services? What is lost by teaching high school graduates the value of teamwork, discipline, and patriotism?
Nope, we can get a degree for $10,000 and then when we graduate we get a good job and a $1,000 tax cut. Maybe I'm just looking at the bright side though?
Don't forget amassing a huge collection of thugs to send in and replace democraticly elected rulers with brutal dictators
Holy crap that's a thing? We go like 5k in debt going to the cheapest community college we can find. I'm moving to Denmark!!
Yeah, all education is free. So it is in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Don't know about other countries, sorry.
But if all you want is having a nice education at get a nice job afterwards, every single scandinavian country would love to have you <3 There more included in this scandinavian model the better!
I feel like I need to point out that education is only free if you are a citizen of Denmark or of the EU. (And Norway, I think) So you wouldn't be able to just move to Denmark and get a free education.
Curse Brexit... I have an aunt there?
Do you by any chance have an Irish relative instead? A few million Brits suddenly remembered so in 2016.
On my Dad's side. But they were arguably English, not Irish, and that's why they moved.
Finland too!
Finland is really amazing with their education system too!
And TIL. I add it to the list. :)
Right.. yeah but, are you not taxed like, well over 60% of your entire income, by just the one entity? I mean, it's swell and all you get such nice things...
Minimum wage is literally like triple what it is in the U.S. though. There's no downside, unless you're a millionaire.
Also, I've heard the culture is a lot less social but hear that from them rather than me.
We are still friendly in Nordics. We just like to express it more modestly in day-to-day interactions.
It's about 40% for the average dane. More if you earn the equivalent to about 100.000 dollars.
Well dang I already effectively pay 40% out of each paycheck in California and get fuck all for it.
Well after taxes and cash/credit welfare transfers the average American only comes out with an extra $2K to spend compared to the average Dane.
The average Dane will pay out ~45% of their income to tax, I think it's impossible to hit 60% let alone 'well over', the fattest cats shouldn't pay more than 55% and with clever accounting probably never come close anyway. Compared to that I think the average American will pay ~25% of their income to tax meanwhile the fattest cats will pay around 40% but again glorious loopholes exist for the fattest.
In Finland if you make 1 000 000 euros a year your tax rate is 55,8%. So I don't understand where you get the 60%? If you make 25 000e a year your tax rate is 21%.
In light of Denmark's tax rate, which google indicated to be roughly 60% above $55K USD. But, yes, I'm aware there may be some scaled systems at work. Not sure why I replied to your post specifically.
Would moving to a scandinavian cointry without a degree to simply live/maybe become a citizen be a viable option?
Well, you have to pass the university entrance exam first obviously. And you have to be danish.
[removed]
I simplified for the americans. Explaining studenteksamen eller abitur til dem is far too exhausting.
If your in community college then it's a good chance you wouldn't have gotten into the free universities in Denmark. With free college comes greatly increased competition.
No it isnt a thing. They pay substantially more taxes than Americans. If Im paying an extra 10% of my income in taxes, yeah I better get "free" schooling.
I’m going to pretend I didn’t read that to avoid gouging my eyes out. If my parents didn’t let me live with them and make me dinner every night I would have to drop out of college and work 50 hours a week to afford to live.
We're too busy paying 7 times the cost of college per person to keep people in prison instead.
Oh the American prison system. Don't get me started.
I will say one thing though, make them public prisons. Why should your government use your tax money on private prisons that turns a profit for themselves? Cut the expenses to a minimum, where the prisons doesn't earn money on you by keeping the inmates in prison for life.
If that happens the government would actually make an effort into rehalibation.
Make them public prisons and allow homeless people to check themselves in. Not a perfect solution but two birds with one stone yadda yadda.
The idea is that private prisons will offer to do the job for less thereby saving the government money.
Now I don't know how that plays out in the US but it tends to elsewhere, for example Australia and the UK have 5 times the % of private prisons and they tend to work fine. I'm not an expert but I think the issue with private prisons in the US (and the differences between those and say Aus/UK) is that they have perhaps too many powerful vested interests operating and it all becomes a bit mucky,then there is the whole cheap inmates labour thing which is....unique and iirc doesn't happen in AUS/UK.
Although +1 for the point on rehab.
Reinstate the gulags
American: “but yer taxes! You pay taxes!”
Dane: “so do you, but I get more for mine!”
American: “but I got a bigger military!”
I want to downvote you out of sheer jealously.
See, ours get "paid" by the government but only if you have low income. If you don't, then college is still not affordable, but the government will subsidize a student loan for you - a loan you can get at 18 with no credit check and no appraisal on the value of the product you're getting the loan for (the degree). The original intention of the student loan program was so that more people could pay for college and maybe be able to pay it back later. The result, of course, has been that now, everyone can immediately pay for college without worrying too much with the price, so colleges have been able to drastically raise prices - the consumers don't balk and the government still pays.
We really ought to end the student loan program.
Thanks for the explanation how that problem came to be what it is. Though education should never be a "product imo, it should be a basic right
It is a product of someone's labor, therefore it is a product. To advocate for the product of someone else's labor being given for free (or made a right, as you said) is to advocate for slavery - for the expectation that people should be entitled to the work of another man for free.
I don't say noone should be compensated for that... it's paid for by everyone so that your level of education isn't dependent of your parent's bank account
I'm being coerced into work for someone else, otherwise I starve and go homeless. Do you consider that slavery too?
I mean I personally do, although I adamantly disagree with the other guy. At the end of the day we're all slaves to the almighty dollar to an extent.
It‘s not advocating for slavery if your country has a functioning government that spends money to pay those workers. It works in most other developed countries, and it astonishes me that you didn‘t think of this very simple solution.
Then it's a product and you're paying for it by another means.
Why does it matter whether it’s a product? It can still be a basic human right, or whatever the other person said.
That changes nothing about the fact that your comparison to slavery was absolutely ridiculous.
Was on a walking tour in Copenhagen, the guide was telling us all about the healthcare, social security, education etc., there were two Americans in the group who were just slack jawed for that whole part. He finished off with "so if you want to live the American Dream, come to Denmark", the rest of us had a good laugh at that.
"so if you want to live the American Dream, come to Denmark", the rest of us had a good laugh at that.
haha that's awesome.
"But muh freedoms! Socialism bad!"
Haha can't believe how the media in the US tricked people into this.
Freedom is when you can choose any education you like with no price tag.
Freedom is the feeling you have when you never have to worry about getting sick. And never paying for an insurance.
Freedom is knowing that if you don't have a job next month the government will give you some money in exchange for you trying to get a job again.
Freedom is not being in debt also actually, and thats a choice in Denmark. Not something you are forced to.
War is peace Freedom is slavery Ignorance is strength
That works in Denmark because your country is small and homogeneous. Also you dont have the burden of being the world police. The 50 states might as well be 50 different countries. We can't agree on the simplest shit.
I live in Germany. We have everything u/holymurphy said Denmark has, and while we‘re not the „world police“, we‘re fairly big, far from homogenous and we also have a federal system.
It can work. With everything I‘ve read about the political system in the US though, I personally doubt they could pull it off at this point - just because of all the partisan bullshit (think stuff like gerrymandering) and propaganda, the people who actually eat up said propaganda, the extreme divide in the population, and this really weird fear of anything “““socialist“““.
Edit: What I don‘t get is why you‘re being downvoted. You made a fine argument, none of it was offensive or dishonest, and it‘s okay to have a different opinion. Jesus Christ guys ...
We may be bigger than them but that comes with a major advantage too. We have an obscenely higher tax revenue.
Maybeeeeeee, wait hear me out, just maybe we can not be the world police anymore? Our taxes are going to handouts for all these military contractors and arms dealers and their owners, so how about we lower that a tad to afford some actual useful things for our citizens?
Who else will allow trade to occur without harassment though? And what about all our allies that count on us to keep them safe?
It's true that it is easier to implement when we are few, but I can't see why you can't adjust it to work in a big scale.
Maybe you can start in one state. See where it goes. I can't go wrong really.
As a fellow Dane, I have to disagree here. Tytan is right - we are privileged to be a small country, who don’t have the same large international role as USA.
Universal welfare is difficult to introduce to individual states, let alone the entire US. Not only because of the sheer size, the demographic differences and the ethnographic differences, but so too the American mindset. If course, not everyone is against healthcare and general welfare, but to suggest a system similar to the Danish (or other Scandinavian) models could be implemented in the US with immediate benefits to be reaped is doubtful.
Different presidents have over the last couple of decades spoken about a healthcare system. Obama managed to pull it off (while still far away from the healthcare system we know), and ever since Trump became President it became a high priority to eradicate any notion of Obama’s care. I actually don’t know if he succeeded or not??
I do agree with many of your other comments Holymurphy - it is hard to see why anyone would call the America system better than what we know and love.
The American system does provide an incredible quality of care, if you have insurance. We also have many of the world's leading specialists, as a direct result of how much money there is in our system. I'm not saying its the best, or even great, but honestly as long as you can afford insurance here you will receive the high quality care we have and not necessarily be crushed by debt or anything.
Also you dont have the burden of being the world police.
No one asked America to be the world police. In fact, everyone WANTS America to fuck off and stop pretending to be the "world police".
Yup no one wants it, but it sure is convenient to not pay for your own defense. Also didnt Europe want help in keeping the USSR and comunism at bay post WW2? Okay we fuck off and isolate ourselves again. Canada can have fun with Russia in the artic and japan can have fun with China. Our stupidly huge military has been critical in promoting peace amongst the superpowers by keeping everyone in check.
Oh yea!! Half of my taxes go to the military! Oh^shit^that^doesn't^help^me
Just let them take us over if I still get less than six digits in debt
I was so confused until your last sentence.
It baffles me that the US government doesn't want to actively train more doctors...
But, but... You don't have the same freedom as them
See, here in the States our wonderful, intellectual conservatives (right-wingers) would claim you're freeloading off the government and that receiving these "entitlements" gives you no incentive to want to better yourself and that it makes you a lazy moocher.
Ya, that's the idiocy we're dealing with here.
Actually that kind of rhetoric is working it's way in to danish politics as well, mostly because now 25% of young people attend university, whereas just 20 years ago it was closer to half that. It is becoming really expensive to have so many university students.
American here.... WHY TF are americans so scared of this :(
Well, as far as I know, your media/politicians has done a hell of a job to try to scare people about variations of socialism. It's not even close to what they think.
It's also a twisted way some of you think about freedom imo. Many Americans seems to work more jobs and being in debt without no choice really. That's no freedom.
I'll never understand it. Seems pretty good to me!!
According to our president you guys can't wait to immigrate to America!
Hey fuck you, buddy.
Source: disgruntled American
But then how did the CEO's of those companies finance their private yachts and jets?!
This almost actually hurts to read.
That’s nice but do you have a wall do block out all Mexicans?
You must not have corporations write your legislation then.
Where does the money come from?
Not letting the rich and companies evade taxes.
Also everyone in Denmark gets money from the government, if we don't have a job so no one is really poor.
And when every Dane has money, we also spend money. Which means more production in companies, more jobs and it's a great circle really.
Also your government does have the money for it too. They just don't want to give them to the common citizen.
[deleted]
No, it's not a universal basic income. It's a safety net. If you have a fortune, or own your home - you'll have to live off of that first. It's simply a catch for people that suddenly have nothing, then you at least get something to live off of. But it also comes with the caveat that you have to be available for the job centers, who help you either find a new job, get some kind of activation or re-training, or whatever it is you need to move on, and away from the state support.
It's a great system that makes sure that no-one has to live on the street and starve, but it's definitely not UBI. I wish it was.
Usually employed people pay into a system called "a-kasse", which is kind of a partly state-supported salary insurance, so in case you lose your job, you can get a payout even if you have a fortune or own your home or whatever. There is a time limit on how long you can do that for, though, and you will still have to work with job centers and such to try to find a new job or get re-training.
Hmm I think so? I don't really know what it means for you. I only know the exact rules of what it is in Denmark.
It is something you get if you need it and if you don't have any other income.
And it's not low either. It's like 2000$ a month if you're over 25.
[deleted]
Amazing that someone is fighting for it in Canada! The more who gets this model the better the world. Just Google which country is the most happy.
And gl in next split, Doublelift. ;)
[deleted]
Well it doesn't really make sense to worry about the cost. Only if you look short term.
The money you give to the people will be spend (taxes comes in), company ears money (taxes come in), company becomes more wealthy or demands for New companies will rise or will expand (money used, taxes come in), need for more employees (taxes come in from the pay they get, also more people in job, leeds to less people on the income). Now we have more people at work. Everybody wins.
And that's why it works for us.
Yup, we got our own Trump now. Which I'm sure will be fun.
Wouldn't say that we have UBI in Denmark, since that term implies a "no questions asked" base income. You can only get support in Denmark if you are actively trying to get a job.
So to sum it up: You pay higher taxes, and the government evens out the money amongst the people? Sounds like socialism. No thanks, I prefer freedom.
This guys the reason America sucks compared to other western nations.
Lol agree he sounds exactly like someone who makes fun of that sentiment. Crazy to see there are actually people that think that way in the US
Ah yes, the freedom to spend 8% of my yearly income to get my wisdom teeth out. So free.
As opposed to paying 10% more in taxes? Yes, I prefer lower taxes and to be in control of my expenses and destiny. It is call freedom and personal responsibility.
You have the endless freedom in America to do (or not) anything.
I'd much rather pay higher taxes and not suddenly lose thousands of dollars.
Believe it or not, America is not any more free than any other western nation. We're not some glorious bastion of liberty.
I'd much rather pay higher taxes and not suddenly lose thousands of dollars.
Why don't you just save your money, like a responsible person? You are literally LOOSING more money by paying more taxes. How do you not understand this?
What’s the point of paying less taxes if you have less disposable income? All that Money just goes toward health insurance, child care, medications, education, etc
It gives you the choice of how to spend it. I.E. if I am a healthy individual, I can choose a cheaper health insurance plan. If I don't have kids, I don't need to pay child care. Etc. Etc.
What is the point of giving everything to the government to have them decide how you should spend your money?
You already pay more in taxes for healthcare than universal healthcare systems.
Per capita spending by the government in healthcare is higher in the US than in universal healthcare systems and yet you have to pay for it on top of that.
The insurance companies are sucking you dry. You call that freedom.
Per capita spending by the government in healthcare is higher in the US than in universal healthcare systems and yet you have to pay for it on top of that
LOL ok Ahmed
What are you? 12? http://www.businessinsider.com/us-spends-more-public-money-on-healthcare-than-sweden-or-canada-2017-4?IR=T
I don't think this is directly comparable though. This doesn't consider the amount of services provided. A common critique of socialized medicine is lack of choice of what to get done. I.E. if I want chiropractic care, my insurance covers it in the US. If I want that in say Canada, it is not covered under CHS (unless some extreme medical need) - so you woul dhave to pay yourself or use additional private insurance.
We are talking about what the government already pays! The government is not currently paying your chiropractic care, I guess thats your insurance.
You do realise that you could get all that is already spent in healthcare by the government, give more than basic support for everybody, like the rest of the countries. And you could still pay a little more if you wanted extra stuff? There is private healthcare available everywhere, not just the US.
The services you get in other countries are not as good.
That's true only for rich guys in the US. Only those can afford the treatments that are better in the US. Rest of the population can't even afford those that are worse.
That's why life expectancy in the US is so much higher? Oh wait, it isn't.
[removed]
14K a year
Pretty much below minimum wage if you are working 40 hours a week. What is your excuse for being so poor?
Wait a second... you were serious in your other comment??
Yes - I am a proponent for lower taxes and more choices.
Make America shit again, amirite?
Even though we pay higher taxes, we still have more money to spend. Pay is higher because we have minimum wage and therefore everyones pay is pushed up, because the lowest is much higher. And we don't have to spend money on some insurances that you have to and education.
And who cares if I pay more in taxes if I'm not in debt.
Even though we pay higher taxes, we still have more money to spend. Pay is higher because we have minimum wage and therefore everyones pay is pushed up, because the lowest is much higher.
This doesn't make any sense, mostly because it is not true. I agree minimum wage is more, but that effects how much you pay for things. For example - things (food, housing, clothes) is much more expensive in Denmark than the US (in general). That is due to the fact that labor is more expensive, so it needs to be compensated somehow.
How it actually works is: You pay more taxes, the Gov't uses those taxes and redistributes them to the serves you are mentioning.
Hey, if you don't want to believe it, that's fine. We can't have everyone moving here anyway.
But things can also only be more expensive if the general public has more money to spend. Otherwise no sale.
I'm just telling you it's working, and how it works.
The freedom to die if you can't pay for surgery? The freedom to statisticlly be less free then most other first world countries due to constant surveillance, horrible working conditions and now a lack of control over your access to the internet? The whole "freedom" thing is just a lie to keep people in line, in reality a bit of socalism mixed in with capitalism leads to the best possible state of living for the largest possible percentage of people. Full on Capitalism to the point where it should be given a new name (IE what the U.S. is running on) is bad for the middle class and the poor. It's only helpful to the rich, who keep up lies like Freedom^^^TM to keep their power.
The freedom to die if you can't pay for surgery?
What is insurance?
The freedom to statisticlly be less free then most other first world countries due to constant surveillance, horrible working conditions and now a lack of control over your access to the internet?
Bullshit. Look at fucking England and the EU. You can go to jail for "hate speech". It is literally fucking 1984 there.
"Horrible working conditions" - what are you talking about? You just regurgitate anti-american propaganda.
Full on Capitalism to the point where it should be given a new name (IE what the U.S. is running on) is bad for the middle class and the poor. It's only helpful to the rich, who keep up lies like FreedomTM to keep their power.
I disagree completely. I think this country promotes 'you get what you earn', however we still have a safety net (basically entitlement programs). I am not rich at all, but I am able to live a good life because I worked hard.
What is insurance?
Something not everybody can afford
Bullshit. Look at fucking England and the EU. You can go to jail for "hate speech". It is literally fucking 1984 there.
That's for constantly saying really bad shit and not close to as common a thing as the media says it is. You won't be jailed for making a joke.
I disagree completely. I think this country promotes 'you get what you earn', however we still have a safety net (basically entitlement programs). I am not rich at all, but I am able to live a good life because I worked hard.
Ya ya, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" defense. Most rich people don't work hard to get there, and most people on the streets aren't just "lazy" they grew up poor and are still poor because the U.S. sucks for people who aren't born rich or upper middleclass.
What is insurance?
On average more expensive than the difference Americans and Europeans pay in taxes.
you get what you earn
My company bills $250/hour for my services. I get 35 of that. Where is that extra 215/hour of wealth that my labor is generating going?
Where is that extra 215/hour of wealth that my labor is generating going?
OH, G&A and fee. How are you this retarded?
I'm not sure how close Denmark comes to socialism, it's a bit of a halfway house, although they have a big welfare state they also have an extremely well functioning free market, freer than anglo countries for example.
The same place money for libraries and roads come from. Are you going to argue its not free to drive on the road or lend a book?
Are you going to argue its not free to drive on the road
Tolls and tax on gasoline largely fund roads. You really should have used primary school as an example, as that would have made a lot of sense.
The more i hear about Denmark the more I think I should live there!
I'm so jealous...this isn't fair. Student loans are the worst!
Make yourself a goal now then. Visit us, see if you still like it, move here if you do like it, and your future family will be very grateful. :)
But the poor billionaires!
If I had the ability to learn another language (I've tried, I don't) I might actually try moving to Scandinavia. And, I don't even live in a place with horrible working conditions like the U.S.
I'm a Canadian.
Well we really have alot of help to newcomers who needs to learn Danish. No one who wants to learn it has failed yet, and if it does, we all know english. ;)
You bring up good points.
I can't move now as I'm just going to college and am most certainly not ready to live entirly on my own but I really am going to consider moving to Scandinavia at some point. It seems really nice there and has the massive bonus of not being near the U.S.
Well I can't speek for living conditions in Canada, but I understood you were "the American state that made it out" haha. Always heard you did alot of things right but that's properly only compared to the US.
It can seem as a big jump, but I don't think you will regret it a second. Tbh I think I would be too afraid to move to Canada if it was the other way around. So if you ever do make it, hit me up! Got some massive respect to hand over! ;)
Oh ya it'd be scary and hard so if I ever did it then it'd be later in life. But ya Canada is pretty much America but better. The issue is that we still have that bit of America in our culture which leads to... most of our issues frankly.
Well the issues that aren't caused by the actual U.S. screwing with us that is. For example, the current issue where the U.S. is trying to ruin our long time mutually beneficial trade relations simply because Trump can't accept there being a deal out there that doesn't massively benefit the U.S. at the expense of everybody else.
Yeah, they push alot of countries away with Trumps/Democratic policies. America First has always been America Alone. Historically, that doesn't end well.
Well I'll try to make it less hard for you, if you come to Denmark. It's always easier if you have some beginners help and not being all alone at first. :)
I don't know how much I can do, but advice I can do!
[deleted]
I'm sorry mate but I really can't agree with any of your points. I've visited and the food is overly fatty and unhealthy (and less regulated), the music is just the pretty much the same as ours, there's worst unemployment rates in the U.S. then Canada and the U.S. has bad working conditions and of course, the people aren't particularly friendly.
As for the taxes thing, ya sure you pay less taxes but you have to pay for many other things, such as medical insurance from a company which will fight as hard as it can to avoid paying up when the time comes.
[removed]
Erasmus is an exclusively European exchange program.
But there are a lot of individual exchange agreements set up between danish universities and even individual departments with partners across the globe. Sadly quite a few of them broke down a few years ago with "Fremdrfitsreformen". But I suspect most are up and running again.
I don't know how easy it is to come here, but I know for my department at least it is pretty easy to go out on exchange.
Don't give up, man (especially if by "tried" you mean "took classes in school). Anybody can learn a foreign language - the human brain is made for it! Sure, it takes a while, there's really no way around that unless you're a genius savant, but as long as you keep at it you really can't fuck it up.
Source: have learned two foreign languages to a pretty good degree, one as a kid, one as a teenager/adult. And I'm not a super-genius or anything.
Hahah I love being Danish. I’m starting journalist school in a year, and I do not feel stressed about economy at all. Welfare is the best
That's it, I'm learning Danish
We have more illegal immigrants than your nation's total population, and multiple urban areas more economically impactful than your national GDP.
Don't forget how easy it is to get 6 million people who all look alike and speak the same language to agree on cultural, social, and economic decisions.
These aren't bragging points for the US - they are realities people overlook when comparing how we operate to Nordic national policies.
Yeah, Illegal immigrants who almost all came to work and who can’t actually collect any state funded welfare is the main reason the US can’t afford any universal welfare... /s
Germany, UK, France, Japan. All 50mio+ population and all able to provide effective single-payer healthcare and universal welfare coverage.
Also. Homogeneity and being a unitary state is NOT a requirement for efficient national policies. Switzerland is divided into 26 goddamn cantons with bigger legislative and cultural differences than US states, have 4 frikkin official languages and dozens of BINDING referendums on specific issues every year. ~25% of the population are immigrants. Yet they get their government to work. Germany is a federal state. Spain is a de facto federal state. Australia is a federal state. Canada is a federal state...
The problem across the pond lies solely with a form of government that is grossly misconstructed to fit today’s political reality. Also presidential systems with a strong executive suck ass in general. What does it say about presidential systems when the US is actually the most well functioning executive presidency in the world?
I wasnt bragging about US Government. I think it's horribly structured for the modern world and the power of individual states is far too great for successful national policy. It's old, slow, and frankly represents a generation too afraid to pass the baton to us because they haven't dug themselves out of this shithole and will likely go down as the most destructive generation since the Civil War.
I'm not a fan. Feel me?
Even with all that said, the level of global economic impact, military presence, political influence, cultural clout, etc that the US has is orders of magnitude beyond even the most successful of the nations you mentioned.
Double that with the fact that it's a ~3000 mile trip from one end of our nation to the other and about half that distance north/south nationwide. The sheer land mass alone makes national policy implementation that no federal government on earth could accomplish.
Why the fuck would anyone in Colorado give a fuck about anything someone in DC says? They're actively defying federal law right now by selling weed.
This place is a torrent of political turmoil the world has never experienced before. These more mature policies of European nations are nearly impossible to implement here by design.
Fair enough. I of course understand your point. My examples were all pointed in order to provocate.
I don’t agree with the fact that US states have too much influence. As I mentioned, Switzerland has Geneva (French-speaking and as cosmopolitan/globalist as NYC) and Appenzell Innerrhoden (German, rural and so conservative that they gave women suffrage in local elections only in 1990) sharing a national platform. Swiss cantons also have MORE legislative freedoms/peculiarities than US states. There is animosity, there is an outdated constitution and there is so much potential for ethnic/cultural/economic civil conflict just like there is in the US (or Belgium, Italy and Spain for that matter). But they make it work because the will to compromise is paramount.
I’m covinced that the main problem is not divisions, distance or differences. The main problem is not having a consensus-oriented political tradition. Which is exacerbated by two-party systems and first-past-the-post, and then made permanent by Gerrymandering and politicized media.
There are states in the U.S. that have GDPs higher than that of other countries. That's what he means by our states having a lot of power compared to the Federal government. Getting a TRUE consensus is almost impossible here, due to the fact that different states have very different cultures, and the media would rather focus on things that people CAN'T agree on.
Which is why it would be more effective at the state level.
[deleted]
What.
The only thing that is true is that nurses needs better conditions.
What the fuck did you do to get student loans? I live for 3000DK every month, and thats for a 2 bedroom, and gets paid 5100DK by the government with what we call SU. If you can't control money, don't blame anyone else.
You can't even get real student loans, because the government wont give more than a certain amount and there is no interest on them. So it's a free loan. Like wtf are you takling about.
And the tax is still 39% unless you are filthy rich.
Noice.
It's funny in Canada, I am not positive but I think the most heavily subsidized college programs are industrial trades (Electrician, welding, mechanic). School was $1200 per year of apprenticeship, which are two month long programs, I receive EI and get $1000 for each year of the apprenticeship I complete from the government.
Most companies nowadays are paying full wage while the apprentice goes to school (anywhere from $15-$40+/hour for two months while yoh attend the course). And when you have completed the apprenticeship, it's one of the top technical training programs in the world. So you can work anywhere in Canada and definitely should have decent luck abroad.
*All paid by taxpayers who have 2/3 of their money taken by the danish government
Yeah, but on the other hand, you live in Demark.
Right but we have the freedom. /s
Wow that is some salt in an open wound.
Costs about 150 000$ for medical school in Canada...But our undergrad is 'cheaper' than the USA. At least we have free health care?
I think I want to live in Denmark. Am American.
You can have that in the US, you just have to serve in the military afterwards for a few years.
Anyone in the military here gets exactly what you said except the pay per semester is usually more. I got all the way up to a Masters paid for while getting around $1,700 a semester plus money for books & supplies. I also have free healthcare/dental etc
And now that you are a doctor, welcome to the high tax rates of Denmark for the rest of your life to help pay for that "free" medical insurance that you receive and to help pay for all the next people to go to college behind you.
I prefer to keep what money I earn and pay for the services that I wish to use. I am just silly like that I suppose.
okay dokie.. as a Medical School grad you'll probably be taxed as a Doctor in the higher bracket. Meaning over the course of the next 5 year you'll probably make less and pay more in taxes than those state side that took out loans for the MD degree.
Not saying either system is better, just that it will probably average out when factoring your increased taxes, lower wages/salary, vs medical school loan payments over the course of the next 5 years...
but if you want gummy bears you're in more debt than americans after 5 years of studying
Communist pig! /s
You guys need more doctors? I’ll do medical school over again with that kinda deal.
I got briefly enraged until you said Denmark.
Communists /s
"filthy commie"
Things like this make me hate living in the US. I'll gladly pay taxes out of my ass till it bleeds and have these awesome services.
Anytime I bring up Denmark to someone here in America all i hear is "BuT tAxEs ArE bAd". Like... that doesn't sound too bad to me right about now.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Most middle class people in Denmark effectively pay around 35% tax due to tax brackets, which according to some quick google is pretty much the same as in US. Minimum wage is around $20/hour so even if the taxes were a high as people claim, it would still be worth it - I'd rather take home $10 and pay $10 in taxes than take home $4 and pay only $1 in taxes. Even if I'm paying 10 times as much I'm still winning (I know the example is exaggerated).
I mean, I live in the poorest member of the EU (Bulgaria) and if get a slight monetary help from my family (nothing serious lets say like 200-300$ /mo) and do a side work for 4hrs at the local Macdonalds or smth I'll be totally able to pay for my degree and live quite comfortably without having any XXXXX+ debt numbers behind my back.
What's happening in America when it comes to Education and Medical help is just ridiculous to me.
Why do I live in this economic disaster holy shit if I fail these college classes I'm gonna starve to death I wanna fucking die
How easy is it to immigrate to Denmark? How easy is it if you are uneducated? How many people live in Denmark? What percentage of those are immigrants? How many people does Denmark allow to immigrate each year? Do they select for country of origin, education level, financial stability, and ability to assimilate? Or does everyone who wants to get to immigrate? I'm genuinely interested.
It's not very easy, the government is doing its very best to prevent immigrants, especially if they are from middle eastern countries. If you have a job lined up or are enrolled in a university in Denmark then it shouldn't be too hard though.
I had heard that Denmark is in need of IT professionals of various specialties. Lots of Americans could fill those gaps. Is it reasonable for someone with such a background to immigrate without an actual degree or knowing Danish?
I think that's true. Everyone speaks English so language is not a problem. If you can find a job with your background, then yeah it sounds perfectly reasonable
Haha så jävla bra!
I'd like a permanent visa plz.
You know, I've always wanted to visit Denmark. It seems like such a cool place. Maybe I'll take a vacation there and--WHOOPS! I appear to have lost my return plane ticket, my passport, and all forms of United States ID. Welp, guess I'm stuck here now. What a shame.
How did you get paid in $ in Denmark?
All that school and they never taught you on which side the '$' goes.
Fuck off! Do you denmarkers have room for one more? I hope to get out of new york as soon as I can
you can do this in the US, but you must be in perfect health to join the army.
I'm sorry I killed your leader last time I played Civilization. Please let me in
You will pay for this in time
True but doctors in the US get paid far better and have lower taxes so things like debt and insurance won't be an issue once they graduate.
For every $1 you make, how much is taken out in taxes?
i guess thats why youre the holy murphy and im just a tree
I might like our government for being lazy and never really achieving anything. But this, and free medical treatments…. it can't be understated how safe that makes me feel.
Yeah well you guys have the highest cancer rate in the world, so there's that.
Grats man! I just graduated med school too and am also sitting in six figure debt, but I guess shouldn’t surprise us too much. Congrats again and good luck with residency!
Congrats to you too man! Hope residency treats you well
The best part is that when you finish residency (and, god forbid, fellowship), you'll have substantially more debt than you do now despite years of making monthly payments you couldn't really afford on your trainee salary!
Best of luck to you both. Enjoy residency. It sucks in every way, but looking back, I miss it more than words can say.
It’s absurd to think health insurance is basically a requirement of being an adult. It’s a luxury in NZ/AUS and really only gets you fancy private hospitals with short to no wait times for surgery.
Yeah, that must be really nice. The more time that passes the more I realize that the US has a lot of very basic things we need to figure out. A lot of anti-intellectualism and regressive policies over here. Not too long ago I was on a health insurance plan that didn't cover ANYTHING (not even PCP visits) until I reached a $10,000 deductible....it blows my mind that people here are against socialized medicine.
What the flying fuck. That’s absurd. What’s the point in even having health insurance if it doesn’t even cover shit unless it’s that expensive?
Here’s a couple of other things that’ll probably make you sad:
My cousin got Leukaemia when he was a toddler. He’s now been in remission for eight years and my aunt/uncle didn’t pay a single cent of their own money. They didn’t even need to pay for accomodation when they needed to go to another city for weeks on end while he was having particular treatments.
And my brother fell off a 15m cliff while snowboarding. Broke his right arm, left leg and back. Got heli-evaced to the nearest hospital, then back home. Spent two weeks in the hospital. Didn’t pay a single cent and got paid most of his wages in benefits while he was unable to work.
The reason to have garbage insurance is basically to protect yourself from going broke in case something really bad happens. It’s one thing to pay a $10,000 deductible, but six-figure hospital bills will definitely bankrupt most people.
That’s awesome you guys are set up so well. I can only hope that things change for us in the next few years or decades, sigh.
And then you go broke from the student debt
My hope is that with the current pendulum swing it goes far enough with the next president and congress to get real healthcare reform.
What’s the point in even having health insurance if it doesn’t even cover shit unless it’s that expensive?
Generally speaking these high deductible plans are designed only for catastrophic coverage. They're paired with HSAs, which allow you to fund your medical expenses with pre-tax income (so basically like a 10-30% discount on all medical expenses, depending on your tax bracket).
If you end up with a $250k bill for chemo or something, you can still avoid bankruptcy. It's a barebones plan that you never hope to use, like fire or flood insurance for your home.
Yeah but now you can do doctor stuff to yourself Tryin to make a change :-\
Do doctors doctor themselves or is there a never ending cycle of doctors doctoring other doctors?
I have a lot of friends and family in nursing and healthcare IT. Always shocked to find out they have really bad insurance offered through work.
Holy shit.
Was sitting in a resident lounge where 4/7ish people were sick, nobody could any sick leave because that is not really a thing. Pretty sure by next week the remaining 3 will get sick while 2 or so currently sick will get better; then itll just keep cycling throughout the year.
SIX FIGURES IN DEBT? What even...
I believe this is why our systems are fucked. There's too many positive feed back loops everywhere causing overpricing. Imagine if you didn't have all that debt when you graduated. Would you be okay taking a low paying doctors job? But now that you have that debt you know you have to get paid a lot to pay it back, and are also expected to. It's a shitty positive feedback loop.
There are plenty of cheap colleges to get a degree at though. Why do you have to go to an expensive college? Unless you have a very specific program that is only offered at a few places.
I was talking about being a doctor specifically. Can you name a cheap medical school? Also, depending on your field, school names absolutely matter on resumes.
As of 2017
East Carolina University Brody school of Medicine
Annual in-state tuition $18,159
Baylor College of Medicin
Annual In-State Tuition 19,650
Texas A&M
Annual In-State Tuition 13,790
Mayo Clinic School of Medicine
Annual In-State Tuituin 49,900 (Though being really high, they have the lowest student debt due to a lot of school scholership and grant programs. Typical student leaves medical school with \~$69,695 in debt.
What degree, outside of something very specific that is only offered at very select schools, do you need a stand out college in to put on your resume?
That's literally just tuition, without room and board. 4 x 18,000 = 72,000 (not to mention your under grad tuition). That is not cheap, and that still puts someone almost 72,000 dollars in debt before they are even working. Plus 3 more years for residency before they can practice medicine.
Professorship at University's are strongly biased towards top tier schools like Berkley. Go look through the professors in an engineering department and see how many came from no name schools.
But back to my original point that you just proved, medical school is not cheap. This creates a feedback where you have to pay doctors a shitton of money, or else why would anyone become a doctor if it just means they have massive debt and no way to pay it off. There's countries where this just doesn't happen and they have cheaper healthcare.
So your point of our school system is fucked because one of the more higher end outlier graduate degrees leaves you in a lot of debt but also leaves you with a much higher earning potential as well to get out of that debt?
I am an average run of the mill engineer from a bargain school and I make slightly above median pay for my degree and my area. I will have no debt (School, medical, car or credit card) in less than 2 years and I will have my house paid off in 5 years. I will be 35 years old at that time. at the current rate, I will retire with over 2 million dollars in my retirement funds barring any major medical, family or economic crisis (keeping in mind that the crash of 2008 has already rebounded most portfolios). I inherited nothing, I didn't do anything extraordinary. I just didn't get sucked into believing "your point" that school has to leave you broke. I lived on a budget and had a financial goal. You made no point you just laid out an extreme situation and are trying to make people think that it is the norm. You are wrong if you think that is the only way. Where did your doctor go to college? I bet you don't know. If you've worked with a lawyer for anything like setting up a will, where did they get their degree? I bet you if you did a poll on reddit, the average answer would be that they have no idea. This though that name recognition of a school matters is utter bullshit. Yeah, there are some problems with the cost of education but don't think for a second that if you are smart and don't buy into all this bullshit that you can't get a good education without going broke. It's nonsense!
I have a BSEE from UW. I did 2 years at a community college. I understand what it means to go to college without blowing up your finances. I'm an electrical engineer and I graduated with 5k in debt in 2012. I didn't have help from my family, I paid for it myself with money I saved, government assistance, and scholarships I earned.
Back when I was studying I did a research paper on the cost of college education and comparing it to any other cost (inflation/medical expenses/rent/wages) it's just insane how fast it was rising. And it hasn't slowed down. You can hoot and holler about how you did it this way and that, but me and you are not the norm we are also outliers dude.
Did your parents help you pay for college or did you pay for it yourself? Do you have a 4 year degree and how much did it cost you? Look, I'm not against college, I used to vehemently tell everyone they need to go, but right now I don't do that anymore. The cost of it is insane and not everyone has the luxury of financial assistance to help push them through without loans.
And IDC what you say, every degree is not equal, when you're going to be a research scientist at CERN, your degree from your bargain school won't mean shit to them compared to the dude who's been doing cutting edge research at Stanford.
No, my parents didn't help. I worked through college. Yes college can be expensive and a lot of people fall into traps and go get a communications degree from stanford and and rack up a fuckton of debt for a degree that won't get them a return on their investment and yes there are specialty degrees like medical and being a cutting edge scientist that require specific schools, I mentioned that exact point so I don't see what you are going on about. My point is that despite everyones bitching about expensive schooling, the vast majority of people can choose wisely and find affordable schooling to get a degree that has good return on investment. It's like a person making 35k a year and buying a bmw and then bitching that buying a car is a shitty investment. The whole time there are tons of people buying toyotas and getting great return, you just need to be smart about it.
Physician, heal thyself
Depending on the medical/science field and university, some schools in America will pay for an individual to go to their medical program, but its fairly few and far between
Yeah... no. The overwhelming majority of those are M.D-Ph.D program (4 extra years on a PhD stipend hardly makes up for 4 years of lost MD income) or NIH researcher-physician grants which also requires PhD and is only given to crazy smart people (even in med school terms).
Many states have medical schools that cover most if not all of living expenses and tuition if you remain in the state in underserved areas.
You’re referring to stuff like the National Health Service Corps scholarships and the like. Or special cases of tuition-free MD programs such as US Military-run institutions. Those are all incredibly difficult to obtain and doesn’t differ significantly from getting a full ride by getting other merit-based scholarships.
For in-state programs it’s not like anyone graduating can just go “Gief residency in underserved place kthx” and get rid of $300.000 debt. If it was that easy everyone who could would do it.
No, I’m talking about state funded programs, which many are exactly ”Gief residency in underserved place kthx” as you put it.
Show one example of an abundant and readily available scheme that serves a state with a reasonable amount of medschools. Otherwise your point is moot.
AAMC has an entire list of them if you have access. Just because you’ve never heard of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Yeah fuck this country. After my student loans are paid off, I could live off almost nothing. I have my bsn and it’s terrible how little I take home after loans are paid.
What? Shouldn't you be covered by whatever plan your medical school provides until July 1? And are you doing a residency?
Medical school doesn’t provide insurance, you have to pay for it separately. Even then, the one the school offers is garbage and it doesn’t cover anything. I have asthma (on daily low dose steroids) and I still have to pay ~$250 out of pocket per month for my inhaler. It’s required to have insurance in med school though so I paid for a super cheap/basic insurance to cover for emergencies.
Starting residency this month and will FINALLY get insurance through my program. Pretty stoked about that lol.
In that sense, medical school doesn't provide school either as you have to pay for that too, one way or another.
Anyway, good luck! It's a long, "fun" road...
doesnt your residency program cover that shit?
I start residency this month and I will FINALLY have decent health insurance
Im sorry to hear that. Hope ur country changes for the better in the future.
Congrats on graduating
Sounds wonderful. How hard did you work to get into medical school? How selective are the schools? If med school is free, I imagine there is a lot of demand.
Depends on the specific track. Nursing will always be in demand but things like PA schools are becoming overly popular.
It swings. Maybe 10 years ago, physicians assistants were fewer and farther between. Today, every bio major under the SoCal sun is bum rushing the PA track to skip residency.
I see more hype for ER nursing where I live. Could be a localized thing.
You graduated from medical school. Just operate on yourself. You know where everything is...
What field did you go into? My sis did 9 years of school so her loan debt is high, but she also makes bank and they definitely have good affordable health insurance.
What the actual heck. Why would you even want to go to college if that’s how it’s going to end. I don’t think anybody in this country has a debt that size, no matter what the cause. Netherlands, by the way
Just doctor for yourself! American dream!
I googled starting salaries for MDs. It’s like $160,000.
If you’re around that with the amount of debt you have, you’ll be fine.
Almost 10 years in practice. Same. Still 6 figures in debt. No medical insurance.
Well luckily the ROI will come faster than if it was a PhD in etymology.
Don’t worry, you have a very high earning potential here in the US, especially if you specialize. I have a handful of doctor buddies who smoked their 6 figure debt in 5 years or so.
What? How can you not afford insurance? Can you get Medicaid?
We need to quit complaining on reddit and actually band together and do something or it's not going to get better.
Imagine how good rich people taste.
Just operate on yourself if you ever need surgery. Then you can charge yourself for the time. Also don’t forget to tip yourself.
I just don't get it. I'd be fucking mortified it I found myself in 6 figure debt. I'm from UK.
6 figures, that’s obscene. I hear they force you to buy text books that cost hundreds too. It’s like they don’t want you to get an education, parents pay taxes and they rob their children of an education.
I love my sad third world country when I think about student debt in the US, you have to pay with time, but it's only a year compared to years and years of paying off debt.
Did you not go to a residency program that pays for or at least helps with health insurance?
Medical school is not the same as residency. You do residency after medical school (which all new residents start in a couple of weeks). THEN most of us will receive insurance in residency.
I’m aware, you made it sound like your institution doesn’t pay for insurance.
I was talking about medical school...which doesn’t pay for insurance. I’m not seeing the issue with my statement?
This is America
Treat yo' self.
Yep. I graduated med school in 2010, have been paying my (consolidated, federal) loans off through an income based repayment plan ever since, and still have not made a dent in the principal of the loan whatsoever. Here's hoping my public service loan forgiveness comes through because these payments are more than my mortgage.
The hell? I'm a med student in the US, do residencies not cover that like a normal employer?
I just graduated....as a med student you should know residency doesn't start until July 1st lol. They do have insurance, but I'm just stating that I was unable to afford any during med school.
I do know that. Thought you meant going forward. Our school provides insurance while we're students (aka rolls it into the COA so Fannie Mae covers it), one less thing to worry about at least... step 1 is calling. Congrats on matching and good luck intern year!
At least you can treat yourself?
yeah, but us doctors also earn twice as much as their counterparts in other industrialized nations. 100k debt is nothing vs artificially restricting the supply of doctors via ama lobbying efforts.
What do they expect you to do, operate on yourself?!
yeah but you have the KNOWLEDGE to take care of yourself for the rest of your life.
But now you're an American doctor, and can charge people a million dollars to take their pulse, right?
Yeah, paying for things you get is so backward, right?
It‘s paid for by the government, because education is a basic human right - that means everyone should have access to it, and not only kids who were lucky enough to be born to rich parents.
What do you not understand about that?
It‘s paid for by the government, because education is a basic human right
No, it is not a human right. The reason it isn't a human right is because it requires someone else to provide it. That's not a right.
Rights aren't things you get. Rights are things you may DO.
Food, water, shelter, health care, education... none of these are rights. Because to claim them to be a right means you are asserting that someone in the world has an obligation to provide them to you.
That is completely unacceptable. You do not have a right to made demands of others. It is perverse to impose obligations on others in the name of rights.
What do you not understand about that
I understand what your position is. You believe in a paradox You believe in denying the people around you basic self-determination because you think you have a right to their wealth and service.
What do YOU not get about the immorality of making demands of others at the point of a gun? How is a right to education any different from a right to sex which some asshole asserts justifies rape?
This is a serious question. Isn't forcing people to provide education a lot closer to rape (forcing people to provide sex) than anything resembling charity or justice?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_education
The right to education has been recognized as a human right in a number of international conventions, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognizes a right to free, compulsory primary education for all, an obligation to develop secondary education accessible to all, in particular by the progressive introduction of free secondary education, as well as an obligation to develop equitable access to higher education, ideally by the progressive introduction of free higher education.
The right to education is reflected in international law in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
TL;DR: You‘re just plainly wrong.
No. This meaningless propaganda printed by an unaccountable and corrupt body meaning nothing. I have a logical and consistent position showing that making demands from others is incompatible with the concepts of human rights. It is in fact contrary to civil rights.
The Universal Declaration is bullshit. It's as simple as that. It promises things but offers no method of achieving them and has less than zero authority. It's propaganda garbage.
If it must come from another person, you don't have a right to it. As simple as that. (The only exception is those things in which we are forced to interact with government. We have a right to trial and a right to vote. Because our access to justice and representation requires those things).
You are plainly wrong. Because you are appealing to authority with no actual logical argument. You are just quoting an assertion you agree with. That's no different from making the assertion yourself. And if you don't support it with an argument then I am free to reject it without any more reason.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is „meaningless propaganda“? You realize that the defining feature of a human right is that it is recognized by this „unaccountable and corrupt body meaning nothing“?
Whatever. Disregard that, it‘s not even important. Disagree if you want. What you need to understand is this:
If it must come from another person, you don't have a right to it. As simple as that.
You previously made this weird comparison with rape and said that I don‘t understand „the immorality of making demands of others at the point of a gun.“ THAT is your mistake. At no point is anyone making demands of anyone at the point of a gun. It‘s all transactions, tit for tat.
The teacher who is supposed to educate me - you want me to explain how him having to teach me is not the same as a woman being forced to have sex with me? Easy. I‘m not making any demands of him - he gets money for it and he does it of his own volition. How is that comparable to robbing someone, or raping them? Of course I can have a right to something that comes from another person, if this person voluntarily enlists for having to give it to me.
Maybe you meant the taxpayer who pays the teacher. It‘s the same argument. Yes, you have to pay money, and yes, you‘re not the one who actually receives that education - right now. But you also receive, received and will receive benefits you didn‘t pay for.
The streets in your town - did you pay for them? If they’re reasonably old, probably not. Do you use them and benefit from their existence? Obviously.
You pay taxes, and you get benefits in return. That‘s just how society works - how it has to work.
If you have a problem with paying taxes at all, you better not have a problem with nonexistent infrastructure, shitty literacy and employment rates (because that‘s the problem - how will you learn to work when you can‘t even read? How will you pay for education when your parents can‘t get a job?) and getting murdered in your sleep because there is no police.
You realize that the defining feature of a human right is that it is recognized by this „unaccountable and corrupt body meaning nothing“?
What? No. Recognition by a body has nothing to do with civil rights. Because they aren't contingent on bureaucracy and politics.
Do you understand why appealing to authority is considered a fallacy of logic? It is because authorities don't determine truth; truth is independent of who states it (or disputes it).
There is no authority you can cite on what constitutes a right.
But from a standpoint of logic, it is deeply illogical to assert that any person has a right to TAKE from others. Because obviously that represents a breach of the rights of the person you are taking from.
THAT is your mistake. At no point is anyone making demands of anyone at the point of a gun.
You are talking about programs the government provides. They are paid for through taxation. Taxation is enforced by armed agents. That is ultimately the power that government has. Laws and tax policy wouldn't mean anything without the authority to force compliance. Ultimately, when all other methods are exhausted, the "point of a gun" is indeed how those laws are enforced.
When you assert a right to education, you are setting in motion the process which will ultimately rely on the ability of government to employ armed force.
It‘s all transactions, tit for tat.
Not a voluntary transaction. To make people comply with involuntary transactions, you need the ability to employ force.
The teacher who is supposed to educate me - you want me to explain how him having to teach me is not the same as a woman being forced to have sex with me?
I was thinking more the the people you are forcing to pay the teacher.
Yes, you have to pay money, and yes, you‘re not the one who actually receives that education - right now. But you also receive, received and will receive benefits you didn‘t pay for.
What about the fact that there are people that in fact pay most of the bills for everyone and people that contribute little if anything while still receiving the benefits?
The streets in your town - did you pay for them?
Yes. When I pay for the gas that allows me to travel in my car, there is a highly rational tax associated with it to pay for the roads I will travel on. This ties MY use of the road to my contribution to building it. The licensing for MY vehicle also does that.
Even the large trucks shipping goods I will buy; I am paying for a share of their access to the word when I purchase the goods they deliver.
This is an important distinction. Linking use to expense is just and correct. And police and fire protection are a part of the fee I pay for the property I live on. They serve my area and I pay them more or less directly.
That is completely different from education of health care where we are forced to pay for stuff we probbaly aren't even getting.
You pay taxes, and you get benefits in return. That‘s just how society works - how it has to work
Yes. And that's why it's wrong to force people to pay taxes for benefits they DON'T get. You are making my argument for me. People should pay for their education in the same way they pay for their access to the roads. They pay for what they use. They don't have to pay when they aren't using. If I don't have a car to license or gas to buy then I'm not really contributing much to paying for roads. That's the correct model.
If you have a problem with paying taxes at all
I have a problem with paying taxes for programs that benefit individuals rather than for public services. Education isn't a public service. It's a personal product unique to each individual.
And I have a huge problem with asserting rights that require other people to provide them.
I understand what you mean now, but I still don‘t agree.
Education isn't a public service. It's a personal product unique to each individual.
For one, you completely disregard the huge benefit of having an educated society. More importantly, you also ignored my initial argument about fairness and equal chances - an argument which is, in my opinion, extremely relevant.
If everyone has to pay for education themselves - since it‘s not a public service, but a personal product unique to each individual - it means that if a child has very poor parents, it can‘t get education. If a child has rich parents, it can. This means that the rich child has infinitely better chances of getting a well-paying job, becoming successful and accumulating wealth. The poor, uneducated child has close to none. When they have children of their own, the cycle continues, effectively creating a two-class society with minimal social mobility.
Since you appealed to morality in your previous comments - how is it moral to advocate for a system that will hugely disadvantage children based solely on who they were born to?
As I said - I understand your point. But I see it as a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. When the options are „some people have to pay a little more tax for services they don‘t actually use“ and „poor people will stay poor forever, just like their children, grandchildren and so on“, picking the latter just shows a complete lack of human decency to me.
For one, you completely disregard the huge benefit of having an educated society
I do disregard it. Because producing such benefits is not the purpose or mission of government. Education isn't even mentioned in the U.S. constitution. Because it's not of the government's business.
Government is not meant to manage society. Society doesn't need management, it is a natural emergent property.
Hell, more important than that, it's a dangerous tool to hand government. A tool of pervasive indoctrination.
The world is full of philosophies that contradict themselves. Many a person will criticize our education system as "serving to educate people only well enough to serve in the corporate workforce" but for some reason they still insist that it is government's role to provide education and see no danger of it serving only to imbue dependency and wrote thought that serves political interests.
If everyone has to pay for education themselves - since it‘s not a public service, but a personal product unique to each individual - it means that if a child has very poor parents, it can‘t get education.
You are making the unspoken assumption that teachers and classrooms are necessary to education. But they aren't. In fact, they are basically the least efficient method of education there is.
Inefficient in a specific way that is. Yes, if you are seeking teaching-effort to learning ratio, the classroom makes sense. BUT, it is hideously wasteful if you value a student's time to learning ratio. It is actually kind of absurd to tie students together that way when they are all so very different.
It takes about 1/10th of the time to teach most kids one-on-one than it does in a classroom. And where will the one teacher come from...?
The kid's already living with them.
Since you appealed to morality in your previous comments - how is it moral to advocate for a system that will hugely disadvantage children based solely on who they were born to?
I reject your premise. Being poor doesn't make education harder. All it takes is one person willing to teach the other.
Additionally, a system that *doesn't get involved" can't be immoral. It is null. It has no impact, neither moral nor immoral.
But I see it as a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.
As do I. On the one hand there's political manipulation and blackmail, gross opportunity for indoctrination, unjust confiscation of wealth and ridiculous waste of student's time.
On the other, we have expecting parents to teach their children.
Kind of a lopsided equation, isn't it?
poor people will stay poor forever, just like their children, grandchildren and so on
No. Why would that happen? You should have more respect for people.
There's infinity more opportunity for keeping the masses down through public education.
As an aside, I appreciate this discussion. Thanks for keeping it civil, lots of people on Reddit wouldn‘t.
On the one hand there's political manipulation and blackmail, gross opportunity for indoctrination, unjust confiscation of wealth and ridiculous waste of student's time.
Political manipulation and blackmail? Elaborate, please?
As for indoctrination, I see a far greater risk for that in homeschooling. I think it‘s way more likely for a kid to be influenced by their parents‘ political opinions, than by a teacher‘s. If a kid gets homeschooled by diehard socialist parents, you bet that kid will reflect their political opinions. Meanwhile, I don‘t think there‘s much indoctrination at all in most western democracies‘ school systems.
I already commented on the unjust confiscation of wealth bit. As for „wasting“ the students‘ time, that‘s just your opinion. I wouldn‘t say it‘s being wasted, which brings me to my next point.
On the other, we have expecting parents to teach their children.
People who can‘t afford school just have to teach their children themselves - is that what you‘re proposing?
And you really think that getting homeschooled by (potentially uneducated) parents can keep everyone on the same standard of education as someone who went to an actual school? The kid who was taught basic math by his dirt-poor parents (who never went to school themselves) gets education equal to or better than the kid who went to an expensive private school for 12 years? Is that what you‘re saying?
Because if you are, I STRONGLY disagree. If you aren‘t, then my argument still stands. Poor people‘s chances of getting a well-paying job are basically nonexistent, compared to rich people, in a system with privatized education.
Political manipulation and blackmail? Elaborate, please?
"Vote for me or you'll lose these benefits". Class warfare as a political platform..
As for indoctrination, I see a far greater risk for that in homeschooling.
Yeah, but that's a parent's right. It's a form of free speech. Parents get to teach their kids anything they want. so be it. We should never interfere. We can voice our own alternatives but we can't limit the parent.
The "risk" you are identifying is like many, many other dangers in the world. It is what happens when people exercise their rights. You have to accept the risk.
Conversely, the government has no rights. It doesn't have a right to speech and we can and should prevent it from engaging in indoctrination.
As for „wasting“ the students‘ time, that‘s just your opinion.
No, it's not an opinion but I should clarify. If you think I mean that education is a waste of time, that's not what I am saying. I am referring to the objective fact that classroom education is a very inefficient use of a student's time. It is a bad way of educating. More can be done much, much more quickly with one on one education.
We know for a fact that the large the teacher to student ratio, the more effective the education. But we can't afford a 1:1 education in any kind of public venue.
But the 1:1 ratio is readily available in the parent-child relationship.
People who can‘t afford school just have to teach their children themselves - is that what you‘re proposing?
Yes. Except I see no reason for people that can "afford school" to send their kids to school either. It's a bad system that everyone should just avoid.
And you really think that getting homeschooled by (potentially uneducated) parents can keep everyone on the same standard of education
NO, I don't think that. It's not my goal. It's none of my business. It's also none of your business. I am saying that there are methods for people to possibly achieve equal or greater education without schools or government involvement. I am not saying everyone will achieve that.
I just don't care. Because I do not believe anyone, either me personally or you or the "you" that represents a voting majority is in any way responsible for what happens. Quite the contrary, I believe that foisting responsibility onto the government is nothing less than a surrender of self determination and a loss of all the freedoms we've struggled for for a thousand years.
How does your image of the world differ from serf's living on the government dole?
How does your image of the world differ from serf's living on the government dole?
Mostly the fact that we have WAY more rights, we vote democratically and we can leave if we want.
You use the „oppressive government“ argument quite a lot. But ust because a system could theoretically be abused, that doesn‘t mean it is, and it doesn’t mean it‘s not effective.
I just don't care. Because I do not believe anyone, either me personally or you or the "you" that represents a voting majority is in any way responsible for what happens. Quite the contrary, I believe that foisting responsibility onto the government is nothing less than a surrender of self determination and a loss of all the freedoms we've struggled for for a thousand years.
This is what this argument seems to boil down to. I think it‘s immoral and irresponsible to discriminate against people because they‘re poor. You on the other hand just flat out deny any responsibility. I disagree because fairness is important to me - imagine being born poor and having no chance of ever achieving something because your education consists of your parents teaching you addition and subtraction, how to buy booze, how to work illegally and how to not get caught by cops. I believe that a system that creates such rampant injustice is unacceptable; you apparently don‘t.
We‘re not going to change each other‘s viewpoints, so it‘s probably for the best if we just agree to disagree. It was a very interesting discussion, so thanks for that.
Mostly the fact that we have WAY more rights, we vote democratically and we can leave if we want.
What rights do you have that a serf did not? My reading of your position is that a majority can strip any one of any right any time they like. After all, taxation is stripping people of their property.
Which brings us to the fact that a democracy merely defines who your master is, it doesn't lessen their control over you. Democracies sound great until the moment you become a minority.
As for leaving... leave the planet? Remember, you want all the globe to be enforcing these "rights". Where are we supposed to leave to if we disagree?
I think it‘s immoral and irresponsible to discriminate against people because they‘re poor.
Who is engaging is discrimination? Expecting payment is not discrimination.
Is it not immoral and irresponsible to TAKE from the few to give to the many? I guess you will simply say no, it's not immoral.
Which demonstrates your lack of respect for your fellow human being.
I disagree because fairness is important to me
You think it's fair to take what Joe has earned and give it to Bill? That's a fucked up definition of fair you have there.
Bulldozers are "fair" to the field they crush. And the utopia of destruction they leave behind is much to be admired. Perish the thought that anyone actually raise their head up and strive to achieve something.
imagine being born poor and having no chance of ever achieving something because your education consists of your parents teaching you addition and subtraction,
I can't imagine that because it's not remotely realistic. Your disrespect for people is showing again. Everyone ALWAYS has a chance. Education is easy to get. Just pay attention and ask some questions.
how to buy booze, how to work illegally and how to not get caught by cops.
So.... are you just a bigot? One of those "good bigots" that want to help the poor suckers that are inferior to you?
We‘re not going to change each other‘s viewpoints, so it‘s probably for the best if we just agree to disagree.
If you agree to stop forcing me to obey your will. Otherwise, NO, we can't agree to disagree because your position is oppressive and destructive and has a direct impact on me. YOU ARE VIOLATING MY FREE WILL.
Lmao I can‘t even.
So.... are you just a bigot? One of those "good bigots" that want to help the poor suckers that are inferior to you?
I‘m not. It was an intentionally extreme example, and I was in no way asserting that this is the norm. You just didn‘t get it before, so I tried to make it more obvious. Good on you for personally attacking me, though.
I can't imagine that because it's not remotely realistic. Your disrespect for people is showing again. Everyone ALWAYS has a chance. Education is easy to get. Just pay attention and ask some questions.
BULLSHIT. Just answer this one simple question for me, will you? How the FUCK is education easy to get for someone with parents who never went to school, didn‘t learn much from THEIR parents because they never went to school, either, and are too poor to pay someone to teach their kid? At this point I think you‘re just being intentionally obtuse. And I‘m the one disrespecting people? I‘m not saying they would have no chances because they‘re dumb, or worth less than me. I‘m saying they would have no chances because people like you apparently want to take education from poor people and replace it with getting told stuff by their equally uneducated parents. That’s just nuts.
A kid‘s parents only ever worked as cashiers. How is this kid‘s chance of becoming an engineer or a doctor greater than zero when there is no opportunity for it to learn everything it needs to, and there is overwhelming competition from infinitely more qualified rich kids? You‘re the one who‘s not being realistic.
You think it's fair to take what Joe has earned and give it to Bill?
I think it‘s fair to strive to ensure that everyone has the same chances from birth. Don‘t you?
Also, your simplification is problematic. You take A PORTION OF what Joe has earned, and you also take a portion of what Bill has earned. When Bill has kids, Bill, Joe, and everyone else will pay for their education. But that‘s also the case when Joe has kids - he, Bill, and everyone else will pay for it. I can‘t believe I have to explain this to you.
Who is engaging is discrimination? Expecting payment is not discrimination.
Not directly. But you want to make education - high-quality or specialized education if you insist, even though I still don‘t believe in your homeschooling idea - exclusive to the upper class. Education is NOT a luxury. It‘s absolutely necessary, for reasons I have stated to you countless times. It‘s literally the limiting factor on your success later in life.
I‘m going to ignore the bit about the serfs, since it‘s a steaming pile of bullshit. You act like democracy is the same as a dictature with an elected dictator, but that‘s just not the case. You act like minorities have no representation in functioning democracies. That‘s also not the case. You‘re either dumb, or dishonest.
If you agree to stop forcing me to obey your will. Otherwise, NO, we can't agree to disagree because your position is oppressive and destructive and has a direct impact on me. YOU ARE VIOLATING MY FREE WILL.
So what you‘re saying is ... I‘m forcing you to obey my will? I’m violating your free will? All I did was type on a keyboard. You literally quoted me saying we should agree to disagree and end this argument peacefully, which means I was actively refraining from forcing my will onto you. But you don‘t want to agree to disagree - I‘m reading that as „I‘m not going to stop until I change your position.“ So it‘s actually YOU forcing ME to obey your will. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
As for my position being oppressive and destructive ... my position is the status quo in most developed countries. Guess what? It works. Most people are happy with it - even the poor, oppressed billionaires you so fervently defend. Meanwhile, you‘re advocating for some sort of plutocracy where the state has no power, the rich are basically kings and the poor are ... serfs? That‘s pretty funny imo.
I tried to keep this discussion civil, you know. But if you want to attack me, fine, fuck being polite tbh.
Just answer this one simple question for me, will you? How the FUCK is education easy to get for someone with parents who never went to school,
Because school isn't necessary for education. It's very simple. Those parents are themselves capable of learning. Even if some system foisted on them by your methods has failed them, they can still teach themselves.
You are so set on the assumption that education is something granted form on high that you aren't stopping to consider real, practical methods of learning.
If a person can read, they can learn absolutely anything. In fact, once they are able to read, they can learn on their own if necessary but it is certainly better to have someone to bounce things off of and to maybe point out useful paths of inquiry.
The classroom setting gets in the way of learning.
I‘m saying they would have no chances because people like you apparently want to take education from poor people
And people like you confuse school with education. Because they aren't imbeciles, they can learn anything they want completely independent of the systems you identify with education.
A kid‘s parents only ever worked as cashiers. How is this kid‘s chance of becoming an engineer or a doctor greater than zero when there is no opportunity for it to learn everything it needs to,
It's greater than zero because all they have to do is read about the topic. Do some problems or projects to test their knowledge. I'm a little confused about why you're stuck on this. "Self taught" is not only possible; it's more efficient. We just don't have to worry about it. People learn what they want to learn.... hell, it's almost impossible to stop them.
You think it's fair to take what Joe has earned and give it to Bill?
I think it‘s fair to strive to ensure that everyone has the same chances from birth. Don‘t you?
No. Because of the question I asked you. To achieve your goal you have to interfere in people's lives. That is an overt act of harm far worse than standing aside and letting the outcome decide itself.
Bulldozers are destructive machines that leave a wasteland in their wake. A wasteland you call "a level playing field". When you take from Joe for the benefit of Bill, you are violating the rights and basic self determination of Joe. You're also turning Bill into your dependent vassal.
How is any of that actually good?
But that‘s also the case when Joe has kids - he, Bill, and everyone else will pay for it. I can‘t believe I have to explain this to you.
And I can't believe I have to explain to you that no one has to pay anything if they just teach their own damn kids. Or that you aren't taking equally from people. If Joe's paying $10,000 and Bill's paying $800, how's that remotely fair regardless of who's kids are involved?
You act like democracy is the same as a dictature with an elected dictator, but that‘s just not the case.
That's exactly what it is. Forcing the will of the majority on the entire population is oppression.
You act like minorities have no representation in functioning democracies.
Representation is a moot point. YOU act like making decisions for others is a moral thing to do. That is self serving and disgusting. You act like getting outvoted makes the outcome fair.
So what you‘re saying is ... I‘m forcing you to obey my will?
Yes. I think that was pretty clear.
I’m violating your free will? All I did was type on a keyboard.
No, you are voting for and condoning a system that subjugates the will of the individual to the political system. YOU vote to take away people's self determination.
As for my position being oppressive and destructive ... my position is the status quo in most developed countries.
Yes. The status quo is oppressive and destructive. Just like feudalism was an oppressive status quo.
Guess what? It works.
So does slavery. What's your point?
Meanwhile, you‘re advocating for some sort of plutocracy where the state has no power,
False. A plutocracy imbues the wealthy with power. I suggest no such thing. I am opposed to anyone having power.
the rich are basically kings
False. "King" implies power over the lives of subjects. The "rich" would have no power and indeed no one would be their subjects. Being rich would merely mean the ability to buy things from willing sellers.
YOUR system, on the other hand, creates levers of power for the rich to wield. This is an important concept so please read carefully. You say my system would have the state "have no power" and that is mostly true. We dismantle the levers of power held by the state.
No other levers take their place. Outside of enforcing basic laws against murder and assault and theft and building a handful of large infrastructure projects that are impossible any other way (raods and damns, basically), the stat's powers are necessary and artificial things that we simply can do without. And nothing will take their place. Because we never needed them in the first place.
Here's the kicker. "The rich" today make use of those governmental levers of power, don't they? One effect of stripping government of power is that you are taking that power away from the rich and other special interests.
It's win-win.
Your assumption that the rich would rule in the absence of government power is exactly the opposite of the truth. The rich exercise the power of government. That's the only power that exists.
tried to keep this discussion civil, you know. But if you want to attack me
I called you a bigot for treating people as your inferior. You yourself backtracked from your words and say now that it was an extreme example. But I called you out on the basis of your stated position. It wasn't an attack. I described your position. I still don't understand why it is you think people can't learn without schools spoon-feeding them everything. You are in practice treating people like idiots.
There’s lots of things I’d like to say, but the fact of the matter is, we‘re not going to change each other‘s minds on the topic of education. That‘s okay for me, because I think the question of power is way more important and interesting. It‘s also becoming increasingly difficult to adequately respond to comments that cover three or more topics at once, so I‘m focusing on this.
False. A plutocracy imbues the wealthy with power. I suggest no such thing. I am opposed to anyone having power.
False. "King" implies power over the lives of subjects. The "rich" would have no power and indeed no one would be their subjects
Consider this premise: Power is inherent to wealth.
You don’t believe me? You yourself say that wealth is „merely“ the ability to buy things from willing sellers. What you ignore or omit is that a) „things“ can be literally anything, even abstract things such as support or service, and b) virtually anyone can be turned into a willing seller by increasing the amount of money offered. With enough money, you can get almost anything from almost anyone. That‘s pretty much the definition of power. Premise proven.
You want to eliminate whatever according to you gives or has power over others - aka the (adequately powerful) government. By doing so, you remove literally the only thing that stands above the most wealthy and has power over them. Now, whoever is wealthiest has the most power. Therefore your system is a plutocracy. By the way, since wealth (and therefore power) will be inherited, there‘s also similarities to monarchy.
Unless you want communism (it certainly doesn‘t seem like you do), it‘s plainly impossible to ensure that no one has power over anyone. It‘s an unavoidable, necessary evil. So if some people have to hold the most power, doesn‘t it make more sense to decide who does based on a majority vote than on who was born wealthy or who is the best at accumulating wealth?
YOUR system, on the other hand, creates levers of power for the rich to wield. [...] Here's the kicker. "The rich" today make use of those governmental levers of power, don't they?
With the above reasoning in mind, I really don‘t see how. Please elaborate.
Countries with governments that have virtually no power do exist. Look at Somalia, for example. Low life expectancy, terrible literacy rates, huge divides between rich and poor, corruption, rampant crime, warlords. By the way, Wikipedia tells me that only 10% of children there go to school.That’s what your system does. No system is going to be perfect, but some are way better than others.
Consider this premise: Power is inherent to wealth.
I have considered that premise a thousand times and found it to be invalid. It is demonstrably false.
My local city council member has infinitely more power over my life than the world's richest CEO. This is fact. You are confusing power with influence. Power can force compliance. Influence merely makes offers. I don't have to accept any offer I don't think I benefit from.
Your central premise is false. Wealth does not actually equal power. Not in comparison to the power of the law, passed by politicians and enforced at the point of a gun.
What you ignore or omit is that a) „things“ can be literally anything, even abstract things such as support or service, and b) virtually anyone can be turned into a willing seller by increasing the amount of money offered.
All true. That doesn't change the facts. That NOT power. That's persuasion.
With enough money, you can get almost anything from almost anyone. That‘s pretty much the definition of power. Premise proven.
That's NOT the definition of power. The definition of power is forcing compliance against another person's will. You are describing a process by which a rich person can get someone to agree to do something. That's not power.
Power shows up and puts you in handcuffs and incarcerates you. Power is eminent domain and drug prohibition and taxation. Issues on which all discration is taken away from YOU by force.
Unless you want communism (it certainly doesn‘t seem like you do), it‘s plainly impossible to ensure that no one has power over anyone.
You have things twisted 180. Communism is the litteral and direct imposition of absolute power.
I don't believe it's possible to ensure that no one has any power. I'm just determined to set limits to power. JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION. You're treating my position like some kind of absurd and novel proposal. But all I am doing to expressing the intent and actual text of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government was granted very specific and narrow powers and then explicitly limited to only those powers (read the damn 10th amendment). And we violate the Constitution a thousand ways every single day by allowing the government to far, FAR exceed that power.
With the above reasoning in mind, I really don‘t see how. Please elaborate.
Here's an elaboration. Obey the constitution. It saddens me that you literally don't seem to understand how our government is meant to function.
I‘m treating your position like some kind of absurd and novel proposal because it is. I‘m talking about power. You‘re talking about oppression. If in your opinion the ability to get anything from anyone is not power, I really can‘t fucking help you. You‘re being absurd again.
Here's an elaboration. Obey the constitution. It saddens me that you literally don't seem to understand how our government is meant to function.
That’s not an elaboration, that’s a diversion. It saddens me that you literally can’t back your position up without being intellectually dishonest.
Well, you TRY back your position up with the constitution of the USA. You do realize that you‘re neither the only country on the planet, nor your constitution by any definition the „best“? According to this article, 174 other countries have education listed as a constitutional right. Why can’t I use their constitutions to back up my argument? And a few comments ago you literally called the Declaration of Human Rights and tons of other agreements that cement education as a human right „meaningless bullshit“, saying I couldn’t make an argument based on authority. Your hypocrisy is baffling.
I‘m not even going to write much more because I realize this discussion is a huge waste of time. Not only are we never going to convince each other, the fact that you twist my words, change definitions and move the goalposts just makes you really unpleasant and frustrating to argue with. I think your position is ridiculous bullshit and I‘m perfectly within my rights to think that - no matter if you say that it violates your free will, which is also ridiculous bullshit. It saddens me that you literally don‘t seem to understand how respectfully disagreeing works, and that we couldn‘t peacefully end this discussion three comments ago.
I‘m treating your position like some kind of absurd and novel proposal because it is.
It's the position proposed by the Constitution. you've strayed so far from the text that you don't even recognize it any more.
I‘m talking about power. You‘re talking about oppression.
The exercise of power results in oppression. They're wedded concepts.
If in your opinion the ability to get anything from anyone is not power, I really can‘t fucking help you.
STOP. Okay, you go ahead and explain the difference between persuasion and power. Show me that you aren't grossly misusing the word by defining it in relation to persuasion.
Because claiming that the ability to make a good enough offer to someone to get them to change their mind is "power" and it's a greater power than that wielded by the stste.... is a tough hill to climb.
Why can’t I use their constitutions to back up my argument?
Because it's not where I live and I think you live?
And a few comments ago you literally called the Declaration of Human Rights and tons of other agreements that cement education as a human right „meaningless bullshit“,
Yes. Because it literally means nothing. A five year old's wish list for Santa has as much meaning and force.
saying I couldn’t make an argument based on authority.
I didn't make an argument based on authority. I pointed out that what I have been describing in my own words with my own explanations is the same thing the Constitution does. And I did so because you kept acting as if my words were this great shocking thing you'd never considered before. And I have been trying to explain why it's good that we have the Constitution. Not once did I say we should do this because it's in the constitution.
Because that would be a stupid position to hold. Do please note that I said nothing of the Constitution until this most recent post.
the fact that you twist my words, change definitions and move the goalposts just makes you really unpleasant and frustrating to argue with
I'm trying to straiten out the double-speak you've been conditioned to accept. Such as confusing power with persuasion. That's classic. You have been taught to believe that because some people have money and can achieve things with it, they have some power over you and so you should fear that. That is sick. What makes it even more sick is the conclusion that the way to address this is to grant and greatly expand actual power to the corrupt and inept political class.
I think your position is ridiculous bullshit and I‘m perfectly within my rights to think that
Not only are you within your rights to think that, you kind of have to to get to sleep at night. If you considered the deep contradictions and illogical nature of what you believe.... well, that's why cognitive dissonance is a thing.
I'll make this as simple as I can. You fear the ability of a rich person to persuade someone through the method of giving them things they want. The fear is itself irrational... how is that a threat to you?
In response to that fear, you come upon a solution to grant a body of grasping, scheming politicians actual power over life and limb.
The only reason the politicians and their laws don't scare you a thousand times more than the rich and their mutually beneficial trades is because you have been fed a steady diet of lies your entire life. Much of it done through the government schooling that started this conversation off!
Why do you treat the persuasion of offering deals as a greater threat than an armed police force enforcing subjective, arbitrary laws?
In case you didn‘t get it yet, I‘m not American. So I don‘t care about what your outdated-as-fuck constitution says. For what it‘s worth, the constitution of MY country agrees with me. So your point is moot.
Why do you treat the persuasion of offering deals as a greater threat than an armed police force enforcing subjective, arbitrary laws?
Again, scare tactics (another example would be „grasping, scheming politicians“ - I mean, come on) and omitting extremely important aspects in your question you either didn’t think about, or just don‘t want me to think about. See, this is what I mean by „intellectually dishonest“.
„The persuasion of offering deals“ is your euphemism for nothing other than the ability of some individuals - who are NOT democratically elected, do NOT have to worry about being reelected and are NOT subject to laws, regulations and especially the responsibility that apply to politicians - to basically do as they please for personal gain. No exceptions. You want someone dead? Manipulate an election? Chop down most of the world‘s rainforests? If you have almost unlimited wealth, easy peasy.
On the other hand, the armed police is actually enforcing laws that are discussed, sometimes for months in an (in my country) democratically elected, pluralistic parliament. If the people are not happy with what their politicians do, they don‘t vote for them and next term, they‘re not in power anymore. Easy as that.
I treat the persuasion of offering deals as a greater threat than an armed police enforcing subjective, arbitrary laws because your question is hugely deceptive and does not represent reality. Talk about double-speak.
I‘m going to ignore your „woke“ bullshit, because I don’t think I need to point out the hypocrisy of a person who constantly lies trying to convince me I‘m constantly being lied to. I‘d laugh if it wasn’t so sad.
For what it‘s worth, the constitution of MY country agrees with me. So your point is moot.
This sentence is ample evidence that you have no idea what my point is. My point is that it is wrong to manipulate the population. It is wrong to allow anyone, including the government or the majority, to have the power to do that.
The fact that you want to make people bend to your will is no surprise.
You also can't get it through your head that there is a vital difference between persuading people to agree to do something and forcing them at the point of a gun.
Again, scare tactics (another example would be „grasping, scheming politicians“ - I mean, come on) and omitting extremely important aspects in your question you either didn’t think about, or just don‘t want me to think about. See, this is what I mean by „intellectually dishonest“.
Well, let's see where this goes. Yes, of course it's "scare tactic". Because yo position is scary as hell and when it's stated honestly, you start to see that.... so then you cognitive dissonance kicks in and your reject every aspect of the message.
Is saying "you can die in an automobile crash" a scare tactic? Sure. It also happens to be true and can maybe get a student learning to drive to be more careful. Scare tactics are not some kind of fallacy.
The persuasion of offering deals“ is your euphemism for nothing other than the ability of some individuals - to basically do as they please for personal gain.
Let's make this more honest. Do as they please for personal gain with the caveat that all other parties involved must also gain.
Talk about intellectually dishonest. No one agrees to a trade unless they believe they are gaining from it.
Personal gain is GOOD. Personal gain is how every person survives. Personal gain is what YOU get when you buy something, right? It's what you get when you work for a wage, right?
NO ONE IS HARMED by a free exchange.
Chop down most of the world‘s rainforests? If you have almost unlimited wealth, easy peasy.
...... why would someone do that? You aren't making any sense. Why would someone chop down a tree? Because they will benefit from it. Okay. Probably by selling it. Okay. That means it's a matter of supply and demand.
A rich person can not simply spend an infinite amount of money to gain access to a raw material... that's self defeating. The reason they want the trees is to sell them and they don't control how much people can or are willing to pay for the wood.
The problem you are identifying has nothing to do with the power of wealth. The reason people cut down trees is because there is a demand in the world for the wood. The MASSES want the trees.
Something you don't seem to understand is that the rich become rich by providing things people desire. The richest people in the world get there by serving the greatest number of people.... the masses.
On the other hand, the armed police is actually enforcing laws that are discussed, sometimes for months in an (in my country) democratically elected, pluralistic parliament.
I don't understand why you think that makes it okay. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny. What you are describing is oppression of minorities.
If the people are not happy with what their politicians do, they don‘t vote for them and next term, they‘re not in power anymore. Easy as that.
No. If I am unhappy but I am outvoted then I just have to keep bending over to continue to get screwed. What part of this do you not get? Forcing people that disagree with you to do things it reprehensible. Being a member of the majority while you do so does not making it moral. It's still wrong.
Majority opinion is just as fucked up as any individual's opinion is capable of being.
your question is hugely deceptive and does not represent reality. Talk about double-speak.
While believing that rich people are going to decide to spend their wealth to cut down trees against the will of everyone else just because their assholes IS honest?
The problem isn't any flaw in my position. The problem is that you are incapable of objective thought. You literally don't understand the threat of mob rule. I'm taken aback by your short-nearsightedness. How many pogroms and genocides do you have to learn about before realizing that majority rule is terrifying?
I‘m on vacation and have literally zero motivation to make a long comment.
I‘m agreeing to disagree; if you feel oppressed by that, well, you‘re dumb as hell and never learned how to have a discussion.
No. You are agreeing to continue forcing your will on others. You aren't allowing be to disagree... I am forced to follow your will.
I’m explicitly allowing you to disagree with me. That’s what agreeing to disagree means - you get to keep your opinion, I get to keep mine, because neither of us will change the other’s opinion and we‘re only wasting time at this point. Again - I can‘t believe I need to explain this to you, and it makes me sad.
You are literally not allowing me to disagree with you RIGHT NOW. All I want is to leave this argument, and you won‘t allow me to unless I follow your will.
How the hell do you not see the hypocrisy and sheer absurdity of that? You could probably win the Olympic Games with this kind of mental gymnastics.
Bro you can just treat yourself cuz your a doctor now. Easy
It’s ok though, you will be making 300k + soon enough.....
Only 6 more years.....Can't complain though. Feel super lucky that I'll be making a good income after all these years of schooling.
What’s your specialty?
I'm doing a residency in Radiology!
Sweet! More like 800k then.
On a related note, us non-Americans never say something about money and just leave it kind of a mystery: “six figures”. It’s either “250,000 Euros” or “a shitload of money, don’t even ask”. Just mentioning the number of digits is an American thing.
Not sure what you’re trying to say? Lol
You’re thinking about a sum of money, for instance $120,000, but you don’t say that, you say “low six figures”. That’s an American thing, in Europe we typically either approximate or don’t mention any number at all:)
I don't care, I'll say it lol. I owe $250k.
congrats, doc, I’m sure you’ll be fine in the end, but that wasn’t what I was saying:))
Lol I think I know what you meant, but I have no issue being transparent haha. Thanks!
but you can be your own doctor though so that's awesome. Congrats by the way! =D
Just treat yourself idiot ^^^/s
Working for a large healthcare system and having access to physician compensation data across all specialties all over the country (USA) makes me think this statement is quite untrue.
I don’t get compensated yet...I literally just graduated Med school. What exactly are you not believing?
That you can't afford medical insurance and medical care. If you just graduated you should be in residency with an employer sponsored healthcare plan, making about 50k with loans in a defered status. That is about the median income of everyone in the USA (most of whom make it work) and they aren't on track to be a top 5% income earner like our esteemed medical school graduates such as yourself.
Holy Ganesh, please re-read what I’ve already said multiple times. I did not have health insurance during MED SCHOOL (and undergrad). I just graduated a month ago and don’t start residency until July 1st where I will NOW finally have insurance. The whole point of my post is to point out the irony that in this country even a person training to become a physician (while working with and seeing patients in a hospital) isn’t provided with insurance. In other words, it’s absurd that this country doesn’t provide all of its citizens with health insurance.
What university did you go to that didn't offer student health insurance? If it didn't, the healthcare.gov marketplace offers heavily subsidized plans for students. And your statement says you graduated, have debt, and can't afford insurance. You don't say you didn't have it in school. I'm not trying to be an ass, but your story still doesn't seem believable.
PS. Congrats on the residency and graduating! These will be trying years, but you will get through it!!!!
Wow, you're a fucking idiot.
Oh, I am now? Thanks.
I got a letter from the IRS yesterday saying my $500 tax refund was being taken to pay for the penalty for not having health insurance two years ago. I haven't qualified for the penalty for the last two years, so I haven't been fined since then, but that's $500 I had to pay because I couldn't afford health insurance.
That's like telling a man with no legs you are confiscating his shoes.
To me it sounds like you're confiscating his arms.
Both work i think :-)
That's what it feels like
One degree and one kid. Medical debt is way worse.
Yeah but you haven't had two kids yet
At least you can file bankruptcy to escape crushing medical debt.
College debt? No. Fuck you. You’re going to pay no matter what.
Argentina luckily is free of these things. It's all free and state supported/funded. Poorly funded, but still funded.
My roommate got emergency surgery (in Argentina, where we both live at the moment; he is a foreigner here) a couple weeks ago and when they let him out he waited a few beats looking at them thinking So... that's it? No bill? "Okay, bye."
Yep. That's it. Healthcare is a human right and basic necessity, and it can and will save lives. It's kind of fucky to extort money off of people for it, so my country doesn't do it.
And their child, medical college debt.
I listened to a podcast the other day where one of the hosts was talking about a trip he and his wife took to Australia, and she needed stitches while she was there. They were charged less than $200 and they were like “here’s your money!!” They said they told Australians about it there and they said that price was outrageous, and the host was like “this is nothing compared to the US”.
Must be nice!
But we got some nice tanks, yo.
Both of which are the byproduct of rising costs in their industries, both of which are the result of subsidies.
The majority of all American personal debt is medical debt and yet you get right-wing psychotics tut-tutting people about financial responsibility.
"How irresponsible of me to get sick."
Love when Americans try to argue I ran from my bill from the hospital.
"Hospital bill? What's that?"
I have no idea. I keep on being told I'm not paying it.
More like retarded cousin-brother-father.
Just operate on yourself dood
In EU even if we go 100% private it's a fraction of cost in USA. Wtf.
Is it true that more Americans fear the debt from medical treatment for cancer than the painful death of cancer itself?
And their wacky buddy that grew up with them, moved away and visits from time to time, credit card debt.
And their love child, med school debt.
Don't forget medical college debt.
bgug5jyygyvhy6y 5 66yyybb766 y j 5jjuj7n
And their bastard child, medical school debt
At least medical debt can disappear with bankruptcy...
And their bastard child, medical college debt.
I'd argue medical debt is worse. At least you volunteer for college debt to increase your chance of getting a well paying job. Medical debt is just a big fuck you while you're already down from something you didn't ask for.
I'm not in medical debt, but a recent 4-wisdom tooth removal drained my medical savings and then it was followed up by needing to replace my car brakes, which also drained my car maintenance fund, my vacation fund, and my grocery fund. It's mind boggling just how even non emergency/routine procedures just knock you down a peg.
I'm friends with both of these things. They're really attached to me haha
But but socialism! /s
Which I am going to go into later this year! Lord knows what this operation is going to cost after my insurance but it's got to be close to $5,000
As a British person, I sadly relate to this one. It's way more expensive in the US, though - think my entire university debt is less than a year's tuition in parts of the US.
Yeah, for a long time we had a proper non debt based system, then we copied the yanks. Genius idea.
I don't support the tuition fee system at all but it's a tad hyperbolic to suggest it's a copy of their system. To all intents and purposes our student loan system is essentially a graduate tax:
- It doesn't count towards your credit score
- Gets repaid as a % of salary after tax (and only once over an earnings threshold, £21k currently but getting increased to £25k I believe?)
- Gets written off after 30 years, irrespective of how much (if any) has been paid
- You never actually have to pay any money upfront - the Student Loans Company pay tuition fees directly to the uni
Don't get me wrong, it's not a perfect system and I'd much prefer an actual graduate tax (or better yet - free tuition), but it's a damn sight better than what the US has!
2nd year at uni in the UK. Yeah it's like 9% of your salary over 25k for me. A friend worked out if you were to pay off our whole loan (4 years + 1 year in Industry) you'd have to be earning upwards of 70k per year as soon as you leave to pay it off in 30 years at 9%
Try running the numbers for what happens if you do a PhD afterwards. The extra three years of no payments essentially guarantee that nobody with a PhD will ever pay off their loans (and most won't even touch the principal).
As someone who is currently a 1st year PhD and has run the numbers (even wrote a MATLAB script, PM me if you want it) my loan will already be at £66k by the time I enter the job market. Even with a reasonable pay bump each year my loan will reach £240k before being written off after the 30 year limit. In total I'm likely to only ever pay off around £53k, hopefully my degree will be worth significantly more to me than that.
For the record it's almost never worth it to pay off your student loan immediately.
Sounds about right. Silly money, monopoly money by that point.
Naturally having such a large debt will have zero effect upon anything in future, right....RIGHT?!
Feel for you, and best of luck with the PhD! There is light at the end of the PhD tunnel! ;)
Having the student loan shouldn't have much effect on any one because it doesn't go on your credit rating, you don't have to pay it if you aren't earning enough, and it gets wiped after 30 years.
Nope it shouldn't. That's what they say. However it is technically a debt, and the numbers get larger and larger. Given that once the government sells the debt, they have changed the terms of the loan, I am not hugely reassured by that.
Even more reason to get all the loan you can. Although there is probably a greater chance of a PhD student going into academia which helps recover costs for the universities I presume.
It doesn't make a difference to the universities: they get the money up front. It's the government that's making a massive loss.
Nope, no there is not. Not really a greater chance of going into academia, and definitely no recovery of costs at any point.
Also a majority of PhD students are in the sciences (I think), so they've probably done a masters as well and owe a fourth year's worth of fees.
I don't think the student loan company give loans for masters. At least they didn't when I did mine in 2009
I have run numbers, but went for the empirical approach.
I was only under the £3K regime, but did a 4 year course in London, then 4 years PhD, then a couple years or so without full time employment whilst I got a job. Blasted past £40K debt. I just filed the annual statements somewhere and shrugged. What else can you do?
I really feel for anyone doing what I did now, with the £9K/year. Just nuts.
But it does t matter to the student if the fees are ok or 90k
Will depend if you receive a demand to pay the loan off within a month or not I guess. The Student Loan Company can be a bit twitchy like that.
Probably an exception to the rule, but I managed to only rack up £12k debt over a 4 year course and 4 year PhD. Landed a good job so should have it paid off in 4 years.
Before they put the fees up, presumably?
Sounds about right, I think most people probably only end up just covering the interest payments!
Sorry I think the 70k also includes the interest which is like 6%. But still the logic is now just get as much loan as possible and never pay for it. Even if the loan is unnecessary because it is just based on the salary.
Yep. I'm about 7 years out of uni, and my yearly payments to the student loan company just about cover the yearly interest - and I was on the lower rate (when it was only ~£3000 a year!) I'm basically never going to pay it off. I know a few people who have paid theirs off (who were on the lower rate) but at this stage I don't see the point of even trying.
You really shouldn't ever pay it off. This explains why.
That page there made me a lot calmer about my student debt than I have ever been. Can't recommend students reading it enough
I'm only in 8k debt from student loans as I received the nhs bursary which has now been scrapped. But I've worked out I could end up never paying it off. But also, over the course of 30 years i will end up paying way over 8k in repayments so making a few bigger payments here and there will actually benefit me in the long run. Plus in 30 years time, is it being scrapped still even going to be a thing?
HA NO - source american
Um... American here. That sounds amazing. Like, unbelievably amazing.
It's generally pretty disliked over here due to the fact that most other European countries (and even Scotland and Wales - with some caveats) have no tuition fees at all, and the fact that the fees were tripled from £3,000 per year in 2011 to 'up to £9,000' per year in 2012.
I think most people would prefer either free university tuition full stop, or a proper graduate tax with no upfront fees but graduates paying a % of their salary in return, but the current system isn't financially crippling (like yours can be). In reality, the cost of living whilst at university and the insufficient maintenance grants/loans to cover this are much more of an issue in encouraging students from lower income households to go to uni.
Plus, Student Finance England is a bitch to deal with.
SFA enrolled somebody on my course at the wrong uni despite a shit tonne of paperwork being sent to them to confirm her uni place.
Tip: call to student finance asap and ask if you've overpaid if you're still currently paying your fees. More likely than not, you have. I was just refund £700. A quick call!
Still sounds better than my wildest dreams.
the top maintenance grants are around 6k, and some universities cheapest accommodations are like 4k even without meal plans. so that leaves students 2k a year for their other expenses and obviously that doesn't take into account if you decide to move out of dorms.
maintenance loans go up to 9 grand a year outside London, and 11 grand a year inside London, which is livable.
I’m low income and the top I was allowed to have was just over 6k although I am at a northern university, that just about covers my rent and expenses because I live away from My uni and just commute for lectures because I’m doing a work based degree. I suppose it’s right though that more expensive cities will have higher loans. Does bugger you a bit though if your parents have good enough earnings that you’re snubbed with grants but don’t earn enough to support you.
Yeah 100%. I applied to Oxford where rent + food is 5200. My maintenance loan? 5 grand. I got rejected but I'm sure I'm not unique in that issue. I can't imagine working and studying at Oxford
Not sure if this is an urban legend, but I don’t think you’re allowed to have a part time job alongside studies at Oxford or Cambridge. That’s what I’ve heard previously anyway.
I think it depends on college? My physics teacher said he signed a contract saying he cant. I think you're allowed to work in the uni though?
Some college jobs - the bar, for instance, or a bit of paid tour guide work on open days, IIRC. But mostly colleges and departments will hire graduates because undergraduates are either too busy or not working hard enough (yeah, I know). But there are a LOT of bursaries and extra money floating around, particularly in colleges, so you can find all sorts of extra cash about.
That is true for undergraduates, although actually in recent years it's been relaxed for certain situations. My department regularly employs graduate students. The part they don't tell you is that actually there are a LOT of discretionary grants, bursaries, awards, prizes, scholarships and supplements that are offered to students (some just handed out without application!). If you do your research and apply for all the right things, you could walk away with a living income of £8K after your battels (college rent).
From this autumn, for instance, students from the poorest households (free school meal territory) get nearly £4K in bursary funds (living costs), as well as qualifying for the top amounts from SFE.
You have significantly longer vacations that other universities though. Christmas and Easter are 6-8 weeks. Summer is 3-4 months. Generally you won't have time in term time to have a meaningful part time job (might manage a few bar shifts a week or some tutoring) but the longer holidays are where you earn money for the coming term
That’s exactly my situation. My first year of university I got about £3,900 from SFE, my halls cost £4400 for the year and I was self catered so had to pay for all of my own food. My parents earn enough to live comfortably at home and make me qualify for the minimum loan, but not enough to actually pay the difference or fund my food etc.
They totally scrapped grants and the maximum maintenance loans have now increased to roughly £9k outside London (as of 2-3 years ago I believe).
I'm going into my fourth year and I still recieve a mixture of maintenance loan and maintenance grant with the total of around £7.5k (the maximum available to anyone who started in my year - 2015). I know people in year groups below me getting a significant amount more, but it's entirely loans.
True true, I completely forgot about the grant scrapping! I really need to start calling it a loan. I get a 6k loan which handles my rent and travel and such well, although I do still work two jobs. One for extra experience and the other to give me a little more money to work with.
Yeah I think tying it to parents income is a really shitty way of doing it. They're supposed to be loans anyway, I don't really understand why they can't just give us all access to the full amount, and dial it down from there if our parents actually choose to support us (if they're even able... Their income isn't always the full story..)
exactly! Combined my parents ear around 27-28k a year so I'm allowed the full loan for my area of study. Luckily my rent isn't bad and I do have jobs on the side so I manage okay, but I imagine it must suck for people whose parents earn 60k between them but can't afford to support them because of whatever reason. because you're then snubbed on the loans because of your income bracket.
It's disliked cos people don't understand it and therefore assume it's the same as the US system. It has enabled far more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to uni than people from Scotland.
If you’re a recent student see if you qualify for PAYE or REPAYE for your federal loans, it is very similar to what the Brits have.
That literally is how ours works. That’s how PAYE works exactly except it’s 20-25 years before forgiveness
its better in scotland.
us scots pay no fees at all.
It sounds miserable if you actually work a decent job and have to pay several times what you would have spent so that people can waste $100k on a degree in basket weaving.
Except a better educated populace means more prosperity for all. Maybe you don't know this, but there's no degree where you just study basketweaving. But the point is you are better off due to a stronger, more robust economy, which allows you to have a good job.
If you work a decent job, repayments (I'm on the older plan 1) cap out at an annual earning of £30,000 with a monthly payment of £87.
The newer plan 2 is £40,000/£112. That's £112 max, so even if you earn over £40k repayment don't go higher.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The threshold for repaying, not tuition fees. It's like £24k now.
It could well have done, I graduated in 2014 so I'm out of the loop on the current state of tuition fees!
It has already increased to £25k, but only if you went to uni after Sep 2012, those before have the same threshold, and lose a lot of their earnings the SLC, but they also have fairer interest rates and will probably actually pay it off.
That makes sense. My repayment threshold is £15,000 but I think my interest rate is about 1/3 of the current crop of grads.
If you graduated before 2012 like me I believe the threshold is currently about £17000 because it goes up each year with inflation and the interest is around 1.5% I think. We also only have to pay for 25 years unlike the latest loans with 30 years. I have my doubts that I'm going to have paid it off in that time but knowing my luck I'll pay it off in 24 years and 364 days.
Enrolled rather than graduated, but yeah. I'm in a similar boat, I think I'll wind up repaying mine, interest included, very close to the deadline.
I was happy to see i'd paid a large amount of my student loan in the yearly statement.
Then when it broke it down half of that amount was the interest.
Fuck.
That isn’t very different from the many federal loan repayment systems.
REPAYE caps your monthly payment at 10% of disposal income (your income minus 150% of state poverty line for your family) and your balance is forgiven in 20 years.
One thing they really need to sort out though is the fucking accommodation/'maintenance'(?) loans, like fucking hell. I'm lucky that I'll probably get the full amount, as well as other bursaries from whichever uni I go to, but for people who are like solidly middle class with a decent household income, they'll not get as much money, but their families aren't well off enough to make up the difference which is essentially expected of them by the government.
Completely agree - the ‘squeezed middle’ as it’s often called: too rich to benefit from grants, too poor to afford to support
I don't even see why it should be based off your parents income.. isn't the point of moving to university to become independent for a lot of people? It's supposed to be a loan anyways right, so why not just let everyone have access to the same loans? Like surely a lot of wealthier parents won't want to pay for their children through university when they technically could get a job and stop being a burden at that point
Gets written off after 30 years, irrespective of how much (if any) has been paid
Why would anybody pay it then?
You don't get a choice, it comes off your gross salary once you meet the minimum repayment threshold (which is £25,000per annum for students from this year), as a % (like a tax but not a tax, go figure).
Repayments aren't huge, I think mine is currently about 5% of my gross salary per month. You don't even notice it apart from on your payslip and an annual statement saying how much you've paid and how much is left to repay. It isn't conventional credit so doesn't class as a debt and doesn't show on any credit score or get held against you for any future loan/mortgage applications.
I just wanted to clarify a misconception. It’s not part of your credit score but it DOES count against your mortgage applications. They will specifically ask about student loan repayments and it affects affordability. (I ran the numbers when each time we moved). It’s certainly not massively significant though :)
Thanks, I wanted to write this but you’d already done it.
I am sure we were told it wouldn’t affect mortgages etc when we were “sold” the loan at 17 and it came as a bit of a shock to me when we got our first mortgage a few years back.
Also, if you move abroad, they can't garnish your wage, so you have to pay it manually. Just a PSA to anyone who is living abroad, if you don't pay, they fine you massively.
So what happens if you move to a poorer country with no way of ever reaching the threshold salary of £25,000 (an amount which in the local currency would be enormous)?
It's auto adjusted, I think. For Azerbaijan, the earning threshold is something like 3.6k.
[See here] (http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/portal/page?_pageid=93,6678668&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL)
Edit: The fine is if you don't pay if you're able, or don't file an earnings sheet to tell them what you earn. Source: Moved to Canada and forgot.
Wow, TIL!
Many thanks.
An extra income tax of 5% isn't huge?
The average graduate earns £9500 a year more than the average non-graduate in the UK according to this report from the BBC, so a tax to accoint for that is definitely reasonable.
There is already this tax that accounts for higher income. Its called income tax.
Income tax affects all higher earners regardless of whether or not they went to college.
seems to just be a tax for ex students who can afford it now...
idk how much 21k of that money is tho but sounds ok
This is very similar to the US system for people who opt in to income-based repayment.
That's the good thing about student loans here in the UK I guess, it's essentially just a graduate tax unless you really hit it big. It's annoying, sure, but it shouldn't really send anyone into a bad financial situation. When I read about America's system I was shocked - can't imagine what it would be like actually having to pay it back.
We already have a graduate tax already; income tax. Student loans are just a "screw anyone under 30" tax.
Student loans are just a "screw anyone under 30" tax.
Apart from those who don't go to university, meaning this only 'screws' graduates. Like some sort of... graduate tax
Except it doesn't cover anyone who graduated before it was introduced, so it has pretty much only effected the under 30s.
If you run a country and want to encourage a thing, you subsidise it. If you want to discourage it, you tax it or make it illegal. Taxing people for getting an education that massively benefits the country in the long term is directly discouraging people from doing so; they're pushed to choose careers that don't require advanced qualifications. In a few years, decades at most, those careers are going to be automated, and all those people will either be having to drop everything and retrain in their 30s and 40s (not easy when you have a family etc), or more likely rely on government subsidy. By all means steer people towards useful degrees rather than self-indulgent ones, but the world we are creating will need more education, not less, and discouraging people from obtaining it is bad for them and terrible for us in the long term.
But the US doesn’t tax tuition payments (they can be paid for pre tax via a 529) and we do subsidize tuition. So by your logic the US is encouraging more people to go to college.
Well yes but I mean a specific tax on graduate salaries that is ringfenced and used to fund FE institutions.
I have about £85k in loads so far (med school with a pharmacology BSc wedged in) and sleep soundly at night knowing I’ll never have to pay most of that back
Yeah we'll just pick up the slack for your write-offs
I mean they created their own problem. Since they moved the fees up to £9k it’s virtually impossible to pay off a 6-7 year course plus interest over just 30 years, especially seeing as it’ll be a while before I meet the payment threshold, even as a doctor, on an NHS salary. I’ll be lucky just to keep on top of the interest. They’re gonna get around the same return as when students had £3k fees except they’re paying universities 3x as much.
Except those with degrees who go on to earn ££ in the City will pay more back than they would have done under the old system - so surely it's actually fairer and not a "problem"?
I'd gladly pay for someone training in med school... I'm pretty sure we need doctors
Wait in America it counts towards your credit score?! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
It counts against our credit, and we also can't discharge it through bankruptcy. It's a double whammy.
Add the fact that it is a 'tax' taken after nearly all other deductions from your pay make any salary sacrifice schemes your employer may run even more beneficial.
I agree. I'd rather not pay it, but god is it convenient! I got my pay packet through from last month and I earned around £2800 pre-tax - £66 was automatically deducted to pay towards my loan. It's better that I never really get to see the money and it is automatically deducted. Although I do like to check in case there's an error of some sort...
But with all the other deductions you probably ended up with £1900.
Looking at my gross pay and then at my net pay makes me a sad panda
Haha yep i got just over £2k in my pocket. It's a hell of a lot more than I was on just a year ago so I'm just sailing on the novelty of actually feeling like I can afford things at the moment.
I want better for my fellow Americans.
But I DEFINITELY do not want to be a standard of how much other countries can fuck over their greatest assets, educated citizens, and still get away with it by saying "at least we're not as bad as USA".
How do we fix this?
Our system is actually quite fair though and benefits those graduates who don't benefit financially from their degree against those who go on to earn more.
It's just been really let down by years of politicans and students not understanding it and misrepresenting it for political gain.
For now. I'm a little sceptical. They brought this in the year I was due to go, prior to that it had basically been free (?) Then they tripled the maximum fees.
I am quite certain that by the time my children attend university, any cap on fees will have been lifted. The student loans company will have been unable to cope with such rises, and it will fall back on private companies to offer student loans. Such companies will be rubbing their hands with glee, knowing that they basically have customers for life.
I honestly don't know which way it'll go, I'd like to think a full blown graduate tax with graduates paying a progressive rate on top of Income Tax/National Insurance, which is ring-fenced for FE spending and allocated to institutions accordingly. It makes the most sense, would be the easiest to enforce, and would probably be more economical as more could be paid back thanks to a lower threshold (current income tax threshold is approx.£12,000 rather than £25,000 minimum for student loan repayment) and longer repayments (graduates pay the tax until they retire), as well as being less bureaucratic and burdensome on both students and Government.
This has been a Lib Dem policy since tuition fees began and is much more equitable and manageable than our current system.
Out of interest, if the tax was paid from the time a person earned over whatever the personal allowance is that year until retirement, do you not think it’s likely that they’d end up paying a considerable amount more than they do at the moment? How do you account for people who’s parents pay for their accommodation or tuition fees so their loans would have been less on the current system? Not arguing against it, just never really heard of the idea before so want to learn more.
I think I agree with the graduate tax in principle. How do you think would be a fair way to implement it?
E.g. if you graduated 5 years ago and had paid off 40% of your loan, should you be subject to a grad tax?
Personally I think you should pay x% on top of your salary for the entirety of your working life to cover what you gained from your degree(s) but also to invest in the FE system. That being said, I’m on the higher taxes for higher earners to invest in society and the state side of politics so I would say that!
I mean I do agree with you to a certain extent, and I am also for higher earners to contribute more to society.
Just if you graduated 10 years ago, and poured extra money into paying off your loan early, to then have the goalposts completely moved, it would be quite a shitter.
To be fair, large parts of the student debt book have already been sold to the private market. It has had precisely the effect you thought.
Yes cousin, this does sound better than ours, we can't file bankruptcy on ours, we owe the government directly, we can defer our status indefinitely, but we don't have the 30 year opt out and it does count towards our credit score
It's 25k now, went up in April. Well timed with my pay rise!
Depends on when you studied to how much and when you pay it back I have one loan from slc where I started paying back after 15k written off after 25 years and another where I start paying after 21k written off at 30 years. I earn 19k on minimum wage and have been paying for 3 years now its not much only £7ish a week but still. Too many people have this idea that the system you get now applies to all in regards to payments and sadly it doesn't. I should have waited 5 years before going to uni
As an American who is attending what is considered to be "an affordable state school" I would GLADLY take that over what we currently have now. Jesus christ, that sounds like one of those dreams where everything is super realistic but still really good. Fucking hell, I'd LOVE to have that system
Hell I live where Uni is free and I'm considering coming to UK to study because I have a hard time believing I'll ever make 25K
At my current salary, I'd pay £5 a month, give or take.
Aye, it's not as bad as the US system, I was exaggerating for impact. But every few years the fees go up, and all it takes is another round of austerity from the wrong government and suddenly the earnings barrier, interest rates, and other terms can all be changed foe the worse. And let's face it, the fees will never go down.
Students in the UK don't understand how student loans work. It's not a debt it's more a graduation tax. You don't have to pay it all off and most never will!
Yeah exactly, it’s not a terrible scheme but it’s just pointless - we may as well have fully free tuition or a full graduate tax policy. Like you said, most people don’t pay it off anyway so it’s not even the most cost effective.
Except the UK system is more like a personalised graduate tax. You only pay it back when you're earning above a decent threshold, and it gets written off if you don't get there.
The bad thing about the UK system is the dang interest. For every repayment I make, the interest just builds it right back up.
That's the kicker. After 2 years of paying, I owe more than when I started.
What they DONT tell you about loans^.
What the fuck is y'alls interest rates? I graduated in the US with $30k (23k in British moneys). My payments at their worst were like $300 a month with about $100 covering interest and the other $200 going to the principal. Even at minimum payment I would have paid it off by 2022(graduated in 2015). I'm an engineer so I aggressively paid it off and finished it off in March
Well the point of the British system is that you don't "aggressively pay it off", because the payments are automatically calculated as a function of your salary. With about £50k of debt (tuition + living costs) and on ~£30k, I pay about £37/month.
The loans are written off after 30 years anyway though, so there's absolutely no reason why anyone would want to pay it off in full. The only people who will manage to do so will be those on £50k+ early in their careers.
In Australia it is the same but no interest.
The interest is irrelevant, because you'll probably never pay it off before it gets wiped anyway.
Probably not, because of the interest.
I honestly don’t have any problems with the current student finance situation, even as a student myself. Yes, it would be nice to have free education (as there was years ago), but I still made the decision to study at university fully knowing the costs, and the cheaper alternatives available.
Yeah, AFAIK, neither of my parents paid for their degrees from a UK university, back in the day. Now, not so much.
Tbh scotland is still free (well you gotta pay a admin fee of £30ish for a resit, and £50ish to graduate)
Though some smaller scottish uni's are a bit fucked by it (dundee) and larger ones rely on extravagant fees to foreign students (well not as bad as the US).
A middle ground of £2k or so would be great imo.
I don’t remember paying a fee to resit / graduate. Was completely free aside from the years I spent in the university halls.
must be a new thing then.
Probably depends on University too
Some will charge for the graduation ceremony (like for the tickets), but if you graduate in absentia its free.
What annoys me more is the people who put it through got their degrees for free. And iirc wasn't it Labour? The guys who are meant to be socialists
Actually, you copied us Australians. We introduced this system in the 1990s after about 20 years of free tuition. Before that, we had a classic user-pays system. Opening up free tuition massively changed our society - all of a sudden anyone could go, you didn’t have to be rich or score a competitive scholarship. Going to university was a pipe dream for my grandparent’s generation.
We still have that opportunity now, but we pay tuition back through the tax system. I’m philosophically opposed in general, but recognise that it wasn’t a terribly onerous job to pay the debt off.
I mean what's wrong with copying the country that has the most top universities in the world?
I mean what's wrong with copying the country that has the most top universities in the world?
Copying the wrong bits like the crippling debt for one
I'm just glad I got in there before the tuition fee hikes. £3k a year was bad enough.
Those are community college prices in the USA.
I was the first year that got debt instead of a grant. I was so pissed off. Then a few years after i graduated, they upped the debt from £9k to something like £40k and i felt like i got off lightly. I still have to tell me accountant i've paid off my student debt every year as they seem to find it impossible that anyone every could.
I think I've only repaid more than I've paid off twice because the interest rates are so high. My initial debt was about £12.5k and now it's £12.9k, even though I've paid off around £1k. Go figure.
(Edit: typo! Also, for the downvoter, that's 8 years' worth of interest, throughout which I've only worked part time, so... sorry you found that unbelievable)
Actually I'm a bit in agreement with this. When I left school so many people had no idea what to do, so just picked a bullshit degree, did a couple of days a week for a while and either sacked it off for something else or just walked out when they were done.
I'm all for gov paid tuition, but it needs to come with the proviso that it's a one shot deal, or age limited. There's also so many bullshit courses out there that should be on the job training. University should give you the opportunity to specialise or excel in a field.
It’s much more complicates than this, but if you take a step back it still sucks ass
Blame Thatcher and Reagan being best buds
I've heard some scary thing about you guys copying our Healthcare too.
feels like some in parliament want to copy the US healthcare system too because £££
But the way the loan is paid back in the UK is far preferable to how it's handled in the US (At least from my understanding).
How does it work in the US? I have to say that I like how it just comes off our salary in the UK. It's soul destroying seeing it on your paycheck, but it's at least convenient.
I believe in the US it's just a straight up no-frills loan that doesn't just get pulled out of your salary, affects your credit and doesn't get written off.
The only way to escape them is to die.
In the US I think they actually have to pay it back, we just have to pay a 'tax' until it gets wiped out in 30 years or we pay it off.
It depends on the source of your loans. For recent federal loans there are different income based payment plans. For REPAYE you pay 10% of your income above 150% of your state poverty level for your family and it gets written off in 20 years.
Private loans it will depend on the lender.
These days paying your loans in the US is basically up to you and your income level. You can set the terms of your repayment and even apply for deferment if you are unemployed. People bitching that their loans are killing them likely took private loans (because they made a stupid choice).
School loans aren't even forgiven in bankruptcy most of the time. It's basically selling your soul to the devil.
[deleted]
I do think that you guys have waaaay more options in terms of scholarships than we do in the UK, for sure. And it's the same here re the usefulness of a uni degree!
It probably isn't worth as much as some people claim but pure financial motivation isn't what a lot of people are going for in a degree. You don't need to tell Classics or Art History student that it won't necessarily get them a job, they're spending money (and not even that irresponsibly in the UK considering the repayment system) to study something they love in as much depth as our education system allows pretty much.
It's marketed as "completely 100% necessary to be an adult" and pretty much anyone can get a $100,000 loan to get a degree in anything regardless of GPA or past success. Are we really surprised that college tuition has gone through the roof? "We have what they need and can charge whatever we want because they can 'afford' it."
As a British person, I cannot relate. Scottish further education is free. Woop woop.
Better than free, they pay you to go! The loans are also very nice. Having max student loans isn't really something to worry about. Unless you get an incredible job, you'll never pay it back. Not even close.
You lucky bastards.
And less poor people can afford to go woop woop
Don't you mean more poor people can afford to go?
No, because to fund "free" education to the middle classes the SNP have cut other scheme/grants that helped poorer people afford to go and live at Uni, and as Scottish Universities are more reliant on getting high fees from foreign students there is fewer places for them:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36392857
https://www.tes.com/news/poor-pupils-scotland-half-likely-attend-university-compared-wealthier-peers
https://www.independent.co.uk/student/into-university/scottish-universities-worst-in-the-uk-for-admitting-poorer-students-despite-having-no-tuition-fees-a7051521.html
Unless you do a masters, then you'll probably end up paying for it.
[deleted]
I mean obviously yeah. It's free in the sense that it makes no financial difference to you whether you go or not.
Only to Scots
You guys have it so easy. I was over there when they were talking about raising tuition, and I was like “WTF, it’s less than $10,000 usd...everywhere?!”
What would you say the average cost is per year for you guys, or is there too much variation?
Huge variation.
This link has all the data.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_330.30.asp?current=yes
For comparison, my Wife had $80k in student loan debt when we met 4 years ago, down to just under $50k now. I got lucky, my parents paid for uni, but it was $32k/yr when I graduated 15 years ago, and it's roughly $68k/yr now.
Th state schools are cheaper, but still not a bargain. UConn I believe is north of $20k/yr now in-state (pay more from out of state).
It's getting untenable, and schools are starting to close (smaller ones in the Midwest) as people can't pay the carrying costs at this point.
I am going to actively push my kids (when I have them) to look at places in the UK or Canada for school. It'll cost maybe 1/4th of what a good school here would cost.
On the other hand, the best state school here in Florida is $6k a year for tuition. There's also a statewide scholarship that pays 100% of tuition costs and gives a book stipend for having a high enough GPA/test scores.
Georgia is similar as Tech is 12k a year in state
So I went to Georgia Tech which has the highest return on investment in the US. For in state students tuition (not including housing books food etc) was over $10k a year. Out of state is around $30k a year. For in state students however there is the Hope and now Zell Miller scholarships. Hope covers 90% of tuition as long as you maintain above a 3.0 average. If you maintain a 3.5(I think that was what it was) then tuition is free.
American here, but I did my master's degree in London. Year long program with international student fees. Still cost significantly less than one SEMESTER of my undergrad program in the states.
Keep in mind the only people who actually pay full tuition are people who make enough money to afford it. College debt is awful here, but it's not as bad as you would think just by looking at tuition.
That’s DEFINITELY not true. “Too poor for college; too rich for financial aid” exists; happened to me!
If you didn't get any financial aid, but you needed it, then you fucked up on a form somewhere.
Unfortunately, Reddit wasn’t a thing when I was in high school and I was the first person in my immediate or extended family to go to a four-year university. My guidance counselor, while a great person, didn’t really have a lot of advice for me. I knew that scholarships existed to help me, but I didn’t know that there were so many. (This is partially my fault; I was lazier than I should have been.
The result was me qualifying for puny government loans, a small Stafford grant and...that’s it.
If Reddit were around when I was going to college, you’d bet I would’ve gone for free (and I probably would’ve gone to a different school).
If you go to a private school here, it’s typically expensive. But if you to your in-state public university, it’s usually fairly inexpensive (depends on the state). Local community colleges are often near free.
When people are comparing cost of college, they are typically not comparing apples to apples. Most college in Germany, for example, is really more akin to our community college, while their best universities are more similar to our flagship state universities.
I’m going to be harsh for a second, but the overwhelming majority of people going into huge debt are fools who go to a lower ranking private school or out of state university and didn’t really think it through. If you can get into a top 50 private school, the ROI is still there to justify it, though the arms race among schools is something we all have to pay for. People with some sense will stick to in-state public universities or other that give them scholarships.
Edit: and I should say I absolutely do think we need to rein in costs and get college to be more affordable across the board, and also make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy and allow banks/government to charge varying interest rates depending on school/major and force them to communicate the full cost of the loan. That said, the person who takes out $400k in loans to go get a Philosophy degree at Southeast Oklahoma Christian College then a law degree at Northern Wyoming State is a fool.
I’m going to be harsh for a second, but the overwhelming majority of people going into huge debt are fools who go to a lower ranking private school or out of state university and didn’t really think it through
This is 100% the case.
oh yeah, college is expensive here in the US, even for public institutions. i did a program where you do two years of national service and you get around $14,000 in scholarship money, and that only covered a semester at a small public university in my home state (not counting books, of course).
i means depends where you go in the us, whar you do , and what scgolarahips you earn
Itsnot like there arent hundreds (thousands) of cheaper school options
and we only pay back after earning 21K a year and even then it's at like £12 a month for the lowest bracket.
I'm definitely happy about the repayment threshold!
I met up with an American friend last year and explained my student debt to her; I am in Scotland and currently studying for my undergraduate degree (an MSc). After that, I planned to apply to medical school and study for an MBChB. All in all, I'll be in school for a total of 9 years. Between student loans for tuition fees and living costs, I'll graduate with a debt of around £50k-£60k. I won't have to start paying it back until I start earning over a certain amount annually (currently the equivalent of about $25k) and once I reach that earning amount, the amount I repay each month will also depend on my earnings, so it won't be a struggle to pay. Interest will be applied to the amount, but if I haven't repaid the entire amount of my debt within 35 years, or by the time I retire, the remaining balance will be forgiven.
When I told her this, she laughed hysterically for a little too long and then looked really haunted for a bit.
I'm wondering what would her reaction be if she found out that some European countries have free university.
To a certain extent, that's true here too. The Scottish government will pay the tuition fees for your first degree. My debt will be made up of tuition loans for my second degree, the MDChB, and from student loans to cover living costs.
You have to EARN most of them however, they are reserved for the top few % of students and competition and testing can be brutal. Its not so simple as just receiving a free education.
Its the same in the US. The top students will usually have plenty of scholarships available as well.
What Europe often does better is having work training and trade schools available for the rest of the students who are not college bound. The US went full-speed into colleges only and let tech and other schools languish.
Nope, I know multiple countries (including mine), where everyone has free university, if you start it right after high school.
and study for an MBChB
That abbreviation (of which i'm sure it's impressive) sounds like something you'd rather not get, some kind of new synthetic drug, or an STD.
That said that whole concept does sound like a ripoff to me, especially the interest bit. While they fuck you in the ass the least they could do is offer a reach-around.
It basically means a Bachelors of Medicine and a Bachelors of Surgery. In normal speak, it's a medical degree.
What part sounds like a ripoff to you? I wonder if I haven't explained it correctly. I'm more than happy with my set up, and my American friend was laughing hysterically because her set up compared so negatively to mine.
Yes i know, but compared to where i am from (Belgium) that is.. like i said.
A completely different perspective here ;-)
What is the set up in Belgium? I'm not familiar.
Well we can be very brief about that. It is very cheap ;-)
For a normal student, around 1500 euro's a year (mainly because of books).
When you have a scholarship its free and can even earn you money.
Is that for tuition fees? That sounds pretty similar to our rates - we're about 2000 euros a year. The bulk of my debt will be because of living costs loans. Since I'm a mature student I'm running my own household in a way that a lot of younger students don't, and it's just not possible for me to work enough to cover all my living expenses while studying.
What is the situation with living cost assistance there? Is it in the form of an interest-free loan, a bursary, or a grant?
Keep in mind it is Belgium, long distance here equates to 50 km.
So we can get around on the cheap. But if you really need living obviously the cost goes up by quite a bit, but it is still very reasonable (there is subsidized housing and so on).
Edit: living assistance as in studying while living alone depends on the studies you want to do, if you want something like computer science you get money every month, but for something of which there is an abundance of graduates, you get nothing.
In Argentina college is free too. Public universities are better and "harder" than the private ones. People who can afford a private will generally graduate in less time (they are put down saying it's easier in a private and that they "bought" their diploma with money)
It sounds like you live in a culture that actually respects education. I'm envious.
I can't afford a private university. I study law in a public and I'm struggling with it. On the other side, many of those who study in a private finish their career earlier, know less but will end up working at their daddy's law firm anyway.
Same thing in India. It's not a good thing, honestly. The reason it happens is because demand is much much much larger than supply and it's crazy difficult trying to get into a public university, and only the best of the best make it. In the US demand and supply match, and quality gradually declines, not steeply. Everyone manages to find opportunities if they are motivated, and gets a chance to prove themselves. In a lot of countries, if you fuck up at ages 17-18, night as well forget about any dreams you might have of getting a good quality higher education.
Also, in Brazil at least, since it's harder to be admitted into a public University, people who attended private schools are more likely to go to public colleges. This is a very sensitive topic though, and I am glad that my country has these public institutions.
yeah im glad public education exists in india as well. the universities are very good and well funded. however, there's a dearth of opportunities at different levels of excellence. i think america has got it right to a great extent. yeah, the student loan thing needs to be worked on, but students and parents being educated on different majors and job opportunities would help to a great extent.
india actually went through this kind of a crisis in the '80s where there were many many people who got educated in the humanities but couldn't find a job. that led to a huge push into STEM. now that's been saturated for a little, but the economy is doing a lot better, so now there's more of a push towards careers outside of finance, tech and medicine. I think that's how it's going to go in the US as well.
It's better when best of the best make it into the university, not people who can just afford it.
See but here's the thing. The 'best' here overlap significantly with the most privileged. It's a whole thing to get into college, where you take these competitive exams and go to get tutored. There's entrance exams to get into tutoring classes that help you crack entrance exams. If you want to beat this, you have to be really smart.
To fix this privilege problem, there's affirmative action. Which makes it really hard for people who don't come under minority groups but are just a few steps away from poverty. They can't afford all this stuff. Understandably, they are pissed that someone from a minority group with the same upbringing as them with less grades can make it to a government college while they can't.
And then you do all this, meaning you entire youth is gone in exams and you have no social skills or hobbies.
And these people who make it in, are they better than the tons of people who don't, and have to go to significantly lower rated schools? No. After a few years in the industry, there's literally no difference, except those brought about by the opportunities the University's name affords you. I say this as someone who made it to one of the government universities and now I mentor and hire people in lower rated universities. The only difference is the opportunities given. If these kids get the same chances, they'll do as well if not better.
It's a huge waste of human capital. If you give more people the chance to do research or start businesses, or study literature, you'll have better outcomes for the whole nation. This artificial scarcity of educational opportunities does nothing to improve the nation as a whole.
What you're saying holds good only if demand and supply are matched well enough. With the kind of colossal mismatch India is suffering with educational opportunities, we need more universities, more vocational schools, and we can't rely on only the government to do it.
That's a nice way to restrict higher education to the upper class only.
What? University which takes students with best grades is worse than university which takes less good students who pay money? I get that how good student is is often influenced by his class, but still, poor people have better chance to get into university which accepts good students, than into university which costs them money. Because not having money is their main problem.
That's what most people dont realize about countries with "free" college. You have to EARN it and work your ass off to get in. If you dont have high grades, you'll either need to pay your own way, or you are screwed for life.
In many countries, its also harder to go back years later and get a degree.
The US system allows anybody at anytime to pay their own way and further their education. Its on them to pay for it, but its nice that the option is always there.
I come from a country with top-notch education but the competition is brutal. College was a lot easier here in the US, and it does allow "lesser" students to have a shot as well.
Does America not value education? Actual question, am ABC here.
It's complicated. Joking aside, I'd say yes, but a sizeable portion of our population doesn't. Polls have said 54% of Republicans believe education is bad for America. And honestly a lot of the time, people who pay lip service to "education" don't actually value it. Plenty of people view education as a means to an end (I need a piece of paper which says I have a degree, so that I can get the job that requires the degree/ Cs get degrees) rather than actually having genuine intellectual curiosity.
The problem as I see it is that America is just so damn big and diverse. If you take two states that are the size/population of a normal European country, you'll get as big a difference of opinion in them as you would two European countries.
Yes they value it but when it's government it comes off as government caring.
North americas education is public for elementary and high school and that's in the toilet.
Free education should not be conflated with good education. Shouldn't be conflated with caring about education, either.
so do americans care about education or not?
We have, hands down the best universities in the world and more of them per capita than other large nations.
We do value education. We also value people who accomplish things in life with their education.
Its about what you can do with your education to help the nation and other people. The "anti-educated" sentiments often stem from supposedly educated people who think they know everything and think they are better than everybody else.
I'm originally from Europe, and saw plenty of highly educated people who cant do jack shit to improve the country. I much rather prefer somewhat less-educated Americans who have the drive and motivation to find and solve problems.
Not really. The US has the best universities in the world.
Someone who went on a year abroad to America from my university (in the UK) told us to take graduate courses if we went to the US for our year abroad, because the undergraduate courses don't go nearly as in-depth apparently. Another person I know, from a different uni, also went to the US for her year abroad. She told me she didn't have to study because the tests were so easy to her.
The US universities might be good at research - but are they really that good at education?
Of course they’re good at education. We’re your friends first or second years or we’re they just in easy programs?
For any STEM program almost the exact same topics will be covered in an accredited US degree program and a British degree program. Pretty much every university will publish require course lists for degree programs as well as courses descriptions so you can compare to your modules since the course paths are different here.
In the UK a year abroad is always your third year. I am doing a scientific degree and the first person I mentioned was from the same course; I'm not sure about the specific course for the second person but I believe it was some form of humanities.
However the UK university I go to is quite good and it's possible, for the first scenario at least, that it could be explained by the US uni being "worse" - although university rankings are not very reliable for education quality as they often take research into account, so I'm not basing this better/worse thing on anything solid.
It would be helpful if you gave some specifics, like which university in the UK and which one in the US.
the first example is from UCL and UT Austin
the second example is from Dundee and a US state university, although I've forgotten which
There’s a ton of schools in the states, I don’t see how you can generalize them all. For example, I’m sure you’d agree Alabama’s state university and Penn State are very different schools despite both being state universities.
My comment was regarding two quite different US unis which I heard similar things about regarding the quality of education. So saying Penn State & Alabama State universities are very different doesn't mean much - I was actually comparing an "X State" university (although I don't remember exactly which one) and UT Austin
[deleted]
I think it's worth mentioning that one of the universities I was talking about was UT Austin, which according to both QS and THE is in the top 100 worldwide (top 50 from THE).
However I think you're right about standards. I've seen elsewhere that UK GCSEs are the equivalent of a barely-achieved US high school diploma (aka the bare minimum you'd need to get a diploma in the US) and then A levels/IB are more honours/AP stuff. I can't even imagine some of the kids I went to school with who left after GCSEs going to university.
[deleted]
she wasn't talking about gen ed courses but degree-specific stuff at junior/senior year level
Totally agree! Completed my undergrad in the US and was basically handed my degree. My postgrad in the UK was extremely difficult. I had to continually review the basics
[deleted]
Many of our top universities are public and very accessible for low income students with federal, state, and institutional grants. The top private schools also have extensive financial aid where you won’t pay any tuition if your family makes less than $100-150,000.
None of those great universities are struggling for good students. If you are a good student taking debt to attend a top school is a good investment in yourself.
You seem to think there is some large pool of great students that can't afford to attend college, there isn't at all.
Same here in Poland ;)
Happens in the US as well. Look at George W. Bush and his record at Harvard.
It is all the same here, anyone can go to any college/uni and there is not that big of a difference between them all. As an employer in Belgium you really do not care all that much about which school people graduated from.
I'm forever salty about this. I actually grew up in Argentina and was ready for college, but I had to move to Brazil. Like Argentina, the public unis there are considered better, but just getting into them is so. So. SO. HARD. Compared to Argentina.
I ended up having to go to a private university because when you're like 300 people competing for 60 seats in a course someone's gotta go :(
but just getting into them is so. So. SO. HARD.
That's an euphemism, for some courses it's near impossible (looking at you, USP).
surprisingly, in czech republic its basically same
Germany here, these claims are the same where I live but I disagree with them.
I've studied both at a private and a public university. The private university was a LOT harder, I was working my ass off day and night, it was heavily competitive and it was totally normal to have students faint randomly during the day. Our running joke was "I haven't slept/eaten/showered in 3days!!". That's just how intense it was. The teachers were extremely hard to satisfy and would grade really severely. Yet, the classes were small so we would learn better as opposed to students in public universities (you basically have to figure everything out by yourself).
It is true though that people graduate in less time from private universities but I personally think it's because the students from private university didn't have to work part time to pay for rent, food, etc... (in other words: they already had the money goddamnit!!) so they could fully concentrate on their studies.
[deleted]
I wasn’t making any generalisations, I was merely talking about my experience.
Also there was no need to be a dick.
Australia it’s subsidised and even then you can put it on a loan with minimal interest, starts coming out of your pay when you’re earning roughly 50k a year It’s about 1k per subject, a 3 year degree with 8 subjects each year comes to around $24,000-30,000 when you include student fees and books
I always thought that was brilliant of Australia. Just take it out with my tax. Especially if they're just skimming off the top, it won't cause financial hardship and you can still learn
Books are still a rip off though.
Im also 90% sure they don't even really go after it. The government takes what they determine is a proper amount based on income, so if you're jobless or other unfortunate I don't think you pay a cent
For some perspective, a four-year study at a fairly decent college in the next state over from me (I live in the South, so there's not terribly many.) would cost roughly $256,000. I didn't add in the cost of food or textbooks, as that's largely dependent on the individual. After taking out that much in loans, you can bet you'll end up paying roughly as much in interest as you borrowed. That is, unless you work your ass off in school.
Interest doesn't typically kick in until you leave school, so if you worked 40 hours a week every week for all four years at $8.25/hr (About as much as you'll get for unskilled labor around here) you'd be able to knock it down just south of $200k.
My state is better than almost any that I know of in terms of making the in-state universities affordable for residents, so if I went there instead, I'd graduate with a measly ~$100,000 in debt.
So basically, you just kind of have to hope you don't need to use any of your insurance until you're ~35.
Which school exactly? That's pretty damn insane unless its a private college.
My prof (who did his MS, PhD. And post doc there As most do)said that we don't take our classes seriously and that in the US all/most of the students are in debt and they demand action against their profs if even one class is cancelled and never bunk. Definitely could not relate. Bunked the next class because I was feeling sleepy and didn't want to walk 500 meters.
Can't college be graduated without a debt? Is it possible to pay every semester/year?
I often see in TV shows that parents have "college fund" for a kid since early childhood.
There's approx. $1.5 trillion in outstanding student debt...
Possible - yes. Likely - no.
Some parents start college funds. Sometimes it's enough, if the parents are particularly well-off and smart with their money. Sometimes that money gets spent on emergencies . Or the family has multiple kids, and they can't save enough money for the younger siblings.
Most of the time, the parents are working poor, and a college fund is a TV fantasy luxury they'll never be able to afford. Similar to a three-car garage, a maid, or a big-city apartment with a view.
The best students (i.e. the ones that would be attending the free universities in other countries) largely get academic scholarships that cover most if not all of their costs.
I'm an American with no college debt and I still get depressed thinking about it
It's the next big bubble after the housing market.
Hahahahahahahahaha fuck im crying
You can thank the US federal government guaranteeing students loans that can't be erased by bankruptcy for that. Because of them giving anyone with a pulse a loan, the universities dramatically increased tuitions. Before these guaranteed student loans college was actually affordable.
Anytime the govt shows up to make something "affordable", prices are going to skyrocket and everybody gets fucked.
Also note how every school has torn down or renovated every single building in the past 20 years. The nice stuff adds a ton of costs.
This.
It’s become part of the “college experience”
Where do you go to college?
Definitely not the US.
Can't go to Europe for cheaper university, either. As a "Non-EU" student, you'll pay anywhere from double to triple the native fees.
Source: currently am paying triple fees because my blood is impure
[deleted]
Wait, seriously? How does that make sense?
What I mean is this: why in the world would I as an American, as someone who hasn't paid a dime into German taxes or state-funded schools, get the same price as "in-state" students, native Germans who have been paying into the school system for their whole lives?
To be perfectly clear, I assume we're talking about state-funded, non-private schools.
Well, at the point where people start to go to university they will likely not have been paying anything/all that much into the system yet either. And a lot of foreign students don't just come here to study, but plan to stay long-term and would then also pay into the system. You usually need to proof good German abilities to be admitted which already shows at least somewhat of an interest in the country.
By good German abilities do you mean speaking the language?
Yes, a C1 level is generally expected. If the course is in English then it isn't necessary of course, but the majority is taught in German. Especially on a Bachelor level.
Awesome. I heard about Germany offering good college courses on the cheap to Americans, and I took some German in high school. I’ll have to look more into it, it seems like a great opportunity.
Though if you are not aware C1 level basically means just a step done from native level. Some German in high school won't do.
Yeah, I know it’s not good enough on its own, I just won’t have to start from scratch.
They're betting you'll stay for some time and be a productive, and tax paying, member of society.
It is also usually fairly hard to get in. Plus you need to speak some German, have a certain amount of cash to support yourself, pay a bunch of fees, and a host of other requirements.
Many countries "invest" in their students in order to reap rewards later. This also means they only invest in the best of the best however.
Do you know if that’s the case for the private schools?
Private schools have tuition, but are generally considered worse than public schools in Germany.
sadly soon to be the case in Nordrhein-Westfalen
Still cheaper than the US with a few exceptions.
It's not your blood that's impure just your passport ~~
Srsly though the local Universities are paid for by local taxes so it makes sense that the people who already pay for it through taxes can attend/ have their children attend without additional pay but not people coming in from abroad who didn't pay into the system yet (or whose parents didn't) and who are also more likely to leave once they're done studying so they're not necessarily paying into the system afterwards either.
Though you may be happy to hear that this isn't the norm here in Germany - only two states have standardized higher fees for non Eu foreign students afaik (1500€/Semester), the rest pay the same as the locals for public Unis or colleges. What's more of an issue is that you need to have enough money to pay for housing, food, and health insurance since none of those are included when enrolling and foreign students do not qualify for government loans.
Depends where you go. The UK? Yeah, you'll pay a bunch. Germany? Nope. Norway? Nope.
true in Austria, you will have to pay around a sould crushing 300 - 500 euros per semester. If you are form EU/AUT you will pay 18 Euros.
odd ... there are lots of students outside of EU, studying here and they pay based on their parents income, just like natives ... So its little to none ?
my blood is impure
Filthy mudblod.
I have a Finnish last name, can't I just go to Helsinki and fake it
I don't know about international students at my university, but I pay 20€ for 6 months. You could probably afford 60€ for 6 months in the worst case scenario.
Belgium.
I actually made money by doing so, my received scholarship money(nothing fancy just some government funded financial aid i was entitled to) was greater than my school expenses.
Yep. Belgian here. Many of my friends kept on studying for higher degrees because they loved the lifestyle of being a student and were saving money instead of going in debt. Though those with their philosophy degrees are still fucked.
It's University goddammit
I think too many people aim for colleges out of their price range. The debt is easily manageable otherwise. Go to a small in-state community college rather than a top 10 on the other side of the country. I mean there's a reason I didn't choose to move to Fl and attend Embry Riddle.
[deleted]
Yeah I'm going to need to know how you racked up 70k for state school. I went to community college and I'm sitting on about 10k. I had a small amount (I think one semester worth) saved away, but everything else was loans.
Not judging or being condescending, I'm honestly wondering how that would happen.
[deleted]
I apologize, I completely misunderstood state school as being the same as community college. It absolutely makes more sense now.
Did you get both BA degrees? That’s a hefty load, you should be proud.
[deleted]
I wouldn't feel stupid. There's a lot of good reasons to go to a more expensive school, especially depending on your field. I lucked out that my community college has a great graphic design program, and I didn't even know that going in.
I mean, it was a state school and not, like, UMich or UC Berkeley level. Just a state one. I could probably have gone to a state college, but they weren't known for providing a good education and didn't offer one of my majors.
Community college doesn’t equal state school. (Also some states are just crazy expensive even for state schools, which just sucks. And you can’t just go to another state’s state school because you don’t get the same benefits)
Yeah, the OP helped me understand that. Are state schools a non-US thing? I always thought you either went to CC or a University. Doesn't help that just down the highway from me is Texas State University, so that makes me extra confused.
No no I live in the U.S. too (and assume OP does). State schools are like community universities, I guess? They’re comparable to normal colleges, but with better aid as they’re run by the state government (aid for those living in the state, that is). It’s meant to be an affordable option with a more expansive selection that community colleges (which often don’t have many more-specific majors) while remaining affordable, and to bridge the wealth gap where many middle class citizens fall.
Unfortunately for OP, in some states those schools have gotten to be as good as or better than surrounding schools, or surrounding states’ schools, causing their popularity to grow and tuition to rise. Also, OP sounds like he/she was majorly mistreated in their financial aid.
TIL. Thanks for elaborating.
Bullshit. You could've easily found a state school for 10k annual.
Not in my state.
I'd like to know what state this is for general curiosity.
How? Did you work during school or take 100% of your tuition in loans?
[deleted]
Okay, that isn't really a normal situation, you had two degrees and lived on campus all 4 years, of course it's going to cost more.
It’s very normal for first-gen students to do something like this when they have little guidance on assessing options and don’t have a family who knows how to game the system.
That was exactly my situation and the only thing I could think was “how do I do this as cheap as possible?”.
[deleted]
So you paid per year and not per credit? I can’t see how adding a second degree didn’t add extensive costs.
We got up to 19 credits per term in our tuition. I also came in with 22 credits from AP exams. The two degrees required a certain number of credits and meeting requirements for the classes. So I just made sure to stay within the allotted amounts of credits.
I think the greatest difference is that in many European countries you don't generally accumulate any debt from tuition at all. My University charges ~240-300€ per semester and you get a free ticket for public transport through the whole state (which is a lot cheaper than paying for the equivalent ticket yourself or owning a car). The largest expenses are housing and food which are also very managable if you live with roommates and have a job during the breaks or non-existant if you go to the local equivalent of a “small community-college“ and live with your parents.
That's not always true, expensive schools can often offer better financial aid packages than state schools.
I went to Syracuse over SUNY Geneseo because SU had the better financial aid package.
True. Financial aid invalidates most of the argument I think. It varies too greatly by both individual and location.
This is a very unpopular opinion on Reddit, but you are correct. Most state schools will also accept gen-eds from community college.
It was the common way up for a lot of my classmates and friends. Go to community college for 2 years then to the state school after that.
Even working parttime most of them would come out of the first two years debt free.
I went to a public medical school in the U.S. and was an in-state student for 3 of the 4 years.
I have 200K in debt just from med school. All federal loans.
Price range vs Aptitude is always going to be an imbalance for a few(lot?)
I'm guessing somewhere with lots of squirrels
Poland.
All studies are free, except special weekend classes which are easily affordable with the below-average wage. Some studies - usually engineering - even pay you for taking them.
And insurance needed for healthcare.
Those two can be massive expenses.
Yup, can't relate to it at all. Our college tuition is like $3,500 for a 4 year degree. Most people can pay off their college debt within the first year of employment.
I'm from Canada and currently have just under 10k in student loans. It seems like a fair amount to me and a few people I know have around 40-60k. Some of the shit I hear from the states is staggering...
There's a lot of freedom to go to any school here, and plenty of loans to use.
This means you get C-level students going to top notch private schools to study majors that dont earn much money.
Cause for some reason in America, for-profit education is still legal. Like how do you justify forcing students to buy a $200+ textbook that probably cost $20 to print and ship to the bookstores. Even worse, they don't let you re-use old textbooks even though nothing has been updated in the last few editions. They will even move some chapters around, change the formatting, layout and such so that pages in the old book won't be in sync with the new book, thus making it almost impossible to do homework assignments since your book doesn't match the professor's book, that he probably wrote himself. Even the e-books are ridiculously overpriced and are completely useless when you have no internet since they don't let you download them for offline use. I could write a dozen more paragraphs about this but I think I've made my point clear by now.
since your book doesn't match the professor's book, that he probably wrote himself.
Well to be honest, that's the case in EU too. Some professors just get away with that crap, force students to buy their book (you need to show your copy during classes) as a prerequisite to passing the given course. Though it's much rarer now.
Where I live a good college costs like 1000$ per year. The US system seems so absurd to me.
If you make college loan debt bankrupt able, then very few places would still give it out like they currently do. If that happens, less people will go to college, and those on loans would have less money. In response, the colleges would progressively have to cut cost. Those who get loans would have to be students who can show their record suggest success, and the most desirable of these students would get low interest loans.
American college debt is greater than all credit card debt.
it's so crazy: studied in austria, where there's a special program: if you worked for 4+ years, and are below age 30, and never finished a university degree: they'll pay you €700/month for the minimum time it takes for that study, plus an additional semester per sub-diploma.
i started studying at age 26, never knowing about this program. i had worked for 6 years at that time.
fine arts took 4 years minimum, i finished it in 5 years, and got that money for the whole duration. i could then extend the grant for the phd, which i finished three years ago.
i studied for nine years, and never had to pay. instead, i got approx €73k from the government, sum total.
Oh my god, yes! I did know that you can rack up insane debt on education but what was a total surprise for me was the fact that you need to buy your own textbooks and they are stupid expensive. I am currently studying and have invested maybe 100 Euros into my textbooks over the year (voluntarily, I could have just skipped and downloaded/copied the parts I needed from a library edition) while my best friend said it went over 600 USD per semester for him. Like what.
Well, that's a thing in the Netherlands too. I failed to graduate in college and because of that, all the benefits I've had like 250 euro rent money every month and free public transport I need to pay back now. A total of 11.000 euros. But there's rules attached to it, the amount I pay every month I can increase or decrease, and I can freeze it. The government has certain regulations and can forgive it after a while. It sounds like what this guy is writing about Scotland's system:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0lox3l/
American here: College debt is a major source of anxiety and depression for me. Have avoided seeking mental health services because it would slow my repayment of that debt.
College debt isn't a thing where you are?
A major reason for the insane college tuition here in the states is this neanderthal belief that all Universities must have multiple high-end sports programs that do shit-all towards academics and only raise fees.
oof... that one hurt
This is worse in the U.K...
Well, many outside of the US have college debt if they could get into and attend one of the better research universities in Europe, India, etc. It's just the 4-year colleges in Europe, that are barely better than a community college in the US and often very over-subscribed, that are free for most countries.
That's from US colleges and universities catering to rich foreign national students. Tuition skyrocketed between 1988 and 1992 as we saw a massive influx of wealthy students from abroad.
I watched as both my Alma mater and the University I worked for at the time built luxury dorms, workout facilities, etc instead of putting money into actual educational tools, all the while tripling tuition over a 4 year period.
(edit for typo and content)
Neither it or the medical system make any sense
Came here to say this, because thank god in graduation and I don’t own anyone or anything
The weird culture that everyone should go to college is what's inflated this too. You have stupid kids that think the word "student" is in front of the word "loan" it makes it different. It's still a loan and I'm not about to spend 60k-200k on something unless I know i'll get an ROI on it.
John Oliver piece. Find it.
Good point. Why go to college?
We don't like taxes.
Once you've paid off your college debt, you don't owe a dime ever again.
In other countries, you pay for that tuition until the day you die, whether or not you actually attend university.
So it depends on your viewpoint.
This is just painful.
Graduated with an engineering degree for $10,000, not bad at all. We have this thing called a government that helps pay for my college. I guess people think we dont have that here?
What, it's not normal to thrust yourself into debt for 30 years after turning 18?
Over here if you don't go to college its frowned upon
In Germany there is a ceiling for student loans. It's 10k €. That's my debt....
Things we forget the word for in Europe
College debt is actually quite common in a lot of places. If you choose to go for private education, you'll need to get money to pay for it.
College debt (that your parents have to save up for tuition), medical expenses (insurance), that you have to be wealthy to be a politician on a national level.
One of our former presidents once remarked that running for the office of president nowadays would require a minimum of 100million dollars. If a candidate was incapable of surmounting that figure there is no way they'd get the party's support.
I had a poli-sci teacher in uni who broke down the averages of winning political candidates. I don't remember what the span of years was, but a successful Senate candidate spent an average of $1.2 million. A successful House candidate spent around $900,000, on average.
Not a single person in the USA government, or likely any other, realistically, has any clue what their "constituents" encounter on a daily basis, especially when it comes to financial issues.
But they don't pay that out of their pockets.
[deleted]
A small loan of a billion dollars
I'm not sure if there has ever been a confirmed billionaire president. Trump won't release his personal finances so excluding him, I can't think of any other president even close.
[deleted]
If you're able to raise a billion dollars within 2 years, even with donations, why wouldn't you already be a billionaire?
Because donations are not for your personal wealth but for your campaign.
That's what they like you to think ;)
Kinda surprising too. But I mean its not like we've had poor ones. Bush, Clinton, Kennedy. They aren't exactly broke lol
But the candidate doesn't pay all that. It's just not true that candidates need to be billionaires, and that should be obvious by the fact that none have been billionaires (besides, possibly, the current one).
No one said they need to be billionaires. They need to be able to raise a billion dollars.
Well, the point was that they have to be wealthy. Since they're not spending that money, it doesn't really matter.
i'm talking 100m before the party fully supports
My countries current president was a history teacher two years ago and did not have considerable wealth. We all just thought he was a pretty smart and nice guy, so he got elected.
Iceland. With a national population smaller than most world cities, I'm not sure it's apples to apples.
[deleted]
The Clintons left the presidency in debt. When he took office, they were worth well under a million dollars.
The Obama’s were making less than $300,000 dollars a year before he started making more around 2004 with a book deal.
When they took office, they had about a million and a half.
So when you say “millions below,” I’m not sure what you mean. Does Merkel earn less than zero?
Not sure why the salary of the office matters, but it’s 400,000 USD.
True. but still, Trump?.... Him?
This isn’t what the founding fathers believed in
The founding fathers that restricted the vote to only people who owned property?
Well the guy who invented democracy got killed because he said only educated people should vote
Trump didn't even spend any money, as far as I know
that you have to be wealthy to be a politician on a national level.
I think this is the weirdest thing to me. I thought pretty much all nation's top level politicians were at least firmly upper middle class.
Part of it is due to the instability of politics. You have to be able to handle looming unemployment. The other part is our (lack of) campaign finance controls, which makes it such that millions are required to run at a national level. With only slightly less at a state wide level
Education debt is a terrible thing. I used to work for the state as a collector on people that defaulted on their loans. I was nice and would take basically anything to just make it count. The penalties are instant, compounding, and frankly cruel.
For example, you can take out a loan with a local/national bank for education. The Dept of Ed (fed and state) guarantees that the bank will not lose money and commits to repay it. You can miss as little as one payment and have the bank list you as default and roll it over to the state. Not a big deal you say? Well, that roll over causes all your interest (including what was planned) to now be captial, then a fee (in Illinois it was 25%) assessed on top of it, then a new, much higher interest rate (then we were charging 18%) assessed. The state now will collect on you. At some point, the state will decide you didn't pay and turn it over to the federal DoE who will capitalize all the interest again, charge a 35% default fee, and start over. I talked to multiple people who had borrowed under $10k who owed $50K+. And thanks to laws passed by presidents of both parties, you cannot discharge this debt except by dying, and even then they will try to get a portion of your estate. It is literally the only debt that is that mean (you can BK out of taxes, but not loans).
Because of this, I saved whenever possible so I could for my kids' college. I paid their first two years of college. Every class, every book, every food bill and fee and otherwise. As they are now getting close to graduating they've had to get loans but at least it will be smaller amounts. I tried like hell to keep them from being in debt but the best I could do was two years.
And the kicker? I'm nearly a half century old and I am still paying my own loans off. Not from default (because I knew that would be crushing), just normal monthly payments. I still have 2 more years. If I didn't have that, I probably could have paid even more to let them start their adult lives without debt. It's been an everpresent weight for a very long time. But once it's done? I'll be putting money in to begin to pre-pay my grandchildren's college, because I'll be damned if I won't try to help them as well avoid what's pressed down on me for close to 15 years (went back to school for a secondary degree to help my career).
I'm 20, halfway through college, and I'm deathly scared of students loans. Like I can only picture how much I'm gonna hate my life in 2 years.
A year ago, I'd have recommended some public sector work. As part of that, you could have had 5 years to all (teachers only) of the loan forgiven. Of course, because of how our laws work, you have to pay taxes on what is forgiven, but at least you don't have to pay it.
Under the current administration, that is being delayed with the stated desire to remove it, so I am not sure what the future holds. That was certainly a great way to encourage helping the community and the borrowers.
I would happily pay slightly more in taxes to have free public universities, as my friends in other countries tell me they have. Let private ones cost. Why not? If you want that specialized (or just plain special) education, pay for it. But I feel we should have all public education subsidized, from preschool to college. Education is the best single investment you can make in yourself, and as a country, the best long-term investment for the people.
So I'm reading this, but man it's kinda going over my head.
Like what can I even do now?
I'm working at a warehouse getting basic paychecks to help support my family from losing our house, it's like saving money now isn't an option. That's all I know.
I can just picture myself at 26, making 45k a year, despising my work, and wanting to off myself.
Not the person you're replying to, but man, I'm sorry to hear about your trials and tribulations. I've been living in a similar situation, and I just graduated.
I worked my way through 3/4 of college, and I start paying my loans in August. I paid literally ~15% of what most students paid for school because of my tireless search for scholarships and grants (I've gotten more each year). Due to the intensive and time-consuming nature of my music major limiting my hours, and my jobs constantly changing (trying to find something that I can live off of), saving money during school wasn't an option for me either (my school is in the middle of bumblefuck PA).
My advice? After you get out of school, get yourself on your feet as an adult and find a job you like (read: dont feel like you want to off yourself (I feel you)), rather than chasing a career as soon as you graduate, unless you have really good, OPEN job prospects (if you don't get a job offer right out).
Try to save money for your first few loan payments after school ends, so you have some leeway to find a job(s) and/or living arrangements and start making money. Once you have your payments and finances all under control, that's when you should start really looking for a career job, because you'll be guided by good criteria (workplace, benefits, how much you like the job), rather than taking the first job (that you might end up hating) so that you'll be able to pay for your loans and living expenses.
This seems like good advice I would say.
I'm still very scared though ya know. (Hey I'm in PA too!)
I think I made a mistake in going to Penn State. I'm not very good at all with how to get scholarships. Everything I see is like "Write an essay and hope you get picked for $1000!" I've don't a few, but nothing substantial, to no avail so far.
I wen to PSU not knowing what I was gonna do, then I ended up choosing a major only offered there, so I'm definitely stuck.
Another major problem is that my parents don't have good credit so I can no longer use them to co-sign off on my loans, and I have no one else to help me with this upcoming year.
It'll all be okay man :)
Also, I didn't apply to get more free money from the school after my freshman year, as my school is small and has little liquidity in it's scholarship funding. PA has some good state/city grants, and some small businesses in the towns around schools sometimes help kids out with stipends and such.
You should be able to get state/government grants which don't need a parent co-sign (my parents only co-signed my first semester loans). Private loans are Satan, lenders will only try to suck all the money out of you.
I'm scared too, man. I just paid a fortune for BA which, at this point, is almost equivalent to a HS diploma for the previous generation in terms of how far it gets you. I paid my way through school, and have lived on my own since 19. To celebrate my 4 years of hard work, sacrifice, and emotional distress I'm left with huge debt, my shit college job to sustain me until my lease is up, and no savings. Shit's scary.
Fuck this country. I didn't ask to be born or raised here, and I want to GTFO at this point. American dream, my ass. Explain to me how most people are worse off being booted into the real world AFTER higher education. What?
First off, /u/Imperial_Distance gave solid advice. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to a computer to respond.
That said, I wanted to say first off on what you said:
I'm working at a warehouse getting basic paychecks to help support my family from losing our house
That is enough. I've been there. More than once, sadly, but I have been there. At one point it got very dark for me, exactly to what you said, the "wanting to off yourself" part. Some people I barely registered as friends helped me, pulled me back from that terrible cliff, so let me try to do the same.
You are the hero of your family by doing what you are doing. Understand that.
As far as loan repayment goes, I cannot nor do I want to predict what the future holds. As it exists now, you can apply for income based repayment. This will allow you to make a much smaller repayment, with the potential for the remaining balance to be forgiven in the future. It may end up being a long term debt, but at least you won't default. At some point in the future we will, I have almost no doubt, move to free public education for college students. I hope that impacts you earlier than later.
As far as scholarships and grants, the best advice I have there is to explore the school's resources. Most of the "write an essay and get $1000" are scams, I'm sad to say. But your high school may have a $500 scholarship for students pursuing your line of study. Your work may have tuition reimbursement. Sometimes even local municipalities have scholarships and grants. And the school often has grants for income challenges. Ask them. Hound them.
I've been in management for over 30 years. I myself ended up with a glass ceiling I could only break with education, but I have seen many people who were wildly qualified for a job be turned down because they were missing that college education. It's a key to the future, which may take some time to get to. But don't give up. My life now is nothing like it was 10 years ago. 20 years ago I was working three jobs with 4 hours of sleep a day. 24 years ago my lunch every day for a year was 10 cent ramen because it was either that or no formula for the baby. Today is just a stop on the path to your future, and college will help unlock it. It's a damn shame they make us pay through the nose for it, but it's one of those things you just have to go through.
On the work thing, one last bit - every job sucks in a way. No matter how awesome you think a job is, there's someone who does it who hates it with every fiber of their being. Find a job you can do and at least tolerate it. Use it as a stepping stone. My job right now is not my dream job, but it's fun and I totally enjoy it. It has zero relation to what I was doing when I graduated college, either time. But they were steps on the path here. Few people get the dream job right away. The rest of us have to go the long way.
You don’t have to be wealthy to be a politician. You need to raise a lot of money but you don’t really have to be rich. Obama wasn’t really that rich before he became President.
One thing I don't get is companies (or actually even individuals) sponsoring political campaigns....that would be crime here. (Okay not always you can get "gifts" for campaign but they have to be disclosed and on transparent account, which everyone can access, and cannot exceed $1000 per gifter)
There is no college debt in India for most folks. No medical debts either. Thank the gods !
Yeah, but you guys also haven’t figured out the toilet yet, so...
I would shit on the floor if it meant not having to deal with health insurance and college debt. Gladly.
I would shit in my hand and sculpt/kiln figures out of my literal shit if I could not have almost $40k in debt right now. Just graduated, yay...
And that's not even talking about hospital bills. My most recent hospital visit was a flare-up of my (untreated because I can't afford it) arthritis, and my knee was almost swollen to twice it's size.
The fluid was drained with a needle ($100), and a test was ran to make sure it wasn't gout (~$300). I was a patient in the hospital for less than 3 hours.
I don't have any hospital bills, because I do have insurance, but I pay a lot for that even though it's through work and they pay part of it too.
I am sending my son to college this fall and between his loans and what I will have to borrow (the new trick is to make the parents borrow most of the money) we will owe $100k after 4 years.
I don't have enough to pay for any school so we have to borrow all of it.
I'm still under my parent's insurance, but it didn't cover the ~$400 I got billed for a couple weeks later, after I'd taken a couple days off work following my hospital visit because I couldn't stand/walk much at all. So I got the bill the same week I got a smaller paycheck.
I'm really sorry to hear about your shit loan situation, I worked my way through college pretty much solo (which really didn't give me any leeway to save). My family didn't have money to pay for my college either. Now that I've graduated, I'm stuck with ~40k in debt now working as many hours as I can at my college job, and no savings.
It sucks for everybody in just about every situation. I make a decent living, so we don't get any grants, just loans. But I don't make enough to actually pay for the tuition - basically everyone who makes between 50-100k per year could fall into this category.
Yup, my parents fall into the same category.
im being genuine when i say this - but what middle/lower class politicians do you know of?
For the non rich folks, we go into debt ourselves to go to college. Nothing like starting out your professional career $50k+ in debt
Actually, you also need to be wealthyto be a local politician as well.
College debt (that your parents have to save up for tuition),
Colleges are mostly at fault for this. The debt can't be discharged so they continually raise prices to soak the students.
that you have to be wealthy to be a politician on a national level.
People get filthy rich as politicians in the US. They're wealthy by the time hit the national level because they're cleaning up all the way there. Bribery is effectively legal as long as people are not to blatant about it the US media largely ignores it.
People like John McCain were caught on tape on taking a bribe he spent another 30 years in the senate.
I guess it depends on what you mean by wealthy. There are plenty of people in national government who I wouldn't call wealthy.
A wellknown YouTuber and Critique John "TotalBiscuit" Bain, died of cancer a few weeks ago.
His cancer was terminal, and the cost of the treatment was over 700k dollars from 2016 to 2018.. not counting the part the insurance paid….
I don't get why his insurance didn't cover that.
Since it was terminal I figure they'd not bother paying for the treatments…. they did pay some, but as one commented: "Insurances pay for the treatments, not the cure".
It's more a function of the fact you're expected to have some sort of professional experience to be a politician - whether that be business acumen, experience working as a lawyer, etc. It's difficult to succeed in life to the level necessary to be respected enough to become a politician without making money along the way. While many politicians come from wealthy backgrounds, many don't, but during their ascendency to politics do well for themselves financially.
The whole "if my boss doesn't like my shirt, I can instantly lose my job and my health insurance" is just so alien to me. American employment law sounds like a hellish landscape to me.
In Germany, if your company has more than 5 employees, you cannot be fired without cause. Legal causes are economic problems for the company (and even then the company cannot just fire who they want; they have to make a list ranking the employees along several criteria; the older you are, the more dependants you have and the longer you have worked at the company all put you lower down on the list), behavioral problems (insulting the boss, constant low performance, stealing) or personal problems (lost the driver's license required to perform your job). In all but the most serious cases (like stealing or attacking coworkers), you have to be given the chance to improve.
I'm 32, married,. 2 kids. Half of the company will be fired before they can fire me for economic reasons. As long as I am a semi-competent employee and don't assault anyone, my job is safe.
My healthcare is independent from my employment. I don't lose anything or change anything just by switching employers. If I lose my job, unemployment benefits pay for it. If that runs out after a year, social security benefits pay for it.
Did I mention that I have 30 vacation days (legal minimum of 20 days; most employers offer at least 25) and unlimited sick days (6 consecutive weeks with full pay, after the 6th week at 70% pay; resets after working one full day). If I'm sick, I stay at home, period. I can choose between 6 extra vacation days or the equivalent in money. I'm expected to take all of my vacation days (at least 2 weeks worth consecutively; it's not unusual to take a whole month) and will be pestered by HR towards the end of the year if I didn't take them.
I work 39 hours/week; anything more will be taken as vacation days later on. I'm not legally allowed to work more than 10 hours per day and my boss is personally liable if he directs me to work more than that and something happens to me in my way home.
These are not ultra-rare benefits just for the elite; 20 days of vacation and unlimited sick days are legally mandated; even minimum wage employees get that.
Holy crap. Here in the US, I've been a nurse for 24 years & I'm finally up to 15 vacation days & 3 sick days per year. And that's the maximum my employer allows.
[deleted]
It sucks. A lot of people just spend their days thinking of retirement. I'll be missing family wedding in two weeks because I want to take a longer trip in the fall and I only have 5 vacation days. Its kind of sad to see the entire summer come and go and not be able to have time for a some days off
[deleted]
We have a number of federal holidays - New Year's Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas are the ones I can think of.
Though important to note that is mostly for salaried jobs. Hourly jobs especially in retail/food service are not mandated to give you any holiday off.
Exactly. Restaurants, movie theaters, and stores in the malls need people to work on holidays for all the people patronizing those places on their days off.
If you work in anything that caters the public you normally work holidays. Depending on the job there is most likely no extra pay for holidays either.
Walmart sure doesn't anymore. They got rid of holiday pay, mandate everyone to work thanksgiving/black Friday, and then decided to give their employees a 15% off coupon as thanks for working all that dumb shit. So they can spend their hard earned money BACK INTO WALMART.
Wow at my job in Germany pretty much everyone is fighting tooth and nail to work on holidays because that means an extra 100% of pay per hour..that bonus is also tax free
Yeah but even then you get the day off, not the days around it unless you use your vacation time so even if let's say Xmas falls on a Thursday, you still come back on Friday the 26th.
In the US, holidays that fall on a weekday are generally paid if you're salary. If a major holiday falls on a weekend, most professional jobs give you the Friday or Monday off. Some places offer "time and a half" or more for working on holidays, but they're not required. And most companies will not give holiday pay if you do not work the day before or day after, so if you wanted to stay on vacation an extra day, you'll lose the "bonus".
Huh. It's 2.5x pay on public holidays here.
Well just keep rubbing it in, buddy! /s
In Australia we get a standard 4 weeks holidays per year, some places offer 5 weeks. If you don't take them, they roll over to the next year. My boss doesn't like us clocking up more than 4 weeks, so if I don't take a holiday, he will pay me out the time instead. Only downside to that as it's a lump sum it can affect your tax and you might pop up into the higher tax bracket.
At my job we get 8 paid holidays, be we only actually close two days a year. The other six we work, we just get extra holiday pay on top of what we work for the day.
And to mention, Europe mostly has paid vacation days. Here in Slovenia we have similar benefits as in Germany and we also get mandatory vacation money, usually a bit less than the monthly pay. We get it once a year
I feel you- being a working adult in the US essentially means you live to work, and work to live. Some never even retire. I don't even like to think about debt accumulation anymore. Maybe I'll get lucky and just die when I get burnt out after 40 years of working.
5 vacation days = a longer trip... That's such a weird thought.
Yeah I went to Japan last year on 5 days off. I had to work two years for that.
One of my cousins had to miss my wedding because he and his wife had already booked a trip for the fall that year and then a week later my wedding invention was in their mailbox. That is the joy of having limited vacation time.
5 days per year? Really?
Maybe I should try to move to Europe
Try scandinavia. Swede here. 5 weeks paid vacation, 4 of which are mandatory. Unlimited sickdays. Free healthcare. Public transportarion is quite expensive though, as is owning a car.. a gallon of gas is about 7 usd.
How hard is it to get a visa there?
Germany here. In most of my jobs I had 30 days of vacation. You pay a lot of taxes and social charges though (if you are single and no kids), which may be irritating for americans.
That's so depressing dude
Not only that, but once you do get a job that gives 15 days a year, you can't use them because every company runs with too few employees to allow for anyone to take time off in order to save money. I have 200 hours saved up for years (if you save more than 200 they are forfeited). I'm taking two 1 week vacations this year for my sister's wedding and my 10 year anniversary, because I moved to a new team, but that still won't use my 15 days, so I'll lose some this year, too. I have a grandson I've never met that I'll finally see for 5 seconds during the wedding. I have one day to spend with my 3 kids I haven't seen in years. And it always feels like such a waste to fly all day to get somewhere and then only have 4 or 5 days to enjoy the vacation. Makes going overseas such a bummer, especially if it's like a 15 or 20 hour flight. Don't even have time to recover from the jet lag.
Why would you work a job like that? You act like you're forced to stay at that job
That's just standard, at least in the software industry.
No, it's definitely not. Get a new job.
It is in Seattle, especially in smaller companies. I've had several jobs like that. I prefer that over the assembly line atmosphere of big companies.
I've been in software industry for years in the US. Corporate, startups, everywhere. That's not normal. Get a new job.
No no, didn't you hear him? "It's normal". He fell into the doorknob. -_- It's ridiculous that someone can say "oh yeah being treated like shit in the SOFTWARE INDUSTRY" is normal and it's just you and I going "... err no".
I've been in this industry for 13+ years and it's not normal in any way. But shrug, he can enjoy his crap while I enjoy not being treated like an idiot.
What the hell? For me close family weddings and funerals dont even count as a day off. You just get paid leave for a day.
Really depends on your career in the US. For example, tech companies generally pay very well with great benefits. As a software engineer my company gives me 30 days vacation and 10 personal/sick days. I also work from home most of the time to avoid traffic. This kind of thing is pretty common in tech companies but not so much in other fields.
Do you mind sharing the name of the company? I've never seen any of the big tech companies offer 30 days vacation in the US.
I just saw the last 3 years go by in an instant, spent my few vacation days flying to family funerals, costing me a fortune so i can go back to work and earn enough money to pay for the next short notice flight i need for a family emergency
US seems like a hollow shell of a nation.... the people are being abused by their government and the private sector.
Lobbying have granted the companies so much power over their workforce, it's absolutely insane.
I’m in my first job out of college and will probably not take more than a day or two off for the next two or so years. It’s not that I can’t, but I’m so low on the totem pole that if I took a bunch of time off I’d be seen as lazy and someone else can come in and do it without missing time. Shits so competitive here that if I lose my job I’m probably not going to be able to find a full time job with benefits and adequate pay for a few months so I’d just be bleeding money and I pay almost all my salary already on an apartment that I can’t leave for a year. So it’s easier to just shut up and keep on keepin on until I get promoted to a job they wouldn’t be able to fill in a week. Actually had a buddy who almost got fired for taking two days off to go to Germany after working here for two years
That's what happens when your country is run by giant corporations & 5 billionaires. I'm 3 years into a professional job & just now got up to 7 paid leave days. Max is 6 weeks but that's after 20 years or so...
Here out in the construction field of South Texas you get no paid preset vacation or sick days. Since we usually paid hourly, any day we call in sick is simply not paid. We have to work for PTO(Paid Time Off) I forget the actual rate, something like 2 hours of PTO per 40 hours of work; usually ending up with about 40 hours of PTO at the end of the year, provided you didn't use any of it already or call in sick.
Man that is rough... I genuinely think it's better to just let people get better when they're sick. That practice encourages people to clock in when they're not 100% and the work suffers. Even if they say yeah we're not a charity I think it's bullshit. Business-wise it makes sense to have a healthy and motivated worker instead of dragging out the time that they're not feeling well.
Whats a vacation? You mean you dont work every day from 15 till death?
Pff. Lazy europeans
I have 10. It's ridiculous. My husband has 15 and can work from home when sick. Most of my friends have 20. I love my job in so many ways, but the PTO is RIDICULOUS.
The fact that "working from home when sick" is touted as a great perk is more concerning... if you're sick you shouldn't be working, you should be resting and recovering!
and can work from home when sick.
Sorry but that already sounds off to me.
I get a telling off from my boss if I'm found working when I called in sick (online on slack, checking in code, replying to non trivial emails). Like why did you call in sick when you're working?
Sure if the place is figuratively on fire, if you can, you have to make sacrifices. Most of the time though, it can wait a bit until you've recovered.
It’s more like second or third day of a sickness when you feel good enough to get outta bed and into your home office, but not quite up to going to work.
Jesus Christ. I'm in Canada our laws say 10 minimum :(
Same here. And for each additional 5 years or employment (up to 10 years) you get another week. I’m about to cross the 7 weeks mark next year. I also never call out sick so I get an incentive bonus of an additional 2 days a year. I never actually use all of mine and it rolls over in your PTO bank forever until you reach a cap of 380 hours. I’ve got 8 weeks in my bank right now.
Edit: I should clarify, I’m in the US.
Now add in the general daily commute and smart phones forcing work on the go and most people are dedicating 10-12 hours a day to work. It isn't that fun.
Lol I get 48-60 hours a week mandatory at my job on swing shift and only get 8 vacation days a year. I’ve been here 5 years.
I have an entirely flexible schedule. As long as I let them know when I'm not available and find someone to keep an eye on tickets I can take as much time off as I want. They enforce a minimum of at least two weeks vacation per year, since people tend not to take it since they're allowed to work wherever they can get 2Mbps of bandwidth.
As an American so did I (well, 20 vacay, 10 floating federal).
And we have very few major holidays; New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.
For me, the month may actually sucks. A bunch of the national holidays are concentrated there. Which means we don't get much work done. I'd prefer it to be more spread out.
To illustrate, our national holidays (which are not counted towards vacation days):
-(first Easter day) Eerste Paasdag 2018: zondag 1 april (*)
-(second Easter day) Tweede Paasdag 2018: maandag 2 april
-(kings day) Koningsdag 2018: vrijdag 27 april
-(liberation day) Bevrijdingsdag 2018: zaterdag 5 mei (*)
-(ascension day) Hemelvaartsdag 2018: donderdag 10 mei
-(no idea) Eerste Pinksterdag 2018: zondag 20 mei
-Tweede Pinksterdag 2018: maandag 21 mei
-(First day of Christmas) Eerste Kerstdag 2018: dinsdag 25 december
-(second day of Christmas) Tweede Kerstdag 2018: woensdag 26 december
-(new years) Oudejaarsdag 2018: maandag 31 december
(*) weekend, which means no extra day off
Some years the day is different so pinksteren could be in the weekend instead of during the week which means no extra day off
Every moment of our lives is owned by one corporation or another. Welcome to the land of the free.
I’m an American student and I’m working at a brewery for the summer; I worked 60 hours my first week, and that’s chump change to some of my coworkers. That said, we all like being there and usually agree to the (technically) optional overtime. We all make a ton of money doing it, but it’s basically impossible to get time off or work less than a 10-13 hour day.
Most places won't even give you a week of paid time off after 2 years of employment, some make you wait a year before you accumulate any.
I'm in uni and only work 20%, and still get 25 vacation days!
I got something like that, but I still can't imagine taking that much time off. I have to force myself to take random days, on top of actually going on vacation.
A full month off of work every year is no small matter.
My 18yo does housekeeping in a hotel and gets 28 days paid vacation here in the UK. He's pretty glad we left the US.
Dear god. An 18 year old in the u.s. working at a hotel would get fired for missing 15 minutes of work....forget about 28 days.
[deleted]
That sucks. In sweden its illegal for an employer to deny leave for a funeral (for a relative not sure about others) even if you have used all mandatory 25 paid vacation days
It's kinda crazy. He's making $1400usd/mo, has health/dental because of NHS, 28 paid days vacation, and his employer makes sure his 2 days off a week are together. He also gets free breakfast (2 breaks a day) and 50% off hotel stays. This is his first job.
What do you do if you catch influenca?
I stayed at home for two weeks and couldn't move a muscle in the first week.
Honestly? Pray to God you don't get fired. But at some jobs you probably will if you exceed your time.
This is a huge problem for Americans in poverty. The FMLA makes sure you can get sick and not lose your job, But you have to go without pay and the rent won't pay itself.
If you're really lucky you'll just die.
I had influenza earlier this year and it wiped out my meager savings account. If I can't work I don't get paid, and if I don't get paid I don't get to feed myself and my cat. (And I'm a college-educated person in a professional job.)
You go to work sick.
Influenza made its course through where I work about 3 months ago. I enjoy my job, but it’s the kind of place where if you miss too many days they will definitely fire you. I live in Texas and it’s what is called a “right to work state”, which means that your employer can fire you for essentially no reason. Anyways... Typically when someone was out on Monday with the flu they were back by Friday at work for fear of missing too many days. Most of them looked seriously pale and weak and most likely just controlling their fever with antipyretics to make it through the day. We work 12 hour shifts and are on our feet most of the day. So basically that’s what people do when they get the flu.
So basically if you're ill you feel forced to work anyway and infect everyone around you? That must be great for productivity.
Exactly... employers will tell you to not come to work if you are sick, due to risking everyone else getting sick. However, at the same time will pressure you into working. It’s like they know what’s actually best, but don’t have the manpower to risk not having someone there.
Right-to-work means you can't be forced to join a union. You live in an at-will employment state in which you can fired for any reason outside of being a member of a protected class. Montana is the only state in the union that doesn't have at-will employment.
“Right to work” means your can’t be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.
You’re thinking of “at will employment” which is the vast majority, if not all states.
“right to work state”, which means that your employer can fire you for essentially no reason
This is a common misconception. "Right to work" means you can't be required to join a union as a condition of employment.'
"At-Will Employment" means you can be fired for essentially no reason.
They're related (weakened collective bargaining benefits employers at the expense of workers, leading to the second situation) but different.
Jesus, the U.S. suck.. I could never live there, sounds like hell. I am really sorry for all of you!
Stay out for a few days then go into work and spread it to everyone there. Oh, and resturant workers often get no sick days AND are often fired for being out sick, so they almost always come in sick.
Honestly America is a shithole and anyone arguing against it is a goddamn idiot. (I guarantee I'll be downvoted and get nasty replies for that) We're in no way a first world nation like much of Europe is. The rich here live great, better than anywhere probably, but for the vast majority of us it's a race to the bottom.
if you can be replaced you will likely lose your job or be forced to use vacation days
You stay home a day or two when you feel the worst & work sick the rest of the time. Otherwise you get a doctors excuse, stay home and use up your vacation time. If you don't have any vacation time, you could get fired.
What do you mean 3 sick days? What if you get sick? If i get a bad cold i stay home for at least 3 days.
Count your blessings then! I don't think I've called in sick for a cold in years. Not just because of the paid time off issue, but all my co-workers will roll their eyes (oh, what's wrong? Is she dying?) & it would count against you in the annual review (maybe not spelled out as such, but there's a category referring to your "reliability" & if you use sick days, you will be poorly marked for that.)
You get three paid days off for being sick. Outside of that, if you're gone you're either burning vacation time or you're not getting paid. Staying home for three days with a cold is a joke in America. People come into the office sick all the time because you don't want to burn vacation days or sick days unless it's really bad.
Damn thats messed up.. when we get sick we get 85% salary and can stay home as long as we need. It is actually considered a little bit rude and inconsiderate to your colleagues to come in while sick so you are often encouraged by your employer to stay at home.
[deleted]
I worked a job for seven years where I didn't have any sick/holiday/vacation pay. I could take time off but I wasn't paid for it. I wasn't working somewhere like McDonald's either; I was a paralegal.
Oh yeah. The only federal protection for leave is FMLA. Under that, you're entitled to 12 (either consecutive or split up) weeks of unpaid leave for being literally too sick to work, caring for an ill family member (not including in-laws), birth or adoption, and a family member in the military being deployed.
If your employer wants to, they can force you to use any and all paid leave you have accrued first.
And that's it. Nothing else. That's literally the best the US has at the federal level, and the best we're likely to get for decades at a minimum.
We get 28 holiday days in the UK for any job that's full time, America is legit fucked. I couldn't imagine having just over a fortnight off in a year.
I'm in a special kind of work-education combination we have in Germany. I've been hired by a company but I don't work for them yet: I attend university for about two thirds of the year to get a degree relevant to my job and I'm in training at work for the rest of the year with regular 8h work days. The company pays me for this at about 40% of the starting wage I'll get after I have my degree (plenty for rent + university), and they pay me every month of the year (+ christmas bonus) not just the ones I'm there.
I don't even properly work for the company yet and I still get a full 28 vacation days + holidays + however many days of sick leave my doctor says I need (I imagine there's some system for people who abuse this but for us regular people I'm not aware of something like a limit to sick days). I think it might increase to 29 or 30 when I finish education, I'm not sure because I already don't know what to do with that month. Your work culture must hate you from the bottom of its dark heart.
Lol I'm in my last year of nursing school so that doesn't bode well for me
Maybe I can move to Europe? 🤞
Here you make double what nurses do in Europe.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, it’s true. Some people stay for the higher pay, some move out for better work conditions or any number of other reasons, it just depends on what you value and want out of your career.
That caught my interest. According to the WaPo, who cite the University of Amsterdam as their source, the medium wage/h (controlled by relative purchasing power) of a US nurse is 23,09$, which is in fact the highest pay rate worldwide.
Second come the Netherlands with 19,93$, followed by the UK at 19,57, Belgium at 17,59 and Germany at 17,31.
So yes, you do earn significantly more in the US, but to say it would be double is a major stretch.
Source (2015): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/03/chart-see-how-much-or-how-little-youd-earn-if-you-did-the-same-job-in-another-country/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0535994b68b8
Don't forget to add in tax rates.
I said double because I was fairly certain that the median salary in the US is double that of the UK, which it is according to this source*. Though yours lists their rate much higher, so I dunno which is true. Yeah, not true for the rest of Europe though.
*https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Registered_Nurse_(RN)/Salary
i'm working as something like a paid practicant as a nurse and i got 25 days of vacation and unlimited sick days...
From an outside perspective it's quite horrifying that people who take care of sick people don't get enough vacation days (in general puls job stress) and that sick days are even a thing.
What happens if you are sick and have no days left? My guess: You either get to work sick or don't get paid. That just doesn't sound like a good idea for a hospital in general.
My wife is a nurse in the UK. She now has something like 36 holiday days. She actually struggles to take them all most years. She can go sick and if she has a doctors note she can take 6 months on full pay and another 6 on half pay. They'll do all they can to get her back to work in that time but people do take that off sometimes.
Fuck that's bad. I'm just some minimum wage retail worker here in the UK but I get 5.6 weeks of holiday per year regardless of how long I've been with the company.
Although since I'm hourly I don't get sick days. Don't come in just don't get paid.
We have a nurses shortage in Germany..
I started with the post office two years ago, I get at least two weeks vacation a year
I've heard the post office is a good job...
Sometimes it is, sometimes it sucks a lot
The rubbish holiday is one thing, but the limited sick days are bordering on a violation of human rights as far as I'm concerned.
My mom after working for 20 years has almost six weeks of leave. She used a month of it to go to China to see her aging father (90). Her sexist VP made the worst fuss of it ever and threatened to fire her. The only defense she has is that she is ultracompetent and none of her coworkers are so if she did leave he will lose an incredible amount of productivity (my poor mother...). We went to China anyways.
On the flip side after working for a year my husband (who came with us) has 15 days of vacation but his boss understood the magnitude of this trip (me and my sister had not seen my relatives in 11 years and this wold be his first time meeting everyone) so he let him go over without penalty and gave him a work laptop to just work "when he could". In the end my husband did work about 4 days worth of work while we were there and they liked what he brought back so more win for him. Employee treatment is ridiculously YMMV in America...when it's good it can be so good but when it's bad it's terrible and evil. It's a real shame.
Whaaat??? This is something I did not know about till now... your holiday and sick pay is that low??? :(
15 days? That's depressing.
I usually go a 2 week holiday in summer and have a city break either side of the year. Then we have Christmas off from 25th - 2nd.
It would feel so alien to not be able to do that. I felt gutted this year when I lost 3 of my 28 days because I switched job and didn't use them.
The US seems to unfair to live in. Especially those not earning a fortune.
Seriously? In Australia you'd have well over a years worth of paid leave by now (not including sick leave, which would be more still). That would all be mandatory as well, and would be paid out to you if you ever left or got fired/made redundant.
Sorry you guys have to deal with that :(
I'm 17 and work weekends only and in theory get 21 days a year. I feel bad for you guys.
But as a nurse surely you shouldn't be made to work sick ? That seems so dangerous .
UK - 32.5 days plus around 10 public holidays a year. I also travel a bit for work and can take any excess time I work back as holiday. Three months full and three months half sick pay.
Not typical, but not massively excessive for over here.
Wow that sucks balls. I'm in Netherlands and getting 25 vocation days a year and each hour of overtime counts as extra holiday hour. So last year I had 2 months of holiday. I'm not even mentioning that if I'm sick I'm sick and no one ever had any comments on why I was sick even if I stayed home for the whole week. And all of is this is pretty normal here as far as I know.
Oh my gosh that sounds like heaven!
Paramedic in Australia. 9 weeks annual leave a year.
Nurse... Three sick days? Because nothing makes more sense than having someone infectious hanging out around immunocompromised patients.
America's weird, man.
Unions - a lot of people complain but they exist so what is happening to you; doesn’t.
Ive got 5 months in my dream field and dream position ( one year with company) - unionized - I have 12 vacation days (still accruing every check - was just given two bonus days to use by December) 10 sick days - 2 comp days to call in and use whenever (would be higher but I’ve been using them). I work 4 days a week with sat-Monday off.
$300 for a HMO with full dental and vision.
Unions exist so you don’t get screwed.
That's pretty bad even by US standards.
Insane. I am a nurse in Germany and have 36 paid vacation days. 30 standard + 6 extra as compensation for working night shifts.
Your employer sucks. I work at a hotel and I have more sick and vacation time than you.
Why don't you move to a country with better conditions? Australian conditions aren't quite as good as Germany's but we're not far off. You'll earn enough and have enough paid vacation to visit home often enough.
I'm in the UK and we have essentially the same system. I'm currently a student at university but on placement with a company that specialises in my degree and i have essentially all these benefits already myself and my company is considered one of the more old fashioned stingy ones. My GFs placement company puts this to shame and in her sector those benefits are beneath average.
Would hearing both accounts of this make you consider living in Europe for the benefits like this?
Dear god. I'm on minimum wage and I get full 28 paid holidays plus 10 paid sick days. I also can use up to 3 holidays as "duvet days" where I just call my employer that morning and say I'm not going in. This is in Europe.
I wouldn't dream of "rubbing it in" I'm just giving you my story. I really feel for you, especially in such an important role as a nurse! You should be on even better benefits than I am! Unfortunately nurses are getting screwed here with a 1% pay cap increase...
What the fuck? In Poland you get 20 or 26 days (depending if you've worked at least 5 years before) of vacation days (you have to take those each year) and unlimited sick days as long as you have the good reason to do it, you just get paid 80% of your income until you get better.
Healthcare is universal so basically as long as you have a job you are insured, most employers in big cities give you addtional private health care as a benefit. If you don't have a job you have to register as unemployed and you will have insurance too. Otherwise you don't have any insurance (you pay for everything).
Sport in universities/colleges is basically non-existant - not on such scale as USA. Nobody cares about that here.
If you have a child you can get like a half year off get fully paid and you keep your job, then you can go back and continue working. So you get 20 weeks and you can transfer 6 weeks from it to the father. There are a lot of different privilages for parents, it's hard to even list them now, you can get A LOT of free time.
That's just a couple of things I could think of now.
I have 250hrs of sick time saved up. That's with taking a sick day at least once a month. 3 weeks vacation. 40hrs payed special leave (I can take more unpaid) plus whatever how many days I get for funerals and weddings and shit. Plus full benefits. I got all that within a year of emplyement.
Does the 15 days include weekends? Because here I Germany we have "calender days" from mo - su and "work days" from mo - fr. And the vacation days are only used up from the work days so the weekend is regular free and will not be taken from the vacation days and thus if you take 10 vacation days you are actually 14 days at home because of the weekends. Sorry for bad English
Holy shit, so they haven't done away with slavery in the US after all.
I get 45 days leave a year, which I have to take. 15 days sick leave. If I come to work sick I get sent home.
What the hell do you do if you get the flu? You can't possibly be expected to get over it in three days and then care for the sick.
Where I am from in Australia you would be in huge strife for making a sick employee work with patients as a nurse.
That's miserable for benefits. Nursing jobs around here (western mass) offer more
You should really consider moving to Europe. In Sweden you'll have a great salary, 25 vacation days, free healthcare, unlimited sick days (we don't have the concept of "sick days"), and everyone talks English. You'd be very welcomed here. 👍😊
I'm sure I'm not pretty or tall enough to live in Sweden! Lol
Haha we're not all tall, blonde, and handsome. 😆
"Hey, you spend your time around people with compromised or overtaxed immune systems—if you get sick, be sure to come into work and spread that shit around."
RN in Australia, 6 weeks paid holiday a year, 10 sick days per year, I get long service leave of 250? hours at 7 years and I get more at 10 years. You guys have it rough.
Nice!
I worked a job where if I wasn't sick or late for work for 1 year you could get 1 day of paid time off.
It was tough, especially since you had to work 6 days a week straight and only get 1 day off from work.
Nobody ever got the paid time off, it was just impossible.
Sweden is looking for medical personnel and has similar benefits.
I also work in healthcare in the US and your employer just sucks.
Norwegian here. You have five weeks worth of vacation days, three of which are to be consecutive. By law.
So with my 5 day work week, that checks out at 25 days per year.
Except that's "Workdays off", so for instance if I wanted to take a week off the days before easter (which starts Holy Thursday), I would be spending three vacation days. Which is coincidentally what everyone who can, will do.
So for easter, I spent three vacation days in order to leave work on march 23rd, and return to work april 3rd, ten days later.
Of course hospitals can't do that, as they need nurses on staff to take care of everyone breaking their legs while skiing. So being at work during what's a "red day" on the calendar, entitles you to a small fuckton worth of extra salary as compensation. And you still have the law-mandated five weeks you need to take off at some point. A lot of health workers manage to work out a rotation that lets some people get to do the epic easter off solution every X years.
Most UK jobs start at 20 to 28 days holiday
I’m an American engineer and I got 15 days my first year out of school. Not a fuck load but apparently also not terrible.
Oyyy. I beat you but just by a bit. 13 days of pto. Total. Includes vacation, sick, personal. I think we max out at 18 or 20 total days. Mad depressing
And people wonder why we "burn out" at our jobs....
In my experience nurses get the shaft benefits wise... IDK why.
They told us in nursing school that it's a service profession. Don't go into nursing to make money.
Wow, your hospital is terrible. My wife is also a nurse, she got 5 weeks of combined sick and vacation days the day she was hired. At her 6 year mark it went up to 6.5 weeks.
I get more vacation time per year working at walmart. Any pto past 80 hours accumulated is paid out at the end of the year. If you worked walmart for 24 years you would get almost 2 months of pto over the work year considering 40hr work week.
I think sick time isnt used until pto is depleted which kind of sucks but after 24 years you wouldnt need to worry about it. Youd be getting 1hr pto ever 7hrs worked.
Wait what? You need to earn your sick days?
No, you don't earn the sick days exactly. They throw all your paid time off (PTO) into one "bank" of hours that is paid out each pay period. So for example, I'm up to 15 vacation days, 3 sick days, & 7 paid holidays. So I accumulate 9.3 hours of PTO every 2 weeks. At the end of the year they've credited me with the proper number of hours of paid leave, and I schedule them as desired. But the holiday time MUST be used on company-approved holidays (Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Fourth of July).
But what if you can't use your paid holidays? Do you get paid extra? I mean you just can't shut down a hospital because of holidays? Or can you?
I work in an ambulatory surgery center that is closed on weekends & holidays.
That's pathetic, you should really try to find another employer. That's what I get as a lowly retail employee.
I'm telling ya, it's because we have so many nursing schools in our area that nurses are a dime a dozen & we are undervalued. I used to be a traveling nurse, & the pay & benefits were much better. But then I got married & settled down, and well, settled.
Australia here, a standard fulltime employee gets 4 weeks paid annual leave and 6 days sick leave (paid) per year. There is usually an allowance for "personal" leave too, for bereavement or to help if your kids are sick. Then there is also long service leave in many companies, which after 10 years is (I think) 6 weeks (on top of your annual leave).
OMG, 4 whole weeks every year? That would be a dream come true! Think of all the traveling you could do!
Holy crap that makes me feel insanely lucky. What state is that in?
Erie, Pa
Insane. I am a nurse in Germany and have 36 paid vacation days. 30 standard + 6 extra as compensation for working night shifts.
I think this is more of your employer sucking. I live in the US, work at a grocery store, and get 2 weeks paid vacation and 9 flex days (72 hours to be used at my leisure).
You should consider switching employers.
I worked customer service for a cell phone provider here in Québec, I had 3 weeks paid vacation after 5 years (but no paid sick days).
What i don’t understand is how they can say ‘you’re only allowed to be sick 3 days per year’. As If you chose to be sick. And besides that you’re not that efficient if you came in anyway. Maybe even worse your patients or colleague can get sick.
WTF where do you work? the hospital im at give us 7 pto hrs per a pay check, and we can bank up to 200 per a year.
I'm in Erie, PA (where 7 feet of snow fell on Christmas Day, remember?) We have 3 universities in town that offer a BSN degree, one that offers an ADN, and 2 LPN programs. You can drive 2 hours to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or Buffalo and go to any of the universities in those cities for a nursing degree. Nurses here wait in line for a job, so the pay & benefits suck! If you don't like it, there are a hundred RN's looking for work who will work for less than you. Experience is minimally valued. And there is a long-standing pervasive anti-union sentiment among nurses here. Strange for a blue-collar town. I used to be a traveling nurse, and I made twice as much money, but my parents are elderly, and the pull of home & family dragged me reluctantly back....
Im sorry, I live in the midwest too, and they are always hiring nurses here. I am not one, but I know a lot, and they get treated pretty good here.
Yikes. My wife is a nurse here in the states. First year. She gets like 5 weeks of paid vacation per year.
Do you live in the West?
Florida
Really? I've always heard that FL sticks for nurses. I've never been there though. Tell her to count her blessings! 😁
" And that's the maximum my employer allows. "
FALSE if you were worth it, they would offer more benefits.
The UK requires employers to give you 5.6 weeks' paid vacation, pro-rata (i.e. less if you're part time).
Not trying to make you feel bad, but as a degree qaulified paramedic, I have 8 weeks of annual leave and 10 sick days a year.
Jesus, i give my employees 28 days a year in total. This includes bank holidays which we close. So they get about 19/20 to take as they want.
come to Germany!! We need nurses :)
I don't speak German but I do know how to say Ish bin die crankenswester! My mom's dad immigrated from Bavaria.
That is a good start! :)
I just quit a job where working 55-70 hours a week for a month got me a lecture from a manager about needed to "step up and start working long hours".
What a twat
Working that much is illegal here (Norway).
Yup.
The timekeeping system pings my boss every single time an employee goes over 50 h/week. So she gets one ping per employee every monday morning, because we're at peak time.
The sum of these notifications is also all the justification needed to get approval for an extra pair of hands. "Hey. It would be nifty if we didn't break the law consistently to meet deadlines."
[deleted]
That sounds illegal.
What did this say? I missed it
Working overtime, pressured for not working even more, boss demanding he works seven days per week and shaming him for taking his second sick day in 4 years.
What do you do? What's your skills?
What job was that?
Aircraft cleaning supervisor. We just outsourced so we've been running about a quarter the crew we should, but now delays directly affect profits, rather than indirectly, so they're more important
My full time job in the UK is 37.5 hours, I cannot imagine nearly doubling that.
Not to mention that in the public sector you can be made a civil servant and be literally unsackable for the rest of your life, and get a huge pension when you retire. Pretty sweet deal.
Civil service jobs in the US are pretty safe, too.
And they almost always beat the private sector on benefits although pay is often lower.
Much much lower now.
Depends on the job, mine is pretty competitive with the private sector, and private sector jobs in my industry are stressful and shitty.
Not anymore.
Less so, but still safe
[deleted]
I grew up in Germany and most of my teachers where civil servants. That was the norm for many years, but they've been gradually moving away from this (at least in the state where I grew up; education isn't federally regulated in Germany, so it might be a different matter elsewhere).
I'd 100% agree it's a bad thing to have virtually unfireable teachers. They'd need to literally break the law to get the sack, and so many of mine where simply atrocious at their job.
They'd need to literally break the law to get the sack, and so many of mine where simply atrocious at their job.
Heavily enough to be sentenced to one year jail-time that is.
It is a bad thing if people are lazy and corrupt. For example, here in India a government job is pretty secure. But most of our government bodies are dysfunctional because of lazy and/or corrupt people filling up a lot these positions.
On the other hand, if the people are (like he said) competent and not complete assholes, then the system usually works in your favour, like it seems to in countries like Germany.
It depends on how society views itself. Thinking of society as a community to help each other and live contently versus a competition to push the person next to you down so that you can climb up this imaginary ladder and feel "powerful"
I'm pretty sure that knowing you are in an "unfire-able" position would tend to make you lazy and/or quite corruptible.
"It is not that power corrupts, but that power is magnetic to the corruptible."
- Frank Herbert
Well Frank Herbert was a moron then. Thats just wrong. Google stanford prison experiment.
If you knew anything about the experiment you cited, you would know that it has been almost entirely refuted.
Interesting. Im not an expert.
Corruption is one of the reasons you actually can get kicked out in one of those positions (at least in Europe); and since those positions are so attractive there's a lot of competition, and it's unlikely for someone who's lazy or not interested in the job to get in.
I haven’t seen that at all where I work. I’m in a government position, it would be quite difficult to fire us for a minor thing. We have something called ATL (TOIL basically). When you work more then the 8 hours a day you build up the hours and take them off at another time. The clincher is that you can only build up 60 hours, after that they are gone. Everyone I know is at the 60, and just losing the hours.
Yeah, most people in my job are passionate about the job (ranger), but it’s still a public service job, and we have a lot of admin staff who do the same thing with their ATL. It drives the managers crazy.
It's actually the opposite. You are less corruptible because being corrupt is obviously a fireable offense and you'd like to keep your tenure.
Since when corruption being illegal kept anyone away from being corrupt? Dont be naive
You would be the naive one here. Americans generally have no trouble defrauding their neighbour for a penny, but that's just how it is in the wild west. It's not representative of the rest of the world.
lazy may be. but most people want to actualy DO something in their lifes. only very few people a just want to do nothing.
corruption; actuality the opposite happens. why would you risk a perfectly safe pansion for a little extra? (exceptions happens of course, but a state employed teacher or police officer wont risk his pansion for a corrupt move)
"Theft of government services" (ie, being lazy at your gov job) is a form of corruption.
In our understanding of corruption: it is, if you take money from a third party to make decisions in their favor and not in the favor of the state. Like giving a job for building a new school to a company that paid you personal money, instead of giving it to the lowest bidder.
So being lazy is not realy a form of corruption. If you are lazy in a normal company, we would not consider it "stealing" from your company either.
In many cases, yes, but it also can eliminate stress and let the employee focus on their job. Not everyone is looking to do nothing and get paid. Some people like doing a good job and making a difference and helping people.
can be. every student here has at least one tale about that one teacher thats too old and does not give a shit about his/her students learning anything. as long as their class meets the minimum grade requirements they get away without consequences and are happy. but them being unsackable is not the problem here, its the lack of better competition, resulting from a lack of teachers in general.
Getting a job like that is so hard AND such a good deal that people won't risk (usually) it by becoming corrupt. It's the appointed positions you gotta watch out for. Moreover, the positions are so attractive you'll be getting the best of the best in the positions that really matter, like judges and etc. So even if you get someone lazy, the talent you're getting in is usually worth the cost.
Personally, yeah I think so. The public sector is full of dead wood that can't be got rid of - lazy people just coasting till retirement.
Not at all. Banks prefer these people when applying for loans to build a house for example.
Because you can’t lose your job (well if you fuck up relly Bad like putting a swastika tattoo on your forehead maybe). The banks get their money for sure.
If your father has such a position and dies the rest of the family is taken care for by the state. For the rest of their lives.
Both of my parents were Beamte. We lived like kings.
And you don’t even need a university degree for that.
It is a sweet deal, but the pensions aren't actually that huge for most civil servants. You can get (it depends a bit on the state) at most around 72% of your last salary and gross salaries for civil servants aren't as high as for normal public employees, because the net salary equals out by not paying into unemployment insurance and pension funds. The ones that get sweet pensions are elected officials, especially considering that they are entitled to a pension after about 2 terms. Normal civil servants need 40 to 45 years of employment to get that 72% I mentioned. And if you're at mid to lower rank even that isn't a great amount of money. It only seems that way, because in the last two decades they expanded the low wage sector like crazy which will lead to lots of poverty among the elderly in the near future.
Ah, not that easy. Only if you are a "Beamte/in", not if you work on TV-L/TVöD. Both groups can and do work in public sectors and are civil servants.
That's what I was referring to, being verbeamtet. I didn't know how to explain it in English without getting all convoluted!
Public servant checking in. It is indeed a sweet deal
In France, if you work in the public sector, your job is more or less safe. Obviously, a serious fault (assaulting someone, being very rude, etc) will get you fired. Othe than that, you're safe with a good pension when you retire.
UK Civil Servant, 100% confirmed. There is a girl here on probation who has taken over 2 months sick cumulatively and they're having troubles sacking her
My dad get's 70% of his last salary as pension
Normal retirees would need (I think) at least two lifetimes of work for this.
It used to be more, but a lot of benefits have been cut over the last years.
That sounds pretty unsustainable to me.
Why exactly wouldn't this be sustainable?
It really depends on what the salaries are. If they are lower then what we see in North America, then it could be fine.
Yeah it's extremely sustainable when you dont have a single dude at the top of the company making more than every one else combined
I dont realy have a comparison to American salaries, but I would say: the payment in the public sector isn't that epic, but it's fine for most people. Its enough to buy a house as a teacher and lead a decent life. Usualy you get higher salaries in the private sector. Thats one reason why its difficult for the schools to find (for example) math teachers: if you studied math and physics (which is very hard at german universities) you can easily find better paid jobs in engineering orientated jobs.
However, the high security that the public sector offers gives people a benefit and it gives the state a very high stability. Right now (and I think since WW2) this works very sustainable in germany. We have a nearly non existing unemployment rate, a very strong economy with lots of export and very advanced technology companies, our debt is totaly in check, the income is high and stable, the education is good and safe, the pensions and social security is high.
Not everything is perfect, but its close. Pensions could be higher ("thread of altersarmut"), people who are "long-term-unemployed" could be better integrated into the workforce, we still use too much brown-coal-electricity, and the extremest right wing parties who are incredible racist get too many votes right now, posing as "party of the middle class men"
Seems to me that Germany is doing very well.
The salaries are not nearly the same as they are in the u.s
So they are lower?
Well, yeah.
Ok. Lower wages might make them sustainable.
Depends on the group of civil servants. Here is quite a good wikipedia article about them.
Not necessarily. For example, a Bavarian high school teacher earns 4000€/month on job start and almost 5000€/month after 20 years, whilst a Texan high school teacher seems to earn around 3800$ on average.
This is probably one of the best replies I've seen so far - everyone knows about health care issues, crime or whatever but the workplace always gets overlooked. Having no sick leave, no maternity leave, and no job protection is literally alien to most if not all of the EU.
It’s ask alien to Canadians. And we’re neighbours.
I've never had any of these benefits in canada... 2 weeks paid vacation after a year of employment is the best I've seen personally.
paid sick days?.. shit I call in sick for a day and usually wonder if I'll still have a job after.
Depends a bit on your job arrangement... also work in Germany but have much fewer benefits because I'm an IT contractor - but the paycheck more than makes up for the lack of job security.
I know!!! I’m living in Germany doing my Masters at the moment and I wish I could stay and work here... there also seem to be enough opportunities in my field... but seems like my whole family is against me staying and my husband is eager to go back home since he hasn’t found a suitable job here. And you didn’t even mention maternity leave and Kindergeld!
Honestly, look around in Europe. Your husband will be able to find a job somewhere in the EU that's suitable, and it means you're going to have a far, far better work-life balance than in the states.
Hell, you will get enough vacation days to visit your family in the states regularly.
Exactly! You'll in fact probably be able to spend more time with them, simply because you'll have a month or more of holidays each year.
There are lots of jobs around, tons and tons of international companies are happy to hire English-only speakers in Germany.
Since you're married, last I checked, your husband gets a basically free-ride do anything work visa.
The job market in germany is so incredible great at the moment, I am certain your husband can find a job :)
So uh....how hard is it to get a job in Germany....asking as an American
If your not looking to get into IT or STEM it is highly recommended you are able to fluently speak german though
More looking toward finance or accounting
This is going to be difficult, because there are a ton of differences. Someone asked the same question a few months ago:
/r/germany/comments/6wovl8/how_hard_is_it_to_get_a_job_as_an_american_in/
My degree will be finance and I have experience in finance so it'd be that, but they overlap enough so that's why I included accounting
There won't be any problem at all to find a job in that area, in my opinion.
If youre serious I'd suggest looking into multinational cooperations that have branches in Germany.
Once I graduate I would be very serious, I'll definitely be looking
What about as a Canadian? With STEM experience, as well as a huge hospitality/service background? (Asking for a friend who isn’t that picky 😜)
It's still very very very beneficial to speak German since chances are most people(30+ at least) not dealing with English due to their profession will speak rudimentary English at most and if you run into anyone 60+ they will probably not speak English at all.
Even most young people that haven't attended university speak sub par English
Valid! I mean, even without it being a set requirement, I feel like it’d just be common sense to learn at the very least some rudimentary, conversational level (insert majority language here) of whatever country you’re considering a move to. Thanks for the info! 😊
Most people will still try their best to communicate with you and almost nobody will be an ass about struggling to speak German
Not hard really
If you register as "in search of a job" you get 400 bugs per month, health insurance and a paid (small) flat.
The "agency for work" will send you multiple (!) open job offers from companies where you can go. If you decline to go there, your 400€ may be cut down a bit.
These jobs may suck, but they are jobs. The minimum wage of 8,70€ per hour is applied and of course you are protected from being fired and you are health and social secured. Better jobs are available, but you have to bring something to the table. I think everyone who isnt a moron or ashole can find a job (that is "ok") in germany in 1 month.
Learn German, and not just to a conversational level. That's pretty much step one, unless you want to do very specific IT work (the vast majority of IT jobs require German) or end up as one of many English teachers. Immerse yourself in German culture and language, from books to movies, TV shows, news, etc. German is the second most common language on the Internet, so it's not hard to find content and people speaking it, like /r/de on reddit (which, like every Internet community, has its own idiosyncrasies though - do not call people "Brudi" in real life...). You can start out with watching dubbed movies and TV shows you already know in English, just to get a feeling for the language.
Do you have a degree of any sorts, work experience in a sought-after field? Note that there are a few dozen professions that you can only work in if your degree is recognized by the government. Are you willing to accept a significant pay cut (wages tend to be lower in Germany)? Do you mind living in a comparatively small apartment? How's your patience and experience regarding bureaucracy?
As an American, you would need a work visa and a residence permit. None of these are easy to get and much of the bureaucracy behind it expects you to read and understand German to a pretty high degree. If you have been hired by a decently sized company, HR will do most of the leg work, but it's still quite substantial. The process is much faster and more streamlined if you are working a sought-after profession (for obvious reasons).
Getting the job is the easiest part. The hiring process isn't in any way unusual, there are job websites just like in America, linkedin is just as popular around here as elsewhere, HR departments are the same, except they will pester you to take your sick leave if you're sick (happened to me). Note that in Germany, much of the industry is dominated by so-called "Mittelständische Unternehmen", which refers to small to mid sized companies that are often market leaders in very specific fields, like for example certain types of screws or paints (my small town has at least a dozen "secret market leaders" within its limits alone). People with engineering degrees usually end up there, for example. Sure, everyone wants to work for BMW, but it's much more realistic to find a job at one of their suppliers. I'm telling you this so that you don't get weirded out by job offers from companies on some industrial estate that don't look impressive from the outside, but might in fact be very healthy and are dominating the niche they carved out for themselves.
The number one advice I can give you is to be prepared. Knowledge is key. Finding a job is easy, as demand is high and unemployment low, but having a successful career depends on you treating Germany as your home, not just a workplace. I can't stress enough how important it is to learn the language and adapt. Sure, most Germans know at least some English, but there's a difference between giving directions and working together - they'll expect you to adapt. There are cultural differences too that might offend or irritate you - fake politeness isn't very common, don't expect people to smile at you everywhere you go, but on the other hand, they'll be upfront and tell you if there are issues instead of trying to find euphemisms. Some Americans tend to mistake this for rudeness, even though it isn't. Get people to know and they'll open up, you'll see.
Got the flu, stayed home for 3 days, got fired....
Edit: in the US, if you can breath, you can work.
I'd fire someone for coming in with the flu and putting the rest of the staff at risk.
Well shit, damned if you and damned if you don’t. Looks like people should avoid the flu if they want to stay employed
I threatened to throw up on my bosses shoes when he wouldn't send me home once. Luckily for him I had just thrown up in the parking lot so I didnt have it in me.
He didnt send me home, by the way. I had my brother drive me to the hospital, got some fluids and meds and a note, went to work two days later and was penalized for leaving.
This is so fuckin unbelievable crazy from a germans point of view i'm lacking words.
Cant say this is what happened in your case, but in any job I have ever had if someone got fired for something odd along those lines then they were just looking for an excuse to fire them in the first place.
That was a few years ago. I worked in a call center where coming to work sick was common.
Dollars to donuts he was a terrible employee.
USA guy here. My work says don't come in if you have the flu. Don't get others sick. Rest up and feel better.
So much anecdotal replies about time off and sick days in this thread.
In the US it completely depends on the company. Some companies give 3 weeks paid vacation. Some companies give 5 days and no sick days. It’s really a case by case thing
Yep. People like to upvote the sensational ones though.
Exactly, seems like more than half of Reddit works for terrible companies that make them come in 60+ hours a week with no PTO.
Methinks some may be exaggerating?? Or reddit is a very skewed sample.
Part exaggerating, part the people with normal jobs aren’t vocal id guess?
Exactly. If I were to comment and say that I get 4 weeks off in a year plus sick days whenever I need them like I do, people would just be like “yeah whatever, that’s not interesting.”
a friend of mine started a new job in december and her vacation days don't kick in until after a full year of work.
she got the flu in january and started bawling in the doctor's office because they said she couldn't go to work for five days since the flu was especially nasty this year. she didn't get fired, luckily, but it's very sad that she broke down like that over a job when her health was in jeopardy.
also, her insurance hadn't kicked in, either, so.
Germany always seems very well-run, efficient, happy, smart, and clean to me. I've only been once, but I loved it. And everything you read about how things work just makes so much sense.
Come to Berlin, and experience one of the less well-run places in Germany.
Berlin really cleaned up. I remember going there for the first time about 15 years ago and it was literally full of dog shit. Now it's the incubator for startups of all kinds with co-working spaces on every corner, beautiful places to hang out, great high- and subculture and still the most liberal (in the sense of selfexpression) place in Germany.
On the other side housing prices and rents are rising, but still far from munich or hamburg.
Also Berlin has 24/7 stores..
Yup. Five new startup opened up in my street(a street of roughly 100 meters length) just in the last year. Also my rent just went up another 30€...
who doesn't have 24/7 stores?
And it is still leagues above most of the US.
https://www.theatlas.com/charts/ByzcK_wK
Please be aware though, the airport supposed to open in 2011, is still under construction and might open by 2020, if they're lucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport
The German efficiency is a myth, things will and do go wrong. Having said that, the way of working and general behavior is quite process focused - finding and maintaining a set of rules is key, and deviation from that is only done after discussing and (some) planning. This is both a blessing and a curse, since it takes quite some time to move from something that is just plain wrong, but people won't go bending the rules because they feel like doing so (in general).
jep :)
Many Americans argue that Europeans are lazy except for Germany which work super hard. But this post shows they actually have way more paid time off and are still a G7 economy with one of the best standards of living in the world, arguably better than the United States
I’m jealous. I got fired from one of my jobs for missing 2 days because of the flu. I should also mention I hadn’t missed any days up to that point. Good times.
Time to start learning German...
Did I mention that I have 30 vacation days (legal minimum of 20 days; most employers offer at least 25) and unlimited sick days (60 consecutive days with full pay, after the 60th day at 66% pay; resets after working one full day). If I'm sick, I stay at home, period. I can choose between 6 extra vacation days or the equivalent in money. I'm expected to take all of my vacation days (at least 2 weeks worth consecutively; it's not unusual to take a whole month) and will be pestered by HR towards the end of the year if I didn't take them.
It's funny to think that if I had this, it is possible that I might actually find life enjoyable. I spend the vast majority of my days working and commuting. I can take a single week off during the year and a few long weekends here and there.
I will be able to get 20 vacation days after something like 17 years of service, but that's well over a decade away, so it's not even something I even bother looking forward to.
Edit: I also get 4 sick days and my boss snarked when I used my second one in over 2 years.
I'm sorry but the 20 vacation days after 17 goddamn years of work sounds totally ridiculous to me, living in western-Europe. Fucking hell my friend..
Funny how we don't really think about it here, but then 5 years passes in a flash and all you've really done is go to work and take a few cottage trips.
Who doesn’t think about it? At my last job, it’s all I thought about. Now that I left and went out on my own, life got Soooooooooooo Much better.
I guess there you have it. Many of us don't talk about it, but we do think of it for sure!
Get a different job
I've switched jobs a few times in my career. I've had different combinations of pay, benefits, and vacation time. My current job is attractive in that the projects I'm working on are excellent for building my resume. I've had squabbles with management here in trying to negotiate for market rate pay and more vacation time, in which they were unwilling to compromise. I will say it's a matter of time before I walk.
Getting 20 vacation days in this country, in the industry, at my age is pretty unlikely no matter where I go. I can most likely get 15 vacation days max. It's not bad compared to 10 days, but I still feel like it's not enough. I'm sure a lot of us do. Life passes us by too quickly. But, we do it out of fear.
move to a proper country before you get institutionalized
leaving the country is hard or impossible for people who arent doctors or engineers
Fair points. Could see myself make similar tradeoffs at a future point in my career
They are all the same.
A lot of companies require unpaid internship experience prior to hiring, then when you are hired you are on probation for 90 days during which zero leave of any sort is allowed, then the rest of your first year you have zero vacation or it is "accrued". I had 15 days of general Paid Time Off at my first job as was the rule for employees between 1 -5 years. 15 days that could be used for vacation, sick, etc. It's so little here in the US it's disgusting. I'm fortunate enough now to work for a company that is relaxed about working from home and I have a boss that turns a blind eye because she understands work life balance, but everyone isn't so lucky.
I went home sick the day after christmas and was sick for the 3 days after that as well. My boss told me to stay home unless I was sure I take on the work again and when I called her and said "I think I will be able to work again tomorrow but am not 100% sure" she told me to just stay home until after the new year.
If I had worked during that time I would have worked at probably about 50% efficiency and been sick for a lot longer. Keeping me home wasn't only beneficial for me, but also beneficial for them, as I didn't infect other people and they could count on a team that could actually work hard. I just don't get why american employers don't get this.
The US leaves it to the employer. Many people like the work setup with the (lack of) vacation because Americans on average earn higher salaries, especially in more specialized fields, than Europe. Traditionally it's been limited time off and more money and there haven't been many other options unfortunately. Ultimately the market will force the changes.
Some companies are beginning to shift from minimal vacation schedule and offering more perks and vacation which ultimately leads to lower salaries. It's just a trade off and it depends on what company you want to work for. Do you want more money and fewer perks or the other way around?
Who the fuck would take the more money though? What am I gonna do with six figures if I work 10hrs a day for atleast 6 days a week? I never worked more then 230 days a year before and I hope I will never have to.
When I think about the last years I spent I think about all the nice things I did after coming home at 4pm or all the weekends and days off I used and spent with my friends and familiy. I barely think about my work while im off the clock.
What do american workers think of other then work?
A lot of them derive their self worth from their job. They identify as "Ron Smith, middle manager at generic company XYZ". It's just how some are, but it's all relative too. Lots of people become teachers to get more time off and lots of people try to exit teaching because they want more money.
Depends on the person, a career is a big deal for a lot of people. It can work a couple ways too. You can work really hard and save money for a few years then quit and you'll be set really or you can work really hard for 40 years, buy a lot of useless stuff and then wait to die because you raised shitty kids that don't want to see you. It's nice to have the choice lol. I personally worked for 4 years after Undergrad then came to grad school with money and assets and now I don't work that much.
I know quite a few people who started in the 6 figures out of college 40 hour weeks with unlimited vacation / sick leave & full benefits. Its all about where you are employed and some people just stop and get comfortable in a job yet will bitch about the benefits.
What am I gonna do with six figures if I work 10hrs a day for atleast 6 days a week?
This makes me sad. Because I work 12 hour days Monday through Friday and 8 on either Saturday or Sunday. And I make less than 40k a year.
What many americans didnt yet realize is that america is a complete shithole if you are lower class.
Even most ex-ussr-bloc countries have better work-life balance then the us has today.
They may have a better work life balance but they're not pleasant places to live. (I traveled the Balkans for a few months) even adjusted for PPP they're considerably poorer.
Saying the US is a."complete shithole" of you're lower class is a bit shortsited. There definitely aren't the safety nets like much of Western Europe but I currently live on what amounts to minimum wage on a monthly basis and it's pretty easy. Also if you're poor you receive food subsidies and health care.
If you want more money and fewer perks, then over here in the Netherlands you can go work as a freelancer. You'll have to take care of your own pension and disability insurance, and you don't get paid if you're sick or are out of a job for a while. And you can take as many or as few holidays as you want. You can make a bit more money, and you'll have a bit more flexibility, but it's not for everyone.
Not being able to fire someone can be a doubled edged sword, because it makes employers less likely to risks with expansion and new hires if they don’t know they can let them go if it doesn’t work out. Even in the US if you are fired without cause you can file for unemployment benefits that are paid by the company.
Things could defiantly be better but it’s not a wasteland, I’ve been let go or quit jobs a half dozen times and always found something better within a month. How easy is it to find a new job in Germany I wonder?
I've switched jobs 3 times during my 14 years of employment so far. The first time, it took 3 weeks, the second time two weeks and the third time 6 weeks (though in those 6 weeks I was on vacation for two weeks and the recruiter was on vacation for one week).
During the probationary period of six months, you can fire people without cause; that's usually enough time to vet new employees.
There certainly is a certain relaxation of standards, especially in larger companies that do not actively manage performance, but you can fire people if their performance is sub-standard; you just have to give them a warning and an actual chance to improve (usually in the form of a performance improvement plan outlining what exactly the employee has to do to earn a satisfactory review).
How easy is it to find a new job in Germany I wonder?
Depends strongly on your field of work. I'm in IT, so your mum kinda easy.
In germany one usually goes throu an apprenticeship to get an "official jobtitle". Usually about 3 years of training with an standardized, official curriculum. Alternatively you go to university. In either case, when you apply for a job there is enough official paper and certifications involved that your employer knows that you are - at least theoretically and officially - qualified for a job before he decides to hire you. Then 6 your month probation, where you can be fired quite easily.
So the risks for the employers are managable.
Unemployment insurance, health care, pension, work accident insurance and all this stuff is available in the US, too - if you can afford it. But here it is mandatory (organized as insurances). Some might pull the freedom/socialist card. Here you are not free to be stupid and pose a financial risk to your fellow citizens (if you get injured and are not insured somebody has to pay your medical bill - usually, in one way or another, its the tax payer, so its "socialist" anyhow).
There's a lot of open positions for qualified staff right now. Especially in IT, companies are hiring everyone that looks even remotely qualified. The six month probation period is much better suited to decide whether to keep an employee than any number of interviews.
Fun fact: where I'm from, it's tradition to bring cake to the office after the six months probation are over, because it's not uncommon for new hires to be let go again during this time.
One thing to note though is that all the things you mentioned are a cost to the employer or are paid out of insurance/tax. That's one of the reasons why after-tax salaries in Germany are quite low compared to other countries of comparable economic development/GDP per capita.
I'd take a 10 to 20 percent cut in pay for that.
Knowing I don't have to hoard money for a medical emergency? Being able to feel secure in my employment? Not having student loans?
This stuff is huge - especially over an individual's lifetime.
How about 50%? I know many people who fall into the 50% tax bracket here in Austria, which really really sucks dick
Do the tax brackets work the same way as in the US? Say you have two brackets, first up to 50k at 10% and the second one up to 100k at 20%. So if one earns 100k, the first 50k are taxed 10% and the second 50k at 20%? Or is the whole 100k taxed at 20%?
It's like in the us. It still sucks though. Imagine falling into the highest bracket due to your main jobs and then - when you have a second job - (ie teaching at uni), you pay 50% on every cent you earn. Hurts quite a bit.
Hey, sorry for the late reply. I fell asleep.. Honestly, I think these high tax rates apply when you're already making quite a lot of money, no? So I think I'd be okay with a high tax rate as it helps funding other things, like education, infrastructure, free public transport and so on :)
Yes. Its not cheap (about 20% taxes and 20% social security), but worth every penny.
Absolutely, but to give you a feeling for the tax rate: my wife and I are high income earners (top regular tax bracket) and our effective tax rate was 20% in 2017 (two incomes, two kids); we don't optimize our taxes in any way and have barely any deductions.
Is Germany heaven?
Our trains run late way to often, our gun laws and free speech laws are restrictive and there's a large amount of red tape involved in any what endeavor larger than the weekly grocery run. We're pessimistic about new technologies and cling to cash. The country shuts down on Sundays.
Will you marry me (for citizenship)?
The country shuts down on Sundays.
I actually really enjoy sundays for exacly that reason
I wouldn't give it up, but for most Americans I encountered it came as a shock to not be able to shop 24/7.
Sounds like Australia with added Sunday rules. I'm in.
And way less spiders, I might add.
well the gun laws are actually a good thing and I wouldn't call it pessimism, more skepticism, which certainly isn't wrong, but I agree to the rest.
I think gun and free speech laws are restrictive for good reasons (gun violence, hatespeech, holocaust denying). Thats just my opinion though
Most of the things you mentioned are in fact positive things, or simply untrue.
I just wanted to offer some negative things. I may have exaggerated some things, but what would you call untrue?
This actually sounds wonderful. Even as a Canadian (not as bad conditions wise as our neighbours to the south), this honestly sounds heavenly.
Only if you like taxes and low net pay. Income tax can go as high as 55% (including the "Church Tax"). I'm not a German but was on exchange there for Business School. The students I was working with were doing slide decks late into the night to impress their teacher/client so that they could get consulting jobs that would pay $75k ish, netting them $35k ish a year. The same role in the US pays $125, netting $90k.
Pretty sure that most of the EU has similar laws. At least my country does, afaik
As an IT project manager in healthcare, I think I'll be leaving this country. As I've ascended I realized just how frigging awful it is
Jesus Christ I need to move.
I bet you United States of America will suffer a brain drain soon if this issues isn't addressed.
I'm going to the USA to study because an opportunity sprung up, but I have contacts in South America and Europe where I can move in the case stuff goes south (or west lol) in North America.
Yeah ... well ... we have more TV channels !!!
The crazy thing is that Americans don't even take a big chunk of the vacation they're allowed. Even the people getting 15 days will often only take 12. I always let mine stockpile (almost at the limit again after switching jobs), but I can't imagine actually losing the vacation by not taking it.
Where are you? I’m an American and this sounds super cozy; if the language is accessible I may have to consider a move
I'm pretty sure every western European country has labour laws like this. You Americans need to stop fuzzing about bullshit like flags and bathrooms, and elect politicians who will do something about your abysmal lack of workers protection.
The thing that gets me about the states is this issue is never brought up. I've never once heard a politician talking about changing maternity leave laws, sick leave, mandatory vacation, etc. NEVER. It's all 2nd amendment bullshit, foreign policy, defense spending, and abortion rights. And nobody thinks twice about it.
Bernie Sanders has/had paid maternity and paternity leave in his platform. Even he didn’t talk about sick leave and mandatory time off however.
And look how far he got with it.
I would rather all the first things you mention than the others. Unfortunately the base doesn't get whipped up about vacation time. meh.
Bernie 2020
I've never once heard a politician talking about changing maternity leave laws, sick leave, mandatory vacation, etc. NEVER.
I think you may have missed the whole bernie sanders thing.
We don’t really have a choice. Not everyone here believes our politicians are puppets (many do) but for the most part, most people recognize that regardless who you vote for the flight plan never changes. The harsh reality at this point is that short of a violent uprising, civil war, or foreign takeover, the US is pretty much beyond saving.
most people recognize that regardless who you vote for the flight plan never changes.
Well I mean, they fuckin' did, until the last election when oops! Looks like one party is kinda meh and the other is gleefully marching toward the total breakdown of democratic values.
Not trying to be funny but which one are you referring to because your statement could go either way lol
It could not go either way though.
Can you just tell me which party you’re referencing though since I’m obviously not in on this thing you’re doing right now
I think its pretty obvious to the rest of the world that the GOP is the party currently representing "the total breakdown of democratic values" as it were.
Okay, thank you for filling me in
Have you been under a rock?
most people recognize that regardless who you vote for the flight plan never changes
This is why so many voted for Trump - he isn't another Bush or Clinton or Kennedy. He's anti-establishment to say the least and is looking to fix the job market at least somewhat.
He's anti-establishment
That's funny because all it seems he wants to do is make money for his friends and brands. He doesn't give a crap about the lower classes. He's not only more of the same but worse.
Lmao okay. His friends? Like?
I'll start with his edit: ~~wife~~ daughter, Ivanka. Sure glad her trademarks went through with China so he can green light ZTE in the US. He's so tough on them! If he was Obama, he would be labeled a traitor.
Ivanka is his daughter. But point still stands.
Melania is his wife
Thank you! I corrected my post.
I've been seeing doctors all my life and I was just diagnosed with cancer. What good did those doctors do?!
Gonna try something different and I'll be seeing a faith healer now.
What a terribly embarassing analogy. You've totally missed the point, although hardly surprising for an anti-Trump poster.
I’d love to believe this but the president only has so much power. Even if he wants to make a difference, who’s to say that the powers that be will allow him to do so?
No, because a lot of Congress is still very deep-state. And the dems will block him at every corner. Notice how Pelosi and that never talk about DACA anymore? It's because Trump didn't agree to their terms so they lost it's bargaining power.
Man, I haven't seen Trump talk about raising wages, mandatory maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation days, socialized healthcare or anything like.
Lol. The problems in our country isn't some deep state nonsense. It's the very glaring influence of money on politics. How people still don't realize this will forever be beyond me.
And the dems will block him at every corner. Notice how Pelosi and that never talk about DACA anymore? It's because Trump didn't agree to their terms so they lost it's bargaining power.
Thanks for totally ignoring my actual point.
And you mine;)
I brought up the democrats and their constant blocking of anything done by Trump and you said "no man that's not true, it's money".
Dude what are you even talking about. The Republicans have complete control of the government and all they've managed to do is the tax bill and and end net neutrality. And you wanna tell me the democrats are some boogeyman? Seriously, the republicans played this game at every turn when Obama was president. Filibuster after fucking filibuster. Don't like it? Get them to change the rules in congress. Or realize they're all a bunch of inept and corrupt fools (including the majority of democrats).
Which is why I suggested that Trump is anti-establishment - the GOP is blocking him too. I'm not saying it's a partisan issue.
Like what?
Pfft, as if our election system works well enough to elect someone competent.
Fuck that. No one needs more than a week of sick days a year. And if you do, you probably need disability.
So if I need to walk around and use my arms for my job and break my arm or leg, causing me to not be able to work for a few weeks, I need disability? Last christmas I got the flu for 4 days and wasn't able to work. If I get that again before next christmas I need disability? Sometimes you just get some bad luck.
You were able to work. You weren't that sick. Just drag your ass to work.
If he did he would have infected all his coworkers.
I was in bed almost all day. Walking downstairs got me dizzy and out of breath. You expect me to work in a warehouse for 8 hours, stacking beer, soda, and other things that are regularly over 10 or even 15 kg while feeling like that? I probably would have collapsed if I had to do an exceptionally heavy order, like 20 boxes of cleaning acid that weigh 20 kg each.
Life's hard. Then you die. Get over it.
You sound like a miserable human being.
Maybe you could use a few weeks of vacation?
I get five weeks a year from my employer. And I always take it. That doesn't mean my employer should be mandated to give me that much vacation.
Seriously?
Seriously.
What if you get the flu? Pneumonia? Break a leg?
Don't? Also, you can work with a broken leg in many jobs.
Because there is absolutely no possible scenario where someone can be sick for longer than a week?
If they are, it shouldn't be their employers problem.
It isn't. Employers are insured.
That's an expense.
So?
It should be an expense for the sick or injured person, not the put-out business owner who is not only out a worker, but has to pay for insurance in case his employees injure themselves or get sick. If the injury is due to the job, that's one thing. But if you injure yourself outside of work, that's not the employer's problem.
Well lucky for you that you live in such a society then, and lucky for me that I don't.
Employers require medical proof that you are actually sick. Though of course some people do abuse the system.
Germany, so there's quite the language barrier. Similar rules exist in most northern and central European countries.
[removed]
Very competitive and hard to get into a job like that
there are plenty of start-ups and other companies in Berlin where speaking mainly english is normal. Those usually aren't too hard to get into.
yeah but pay shit comparing to other places in Germany, and specially the US...
but even with less money earned, you are still better off than in the US.
I think thats not real true. Educated people with skills in IT or STEM get literally applications by the companies! international corporations are interested in English speaking staff.
It really depends. We (German smallish IT company) have several employees who hardly speak German. Most of us are fluent in English and many of our customers have offices around the globe and require communication and documentation in English anyways.
That's not too far off in any Nordic countries either, and I'm pretty sure the rest of EU as well.
Things that are pretty much given in EU:
Three weeks or more of vacation days per year for every job. Having no education, working a year in construction as a generic peg monkey I had 13 paid vacation days the first year. Next year would've bumped that up to 34.
Medical care. I got a sore tooth because of my neglect, root canal gone bad. ER removed the tooth and I got put on two separate antibiotics. Total cost of the visit and pills? Under 100 bucks. Wife cut her finger deep and had to go to the ER here to get five stitches. She's a US citizen, no insurance to cover costs here and higher prices since she's not paying taxes here yet. Cost: 200 bucks. Last time I got the flu and had a fever I told my boss in the morning, spent three days home and came back to work. My word was enough. I could've gotten a doctor's note for it too. Free.
Social security. Most EU countries will pay you at least 50% of your last pay for months while you find a new job. Up to a year. Never had one? Assistance for rent and food to the point where you won't become homeless or go hungry, as long as you have the willpower to go through the paperwork. It's still possible to fall through the safety nets though.
Education is free for citizens. All through university level as well. Recent changes here made it so exchange students do now have to pay tuition. They're charging between 10-25k now for foreign students. Citizens only pay for books: My own university education(not including living and rent, just school expenditures) cost me maybe 500 bucks. Add rent and food to that for seven years (I had some issues, took a leap year to do military service and another to work grunt jobs, still counting them), and the grand total for my engineering degree comes to maybe 75k.
Unlimited sick days? Really?
Basically sick days are not up to your employer. You have the right to paid sick days as mandated by law, if you can justify it like /u/tinaoe described.
It is not a thing in your salary package, it's a basic right that every employer is mandated by law to provide.
In the end, the person who decides how many sick days you get it the doctor, not your employer.
Yup, exactly. And it even counts for so called "mini-jobs", which are on a basis of 450€ and often taken up by students, people who can't find a full time employement or people needing a bit of extra money.
Can confirm. Have minijob, once got sick for three month. I not only could keep the job, I got paid the whole time.
Well, illnesses don't really give a fuck what's in your contract.
The entire concept of sick days is pretty much American-only. If I'm healthy, I work, and if I'm ill, I don't, simple as that. Hell, if I fall ill during my already booked vacation I'm ill, and those days won't be deducted from my vacation time.
Basically. You usually need to be get a "Krankschreibung" from a doctor after 3 days in a row, basically a sick note, that needs to be given to your employer. As long as the doctor certifies you're unable to work, you're on sick leave. For 6 weeks your employer is mandated to pay you your full wage, after that you enter "Krankengeld" which is 70% of your gross income, but not more than 90% of your net income iirc. That gets paid for 78 weeks, so almost 18 months. If you're still unable to work (because of the same illness) after that time, you may get referenced towards unemployment benefits, and I think people usually apply for "Frührente" at that point which is early retirement due to illness etc. There's also a type of insurance that covers/supplements your pay if you can only work a few hours a day.
Edit typo
"Krankschreibung" von a doctor
Haha
Reasons why you shouldn’t type while sleep deprived, jeez. My former English teacher would kill me lmao
Kenn ich, Bruder.
Schwester, aber als Ehrentitel nehm ich’s gerne an.
Bruder ist nicht Geschlechtsspezifisch, zumindest nicht in meinem Kopf lol
For someone who started learning German 3 days ago, is it actually not sex specific, or is it like dude in English which is used all over, but really meant for guys?
Well not really (yet). In my friend circle we call girls "Bruder", which is meant as a joke. But I think that more and more, it is becoming like "dude". However this is just anecdotal, so don't take my word for it.
Ahh Gotcha. Danke freund!
Its crazy for us to limit these. It's not like you can decide how often you are sick...
At least in Germany, if you are sick for more than six weeks at a time, your health insurance takes over and pays a reduced salary to you in order to protect your employer. You have to get a written statement from your doctor that you are not able to work for health reasons. Your employer cannot simply fire you for being sick, and afaik they have no right to know the exact health reason that causes you to miss work.
That’s right, keep rubbing it in....
Well you could go out and at least try to get some capable people into office.
Hey at least you get paid twice as much compared to here if you are a skilled worker and a mustang GT here costs €100,000 due to taxes.
What are you gonna spend all that money on if youre busy working 60hrs a week though?
Buy a real fancy car to sit in during my commute.
Can confirm, left the US for Berlin years ago, happy to contribute to the economy here.
Also currently enjoying wifi on the ICE, rather than having to drive home after a few beers in Leipzig.
Dang, I have some amazing benefits at my company and they don't even touch on that.
[deleted]
But what would you do of your vacation days are used up and you get ill? It makes no sense to lump those together. Plus, illness lasts as long as it does and isn't a choice, why limit the days at all?
You go to work sick, or if you have the option take the day off without pay
Then you do not want to hear about the 15 (17, but 2 are always on sunday :)) days of bank holidays we get on top of our regular vacation days in germany.
It's awful. I worked as a retail manager. Boss wanted me to cover up sexual harassment and work without pay. I refused.
She responded by cutting my hours(Everything is at will, and most jobs are hourly. Meaning you can have overtime in one week and 2 hours the next).
When I spoke with the higher ups, they responded by claiming performance issues, and writing me up.
I have to balance hiring a lawyer, having my hours cut, and figuring out a new job, purely because I didn't want to go along with unethical behavior. The American work world is a hellscape.
This sucks.. Best of luck, I hope everything works out well :/
My lawyer is about to send them some strongly worded letters. So far so good. I just gotta make sure I can meet all my expenses.
The American work world is a hellscape.
The American Everything is a hellscape.
Yeah pretty much. I'm so fucking done with this country. I hate the shitty, salt laden food. I ahte that I have to fight tooth and nail just to stay healthy. I hate that if you don't have a car, you're fucked, no matter what you have to offer. I hate that your skin color is a huge factor in your economic well being. I hate that, despite all the whining about free speech, you can't criticize the tyrants who make your life hell without facing some sort of backlash.
American laws have been made to exploit people - I think they're a ultra capitalist society. In the long run it's gonna be terrible.
by be terrible, you mean are terrible
anything that even mildly benefits a worker will "kill jobs" while anything that is absurdly one-sided in benefiting a corporation is "pro worker"
This seems to be born out of not actually understanding what American laws say.
It is enough to see what the american laws do.
Pack up the kids, we're moving to Germany! My husband was stationed there while in the UK Military, and it was one of the most beautifully organised places I have ever been in my life!
Reading all this reminds me why I really appreciate living in Germany, despite all the flaws it might have.
It really varies from company to company. I get 20 vacation days, plus two floating holidays, federal holidays, Christmas week, and summer hours (we generally don't work Fridays between Memorial Day and Labor Day, though there are occasionally exceptions). My normal week is 35 hours with paid overtime after that (1.5x at 40+ hours). My vacation rolls over up to 30 days if I don't use it, and I get 12 sick days annually that roll over indefinitely with no limit.
It's usually not a problem to take sick of vacation time - I've never had anyone give me a problem, or deny it. I also have excellent health insurance and other benefits (retirement, life insurance, disability insurance, etc.). I would say my benefits are unusually generous for the country, but it is pretty average for my industry and the area.
That must be nice, I’m salary, going on my 12th straight day of working. The shortest day I’ve worked was 10 hours. That was a great day.... longest was 23 hours.
Where on earth do you work? That sounds like hell even compared to american standards. When I refused to work more than 5 days in a row my boss said she understood and would never schedule me for more than 5 days a week.
Sometimes I work 20 hours a day for 4 days straight, multiple times a month for no extra pay.
I work in IT. My company fixes servers/networks others cannot fix. By the time we get involved usually peoples jobs are on the line. In one year I learn and experience problems most people in IT won’t see in 10 years. It’s the best legal high you can get.
I can choose between 6 extra vacation days or the equivalent in money.
this is not mandatory though. there are things like a "13th paycheck", "christmas money" and other bonus stuff a company can give, but usually only larger companies give them.
Yup, this is a benefit of my job and not mandatory by law.
I agree with everything but the dependents. Seems unfair to be punished if you choose to be childfree.
Yeah that is bizarre
It gets much more less bizarre if you know how the german pension system works.
Germany has a demographic problem, the society needs to produce more kids and encourage immigration to survive. It's just the classic group > individual mindset that doesn't exist here.
So if someone is a nice person, has a dependent family, tries to do their best, but is just not very good at their job? You have to keep them even if they are not very effective after coaching?
No. If they suck and don't perform to expectations, you can fire them. But it's a process that will take several months and give the employee plenty of time to look for another job.
unlimited sick days (60 consecutive days with full pay, after the 60th day at 66% pay; resets after working one full day). If I'm sick, I stay at home, period.
What's in place to stop this being abused?
You need a doctor's note (most employers require a note after three days though they could always ask for a note). A doctor giving out fake notes would quickly get the German equivalent of being out of network meaning they lose 80% of their patients.
Ah, makes sense. That's a good system, I don't think we have that in the UK (but not sure). Do you have to pay for a doctor's note? I once asked for one and was told that I'd have to pay.
Nope, the note is paid by insurance.
Not in Germany, well at least you dont have to directly pay for the visit. In a broad sense youre still paying for it since health insurance is mandatory and paid through taxes.
I’ve never had a paid vacation day nor paid sick day in my 25 years of working.
Seriously? What industry is this?
You guys hiring over there?
If you have a bachelor's degree in computer science there's hundreds of companies ready to hire you; a dozen of them won't even require you to know German.
Oh shit did you go through my profile lmao. I'll be graduating with one
Do you work for DB? The decision between 6 extra days and the equivalent in money sounds familiar ;)
Yup. Though from what I read Post and DTAG will also get to choose next year.
It's a great model so I wouldn't be surprised. I started off with 28 though... so "just" 34 now ;)
Do you know who Milton Friedman is? If not, google him :)
I know of him.
so what I'm getting at is there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some how some way, your country/company is paying for these benefits.
Absolutely. But as someone that is in the top 20% income-wise but not in the top 1%, it's worth it.
well of course it is worth it to you! but who is paying the cost? Here in the USA a good salary is 50k per year and a good house costs 200k - 300k. Tell me those numbers from where you live please
these numbers are not in downtown newyorkcity losangles etc..
I made 40'000€/year straight after my compsci bachelor. Nowadays I make roughly 80'000€/year with ten years of experience. I just bought an upper quality newly built house for 480'000€; I could have bought a 20 yo house for 330'000.
Salaries are way lower in Germany; I would make much more in the US. But if you factor in health insurance and work-life-balance, I'm quite happy with the German deal.
exactly right, the salaries are equal when factoring in benefits. We could negotiate with our employers to receive the same benefits as you with a lower salary. Two difference, in USA we have a choice, in Germany you don't. Second difference, our culture doesn't like such generous benefits, so maybe negative one for USA. Congratulations on the new house!
I work in England, which has a bit of a reputation for being more cut-throat and ‘US-like’ in these sort of matters. My deal is pretty much the same. Not quite as good as my German friend above (only 28 days holiday, plus 5 statutory), but broadly similar. I think the US is an amazing country, and I’ve always loved my visits there, but fuck me, the terms of employment for the working man are medieval.
Meanwhile us in France. 37 days of paid vacation in average. It can go top to 7 weeks for some. You can't legally work for more than 48h in a week. Same firing protection's law than in Germany.
And you guys know how to organize strikes!
Its by strikes and the left wing governement in the 30's that we won those rights.
(60 consecutive days with full pay
Six weeks actually: Entgeltfortzahlungsgesetz.
Damn, I have no idea why I thought 60...
Well, both starts with a 6 ... i don't know, doesn't matter much.
UK here, work in the NHS. Get 33 days leave (after 10 years employment), 8 or so bank holidays. 37.5 hours week.
I have moved to Germany. Even if I struggle to integrate, good fucking god does it feel great not to go "will I get fired because I don't feel well? I shouldn't risk it, I'll just pop a bunch of Dayquil and suffer it."
Going to the hospital and ending up owing tens of thousands in bills.
Thank God for the NHS.
MY friend got injured in America. He worked out it would have been cheaper to get an early flight home and head to the nearest hospital to the airport than it was go to a hospital in America that was a few miles away.
Even for Americans it can be cheaper to travel for medicine. For example, the price of a hip replacement in America can get someome:
Is this for real??
Probably.
Have you seen a hospital bill? They are absolutely in the years-of-living-expenses range.
American here. About two years ago, my son had minor surgery for two badly ingrown toenails. He had anesthesia, but no overnight hospital stay or anything - we brought him in, the procedure took about two hours, then we took him home. The total bill was over $14,000 - thank God it was covered by our insurance. I know people who have had weeklong hospital stays that cost well over $100,000. Healthcare costs in the US are absolutely insane.
I had a partial thyroidectomy last month. The surgery took 2.5 hours and it was an outpatient procedure. They billed my insurance $121,000.
This is just so unimaginable to me. I literally cannot fathom paying out that kind of money, even through insurance, for hospital care. If the hospital told me they were going to bill me even £100 for an operation, I'd kick off
The insurance was billed $121k but I would imagine they paid out $10-20k max. What’s interesting about US health insurance is that they pay fractions of what they are billed.
Even 10k is mind boggling for me
Which is why the vast majority of the time you can get your healthcare bill greatly reduced if you don't have insurance. Costs are so high partially because hospitals try to milk insurance companies for as much as possible. If you don't have insurance alot of the time hospitals will reduce the bill to a fraction of the amount originally listed.
What I don't get is what happens to the people who are hospitalized for a long time. That happens. We all know of someone's grandpa or aunt or neighbour who spent three months in the hospital due to some serious accident or condition. Are they getting hit with bills for $300 million when they get out?
"Congratulations on your recovery, Mr. Stevenson. But, you know what time it is."
"...yeah. How much?"
"Well, the city just purchased a new fleet of helicopters for the hospitals and police department to use. Think you can foot the bill?"
Yes.
Thats about 10 years worth of salary for an average joe here
So should the outrage I feel at having to fork over fifty euro for a visit to my GP because I'm feeling shitty be replaced with relief or....?
I think part of it is just being able to charge whatever the fuck they like, because either insurance or the patient's gotta pay!
In 2003 I had an abscess in my throat and had to spend a week in hospital. The bill came to $77,000, but Dad only paid about $5k, I think, thanks to insurance.
I can't imagine how much that shit would cost now.
A few months back my wife had the same condition and spent 5 days in hospital. Total cost to me, £15 in parking and travel. Hearing these stories really makes me appreciate what we have in the UK. People moan about waiting times but it's nothing really.
I was going to move to the UK at one point - I have an EU passport - but then Brexit happened so I stopped applying for jobs and sulked all way to my new plan of...staying in the USA until it literally is at imminent risk of being nuked.
Same.
My sister just moved to London, though. I might get certified to teach high school here just go teach at an international school in Europe.
I have a couple friends who did that and adored it!
only paid about $5k
Yeah I'm not ever living in the US.
But ultimately you pay for the insurance. And the insurance can't negotiate a better price like a single payer system can. Yay commercialized health Care!
And the insurance can't negotiate a better price like a single payer system can.
Well, they can, they just aren't as effective as single payer system, and they only negotiate in their own personal interest. Insurance companies very, very rarely pay the full amount of the bill that they are covering. Its usually just a portion of that amount. Which is part of hte reason the prices are so high, because costs have to be covered somehow, yet a lot of insurance companies won't pay the quoted amount.
Absolutely true. I pay $800 per month for insurance coverage for my family of four - and that's just my share of the cost, my employer pays considerably more. On top of that, my daughter starts college next year at $34K per year (and that's for a "mid-priced" in-state public university). As a bonus, my wife's father has Alzheimer's disease, and he's in an assisted-living facility that costs him (and us) $3000 per month.
When I hear about the benefits available to citizens in European countries, I often wonder why the hell I'm living here.
And once you're outside of the cities European housing is actually reasonably priced.
In Canada the cost of most senior homes are on a sliding scale, the higher your income /assets the more you pay. And I don't understand how college can cost $35k/yr, I pay $500 per class, so on the high side it's about $7000 which includes books and a bus pass
I paid about $10K a year at an in-state school in U.S. Doesn't include books and I lived at home. I have less than $35K of debt and I have two degrees (got the second online for a similar price). Paid some out of pocket. It definitely helped that I lived at home and worked, though.
Just saying it is possible for cheaper school. May limit your options, though.
35k a year is typically going to be for private schools, or high end out of state public schools. You can get cheap college in the US, just not usually anything prestigious. Growing up in New Mexico, if I had stayed at a NM college, the lottery scholarship would have brought the annual tuition to 1200 (at the time). NM schools, outside of a few niche areas, are not particularly good though.
[deleted]
No, we are just all in crazy amounts of debt.
[deleted]
Our two-party system goes as follows:
Randian Objectivist amoral neocons who pander to social conservatives to get a voting base to vote against their interests--believe that any social programs are just wasting money on the masses of useless eaters who are born to be poor and will die poor;
Slightly-more-benign-masters who want to throw us a few bones with some social programs so it seems like they're nicer while still profiting from and perpetuating the exploitative system; these are the immoral, disingenuous neoliberals who cater to the leftists for a voter base to get them to vote against their interests because they have no other choices
These are the two parties, and they need each other to keep this country's wretched system alive.
The "far-right" is only the monster in the shadows to scare you with the prospect of outright fascist plutocracy rather than the supposedly more benign, concealed oligarchy we have now; the "near" right is more than enough wrong
[deleted]
There's something to be said for Occam's razor. Not oversimplification at all.
As for hyperbole, what part? The fact that actual Objectivists who see Atlas Shrugged as their Bible have been a part of the conservative party for decades? That they're amoral? (That's opinion, not hyperbole; and also generous--I think amoral is better than immoral). That they don't want to give anything to the poor? (You really think opposition to government is the reason behind opposing social programs? They're in favor of government when it benefits them, time and time again).
Or is it about the neoliberals? Immoral, because they know people deserve a little more, but also because they know if you give people just a little bit they'll more readily accept subservience? (You know, like benevolent masters under slavery. Who wouldn't prefer that to taking your chances in a starving landscape)? Is it the fact that they continuously pretend that liberalism and leftism are synonymous? Is that not similarly disingenuous as fiscal conservatives who don't give a shit about abortion, gay rights or guns (apart from the money they bring in) catering to the Christian Zionists and other batshit extremists for their constituency--even though they're mostly poor and voting against their financial interests? Real leftists who are forced to vote for neoliberals are similarly voting against their interests, only they're not given any semblance of choice and most of them know it (which is why, without the initially-convincing-turned-disappointing rhetoric--like Obama's "Yes We Can"--so many will not turn out at the polls for another establishment candidate. Why, perhaps more than any other factor, as someone who strongly does believe sexism as well as racism were factors in the last U.S. presidential election, we now have Trump as president).
Or is it hyperbole that the longest-running economic study ever conducted of the U.S. concluded we are no longer a democracy but an oligarchy, and have been since the Reagan years?
[deleted]
Oh man, OCCAM'S RAZOR, DUDE. I thought I wrote WOTs. Sheesh.
Listen: I'm sure there's lots here I can thoughtfully engage with. Maybe I even will!
I am not talking U.S.-specific, to simplify this even more. I am talking the whole farce of the "left" and the "right" since the dawn of capitalism and the rise of the industrial age. They are merely arguments about how many consolation prizes should we give out to placate the labor force, or should we give out any at all? (Even your most hard-right fiscal conservative would say yes, yes, a little bit, because dead people or people too half-dead to work can't work/won't work, but they'll have arguments about where that line is, look at India, they'll say).
Meanwhile, "liberals" are more of the bent that an indentured servant is better than a slave; some measure of freedom--the guise of liberty--plus a full belly will ensure max production. In order to keep profits high and overhead low, you'll need to enslave some of the population, obviously (this is where women fit in for a long time; feminism has been a big upset to capitalism and the colonialist/imperialist projects under its auspices, too).
I am speaking way more broadly than individual politicians here, than particular countries, or than social values. There are the "haves" and the "havenots," and the "haves'" approach to the "havenots." How should we keep them having not? How much to give and how much of their wealth in circulation do we need to extract max value for ourselves?
I think the most cutthroat who figure that out early find a way into the game (or get into a life of organized crime, if they don't mind the threat of death or prison and violence doesn't bother them). A lot of people are heirs. Some old money is very, very old. Some money is enterprising and new. All of it caught onto the game, particularly the rigged lottery of the marketplace.
I think you and I are talking about two different things.
But I'll come back and give you my opinion about individual U.S. politicians too, if you like. (You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying about Hillary--that despite the sexism and racism that played their part--and the election of a black man is precisely what spurred such racism; I suggest TaNehesi Coates "The First White President," great article--it is the millions of voters who didn't turn out who voted in the 2012 elections--who did not show up to vote for the establishment candidate--that ultimately lost the Dems the elections; although, of course, many more arguments could be made about the relevance of sex and of race in what happened, or the the white identity politics that Trump cottoned onto and galloped away with like a cotton horse catching fire).
Anyway, to be continued!
[deleted]
I have to admit, I have no idea why you're turning willful obtuseness into postmodernist dribble.
Everything in your "points" is easy to refute and would be refuted in your mind if you read books on these subjects or even thought about them before speaking (or writing). You don't strike me so much as ignorant as willfully so. Why? (Go through point by point and refute your own arguments. I dare you).
Please, read Noam Chomsky.
The chronic distrust of the government of the government in the US is obscene. They think any form of social program will lead to Stalinist style communism.
We'd be happy to have you!
Where you getting AL care for $3K a month? Or are you each paying $3K a month? I'm thinking $6K is more the average these days.
[deleted]
No college is free. At all
Unless you are a great scholar, writer, or athlete, then its free. I.E. the same people that would get it for free in any other nation.
According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2017–2018 school year was $34,740 at private colleges, $9,970 for state residents at public colleges, and $25,620 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.
That is just tuition. Not rent, cafeteria card, books and other lab fees.
Oh and two semesters a year.
A far larger portion of our population attends universities.
As a fellow parent also paying for college and high health insurance costs I agree with you.
This scares me! My daughter broke her arm about 3 weeks ago. We just got the first bill-I had to take her to prompt care (wanted to avoid ER visit) where they did xrays, confirmed broken arm & temp cast. Next morning, visit to orthopedic surgeon for more xrays. Just two visits was $1700. Insurance paid $900. A few days later we had to take her to thehospital for her surgery-really just them giving her anesthesia & resetting her arm, and placing in a cast. I am not looking forward to getting that bill!
About two years ago, I had minor surgery for one badly ingrown toenail in Spain. It was an outpatient procedure that took about an hour, they put my foot up for a couple of hours, gave me painkillers, and sent my hobbling on my way home. Note that I chose to go with a private doctor instead of the public one because it was hurting right then.
Total cost was 53€.
The doctor had studied and done his residency in the US and he laughed at my completely stunned face because he knew I was expecting way more.
I had the exact same surgery in Argentina three months ago. It costed $250.
Insurance companies are the reason prices are absurd. Fucking parasitic middlemen.
I would rather have been born American than, say, Chinese or Egyptian, but at the end of the day I am very thankful I was not born American. Being Canadian grants considerably more freedom, more safety, more basic humanist systems in place for the citizens. The list goes on and you can barely even compare. The arguably better job opportunities in the US fail to outweigh the pitfalls, in my mind. The only way I'd be content with being American is if I could be guaranteed to be a rich American. In that case it would be the #1 place in the world, bar none.
Holy shit, i had the same problem two years ago too and i went trough the same thing but only one toe and what i had to pay was way way less then an average norwegian make a month. (I am norwegian in norway btw)
How much was it after the "insurance discount?"
I had that done for free, there's so much wrong with healthcare in USA
Australian here:
Let's see...
This is of course paid for via taxes. For the vast majority of people, that's under $1000 a year - and nothing at all for low-income people.
And this is a country that spends billions on military
My sister was living in the US and had twins who were a few weeks premature. Their copay was around $12k. The total bill was in excess of 120k for the births and hospital stay for her and the kids...
Wtf my brother had the same surgery and it cost around 90$ here in India and this is from an expensive private hospital not the free government run ones.
Your comment reminds me that I can't be more happy about living in europe. My mother has been sick for 6 years, and today she still needs stuff that cost a fuckload of money. As example, it's been a month and a half since her lungs need to be punctured everyday with a special tool, that tool alone costs 85 dollars. And she needs 2 tools per day. Not counting bandages and painkillers, and the nurse visiting everyday. It's just so damn insane.
Jeeeeeesus! I had the same when I was younger. There was a bit of a wait on the NHS list (about a month if I recall) so we opted to have it done privately and pay ourselves. It cost about £200.
some hospitals overcharge, charging like 25 dollars for an aspirin pill and crazy costs like this.
Isn't the US a first word country? This just seems so wrong.
This is insane. How does the hospital justify those costs?
Free market. You charge what the market is willing to bare. That means things like hotdogs and TV's end up pretty cheap, but when it's stuff like not being in pain and not dying you're willing to pay a lot.
Part of it is eating the costs of un-reimbursed emergency room care. If you show up to the emergency room they can't refuse you and they have to stabilize you in the very least. So part of the inflated hospital costs come from when someone is in a terrible car wreck or got shot and they have no coverage. The costs of those services rendered have to come from somewhere. Also lawyers. Too damn many lawyers.
ingrown toenails
Had that when I was younger^(much), think I paid something like 20$...
Can confirm. I've cost my insurance company over $1.5mil. for complications of nephrolithiasis and continued care after a surgical error resulted in total disability.
I had heart surgery in the UK on private medical care basically because my company have it away for free... heart surgery plus all the other bits (3-4 diagnosis / test sessions, hospital stay and then the surgery) totalled £50k... I paid nothing ofc but I'm lead to believe in America I could have quadrupled that and then some. ofc I had the option to just go nhs too
When my father injured his back he stayed in a private hospital (really fancy shit) for 2 weeks the boss told him he was costing the work insurance about 150 euros a day.. and we laughed at how expensive that place was lol
Yeah, I work in a law firm in the US. We had a client once who was in a car accident and spent 5 days in the hospital netting them $120,000.00 in medical expenses. Nothing crazy, no surgery, just observation and MRIs and X-Rays.
Same with me except my ingrown was minor. The hospital charged me for "Level 4 care" which brought my bill up to 2,000+ dollars. When all the doctor did was give me anesthetic and cut a sliver of nail off. "Level 4 care" for something a medical student could do.
I was in literally the exact same circumstance. Except I live in Canada, and it was like $150.
It's called "medical tourism." The fact that that phrase exists in the USA is saddening.
I wonder how people in other countries feel about Americans using their system without contributing.
No, they do contribute actually. You pay for all the medical care, and even with the cost of the care, flights, hotels, etc., it still often ends up being substantially less than it would be in the US.
Source: A family member traveled to Costa Rica to get a hysterectomy. It was cheaper, even though it included a 3-day hospital stay. (In the US, it would have been an outpatient procedure.)
2014 I racked up ~$600,000 in medical bills. In one calendar year.
Then why do some Americans fight against single player healthcare like their life depended on it?
Holy fucking shit. Is there any chance of you being able to bay that in full in this life time?
I fucked myself up when I was 18. Tons of surgery required and I was flown in a helicopter. Before insurance, my bill was well over $200,000.
Thank God my mom has really good insurance. We only had to pay like 2 grand.
Agreed. I was in the hospital for 6 hours to get my gallbladder removed in 2016. I still owe about $1000 and put all of my not-critical-to-life income towards it. And that’s AFTER what my insurance paid.
You should see the bill for having a kid.
"Skin to skin contact charge: $750"
Yeah, you just paid nearly a grand to hold your fucking baby.
See, there’s this thing called insurance...
Oh, you mean where after paying a ton more in taxes towards public healthcare than practically all countries with universal healthcare, you can pay many thousands of dollars more in insurance premiums for the privilege of paying potentially thousands more in deductibles and still be exposed to potential financial catastrophe if you ever get truly sick, adding up to literally hundreds of thousands of dollars more over a typical lifetime.
Yeah, great solution.
And who’s fault is it that we have to pay “a ton more in taxes towards public healthcare”? I think we know the answer, and you’d vote for one of them. Problem solved.
And who’s fault is it that we have to pay “a ton more in taxes towards public healthcare”?
Republicans and Democrats both support Medicaid, Medicare, etc.. Feel free to show me anything significant Republicans have done to reduce those costs.
Maybe, just maybe, it's worthwhile looking at the systems in other countries where they save $400,000+ per person while ensuring lives aren't routinely destroyed due to medical expenses.
Which means someone is still paying. Which brings us back to socialized healthcare.
And that's if it's a procedure insurance covers. And there are plenty of stories of things being important but still not covered.
Yeah dude. I had to pay $5,000 for an ambulance ride and hospital visit I couldn't even consent to because I was unconscious. When my father went into the hospital with cardiac arrest I wasn't sure if I wanted him to wake up because the bill was well over $100,000 and I knew he wouldn't be able to pay it (he was very sick and couldn't work but also didn't qualify for disability or medicare ... no reason given, they just denied his claims).
I had to have my gall bladder out in the US. Without insurance all the doctors visits, hospital stays, surgery, and follow up appointments would have cost over $200k. It cost $95k just to get the organ removed. With my generally speaking really good insurance it cost $5k out of pocket all together. And that is for a pretty minor operation with very little follow up and no therapy.
That's crazy... I had this surgery in Canada and it cost me $26 for pain medication. I feel so bad for anyone who has that financial burden
I have really good insurance. Got cancer. ER visit was 200. 2 surgeries to remove organs were 250 each. All follow up visits for 5 years 30 copay. I didn’t have to pay for all the blood work or scans during that 5 years. Or all the damn colonoscopies to admire the staples I have instead of part of my colon. I was super lucky. Because the insurance I had just 2 months before would have fucked me financially for years. If the tumors growing in my appendix had started causing me pain just 2 months earlier.. yup.
When I was younger and had no insurance I couldn’t get the blood work or meds for my thyroid. ERs don’t do care for chronic conditions. So I was Unmedicated for over 6 months. Sooo that was fun.
Not really. It's based on a bill that no one ever pays. Figures like this come from a fantasy bill that the hospital sends the insurance company even though there is a standing agreement that the insurance company will pay less.
It's like a mattress store where everything is always 50% off. If no one ever pays full price, that price is phony.
Even if you don't have insurance and get billed yourself, all you have to do is ask for a cash discount and the bill shrinks.
What if you don’t have insurance?
Also, who pays the salaries of the people negotiating over six figures of debt?
If you don't have insurance you're not getting a hip replacement. The average cost without insurance is $40,000, and if you had $40,000 to pay, you'd have insurance, too.
You can get care for life-threatening conditions regardless of ability to pay (they'll still bill you afterwards, but they'll treat you first even if they know that you'll probably never pay the bill), but for non-life-threatening things like a bad joint, if you can't pay somehow you can't get care.
We do have state insurance programs for the elderly (Medicare) and the very poor (Medicaid), but there's a ton of people who are not poor enough for Medicaid but also don't have $40,000 to spend.
so what happens if you are like lower middle class, as in rich enough to not qualify for medicaid yet not rich enough to be able to spend 40k on a say knee related surgery (non life threatening) and say your insurance does not cover that form of procedure or does not cover it fully maybe say 20k only?
do you simply go bankrupt/take loan or are there cheaper alternatives?
Start a crowd funding page
Ya know.... single payer nationalized healthcare is kinda like crowd funding...without the humility of starting up a ‘save my dad Walter White from cancer’ web page
If you're lower middle class and/or have $20k to spend on the medical procedure, you almost certainly have a job that offers medical insurance (which you're usually required to take). Depending on your insurance type, that could only cut the bill to $15k (likely with little else that insurance wouldn't cover for the rest of the year), or it could reduce it to $1k to $3k. Out of pocket yearly maximums can vary widely depending on what kind of insurances you get.
It's set up so that if you don't qualify for medicaid, you should have insurance of at least some variety. Of course, many people still slip through those very wide cracks.
You negotiate the price down.
So, insurance isn't going to cover "only $20k" of a $40k procedure. Rather, if you have insurance, you have a deductible (an amount up to which insurance covers nothing and you have to pay out of pocket each year) and then an out-of-pocket maximum (an amount up to which insurance charges you a portion of the bill -- called coinsurance -- and after which insurance covers 100%.)
So if you have insurance with a $5,000 deductible, 20% coinsurance, and a $10,000 out of pocket max, then a $20k surgery would cost you $8,000 ($5k+20% of $15k) while a $40k or $100k surgery would cost you $10,000 ($5k+20% of $25,000, at which point you have paid your out-of-pocket max and insurance covers 100%.)
So basically if you're insured, for expensive stuff the cost kind of doesn't matter -- either you can afford to pay up to your out-of-pocket max or you can't. Which is actually a big problem for the working poor -- the cheapest insurance plans often have deductibles of $4,000 or more, so someone with no savings might well have insurance but still have no way to pay their deductible. (Though at least if they go into medical debt, it will be for $10,000 instead of $100,000; it's not nothing but it's not a satisfactory system by any means, either.)
So yes, if you're lower middle class, you're stuck having to find some way to scrape together money for anything non-life-threatening even if you do have insurance. If you don't have insurance, it's the same deal except that the amounts you may need are unavailable to you (it's one thing to borrow $4,000 on a low income and worry about bankruptcy later -- it's quite another to need $40,000, because nobody will lend you that much in the first place.)
Most hospitals are non-profits or have the backing of a non-profit for these cases. It's called charity care and even people that you would think of as "rich" can qualify for some assistance. For example, the Children's hospital where I just had my daughter offers a straight up 30% cut off the bill for anyone making 83k a year or less. If you make under 50k and are uninsured, there are programs to cover the entire cost of the childs care.
There are basically no procedures that would not be covered by insurance in the US because they are not considered medically necessary, but also regular procedures in countries with socialized healthcare that would be significantly cheaper than in the US once you have considered your actual out of pocket cost. Examples of things that aren't medically necessary or covered by most health insurance plans in the US are acupuncture, many types of plastic surgery like breast implants, laser hair removal, any surgery for non medical reasons. There is some grey area around things like IVF or prosthetics, but private insurance in the US generally covers more than what would be provided in other countries.
Insurance in the US health insurance generally has a yearly out of pocket max that you pay, and no yearly or lifetime limit on what the insurance pays. If you are buying your plan from the healthcare marketplace the out of pocket max for an individual is about $7k, lower for most private insurance provided through your employer. Hip replacement specifically would be covered by medicare, medicaid, and almost all private insurance in the US. So if you had a relatively expensive plan from the marketplaces you are out of pocket $12k on the high side for the premiums for a year plus all the other costs related to a major surgery in the US. With private insurance it is often much lower.
I am not sure how/where you're getting your facts from but what you're saying is NOT true at all! I'd really like to see your source because almost everything in your comment is wishful thinking. We just took a course on understanding healthcare insurances and from the textbooks, articles, and information I learned, most insurance plans aren't terrible if you can afford one, but they aren't nearly as generous with benefits as you claim (especially that bit about medically unnecessary procedures and out of pocket maximum) which is why I am asking for your source. I'd love to read about it and present it to our professor and see his thoughts on the matter! Even in my personal experience, dealing with marketplace health insurance was an absolute nightmare and my insurance thru school now is good but my deductible is 10K before insurance covers everything and out of pocket max is $15K and considering I am a student with a net income of $0, it's not something I am realistically in a position to cover unless family chips in or I take max student loan to cover medical expenses.
especially that bit about medically unnecessary procedures
If your doctor advises you to do a procedure, it becomes medically necessary. Insurance cannot deny a claim because they think that you don't need it when the doctor told you that you do. At best, they would find the doctor is in breech of their contract and make the doctor eat the cost.
and out of pocket maximum
If you class didn't teach you about out of pocket maximums then your class is using some very dated material. Out of pocket maximums have existed since the 80s, but as of the passage of the ACA became mandatory in all plans.
Source - worked in claims.
considering I am a student with a net income of $0, it's not something I am realistically in a position to cover unless family chips in or I take max student loan to cover medical expenses.
If you have a medical condition, then the first thing you should do once discharged is call the hospital and ask for a social worker. They will be able to advise you of programs they have to reduce or eliminate the cost you are paying. Unemployed generally will get their entire bill covered by charity care. Any hospital that is a non-profit or backed by a religious system will have charity care to cover your bills. Furthermore, if you have 0 income and are unemployed, then you shouldn't be buying insurance but signing up for state Medicaid which doesn't have the restrictions of insurance.
I am still not sure about your point regarding medically unnecessary procedures. For example, breast implants for aesthetics = unnecessary and not covered by insurance. Mastectomy for prophylaxis or post-chemo = necessary and covered. Doctors aren't going to play along and pretend a patient has a deviated septum just so that person can get a rhinoplasty paid for by insurance. It's really that simple.
I am not sure why you think I don't know what an out of pocket maximum is? What I said was "they [insurance plans] aren't nearly as generous with benefits as you claim (especially that bit about medically unnecessary procedures and out of pocket maximum)" meaning that insurance plans have 7K as their lowest end not the max (opposite of what you wrote in your first post).
I'll take responsibility for the last paragraph, I should've clarified and said if something does happen while I am in school and I need to cover my medical expenses so that bit is good to know about social workers and charities.
I am still not sure about your point regarding medically unnecessary procedures. For example, breast implants for aesthetics = unnecessary and not covered by insurance. Mastectomy for prophylaxis or post-chemo = necessary and covered.
That is correct. If you have a medical procedure that destroys part of your body, insurance will cover reconstructing it.
Doctors aren't going to play along and pretend a patient has a deviated septum just so that person can get a rhinoplasty paid for by insurance. It's really that simple.
I never made that claim. There are doctors who might do that, but if insurance can prove that it isn't actually an issue, then the insurance company has a right to sue for fraud, the doctor risks their medical license and likely will have a lot of their other claims reviewed and rejected causing them to owe thousands or millions in damages. This is why doctors won't just shoddily give advice and tend to be more cautionary with what is medically necessary.
I am not sure why you think I don't know what an out of pocket maximum is?
Again, this isn't what I claimed. You said "they [insurance plans] aren't nearly as generous with benefits as you claim (especially that bit about...out of pocket maximum)". Now looking at it like that since you were lumping them together, it would be rational, in English, to assume that you were talking about insurance companies being generous in giving out of pocket maximums.
meaning that insurance plans have 7K as their lowest end not the max (opposite of what you wrote in your first post).
First post? That was my first post. I think you have me confused with someone else.
I'll take responsibility for the last paragraph, I should've clarified and said if something does happen while I am in school and I need to cover my medical expenses so that bit is good to know about social workers and charities.
Everyone should know this but hospitals tend not to advertise this much. It was refreshing when my daughter was born to have a worker come and discuss charity care even though they knew I wouldn't qualify. Most places just send you a bill and don't tell you about charity care or wait until your last bill before collections.
The ACA went into effect relatively recently and it is a big part of why there are limits on out of pocket maximums. The out of pocket max limits do not apply to grandfathered, or certain retiree plans, but otherwise they do apply to all non grandfathered plans, including high deductible health plans. I am not aware of any high deductible health plans with a $10k deductible, or any current plans you can get with a $15k out of pocket max for an individual in 2018. Those would be the norm for 2013 or prior though. Grandfathered plans were those in place before 2010.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-limit/
If you have zero income speak to a social workers about medicaid eligibility. Usually it is zero for copay, coinsurance, and there is no premium to pay, even getting prescriptions is low cost or free. There are often other benefits like transportation vouchers.
United Healthcare is my insurance, I'd be happy to send you a image of my out of pocket max which is in fact 15K. My deductible is 10K but I get a flat rate for all pharmacy prescriptions and 3 free office visits a year (and 1 free physical) so deductible isn't an issue for me unless a true medical emergency arises. I can't apply for medicaid since I am a full-time student and my loans are considered "income" for medicaid purposes, basically their rationale is that I can take out more loans if I need to cover healthcare expenses while being in school :-(
I think I'm up to about $8000 in emergency room fees from me calling the hospital for an appointment and being commanded to go to the emergency room. Will I ever pay those bills? Well, fuck, if I could, I would, but no. I can't afford it, and it's low on my priority list. I don't even care that I've been served papers once for a lawsuit to get that money out of me. Sorry. Can't milk a turnip. What are you gonna do, throw me in jail? Well, fucking go for it, because I can't pay $800 just to be told there's nothing wrong when my heart monitor's been going off every few minutes and they ignore it and tell me I'm just anxious and have heartburn and send me home to have another week of chest pain with no explanation.
Anecdotal advice: pay $1 on it every month. $1 shows effort and will look favorably upon you if you were to be brought to trial in a court but mostly, it's to prevent hospitals from sending your debts to a debt collector who are ruthless and most importantly, will hurt your credit by reporting it to credit agencies. If you're actively making payments no matter how little, it keeps your account active directly with the hospital and most businesses have a policy of 90 days of non-payment before they send your debt to a debt collector. This is what I was told by a family friend who is NOT a lawyer (but is a businessman) so take this advice with a grain of salt. I've thankfully never been in a position to where I've had to try this.
As far as I'm aware, medical debts don't show on your credit report. If they do, I haven't seen it. because I check my report every few years and they still can't tell me a thing because even though I'm turning thirty next month, I still have a "thin file" with little to no information in it. I have never actually seen a credit report because all I get is a notification of a "thin file".
One of my stepsisters is on my mom's insurance but she never paid for any of her medical visits. My mom only found out she hadn't been paying when it dropped my mom's credit score by several points so I am not sure how long it takes or whether it varies according to hospitals vs. office visits. That's how I found out that unpaid medical debts do end up hurting score (and the advice). I'm sure google will be a lot more help than me at this point, lol. Best of luck to you though and I really hope you can get out this sticky situation with the best outcome possible, I think the whole healthcare and school district/education system in USA is completely out of touch with reality and needs a major overhaul.
Also, have you tried https://www.ftc.gov/faq/consumer-protection/get-my-free-credit-report
I get my free credit report from here on my birthday every year. Makes it easier to remember for me when my 12 months is up. I am not sure what a "thin file" is but I am able to get my entire credit report from here and I think equifax always says they have nothing for me on the website but they send me a copy of what they have thru snail mail (no idea, why).
You need to call the hospital social worker and talk to them about charity care that they offer. You can likely get a large portion of the bill reduced or entirely paid depending on your situation.
Dude, I don't want charity- I want the doctors to figure out what's actually wrong with me. I don't want a charity budget to pay for a completely useless appointment where they treated me like a crazy person with absolutely nothing wrong. That just feels really messed up.
That's how medicine works though, no matter where you are. There isn't really a charity "budget". They don't just stop after they hit a certain dollar amount. This is what they do to meet their charters in a lot of places.
Get the charity care and get the collectors off your back. Find a different hospital to work with if that one isn't giving you results.
It still seems wrong though, to use charity money to pay a doctor who calls you a hypochondriac in an as many ways as they can without actually using the word "hypochondriac", does a few half assed tests and won't actually diagnose or treat you for anything. It seems a bit fraudulent to me. Paying a doctor for doing literally nothing to help.
.... I addressed that. Read it again. You get the cash discount.
all you have to do is ask for a cash discount and the bill shrinks.
And how many people know this? I’ve never heard about it and I’m a fairly well-read educated person who’s grandmothers work in healthcare admin. How many hospitals practice this? And do you have to be ready to pay cash right there?
And that doesn’t address the issue of needing to pay salaries to those doing this dance. How much of a salary can you demand if you are used to regularly doing 6-figure negotiations? All those jobs are deadweight loss.
Uninsured and indigent patients will be billed the full cost, because individuals do not have the benefit of negotiating with the provider.
Some providers will offer financing or reduced prices, but it is laughably higher than what the insurance companies get.
More details on how this billing works here.
because individuals do not have the benefit of negotiating with the provider.
That's not true at all, people negotiate down their medical debt directly with hospitals all the time.
I also said:
Some providers will offer financing or reduced prices
But the initial statement still holds: you will be billed the full amount before any contractually obligated reductions precisely because you do not have a prior arrangement with the provider, which the insurance companies (if they are "in network" but it's a little more complicated than that) would have.
It is also completely within the providence of the provider to determine if they will even discuss adjusting the claim. They have no obligation to do so.
but it is laughably higher than what the insurance companies get
This is also true, because (as an individual) your negotiating power is significantly lower than (say) BCBS, with 106 Million members. So, while you may have you $400 CPT code adjusted to $200, a BCBS patient might have it reduced to $100 or even $0 (because that is the member rate for that specific procedure).
No, you have your facts wrong. The phoney bill sent to the insurance company is far higher than a bill that would be given an individual.
BUT, what the insuance company actually pays may often be lower, yes.
What I said in my post is that the figure used to compare it to all that travel to Spain etc invariably uses the fictional, inflated price that NO ONE EVER PAYS.
Do you work in hospital billing? Because I do. The majority of people pay their bill. Some may pay some up front and the majority pay in installments because they aren't able to pay for it all at once. It's actually a small percentage that don't pay at all or are just unable to pay because it's out of their means. In those cases social workers usually help those people, whether it be through a charity or a program a local hospital offers.
NO ONE EVER PAYS
We're going to talk about that, but first:
I wrote another reply before responding to yours, so let's talk a bit more about how medical billing works:
A patient visits the a healthcare provider and has services rendered to them. All of the services are recorded as CPT Codes which have a price associated with them (kind of like going to the mechanic: they have fixed initial prices for the different services they provide).
After the patient leaves, the procedures are coded and sent to the insurance company, where they are processed. Some codes are approved, others denied, and some are adjusted.
An approved code is paid at the actual billed price. In the years I worked in Medical Accounts Receivable, processing and adjudicating denials, I maybe saw one or two claims where the paid amount was equal to the billed amount (this supports your claim: that what the insurance company pays is way less than the billed amount).
A denied code is not paid at all: it is denied for one of many reasons: No Prior Authorization (Non-Auth), Not Deemed Medically Necessary (MedNec), Frequency (same CPT billed too many times within a contractually determined period (ask me about the ACOG, insurance companies, and pap-smears sometime!), and for many, many, many more reasons.
Finally, an adjusted code is probably the most common: this is a code whose paid amount is lower than the billed amount. You might see this on your EOB with a line like:
THIS IS THE AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED AMOUNT FOR A PARTICIPATING PROVIDER. THE MEMBER, THEREFORE, IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS AMOUNT.
If a CPT code is denied, someone will attempt to adjudicate that. They'll attempt to resolve the denial by providing medical records, correcting information in the claim (such as missing ICD codes which can bring into question the presence of a CPT code on a claim), or whatever magic they can because that's their job. In any case, someone will attempt to resolve it because, by God, we want our money.
Ultimately, the remaining balance may be sent to the patient, if the provider/insurance contract agrees the member is response for the remaining amount. If the patient has additional insurance, that will be billed in lieu of the patient, until the claim is satisfied (this doesn't always mean the patient pays, but usually they have some out-of-pocket, like a deductible, coinsurance, or co-pay, which are all different).
That's the process for an insured patient. What happens when an uninsured patient is billed?
They are billed the full amount.
Generally, a medical billing system doesn't distinguish between "patient with insurance" and "patient without insurance". A CPT code has a fixed initial price* (based on region, CMS guidelines, and a slew of other factors; consult a provider's legal/compliance office for more). A $200 Vitamin Deficiency Screening is $200 whether you're insured or no.
As I said in my linked comment, a provider may choose to negotiate with you if it wants, but they're under no obligation to do so. None, whatsoever. And what you pay, as an uninsured patient, will almost always be significantly higher than an insured one.
So, let's get back to:
NO ONE EVER PAYS
I wish that were true, but it's not--in lieu of adjustments, a provider may choose to finance (usually indirectly, such as having an arrangement with companies like CareCredit) the full amount first. Why? Because they will get paid the full amount immediately. They don't care that you owe Synchrony Financial a lot of money: they have theirs, your debt is not their problem.
And it isn't that these patients taking out a second mortgage on their home are stupid: they just don't know; they don't have a choice. When a provider sends you a bill and refuses to negotiate, you don't have a lot of good options.
One of my college professors told us about this. She had something around $30,000 in medical debt and called them and ended up only having to pay like $5,000.
We only get a 30% discount for cash services here, and you have to pay for it up front. For things that they can refuse you treatment on that is of course, not emergency services.
Most of the time debt is sold to collections agencies for pennies on the dollar. So they may get less than $5000 from the collections company. They would rather get more from you.
it already sounds shocking to me to spontaniously pay 5000 for a health issue
That's a pretty meager amount compared to other medical costs honestly. My father-in-law told me when my wife was born it was close to $15,000 (no insurance), and that was over 20 years ago. I, luckily, get free healthcare because I have a CDIB card but I could not imagine having to pay that much for something like my wife giving birth.
i'm just shocked because here in german i can't even imagine to pay for anything medical related except for super special things..
Yeah and what happened to her credit after that?
She called the hospital directly before it was sent to a collections agency, so I assume nothing. She basically told them she would pay that much cash that day and they agreed to it.
Nothing because medical doesnt show up on credit
Bull-fucking-shit it doesn't. I had to fight for months with a credit agency to get unpaid medical bills taken off of my report from when I was still a dependent. If it didn't hurt your credit, there'd be no reason to ever pay it off.
If you mean bills before they're due, yeah, but debt certainly does.
Yeah, it shows up when a collections agency buys your debt from the hospital.
Source: Medical debt on my credit.
It's based on a bill that no one ever pays.
People who do not have insurance are "nobodies" to you, I guess.
If you were well off enough to have the money to pay the bill, you'd have insurance. No body actually pays the bill.
Many people try to avoid bankruptcy so they do indeed try to pay off the bill they are stuck with.
Talk to the hospital and try to reduce your bill.
Their options are to
Work with you to get a portion of the bill back
Send you to collections and get pennies on the dollar for your bill.
If they don't want to work with you fuck them and let it go to collections.
Not the people with money though. Too smart to pay using their own.
"smart"
No, you just can't read. People that have no insurance are never given those inflated bills in the first place. It is ONLY a book-keeping trick that operates between the hospital and insurance company. They don't do it is an individual is paying.
Even if you look at the amount the insurance companies pay after they apply their negotiated discounts, it's still many many times more expensive than any other developed country in the world.
There's a reason why insurance premiums in this country are sky-high.
My cash discounts never shrink
Not really. It's based on a bill that no one ever pays.
And yet expenses for healthcare in America still add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars more over a typical lifetime compared to other countries.
LOL "no one ever pays" ... spoken like someone with insurance, which 30 million Americans don't have.
It's true, I'm not sure what part you are scoffing at. If you don't have insurance, you never even see the inflated version of the bill that they would send to an insurance company.
I'm scoffing at the fact that as someone without insurance, I have seen the inflated version of the bill and you are completely incorrect that "no one ever pays" that because the 30 million people like me, without insurance, do have to pay that insane bill. You are speaking from a point of privilege and you sound like a fucking asshole.
Did you pay it?
Yeah that's literally the fucking point I was making. I am still paying it off.
Since the words used were "saw the bill", I couldn't be certain. People don't always pay bills you know.
Yeah, the correct way to look at it is that people with insurance pay for it through inflated costs.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7693848&page=1
Yes, insurance works by the healthy buying into insurance for the unhealthy. Are you surprised by this?
That's not what I said.
I said, the insured buying into insurance for the uninsured. That is different.
love too pay for healthcare like i'm haggling with retirees at the flea market
My question is, why would you expect anything different. I'm serious. This is a service being provided to you and you only. The medical care you receive isn't going to anyone else, just you. Why on earth should anyone else be forced to foot the bill for your health?
are you aware of the concept of insurance
Health insurance doesn't operate that way though. In most cases, health insurers are taking premiums, investing them for a return and then using the initial investment and return to pay claims. This is why most people aren't seeing reimbursements year after year for violations of the 80/20 rule.
Yup. Got billed $800 for a simple X-Ray. It was just of my finger, at that. If you need any kind of surgery done, you’ll end up owing thousands.
X ray was about <$20 when I had to get it done in India. Is prices are ridiculous.
On the other hand our pay/income is about 1/5th of us
That's crazy. Broke my ankle few years ago, over 3 months I went for around 6 lots of X-ray's and had 3 each time. Had 2 casts (plaster and fiber glass) a moon boot, and a set of crutches. The bill came to $0 and I got to keep the moon boot and crutches. Thanks Australia!
I know. I’ve lived in Germany for around 16 years and hold dual citizenship, so I’ve experienced a far better (albeit imperfect) system of health coverage.
Over there I blew my knee out and had it reconstructed within two weeks. Then rehab and almost three months out of school/work. I kept getting paid and even received €2200 for my pain. I didn’t pay anything.
Remind me the tax rate in Germany again? Was it second or third highest in the world?
Your source has the US on par with Germany. What is the point that you're trying to make? I'd rather pay the same taxes I do now and get sick leave and fast, free healthcare. I would willingly pay much more of my income toward taxes if our healthcare and education systems looked like those in most of the rest of the developed world.
For those taxes you're also getting:
If you added up what an American paid for all those things you'd end up with a huge bill. My health insurance, between myself and my employer, is $1200 a month for a family of four. And it still doesn't cover standard blood tests, so I've got $900 in medical bills just from my kids' physicals this year.
Edit: I calculate my withholding pretty well to end up with zero tax bill, and I'm only paying $1000 a month in taxes, including Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. So I actually pay more just for health insurance than I do for taxes. So even if my tax bill doubled and I got what German citizens get as benefits I'd be coming out ahead.
According to the article you just linked, 9th. Depending on your household.
At least they actually get something for their taxes. In the US our taxes just go to people who are already rich and we get nothing in return. And then if you have to have a procedure done like /u/CaptSkunk, you end up in crushing debt or even bankruptcy if you can't afford to buy a broken-by-design health insurance plan.
In the US our taxes just go to people who are already rich and we get nothing in return.
Are you just venting, or do you actually believe this?
In terms of federal spending, there are roughly five, equal-sized categories representing 95% of the budget: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, the Military, 'mandatory misc', and 'discretionary misc'.
This leaves the military. Of their $600 billion dollar budget, one-quarter goes to the salary and benefits of the enlisted, commissioned, and working civilian staff. Even if you assume that every single last remaining dollar is being siphoned-off by the military industrial complex, and that the military doesn't receive anything in return (no planes, no guns, no aircrafts, no service or labour from contracted companies, nothing), it still represents less than 10% of the federal budget 'going to people who are already rich.'
Programs like SNAP are essentially massive subsidies to rich people, because it puts the burden of providing a living wage onto the public. I know we get some services for taxes, but the majority of it does just go into the pockets of wealthy people.
If the government mandates that any employed person must receive a wage high enough to make them ineligible for any public assistance benefits, two things will happen:
Some workers will have their salaries boosted, thereby eliminating their dependence on social welfare benefits
The remaining workers will be terminated, making them 100% dependent on social welfare benefits
Is your next criticism that food banks are also subsidies to "the rich?"
I mean, your source indicates that it has a relatively high tax rate for single, childless people, and pretty average tax rates for other demographics.
Let me put it like this.
I was in Tax Class 1. That is the most expensive tax class. Out of €1600 monthly, I kept about €1200 of it. The actual income taxes aren’t bad, it’s the social welfare fees that make up a vast majority of what gets taken out of your check.
Then, certain things are cheaper and certain things are more expensive than in the US. Food costs are generally a bit cheaper (except for beef and imported cheese, like cheddar) but gas is 3x as expensive.
Had an mri on my lower back. $4500. My insurance better get off it’s ass and pay that bill.
In Ireland I had a private mri in a private hospital. My insurance didn’t cover it at all.
I paid €200.
I could have waited 4 weeks and got a public mri for no cost.
I think i have paid less than 10 euros here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqLdFFKvhH4
Here is the video he is referring to.
My mom spent 2 weeks in the hospital due to a surgical infection and her bills were over a hundred thousand dollars .........with insurance
Here's part of my dad's bill for a heart attack:
https://imgur.com/99mjTLC
Luckily he didn't have another one after seeing it. Insurance covered basically 100% of it, I don't know exactly but my parents are financially still fine.
Yes. Just had a baby. 20k for prenatal care, 30k for the hospital stay for me, 11k for the hospital stay for the baby. My daughter got a 11k bill in the mail when she was 2 weeks old!
I doubt it. You'd need to have a least residency status in Spain to be eligible to receive health care at the same price that Spanish citizens get.
It could be what the "two years of living in Spain" is about, but as an non-EU citizen, you'd need to have certain assets or meet other conditions to be considered a resident - for example, Spain has a golden visa programme where an investment of €500,000 in real estate will gain your family residency.
I mean, it could work out cheaper, technically speaking, if you have the means to make it work. But if you do, you'd probably be able to pay for it in the US as well. But in theory, if you're just crunching numbers, sure.
Even without Spanish health care the prices are infinitely cheaper. The system in the USA just inflates everything ridiculously.
That's true, but even private hospital treatment is usually way cheaper elsewhere than in the US.
Private healthcare in Spain is much cheaper. Sometimes you don't wanna go through the wait times for some stuff and go private, and you wouldn't do that if the prices were as high. And for example, an xray is 20-60 bucks, not 800 like some people are mentioning in this thread in the USA.
And the only assets you need to live in Spain are enough to prove you can afford rent and eating on your own savings for the entire time there.
Public healthcare does not work for tourists, it works only for legal migrants. So you should have a job and you should pay taxes in Spain if you want to enjoy the Spanish healthcare system for free. If you’re a tourist or if you go to Spain only for doing a surgery, you (or your insurance) have to pay!
(note that this is not valid for european citizens; they can use free healthcare everywhere in the EU).
they are saying it's still cheaper to fly to Spain, pay the rate in Spain for surgery, get surgery and fly back to the US, and it'll still be cheaper than getting surgery at their local hospital.
Well, if so, I can’t say if true or not, because I don’t know the costs in the US.
I’m a doctor in Italy and there are not so many differences between Italy and Spain. I can say that a single day in hospital in Italy costs on the average 2000€ (8000€ in intensive care). Also the hip replacement costs 5000€ (only the surgery, excluding the cost of hip prothesis). I mean if you do a hip replacement, and you have to spend 7-10 days in hospital you’re paying 25000€ and this doesn’t include the cost of the hip itself but above all the cost of medicines, if you need them. This cost is only for staying in a bed and having the surgery. (For example you for sure need of antibiotics before and after the surgery, medicines for the pain etc). It’s likely that the cost, all included, can easily grow up to 35-40k €! It’s not so cheap, I think. Idk how much it costs in the US. If it costs more than the double, as said in the first comment, it’s really crazy.
PS: with public healthcare, you pay all this 40€ in Italy (a little tax for discouraging people by using the healthcare when it’s useless).
How much would paying for it in Spain run?
My understanding was that in the US it would cost $XX,000 without insurance and probably $x,000 with insurance. Where as elsewhere it would cost $x,000 the same amount without insurance to have it done in Spain for example..
But maybe my thoughts on this are wrong.
I don't know about hip replacement exactly but I know some pretty damn major surgeries, done in private hospitals, won't go past 10k euro. Public healthcare brings the costs down. An xray in Spain usually costs about 50 bucks, while I'm seeing people here mention $800 and numbers like that.
Yeah that's pretty normal for the US.
So, whatever major surgery you know of.. that doesn't go past 10k euro, if I wanted to fly there and pay out of pocket that much, I could yes?
Because it might cost 10k euro out of my pocket over season.. but they might charge the Insurance company 100k here.. and I could end up paying more than 10k still after insurance.
I mean you could also pay the ones that cost more than 10k, just get something you can afford. People often fly abroad for plastic surgery, you can do it just the same for regular surgery.
In addition btw in Spain tourism is extremely important, and medical tourism is seen as a great potential market by the government so you're unlikely to meet any administrative obstacles. After all, you're coming to spend your money in our country: you're getting the red carpet, man. Here's a study on the topic, if you wanna brush up your spanish in preparation
Hay que tener cuidado con este tipo de propuestas. Si se les atienden en el sector privado no hay problema, pero en el sector publico puede generar costes de oportunidad importantes, además de que si se hace muy popular obligará al sector público a un incremento de los costes fijos peligroso si la demanda de servicios de salud desciende, porque ese gap habría que pagarlo con impuestos.
Obviamente se les atiende en el sector privado, primero porque no cumplen ni el más mínimo requisito para acceder al público y segundo porque el plan consiste precisamente en generar ingresos, macho. Se nos da muy bien pasar la factura a los guiris, es la industria nacional número 1
I’m a doctor in Italy and there are not so many differences between Italy and Spain. I can say that a single day in hospital in Italy costs on the average 2000€ (8000€ in intensive care). Also the hip replacement costs 5000€ (only the surgery, excluding the cost of hip prothesis). I mean if you do a hip replacement, and you have to spend 7-10 days in hospital you’re paying 25000€ and this doesn’t include the cost of the hip itself but above all the cost of medicines, if you need them. This cost is only for staying in a bed and having the surgery. (For example you for sure need of antibiotics before and after the surgery, medicines for the pain etc). It’s likely that the cost, all included, can easily grow up to 35-40k €! It’s not so cheap, I think. Idk how much it costs in the US. If it costs more than the double, as said in the first comment, it’s really crazy.
Consider that hip replacement is a cheap surgery. Here http://www.ospedalecardarelli.it/doc/1092/134519/DOCUMENT_FILE_134519.pdf you can find a price list for surgery in Italy. It's in Italian, but at least you can read the numbers. Note that this table does not show the cost of private healthcare, but the cost of what in Italy we call semi-private healthcare: you pay, but you are in a public hospital. It's different, because the cost of "full" private healthcare is bigger, almost the double. The cost per day of a bed in a private clinic is very expensive.
PS: with public healthcare, you pay all this 40€ in Italy (a little tax for discouraging people by using the healthcare when it’s useless).
Thanks for breaking it down. This is great!
A hip replacement in the USA could very well potentially cost up to $100k if not more without insurance
Not if you have insurance. If you don't have insurance I don't think you can get a replacement anyways
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism_in_India
A hip replacement is like 50k-100k where I am without insurance 🤷🏽♂️
No, they are basing this on the “posted price”, which is then cut by 80-99% after the insurance company negotiates.
I had insurance , post deductions . I paid $30 for a nasal spray
When I was back in my country, that spray was 4$ (final bill)
Maybe not that example but the phenomenon is real. When looking into a surgery you really should consider getting it done in another country. It could financially worth it, it's your call though.
Yes. The average cost of a hip replacement in the US is $40,364. The average cost of a hip replacement in Spain is about $2,700. A round-trip, nonstop flight from New York to Madrid costs about $2,000. Average monthly cost of living in Madrid (for a single person) is $750. Average rent outside the city center of Madrid (1 bedroom) is $610.
$2,000+2x($2,700)+24($750)+24x($610)=$40,040
So, flying to Madrid, living there for two years, getting two hip replacements, and flying back to the U.S. would cost about $300 less than just getting a single hip replacement in the United States.
750 is pretty high for cost of living, I'm probably using 200 including food and transport and all other expenses.
200€ is way too low dude, specially for Madrid
If rent and utilities are paid separately, no it's not. For one person you can get groceries with half that, you can pay transport (if you need a hip replacement you probs got age based discount there) and even have enough to spare to buy misc stuff.
I spend 130€ only in food, and I live in A Coruña, way cheaper than Madrid. Pay 35 for fiber, ~15 for my mobile package, around 30 for water, and around 50 for electricity. I may be paying around 15€ for public transport a month and maybe 50 or so eating and going out.
I'm counting utilities (internet water electricity) as part of rent, which was listed separately. I pay ~600 a month with that included (18sq meters, mind you, but it's also the city center). And I have no idea what A Coruña is like for food, but I can't fanthom spending that much. En cualquier frutería aquí puedes comprar fruta y verdura para una semana por 5 pavos, en mercadona 10 filetes de pollo no llegan a 4 euros, por 3 euros tienes arroz y legumbres para un mes... Salvo que vivas a base de solomillo y salmón fresco, a mi esas cuentas no me salen.
Bueno, me gusta comer bien y variado :)
Uberfacts used to repost it all the time so it must be true.
I have a lot of health issues. Type 1 Diabetes complications land me in the hospital a lot. So far this year, I have medical bills adding up to over $76,000.
i had to get a few stitches in my leg it was $1500.
If I ever need stitches again at some point in my life, I'm just asking a friend to suture me up.
This is unfortunately real
Yes it is, My father lives in the States and usually comes back here (Perú) for medical purposes. It´s WAY cheaper to spend a few weeks here not working than having any operation in the US.
In my current country I paid $240 for three tooth crowns. Back in the US, easily $500+ for a single.
I once went to my own doctor and ended up with a $3,000 bill. For a physical and routine blood work. My doctor agreed that it was insane and got them to drop all the fees except an “unrefundable” fee for using the facility.
My insurance had changed and they didn’t catch that I had gone, as we call it, “out of network.” I didn’t know that either.
yes, but your insurance (assuming you have it) would pick up the remaining costs after your first $7,000 or so (deductible, varies a lot)
I had my appendix removed when I was 22. The procedure took about 45 minutes and cost over $20,000.
I spent a day in the emergency room, the bill was 14k. Lucky for me my insurance covered the entire bill except $50 of copay.
I'm pretty sure r/theydidthemath actually confirmed this one.
I work for a bankruptcy attorney. The number one reason I see people declare bankruptcy is medical bills.
I don't have any doubt. Medical vacations are now kind of a big thing. You go overseas, and they'll make it a 2-3 week vacation for you -- total pamperedness while you get your bones fixed. Flight, luxury accommodations until you're ready to travel again and the surgery, all for quite a bit less than what the surgery alone would cost in the US.
Many books have been written on the fucked-uppedness of the US healthcare system.
It is, I forgot who worked out the math but it’s true. Remember a hip replacement can be like $40,000 in the US. It’s absurdly expensive. And a little secret, the surgeon is only in there for the first incision and the bone parts. The rest is done by surgical assistants. It’s very common to have 4 patients on the table at a time.
Yup. Hip replacement in US costs about 40k. In spain it is under 10k.
Because most of the healthcare in Spain is paid by taxes, there's a lot of effort on ensuring it's efficient and costs aren't blown up. And as a consequence, the private sector has to keep up/profits from lower costs. There's no $100 gauze here, even the 1% would say "yeah fuck that".
Even private healthcare is way cheaper. I had sapphire brackets for 2400€.
Yes. I went to the ER for suicidal thoughts for one night. No medication. No treatment. Just a checkup and stayed there for a night.
Cost me 5k total. I could have taken a sabbatical with that kind of money.
Definitely. It’s awful. My friend was in a car accident and had to get his leg fixed. $150,000 bill. Obviously he couldn’t pay it.
Yes, with poor enough insurance (or simply none at all) this is 100% realistic
Yes, but at one point hop surgeries were monopolized in some way (I don’t remember how, but it may have been the equipment for replacement) so that they were more expensive than the normal American expensive
If you're uninsured, probably
So, my mother got a heart transplant in 2000, and it literally cost half a million dollars. So yes, for real. Edit: I'm not even counting the hospital stay or anything. Just the heart.
I don’t know the exact cost for a hip replacement but I had back surgery and it was $170,000... so I’m inclined to believe it.
Shoulda gone to Spain and enjoyed my scoliosis with a glass of fancy wine.
EDIT: spelling
Depending on which U.S. hospital you are comparing prices to, yes.
I am a US resident I crushed my heal falling from a tree and had to have surgery with some screws and such, insurance covered all but $1500 but without insurance it would have cost $70,000.
$100,000 for a heart attack or having 2 legs broken in a traffic accident
Yeah my dad and his gf flew to mexico to have some dental operation done
My mom had knee replacement surgery, it was $90,000 she's a senior citizen with both Medicare and private insurance so it was 100% paid for, for me with my insurance I'd be in debt for $18,000. My dad died of cancer, over a couple years his medical bills crested a million dollars, again dual insurance as a senior took care of it, with my insurance I'd be in debt for $200,000.
Yes, but you can also argue down your bill. They make them ridiculously high because they can, but if you contest, they'll lower them to a more "reasonable" price.
No it isn't, at least if you're insured. The American system is ridiculous in the sense that the sticker price is just a number, and the hospital doesn't expect anybody to pay it. After your insurance provider negotiates with your hospital, the price becomes relatively reasonable. If you don't have insurance, the hospital usually settles with you.
The American healthcare system is still broken nonetheless, but I'm astounded by the amount of misinformation here. You don't actually pay millions for a surgery...
Yup. Passed out due to diabetes once, two blocks from the hospital. Ambulance ride alone was $900. Two days under care was another $7000.
My credit is now so bad from medical debt that I am excluded from any job which has a credit check. It's almost impossible to rent a place due to my bad credit. From medical debt. Not that I can make rent anyhow, as my insulin costs $2800 each month since I can't get a job with insurance. And no, I'm not eligible for the Affordable Care Act coverage since my state chose not to get the Medicaid/Medicare expansion.
It's called "freedom" by my countryfolk.
The mere cost of having a child birthed in the good old U S of A is astronomical.
Easily. For teeth work, I'd probably head to Thailand and chill there for a while.
Is that before or after insurance?
Our system is stupid as hell, but it should be clear that we rarely pay the sticker price for medicine
Well, most rarely pay sticker or even billed price. There are millions without insurance though.
Are you sure Spain will actually offer healthcare for an American citizen at their regular price?
Probably not for free on their national system, but even private hospital treatment is usually way cheaper elsewhere than in the US, so it would probably still work.
No, they'd have to pay, but it would be significantly cheaper.
I doubt it. My family lived there for two years and we always had to pay for and use private insurance. AND my husband and two kids are dual Spanish/American citizens. I asked my husband about it and he said it had something to do with how we pay taxes. We paid Spanish taxes bc he was working there, so not sure about the details exactly. My point is that it's not as simple as it seems.
As an example, we're a pretty uncoordinated family and my daughter slammed the car door on her finger one day while my husband was out of town. So I took her to the hospital and once they figured out that we were not on public insurance, they treated us differently. Not only did they kind of talk down to us, but they would not take her for an x-ray until we found the business office and prepaid. Maybe if my husband had been there, it would have been different, but my Spanish isn't great so I couldn't ask questions and understand well. And this was in a nice suburb of Madrid where they should have had more experience with foreigners.
If you pay social security taxes you are allowed to use the public system for "free". You guys did something strange then. It doesn't matter if you are foreigner, as long as you contribute to the system, you go in.
Maybe that's what we didn't pay... not sure. We did everything by the books, accountants who were experts in international rules were in charge of it all and we paid whatever taxes were necessary. My husband's company was headquartered in England, we were living in Spain and of course the US wanted its cut. So however that was divided was how we paid. Maybe we paid social security taxes to the US so it didn't apply to Spain? Not sure, but I know my husband, being a native Spanish citizen, would have taken advantage of public health care if we could have.
Either way, my point is that it's not as easy as what people think... it's not like you can just show up and use their public health system. We had all sorts of connections and we couldn't.
I don't really get it. I know for a fact that you could've gotten staff that spoke your language, 100% coverage in any hospital in Spain, and even online help for like 51€ a month. When was this?
We lived there from 2014-2016. Trust me, it happened, and more than once. The first time, I thought "well it's just a fluke". But as I said, we're pretty uncoordinated so I had to go back with my kids (and without husband) more times and it was always the same. I did my best with my rusty Spanish and it was really obvious that English is our native language, so I never understood how they never found someone who could speak English. It's not like we speak some obscure language or anything. It was very frustrating, and I always ended up in tears. Another "favorite" experience was when another of my kids got injured on a Saturday so I went the same hospital that we went to previously. I was told that they didn't do x-rays on the weekend, and I needed to go somewhere else. I asked where to go and they referred me to a public hospital. I said that we have private insurance only, is that ok. They looked at me in disbelief and said no, we had to go somewhere else. It was amazing. So believe it or not, it happened.
Just go for the private sector. Still waaaaay cheaper than the US.
Sanitas is probably the most widely known https://www.healthplanspain.com
Just got dental work done in India for $700. I was quoted well over $6.5k in the US. Fortunately, I can work remote.
sapphire brackets costed me 2400€ in Spain
We've all seen the meme.
Living in Socal, I see a lot of people drive down to Mexico for dental work. Thanks thing said, my friend who's a dentist says to make sure you know what you're getting into cause he's seem quite some shoddy work from people who did that and needed more work done.
[deleted]
Sure, health insurance can be great. That's why I personally would love having universal health care that covered the basics (emergencies, annual check ups, chronic conditions not brought about by lifestyle, etc.) with a market for supplemental insurance. That way nobody has to set a broken bone at home because they can't afford an ER visit but if you want to get coverage for heart issues so you can live at an all you can eat buffet and not leave your family in massive debt when you eventually have heart problems, you can. Or if you want to pay a little each month to get bonus traumatic injury coverage from a private company, you can rest assured if your hand gets amputated you can get a bionic arm covered by your insurance.
A dogsitting customer of mine got appendicitis in Mexico and needed emergency surgery and three days of hospitalization. It was done at a state of the art facility and the entire bill was only $3500. It would have been hundreds of thousands in the US.
An Irish friend of mine says that people go to Poland for dental spa vacations when they need crowns or whatnot. They have a week in a hotel/spa and their procedure done for some outrageously low figure. She said this while complaining about the $6K she spent on a few dental procedures.
Someone I know, in his 30s, needed a hip replacement. He moved to Germany, got a job, got normal public health insurance.
His hip replacement cost 80 EUR in co-pays.
not the out of pocket cost but yes US healthcare financing is broken
I also saw that YouTube video.
No way, do you have some source? What are the average medical bills in America? If this is real I have no words
It’s from a video. Can’t remember which tho.
A nurse friend of mine who works at a large city hospital told me once that every now and then they get American "tourists" with very sudden ailments that need urgent surgery.
My grandma just had her hip replaced today for the price of 0€.
Dental is a huge issue too. For what it costs to do a tooth implant (~$3000), you can get a round trip to Argentina, get the work done and still have about $1000 to spare for food, lodging, or whatever else you want to do while you're there.
I'm in the process of getting an implant right now. I've paid $1600 already and owe another $4300 before they'll complete the procedure.
That's after insurance, which deemed this implant of my last remaining molar on the lower left mandible an "elective surgery" since it would be "less expensive to extract".
If you have $4300 and can wait a bit till you can travel, I can see about finding you someone that can do implants in Argentina if you're interested. Only thing is it'd probably be in Cordoba and most people are interested in visiting Buenos Aires.
I'll take the first four of those items please.
(Edit: If I'm in a situation where I need that sort of treatment.)
Well you couldn't get a hip replacement in Ibiza or you'd never heal! Death by snu snu.
God I love this analogy of how fucked up the american healthcare system is
I had a former coworker ended up traveling to South America for surgery because our health insurance wouldn't cover it.
Yes,but how many Americans have that kind of money lying around just in case they shatter their collar bone/arm/leg etc...
That smells like bullshit honestly. Maybe that's the uninsured price, but with decent health insurance that sounds incredibly unlikely.
Right but if you had health insurance you would only pay your deductible. If you didn't have health insurance you probably wouldn't elect to have that surgery unless you were covered under medicare/aid.
My grandmother who is in her 90s wants to get some new dentures for her bottom teeth... So some surgery to remove the bottom teeth, get fitted, make the dentures... All in all that costs about $5000, we don't have dental insurance and can't get any. Applied for a small loan and only got $900 towards it. So my grandma will likely only get half of her surgery done.
Actually considering how much it might cost to fly over to somewhere and do the surgery there instead.
Also Spanish lessons iirc.
See, these things are what make me irrationally angry. Like, if there was a single person responsible for this, I would be fine with martyring myself to kill him if it made everything normal again. And I’m a person who doesn’t like violence.
It’s a fucking scam really. Cut off healthcare and you ruin your economy, cause crime rates to inflate, cause political turmoil and lastly just flat out cause harm, going against their own hippocratic oath.
People want to have riots for things like sports results and random single crimes, yet no one wants to just go out and destroy shit because of the healthcare? Not to say they should, but just to say how ridiculous it is.
I’ve heard people defend the healthcare system, claiming that it’s better quality (studies have proven it isn’t) and that there are less queues... fuck, I’d rather wait 2 hours in the ER than have to pay $5000 for the privilege of waiting only 1 hour.
As a Canadian I cannot imagine going to the hospital and coming back with the equivalent of student loan or car debt from that visit. It's utterly insane how Americans stand up for it. Their whole health care/insurance/medication system is fucked.
[deleted]
Do you have any evidence outcomes of hip replacements in Spain are signficantly different from the US or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass to fit your narrative?
..It's almost as if you pay for quality...
But what you do have is cutting edge stem cell therapy from what joe Rogan tells me. You can't get that in the UK pretty sure same for EU l.
Not surprising. I bet he could have flown first class at that
Fuck that, dream bigger! you could afford Etihad's apartment
Never travel to the US (or anywhere abroad) without suitable travel insurance. I had my appendix out in Spain, and it would have cost my parents a fortune had it not been for travel insurance.
But why would you pay? You can just fly away and they can't do anything.
Depends on the country. American medical debt CAN follow you back to Canada and ruin your credit. This is why I never cross the boarder without travel insurance.
American with British fiancee here. Her travel insurance to come here is cheap, but she pays more because, the first time she had to go through the process, they told her, "yeah, you're gonna want the one that covers $1 million in expenses."
She was stunned by this. I was like, "yeah, sounds about right." If you are foreign and have a major medical issue in the USA without travel insurance, you're playing by our rules. I have "fixed" a broken finger, broken toe, and removed one of my adult teeth with a pair of pliers because no insurance.
Welcome to the third world.
Don't you have an EHIC card?
We did (though it was an E111 back then), but for whatever reason the local out of hours doctor sent me to a private hospital, presumably because he saw that we had insurance. I was a minor, so they also paid for my mother to stay with me beyond the original trip, her loss of earnings, and our flights home. It's not just getting ill/injured abroad that's expensive, there are other unexpected costs.
[deleted]
Don't forget your PIN number!
This is called RAS syndrome (where "RAS" stands for "redundant acronym syndrome")
Are you saying it would have cost a fortune without travel insurance in Spain, or that you were in the US when this happened?
I meant it would have cost a fortune in Spain. I'm from the UK, where we have universal healthcare, so have no idea about surgical costs, other than that they're expensive.
Shows my ignorance of the EU/UK and their health programs-- but I had read about people in the EU and Scandinavia going for medical care in Spain-- partly for the weather/vacation I imagine-- and the health system being paid for through whatever government provided healthcare they had.
Is medical care in Spain US-expensive?
I don't think it's particularly expensive in Spain, not in comparison to some countries. Mine would have been paid for by the British government had it been through the Spanish state healthcare system, but I went private, so they didn't.
it would have cost my parents a fortune
Actually, no.
Care to elaborate on your 'actually, no' comment? I was 13 in my example, so obviously wouldn't be paying myself..
Not Spain, but my wife had to go to the hospital in Germany and we didn't have travelers insurance, so we were worried about the cost. It cost her like $50 USD to see a physician and then about $150 to see a specialist twice. They gave us a receipt to give to our insurance back home, which we didn't bother to do, cause that's a damn bargain.
It would cost something in the four digits. Hardly a fortune.
This is true for anyone trying to get medical care out of their home country.
A friend from Germany broke his ankle playing paintball in Canada and needed surgery. His travel insurance paid to fly him home and get the surgery done in Germany, because it was cheaper for them than paying the international patient rate to get the surgery done in Canada.
Possibly safer too. US also had a pretty high malpractice rate. I don't have the specifics or data, but definitely recall hearing that as a common issue.
It's not a big issue. Malpractice and accidents happen to everyone in the medical field in or outside of the US. It's just that we have a lot more people/lawyers who chase down ANY possible way to sue.
We were sued for a person who botched a suicide in a house we rented to him. He intended on blowing himself up and almost succeeded. The shithead lived then sued us AND WON. Costing us millions of dollars in medical bill and we lost our house to the fire.
But he's talking about Canada, not the US.
Yeah, it's also probably more dangerous to do that flying with the injuries too.
Its a thing for some Americans to travel to other countries to get procedures done because even staying in luxury it’s cheaper. Some insurers will pay for it.
“Medical tourism”
You can get short term insurance plans for travelers visiting the US. Worth looking into if you're planning a visit.
Tell him to go to the hospital and skip out on the bill, that's what most US citizens do anyways.
A lot of Americans are calling Uber instead of an ambulance because while the ambulance has medical staff the Uber is many orders of magnitude cheaper.
I'm sure it's been said but just in case, even in Canada where health care is "free" if you are not Canadian it's stupid expensive.
Last time I was at a hospital in the waiting room was a sign that said if you are not enrolled in the system it will cost over $1200 just to see a doctor.
Some background info, it varies from province to province, in Canada you have no choice but to enroll in the health care system. It can cost from $0 to $75 a month for a single person. Children and students are $0. But you've been paying it your whole life, either directly or indirectly. It makes sense that if someone comes here who has had no part of the system should have to pay more, with the exception of travel insurance. Get travel Insurance!
Edit: when I say it's mandatory I mean they will just change you monthly and send you the bill. Your coverage never lapses, no matter what you owe. I once owed over $2000 for medical cause they just keep billing.
If you walk into the ER here in states, thats at least 1k right off. Any significant testing explodes the bills many times over.
My GF, now wife went to ER twice last Oct for severe abdominal pain in 24 hrs. On second ER visit they admitted her, 3 days later they found 2 stones in her biliary duct. Quick procedure and they were removed. 2 weeks later the bill comes in at 104k for the ER visits & hospital stay.
First class flight
All too real.
A relative of mine was in maintenance treatment phase of leukemia. You just need one shot of a medicine every month.
When she was visiting here, with papers from all UK certified docs, the hospital wanted to admit her as an inpatient to "run some tests to verify the diagnosis".
Cost? $24,000.
Cost of the shot? $120.
My dad used to fly from Mississippi to Florida just to go to the dentist because it was cheaper than going locally.
yup happened to me. while i was studying aboard in the states i had some stomach issues that wouldnt go away and was bed ridden for weeks. did a little math and figured i would save more money by flying BUSINESS CLASS back to Asia than checking in at a local hospital for treatment
Travel insurance. Seriously. Friend from Ireland got seriously injured over here. Travel insurance covered it better than my local insurance policy.
My friend was in a massive fire. 3rd degree burns over 90% it her body. In a coma/ICU (specialized burn unit) for over 3 months. In the hospital for at least a year.
I’m on of the few people who knew how much her final hospital bills were. They were between 2-3 million for the first year alone. She’ll need ongoing care the rest of her life.
She’s alive. I can’t believe she’s alive.
A friend of mine on holidays in the USA had his appendix nearly burst in Las Vegas a few years back. Fortunately his girlfriend had insisted they take out travel insurance, and his travel insurance excess of $100 paid the entire $47000 bill for his 32 hr stay in hospital.
Assuming back to the UK. Then yeah a flight from the USA costs what £800? Something like that? And once you get to the UK treatment is free. US hospital bills are going to be way more than that even for the easiest things, so yeah sound reasoning.
A friend of mine broke a rib in NYC (while living there), so she flew home to Sweden the same day and walked into the ER after landing. Takes some guts.
Okay, I'm depressed now.
Your friend is an idiot who should have had travel insurance.
How do you know he didn't?
You seem pleasant.
We in the UK must never take for granted the fact that we have both a public health system that's free at the point of service for everyone as well as private healthcare organisations who drive the innovation.
The fact that we have the best of both is an absolute miracle and the complete opposite of our railway system which is also split between public and private but gives us the worst of both.
Rail is one of the few services that should be publicly run. If the goal is to get more cars off the street to reduce congestion and pollution then by all means take over the trains and make them run better and cheaper. East coast, northern and southern rail certainly are not doing a good job of running it privately yet they are still being subsidised to the tune of £4.2 billion per year.
Oh the service of Arriva Wales
Let me count every way that it fails
The carriages rattle
We're crammed in like cattle
It's like the Titanic on rails
~~
The trains where we suffer the most
Are the ones on the Cambrian Coast
The train ceases to function
Just before Dyfi Junction
And we're left seven hours to roast
~~
A still greater source of our pain
Is the bus which replaces the train
The last one came through
Just before World War Two
And we've not seen the bastard again
~~
So take the Welsh trains if you must
But soon for a car you will lust
So much faster you'd go
Even an old Allegro
Is faster though it's ten percent rust
Went to Uni in Aberystwyth
This is accurate
Ha, me too. It was ridiculous having to go across and up into England and then back across rather than just going straight up from Newport / Cardiff.
A poem trashing Arriva trains on Reddit. What a wonderful world I live in.
Isn't East Coast being handed back to the government after only two years?
I hate our trains with a passion. The fact that there is absolutely no control over tickets sold and people allowed on the train or even the number of carriages is absolutely ridiculous. They should not be allowed to have a 2 carriage train trying to hold 3X it's capacity. I've missed a stop before because I couldn't get to the door in time.
When has a government taken anything over and made it better....
[East Coast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_(train_operating_company). Private operation fucked up so hard it went back to public operation. Generated profit (returned to government) and operated with exceptional punctuality. Then it got returned to private operation, who fucked it up again to the point it now needs to return to public operation.
All those down votes and only one person had something to say.I’ll look into east coast when I have time. Corruption and government run hand-in-hand.
You guys better fight to keep that shit. I've got a few dozen small tumors that I need to check out but they cost about $600 per needle to check. Had ultrasounds that were inconclusive and it's the next step. Unfortunately my insurance doesn't kick in for another $5000...such a beautiful system.
[deleted]
Huh? They're not life threatening in any way (at this point). They're painful and concerning but the ER won't treat it without billing me for it and the last thing I want after building my credit is a pending medical bill. Eventually it will come down to that but that's going to be my last resort.
Medical bills affect your credit rating!?!?!?!!?!??!?! O_O
Well nobody's gonna pay for someone with terminal cancer /s
[deleted]
Billing for the office or insurance? The insurance company basically said they would pay it and then send me a bill with their adjusted rates after treatment. Would I go to a new office and claim no insurance?
Enter Switzerland. We have both: a working public and private health system AND one of the densest railway nets on the planet, with ~90% of the trains arriving with a delay ≤ 3 minutes :D
I mean, these things are pricey, and we can't all make a shitton of money hiding Nazi gold...
Yea you guys definitely do a better job of split services than we do!
The problem with rail isn’t just that it’s private but more that it’s split into small regional monopolies.
If they wanted to privatise it they should have done it in a similar way to broadband. Where the lines are owned by one company and every train company can use them. That way the consumer would have a choice of the 8:00 train with one company or the 8:03 with another company and with both going to the same place. Then both companies would be properly competing against each other and have to provide better service or better prices to stand out.
As you say right now we have the worst of all worlds with no competition between companies, money syphoned off for profits that could be invested in the service and because there is no competition the companies have no real incentive to improve and they can screw customers with insanely expensive tickets.
Spot on. There are some small pockets of the country where this is true (e.g. Virgin sometimes overlaps with other services) but they're exceptions rather than the general rule.
Your rail system is still much better than Americas. Individual cities like NY might have a good system, but nationally its a joke.
Asking out of ignorance but is it really the case where you have crazy insane wait periods to have a procedure done. Every time the topic of a national health care or universal health care comes up in here in the US the opposition is always going on about how people can die because they had to wait a year to have a gallbladder removed or something insane. Like generally speaking do you really have any major downsides?
I can answer this: my mum had to have her gallbladder removed, but it wasn't due to a life-threatening condition. She had the choice to wait a few months to get it free on the NHS or pay for private healthcare. She chose to wait.
More important cases get put to the front. My dad had cancer and the waiting times for a tumour removal were about the same for both the NHS and private (it wasn't super urgent, it was malignant but had a very low chance of spreading any time soon). He payed for private, just because it's cushier, and his insurance paid for it in full. His company also gave him an insurance handout for the whole thing, as well as keeping him paid full salary for the half year of recovery and chemo. At the end of it all he bought a fancy holiday to celebrate beating it.
Sorry that last paragraph turned into a bit of a tangent, I was trying to highlight the differences between the UK and USA medical system.
No worries about the tangent I appreciate the response. That's kind of crazy to hear what your father's company did for him. I work in corporate benefits and I've counseled here and there about employee benefits and I can't imagine a company doing something like that usually it's just like a LTD plan at like 60 to 80 percent of base pay.
Thanks again for response I appreciate it. Also congrats to you father for beating cancer that's awesome to hear!
He's quite proud. He's actually going to be working in America the next couple months so I'm sure he'll miss the benefits. I think it specifically helped in his case that his company is an insurance company, and because he's been working there for almost his entire career. I think company loyalty is a bigger thing here, and it actually gets rewarded. He's a very smart man who they didn't want to lose.
I'll pass on your congratulations, all the best!
[deleted]
Yes, this is what Americans often misunderstand - you do get private health insurance in the UK, just like you do in the US. The NHS is what you get when you can't or don't want to pay. Absolutely no one forces you to use it, but a lot of right-wing Americans make it sound like it's literally your only option if you get sick in the UK.
if you're unhappy with the wait time and you can afford it, you can use a private hospital, or private insurance.
And you'll still end up paying significantly less than someone in the US
Right, but when you pay 60% of your paycheck off the top, to have to pay out of your cut for even more healthcare costs? Ends up being more expensive than just paying for your own insurance.
60% tax fucking WHAT? Where are you pulling these figures from
He's pulling those figures out of his arse. He doesn't know how taxes work.
Got it mixed up with Sweden where it is 60%. It's 40% in Uk, but 50% if you make over 150k a year.
You pay 20% in Income Tax on everything OVER 11.8k (so say you're earning 13k a year, you're paying 20% of 1.2k).
National Insurance I think you pay about 12% of earning above £160 a week?
On a £15k a year job, you're paying like 1.5k a year total in tax. It's basically peanuts and it's well worth it for the NHS alone
In America if you make 15k a year, we pay you. Earned income tax credit is pretty dope for those down on their luck. And at 160 a week thats like 750 bucks, so like 9k a year. That's more per month than my family pays for really good insurance plus our monthly payment. And we had some major shit happen a few years ago that is just about payed off.
I really don't think you understand how our tax system works
How so? The earned income tax credit? I know exactly how that works because i received it for years. Made next to nothing and got like $1500+ back every year for a decade.
Jesus, how dull are you? Have you not clocked on that I'm from the UK, not the US? By "our" tax system I meant the people of the United Kingdom
Is it 60 percent in Sweden? I only ask because it's DEFINITELY not 40 percent in the UK.
Source. Pay UK taxes
Do you know how taxes work? They don't take 50% of everything.
Firstly, no one in the UK pays 60% in tax. Secondly, per person the US government actually spends more tax revenue on healthcare than the UK, despite most of the system being privately funded.
There's lots of excellent information available on this subject, but to summarise, the average American is being robbed blind for the healthcare coverage.
Despite less than half of the USA’s total healthcare expenditure coming from government expenditure or compulsory insurance schemes, it still spends more per person on these financing schemes than the UK- £3,111 in the USA in 2014, compared with £2,210 in the UK. In the USA spending on privately-funded healthcare is over five times more per person than in the UK.
Right, but when you pay 60% of your paycheck off the top, to have to pay out of your cut for even more healthcare costs? Ends up being more expensive than just paying for your own insurance.
LOL. The average person in the UK is paying $1,520 less compared to what the average American pays towards public healthcare. Overall, over the course of a typical 80 year life the Americans care will cost $425,000 more than in the UK.
Next argument.
Ya skipped over my other responses to people and went right to being a snotty cunt, don't think that is a good way to expect a friendly response or any kind of conversation.
Yes, I understand. You post utter bullshit and when anybody calls you on the facts it's them to blame.
I literally admitted i was wrong and had confused the numbers with Sweden, pull head from ass.
I don't see how that changes anything.
Location|Health spending, Total|Government/compulsory|Voluntary, US dollars/capita,2016 :--|--:|--:|--:| Sweden|5,487.5|4,603.3|884.2 United States|9,892.3|4,860.1|5,032.1
https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
How does Sweden spending $256.80 less per person per year on public healthcare spending make it more expensive than paying taxes plus insurance plus deductibles plus out of pocket in the US? The fact of the matter is they pay over $5,400 less all said and done per person per year on healthcare.
Your entire comment chain is just full of fail.
... the US has crazy wait times for a lot of stuff, too, it's important to note. My current state average like six months to get into see a psychiatrist, and four to see a therapist, and that's for issues like "feeling suicidally depressed", forget more minor stuff.
On yeah I know. Thankfully I'm pretty healthy so I haven't had to personally go through that. My friends though where she lives has had to wait almost 6 months for a gallbladder surgery which if where the whole wait times argument never made sense. I also don't play the "well just be healthier" card because accidents happen and someone your body just decides to screw you over for no stupid reason (looking at you appendix).
Not to mention almost 100 million Americans are putting off needed medical treatment because they can't afford it.
A couple of weeks ago my mum went to the doctor as she had a chest infection. They gave her an x Ray and sent her home. The next day they called her and asked her to come in for a blood test, and another visit to her doctor. Doc said they could see something in the lung and the blood tests weren't normal. A day later she had a CT scan, a week after that she had a PET scan and a consultation with a senior doctor. Next week she is booked in for a biopsy to see if it's benign or malignant. I don't like to imagine how much more worrying it would have been for her to be thinking about bills and invoices and copay and insurance at this time and God knows how much of a bill those diagnostics would have caused in the US, and it has seemed pretty speedy to me.
[deleted]
I mean last time I was in hospital after a motorcycle crash o actually did have a private room with hdtv but your point is definitely valid
That's a fair question. The wait times vary massively depending on what the procedure is, how well-staffed the hospital is, whether there's complicated aftercare that needs to happen at a particular time and what it's availability is, etc. I can only imagine how complicated it is to run such a huge organisation that manages such complicated issues, especially when its funding isn't necessarily based on its performance.
So there definitely are major downsides and sometimes peoples' illnesses do get worse because of wait times and sometimes people die, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
The classic centre-right answer is that if it weren't publicly-funded then taxes could be lowered and people could then afford private healthcare, but that simply won't happen — healthcare is ridiculously expensive so the outcome will be the same, there will always be people who can afford special treatment (private healthcare) and a great many more who can't, but if there's an NHS then there will at least be a service that exists in the first place that attempts to treat people who can't afford an alternative.
So yes, it's far from perfect, but it's the lesser of two evils by a huge margin.
The cost topic is kind of interesting to me because here in the US we've for Medicare which general eligibility starts at age 65. Throughout one's entire working life one pays into this program. Which only really gives you a basic hospitalization. Meaning if you just go in to your normal doctor without the other parts of Medicare (which have a premium associated with them) you don't have standard office visit coverage or prescription coverage.
I agree with you though on it being the better alternative to just nothing at all. Because yeah there is a wait time jut at least there sounds like a solid chance that you'll at least get the treatment you need. In the US no coverage means nothing, that wait here is just for the condition to get worse and potentially pass away.
Also your correct removing the NHS sure would reduce taxes but if that reduction isn't around the $5000 per year mark (which is a serious low ball figure) your in a worse off position.
Asking out of ignorance but is it really the case where you have crazy insane wait periods to have a procedure done. Every time the topic of a national health care or universal health care comes up in here in the US the opposition is always going on about how people can die because they had to wait a year to have a gallbladder removed or something insane. Like generally speaking do you really have any major downsides?
The idea that the NHS system leaves people with treatable conditions to die is frankly absolute fucking bullshit.The area, in my opinion, in which the NHS excels is acute and life-threatening care.
If it can kill, seriously disable you or can develop into something more serious you aren't going to have to wait very long.
To use your example, If you turn up to the emergency department with a gallbladder issue that requires surgery you will likely get operated in the next few hours, or if not urgent but symptomatic in next couple of days. Recently my dad had a gallstone, first time ever, went to a&e, had his gallbladder out within 36 hours. This was all in a busy hospital with a bad reputation.
Another example would be suspected cancers must be seen by a specialist within 2 weeks of presenting to their doctor.
Now on to the negatives. The stuff it does poorly on is things that aren't going to kill you.
Got an annoying skin rash that isn't an autoimmune condition, you might wait a few months for a dermatologist to take a look.
Dodgy knee, but nothing to debilitating, just irritating, a few months for an orthopod to have a look, maybe a few more for an MRI, nothing of particular note on your scans, refer to physiotherapist, another month or 2 and even then maybe only a couple of appointments with them. 6 months later your knee still hurts and nobody has really given you much help other than painkillers and avoid aggravating activities.
Infertile and trying for kids, sorry this health trust can no longer afford IVF, you'll have to either move to another area where the trust can still fund it or stay and pay out of pocket.
The negatives use to be less of a problem when there was more funding, but we have had approx 10 years of real term cuts to what was already an extremely frugal (but efficient) system.
That being said it's not a sacred cow and if there are ways that provide safe, effective and good value care beyond current practice, I'm all for it (I'm just not sure what exactly that would entail).
If only the tories would raise the funding instead of cutting it :((((
The NHS is great for major life threatening things. For those you will be seen very quickly and get excellent treatment.
The longer wait times come for more minor things. When you hear those stories they are also worst case scenarios. For the majority of people whatever it is gets taken care of reasonable soon.
If you can afford private healthcare though it will be much faster. As an example when I was a kid I had a lump under my eye lid and on the NHS was told it would be about 3 months before I could get it removed, luckily my mum had private healthcare through her job, after she asked if I would be covered and found out I was I was seen and had the operation to remove it all done in about a week.
So you can have both running at the same time? I guess it's loosely simular to Medicare here in the US. Essentially you've got a baseline government insurance and then you can have an additional private plan on top of it.
I suppose the major difference is that it sounds like the NHS program is full coverage vs the our Medicare is only 80%.
No its not like Medicare at all. The UK doesn't have any government provided health insurance plans.
I guess that's were I'm not making a connection. My entire professional life is about insurance and corporate benefits so that's just were I default to. So it's essentially just like a straight up service like a library. It's a "free service" (I know it's paid through taxes) that one can go to and they'll see you but depending on what you've got going on you may have a wait ahead of you.
Right. The hospitals and clinics are publicly owned and the services are public services. Like libraries and schools and fire departments in the US.
Having medical insurance for basic stuff is like having to buy "fire insurance" and then finding a private fire station that takes it in order to have them put out your fire.
Which is, not all too unsurprisingly, the way the US used to do it before they realized that was fucking stupid and maybe they should do it the way everyone else did.
Interestingly enough, ambulance services used to be public services in the US and seen as being similar to fire services but have since been privatized.
having to buy "fire insurance" and then finding a private fire station that takes it in order to have them put out your fire.
We actually did used to have this too, you'd have a plaque on the front of your house and they'd only spray down a fire if it was spreading to covered houses.
I have private insurance in America and have a literal broken back. I won't be seeing a surgeon for a consultation until next month because there aren't any available in my network until then.
I would love to pay nothing for this level of service, but instead I'm paying more than a hundred dollars a visit. Clearly delays can happen even when you're paying for it.
I have a 3 month wait to see a neurologist about some kind of visual processing disorder, after having seen a series of eye test people in those eye test shops, then specialise eyesight doctors in the hospital. It's a bitch to wait, but at the same time it's not really life threatening or even much of an issue that needs to be sorted right away. I'm sure if I went private I could get it done in like a week or two, and it is true that the NHS is being underfunded which is causing a lot of these issues, but the solution is not to remove the NHS, it is to properly fund it.
as well as private healthcare organisations who drive the innovation.
Oh hey (American here) somebody tell that to our fucking politicians - they're always going on about rationed care in the UK and Canada and how the Brits come to the US for "real" medical care.... But what part of your healthcare system is in private hands? Just the pharma companies and research, or more?
There are a few private healthcare providers but the only one I can name off the top of my head is BUPA. Either way, it's fairly clear to all that the NHS has neither the time nor the funding to research or innovate so all of that comes from the private sector where competition drives improvement.
Well that's just utter nonsense.
The NHS / public service does a huge amount of (world class) research.
There is a huge amount of research that is publicly funded in the US by way of federal grants to universities - but then it mysteriously winds up in the hands of pharma companies that then extort money till their patent runs out.
t's fairly clear to all that the NHS has neither the time nor the funding to research or innovate so all of that comes from the private sector where competition drives improvement.
I don't know enough about the UK to know if it's specifically the NHS funding it, but 45% of the 7.64 billion pounds spend on research in the UK (as of 2012) was publicly funded.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/publications/SpilloversFINAL.pdf
railway system which is also split between public and private but gives us the worst of both.
At least you have a rail system. Most cities in the US don't. I would take shitty public transportation over no public transportation any day
I wouldn't call the NHS the best but I'm definitely glad for it. I worry for it's future if it continues to be neglected.
Can I vote for you in the next GE? (in about 3 months at this rate..)
Yet your railway system is still better than the US one.
Also the reason your people were forced into the NHS is because of the wars. It was easier, and cheaper to care for the whole.
I recently watched an hour-long YouTube video on the train situation in the UK. It was honestly riveting and completely baffling.
Link? I'm genuinely curious.
Upon research, my memory was incorrect: the video is 16+ minutes long, I just marathoned a bunch of this guy’s stuff and it all mushed together in my mind, my apologies.
Also a lot of his other videos (and this one) are left-leaning and/or outright political, so YMMV.
https://youtu.be/nP95Frc0v4k
This exactly.
Hear hear. We are indeed, very fortunate.
This also works for Spain, our health care system is one of the very few important things we are some of the best at.
[removed]
Our in-city transport links are great, it's our national rail services (city to city) that are bad. Ridiculously expensive and constant delays and cancellations.
Before trash talking your railways, you should try catching a train in Australia. It sucks dick.
And watching Michael Portello in Great British Railway Journeys makes me think you have t the best railways with all that rich history.
Complain about your railway when you’ve lived in LA, my friend. The UK railway is a goddamn beautiful masterpiece lol
Sydney here. Pretty sure your rail system can't be as bad as ours
Don’t try to take a train anywhere in the US. It’s next to impossible.
Every time I read about this I feel like I am in a third world country.
We in the UK must never take for granted the fact that we have both a public health system that's free at the point of service for everyone
It's not free, of course. You're just paying for it in a different way.
Yes but as I've said elsewhere, I said "free at the point of service".
Ahhh, did not catch your meaning.
And thus concludes the shortest disagreement in reddit history :D
We pay about the same amount in tax as people in the USA
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, our tax rates in the UK are pretty close the US.
My guess is because the Americans that don't believe in universal healthcare don't like to hear hard truths. Though I don't notice down votes as I don't even know where they are lol. Not very savvy lol.m
"Free"
I've got great news! When talking about nhs and other tax funded things Literally everybody knows it's paid for by taxpayer's. So you don't need to point it out.
Apparently someone does because people keep saying stuff like "our free healthcare system..."
Yeah! By which they mean "free at the point of use".
Doesn't need to be said
You're like the twentieth person who questioned my use of the word "free" without realising it's immediately followed by "at the point of service".
I don't know why you feel that distinction is relevant because it's still not free. Somebody is paying for it.
That's not the point.
The person who goes for the service, as in, requests the usage of it, pays nothing at the point of service (the medical facility).
I mean if they pay taxes then yes they do, even if they don't pay taxes somebody is in fact paying for it.
How much money does the person pay before their treatment? Nothing
How much do they pay for their stay in hospital? Nothing
How much do they pay for any check-ups? Nothing
Again, at the point of service - We know it's not free, we know we pay our taxes to fund it - But it doesn't cost us a penny when we request the usage of it at the time we require the usage of it.
It's an absolutely essential distinction because an individual may not be able to afford the treatment for a particular condition but we as a whole can.
For example, if I got cancer there's no way I could afford the treatment but that's ok because the cost is offset and paid for by everyone. Similarly, there are people who are far poorer than me who couldn't afford basic prescriptions but that's ok because the cost is offset by me.
To quote myself, it all comes down to how you think about other humans and when you're used to thinking this way the very idea of a country that thinks differently feels cruel and inhumane.
Oh hey, it's the idiot that has to show up in every thread like this and intentionally misinterpret something everybody else understands just fine in order to mock people over their strawman.
[deleted]
I didn't say it's free, I said it's "free at the point of service".
We are not "forced to pay thousands of dollars a year", rather it's funded from a general pot of the various taxes and duties the government collects.
Everything from PAYE to Vehicle Excise Duty goes into the it and we pay it gladly because it keeps people alive, as well as funding a plethora of other free-at-point-of-service things that we take for granted everyday like education or refuse collection.
And despite what you may think, even though I pay a shocking amount of tax on my income and rarely use the NHS myself I'm more than happy for my money to fund it for other people because, to quote myself, it keeps people alive.
Once you've lived in a country that thinks that way about other humans you find the idea of living in a country that doesn't think that way about other humans a little disturbing.
[deleted]
You're right, I did say "free", then I said "at the point of service". If you stick those together you get "free at the point of service'. Now with that out of the way...
I do like paying for other peoples' healthcare and I like other people to pay for mine. If I get cancer there's no way in hell I could afford the treatment but that's ok because it's subsidised by people who earn more than me. Similarly, there are some people who couldn't afford to have a tooth out but that's ok because they're subsidised by me.
Like I said, it all comes down to how you think about other humans.
And be careful about conflating civil liberties and not paying a certain taxation — presumably you pay sales tax, tax on petrol, probably on your private healthcare bills too. Does that mean you don't have freedom? Of course not! But you can't have rights without responsibilities.
Also a lot of Americans forget that not only do they already pay taxes towards healthcare, but their healthcare taxes are way HIGHER than other countries with universal healthcare (an average of about $4000 in the UK per capita per year, versus $9000 in the US). So the average Brit spends $4000 per year for all our healthcare, while the average American spends $9000 just in taxes, plus the cost of their own insurance contribution, plus copays, plus deductable, plus prescription costs, plus other out-of-pocket expenses...and after all that your insurance company might find some reason not to cover you.
I didn't know that. How is it funded though? State-level?
[deleted]
So you're forced to pay for insurance or to pay a massive bill at the point of service or die. Well done. You've clearly won.
(I can choose between free at point of service or private.)
[deleted]
you are not obligated to pay your bills regardless
Can you please explain this bit?
pay at point of service
This doesnt happen
That's literally how it works. When your treatment ends you get a bill and either you pay it or you claim on your insurance. That is payment at the point of service.
Conversely, in the UK it's funded by the national budget, meaning when your treatment ends you aren't even exposed to the fact that costs were incurred, you just walk out the door and go home.
pay at service or die
pay after treatment
Pick one and edit your first comment
"Pay after treatment" is the same as "pay at point of service". I only changed the wording to illustrate what happens when you yourself are in hospital.
I'm not at all clear on what your point is. Can you please explain which part of this you disagree with, with regards to healthcare in the US:
When your treatment ends you get a bill and either you pay it or you claim on your insurance. That is payment at the point of service.
You’re just going to run circles around admitting it. Ive already made the clarification
Ok so either the conversation ends there or you can explain yourself and maybe we can move forward. Your choice :)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Fucking hell this must be satire
And me paying for insurance is less than what you are FORCED to pay every year.
Right, let's work the numbers on this. According to this, about £402bn of the UK government's tax income comes from individuals. There are about 30 million tax payers in the UK, meaning each individual pays about £13,400 in taxes each year on average. Of this, about 20% is spent on the NHS. This means that, on average, each taxpayer pays about £2680 towards the NHS each year, which is about $3600.
According to this, workers paid on average $4,823 towards their coverage in 2014, which is more like $5100 adjusted for inflation.
So if you enjoy being foeved by your government and not having any choice - great!
So if you enjoy being forced by medical companies to bend over and let them fuck you up the arse - great!
you are FORCED to pay for sub-par shitty government healthcare
Yes the UK government does a god-awful job of managing most things, but the NHS isn't once of those. According to the WHO, the UK has the 18th best healthcare service in the world. This is compared to the US, which is a dismal 37th place, and even Canada, which is touted by some Americans to be the pinnacle of healthcare, only ranks 30th.
We in America choose freedom and self reliance.
We in Britain tend to chose helping others (you know, that thing America used to be great at).
Congrats.
EDIT: Going to quote his message as he decided to delete it:
An individual American pays less per year for OPTIONAL insurance than you controlled and subservient Brits are FORCED to pay.
Enjoy your blunted kitchen knives, as you continue to give up all your freedoms, happily, as you lay on your backs, showing your yellow stomachs like cowards.
We Americans - being free and self-relient - will continue our tradition of being the most generous donors to charities and non-profits on the planet, and relying on each other (not a government) to take care of each other.
All the while maintaining our liberty and choice.
We are not weak blabbering children like the British, who need an overwhelming central authority to tuck them in at night, who excitedly and happily continue to brag about how many rights they continue to give up.
Bravo, you pathetic, inept cowards.
That's the end of what he put.
And my response:
An individual American pays less per year for OPTIONAL insurance than you controlled and subservient Brits are FORCED to pay.
Did you even read what I wrote? Like at all? An individual American pays on average MORE per year for insurance than a British person, as shown using statistics and logic, rather than pulling facts out of your arsehole. You really aren't helping the dumb American stereotype.
So in America you aren't forced to pay anything? You have no taxes? You are free to do whatever you want and there are no rules to stop you? Wait, that doesn't sound quite right.
You know what's nice? Not having mass shootings in the news every other week. You know what's also nice? Not having police shoot innocent people.
will continue our tradition of being the most generous donors to charities and non-profits on the planet, and relying on each other (not a government) to take care of each other.
You're doing it again. You're pulling shit out of your arse. Looks like you're surpassed by Switzerland, Holland, Australia and a bunch of other places in terms of charitable giving. And how much of that money goes to megachurches to buy the televanglist another private jet?
All the while maintaining our liberty and choice.
Ah yes, the choice made as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
brag about how many rights they continue to give up.
I will admit that it is a shame how many rights we may end giving up, as we get closer to the raging bonfire which is the US. It would be a shame if we lost paid maternity leave, which is a right we currently enjoy that the US seems to have failed on. We enjoy the right to avoid racial persecution which seems rather prevalent in the US south. We enjoy the right not to be governed by a baboon with a fake tan. All of these are rights which we have which seem rather absent for you.
Bravo, you incompetent moron.
The thing is since you're always going to be forced to pay taxes, what other taxes can be better than ones that save people?
The federal governement pays more for healthcare per citizen compared to European countries. Your taxes are going to it even if you don't get anything in return.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That's fine if you enjoy being forced ro pay for other people's healthcare.
How exactly do you think the entire premise of insurance works?
Enjoy your freedoms? You sound like some entitled prick. Our education system is shit and medical expenses are really fucking high you degenerate
Speak for yourself, chud.
[deleted]
The UK spends less per capita on healthcare than the US.
www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-42950587
[deleted]
Oh man. There really is no hope for you.
These dipshits are such a stain on my country. Thankfully we've mostly herded them into the shittiest states
Not by that much. by 0.8% according to your statistics. I am not counting the private/"voluntary" schemes.
Holy fucking shit. If the us govt spends one fucking penny more than the UK govt ot blows every argument about socialised health care out of the water
That is not the point, I am just stating that it isn't that much of a difference.
Not free, but it is at no additional charge.
What you're saying is like saying amazon prime doesn't have free shipping.
[deleted]
Irrelevant to the point being made.
[deleted]
Doesn't matter.
The only point I'm making is that "free" is often used to describe things that are really included with some other payment, be that a subscription or taxes.
Arguing against that is just semantics.
Of course everybody knows that their taxes pay for services. Pointing it out like some kind of gotcha is ridiculous.
Literally everyone in the UK is fine with "being forced" to put money towards caring for the sick and saving lifes. To be honest I'm pretty appalled by the many Americans who selfishly don't care about other people's medical needs. Nobody chooses to be injured or sick, it's not fair that they are bankrupted by something they can't control.
And the couple grand pounds we pay each year is far less than the amount we would have to pay for breaking a leg, so it seems like a pretty sweet deal.
[deleted]
We in America take care of ourselves and each other
Literally any ranking on happiness, health, education, says you do it worse than others. How come?
People really need to get over that the US is 'the land of the free', they rank poorly on pretty much any ranking that has to do with quality of life, and they're steadily falling. If you pull up more negative rankings, like corruption, the US has most other western nations beat.
[deleted]
How much wealth a country has as a whole bear no meaning on the quality of life of the general population in a country like the US. Your middle class is so shit off compared to the rest of the western world it would be funny if it wasn't sad.
Business do well in the US because big business is subsidized by your taxpayers, who as a whole ends up worse off because of it. Businesses thrive in the US because they have no obligation to pay back to the public, they get tax cut after tax cut, they're 'too big to fail' when they do and then you have to bail them out, is that freedom for anyone besides big business? There is literally no link between "being the largest, most powerful nation and economy on the planet" and how content with life your population is. By your measurements, the Chinese are the second best off people in the world.
Do you call living paycheck to paycheck freedom? Not having time to do what you actually want to do, because you need to work overtime constantly in order to make ends meet?
[deleted]
Is your situation representative of the rest of the US population? There are statistics done regularly on how big a percentage of poor people of different countries manage to escape poverty, the US ranks badly there, too.
I didn't say the Chinese were free, I was saying that by your measurement, which was "being the largest, most powerful nation and economy on the planet", the Chinese should be the second best off people on the planet, how come they're not?
I am a millionaire now at 32
lol
America is the land of opportunity.
lol
We are the envy the world
lol
[deleted]
clearly in america you don't take care of each other if you wouldn't choose to contribute towards a national health service that saves other people's lives without leaving them with massive debt
Cool, how do want to pay my medical expenses? Check or cash? Paypal?
[deleted]
What if you can't afford insurance? Poor people get sick too?
AWWW you have to get insurance and charities to help you with your medical bills? What happened to being self reliant and not needing people to take care of you? Pretty sure those were your words in another comment
Your healthcare is shit and your country is a such a catastrophe it's almost comedic
They also advocate not paying medical bills, as if there's no consequences to doing so
But you said
We in America take care of ourselves and each other and do not require the government to do either.
Then you moved to
Somebody else in America may help you, if you're in enough need, oh, and just take care of yourself instead of depending on others
Also, "just get insurance" is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Just get insurance" and all medical expenses go away? Is that the candyland you think this country is? Because it's absolutely not the case, at least not for most people.
How can someone be so completely blind to reality? If I were religious, I'd pray for you
Brit here Blunted kitchen knives? Literally only heard that from Americans on Reddit!
I've lived in the UK for 5 years and personally never paid a single dollar. Weird.
Because they use pounds?
Yeah, that was the joke. It made sense before the comment above was deleted, I promise! :)
Yeah, last time I had to call 911 I had to check with the paramedics that the hospital they were taking me to accepted my insurance. Which, when you think about it, is completely ridiculous.
Maybe it varies by state/insurance/etc but I was under the impression that ER trips were covered by insurance regardless of whether the hospital generally accepts it. I went to the ER last summer and later found out that I went to the hospital that doesn't take my insurance (there's an insurance/hospital war of sorts going on in Western PA). However, because I went to the ER my trip was handled by my insurance and I was guaranteed coverage with any doctors/surgeons/etc from that hospital for 90 days following.
(Although, on the flip side, I was injured in OH and we drove back to PA to avoid out-of-state insurance costs, so this isn't necessarily the most shining example :P )
ER trips were covered by insurance regardless of whether the hospital generally accepts it.
Definitely depends on insurance. There's a whole range of possibilities.
As an American, I am jealous of NHS and Germany’s health care system. I wish we had something like that in America. However our politians have convinced our people it’s not in our best interest
You mean it’s not in the insurance industry’s best interest.
Won't somebody please think of the job providers?
To me the insurance system was always the heart of the problem. I never understood why the ACA focused on getting everyone affordable insurance and not just getting rid of insurance
$$$$$$$$$$$$ and $$$$$$$$$$$
And they lobby the politicians...
Socialism is great for the politicians that utilize government run healthcare, yet they do a great job telling people that it is terrible for them.
Socialism might as well be communism for some people.
I'm trying hard to decipher this. Do you think socialism is "when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does the more socialister it is?" (quote from Carlos Marcos)
He's saying that our politicians are provided free healthcare at taxpayer expense, and then turn around and preach how it would be socialism (a four-letter word in many American circles, and frequently misused) for Joe Q. Public to get the same. It's USDA-certified Grade A hypocrisy.
It's an amazing feat to convince people that healthcare that won't bankrupt you if you use it is not in the interests of the average man.
If you break it down to the individual level, a lot of people will do better under single payer but a lot of people will also do worse. My wife and I are by no means rich but under every plan that has been presented in the US we would pay considerably more in taxes than we pay now for our insurance. Even if we maxed out our out of pocket portion every year we would still pay more.
So you can make the argument that some people (mostly the poor and lower middle class) would benefit, but the upper middle class and above would come out behind in the deal.
Not necessarily, the NHS provides care at a much lower cost because they're able to negotiate at large scale. Also, not all taxes come from income tax.
Most of the plans in the US consisted of payroll taxes and employer paid payroll taxes.
One thing that never seems to be addressed is that the us will always be significantly more expensive than the UK for medical costs. This is because we pay our healthcare workers decent wages. Labor costs make up a bit over 50% of healthcare costs. A brand new RN in the US on average makes about 2.5x what a new nurse in the UK makes. In MN a RN with 5 years of experience makes more than the top paid Nurse Practitioner in the UK makes.
Perhaps so, but you also pay ridiculous prices to pharmaceutical companies, not to mention that each hospital pays out millions in dividends to owners and shareholders in profit, where in the NHS, there is no profit motive so that money can be reinvested (or not charged in the first place)
There is some truth to this, however there is also the benefits of business vs government. Businesses are very good at minimizing costs. Now while this may not always be a great idea when it comes to healthcare you can be sure that all the other parts of running a hospital (maintenance, cleaning, logistics, etc) are likely done much cheaper than if they were done by government.
Why though? There's nothing a private company can do that a government organisation can't.
They've actually structured many hospitals in a 'corporate' way, that closely copies a private business. The head of the hospital has just as much incentive to minimise costs as someone in the private sector. And many have brought in reforms and ways of working similar to the private sector. Hospitals have had to make efficiency savings for years now due to budget cuts. What more could a private company do on top of that, other than suck out money from the system to pay dividends to shareholders?
We've also seen that where we have trialled experiments in fully privatising sections of the NHS, that service quality drops dramatically as the company tries to maximise profit at any cost. Service quality drops to save money, but that 'saved' money doesn't go back into the service or into the taxpayers pocket, it goes straight to shareholders dividends.
Remember, we're American. We could vote unanimously for Germany's health care system but the Millionaires still wouldn't let it happen because America is a corrupt Oligarchy, and don't you forget it!
I’m actually glad to read your comment. One of my American friends (a mid-50-Utah guy) who has a load of chronic illnesses and stuff hated the German health care system when he lived in Germany with his wife. Both are back in the US now and he still complains about the sh...hole Germany apparently was. He got free healthcare, got financial support from our government, great medical treatment and he was still complaining. Tbh I thought most Americans would have that kind of attitude towards a free healthcare and supportive system but I could never wrap my head around it. Thanks for proving that not everyone hates free and good healthcare. In fact I don’t see why obamacare was supposed to be bad - maybe an American here could explain it to me, please. :)
[deleted]
You guys also have amazing maternity leave. Esp when compared to America
Everywhere has amazing maternity leave compared to the US.
*Excluding Swaziland, Lesotho, Papua New Guinea
[deleted]
We don't even crack the top 10.
http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-best-parental-leave-2016-8#lithuania-10
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/paid-maternity-leave-us-worst-countres-world-donald-trump-family-leave-plan-women-republican-social-a7606036.html
Is that actually true? It can't be. My work gives me 1 day off for having a baby (I'm a man) but women also only get one paid day. They have to take FMLA for the rest
I think he just said "Germany" because Americans are fed this idea that the only country in the EU doing well is Germany. When it comes to health care there are many countries in the EU who have their own claims to fame, but as far as I know Germany is not one of them.
It is absolutely in your best interest, and never let anyone convince you otherwise. My father was recently in the hospital for cancer-related surgery. 5 weeks total. The only cost was the (optional) TV he had in his room, and the (about $300 - $400) parking passes my mom had to get to visit him.
And our politicians are fucking over the NHS all willy-nilly, putting them through hell because they want the American way of debt! Debt! Debt! Dododo. (To the tune of Repoman by Aural Vampire). Like that's the only reason why I want to emigrate to Canada and not America because fuck paying to get fixed, I'd rather fucking die then pay money to get fixed, being healthy should be a right not a god damn privilege.
The general public is in favor of single payer health care. The health insurance industry lobby has been able to buy off enough republicans to keep it from happening. The only people who would suffer AT ALL from single payer are insurance companies and to a lesser extent pharma companies.
It’s not just the UK and Germany. The USA is the only nation categorised as highly developed without universal healthcare.
How about Canada’s? Forgot about us?
Honestly, I have great private health insurance through my employer, so I don't know if a different system would be in my best interest, but I still think we should take care of those who can't take care of themselves. I suppose I might agree that that sort of society would indirectly be in my best interest, but either way it's insane that some people have to choose between suffering/dying from treatable conditions or ruining their family's finances. For some reason conservatives have convinced themselves that anyone in a bad situation is there by their own fault and deserves to be.
We do have something like that: the military. And it works super well. The VA on the other hand…
We do, with two choices: the VA and Medicaid. Either earn your entry through service or be super poor.
And in both cases, be prepared to see how badly the government manages medical care.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx
The Gallup results do not distinguish between VA and Tricare experiences for veterans. Tricare is basically private insurance with government bureaucrats instead of employees for you to argue with, and a population of members who have spent 20+ years receiving the green wienie from Uncle Sam so they're used to the bureaucratic run-around.
Now look up polls of how many in the VA system support privatization. I'll wait.
It has a role for treating diseases unique or significantly related to military service, agent orange, various other cancers related to exposures to non-commercial substances (the Abrams uses an extremely potent hydraulic fluid, you will develop cancer if it gets on your skin), traumatic brain injuries, amputations, PTSD from war, etc, that aren't nearly as common in the civilian population.
But for everyday conditions like sleep apnea, bad knees, dentistry, effects of smoking, etc, give them an insurance card and send them to private practitioners and reimburse Medicare rates to eliminate the bureaucracy and get the veterans help faster.
Man don't listen to the NHS hype. It's crap and only works if you have an emergency (car accident, stroke, delivery..etc). Otherwise try to go there asking for treatment to say your elbow which was sprained in a tennis match.
You'll never ever see a consultant/specialist b/c you'll be placed at the end of the line.
Also it is a common tactic in the UK that people often tells you to do: When you have a cold and want to get treated at NHS, start shouting and making noise like you are about to die, only then you'll get treated. Otherwise, you'll be sent home and asked to drink more liquids and come back after two weeks.
Seriously, if you are a healthy person, the NHS is the biggest rip-off in history.
ed: Downvotes? keep them coming. Sorry I popped your NHS bubble folks.
Also, if you have a cold YOU DON'T NEED A FUCKING DOCTOR. They can't cure it, it will get better on it's own. Jesus.
yet that is one of the downfalls of single payer, people go to the doctor for stupid stuff because it's free. A friends off mine wrote her masters thesis on the increased usage of emergency departments for trivial things before and after Obamacare
Tennis elbow and Colds will heal with rest.
There is no pill that will help cure a virus like a cold.
A minor tendon injury will heal on it own ask any Orthopedic surgeon.
Stop blathering about stuff you don't know. There are different degrees of tennis elbow injury and some require surgery and rehab.
The fact that the NHS waiting lines are longer than an Astronomical Unit isn't exactly a secret. The NHS is just this old-school joke that Brits mention on the internet to make them feel better than the Yanks. But the myth is coming to an end I guess under the Tories I guess.
> Seriously, if you are a healthy person, the NHS is the biggest rip-off in history.
dawg you seriously don't get it. I am in trouble right now. I'm a super healthy person, active, dietary supplements, etc. I quit my job a few months ago to pursue my dream. Turns out, Ive developed a hernia. I'm now totally fucked. That will be tens of thousands. That will drain every penny I've saved up to pursue my dreams. It's _all going to be gone_. You fundamentally don't understand the service the NHS is providing, because you don't know how fragile _healthy_ people are.
I'm sorry your wait times are slow, but you want to hear a real wait time? I have a hernia, and I can't even go to a doctor to ask them what I should do, because it would give me a pre-existing condition. I will just have to live with my intestines hanging outside of my abdominal wall for months and months while I get a job and wait for benefits to kick in. Until then I can do nothing. No running, swimming, climbing, nothing I enjoy.
Alright firstly this is only half right. You are right in that if you're injury is not life threatening you won't be seen first, but what heartless fuck wants their tennis elbow seen before a kid with leukemia. You don't see a specialist if your injury is not serious, otherwise you'll be referred directly to one (for free), and the main thing a lot of people miss... WE STILL HAVE PRIVATE HEALTHCARE. If you don't want to wait/it isn't serious, you can still pay for fairly instant private treatment. You're right, the NHS deals with emergencies first, disability second, repeat prescription last, and if you're not one of those you take some fucking painkillers and get on with your life. All for free. Or, if you're so certain your tennis elbow will kill you, you pay, like anywhere else. We don't have free healthcare at the expense of private healthcare, we have it AS WELL AS private healthcare.
what heartless fuck wants their tennis elbow seen before a kid with leukemia
Oncologist =/= orthopaedist
otherwise you'll be referred directly to one
That's totally misleading. Whats' the waiting time? I swear I was referred to a specialist four years ago for a knee problem. I'm still waiting for the letter. When I went back to the GP she brushed me aside and scolded me "next time go to A&E love".
. If you don't want to wait/it isn't serious, you can still pay for fairly instant private treatment
Sure we do, and many people take it up. But why am I paying for the glorious NHS then?
you take some fucking painkillers and get on with your life.
Seriously you think painkillers treat a non-life-threatening cruciate ligament tear, or a non-life-threatning case of bronchitis? I'm not gonna die from these, but I won't be able to walk for at least 2-3 weeks. I won't be able to go to work.
This mentality is my problem with all GPs and the NHS overall.
Single data point arguments are the problem I have with people that bitch about the nhs. Let me give you an example. My dad had a stroke 7 years ago. He went to A&E, they took too long to see him, the tests were cursory, and his after care was negligible. Luckily his stroke was minor, and he recovered almost fully. He unfortunately had another recently, and was seen quickly, his tests were detailed, and his after care was phenomenal. It was a new stroke team, and improvements had beeb made thanks to extra funding. Now, that means that half the time the nhs is shit right? No. We had a bad experience, and so did you, which sucks, but at the end of the day, the nhs still struggles with funding, staffing, and regulatory change. It is, at its core, a service industry, and sometimes that service isn't great, but paying for a service that helps EVERYONE is accepting that you are not always the priority. I'm genuinely sorry you had a bad time, but you are a single data point if bad in an overwhelming sea of good. If you want an improvement don't rally against it, rally with it. Also, jobs not providing proper sick leave is an employer problem, not an nhs problem. On top of that, specialist referral is based on severity. You need the time off work.It's £10 for a letter from your gp.
but you are a single data point if bad in an overwhelming sea of good
There are data that disagree with you link
You're paying for it so if you do get cancer you won't have to bankrupt yourself to pay for treatment. Healthy or not a lot of diseases don't give a fuck and it's nice to know you don't have to pay thousands.
Seriously, if you are a healthy person
You...you understand that the at some point most healthy people become unhealthy....and that is the entire point.
The noble idea behind NHS is that members of society, thanks to NI contributions, help offset the medical costs.
Fair enough. Amazing. Selfless. I love it.
But when you need the NHS and it lets you down, I realized that I'm actually paying my NI to treat everybody else except me.
I realized that I'm actually paying my NI to treat everybody else except me.
That's how all insurance works, not just health insurance, and not just nationalized insurance. Every policy holder pays into a pool. In private insurance, this is your premium. In a public insurance like the NHS, this is paid with your taxes. Either way, all this money goes into a pool from which all insurance payouts are paid. Naturally, if you pay your premium or taxes but never receive payments from your insurance, then you are literally paying for everyone else but yourself. The catch, of course, is that you don't know if and when you will need an insurance payout. Maybe you live a completely healthy life and never need to go to the doctor, but chances are, you will need to at some point.
You needed NHS for a cold and didn't get help....? Welcome to every hospital in the developed world, a cold is not something they treat.
The NHS is only struggling because it is underfunded. It's the most financially efficient system possible when it is allowed to work well.
The USA actually seems to be picking up on some Tory tactics as far as healthcare goes. Throttle the system via funding cuts, and then go to the public and say, "see? The system is broken and needs replaced!"
It's a ripoff until you actually need it. Oh, my elbows sore! What do ya mean, some one was in a car accident, fi gating for their life! I've been here 3 hours.
You sound like you have no empathy for others, and that you consider your problems above theirs. You don't need a doctor for a cold. If it's serious, it'll be treated. If not, fucking wait.
What the fuck do you want them to do about an elbow as well, that wouldn't work at home? I know it's an example, but Jesus, learn proportionality. I had a hair get in behind my eye, causing irritation. I happily waited for 2 and a half hours first thing in the morning. I got some eyebrows after 30 seconds. I wasn't expecting much. All this time, there were people being brought in and out who were far worse off. You think I complained?
Look the tennis elbow and cold were just examples. I personally needed the NHS for knee problems twice. In both occasions I was sent home to later realize that I had to have surgery. In one occasion, the inept NHS staff didn't send me the appointment letter for an MRI scan and I had to wait SIX FUCKING MONTHS to get an MRI scan (even though I lodged the case at A&E in the first time).
Now I have a fucking permanent knee problem and can't practice one of my hobbies (football/soccer) because of the fucking inept NHS. Seriously a health service in a third-world shithole would've been more efficient at 0.1% of the cost of my national insurance.
I know if I had a car accident or liver cirrhosis I would be given priority.
But I'm so sorry I don't drive and I drink alcohol moderately only. See the logic? If you're healthy, the NHS gives two shits about you.
If you're in England you have to access to a private system too. If you don't want to wait, then pay for the private doctors
Which is still far cheaper than care in the US.
Look, I'm sorry that that happened to you. I really am. But I have to say, why should they care if you're healthy? Also, despite its numerous problems, I would have the NHS any other way, although it's budget being slashed and slashed doesn't help. You honestly think a third world shithole would be better?
I mean, if you're paying, you're going to get more attention, but in the long run, not having to pay saves so, so many more lives. America has some of the worst waiting times in the world( worse than the UK). That system isn't better. The only way to have sustainable healthcare for a population, and every individual of that population, is to have everyone carry the weight, and support it as far as possible. Doctors and nurses are over worked, the budget goes down, it's a stressful job. I am sorry about your circumstances, and I know that they aren't uncommon, but this system is the one we have and its trying its best.
Thanks for your kind words.
You've just described the experience Americans have with HMOs.
Seriously, if you are a healthy person, the NHS is the biggest rip-off in history.
LOL Compared to where, pray tell?
[deleted]
Waiting 8 months for a hip replacement wont kill you. And frankly, if you want a top doctor, you’re going to wait about that long anyways in the United States. I work at a Joint Center of Excellence, we get patients from all over the state and even from all surrounding states to see our orthopedic surgeons. All of them have wait lists of at least a few months, with the best docs having a 6+ month wait time.
One Canadian friend couldn't get the MS meds he needed and had to come to the US and pay cash.
And I know people who couldn't get the MS meds they need in the US recommended by their doctor because insurance wouldn't cover it. It's not like those are unique problems... we just pay a fuckton more in the US and then still have most of the same problems plus some unique ones of our very own.
it's very much about the point of view.
as an Austrian, i'm happy, that we don't have the fucked up German health system.
ceterum censeo "unit libertatem" esse delendam.
Math and economics tell us it is not necessarily in our interest.
Using any other countries healthcare system to estimate the cost of the united states's public healthcare system is only a acceptable choice if we do not have an in house version of universal care. Quality of healthcare/cost has so many environmental variables that any number we could derive would be highly inaccurate.
Well, I have lucked out because we do have something vastly more inline with the american healthcare system. Medicaid/Medicare. It cost 30%(1.1 Trillion) of what our federal government spends on everything, twice the annual cost of the military(600 trillion), and almost 70% more than the entire discretionary spending budget. All of this for 14.5% of the population.
I would be intentionally manipulating the data if I did not point out at least the possibility of that 14.5% spending more proportionally then the average american. Luckily, we have those numbers too. Seniors on medicare have $18,424 per year on average in comparison to the almost three times lower cost of non-seniors, who spend $6,125. This three time multiplier may under exaggerate the cost of care by a large margin, due to the fact that we do not know how the unilateral access to healthcare manipulated that information. So, the number I get for the increase of taxes may be even lower than reality.
Well, what does this mean? Assuming a direct conversion, which would make sense since the scale is not changing, that would mean that for every 15% of the american non-senior population, we spend 10% more of our current national budget, which is right around 380 billion per year. Please check my math, but I think would round out to a 59% increase in taxes around the board, or an increase of necessary spending by 1.7-1.85 trillion a year.
How they hell can we pay for an almost 50% in taxes across the board?
Totally, but having private healthcare in the UK still does wonders - my specialist visit was scheduled for 3 months away. My company offers private healthcare - i got the doctor booking scheduled 2 days later.
It is a best of both situation in that case. Private can be for the things you want quicker, in nicer surroundings etc. But emergency care of fundamentals will always defer to the NHS. There is no private A&E to my knowledge.
Or you can realize that most people have the latter option in the USA.
Sure, we have private insurance as an option, but we pay far more for it and can still have it not cover as much.
For what it's worth, my company often sees wait times of 2-3 months for a new patient or a new problem visit. We are a specialist office in the United States. There is no fast lane for us. 2-3 months, with private insurance, medicaid, or paying out of pocket. We don't care. You wait.
Won't lie, I'm a UK US dual citizen. If I ever get seriously ill, I'm going to the UK for the NHS.
Might want to plan it a few months in advance. The cuts are really hitting the NHS hard.
I'll let all aspiring tumors know.
Tbf if you're seriously ill, you do get fast tracked
Yeah if your lucky, if your not the over worked staff wont realize the seriousness of the situation and send you home.
I dread to think about how much money I'd owe given all the therapy treatment I've gotten from the NHS over the years. Christ.
The interesting thing is, ask anyone in the UK and they will all have stories about how they have benefitted from the NHS. If not them, then people close to them. I think this is why it is different in countries without it, you can think "I'm doing fine as I am" or "I've paid all my life, why should others now get it for free?". If you are literally born into it, that isn't an issue at all.
Both my parents have chronic illness' (Asthma for dad and mum is diabetic) and although my dad has to pay for his inhalers, it's a measly price compared to what it could cost. My sister had two pregnancies (one caused a hemorrhage and one a premature baby) didn't cost a thing; my nana had a heart bypass; granddad being treated for rare leukemia and all it's cost us is parking at the hospital.
If you have insurance, then not much, honestly. About the difference in taxes.
About the difference in taxes.
Americans pay higher taxes towards public healthcare than Brits. And if you're factoring in taxes you have to factor in the $7K or so that individual insurance premiums run per year as well.
All told over a typical 80 year lifespan healthcare for an American will cost $425,000 more compared to our friends across the pond.
Americans pay higher taxes towards public healthcare than Brits.
So maybe we should figure out why we spend so much on the stuff we already have, and then fix the issue before we jump into a venture which would cost 1.7 trillion.
$7K or so that individual insurance premiums run per year as well
3800 is the average. That does not even include the discount(per person) for family plans.
So maybe we should figure out why we spend so much on the stuff we already have, and then fix the issue before we jump into a venture which would cost 1.7 trillion.
Hmm, everybody in the first world pays far less for healthcare than we do. What is the big difference between us and every other system. I'm sure it will come to me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-health-care-saves-money.html
3800 is the average. That does not even include the discount(per person) for family plans.
Incorrect.
In 2017, the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance are $6,690 for single coverage and $18,764 for family coverage.
https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2017-summary-of-findings/
Hmm, everybody in the first world pays far less for healthcare than we do. What is the big difference between us and every other system. I'm sure it will come to me.
The combination of size, quality, population spread, preexisting health issues, and a whole bunch of other factors. Oh, and a government which is very bad at funding things both the correct amount and in the correct place.
In 2017, the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance are $6,690 for single coverage and $18,764 for family coverage.
I was using pre obama care numbers, as I thought it was more indicative of the system you were fighting against. I will PM you when I find them.
The combination of size, quality, population spread, preexisting health issues, and a whole bunch of other factors.
Sure, make your case. I provided a source, and can provide more. Can you? Otherwise you're just playing the buzzword bullshit game.
I was using pre obama care numbers, as I thought it was more indicative of the system you were fighting against. I will PM you when I find them.
Ooh. Pop quiz time. Of Obama or W. Bush, which President's term saw the lowest average annual increase in total healthcare spending, with a lower annual rate than seen over any decade since the government started keeping track in 1960?
Sure, make your case. I provided a source, and can provide more. Can you? Otherwise you're just playing the buzzword bullshit game.
How is that is a bull shit word game? Are you trying to say that economy/diseconomy of scales is not a thing? That quality of care does not effect price? That proximity to care does not effect price? That rate of obesity does not effect price?
Sure, make your case. I provided a source, and can provide more. Can you? Otherwise you're just playing the buzzword bullshit game.
What does that have to do with this? That is more depend on the quality of the economy(people doing well = less people on medicaid), and Obama is as much responsible for that as Trump is to our economy now. Which is, not that much.
Are you trying to say that economy/diseconomy of scales is not a thing?
It's not a common occurrence compared to economies of scale. And basic data from first world healthcare systems around the world doesn't support it. So yes, until you prove otherwise it's utter fabrication.
That quality of care does not effect price?
The US generally ranks poorly in most healthcare system rankings, and certainly the data doesn't support the value of $425,000 more per person over a lifetime compared to countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia.
That rate of obesity does not effect price?
Sure, obesity affects price. It accounts for less than 2% of the over $5,000 difference per person per year between the US and the UK. I'll be happy to do the math for you and provide sources as soon as you back up claims you've made--or at least admit you can't.
What does that have to do with this?
Got it. Another simple question you refuse to answer.
It's not a common occurrence compared to economies of scale. And basic data from first world healthcare systems around the world doesn't support it. So yes, until you prove otherwise it's utter fabrication.
It most defintly is. The only time it is not a thing is during a natural monopoly.
The US generally ranks poorly in most healthcare system rankings, and certainly the data doesn't support the value of $425,000 more per person over a lifetime compared to countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia.
I am talking about quality when removing access, the comparison here. Doing a quality of care metric which include access is disingenuous in this conversation. When you go on OECD website and look at rates of success with different issue after factoring out rates of those issue happening, the US system is comparable to pretty much everywhere else.
Sure, obesity affects price. It accounts for less than 2% of the over $5,000 difference per person per year between the US and the UK. I'll be happy to do the math for you and provide sources as soon as you back up claims you've made--or at least admit you can't.
Which claims? I am more than happy to do so.
Got it. Another simple question you refuse to answer.
"That is more depend on the quality of the economy(people doing well = less people on medicaid), and Obama is as much responsible for that as Trump is to our economy now. Which is, not that much. "
That was my answer.
It most defintly is. The only time it is not a thing is during a natural monopoly.
What the fuck are you on about? In the vast majority of cases, prices decrease with economies of scale. So please, provide a source for that claim. I'd love to see it. In fact I'll give you a month of gold if you can provide a source showing diseconomies of scale is the overwhelming trend.
When you go on OECD website and look at rates of success with different issue after factoring out rates of those issue happening, the US system is comparable to pretty much everywhere else.
I mean, that's kind of like calculating average fuel economy by assuming everybody can buy a $50,000 Tesla. Calculating scores on what people can actually afford to buy is pretty reasonable.
But regardless, "comparable" for twice the cost is a pretty terrible deal, not even factoring in the other societal and personal costs of the possibility and actuality of not being able to afford medical care.
Which claims? I am more than happy to do so.
Your claim that diseconomies of scale should be considered likely.
What the fuck are you on about? In the vast majority of cases, prices decrease with economies of scale. So please, provide a source for that claim. I'd love to see it. In fact I'll give you a month of gold if you can provide a source showing diseconomies of scale is the overwhelming trend.
Please, for the love of god, take an econ class beyond just using linear models. Like every single ATC curve tends upward, and 95% of industries reflect that. There is a reason why every business is not a monopoly, with few exceptions(like amazon).
I mean, that's kind of like calculating average fuel economy by assuming everybody can buy a $50,000 Tesla. Calculating scores on what people can actually afford to buy is pretty reasonable.
Not if we are trying to isolate quality of Tesla's by country.
But regardless, "comparable" for twice the cost is a pretty terrible deal, not even factoring in the other societal and personal costs of the possibility and actuality of not being able to afford medical care.
Maybe, but if we are separating variables, these should not be combined.
Your claim that diseconomies of scale should be considered likely.
I already did that in the other post, but https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/where-theres-a-hospital-monopoly-private-health-care-costs-more/
There is a reason why every business is not a monopoly, with few exceptions(like amazon).
There's a reason there's a trend towards larger companies, and the government has to keep shooting down horizontal mergers.
Given the fact you have absolutely no idea where your theorized diseconomies of scale might kick in, and you can provide no evidence it exists in current markets I'm going to ignore this point from here on out, until such time as you provide actual evidence.
I already did that in the other post, but https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/where-theres-a-hospital-monopoly-private-health-care-costs-more/
That doesn't address what I asked about at all.
Not if we are trying to isolate quality of Tesla's by country.
It is if you're trying to compare what people can actually afford to buy in different countries.
Maybe, but if we are separating variables, these should not be combined.
Analysis of independent variables is fine, but at the end of the day if you're going to tell me you'd choose a comparable product at twice the price you're a fool. Any conclusion will have to be based off of some form of cost/benefit analysis.
As for obesity costs.
Obesity is one of the biggest drivers of preventable chronic diseases and healthcare costs in the United States. Currently, estimates for these costs range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per year. https://stateofobesity.org/healthcare-costs-obesity/
Let's take the high end of $210 billion; which means it accounts for 6% of all healthcare costs. But the obesity rate is far from zero in the UK.
Obesity rate in the US: 38.0%
Obesity rate in the UK: 26.1%
That means we could save 1.88% (at the high end) of our healthcare costs by reducing it to the same level of the UK.
There's a reason there's a trend towards larger companies, and the government has to keep shooting down horizontal mergers.
That's not the same thing as a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly is one where average total cost trends downward at all time, without manipulation.
Given the fact you have absolutely no idea where your theorized diseconomies of scale might kick in, and you can provide no evidence it exists in current markets I'm going to ignore this point from here on out, until such time as you provide actual evidence.
I would recommend taking an Intermediate micro class. If you don't believe me, maybe you will believe your prof/text book.
That doesn't address what I asked about at all.
Go to the other post if you want a further explanation, but in short is shows that the monopolies in healthcare are from outside sources, and that it is cheaper in an idealistic(full competition) set up.
It is if you're trying to compare what people can actually afford to buy in different countries.
92% of people in America have insurance. If 92% of people have cars, I think an MPH comparison has merits.
Analysis of independent variables is fine, but at the end of the day if you're going to tell me you'd choose a comparable product at twice the price you're a fool. Any conclusion will have to be based off of some form of cost/benefit analysis.
I agree. I was not saying other wise.
Obesity is one of the biggest drivers of preventable chronic diseases and healthcare costs in the United States. Currently, estimates for these costs range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per year. https://stateofobesity.org/healthcare-costs-obesity/
Let's take the high end of $210 billion; which means it accounts for 6% of all healthcare costs. But the obesity rate is far from zero in the UK.
Obesity rate in the US: 38.0%
Obesity rate in the UK: 26.1%
source
That means we could save 1.88% (at the high end) of our healthcare costs by reducing it to the same level of the UK.
IDK if it is linear, but lets assume it is. Again, that was a single variable. I don't know how each of them interact with each other. I would suspect that huge difference in rural/urban population would make a bigger difference, but who knows. My only point is saying that other countries can do it so we can to is not a great argument.
If you don't believe me, maybe you will believe your prof/text book.
The very fact you can't provide a single source that backs up your assertion in the healthcare industry showing that larger countries have higher prices is all I need not to put any faith in your claims.
Now I literally will not address the issue again until you provide such a source. It's a waste of time.
92% of people in America have insurance. If 92% of people have cars, I think an MPH comparison has merits.
I fail to see the relevance. Yes, most Americans have insurance which costs a pretty penny. It doesn't make the cost argument irrelevant. It is a huge part of the cost argument.
I don't know how each of them interact with each other.
Look, you're free to spend the next six months doing all the multivariate analysis you like. Or cite other people that have. I hope you'll share your results. If it actually shows any of the results you claim, then maybe you'll sway my opinion. Until then, as I've said, you're just pulling random speculation out of your ass that's wasting everybody's time.
Your the kind of person that loves to shit on actual analysis anybody else has done as being insufficient while you do absolutely none of your own.
My only point is saying that other countries can do it so we can to is not a great argument.
Well, you're the expert on poor arguments so I'll leave it there.
The very fact you can't provide a single source that backs up your assertion in the healthcare industry showing that larger countries have higher prices is all I need not to put any faith in your claims.
I honestly looked for an idex, but I could not find it. What I can so you though is the way it is modeled, to represent the general trends of reality: https://www.google.com/search?q=ATC+curve&rlz=1C1ASUC_enUS555US555&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje5Li-xdLbAhVBjlQKHRKHDvYQ_AUICigB&biw=1745&bih=863
Every ATC curve represent a dis economy of scale after some amount of time. If that is not enough.
I fail to see the relevance. Yes, most Americans have insurance which costs a pretty penny. It doesn't make the cost argument irrelevant. It is a huge part of the cost argument.
Again, I looking for the isolated variable. But if I understood your point correctly, you were saying that only looking at the best service available is not a great way to do this, as not everyone can afford that. I was pointing out that it is the norm to be able to afford this.
Look, you're free to spend the next six months doing all the multivariate analysis you like. Or cite other people that have. I hope you'll share your results. If it actually shows any of the results you claim, then maybe you'll sway my opinion. Until then, as I've said, you're just pulling random speculation out of your ass that's wasting everybody's time.
Your the kind of person that loves to shit on actual analysis anybody else has done as being insufficient while you do absolutely none of your own.
That's funny, I am working on getting a grant to do a medical tech index, which is kind of this. But again, I am more just being skeptical about a proposal that could cost more than 2 trillion dollars.
Well, you're the expert on poor arguments so I'll leave it there.
Aaaaaand leaving it with a personal attack. Classy.
I was pointing out that it is the norm to be able to afford this.
Except having insurance doesn't mean you can afford the best care. For starters 29% of Americans are putting off medical treatment due to cost. In other cases insurance may not cover treatment, may not cover it at the best hospitals, etc..
But again, I am more just being skeptical about a proposal that could cost more than 2 trillion dollars.
And could save more than a trillion dollars and eliminate millions of people struggling with medical expenses.
And could save more than a trillion dollars and eliminate millions of people struggling with medical expenses.
Total economic impact is not the same as the increase in government spending.
Total economic impact is not the same as the increase in government spending.
Who said anything about an increase in government spending? But hey, you're like the people that link to the Laffer curve then insult your understanding of economics if you don't agree that "proves" cutting taxes will lead to an increase in government revenue.
You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Who said anything about an increase in government spending? But hey, you're like the people that link to the Laffer curve then insult your understanding of economics if you don't agree that "proves" cutting taxes will lead to an increase in government revenue.
I never insulted you, or at least I never intended too. And supply side theory is heavily debated. That being said, I do have a lot to learn and I have definitely not completed my education yet.
Hey look, I just proved Walmart must be more expensive than everybody else because I linked a picture of an economic curve!
Walmart is a textbook example of a natural monopoly.
Way to miss the point, which is that even if a curve is in fact universal unless you know where on the curve you are, and have information on the significance of the effect in a specific instance, it's meaningless.
My out of pocket maximum per year is 8000 dollars, its not ideal, but you have to have trash insurance or no insurance to end up with huge bills.
Sadly God forgot to install NHS.exe on the America servers.
It's not too late to install your own version.
The last build was kind of buggy and the new dev decided to roll back and delete it because "who knew it would be so complicated" the lack of communication from this dev team makes me think it's a cash grab now
Yeah unfortunately some of the high up leaders of the America Player Guilds don't agree with the NHS expansion as it is "like they have on the Socialist servers".
Lets face it, the America server is Pay-to-Win
Full of Russian hackers too so its almost unplayable
We've already missed that opportunity, there are so many more barriers to prevent such a thing from being passed now.
How do we pay for it?
This might come as a shock but Americans already pay more in taxes towards public healthcare than 99.8% of the world. $1,500 more per person per year than countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia.
We just need to spend the money better.
Sure. Or, diseconomy of scales is a thing, like it is in 95% of markets.
I mean you can claim whatever you want, it doesn't make it true. I've literally graphed healthcare costs around on the world on population size vs. costs and it's the opposite of what you suggest.
Tell me, where is there a place with the same size, quality, population spread/density, and normalized health issues? Size and cost are two of a very large amount of variables that most likely all effect quality and cost.
I might have the population vs. per capita healthcare costs graph saved somewhere.
Other than that the burden is entirely on you. You're the one that invented an argument you've provided absolutely no support other than your imagination for.
I am saying that using other countries is not enough do to a shit ton of other differences in variables. I am not saying that it is impossible. So, as the person making the claim that it is possible, you have to justify that discrepancy.
So, as the person making the claim that it is possible, you have to justify that discrepancy.
You're the one making the claim, not me. Support it, or drop it.
What claim do you think I am making?
You're asserting diseconomies of scale as a factor in healthcare costs.
Yes, as the history of the healthcare industry has not shown a natural trend to a industrial monopoly. So, by extension, we know that ATC trends upword at a point.
[citation needed]
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/where-theres-a-hospital-monopoly-private-health-care-costs-more/
This article goes into depth about how monopoly in healthcare form, and why they are not natural monopolies, but government influenced(or on a really small scale). The rest are not monopolies, making the industry as a whole not monopolistic.
The problem is, I think, that we've allowed so many middlemen to insert themselves into the current system we have in the US that any sudden change to a NHS would result in massive tax increase and a significant reduction in quality. I used to believe insurance versus NHS would work out to about the same total cost per person, but I have since witnessed firsthand that insurance has driven costs through the roof while not really providing a service, but merely appearing to.
I'm not really sure how we fix this, but I've been going cash only for the last few years and it's worked out for the best. There are cash only medical centers starting to pop up, as well.
Importantly, contrary to popular belief, the US medical system won't just deny expensive treatments because you can't pay. In the worst case, you get saddled with massive debt you have to make monthly payments on, just like you would have with insurance in the first place. And in cases where people really can't pay that, it usually goes to debt collection and ultimately gets forgiven if they really can't pay. It's messed up and needs to be fixed, but it's not quite as disastrous as many believe.
My knowledge of this comes from my brother's insuranceless medical treatments, plus my own insured surgery compared directly to the identical surgery/surgeon performed on a friend who had no insurance. I've wasted soooo much money on insurance by comparison.
I mean most people have insurance to pay for it, bug that does excuse the price.
I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm fr - ah who am I kidding
I would be dead if not for the NHS. I hope how it works does not change.
This isnt true for the majority of Americans with health insurance. This applies to about 10% of the population. Doesn't make it right but it's not as prevelant as people make it out to be.
Regardless of that, in the UK we never have to worry about paying medical bills if we're made redundant/quit/become self employed/etc.
Health and money aren't connected - you feel safe regardless of your employment/financial status.
You can easily have decent insurance and still end up with tens of thousands of medical bills in the US. Ask my girlfriend.
30% of Americans have had difficulty paying a medical bill in the past year. 29% are putting off treatment due to cost. Hundreds of thousands will have a medical related bankruptcy. Costs are a huge issue, even with insurance.
Dude, my daughter just had an overnight stay in a hopsital for some stomach issues she's been having. I just opened the bill yesterday and I now owe them $3400. And that's on top of the $500 or so I already owe another imaging center for the same X-ray they did of my daughter, which is the same damn test that the hospital did the night she stayed there less than a week later.
The first thing that I did when I saw that bill was drink a beer because fuck.
My daughter was diagnosed with a rare syndrome. Doctor at the childrens hospital gave us the " million dollar work up" (his words) and sent her for full body xrays, genetic analysis, ent, neurology, and every other doctor. She has had 3 eye surgeries, mri every 6 months, angiography, ultrasounds etc. This shit costs a fortune and she's not even six yet. However I live in CANADA!!! THANK GOD!! I only have to pay for the parking....
Would have been 10€ in Germany for a night in the hospital. Sometimes I'm really glad I live here.
Good thing all the world healthcare is subsidized by development and cost recouping in the USA then.
Yes!
In the US, having health insurance, getting sick and STILL ending up owing tens of thousands in bills is a thing.
I work in healthcare. We charge patients like $150,000 just to put in a pacemaker. That's ONLY for the procedure, not including the room in the hospital or the care received while there. You'll likely be paying $300,000ish for a pacemaker.
Your insurance claim might be that much, but that's not how much you'd pay.
Correct. Sorry I didn't mean to make it sound as though the patient themselves is responsible for that cost without insurance covering it.
Yknow the NHS is something like the 6th biggest employer.... Globally
There was a story of a woman who had health insurance and was across town shopping. She ended up passing out and the ambulance took her to the closest hospital. It turns out her insurance only covers one of the two hospitals in the city. So the one that was insured was closest to her house and the paramedics couldn't ask her what hospital to go to. (Her being unconscious and all.) She ended up owing $20,000.
God bless America
The posts you see on Reddit are misleading. Yes, you get a big bill, but health insurance generally covers the bulk of what’s on the paper. My dad recently got x-rays done. The bill came back for $3000, but my dad only had to pay $150
It’s not that misleading. The healthcare system here is wildly confusing. For example, I have Ohio-based insurance. For some reason, I am only covered in the city I live in. The only available doctors in my network are in my city. Everything else is 100% out of pocket.
I lived on the East coast this last year, with the same insurance, and could do diddaly squat. Would have costed me my entire salary and then some.
Additionally, we could use some cost transparency. I find it so annoying that nobody can tell me the exact price of something. At most I’ve been told everything is charged on a sliding scale depending on your monthly wage? (Wtf). Sometimes I’ll get a bill in the mail for like $500 for a basic check-up. I’ll call my insurance and they’ll say “oh you owe nothing” but the hospital will say “no, you owe this much.” I can never get a straight answer and then my bills fluctuate all over the place.
Honestly, I don’t pay any of my hospital or healthcare bills. I just let them go to collections until they die. My particular hospital doesn’t dig your credit so I really don’t care.
Thank God for the NHS.
Not for long if we keep voting how we have been.
Please explain?
Just the normal issues with politicians and public services, everybody wants better services but nobody votes for tax rises so funding is tight. There's been something of a move towards contracting services out to private companies rather than funding publicly owned facilities as well, and hoping that market competition will give better value than maintaining the public service. Lots of attempts to make things more "efficient" rather than actually invest.
Basic since Margaret Thatcher the government has been trying to slowly privatise and asset strip the NHS. Source: Mum was a NHS mental health nurse.
I honestly don’t understand this “misconception”. It’s not like (good) health insurance is nonexistent here. You just hear about the instances of bad (or no) insurance
Yeah, I usually have hundreds of thousands in claims per year (ulcerative colitis, chronic kidney failure), but only pay my annual deductible of $3,000. Can't mention that on reddit though, because it's anecdtotal and I'll be crucified for having an opinion other than "America is Hell."
The fact you have to come up with $3000 to begin with is fucking stupid though. I don't see how you need financial success in order to have some quality of health.
Yeah, it's not ideal, but I have an HSA (funded by pre-tax earnings) which pays for the majority of it, and I can always work with the healthcare providers to pay in installments if I get a larger bill. Not saying I love the system, but it can be navigated.
If I didn't pay anything at the time of service, I'd still be paying something in taxes (unless I was unemployed).
Is $3000 low for an annual deductable? I was under the impression that HSA plans had extremely high deductibles (like $10k+).
It’s a HDHP (high deductible health plan). The HSA is set up separately. My deductible has increased over the last few years from $2,700 to $3,000. From what I understand, it’s a competitive deductible for a plan with no coinsurance (pays 100% once you meet deductible).
3000 is about 5% of someone median household income. I doubt that the taxes of someone making 57,000 a year would not be more than that.
yeah but Americans don't pay much less in taxes than Canadians do for example, and then you have to pay medical bills on top of your taxes, meaning you pay way more in the end
In Canada, it is about the same, though that is based on the low personal high corporate model. By extension, Canadians make much less money then American do, on average. 15,000 to be exact.
[deleted]
Do you mean he is in the 40 percent bracket, or that he pays 40 percent of his income in taxes?
Canadians do have a bit higher taxes, but it's not because of healthcare. The average American is actually paying $1,500 more per year towards public healthcare than Canadians. We spend more in taxes and get less.
3000 is about 5% of someone median household income. I doubt that the taxes of someone making 57,000 a year would not be more than that.
$3,000 is just the out of pocket maximum. The insurance premium is another thing entirely adding many thousands in expenses. And we haven't included taxes towards publicly funded healthcare in the US, which are higher than literally 99.8% of the world--$1500 per person per year higher than in countries like the UK.
Does it make it a difference if you're paying $3000 post tax vs. getting texted $3000 for the same amount of care?
Yah it does lol. Cause I can go as many times for whatever I want. Also what's going on with paternity leave in the us? Does the government not cover your salaries for taking off work after a baby?
Edit: 645000 Americans claim bankruptcy a year because of medical debt. That's a disgusting ass figure.
That works for you, and I'm not trying to say that all health insurance in this country is God awful, but the majority isn't great.
I'm a veteran, and while I wait for my VA health insurance to be approved based on financial needs (I wasn't in combat, so I don't automatically qualify for VA healthcare, I need to be approved based on income), I'm on my parents healthcare plan. I make less than $30k a year now as a full-time student and part-time worker.
I have depression, anxiety, and gender dysphoria, and wanted to start seeing a therapist again to try and start managing it. When I called the insurance company to find out if mental health was covered on our plan, I was told it was, but only after we individually hit $2700 for the year for mental health, at which point they would cover 80% and I would be responsible for the last 20%. Once I hit $4000 for the year, the insurance would cover everything. So my current therapist, at $100 per session, would need to see me 3 times a month for 9 months before my insurance would even begin to cover it.
I've been to the doctor three times this year so far, and after insurance, each visit has cost me over $100, since the insurance paid a little more than half.
My experience is anecdotal too, and as I said before, I'm not saying what you've got going on is a bad deal. But making less than $30k a year, I can't afford to go to the doctor when I need to, I have to figure out when it fits in my budget financially. And that's not right. I don't even want to think about dental visits yet, I'll probably push those off until I have a better job with better insurance.
I don't know how to fix America's problems regarding healthcare, but healthcare should not be a luxury of the rich (and I'm not implying you're rich).
Yes, that is a tough plan for someone at your income level. I also owe hundreds per doctor visit until I reach my deductible, but am able to manage okay with the HSA and a bit higher income. I’m sorry you’re struggling and I wish you the best.
Thanks man, like I said, it's not a slight against you or anyone else who can make it work, I'm just saying for a large number of people, it's not.
[deleted]
That’s all it’d be for me if I didn’t have those chronic conditions.
Paying that much seems like hell in itself though, I couldn't afford that. Especially if work then became an issue.
Seems great in comparison to 100,000 though....
The problems are two fold. One you actually can have good insurance and still end up owing an insane amount of money. Ask my girlfriend.
The second is that even if you have good insurance and manage to avoid huge pitfalls your care is still costing hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the course of a lifetime compared to countries like the UK.
I \<3 Public Hospitals in Australia
1 month ago i booked an appointment with a dental hygenist and have my teeth cleaned from plaque and tartar. I Paid 12 euros.
Mind = blown
That type of preventative care is free with almost any insurance plan in the US.
That involves having an insurance plan in the first place.
This is the norm elsewhere without requiring an insurance plan.
I understand. At least dental insurance is inexpensive.
Not mine! I’m on union insurance and literally everything is somehow a minimum of a $500 bill. It’s fucking mind blowing.
That’s weird. Cleanings aren’t even $500 without any insurance.
yeah... I quit my job to pursue my dream and now three months later I developed a hernia. I'm kind of in trouble. Open enrollment has ended for healthcare. This doesn't get better except with surgery. The surgery would cost at least 20k. I just have to live with my hernia until I get another job, and its not easy to search for a job when your mortality is on the line
You still do. Try not paying your taxes. You're in debt until you're dead. They get the money no matter what, it just differs on who you're paying.
Americans pay more in taxes towards public healthcare than almost anywhere on earth. Then we pay many thousands in insurance premiums and still potentially pay thousands in out of pocket expenses.
It doesn't just vary on who you're paying. Over a typical lifetime it's literally hundreds of thousands of dollars more for the average Americans healthcare compared to places like the UK, Canada, and Australia.
Absolutely, I just had a technically elective ankle surgery two weeks ago, and literally signed a form to let the hospital bill the government instead of me... I paid about $20 out of pocket for my prescription for oxycodone. That's all it's cost me so far aside from maybe some lost income from being unable to work. But even then I'm not losing much.
Yep. I’m from America so I was looking for this one. A few days ago one of my friends cut her leg open so badly it was bleeding without much of a scab or whatever two days after. My advice was to see if any 3rd/4th year nursing majors she knows were on campus for advice. My understanding is she only needs stitches and antibiotics which makes the situation even more ridiculous. I warned her about getting a staff infection and I offered to get wound cleaning supplies from my house. She acts like she has it handled but I’m not so sure. The same girl and another person I know don’t take psych medications because they can’t afford them.
I work in a very well known London Accident and Emergency. You'd be amazed how many people walk through that door and do nothing but complain.
Complain about wait times.
Complain about being in a waiting room.
Complain about the "state of the NHS".
Complain about staff shortages.
Now I'm not saying they are wrong, because their right. But what I am saying is that they will happily threaten me and my colleagues but not once will the pick up a pen and write to their MP to demand more funding for the NHS.
I bet my life savings that if a prime minister turned around and said "hey we can save the NHS, all we have to do is raise everyone's tax by 1.5%" people would flip their shit.
The NHS is slowly being sold off piece by piece because it's a black hole of money and no one wants to take responsibility for it.
Honestly speaking, if we ever go private then I'd be half happy about it. I'd get paid a lot more and people would very quickly learn a harsh lesson about their entitlement issues in the UK.
My father got into a motorcycle accident 7 years ago (he wasn't at retirement age yet). He had two forms of insurance. The first insurance company dropped him after he reached their 5 million dollar cap. (He was still in ICU) the second one wouldn't pay the bills because his doctors and our family refused to transfer him to their hospitals while he was still listed as critically unstable. He is thankfully still alive. But it's only because he had significant investments before the accident. My stepmother had to liquidate everything to pay the medical bills after insurance stopped paying. My father intended to retire well off. Enough to be able to travel and have fun. He wanted to be able to help his children and his grandchildren. Instead, he lives a small life. My brother and I will have nothing in inheritance aside from maybe some left over medical bills of dad's.
I tore a tendon in my shoulder and broke the head of my humorous and decided to go through a private practice to have it fixed. The whole thing (checkups, CT-scan, Ultrasound, surgery and physiotherapy) cost me 950 Swedish krona, or about 110 USD.
God damn it. I’ve been ignoring this pain in my hip joint for the last 5 years because I know that if it’s serious (like cancer) I won’t be able to pay or if it’s something minor (like a worn bursitis) I won’t be able to afford to fix it.
Yay, I love America!
And thank NHS for the SUS!
Like how tf is for-profit health care legal? All they do is throw outrageous charges at you. Hospitals in America are like competitive businesses that try and make as much money as they can.
you bet. It works too.
Yeah, recently had a couple of pretty major health problems, so I've ended up with a few GP appointments, an ECG and a blood test, and over this month, I've got to go to a specialist twice for more treatment.
I dread to think what that'd cost in the US.
EDIT: Actually, just gave it a look. I'd be in the hole for around $2800.
Ouch.
That's crazy! I also had to have blood tests recently - would cost a small fortune in the US of A. Whats your treatment for?
I had chest pains then collapsed, so they're trying to get to the root of the problem, why it happened, if it'll happen again, treatment plan
I went to the doctor the other day and the worst thing I could complain about was that he was already running half an hour late by 9.30 in the morning. Fortunately I didn't have to take out a second mortgage just to be told I just had a minor chest infection and should take it easy for a couple of weeks.
What is really funny is that folks here are convinced that people in the UK HATE their healthcare. I mean, when Obamacare was being debated (and ever since) one of the first arguments people make is how much people despise government ran healthcare in the UK and Canada.
This is also weird to Americans with health insurance. My plan covers 90% of basically everything other than normal appointments which are free. And the max I have to pay for anything is $2500, which would mean I'm in the hospital having some kind of crazy emergency. And that's pretty cheap, I'd happily pay it for getting tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of service.
I just want to point out that this is great and everything but $2500 is a life changing about of money for some people. Especially those living paycheck to paycheck.
My max is supposedly $4000 (though my brother had heart surgery and his bill was like $100k so idk) and that would really set my life back. I probably wouldn’t be able to do some of this big plans I’ve been saving for, like moving to a better state to secure a better job, or eventually buy a home.
What is the NHS?
Not long ago there was a news story covering a guy from america getting shot here. He was hospitalized for about two weeks, got three operations, and a year supply of medicine. ¿Cost? ¿what cost?
Then at the same time a guy from my country, was shot in USA. Basically the same, although he stayed shorter in the hospital. he is in the hook for over 100.000 dollars. It was on every news cycle here.
Can confirm. Had an appendectomy last year which is actually an incredibly simple procedure. 3 small slots in the abdomen and hat about its. The whole thing takes 15 minutes at most to complete. I was charged 15,000 for it all.
About to have my 3rd baby in America. Just found out the hospitals charge 30.00 for a squirt bottle I can buy on Amazon for 3.00...
Oh and it's not an option to take it or not... they just charge you for it... even if you dont use it...
Tens of thousands? That’s like a broken arm.. if you go to the hospital; have surgery and have to stay for any extended period of time you’re in the hundreds of thousands.
National Honour Society 👍
Totally! My friend in California was in a surfing accident and shattered his ankle. In total ( i don't know all the details) his hospital bill was close to $800,000. He did need some surgery. He's accepted he will never get it close to paid off.
Eh I would just not pay it personally.
Who needs a home! Who needs a paycheck! Who needs good credit! Who needs a reliable car bought on good credit! Who needs a job! Who needs to live!
(We should revolt just saying)
Canadian.
Thank you OHIP for my last trip costing $25 for just the crutches.
This is why I'm working towards my dream of living in Germany.
I as Type 1 Diabetic, somehow can afford all of my medicine and doctors appointments on a yearly basis as a graduate student at $18000 per year. Geesh i wonder if the problems in America’s healthcare system are... overblown...
Thank God for the NHS.
And fuck Jeremy Hunt. That guy really puts the "N" into cuts.
You also don't need to wait like weeks to see a doctor though
I live in Canada and had no idea things were so different in the States until I joined a FB mom group with mostly Americans. Suddenly they were worried about paying for a high risk pregnancy (extra tests, etc), or the exorbitant costs of having a baby in the NICU. As if there isn't enough to worry about, being in debt for the rest of your life simply because you wanted a child shouldn't be one of those concerns.
We had a hit drama series about a man who cooked meth to pay his medical bills. I showed it to my German friends who were beyond confused
Personal choice. When you get payed you decide what to do with your money. Universal health care is payed for by having a 60% tax rate instead of half or less of that. (50% of americans dont pay any taxes and get back thousands)
Lol and to think that I gave nearly 38% of my salary to the government this year.
Also hit a pothole and totaled my car because they don’t have enough to fix the roads.
Surprise. The average American is paying about $1,500 more towards public healthcare compared to countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia.
Except the US pays more in taxes towards public healthcare than literally 99.8% of the world, you don't understand tax rates, and you don't understand choices people have in other countries. For example in the UK you can choose to buy supplemental insurance that covers whatever you like and have it still cost way less than what you'd pay for equivalent coverage in the US.
Yes! Although even THAT is in danger, so let's hope the Tories don't fuck that up for everyone else.
It's really only a thing if you dont have insurance. I pay like $60 a month for insurance and will never be in that kind of situation. Saying that getting sick or hurt automatically puts your thousands of dollars in debt is a massive exaggeration.
Have health insurance and this isn’t a problem
As an American who was just diagnosed with a rare cancer, it's going to be super expensive for me to not die.
A lot of Americans look at other countries and are astounded that they spend thousands a year in taxes on healthcare they don't use. For typical middle income families on both sides it's about a wash for what's paid between taxes and insurance/healthcare. The low income people are who get boned on our end, while in some places low income families barely pay anything (Canada is under $500/yr for low income if I remember correctly). The wealthy here can afford good insurance and that usually keeps them ahead of the game, but abroad a lot of times wealthy people are paying for most of everyone else's healthcare through high tax rates.
Overall, though, the US is more expensive for the same practices because the government won't actually regulate anything. Our whole system needs to be discarded...not so much because of how expensive it is, but because of why it's so expensive.
We have too many old people to cover everyone. Right now, it's better to let the private sector set up clinics for the demand and then close them once the demand is decreased. If the Government went and built facilities for the aging population, we'd have a surplus of government owned/operated clinics that would only be a bigger burden to the generations still working. I think we'll get there, but the baby boomers need to die off first.
I heard the NHS recently passed a thing where if you’re overweight, or a smoker you’re no longer entitled to covered surgery. Is this true? And if so, are people upset they are still pay taxes for those services and won’t receive them if they need it??
Guys our country has some whack-ass problems lol
American here reading through this like we are actually the worst country, although I knew this... but reading first hand accounts that say the same thing over and over... I feel so dehumanized now. Also, to everyone here in America who tells me these single-payer/government healthcare systems don’t work... I don’t understand, obviously it works in basically every other country.
Come to Europe we're cool
Is this an actual possibility?
yeah just come over, it's a lot easier to get in here aswell compared to trying to go from here to the USA (VISA or green card or what have you)
Yeah but those EU fucks are tryna ban my memes!
I'm in that same dehumanized boat, buddy. Jesus. Sometimes, with the oppressive 24 how news cycle, you get so afraid of what's "out there" you forget we're slaves who are slowly being killed by what's in here...
If I didn’t have a son here that I was legally obligated to keep in this country because of his dad and I not being together, I would move us in a heartbeat to another country. Until then, I’m counting down the days until he’s 18.
I'm too poor to consider moving. Also, my parents are in their later years. But in the future, I hope I can get out before it gets worse.
I've been wanting to leave for a while...but it's too expensive.
Other countries do too. No ones perfect.
And we won't do anything to fix them in most of our lifetimes. We exist to be the world police so the actual first-world countries can live nicely.
most coutries would seem like that if the whole world scrutinized it as much as america gets. not that they arent valid criticism, its just hilarious when people do think America is worse than some third world countries because they only get bad news from america.
Like literally every other country on earth. It's almost as if humans are shit everywhere
Yeah but our problems are much worse by comparison
Maybe compared to the other first world countries, but not the third. Overall, Americans are much better off than pretty much all of Africa, South-East Asia and South America. Probably the Middle East too. I'm generalizing like hell now, obviously, but my point stands.
Am South African, if that somehow makes my statement more valid
"First world" and "third world" aren't really being used anymore.
Really? Why not?
"Developed" vs "Undeveloped"
First, Second, and Third world are terms that were used during the Cold War to differentiate between countries' capitalist vs communist economic systems. First world meant capitalist leaning economies in the NATO pact, Second world meant Warsaw Pact (communist) aligned countries and the Third world meant everyone else - countries whose economic systems didn't fit into those two spheres of influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World#Three_World_Model
I know that's where it comes from, but I thought it was still in general use in the context I used it. Whatever, English isn't my first language. That absolves me of any linguistic error
No, it's actually a commonly used term. Just that the 'ackhtually' brigade teamed up with the justice warriors to decide to re-term it because it's apparently 'degrading' to third world countries. It's a perfectly and commonly understood terminology, you're perfectly fine. You're absolutely intelligible to me.
why haven't you gone to Australia or Netherlands yet?
Now there's a tiny victory flag.
Don't get it
comparison to who?
You're wrong. Just read about where the US ranks on most of the important rankings. 90% of Americans would have better lives if they lived in any other Western country.
Sauce?
For what? The 90% was a wild estimate but it was based off the Gini coefficient. It is a means of measuring of income inequality and the US is the worst of any Western nation.
The US's rankings in a lot of categories are displayed on this article.
https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-country/
Eh, best empire ever though. I’ll take it
Tipping, it’s just not normal or socially acceptable to have to pay someone’s wage because their employer won’t. As much as they’ve been brainwashed to think they should...
Somehow it's the customers' fault for low wages, whilst the owner laughs all the way to the bank.
It's our politicians fault for fighting proper minimum wages so fervently. St. Louis recently rose its minimum wage to $10/hour and the "small government, local governing" state legislature decided this was unfair to business owners and enacted a state law forcing the city to roll the minimum wage back to the state minimum. Many small mom and pop businesses kept wages where they were. Many of the larger employers that could afford the increase reduced salaries.
[deleted]
Exactly the point I was trying to make. The larger companies don't give an F.
Anyone who thinks capitalism isn't entirely about who the better grifter is is kidding themselves.
The owners would say they would have to close down if they paid their employees a livable wage. Maybe I'm crazy but if you can't pay your employees a livable wage, maybe you don't have a viable business.
Yes and no. The food industry is one with the highest rates of failure due to a lot of American laws regulating it. That said, I'm of the opinion that if you can't pay your employees a reasonable wage, then you have no business opening a restaurant.
Restaurants just aren't economically viable unless you are either very good, or cut every corner imaginable. And yet, people go into the restaurant business thinking it's their inalienable right to be a success. Nope!
Somehow it's the customers' fault for low wages, whilst the owner laughs all the way to the bank.
You've clearly never owned a restaurant...
the sheer number of failed restaurants can confirm.
Yeah for real. I think restaurants the restaurant business is second to airlines in terms of profit margins. You either have to be REALLY fucking good at what you do, or you have to be part of a conglomerate to laughing your way to the bank. Its those situations that I don't understand the reliance on tipping. If I'm a patron at a mom & pop-owned diner, I'll gladly pay a tip. If I'm at a TGI Friday's or Cheesecake Factory, two extremely large and profitable chains, I'll still pay the tip but it really irks me that the waiters there aren't being paid more.
There are restaurants all over the world who don't rely on tipping.
They rely on alcohol sales and sell food at a loss.
There is a reason in most of the world the restaurants are family businesses with everyone working at it to keep it viable with the family collectively sharing the income.
Well this is obviously in the context of American restaurants. The question is about what you see in America but not the rest of the world.
I'm saying restaurants all over the world are similar in that the profit margins are slim. And yet most places don't rely on tipping. I'm saying that the profit margin isn't a good reason for why tipping exists.
Just a friendly reminder that they're franchised businesses, so they may actually be locally owned and not corporate owned. My local Dairy Queen is locally owned and operated, she used to be an employee 35 years ago then the original owner sold it to her. She is probably one of the only businesses who solely employs 14-18 year olds. So yeah they operate under a corporate brand but people do that because the business model and consumer market is already established.
[deleted]
Including gratuity is fine if the money goes directly to the waiter and the gratuity is at least 20% . Anything else and the wait staff will make less money. The other downside is that they will have to pay more taxes. Tipping is good for the employees and also good for the customers because it incentivizes the waiter to provide good service. People here have the choice to eat at restaurants without waiters if they don’t want to tip.
One of my biggest frustrations wen traveling abroad is how god awful the service is in restaurants. I would gladly pay a 20% tip to get good service. A good waiter will anticipate my needs before I even know what I need. In the US my water is always kept full, in most other countries you have to flag someone down and maybe they will eventually top it off.
Can you share some of the places you've travelled where service is poor?
I ask only because some cultural differences mean some countries have a far more relaxed attitude to life than other countries. For eg I've been to places in Fiji where the waitresses would not smile at you and would go sit and watch TV til you needed them. At first I was like "What's their problem?" but then realised shit, no, life is just super chill here and they don't mean any offence and don't expect me to take any.
Yes, I'm sure it's cultural differences but service is service.
Countries I've visited with the best service:
USA (obviously cuz I'm from here, I'm biased) Mexico Canada Singapore Costa Rica Panama Ireland Hong Kong
Countries I've visited with the worst service: Romania France Andorra (probably the worst ever) Spain Nearly everywhere I've been in the Caribbean China Australia
I've been to many other countries not mentioned but the above are what comes to mind.
Minimum wage was raised here, and at least one fast food chain just raised its prices (with a snide note about the wage increase). They can be forced to pay their workers more, but they sure as hell aren't going to let it impact their profits. I'm note sure if I'd want to take a pay cut to pay my employees more, either, but raising prices and making it a point to blame the wage increase for minimum wage employees seems like dick move.
Lol that's not how it works
[deleted]
Then that's the problem. A business model where you pay poverty-level wages and have to expect the good will of your customers to make sure they earn a proper salary and still having a very slim profit margin is, I would say, not a viable business model.
It seems pretty viable as there are restaurants all over the place and waiting tables provides one of the best incomes for unskilled work. Who is loosing on this?
If you work in a semi decent restaurant in the US you will probably make more that a waiter in the U.K. on minimum wage. The only person who loses out is the consumer.
Not even then really, it isn't like the net cost of your night out is any cheaper.
I've heard the restaurant industry isn't all that profitable. Not an expert though.
In most cases it's not really something you have to do. Just courtesy. Say someone who is serving you in someway isn't just a mindless zombie doing their job and actually has great attitude and makes the experience overall better for you because they went over and beyond, then you might give them a tip. Not because they served you, but because that individual person made the experience better for you.
No offense, but it sounds like you got your opinions from a children's cartoon. That's such an uneducated naive perspective. I'm being genuinely honest and not trying to insult you. I'm a waiter. I know how it works. This idea that the business owner is naturally this greedy wealthy person is just false.
Lol. You're a waiter defending something that gives you large amounts money and you totally "know how it works", totally arent biased or anything. And the other guy "got his opinions from a children's cartoon"....
Its funny how despite this "knowledge" of yours both restaurants and waiters do just fine in europe without/with minimal tipping.
Restaurants in America do fine too. And the arguement is that tips are not fair to waiters and customers so I'm not sure how I'm biased. Increasing the price and getting rid of tips gives the customer less choice and makes sure the waiter CAN'T be payed more if they do better. Also if the waiter does poorly the customer has to pay that extra money in the food instead of being able to give a smaller tip. How am I biased?
put it this way. would you tip your doctor for giving you a check up? no you pay a co-pay for the cost of the visit. thats where our foreign friends are coming from. pretty sure your doctor would look at you like you had 10 heads.
It would be nice if I could decide to pay my doctor less if I felt he didn't do very well, but that wouldn't be my decision.
Mate I was a bartender!
K? Neat?
But just so you know, when you visit America and you refuse to tip, or tip 10%, you’re fucking over your server, food runner, busser, and bartender. Not the owner. All the people that just took care of you got screwed so you could make your point.
I lived in America, and I tipped. Just pointing out something I thought was odd.
Also, if people's livelihoods depend on a customer being charitable, sounds like a bad model.
Honestly at the end of day it’s not what I want to do so if the model changes to something better I’m all for it. But it’s not so much charitable as you should be getting extra attention and service as opposed to someone getting up everytime they need something.
I appreciate that people don’t agree with it, but when someone decides to make a point- they're screwing over the wrong people.
If everyone is paying the same 20% tip no one is getting any extra attention compared to anyone else. Do you understand this?
Not only it gives leeway for owners but it also generates complacency for service workers. Do you really tip only when you get extra attention and a super commendable service? Or you always tip out of pity because they rely on it? That’s fucked up.
I don't understand this, employers are required to pay the difference should the employee's wages+tips do not at least equal regular minimum wage. Is this standard just not enforced or what?
no one said that they didn't tip when they visit america they said that its messed up and foreign to us that we have to tip when we visit because the business owner isn't paying them a fair wage.
Yeah, let’s also not make a point against slave work in Chinese factories because you’ll be screwing up the people that make your iPhone just to prove a point.
It’s amusing to imagine a world where I have to pay 1.2x the price of EVERY SERVICE I need just because the owner can’t make less profit.
Not likely.
Well, customers don't want to pay the actual (including labor) costs of their restaurant experience. They would prefer to have the server have to pay it for them. In my area, several high-profile, iconic restaurants have done away with tipping and raised the prices to adjust to the actual cost, and customers had tantrums. Most went back to the old model.
EDIT: Hey, it's not like I agree with it. It's a terrible system. But ask an American over in r/TalesFromYourServer and see what they tell you.
Or maybe they just want to pay what it says on the menu and not be hit with hidden fees out the hoohaa
Lol no, dude. Restaurant owners don't want to pay payroll tax, so they'll do whatever they can to have the extra cost borne by anyone but them.
why so many downvotes for pointing out an actual event lmao. brutal
i'll give ya an upvote.
[deleted]
except the individual isn't buying wholesale.
also people are OK that a meal at a restaurant costs more than what they'd pay at a grocery store. just like they are fine paying inflated pricing at sporting events, movie theaters, corner stores, airports, everywhere really.
Well, the customer can technically go somewhere else...
[deleted]
There are probably more restaurants that don’t have a waitstaff (therefore no tipping) than traditional waiter service restaurants in the USA. We are certainly not lacking in choices when it comes to dinning our.
Technically so can the worker...
Came here to say this. When I go to a restaurant in UK, I know the wait staff are earning at least minimum wage. If I get good service, I'll tip 10%. If I get poor service, I don't tip. It just isn't a big deal.
[deleted]
Yeah, small thing you are not telling is if a worker doesn't make the money in tips he most likely will be fired.
If you can't make that much in tips you should be replaced. Even the crummiest truck stop server should make that.
In this context it is true and I won't deny it, the argument here is that such system should not exist at all as it is super flawed and stupid IMO, only thing it manages is to fuck the consumer...
[deleted]
Read very well what you have written, that is absolutely fucking retarded and the whole point of this debacle...
The whole tipping system is seriously messed up and people should really strive to change it instead of embracing it like you are doing.
the people who embrace it the most are the people drawing tips. the potential for huge earnings well beyond minimum wage is very real. they benefit greatly from the messed up system. the ones that should be complaining are the customers and the other restaurant workers like cooks getting paid fixed wages that are relatively shitty compared to wait staff.
if you're not doing well in this system, you should probably find a different minimum wage job that doesn't depend on your interpersonal skills.
If the tip is for the person’s skills only then why is it based off a percentage of the food cost? Why not just a flat fee?
because the system is stupid. it's just stupid in the favor of the workers more often than not
the potential for huge earnings well beyond minimum wage is very real
That potential is there regardless.
I'll tell you this from personal experience, my mother has restaurant with 6 workers.
Not american (so obviously no tips required). Male servers make much less in tips compared to female workers, shit, for example during the summer female workers get another wage (sometimes more) just in tips... In this case they all share because it's overall more fair to everyone (not obliged, they simply decided to do it).
The system you have in the US solves absolutely nothing. Makes it easier on the owners and shittier on the people, some kung fu level capitalism bullshit that is.
Making up the difference isn’t getting paid minimum wage though.
...what?
if you hypothetically make $3/hr in tips and minimum is $7.25 the employer pays you the difference of $4.25 per hour so you end up making minimum wage.
Tips are meant to bonuses, in addition to the minimum wage. In your case, the employee is paying you less than minimum wage.
the customer may consider it a bonus, but that's not how the law views it. at least not in the US
The tip should be a bonus, not making up the minimum wage, wtf.
I have been in Restaurants in the UK where I have not tipped. Because the personal service was poor. The food was excellent. The food was delivered on time. The Service lacked something of the personal about it and I did not tip. Exactly the same Restaurant, the very next week, identical food, delivery and really enjoyable personal service. So I tipped 50% for that Service. I have also tipped with a lottery ticket - as well as money - because the Waitress "deserved a bit of luck in her life".
I know that the person serving will be paid regardless. So the tip actually is about acknowledging that person gave up their evening to be nice to me. That is nothing to do with the food, decor or contract of employment. That is someone being a decent person.
Eating out is actually supposed to be something special and people who make that special atmosphere are not just doing their job. No restaurant will ever do that for me because they are a business that I pay for food, delivery and decor. They are not a person. Giving someone a lottery ticket acknowledges the mundane part of the service but also the sacrifice of the service. If they win a few million on the lottery on a ticket you gave them... Which is about trusting and thanking and not just forking over money because they are a machine belching out magic service units.
The American expectation of tipping seems utterly inhumane. They will never change it, though. Because it really is a strangely, inexplicably, big deal for them. Being decent to the people who cook your food is a good thing. Forking over wodges of cash because their employer is abusively explotative is irrational.
That is someone being a decent person.
That should be everybody, nobody should have to be paid to be treated with respect.
[deleted]
uhh...you seem to be not aware of this, but tipped employees are not exempt from minimum wage laws. if your wage including tips does not equal minimum wage, the employer is legally required to make up the difference.
https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs15.htm
There are lots of laws that in the everyday world are not followed.
then that's on you. the law is there and in place to protect you. you can make a complaint and they'll audit your employer's timesheets.
Filing a Wage and Hour Complaint
If you believe you or someone you know has been denied proper wages under the FLSA, you may file a complaint by mail or in person at an office of the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor. In the complaint you will need to include the following information:
After a complaint is filed, the WHD reviews the complaint and conducts an investigation, helping the employee recover back wages. The WHD will contact the complainant if more information is needed for them to pursue the allegation.
The names of employees who file complaints are kept confidential and an employer can't fire or otherwise discriminate against an employee who participates in a legal proceeding under the FLSA.
Complaints can be filed by third parties on behalf of an employee who has been denied proper wages. If a third party is making the complaint, the WHD suggest preparing extra information beforehand.
[deleted]
Regardless, people working for tips typically make a good bit above minimum wage.
I don't know a waiter/waitress who doesn't love the system. If they are better than not sucking they'll make way more than if paid by the restaurant. In nicer restaurants they'll really do well. A friend used to waitress in a sushi restaurant. She made more than $400 in tips per shift.
And that is utterly ridiculous for the job they do.
If people knew how much money waiters make on tips not that many people would support tipping the "poor" waiters
sushi restaurant
Ironic because here in Japan tipping is extremely weird.
This is very common, the cream rises to the top.
She works hard.
I believe it and that's why she makes such good money!
How's benefits on that wage? Do they get benefits with the job, or do they still have to buy them themselves?
Waiters over here might not get close to what the waiters you describe make, but by law they get healthcare, vacation time, maternity leave... They may not make a ton of money, but they are financially secure.
“not normal or socially acceptable to have to pay someone’s wage because their employer won’t”
They don’t want the employer to pay a minimum wage. They make more off of tips. Their benefits won’t change if the employer pays more, they’ll just make less money.
Fun fact: if someone's wage and tips don't add up to $7.25/h the employer has to pay the difference. No employer does this of course.
Yeah but ,tbf, its extremely rare to not hit 7.25/hr on any given day. I worked on tips for 2+ yrs, and neither I, nor my coworkers, ever had a less than minimum wage day. In fact, most of our days came out to 10-15/hr when our tips were factored in.
I used to work in casual dining and it actually happened quite often to me that I made less than minimum wage. Esp since the last two hours of my shifts were just side work and not actually serving.
I could see that, especially since you weren't serving the whole time. I worked in a very busy restaurant, that was also extremely loved by the community. I was delivering from the time I walked in the door, to the time I walked out.
If the employer doesn't just take it up with the department of labor with a paystub
And then because it's at-will employment you get fired.
Again tying back to poor US employment protection.
But in those cases it's almost always because you're not good at your job, so you deserve to get fired.
[deleted]
Or that you're getting customers who know the manager has to make up the difference.
by others making 10-15 while you're below minimum consistently, I mean compared to your coworkers. everyone gets someone who doesn't tip or doesn't tip well from time to time but that effects everyone.
look at it from the point of the restaurant owner. if you have a server consistently giving your customers an unsatisfactory experience, why would you let them keep working for you and giving your restaurant a bad reputation?
I'd make sure there's nothing wrong with their performance.
No tips doesn't automatically mean bad service. In the UK it just means adequate service.
So if a waiter in the UK all of a sudden gets a 20% tip do we not assume they provided amazing service because in the US that means adequate?
I work a tipped job and I’ve never made less than $15/hr.
I used to work in a restaurant in New Zealand. If americans came in the waitresses would fight over who got the table because we don't tip here but Americans do
This. Absolutely ridiculous that you are expected to pay someones wage because the employer is too cheap and you all lap it up.
Tipping is for great service and an incentive to give great service
This is a huge misconception even among Americans, tons of Americans think servers aren't making the same as everyone else. The truth of the matter is that THEY ARE! If you get zero tips or low tips in a pay period your employer is required to pay you the difference between your gross plus tips and what your hours worked times the TRUE minimum wage is aka what everyone else is being paid. Actually with the current system in place there are servers at high end restaurants and what not that literally make bank and they aren't even required by law to report 100% of the tips they make. You try to change the tip system in America you are going to have tons of pissed off servers on your hand lol, the current system is very beneficial for servers who work at popular and high end restaurants.
You are already paying their wages when you buy the fucking food and drink... why is the distinction significant in your mind?
So when you go into a restaurant in another country does the costumer not pay someone’s wages by ordering food?
If you want you can walk into any restaurant in the US and just add 10% to the prices before and now in your mind you can pretend that the employer is paying it. It’s the same money, just separated.
That is the dumbest thing I have read in a while.
I for one can't grasp my head around forced tipping. Here in Italy tipping is courtesy, if someone treated you well and deserved it. Waiters will love you for the smallest of tips. I've seen some Waiters angrily tell people to fuck themselves if they didn't get a tip in America. If that happened here they would lose their job instantly.
I've seen some Waiters angrily tell people to fuck themselves if they didn't get a tip in America. If that happened here they would lose their job instantly.
I live in America, and I've never seen that. I expect a server would be fired for doing so here as well barring some strange circumstance.
Yeah, i've only seen that in movies.
Movies, and Reddit threads.
And one of those seems to influence the other...
I've seen some Waiters angrily tell people to fuck themselves if they didn't get a tip in America.
I'm 33 and eat out constantly, I've never once see this happen. You are bullshitting.
I see what you're saying, but you are 100% never forced to tip in the states.
But you are seen as extremely rude if you don't, right? That kinda morally forces you to tip.
I mean, maybe for some people being seen as rude is enough to cave, but I think that's dumb. I used to work on tips, and I can definitively say that there are times when it is okay to stiff or leave a bad tip. Waiters know the drill, you provide good service, you get tipped. No one is ever forcing you to leave a tip, morally or otherwise.
Yeah the point of the tipping system is that it lets you leave a small or no tip and end up paying less if you got poor service.
Problem with that logic is that I shouldn't pay your (restaurant or hotel or whatever) employees. I don't pay "less" because I'm still paying more than I should. You should receive your money from your employer.
So then who should pay the employees? The magical money tree?
You pay the goddamn restaurant. Which in turn pays the employees. It's not that hard to grasp. Here a waiter, say with 0 tips, still get around 600 euros per month. It's a paid job not self service.
A waiter here only needs to work about 30 hours a week to make at least $840 and yet that’s somehow not a paid job?
If the employers paid the employees the same amount that the employees get under the tipping system, then the price of the meal would increase. So in the end, you're paying the same total except the tipping system lets you pay less when you receive poor service.
Labor costs are not included in the price of the meal. Everyone knows this in the US.
I wouldn't know about the US that is why I just can't understand. Here when you go to restaurant you pay for everything. Service, table, meal, everything. Waiters get around 600-700 euros per month plus tips, so they can easily do 150% of that amount if they are really good. Which for being a waiter in a non luxury restaurant is quite respectable.
You pay for everything in the US too. It’s just organized suboptimally.
It would be so excellent if that were how it was here, but I can understand getting upset at no tip after great service since it's the difference between making $3.75 an hour and $8+ an hour. The yelling at customers thing is a bit much though.
It's usually up to the customer to decide if the service was great and even then it's completely up to you. Most people do it especially when going to the same restaurant multiple times as the people will treat you a lot better. It's kinda uncommon for people to tip when trying out new places, unless some outstanding service or they plan on returning. It's just how it works. Obviously not only in restaurants but hotels and everywhere with service.
I totally agree that that's how it should be, and in those instances there's never a reason to be upset about not getting a tip because you're already making a living wage. Over here though, since servers don't make a living wage for some ridiculous reason, it's upsetting to be leaving a table after putting in at least an hour of work and getting less than $4. Once again though, never a reason to scream at customers.
I’d never do that but I get it. They are essentially stealing. I mean I’m not being your servant for free. If I’m getting paid $2.13/hr to serve then I hope someone would understand that and tip. And when they don’t it’s just rude. So many things wrong with this country. Ugh!
Flawed logic there.
I think I’d just mostly cook at home if I were ever in the US. The US tipping system irks most of us Europeans.
[removed]
Exactly, tips should be an added bonus on top of a fair salary. It’s just an unfair expectation to have to give and receive tips to make a fair wage.
This is where no one knows the laws. If a server doesn't meet the minimum wage with their tips and pay, then the company is to compensate them for it. This is the irony in it all; minimum wage in the United States is $7.25, but servers make $2.13. Sounds messed up, right? Well with the tips on average a server makes at least $13 an hour, but most that I have talked to make $15-$30 an hour
Which is why they never respond when I use the argument that they have to legally make minimum wage at the end of the day. They don't like that, because they make more.
Try living in a state like California, where the server minimum wage is the same minimum wage as everyone else, and STILL being expected to tip 20% or more. I mean, I still do, but it's a little rough seeing the servers I've worked/lived with making more money on a 20 hour a week job than I make in my 40 hour a week job.
To head off any potential criticism, I'm certainly not saying that someone in California SHOULDN'T tip their servers. Just saying that sometimes tipping culture works in the favor of the server. Also bartenders... good lord. I had a friend who would make $300 a night easily in a four hour shift.
This is anywhere. I bartend day shift in a small town in Ky and I'm pissed if I don't make 300+.
I'm jealous. But I also 100% don't have the patience to deal with drunk people, so you're a saint, as far as I'm concerned.
Most of the people I serve on day shift are just alcoholics that don't actually ever get drunk and like to tip well. There is a reason I don't work night shift and dealing with people who can't handle their liquor is one of them.
Yes this exactly. And frankly $300 is that damn much. That’s basically having sales of $1500. There are lots of bars/restaurants where you will have more than $1500 in sales per day.
Sales would typically be a lot higher than that. I have a few friends that operate bars and restaurants and $3-5000 weekday and $10-15000 Friday/weekend is common.
Wow, those are great sales numbers. If I was doing $15,000 a day in sales the tips off that (assuming the standard 20% would be $3000/day). I will quit what I am doing right now and wait/bartend at those restaurants. What city? NYC I assume?
You just have to be in a decent city withbindusrry. If you do it for a pub, you probably won't make that much. Go to the city like sf or NY to bartender for a popular club or upscale restaurant? Hello gold mine.
Technically you're supposed to report the tips as income also so you get taxed for it. But some people underrepresent the tips to get a few extra bucks.
Ya for sure. I bet Vegas is good too.
Waiting/bartending is huge money if you’re in the right place. Yeah, in and around NYC.
We hate it too. It's an annoying obligation rather than a kind gesture anymore. If you "only" leave 15% you're seen as a cheapskate it seems
Exactly, and when you’re wait staff who relies on the public for a decent wage, they wonder why you can’t give 15% when you eat out yourself.
How did this percentage creep happen? When I was younger, 15% was standard full tip amount; now it's 20%. The actual amount scales with the price of the meal, so it's not a matter of inflation.
I once tried to argue here with someone about how foreigners might find this strange, I've been called close minded and told "this is like complaining that the menu is in another language". While speaking their language. To them. The brainwash is strong
Yeah you can never win in those debates as it’s just a part of their culture, in a way they’re bullied into thinking not tipping makes them a bad person and project it onto anyone that argues against tipping culture. Nobody wants to feel like a bad person
I've since learned to not argue with these people. I feel that some Americans take what suits them and call it "culture", and then feel entitled to insult you for not agreeing. Not paying waiters isn't culture
It is tied into America's biggest societal flaw. Riches and fame not internal pride and accomplishment drive most Americans.
Food service is seen as a lowly profession so well off people saw adding a small cash incentive could get them better service and it became a thing. Then many restaurant saw that it was becoming common place and expected so they could lower their tipped employees wages slightly and lower menu prices to get more customers thus increasing income. However now that its expected and sometimes even added to the bill the extra incentive to give good service is gone.
Yeah, it's one of many things that started among rich people, and spread to those less well off. Eventually, employers decided that they could pay less. People seem to assess it's the other way around, like we feel bad that servers don't get paid well so we give them charity.
The thing is a lot of servers make crazy amounts of money because of tipping, way more than they'd make in Europe. My sister pulled in about $1000 in a single night a couple of days ago and that's not the first time. My friend says his coworkers have college degrees but they make more money as waiters/waitresses than they would with their degrees (this is in a wealthy area, but still). It's so entrenched you're going to have a lot of people really upset if it goes away.
yep. the true test of the matter is what happens when given the option of doing away with tips. the answer from the wait staff is always a resounding NO
Exactly this.
Yes, a great waiter at a great restaurant can make $50/hour regularly. There aren’t too many jobs that a high school drop out can’t work at and make $50/hour. This is certainly on the higher end but you always have a choice where you work and the better waiters tend to gravitate to the better restaurants.
On the other side however, if you have a shit personality and work at a shit restaurant you will make shit for tips. The restaurant industry is one where the best people at their job rise to the top.
Most people I worked with had 2 and 3 degrees but couldn't find work that would pay what they made waiting tables.
I absolutely believe this. Sure, if you work at Denny's the tips are going to suck but if you work at Ruth's Chris they will be much higher. I used to be a waiter years ago and would still be one if I hadn't founded a business. But to be quite honest, the business is a whole lot more work, but you generally do make more money running a business. There is something to be said about how easy it is to be a waiter (if you have the right personality) and make good money.
I have a coworker who also works as a barista. She told us not to tip by card because they actually take what they’re tipped and count part of that as them being paid. The only hint that actually works as a true tip is cash because they don’t record it all.
That seems super illegal.
You're supposed to declare ALL tips. You would have to be crazy to do that. What most people do is declare credit card tips and then pocket the cash and don't declare it.
Yup, one of the many benefits of being a waiter.
Nope, businesses are allowed to do it.
ETA: my sister was a cocktail waitress for awhile, they also have to report their cash tips for the same reason. They’d only report 10% of what they were actually tipped so they wouldn’t lose so much money.
That's fucking disgusting. This the real injustice on this thread.
Tipping in pubs and restaraunts is common enough in Ireland but not expected.
Reading the comments and nobody has said WHY they deserved to be tipped. I still don't get it. I personally don't tip period ever.
In places like the U.S. the server's base wage is low, and tips are added. So, it's like the restaurant is paying for the server to be there, but not much else. By tipping, the customer is effectively paying for the service provided by the server. Separating it into a separate amount allows the customer to vary the amount based on how well they think the server did their job.
I think most people here just include the default percentage (because most of the time the service is as expected) without much thought, like it's sales tax or something.
That is a ridiculous reason for a "voluntary" thing
I didn't intend it to be a reason as much as a way to think about how it works.
Furthermore, the prices of food and drink in the US are lower because the house doesn't have to pay the staff.
It's a custom. If I go to your country and you tell me it's custom to take my shoes off before entering a building, then I'm going to take my shoes off before entering a building.
If you come to America, it's customary that you tip. So tip.
[deleted]
That's the price of the meal. If the math is too much for you, don't go out to eat. It's like how America doesn't roll sales tax into the price of things. It's a minor inconvenience, but oh well.
I've been to restaurants in other countries. The service is not as good. Tipping culture is better for me, as a consumer, because I like having prompt, efficient, and friendly service.
[deleted]
I'd prefer the waiters' wages just be part of the cost of the meal rather than have tipping be a thing, but if I don't tip, I'm not taking a stand against a system of tipping; I'm just choosing not to pay the waiter for services rendered. The house doesn't give a shit either way.
I like the cost being seperate so that if I do get bad service I'm not paying for it.
I think that tipping makes servers ingratiating, aiming to be gracious, but I can't really blame them for being chatty etc. if that's what people typically want.
It sounds like your problem is with how you're choosing to frame it. Why should the money from the meal be what supports them? What's really the difference? Why be resentful of how the waitstaff make their living?
Good service is what should be default
But it's not the default. I've been to other countries, and it's just not. It is the default in the US, because of tipping culture.
To say you've never left a tip... Are you joking? You're not American I presume?
I am not.
It's not meant to pay their wages, it's meant to show appreciation for their work. The better the service, the higher the tip.
Agreed. I think tipping is a good thing because it incentivizes wait staff to provide good service. If you go to a country where tipping is not customary, you'll see that servers there don't give a shit.
Also, I don't think anybody would work as a server if not for tips.
But that's not what happens in practice. Most people leave the same amount 95% of the time.
Yeah, that's why I said it's not meant to be. You're right, it's basically required at this point
It's seen as a way to incentivise workers - provide good service, get a bonus.
That being said, that's all it should be. It shouldn't be considered part of the employee's paycheck.
I think that's like tax on food.
I was just in Austria and they held out their hands for 10% tips AFTER charging me a service charge for "the seat and the bread."
My husband and I just spent some time in Ireland and Scotland. It was weird not tipping the same as in the USA. Usually just leaving the change or a little bit more. Also having coins that are worth more than 25cents was amazing.
Is that the max your coins go to? Fascinating! I literally just learned a few weeks ago that all our coins fit side by side to form the image of our coat of arms. Also we come out with tons of special editions for our 50 pence and 2 pound coins, which is pretty cool.
There also are 50 cent and 1 dollar coins, but those are really rare to the point of cash registers not having a section for them.
[deleted]
The above and beyond thing actually isn't real. Studies have shown that the effort put into the quality of service barely makes an impact on the tip given.
It's a nice idea but it's proven false in practice. Great shame really.
Two quick and simple sources here and here As well as an Adam Ruins Everything Episode if you want the same info in a entertaining manner!
I bet there are a whole lot of waiters that would disagree with that study.
How do you disagree with a fact?
Welcome to Reddit!
Based on personal experience and the experiences of those in the industry that I know. Did you read the study? It clearly states that the problem is that most of the respondents reported receiving good service, there were not enough bad service data points. In the New Yorker article, it states that service levels in Australia and Japan are equivalent when they are most certainly inferior.
Ah thanks for reminding me, I'll add some citations to the comment!
[deleted]
On top of that - if you get poor service and poor quality food, you're still expected to tip. It's a fucking joke.
So the distinction between the cost being applied via tip rather than just rolled into the bill is your primary issue? Since the end result is the same.
[removed]
It is the same difference... the expected tip plus your meal is roughly what it would cost if the wage was fixed.
There are many restaurants in the US that don’t have waiter service, if that’s what you prefer then just goto those restaurants and avoid the waiter service ones.
[deleted]
In your example the receptionist is there to serve the attorney and make their job easier. They are not serving you as a customer like a waiter would be. I understand your point but there are very few examples that are similar to a waiter because the waiter is there solely for the service of the customer. A restaurant can, and many do, function just fine without a waitstaff and as I said you have the option to choose not to patronize establishments that utilize a traditional wait staff.
[deleted]
Hahaha well you are certainly entitled to your opinions but your examples make no sense. There is a massive difference between table service and counter service. That's why you don't tip at fast food or buffets.
I do agree with your last point about the receptionist being replaced by an online booking service but perhaps we should substitute counter service for vending machine in this example.
[deleted]
Cultural differences my friend. You're happy you don't have to tip and I'm happy that I don't have to receive poor service. To each his own.
I see your point, but it’s the poorest that are affected by the “can’t afford to tip, can’t afford the service” mentality, and sometimes people don’t have that extra 3 dollars to add on top of a 10 dollar pizza, etc. Paying for the service should be all-inclusive. Also, it really takes away from the luxury of eating out when every meal ends in a squabble about who should tip what and why. Especially in establishments you already pay a premium price, which should be more accommodating.
You don’t tip at 90% of pizza places in the US. It’s really only the table service restaurants that you need to tip at.
[deleted]
Well that’s exactly why America has an obesity crisis, all junk food is cheap and abundant with more lax regulation on fast food, hence easier to get hooked on salty fries, etc. , it’s pretty dumb but I don’t agree with taxing unhealthy food and drink here in the UK. Freedom is important. And I feel you on the pizza, but still, if you can afford the pizza you can afford the pizza. Tip shouldn’t be a factor.
The UK has an obesity crisis as well. It comes down to personal choices. 10 dollars can get me a lot more healthy food than fast food.
I don't think taxing is the be-all end-all solution but I do think it would help, as unpopular as it would be.
If there were resources people could access cheaply (online) about home-cooking, how cost-effective and rewarding it is both financially and nutritionally; in that case I would see the "obesity tax" as much more fair.
People shouldn't be rewarded by eating like shit and passing that onto their children and inherently tax-payers That's exactly how I feel about the pizza though, I'm with you on that, but where I draw the line of personal responsibility is "you shouldn't be eating what you can't afford."
I'm vegan, before having a well-paying job (and being on social benefits) I wasn't eating vegan cheeses, mock meats and other specialty products, or ordering take out from restaurants/fast food joints. On benefits I was eating beans, rice, pasta, lentils, chickpeas, with a mix of seasonal vegetables (frozen or fresh are both very cheap) if I felt like splurging it would be on a cheap bag of TVP or a few blocks of tofu. I can't expect everyone to live like that or have the discipline to, but I think it very, very irresponsible to not consider the cost of eating fast food constantly.
At the same time, i'm biased because my mother was a great cook and passed that on to me. But at the same time, I feel it only takes one person to show someone how to do this and the effect dominoes.
That is not normal. I grew up in the U.S. in the '80s and the stereotypical American dinner was roast chicken, beef, or fish, potatoes, and a vegetable. Granted, the vegetables might have varied in quality from canned to farm fresh, depending on season and location, but still.
[deleted]
I'm American. I grew up in the U.S. in the '80s. My observation is most certainly more accurate than an anecdote about a single family in that time frame.
[deleted]
My take on the average American meal in the '80s was not meant to seem ideal...it was just food. If anything, I'd characterize it as boring. I'm sorry if doesn't paint the picture you want to imagine of my country at the time.
I'll let the rest of your comment speak to the subject of bias.
Edit: And to be clear, I was not questioning the truth of the anecdote, just that the family did not seem normal to me.
So perhaps in only the last 30 years you all started over indulging in fast food?
I think it's a couple of things. First, my experience as a child and teenager was in a family environment (both my own, and going to friends' homes), and I think parent tend to think more about the meals they prepare when they are feeding their children. I know that was the case when I was married and cooking for my step-children. That's definitely just a personal experience, though; I don't know if it applies to everyone. Good parenting is unfortunately not always the case.
Perhaps nothing has changed in the intervening years other than my perspective, but here's my opinion on the evolution of fast-food/take-out. Portion sizes have increased over time, both in sit-down restaurants and fast-food places. I think it's a marketing thing; they want you to feel like you get more for your money, even if more isn't always better. The availability of inexpensive, low-cost, prepared food is great enough that it makes it very easy to say, "fuck it, I don't feel like cooking, I'll just grab some take-out." Then you get more food than you needed (but not so much that you divide it into two meals), and that meal usually lacks requirements like green vegetables. This particular combination of laziness and large servings is a large part of the reason that I went from being fit in my early 40's to fat in my late 40's.
Americans also like their desserts! Cookies, cakes, ice cream, etc. are cheap and plentiful at the grocery store and convenience stores. There's no supply constraint to limit their urge to consume. Two cookies after dinner? Fuck that, I'll have six! They're cheap and they taste good.
So, yeah, I think a lot of us might need adult supervision. Or kids to force us to be proper adults.
A thought on your story about the family turning down the meal prepared for them: This may not be a uniquely American thing, but I've run into a lot of people that have their set of foods that they are comfortable with, and they stay away from anything they don't recognize. Sometimes it's to a ridiculous degree. And some people are rude. Seriously, if someone cooks for you, you eat it and say, "thank you." That's as true in the U.S. as it is anywhere else.
If tipping weren't expected, that pizza wouldn't be $10.00.
I see your point, but it’s the poorest that are affected by the “can’t afford to tip, can’t afford the service” mentality, and sometimes people don’t have that extra 3 dollars to add on top of a 10 dollar pizza,
1.) If tipping wasn’t a thing, that pizza would cost $13 instead.
2.) If you can’t afford $3, you should be cooking your own meals instead of buying a $10 pizza.
it really takes away from the luxury of eating out when every meal ends in a squabble about who should tip what and why.
Why is there squabbling? Leave the tip you want for the portion of the bill you’re paying for. If you can’t afford a tip, you can’t afford anything considered a “luxury.”
Even I’ve been there and I don’t live in the US, it’s just awkward having to calculate what you think you owe a waiter based on how nice they’ve been and wondering if it’s too little or too much. It’s fine saying that, but people can spend their money on whatever they want and if they can afford the food that’s all that counts, even if you have little money it’s not fair to say someone can’t treat themselves once in a blue moon cause they can’t afford to add to a waiters wage. It’s bizarre.
even if you have little money it’s not fair to say someone can’t treat themselves once in a blue moon cause they can’t afford to add to a waiters wage. It’s bizarre.
I personally don’t care about “waiters wage” blah blah blah. I just care about the shitty excuses people come up with to justify being cheap.
If you have $12 in your bank account, it is totally fair to say you can’t afford a $10 meal. No, you cannot afford to treat yourself once in a blue moon if you don’t have any goddamn money. That $10 meal hurts your wallet five times more than a $2 tip. Fix that mistake first; don’t justify it by not leaving a tip.
A really easy way to calculate a standard tip for standard service is to take the first number on the bill (if the bill is under $100, if it’s over then take the first 2 numbers) multiply that number by 2 and then add $1.
sometimes people don’t have that extra 3 dollars to add on top of a 10 dollar pizza
Pizza delivery is a bit different, but let's go back to restaurants for a moment. That pizza is gonna cost $13, give or take, regardless. If the server's wages are driven up to minimum wage, the price of the food is going to go up to cover it. People who can afford $10 pizza but not $13 pizza are not gonna have new access to this food.
To the rest of it, any restaurant could just say "we don't have tipping any more, our food just costs 20% more across the board." It sounds like many people would endorse that; get rid of tipping and pay a flat price for your goods/services like anywhere else. Any individual who doesn't like tipping structure, or squabbling over tip amounts, could just decide to leave 20% on every bill at any restaurant regardless and adopt that policy for themselves.
You're totally right. I wonder why majority of the rest of world doesn't work off this tipping structure!
/s
But they should make well above minimum wage without tips, the customer isn't responsible for paying their salary, the owner is
If owner would have to pay the waiter, then the prices would just rise, since the salary would be made with the money you gave them. (I don't know if I'm clear, but I hope you'll excuse my broken English)
But... If they Prices rise, would it not match around the same as the tip? Thats atleast the way i see it.
The issue is what the wage should be for the servers. I have friends who make $40-50 an hour serving. That's not necessarily normal. I think the national average is closer to $10-12. If my city raises the minimum tipped wage and people decide to stop tipping; they'll be taking a paycut down to $12.50.
Yes, but in the end the tipping system is so odd, feels like a guilt thing you have to pay x percentage for the server. It would suck for the servers untill the negotiage for better pay
It makes food way cheaper in a sense though. I've worked in the food industry for years (as not a server) and restaurant margins in restaurants are super thin. Owners of independently owned restaurants would have to increase their prices by way more than 20% to cover then increase. And no one is going to pay a server a flat rate of $40/hr. It'll end up becoming a job where people don't care as much and service suffers. It's a lot more complicated behind the scenes than people who haven't worked in the industry realize.
Remember, you would No longer tip, so prices would not increase for the customer. Might be because i am from a non tipping country. Our servers also get several weeks of paid holiday.. I Will Never understand the tipping system and how it makes things cheaper and Better for everyone.
Essentially it has to do with the amount it would increase. They actually tried doing this at some restaurants in New York a few years ago and between servers leaving and customers throwing tantrums because of increases, the restaurant gave up. Most restaurants (at least in my city) thrive off of regulars. We did the math in my last restaurant to see what the owner would have to raise prices by per menu item to pay everyone want they make with tips. It amounted to a $5ish increase. So if you normally come to our restaurant and your fave dish is now suddenly $5 more, you'd be pissed because you just see that and not that fact that you don't have to tip too. It's most likely a psychological thing.
It also comes down to that in the US for it to work, it would have to be from the federal government level, and right now it's done on a state level or even city level. So good servers just move.
I also wonder if in non-tipping countries, serving is seen as a menial entry level job?
Seen as a normal job, there is an education for it. But not every place has servers. Also the part about going out to eat is not a common thing in Denmark. We rarely go out because most prefer a home cooked meal. Partly because it is cheaper and more convenient.
Not always. After the taxes, overhead, all that....you'd probably need to raise the cost of an item by $1.50-$2 to offset each dollar of tip money. So if you want to pay a waiter $12.50 instead of $8.50 for example, you'd probably need to increase the food by $5-6. And most waiters do much better than minimum wage or a little better.
If the prices for the customers don’t increase how will the owner pay the additional salary plus the additional taxes that are due? Money doesn’t grow on trees. If they increase the prices by 20% (in reality it would be more like 30% to cover the additional taxes too) it’s basically saying that your tip is now a mandatory 20% that you still have to pay even if you receive horrible service.
Yes that was my point ^^ and therefore every waiter would have the same salary regardless to the quality of their work, which would be unfair
Well the tip, atleast here is only a bonus, i have tipped in Denmark but only twice, since the waiters were super good. But, i would except the waiters to be paid similar, without a tipping system.
"Super good" is really hard to define. My experience with dining in Europe is that the service isn't bad, but different. It's a form of different that would not be acceptable in the states.
Well, super good in the waiter kept an eye on the table and offered some more sauce and was helpful with explain the specials. further than that he was good at staying away when not needed.
The need for a waiter is not that much for me besides take the order and explain things about the food and wine. While i am eating i would prefer them to stay away.
I've eaten at several places in Italy, Germany, Spain, etc where the server didn't offer anything. Ready to order, wave down a server. Need another drink, wave again. Need a napkin, wave again. Need the check, wave yet again. Want to pay, go to the bar. That would not work at a chain restaurant in the US.
That's basically what we call fast casual here in the states. Order/pay at a counter, seat yourself, someone brings the food, and you're on your own.
Which is sooo lovely!
What does a waiter do that requires the tip?
Quick glance at your account, and I seems you're not US based?
OK, so US service (and note that I've waited tables here in the US many years, and now work a more expensive/fine dining place), is about not having to ask for anything. The person who seats you tells you your servers name, so you don't have to ask them. The server explains the menu so you don't have to ask where are the seafood dishes or where are the past dishes. The servers asks if you want an appetizer before the meal. The server will ask if you want steak sauce for your steak, ketchup for your fries, etc, and then bring it would you asking. They will bring out refills (free here) when you're down to about 1/3rd, so you don't have to ask for more soda. They will bring out extra napkins if you're eating something with your hands, like a burger. Desserts and after dinner drinks are not common, so they will drop off the check before you ask for it.
I'm not saying service in Europe is bad, it's just different. What I explained above it what the average US person expects from their server. Bad service here in the US is if you have to ask for more soda/water or if you are finished and don't have the check.
Yeah indeed, you're right ^^ it's the same in France, we only tip when the service is good and the waiter just got the minimum wage (around 10€/h without the tax cut) but I was saying that in anyway, if the waiter got paid the minimum wage, then the prices of the drink would rise to compensate the difference. And in the end, at least in the state, people would just be angrier ^^'
If i was forced to tip, and the tip was removed but everything increased slightly i would not care. I am sure more people would be happy since i see the tip as a "hidden fee" hidden fees suck.
I am pretty sure it's a holdover from Prohibition. Waitstaff used to make higher wages, but when Prohibition hit restaurants lost all their alcohol sales and made adjustments to stay afloat and so patrons supplementing the staffs income became a thing. After Prohibition was repealed people had acclimated to the practice and it stuck.
So instead of reform just continue, classic human behaviour i guess.
That's interesting, thanks for sharing
Was mainly a joke that most people of the world would accept it, if it had become the social norm.
No. Really good service would still get you some tips
Hmmm... Yup indeed, you're right ^^
No.
Good servers could still be tipped and get EVEN more.
Fire bad servers if they're doing a bad job ffs. Every other job does it that way. If I start half-assing the Excel sheets I make, I get fired.
Tipping right now is not based on quality of service. Everyone is tipped.
Tipping is 100% based on quality of service. Ask anyone in the industry and they will tell you how much tips vary from one waiter to the next. Often times a great server will make twice as much as a bad server at the same restaurant.
right now tipping is essentially mandatory no matter the quality of service
No it’s not. You think they did a bad job? Don’t give them a tip, or give them a bad one. That’s the entire point of tipping.
try leaving a restaurant in NY without leaving a tip (or below 18%). they're going to follow you onto the street. might not be like this where you are
So tell em to fuck off and keep walking. The service was bad enough that you didn’t pay them for it. At that point you’re probably already pissed off and planning to never return to the restaurant. Why do you care what the server thinks or does at that point? Enjoy telling your shitty server to piss off.
If the service was good, though, leave a tip.
I mean, that may be the case near you, and that sucks. But that still doesn't make tipping mandatory.
it makes it essentially mandatory to the point where you have to think "was that service so bad that it's worth for me to argue for 10 minutes why it was bad?" it puts quite a high barrier on not tipping / tipping poorly
That blows. I have no problem leaving a bad tip, or stiffing, for exceedingly bad service. Then again, no one has ever chased me down the street about it.
If you can't afford or don't want to tip you should stay home and cook your own meals. Currently, employers are not required to pay anywhere close to even a minimum wage let alone a living wage. If you want someone to bring you your dinner, the going rate is 15- 20%.
Except that employers are still required to make sure their employees make minimum wage (7.25/hr) if said employee doesn't make enough in tips to cover the difference. These employees absolutely do make minimum wage, one way, or the other. I have been a server, and a delivery guy. There are reasonable times to tip poorly or even stiff. I don't like doing it and for the most part I am a model tipper.
Or just eat at a restaurant without table service. We have lots of options.
Giving better service doesn't increase your tips
Giving worse service doesn't decrease your tips
I’m a waiter in the states and I promise you the customers care about the quality of the service you offer them and it directly effects your tips.
It does if you’re my server. Try it sometime.
Why would that be unfair?
If the quality of your service is poor and you don't do your job correctly you get fired, quality of service has to always be excellent, it's not a do ut des scenario.
Are people in bank accounting expected to get a tip by their customers is they do their job correctly? They all get payed the same for doing their job.
Disagree. The owner would probably enforce much higher standards, and like other businesses, employees who don't perform would be let go.
If you really think it would even out then you've never met a restaurant manager
Probaly not one from the USA, our country has regulations with regards to pay and holiday if the manager does not conform you report him/her.
Yep so you end up paying the same amount either way for regular service. However, if the service is bad, then you shouldn’t feel bad about a smaller tip or no tip at all.
But as i understand it social custom is you have to, because of the poor waiters.
The tipping system wouldn't make sense if you had to in 100% of cases. It's only beneficial because it allows us to pay less when we get poor service.
Yes prices would rise but they’d balance out and they’d end up on the same wage, roundabout. Way I see it that’s way better, because it takes away from the pressure and discomfort of knowing you have to calculate what reward you owe for the service when you decided to eat out to take a break and avoid the stress of cooking.
You want to pay $10 for a burger and tip $1.50 or do you want to pay $11.50 and the server had a "real wage"?
11.50 with a real wage. easily.
For real, that comment read a lot like papa john's "sure my workers could have healthcare but the pizzas would cost 14 cents more!"
...but the "real wage" is the server making less money than they do today, you paying the same for a meal, and the server now having less care about the service they provide.
$1.50 is a really bad tip. 20% is standard unless the meal is really cheap. I never leave less than $5. I know that I wouldn’t want to be someone’s servant for only $1.50, not that $5 is much better at least it’s something.
How can people upvote a statement as stupid as: "the customer isn't responsible for paying their salary, the owner is"
Where the fuck do you think the owner is getting the money to pay the salary exactly? The source and outcome are functionally the same.
Or run your business like Chick Fila. I get better service there than most restaurants.
And having just returned to the US from Europe (9th visit...been to multiple countries there), I LOVE tipping in the US. The service in Europe sucks.
See I hated the service in the US. Too chatty and personal. I just want to give my order and money over and get my food. Europe and the US have a very different service culture.
If that’s the kind of service you want then just goto a non-tableservice restaurant.
Why should i have to limit my food choices just because I don't want a server with an uncanny fake smile hovering around my table?
Because you're not willing to pay for it.
So now i have to pay NOT to be bothered while i eat?
No, I'm sorry if my comment was hard to understand. If you don't want to be bothered it is less expensive than if you goto a table service restaurant because you don't have to tip (and you won't be bothered) at restaurants without a waitstaff.
But most restaurants only provide table service, so i would have to significantly limit my food choices in order to avoid getting bothered
I don’t have a source but I know in my neighborhood the number of counter service restaurants far exceeds the number of table service restaurants but I’m sure this changes from community to community.
I prefer ours. I dont wanna see or chat with waiters I am not there for them, I just came for food or for fun times with friends. I would so prefer ordering over some tablet, to have food brought by some robots. Plus I dont see why waiters deserve tipping, the work is easy.
But US waiteers, often so annoiyng and fake chatty. Came to the point I avoided restaurants. They come to your table so many times!
Come to Japan. Ideally you will interact with your waiter exactly four times: when they seat you, when they take your order, when they bring your order, and when you pay (well, more if you have a course meal, as the food keeps coming to your table). They will invisibly fill your water/tea glass, and will mostly instantly respond to summons if you need anything else, but otherwise they float around, ready to serve, blending into the background. None of the annoying "How is the food", "Would you like anything else to drink", "Is everything okay", "How's your burger"... because they expect it is already as good as they can do it, and that it's your responsibility to be a frigging adult and pipe up when you need something without being prompted. I mean, what kind of question is "Is everything okay"? How often is something not okay, if you have to ask every five minutes? "How do you like your burger"? Why do you ask? Either you know you are making good burgers, so it's pure "c'mon flatter me", or you know your burgers are so messed up that you need to check that you're not poisoning your guests, which is it?
There are many restaurants in the US just like that. It’s up to you to choose where you eat.
Meanwhile, here in East Asia we have better service than both and absolutely no tipping. Weird.
And having just returned to the US from Europe (9th visit...been to multiple countries there), I LOVE tipping in the US. The service in Europe sucks.
What makes it suck?
The US and a lot of European countries have different cultural attitudes which effects customer service. In a lot of places in Europe constantly checking in on patrons is viewed as kind of intrusive like you are disrupting their meal , but in the US it is seen as being attentive and conscientious.
Hopefully he doesn't think that service in all of europe sucks because of that.
Its a pretty common statement on reddit from American posters. They are used to the waiter hovering around them so when they don't they see it as bad service. They have trouble getting the waiter to the table because they aren't used to flagging down the waiter like we are.
Yeah it really depends on where you are.
I felt like a nuisance eating at some places. Like 'Uhh I have to deal with you' attitude. I've worked in food service and being friendly with the customers/co-workers makes the atmosphere so much better. When everyone acts like they're having fun, it becomes fun.
At some places, in some european countries?
Not that I haven't eaten at restaurants with that behaviour, but I don't come back to them and they usually close down as their customer won't come back.
Shitty restaurants exists in every country, are you sure that you didn't just choose shitty restaurants?
It was a McDonald's in Berlin. Never going back.
That is a joke right? Mcdonalds in Berlin? Yeah very german experience.
Yeah
In 2+ yrs of working on tips I never had a single day where I made less than minimum wage. Most of days hovered around 10-15/hr. Waiters and delivery drivers are not making the shitty money people think that they are.
In theory it gives them an incentive, but in practice in my travels I have never found the service to be worse in non-tipping countries.
Exactly. I make at least $20/hr from tips. If we were paid that by the owner, food costs would suddently be a lot higher (not to mention that on good shifts, I make up to $30). If we were paid minimum wage, most of us wouldn't work there and restaurant staffs would go downhill real fast.
My sister pulled in like $1000 in a night a couple days ago.
It's a really messed up concept. I bartend at a pretty success, at least locally, restaurant. There are 8 locations spread throughout three states in the north east of the US. They pay wait staff the normal minimum wage, $3.27 an hour, I work about 35 hours a week, which totals out on my paycheck after taxes to about $15 every two weeks. It's incredibly insulting, but I make tips which greatly make up for it. This being said, we get no discounts outside of what the customers get, other than half off a meal during out shift. What really grinds my gears though is that the cooks make between $8 and $10/hr. They're the ones REALLY working hard, and you would think that with the shit wage they pay front of house, they might give a kickback to the back of house. This is normal, sadly, and this also happens to be the best kitchen staff I have ever worked with. It was really sad this year because when it came time for their yearly review multiple people could not get raises because we had to replace a lot of kitchen equipment, a fridge, fryer, grill, etc, and then I come in to work yesterday and notice a new 80 inch TV. So yeah, "sorry we can't pay you because we would rather not waste money on loyal employees" is kind of the mantra of most American businesses, but the restaurant industry gets away with it more.
My sister is a waitress and if she doesn't make the equivalent of minimum wage by her wages and tips, then her employer will pay the rest. So it's not like waiters/waitresses just don't get minimum wage.
He should pay it anyway though, it’s about giving the waiter a break for good service, not the employer a break in having to pay the wage. It’s a bonus for good effort, and the boss isn’t the one putting in the effort. It takes away the incentive to know you’re only putting in the effort to break even and not earn on top of your standard wage
Yeah I totally agree. Just wanted to point out that the worker isn't dying from it. The person who really hurts from it is the customer. I agree it should be the other way.
[deleted]
You don't have to eat out.
It's getting worse too. More and more stores and fast food joints are trying to adopt tipping. I've even seen it at car washes where they ask if you want cash back for the tip.
That’s scary, the culture is so culturally reinforced anyone can apply it to any job role, necessary or not
Mhmm, and if you mention a negative view about tipping and paying others wages, you're usually bombarded with angry tip workers who look down on you for not saying that you tip at least 25%
Employers don't want to pay wages and tip workers sympathize with eachother and encourage tipping. It's a vicious cycle and all it does is encourage more stores to tip.
Seriously, you handed me a bag of food that you didn't make, why the fuck do I need to top you?
Oh and what they also like to do is add a "suggested tip amount" at the bottom of the receipt that's usually along the lines of: 18%= $5, 22%=$7, 25%= $10... It's always high amounts that they 'suggest'
It’s just utterly disrespectful, that audacity of the employer “suggesting” you pay their employees wage after you probably paid a premium price for something it costs them nothing to make. 25% is absurd, I had no idea. I couldn’t fathom deciding to go and eat out knowing if I didn’t pay an extra 1/4 of the actual value I’d be frowned upon with disgust, it’s a scary culture.
Well I definitely don't. I only tip of they did a superb job, really going above and beyond. Anyways, I leave before they pick up the filled out receipt, so I dont have to deal with it
That’s how it should be, a bonus for great service. Not a universal expectation
Exactly, sadly it's expected.
Cheers
It really doesn't matter. You're either paying tips or you're paying more for the food because the business needed to raise costs to make up for higher wages. If tipping was normal in your country then prices would drop at the restaurant. Hell, at least with tips of the service was actually bad I can tip low and not pay that money at all.
But people shouldn’t have to pay for a dining experience where they need to deal with the stress of trying not to be a cheapskate and not overpay based on the level of service, they should just get to enjoy what they paid for. Works out the same with no tips, but much less stress
If that is an issue for you a therapist is probably a better solution.
Perhaps I just live in a place where it doesn’t fall on me to pay other people’s wages and I have to contemplate it more since I’m not at all used to it.
Perhaps I just live in a place where it doesn’t fall on me to pay other people’s wages
Except of course when you pay the menu price which has their salary rolled into it as a cost... But you are right paying 15 dollars for a meal and tipping 3 is WAY different than just paying 18!
Seriously, you are all so angry about being forced to confront that you are actually less generous than you like to think you are.
i was listening to a podcast recently (Roosterteeth Podcast 494 i believe) where they talk about American tipping culture. I dont remember their exact arguments, but they held positive views on tipping.
Now, I’ve never worked in food service so i havnt experienced this first-hand but the idea is that if youre a great waiter, then you get paid more. Thats about it. When customers do what theyre supposed to it rewards and encourages excellence. It is heavily frowned upon to not tip or to tip poorly. My parents would say “if you cant afford to tip, you cant afford to go out.”
A normal tip is %15-20 of the bill, however i often hear stories of iving $100+ tips because they felt being generous. The people i do know that get tips love it because they can make so much more in a night than they would otherwise with just a standard hourly pay, even if it was higher.
Yeah and something no one seems to know of another sneaky thing employers of restaurants do... If the restaurant pools their tips (splitting all tips evenly) then they can take the credit card transaction fees out of it. So basically your employer is stealing your tips to pay the credit card fees and it is legal.
I don't think anyone I tipped in Europe (I visited Germany, Austria, Netherlands) were offended by it because they knew I was American. Maybe they're just so polite that they didn't want me to know they were offended. In any case, I don't care, I want you to have a tip for providing me service.
This is also why your servers don't make as much money as ours.
Ask a US bartender if they'd like to trade their job for a fixed wage in Ireland or Germany.
Hi, I'm an American who's never had the opportunity to see other countries, but I've read tipping is generally considered an insult. How much truth is behind that statement?
I’m British and the majority of the people I’ve tipped were quite well received, even the smallest amounts get a thank you. This is in a country where tips aren’t a custom. But on rare occasions I’ve had what I assume to be new immigrants doing delivery that don’t understand what a tip is and get very confused. I’ve never had a tip resulting in insult though.
i argue this will fellow americans and they look at me like im the worst human to walk the earth. the employers are the cheapskates. shouldnt be up to your paying customers to pay for you awful wages.
This is very dependent on state. Some states allow tipped employees to be paid well below minimum wage, and in that instance your statement is correct. The state I live in still requires everyone to be paid minimum wage regardless of tip status. This actually makes those jobs highly coveted and good servers can make excellent wages in comparison to their peers.
But you don't have any problem paying more for your meal so the restaurant can pay the server a higher wage? I mean, that's a lot more convenient for the customer, but either way part of your check ends up in the server's pocket. So, I don't think brainwashing enters into it.
I’d rather pay more than pay the same amount but have to spend my meal worrying if I’m overpaying or underpaying and feeling pressured based on how nice the server is. And it does, because it’s not in every instance tips just pay wages, they’re highly expected in a number of different jobs. Fact of the matter is it’s just audacious to expect the customer to pay their employees wage, it’s a stupid concept and in most cases if tips weren’t a thing prices wouldn’t always go up because there’s still a market to beat and a huge profit still being made. It’s just a money saver.
I'm can't say I agree with your conclusion about prices going up, but I think a lot of Americans (including myself) would be just as happy to not have to worry about calculating/evaluating a tip when paying for a meal. To me it seems like the mild version of the discomfort that people from many cultures (Americans among them) experience with haggling.
Exactly, you eat out to take a break and have the work done for you. That’s why you pay a premium.
psst.... either way the customer is paying the employee's wage. I agree with you, but tipping $5 is no different than raising the cost of my meal $5. Actually tipping is better, the server can avoid paying taxes on it.
That’s actually a really good point, didn’t think of that one.
Toilet plungers. I don't think I've ever seen seen one in real life.
Edit: I'm Australian. Apparently our toilets don't clog.
Ohhh do you just have a poop knife instead?
And there it is.
I couldn't help it, but I swear I am not a serial poop knife bringer-upper!
That's not a poop knife... THIS is a poop knife!
Ah I get it! But help me, which subreddit is leaking here?
https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/7p8puq/light_i_was_22_years_old_when_i_learned_that_not/?utm_source=reddit-android
i’d give you gold if i had the money sir
I'm German, we do have a plunger, but rarely use it for the toilet. I doubt we'd ever use it, if our pipes weren't so cheap.
And you Germans take your toilets seriously!!! I've seen pictures of the poo shelf!!
The poo shelf lmao
I know what you mean, but I gotta say I don't know many people who actually have that kind of toilet at home. They are more common in public restrooms, I think.
I can't tell you how disappointed I am. There was a whole chapter in a book I read on the German poo shelf.
we have one of those "poop shelf" ones here at home, dont think ive seen any other version of them over the last 13 years here in germany
Seriously? Where do you live and what kinda super toilets do you have?
I'm in the UK. Can't recall a toilet clogging. We just have good plumbing.
Also in the UK. You've never seen a plunger? Not even for a sink? It's unhygienic to use the same one for both but they are interchangeable (in a pinch, before some plumber corrects me).
Not a plumber, but I have unfortunately had to use our toilet plunger for our dual sink before. Sister clogged our garbage disposal so bad that I needed the cylindrical shape of a toilet plunger to really get in there. The flat sink plunger just couldn't keep suction amidst the endless sea of peeled potato skins she was dumping down there. Toilet plunger and a hearty facepalm later (and making sis clean up all of the potato) the sink was good as new.
In doesn't work as well the other way, though. Sink plungers are flat on the bottom and it can be very difficult to plunge a toilet with one. (A small cylindrical opening with rounded, sloping edges)
They are not interchangeable, as the other guy said the toilet ones are beefier
I'm having trouble squaring that with my experience with water pressure and "OMG don't drink hot water from the tap!!!" when I was over there.
That's because the hot water comes in, gets heated up by a boiler and stays in a tank to keep warm, stagnant. Cold water comes in fresh.
The warm water pressure being low is also due to the same thing.
Yeah but in Germany it's the same way in most homes. There is a large hot water tank in the basement next to the heater that keeps the hot water, yet I've never heard about not being supposed to drink it or anything like that.
[not the one who downvoted you]
I also hardly ever hear anyone bring up the hot tap, probably because everyone just knows already, I only got told as a child. When someone from another country visits is probably the only time anyone says anything. Might just be because it's amusing to alarm someone over something so innocuous. Water from the hot tap is a lot cleaner than bottled spring water which isn't treated. So yeah, there's that lol.
The hot water thing is a cultural holdover from very old systems that used it in a way that wouldn't guarantee it being to drinkable standards. Unless you're in a building that hasn't had its plumbing touched for upwards of 50 years, it's fine.
I'm from the UK originally. We always had a toilet plunger. You must have had better plumbing.
[deleted]
Also Aus. I clog mine every other time I go. I can unclog it pretty easily with a toilet brush tho.
Disclaimer: Brush has long handle and has a full brush attatched. I also buy the cheapish brand of tp thats both too thin, to the point it feels like it will rip; and too thick where it likely clogs the toilet using 3, 3 ply squares for each wipe.
So what do you do without a plunger?
I've clogged a toilet once, the turd was easily as wide as a coke bottle at its thickest part though
Rookie measurements, gotta pump those numbers up
how many courics?
Just bigger tubes.
USA - Cheap duplex built in the 1970's. I have a plunger, but only used it once, when my kid flushed a toy truck.
Yeah, I might be biased because I worked with plumbers, but I've used plungers. Both toilet and sink plungers. Mostly sinks though to be honest (Make-up clogging sinks)
Although to be fair we've never used one at home.
UK. Never seen a blocked toilet in my life.
I've lived in UK, Ukraine, Poland, Australia, Switzerland and none of those places ever needed a plunger
Definitely, I was astounded and perplexed by American plunger love until I worked out the differences in toilets which causes it.
What makes American toilets deficient?
They use a different mechanism to clear the bowl, one which requires a more narrow aperture.
I explained it in my other comment in here but this blog sums it up better than I could.
Yea it's really just a product the plunger that fixes a problem with a different product the toilet. Good toilet need no plunger .
I found out through reddit that a lot of people outside the US don't flush toilet paper down the toilet, but throw it away in the trash. Is that common where you are? Could be why you don't need a plunger.
Edit: okay guys, I get that it's only some.
It’s nothing to do with that. It’s because US toilets work on a completely different principle (siphonic, rather than wash down) than toilets elsewhere - a design that is prone to clogging.
https://toiletfound.com/siphonic-vs-washdown-toilet-which-is-better/
This is one of the first things foreigners who visit North America (and a few other countries that are US-influenced) notice: your toilets are totally different. They fill up to a high water level, then when flushed will totally empty before refilling. That’s not how they work in other places. The water level is lower and never changes - even during flushing the water level remains exactly the same at all times.
Come here to Australia (or most other countries) and you can throw a whole roll of paper in before flushing if you want. It won’t clog. Plungers are not a thing here - you’d be lucky to find one if you tried.
Huh, TIL.
I learned this just few months ago. Been watching hollywood for about all my middle aged life and never paid attention to this one detail.
I also learned when i was well over 20 that the entire planet doesn't use Nordic style dish racks.. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/finnish-dishes-simple-nordic-design-beats-dishwashers-drying-racks/
BTW, why isn't the entire planet using those baffles me, one would think that such a no brainer would've spawned automatically.
Never have I wanted to overhaul my cupboards more than now. That's amazing. Marking that as TIL.
If Finland never contributes to the world other than astiankuivauskaappi and Nokia 3310, i'm alright with that.. You don't even need to clean them often, i've literally wiped my the top shelf rack once or twice in the last decade. When you don't put anything but totally clean, wet dishes in them they are kind of self cleaning too.. It is really a no-brainer to me, win-win-win.
Thank you for sharing this. I need to install one of those in my house. They make so much sense!
good question.
America at least wants the sink in front of a window so you can stare outside and wonder why the hell you didn’t just use the dishwasher.
That plus even if there is a cabinet over the sink it’s is usually in a pass through so the cabinet is small and very high up.
Basically different architecture.
I'm not sure but i think you described like 10% of housing.. but you are correct that it won't necessarily fit in since the house/apartment was not designed to have it. It saves tons of space...
I hated those when I lived in student housing in Lund.
If it was shared apartment.. i can sympathize. I've lived in communes about a quarter of my life and things can get crowded.. and damn right nasty when some people don't clean the dishes properly..
When I moved out of my parents' house, I remember paying attention to internet articles around what invaluable things to have handy around a home. One of the things mentioned regularly was a plunger. I'd never experienced needing one at my parents' house, but I figured I might as well get one.
I then realised all this advice was aimed at the US, and only really understood why when I went to the US and saw how the toilets were completely different. I have not once in my life needed to use a plunger in the UK.
Even better, if you try to actually use one on a UK style toilet, it won't really work. The shape of the 'neck' of the bowl isn't symmetrical or 'round' enough for the (generally circular shaped) plunger to get a proper air tight seal. It just sorta sloshes the water around a bit, rather than forcefully pushing it through the pipes as it would on a US toilet.
I know this because I've tried using one on our toilet in Australia, just for laughs. They do work very effectively on US toilets though.
Those ones are generally intended for sinks. The kind of plunger you SHOULD use for a toilet are shaped differently, but most people use the sink plunger for the toilet for some reason. (Possibly because poopy water gets stuck in the curve of the correct shaped plunger, I had to rinse ours out in the shower when I had to use it)
Interesting, it explains why Europeans always ask why the water is so high in the Toilet bowls.
Heh, everyone asks that: Europeans, Asians, Australians. It’s one of the most common first “wtf” first impressions when you visit North America, because after getting off the plane what is one of the very first things you are gonna do... :)
TIL, I noticed the water was lower in European Toilets but I just chalked it up to water pressure. Never thought it was a different design.
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, the skid marks would be horrific. On the other hand, not dropping my frank & beans in the toilet water would be nice.
Id rather require a toilet brush over a plunger any day.
Huh double til. The things you learn about shit on reddit.
I keep a plunger next to my toilet just in case. My family in Germany has brushes so you can clean the skid marks in the toilet when you're done.
Secrets that Big Plunger doesn't want you to know about!
So they must have stinkier bathrooms.
I think that particular website is a bit biased or something because I noticed them claiming that washdown toilets were more prone to smelling. Which I raised my eyebrows at because I think it’s completely false. The water in the bowl still acts as an airtight seal between the sewer and the air in the bathroom, same as in a siphon toilet.
I’ve lived decades in both Australia (washdown style) and the US and Canada (siphon style). I own a house in each country to this day. I have never observed the average level of bathroom smell to be worse in one vs the other. Other sites I find that compare the two toilet styles also don’t mention it.
The one downside of washdown style is that, yes, since there’s less water in the bowl, it is more prone to skid marks. I can’t say I’ve personally had an issue with it, but some might. You can always just flush a second time though if needed.
One of the upstairs toilets in my US house actually needs replacing right now so this is a timely topic for me. I’m seriously considering putting in a European/Australian style unit to replace it. Clog free forever! You can get them in the US apparently, but I wonder whether the average plumber (who has probably never seen one before) will know how to install it correctly ... hmm.
I think the article is implying that they smell worse, because if you drop a big deuce, the turds will pile up out of the water for the duration of the poop session.
Yeah I think that’s what they are trying to say. But that would have to be pretty massive I think - the water is shallower in the Euro style toilets but it’s not that shallow (and I believe is adjustable anyway by tightening or loosening a valve in the tank). Either way it’s just temporary and once it’s flushed it’s gone. I haven’t noticed a difference myself, but obviously YMMV.
Dude I regularly break the water surface in North American toilets. I don't think I had a single submerged shit when I lived in Switzerland.
Yea, the smell thing doesn't make sense to me.
On the skidmarks topic, most people here in Germany have a toilet brush to deal with it. Even in public/office bathrooms there will be a toilet brush. You're expected to be polite and use it if you lave leave skidmarks.
I was curious if we could get them because clogging is less an issue than smell for me personally. And you seem to have evidence that smell is not an issue, so win/win.
Side note: I have a theory that Latinos have a stronger sense of smell because it seems like they are the only males to complain about that at work.
It cant be that hard can it? Maybe go all out and add a bidet attatchment.
Yeah probably not. As a foreigner in the US though I’m always a bit wary of doing anything related to home improvement that’s a bit out of the ordinary here. Like, the US has its own, imperial/inch-based standards for everything under the sun that don’t align with the rest of the world. So maybe these toilets expect a certain sized pipe to be connected to them and it won’t match the standard stuff an American plumber would be used to working with. That kind of thing.
Hell even trying to get pictures framed here that are ISO standard sizes like A4 or A3 is a pain in the butt and requires custom work, since they aren’t the usual American x by y inches dimensions. You can’t even get A4 printer paper in Staples/Office Depot etc unless you order it in specially.
Not that I have noticed. I think the site exaggerates the smell issue. But the skid mark thing on the other hand is real. The main trade off seems to be clogged toilets vs skidmarks.
Which is also why the skidmarks which easily form, are easily removable by a sort of brush that ALL people have with these toilets, rather than a plunger (since a plunger really isn't needed).
Most of the times the skidmarks are removed by the flush, if it is not, everyone simple brushes it off easily with a sort of "toilet brush" that is kept much the same way a plunger is, they're not permanent either by any means which the article really seems to make it out to be.
The only things I can't argue against is 1. the noise (because I can't really compare, I can definitely assume its a bit louder, not worth mentioning though). And secondly the last remark "Often need to flush more than once on heavier loads", which is just arguable, yes if it implies heavy loads are rare, but almost never because it fails to flush it down.
I personally by far prefer the wash down style toilets and agree with you that its disadvantages are negligible, but I am biased since that is what I grew up using.
I'm confused that they both say save water. Compared to what?
Compared to the older style toilets of either design, I think.
Washdown style toilets are always dual flush (separate buttons for full and half flush, for solid and liquid waste respectively), which means they’ve always used less water on average since you aren’t using a full flush every time. But I’ve seen dual flush buttons retrofitted onto US toilets too in more recent years, so yeah, that’s not something that depends on the toilet style.
But BOTH styles of toilet use way less water than they used to in the 1960s, 70s, 80s. Improvements in design have more than doubled the efficiency over the years.
This thread was driving me mad with people who clearly don't understand the difference. Thanks for actually having pooped in two countries.
That explains my recent trip to Europe. I found the low water/water remaining thing very unsettling. But it did the trick every time!
Let me tell you it’s just as unsettling the other way around, maybe moreso. “Holy shit why is this bowl filling with water OMG it’s going to overflow what do I do?!?!”
I always wondered why Americans talked about clogged toilets so much.
This explains a lot.
Yeah doesn't look like a plunger would even work on those
i am aussie and just used a plunger, and it was only for a wee
there is something wrong with the pipes or water pressure - staying in a relative's old house. No flushing the paper either, as then it will properly clog. i can't wait to leave, dunno how they put up with it, but it is a really old house that the original owner built, so i guess things are old-fashioned. Apparently it would be super expensive and invasive to fix. the whole house will be bulldozed when they move so no point trying to fix it.
obviously this is a completely different scenario.
As someone who worked as an ecologist and travelled to some fairly remote places with old plumbing, I would say that there could be issues in areas with older plumbing. I haven't had any clogging issues myself, but I am a small lady that doesn't poop much lol. But I am sure some others may have had issues.
Well yeah, you can still get back up in the piping or sewerage further down, regardless of the style of toilet. My parents place in Canberra has an issue with tree roots growing into the sewer line that means they can’t flush more than a small amount of paper at a time - and because of the section of the pipe affected (vertical drop located metres deep under a concrete slab), it can’t be fixed without literally demolishing a portion of the foundation. They are going to have to do it eventually and it will be horribly expensive.
There are vast areas of the world (much of China, South and Central America) where as you say you can’t flush paper at all.
I'm not exactly sure what the issue is, but the bowl will literally fill up all the way when you flush it sometimes. A little bit of plunging and it goes fairly easily.
On the topic of toilets, I remember my grandparent's beach holiday house, which was a new build in the late 8Os or so, it won architecture awards, had a different type of toilet. The water level was really high such that your botty could get wet if you were younger and slipped in lol.
I haven't been to America, but I wonder if it was something similar to their style of toilets. I remember it flushed differently, it was fascinating haha.
So...where do they throw the shit stained toilet paper away?
Please don't tell me in the trash..
What are you talking about? They flush it down the toilet, same as in America. The difference is that the washdown design of toilet is pretty much immune to clogging no matter how much paper you throw in.
I just asked because of their toilets being different and prone to clog.
Wait, I think I misinterpreted your question. Who is the "they" in your original question?
Basically:
But the paper gets flushed down in both cases.
It's in the trash
I'm in the UK. We flush paper, but our toilets:
a) Do not have such a high water level as yours (how do you not get a wet arse?!)
b) Do not clog with the alarming regularity that American reditors seem to imply theirs do.
I can only conclude that our plumbing is better.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's actually pretty satisfying to unclog a toilet, as long as there isn't shit in the toilet. Shit pretty much doesn't clog toilets, it's the paper, so if you flush before you wipe the unclogging is always a breeze.
Poop can most definitely be the cause of a clog. I have seen it multiple times. Had to instruct my parents once on the fine art of unclogging with boiling water & dish soap if a plunger is unavailable.
What?! What is this witchcraft you speak of?
It's not foolproof but it helps if not solve the problem. Works best with poop related clogs than paper but it works on that too with enough time.
(If the clog is really bad get a plunger &/or skip to last step)
1) Boil some water (I use my teakettle) & pour it into the clogged toilet. Shut the lid & let it sit to about when it's lukewarm & not cold. Try to flush. (Note: some toilets &/or pipes are made of cheap material & can be damaged by hot water. Judge hotness of water by the quality of your system. But generally hotter water gives better results)
2) if that fails repeat step 1
3) if that fails, add dish soap. Dish soap is designed to breakdown organic material & poop is so... no real magic measurement other than the bigger the clog the more soap. Add hot water on top of the soap to help activate it. Close lid & wait. Like with dishes sometimes it's a long wait to get it to breakdown the material. It's ok for water to be cold at this point. Flush. -if dish soap fails try step 3 again with a plunger. Technically you can upgrade to draino or bleach with an open window but I do not recommend it for the health of the pipes. Just keep trying the dish soap & hot water & let it sit. It will break down enough for a flush.
Ideally this method is for clogs where the water isn't already to the rim & or there is some movement but not great through the pipes. But I recommend clearing the area first before doing this as a precaution.
My apartment (1 bath) had a much smaller toilet than my parents' place & a much smaller piping system. I've had to adjust myself & flushing accordingly. First time I had visitors it clogged. & it clogged often in my first few months. Google lead me to this lifesaver.
This method along with my plunger has cleared every clog & I haven't had to call a plumber for a toilet clog since. But many times just hot water poured on the clog will do the trick.
When my folks' toilet clogged (they don't own a plunger) they asked me for my trick & it worked perfectly.
Hot damn! I'll have to try this. Thanks!
A word to the wise. Hot water + poop = ungodly smell. Think poop soup. I've used the hot water with dish soap method to augment plunging on a particularly stubborn turd. Took a while but it did indeed work. But I simply didnt stop to think about what it would smell like when I poured the water in. Dear god. Be prepared.
Is this an American toilet? Because if so, plunging the clog seems way easier.
THIS. It's not fun to use a plunger. Nobody wants to use a plunger. But when your toilet clogs, no matter now rare that is, you NEVER NEVER EVER want to not have a plunger.
The first night in our new apartment I clogged the toilet. It was just one of those ones that always freaking clogs. No plunger yet though, we’d just moved in.
I flushed again in a desperate hope and instead it overflowed all over the bathroom and I had to ask my boyfriend to come help me. It’s been 14 years and I still wonder sometimes if he looks at me differently since the great poop flood.
Never again. Always have a plunger.
A gentleman I worked with previously was an interesting one. He washed his clothes in a bucket with a plunger.
He also only owned a single plunger.
sometimes my toilet clogs and instead of plunging it I just pour soap in the bowl and flush it and it works
I've used mine like three times today......
There might be an issue with your plumbing.
If not, it might be an issue with your house's plumbing.
If not, it might be an issue with the poster's diet.
It's the toilet not the plumbing. The pipe that your shit goes down is much larger than the hole in the toilet.
Well, it doesn't help that many of us are obsessed with using toilet paper the thickness of an actual pillow.
People also flush condoms, tampons, and other such stuff. Toilet paper is made to disintegrate when wet and disturbed, while the above are made to function while wet and disturbed. It'll fuck up your plumbing real fast.
Kids also love to flush toys and other things. Doesnt take much to clog the upper bend on a toilet.
The thickness isn't a problem, it's a combination of the thickness and number of sheets used before flushing
For me, it's typically less the plumbing and more the amount of toilet paper. Might be the type of toilet paper I use/the amount of force I use, but often, if I don't use enough toilet paper it tears when I use it, and I don't enjoy getting shit on my fingers. That said, I probably over compensate and go too far in the other direction with way more than I need. I don't really care much to change my habits, though. I tend to flush intermittently to make sure it doesn't clog, so I still rarely need a plunger.
[deleted]
This is like the eighth "poop knife" reference I've seen today...
Wtf is a poop knife?
You may not want to know but here you go
Poop knife story, fuckn classic!!!
Good God man see a gastroenterologist!
You might also need a poop knife
This is like the ninth poopknife reference I've seen today...
I vote it's worth 10
What are you eating?
Someone get this guy a poop knife.
You're not taking big enough poops my man
You’ve only seen a clogged toilet three times? Where the fuck do you live? That’s amazing.
Buy a plunger before you need a plunger.
When I got my first apartment my dad bought me a plunger as a house warming gift.
Okay you must have some kind of super toilet. I clog my toilet once a week. But it takes two seconds to stick the plunger in there and it's back to normal.
Right! You don't hear about the hundreds of millions of poops each day that DON'T require a plunger. You just hear about the catastrophic failures.
Jeez like 25% of mine end in clogged failure
It really does happen that often. Sometimes I can look before flushing and, with a small degree of pride, know that it will clog. Easily once a month.
Same. I get it right every single time if I look at my work and guess if it's going to clog or not.
That feeling when you look down and see it arching back out of the water... You know that it's going to clog.
There used to be a company that produced TV shows, and if you watched through the credits (back when you had to do so too watch the next episode, because cable) a little kids voice said "I made this!"
I hear that voice every time I see one you have just described.
It depends on who you are. I don't know if my plumbing was different or something, but my friend used to come over, and him clogging the toilet was a regular occurrence. He's since found how to not clog my toilet but still
Three times you've clogged a toilet, or three times you've witnessed a clogged toilet?
If it is draining but the blockage isn't moving, just pour (quickly) a bucket of water in on top of it, that'll shift it better than repeated flushing and hoping.
Yeesh. I've had to unclog toilets hundreds of times at homes. Now I gotta see how I can get a better toilet.
A toilet brush works well enough in most circumstances
How do you know American poops aren't just bigger?
This is my favorite american-ism in the thread.
I really can't imagine this story from a foreigner.
Well everything is bigger in Texas. ^^^/s
Texass
That's a Texas sized 10-4
Pig Pen, this here's the Rubber Duck
And I'm about to put the hammer down
Can confirm. Source - moved to texas and my shits got bigger.
I saw drive thru liquor stores in Texas, not as in there’s a window, but that you literally drive thru....
god I hate the fucking sarcasm tag
All that junk food and fast food
https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/7p8puq/light_i_was_22_years_old_when_i_learned_that_not/
I will never not upvote this reference.
Poop Knife 4eva!
Wtf that thread is nutty. I had no idea that was a thing and so many people did this wtf :/
No seriously. This is a very real problem the rest of the world doesn't know about. Every shit I have taken outside of America couldn't be flushed on the first try with non-American toilets
American exceptionalism.
Maybe they havr bigger assholes.
Because banana for scale. Duh.
Went to Texas, basically every time I used the toilet it clogged. Literally never had it happen in any other country.
If we had German Shelf Technology we could answer that question.
I live in America but I'm in the UK right now. I think your toilets are deeper or something so that is probably my why the water level is lower. I also noticed there is no water tank visible. Can't tell if that's like, just water forced in or if there is some hidden reservoir behind the wall. Seems like the hole where the poop goes in is wider though so that's probably why it flushes fine.
I will say I was confused when I got here though. Furnished flat with no plunger anywhere. What happens when it clogs? Well 2 weeks so far and no clog so I think we're good.
I also noticed there is no water tank visible. Can't tell if that's like, just water forced in or if there is some hidden reservoir behind the wall
It'll be hidden behind the wall. Most toilets in the UK have it in a visible tank, same as you guys.
It might also just be a building with high enough water pressure to not need a tank. I see that sort of setup in businesses a lot here in America.
Probably that chipotle shiting trucker making a delivery
2 weeks with no clog is something worth mentioning?
Not really, I'd say I have a clog once every 2 months or so back home.
In 23 years, I've only ever seen a toilet get blocked once, and that was because my sister knocked a box of tampons in the toilet and thought flushing it would be a good idea. Having it happen every 2 months sounds insane.
You learn to use a plunger real fast. Anyway, that's not how it is in all our toilets. I know the one I had in my anchient house at college probably only cloged once or twice the whole 2 years we lived there. So I think it depends on where you live and what generation your toilet was made in.
A lot of European toilet also have the toilet exit going out the back of the toilet into the wall. Not sure how their trap is set up on those, but it might be an almost straight shot to the sewer stack.
Most American toilets drain out the bottom, which means the water and poop have to travel up the trap before falling down and out the bottom.
Edit: Read some more and yup, European toilets have a shorter trap and outlet design and work by pushing everything out. US toilets work by creating a siphon and sucking everything out of the bowl.
It is very unlikely it will clog. The only times I have seen clogged toilets in Sweden, which uses the same technology as the UK, is a couple of times when idiots have thrown a whole bunch of paper towels in the toilet. But I do not think a plunger could be used to fix that.
Toilet brushes double as plungers - don’t they...?
[deleted]
I just usually use a toilet brush as a plunger to dislodge things and it usually declogs anything. They do take a lot to clean after but then again toilet brushes are only usually about a fiver in wilkos
Not if they're on opposite ends. Eww to dirty toilet water dripping everywhere whilst spinning to the other side.
Why would you put it on the opposite ends?!?!
Lol true, but how would a plunger get a proper seal with a brush in the center of it? I guess it could be side mounted...
Maybe, but a plunger makes a poor toilet brush when you've flushed a returnee three times and you have to break the bastard's back before the cistern fills again.
Do you use S or U bend plumbing?
A long drop, which we then backfill with soil.
Be impressive if you clogged that
We do sometimes get a bloop of water on our bums... I believe it's called Poseidon's kiss.
As an American, I never really understood the high water level thing. Every toilet I’ve seen here has at least 7-8 inches of clearance from rim to water level. No danger of your hand touching the water or your dick touching the water. Unless you have an 8 inch flaccid dick that hangs downward at a 90 degree angle. Where are all these super high levels where people are afraid of their ass touching the water?
Unless you have an 8 inch flaccid dick that hangs downward at a 90 degree angle.
So you do understand my problem then?
Envy of my penis?
I can only conclude that our plumbing is better
American's usualy use pipes with a smaller diameter which clog more often
The way the toilet flushes is different though too.
Most American toilets use siphoning or sucking action to forcibly draw the used toilet water through toilet trap and into the attached sewer plumbing. The neck of the toilet hole is small enough to facilitate suction, a design choice that often necessitates the use of a plunger in the case of a clog. European toilets typically utilize a washdown flushing system in which water inside the toilet is forced out through water flowing from the rim of the bowl. The neck of the toilet hole tends to be larger so there is less of a chance of clogs, but the bowls may require more frequent cleaning from any leftover residue.
Clogs at the toilet, not the pipes. Also, username checks out.
Not really. Most toilet drains and main stacks are 3" or 4", which is plenty to move any shit.
Now, the toilet trap and exit drain are usually more like 2" diameter. That is almost always where the poop or piled-up toilet paper gets clogged.
It takes a massive effort to actually clog the drains themselves.
Now, the toilet trap and exit drain are usually more like 2" diameter. That is almost always where the poop or piled-up toilet paper gets clogged.
We would consider that part of the plumbing.
We would also consider that "a bad idea."
99% of the time, it works better and leaves a cleaner bowl and less smell than the European style.
I've lived on both continents, and I like the US style better overall.
Eat an American diet and then see if it clogs.
Any time I see the word "plumbing" spelled out, I read it in my head, then notice it and say it silently with my mouth as "plum-bing" then chuckle then continue reading the sentence
there's 326 million of us....it's going to seem like it happens way more than it does because you're on reddit (mainly used by Americans), and there's so damn many of us.
Toilet water splash back on your ass is definitely a thing here.
I have to put down a lil toilet paper first, to prevent splash back.
Do you fucking still sit down when you flush or something, is that a thing people do commonly???
In a public bathroom, most do the "Courtesy Flush" to suck out the majority of the odor. At home, no.
The high water levels are a problem. Nothing sends chills up your spine like Poseidon's kiss.
The only times I've clogged a toilet is when my deposit is sufficiently large and I used significantly more toilet paper cleaning myself. And in each time, in retrospect, I should have flushed twice.
Do you also use two ply toilet paper? I feel like a lot of it can be attributed to people using exorbitant amounts of 2 ply toilet paper.
The high water toilets clog less.
It's interesting that it's such a problem for so many people in the US. My parents' rural home has this issue where everything clogs very easily, but my apartment in a major city has zero issues because the metro water system has amazing pressure. Everyone told me when I moved to my own apartment, "Get a plunger because you'll be glad you have it when you need it." I've used it once, for a clog in my shower drain.
wet arse
we do. it's called poseidon's kiss.
a) Do not have such a high water level as yours (how do you not get a wet arse?!)
Just let it out slowly and it won't splash!
Plus, the biggest benefit of the high water level, is that the water helps insulate the smell. Poo in the open air smells 100x worse than poo under water.
This especially comes in to play when you want to go and sit for a while and browse reddit or something and be left alone.
such a high water level as yours (how do you not get a wet arse?!)
b) Do not clog with the alarming regularity that American reditors seem to imply theirs do.
I can only conclude that our plumbing is better.
Most toilets don't really clog that often, especially if you have a poop knife.
The water level is still a good 6 to 8 inches below the rim... no danger of wet arse. I have heard about men getting an unintentional ball wash, but as someone without the offending bits, I don't know how often that really happens. I feel like you would have to have aggressively dangly balls.
As for the clogging, it's all dependent on the toilet in question. I lived in one place where the toilet clogged maybe once a week. The plunger was a must in that case. The house I live in now has much newer toilets, and while I know that I own a plunger, I couldn't tell you where it is, because I haven't had to use it once in three years.
In Oz and toilets have gotten steadily shittier in my lifetime. Every time I've moved to a newer house, the toilets have gotten smaller. I now live in a place where I can't afford to buy the fancier paper, as it clogs up the toilet.
It's fucking housing developers cutting costs. We're towards the end point of a century of suburban 'development'/sprawl. The whole building industry is a house of cards, so half the country lives in a house built in the last 20 years, but it's poorly constructed compared to the houses they grew up in. And the houses are packed so tightly on skinny little plots of land (developers don't want to give up a square inch extra for roads or yards) that we're approaching the point where you can torch one house and take out an entire street. Hell, I remember living in a house with somewhere to put your soap, built right in to the wall. Now I have to fumble with this stupid piece of shit metal basket hanging from my shower head.
I'd kill to take a shit in the UK. Most of your toilets were built to withstand The Blitz.
Hey man, I'm South African and I have a toilet plunger. It's not that the toilet clogs often (happened to me maybe three times in my life?), but rather that if it does clog, I'd like to be prepared. If the day ever comes when your toilet decides to clog, you'll wish you had one.
So you're saying you don't need poop knives either due to better plumbing?
Our shits are also superior
Cause some home builders will install the cheapest, crappiest toilet they can find at the hardware store just to save a few bucks. The difference between a shitty toilet and an extremely unshitty toilet is a mere $200, a very tiny fraction of the cost to build the house itself.
I have 2 toilets in my house, a plunger for each. Same with my household growing up.
That being said in 29 years I've used them exactly 5 times.
I can only conclude that our plumbing is better.
There's also the issues of many Americans' diets are horrible and lack vegetables/roughage. Many of "us" (I, too, am American) do not drink enough water to keep the digestive system regular. Though the term "tough shit" is more of a colloquialism, in many U.S. households it is a literal plumbing problem.
American toilets are a different design and clog really easily.
Part of that clogging is the standard for how large the pipe has to be has changed over time. I bought a new house where they used larger than standard pipes for the drains and have had zero toilet clogs and I literally can’t overflow my bathtub just by running it with the rockets fully open.
We have big poop from all the crap food we eat.
Having lived both in the US and UK I have an interesting view on this. First, the wet ass happens, Poseidon's kiss is never a fun experience but it is a trade-off for not having to brush the toilet every time you use it.
Second, I've clogged more British toilets than I thought possible and I can only imagine it is because of the lack of water or size of my shits over there. I would have to take the shower sprayer, remove the head, and log it.
As for better plumbing though I'm not sure, there are issues I encountered there that I had never heard of before.
It doesn't happen often, but when it happens someone it becomes a traumatic experience. Piss and shit are gross
It's the size of the pipes. I can't remember, but Europe has some fat ass plumbing going on for toilets while in America it's only like 3 inches.
We take big dumbs due to all the junk food mentioned about
b) Do not clog with the alarming regularity that American reditors seem to imply theirs do.
More folklore than reality in my experience. I have a toilet plunger. Can't remember the last time I used it. Years. I keep it next to the toilet just in case a guest has a problem and I don't want them to be embarrassed by asking. I had friends over a few weeks ago and one asked why I would have a plunger out. It is decorative, not some nasty looking thing. When I explained why, everyone laughed. They couldn't believe I was prepared for something that rarely happens.
(how do you not get a wet arse?!)
Or the tip of your willy, makes me shudder every time.
a) you dont sit inside the toilet, just on top of the seat
b) i take big shits bro what can I say
I can also conclude your plumbing is better
We DO get a wet arse.
Oh my god, how shitty has their plumbing got to be? As a German visiting the UK regularily, I just can‘t get past how bad the plumbing in the UK is....
But back to OC, there is toilet paper flushed in Europe and there are toilet plungers.
Only places that don't have proper plumbing, most of Europe you can flush toilet paper. I believe its tiny greek islands with mostly medieval plumbing where you can't!
Am currently on holiday in Cyprus. Can confirm. No paper down the toilet here https://imgur.com/q7RyCM6
So what do you do with the shit tissue filled bin? Do you chuck it in the regular outdoor bin, or is there a special bin?
Last time I was there you weren't supposed to flush in Athens either. So not just the tiny spots.
Yeah a lot of the plumbing in Greece is just terrible.
I believe its tiny greek islands with mostly medieval plumbing where you can't!
It is everywhere in Greece and has to do with the toilet/plumbing design that is done like in US instead of the rest of EU.
I also heard you can't do it in Turkey and Russia, but I don't know if that's true or if the person who told me was just pulling my leg.
St. Petersburg you can flush paper, at least where I was. Not sure about Turkey
throwing actual shit filled paper in the trash seems very nasty imo
Less nasty than having shit filled water flood your house.
you do know that it floods like 1 out of every 1000-10000 uses right? I think i saw it twice in my 20 years of life
You were talking about the practice of putting toilet paper in a bin, which is something practised in areas which have shitty plumbing that can't handle toilet paper. Not somewhere like the US, or UK or Germany or Sweden (for example). In those places people flush toilet paper.
People don't just do it for fun when they have working plumbing, IME.
In what country?
Toilets are much more likely to flood in US than Europe, but this practice is only common in reserved for countries with really poor sewage systems.
Nobody prefers to keep shit stained paper in their trash.
No, we don’t need a plunger because our toilets are better plumbed. It’s a wider and simpler design and a different type of flushing in Australia.
I’ve only ever had to plunge a toilet because the sewerage pipes had tree roots growing into them. That’s it.
It's because the poo desires flushing in a counter clockwise fashion. Here in the States the poo has to go against the grain and protests all the way down. I'm not sure if you've seen a protesting poo...its not a pretty sight. 😀
Lol that happened to me too... never heard about it before but must be common in australia
Googling Australian toilet. Please stand by...... Do all your toilets have snakes in them?
Usually only in the top end. Where I live. Haven’t had snakes but have accidentally peed on more than one green tree frog
If such toilet technology exists I honestly don't understand why American toilets don't use it. Its not just old US toilets that clog. Like my toilet is a only a year old and it clogs at least once a month. I blows my mind that companies that make toilets for Americans don't just use the designs that don't clog.
probably half to do with the culture that calls it "rest-room" or at best "bathroom" rather than toilet.
Along the lines of 'god forbid the should be poo exposed to air'.
Is that the reason? Maybe it's because the water flows the opposite way in the toilet than our water...
Maybe it's because you flush upside-down.
Unfortunately, I've had to do my sink a few times because both my fiancee and I have long hair PLUS a pair of cats means hair tends to build up down there.
That's because your toilets flush the other way. /s
No, it's because the US toilets use a completely different mechanism (to put it simply, they suck from the bottom, whereas other toilets push from above) which means US toilets need a much narrower pipe.
As a non-American I investigated this the first time I saw how US redditors valued toilet plungers.
German here. Never heard of someone plunging the toilet. We throw paper in the toilet though.
Toilet plunger = Pömpel (or more formally a Saugglocke), very common to have one (even if you hope that you'll never need it).
I only ever use it for the bathroom sink because that gets clogged up every half years or so.
Or the showers, and it usually belches up a ball of my daughters hair...
This is way too relatable except I'm the daughter. So much hair.
Ich kenn die Dinger. Hab aber noch nie gesehen, dass die je gebraucht wurden.
Ich hab mal einen gebraucht. Hatte aber keinen. Mehrmals Heißes Wasser mit viel schwung rein schütten hilft im Notfall auch (unnütze Info die aber irgendwann mal hilfreich sein könnte).
Braucht man nur alle 20 Jahre. Kosten dreifuffzich und sind ihr Gewicht in Gold wert, wenn man mal einem braucht.
American here (Ich spreche kein Deutsch sehr gut - despite being Pennsylvania Dutch [Deutsch]), I use the plunger I bought for my trombone much more than I use the one kept in the bathroom.
Kommt immer auf die Rohre an etc. an. Hab in einer Wohnung gewohnt in der ich alle zwei Wochen pömpeln musste, weil die Toilette andauernd verstopft war. In meiner jetzigen Wohnung musste ich es noch nicht einmal machen. (Hab trotzdem einen im Bad für alle Fälle)
Swiss here. Plunged once due to someone before me forgetting to flush and me not noticing. Happened once in my life. My plunger is basically just a dust collector.
I clogged my mother in law’s toilet in Germany something fierce. I was proud of myself because due to German Shelf Technology I was able to really know what went down the drain.
I live in Australia and can confirm that we flush our paper, it’s just that the type of plumbing used in American toilets is different to ours
I think it may also be the amount of paper used. I'm American, and I don't think I've ever clogged a toilet, but when I've had the misfortune of encountering one, it's always filled with ungodly amounts of paper.
Tl;dr American wastefulness is real.
That could be a factor, I wanna test it on my toilet but that’s wasteful
Toilets clog most often because of big poop, not toilet paper in my experience. I don’t know if the plumbing has gotten better in my more recent reodences or my poops are just smaller and softer but I haven’t had to use a plunger much in the last decade or so.
We dont use toilet paper in South Asia, just clean our asses with water
I wish bidets were the norm over here.
But then you do dry it out with toilet paper, right? Otherwise you'd just have a wet ass...
But now you have a wet rear end and gross fingers, right? I'm sure you wash your hands right after but how do you dry your rear end before pulling up your pants?
It's because American plumbing is very, very underdimensioned.
What the fuck
In Cuba, they have little garbage cans next to every toilet to put your dirty toilet paper in. Thing is, they don't tell you this, so the majority of tourists go there and flush their toilet paper because that is what they are used. Basically 50% of the toilets at my resort were clogged and flooding the whole week I spent there.
In my country we don't flush the tp, our plumbing can't handle it and you'll ended up ruining it, instead we've become very aware of empyting the trash bin every day
I live in Estonia and we have toilet plungers alright and we throw the paper into the toilets just like you guys,never knew it was uncommon in other parts of the world
No, a lot of people in 3rd world nations without real plumbing throw it in the trash.
Don't believe much of what you read on Reddit.
Lived in 5 countries all outside the US, visited well over 30 countries (across 5 continents) never once been to a country that didn't flush toilet paper down the toilet. So not sure where the hell you're getting your information from.
Aussie here. We flush it. I think it's just some folk who grew up in Asia where the plumbing hasn't been updated to cope with the paper.
I lived in China for a couple of years and encountered it in a couple of public restrooms but that's all. I had a toilet-snake (hand operated 3m-long flexible wire) that I used to unclog my apartment plumbing (toilet and sink) a couple of times but I've never needed any such device back home.
Wait, what?
Wouldn't that smell? So many questions.
What? Wouldn’t that smell nasty?
People in my country throw TP in the trash instead of flushing down. We still need toilet plungers because our water installations are trash.
That's only in a very small number of countries. Greece is the only one I've been to where that is done and it is as disguising as it sounds.
The reason American toilets get clogged is because they use only 50mm pipes. Other, more sensible countries use 100mm pipes and if they get clogged, it's usually a problem that a plunger alone won't fix.
Nah we flush it, our toilets just have more water.
Truly disgusting to not flush toilet paper. What the actual fuck
That's only common in a few countries in the world.
Is that common where you are?
I'm reasonably certain that at least the majority of Europe does not do this.
American living in Ukraine. Here it depends on where you are. My apartment, thankfully we can flush our toilet, but many places you have to throw the TP out. Some places also don’t provide free TP and you have to bring your own
Not flushing the paper would be incredibly uncommon, that's freakin gross.
I've read about people who do this on reddit, but never knew of such a case personally.
How soon Americans seem to get a job, even in highschool and the struggle to keep their personal finances with no help from parents or family.
Here in my country it's completely normal to only start working after college (when you're about 22-23 yo) and then only moving away from your parents' house when you move to another city or when you marry.
American culture is more individualistic than other countries. You're expected to move out after college, some people even move out right after they turn 18 or high school. It's viewed as immature to keep living with your parents since people think you don't grow as a person unless you move out. Financial help from family depends more on the family.
It's weird. My family expected from me to continue to live with them. I decided to move out. They didn't say anything, but they felt uncomfortable about it. Almost as if they felt that I was rejecting them, so they didn't want to "go there".
I didn't fully move out. I come back every couple of weeks. And I still use their car (they offered). I want to get my own car, a car that doesn't suck, but it's expensive. When I tell them that I want to buy a car, they will probably try to convince me not to. Again, probably feeling like I am rejecting their help.
In 1968 a lot of big families had smaller houses than today. And at 20 while still loving the brother who is 2 years old, that can get a bit old.
Significant other probably can’t spend the night. Scandalous.
We stress independence to the max, it's weird (for me and people I know) when I meet an 18 year old and getting their first job, like you should have been working in high school at least under the table or something.
In some ways americans NEED independence too. I grew up in an area with no public transportation, this is before Uber or Lyft existed. If I wanted to get around and hang with friends in high school, my option was to hope my mom was around to drive me 30min each way to hang with a friend, or buy a car for myself. So I got a job and bought a car.
60+ of my states counties has no public transportation, and most of them are the poorer sections, unfortunately.
Yeah because it wasn't illegal.
[deleted]
Fuck I'm 22 and I've never had a proper job, I've done some volunteer work and did some freelance writing/ translating but that's it. Guess I'm super weird.
I started working at 14 because all of my friends did, and I felt like I should, too. Honestly, it was fun and I learned a lot. I also have a super strong respect for people who work in food service thanks to that experience. We only were allowed to work for a few hours after school and it was basically another type of class after school in that I learned so much, except I made money doing it!
Where I went to high school, it was actually a graduation requirement to have worked a certain number of hours in a job, which may sound weird to people in other countries, but it was actually a good education...you learn about the real world. Everyone in high school worked.
So...You didn't sleep? Or does 'a job' mean anything from 5-85 hours a week?
Yes
Now that covers a lot.
I know, right? I’m 25, recently graduated as a doctor and while I live away from home (to attend college), my parents fully support me financially. I’ve never had a job. And I’ll be doing a specialty (and while they pay you, it’s not enough), so my parents are fully prepared to continue supporting me through it. And it’s not weird at all here.
I should note, I'm not an American, I'm a New Zealander, but I left home when I was 17 to go to another city to study, which I paid for myself while paying for housing, food, bills etc. IIRC my dad gave me 30 bucks a fortnight. That covered my power and internet bills.
Then I moved to another part of the country (South Island) to work with my newfound qualifications and didn't get any financial support whatsoever. It was only when I went overseas and got into some visa troubles they helped out, and I'm 100% committed to paying that back. (I'm 20 by the way)
Having financial and household responsibility from an early age (I think it was when I was 8 I got put on a work around the house roster, and 15 when I got my first job) helped me later on, I think.
I’m Mexican, here you’re generally expected to do your part as a daughter/son (chores, good grades, responsibilities, not being a pain in the ass) and in return they will support you as long as they can and you need to. Jobs don’t pay well here, even with a college degree/master’s/doctorate, so they just want to make sure you get the best possibilities and preparation you can.
Those are pretty small expences...Maybe that's why people from diffetent countries don't understand how difficult it is for others.
180 a month (I was flatting with two others) for bills isn't a small amount, especially considering we were using a gas stove which got replaced every 4 months.
Power is 70-80 a month for 2 people here. And we are careful. When the basic salary is 500€ (if you are lucky) that is much. You said 30 could cover internet and power, you didn't say anything about the rest. Is water expensive there?
Edit: I don't understand if you mean you got 30 every two weeks or you paid 30 every two weeks for utilities.
I paid 60 a month along with two other people (180 p/m total) for power/internet. We didn't use a whole lot of power though because we had a gas stove and no dishwasher and it was sunny a lot.
which I paid for myself while paying for housing, food, bills etc.
Why?
Because I could afford to? And it was expected?
Weird.
What's your plan for when they die? Will you have your own kids and will your parents support them too? How many generations get a free ride?
Wow, bitter much? My plan is to concentrate on acing my studies and extracurriculars (like doing research) to get a good job in public and private practice to support and spoil my parents however they see fit, cause they friggin’ deserve it. The fact that this is how we do it doesn’t mean I’m lazy and a freeloader. They just want to give me the best chances to develop my potential as they can, jeesus man
While it's not the life I'd choose, it's hardly unbelievable. They said they were studying to be a doctor, so unless their parents die right this minute, they'll probably be financially independent by the time they have their own kids.
You should go visit other countries and ask people how much they make and how many expences they have.
Parents can't always afford to keep raising a child well into their adult years. And even those who can may not want to fund their 16-25 year old's extracurricular activities. My family was not poor, but I started working off-and-on as soon as I was legally able and had the time (the summer after I turned 16). My parents certainly were going to keep a roof over my head, feed me, and buy me school clothes, but I also wanted trendy clothes, to eat at Subway 100 times a week, movie tickets, and to take the bus to hang out with friends on the other side of the city (and also booze). It was get a job, or do things by my parents' whims which would have involved a lot of sitting inside wearing ugly khaki pants and eating what was in the fridge. I also started college with a hefty bit of savings, because my work habits outpaced my spending habits (a privilege afforded by my parents being able to give me everything I needed, and requiring only that I pay for some of what I wanted).
Do teens, and especially college kids, in your country generally get a lot of spending money from their parents?
Not exactly who you asked, but I'll give my two cents.
No, kids don't get that much spending money. School cafeterias are really cheap and they save some money to have fun. Also, going around in some countries here is objectively way easier - for students the public transport is free of something of the equivalent of 10-15$ a month (the case of my country) that the parents pay so you get to school (school buses here are only for private schools and still expensive to use in some cases). So the kids go out, using the public transport and hang out more than eat out or do expensive stuff.
Also, (here I can only speak for my country) it's typical for people to own their home by the time their first child is around 8-10, so they don't pay rent and don't have any problem to feed the kids.
I guess I'm having trouble relating because you say "kids" and while what you're describing may be a fine scenario for someone at the younger end of the age range given, it seems horribly restrictive and infantilizing for those on the older end (for the record, I'm from an American city where "going around" is plenty easy, and student passes existed). Giving a kid a couple bucks of pocket money, patting them on the head, and assuming they'll eat at the school cafeteria is stuff that, well, kids do. Also, is the school cafeteria open when school is not open? IDK, what you've described is behavior that sounds fine and dandy for a 12 year old, but seems shockingly insulting and coddling for someone in their twenties.
I'm not saying it's the best option. And people in their twenties obviously do get more than 12-15 years-old. And they usually only spend them for going to clubs and smoke (smoking is still sadly very popular around here).
On the other hand, most works you can find here that are around 20 hours/week, pay so little, you could maybe have enough for utilities (just them, no rent) and really basic food and literally nothing else. Universities aren't really expensive - the most expensive go for up to the equivalent of about 600$ per semester. So parents usually don't have that much problems helping out with it. The students usually work only the summer either go to the sea-side and work the season or go to other countries to work for the summer, like the US. That's how they do get more spending money.
Of course at some point we all start finding jobs that once proove to be stable enough, moving our comes as an idea, but it's usually a couple or 2-3-4 friends getting together. Also, usually that means a lot of skipping university classes and hoping you won't have too many exams you didn't take on the first try.
Also, I'd like to say that working before you reach 18, is such a big trouble legally that it's not worth it almost ever. Working under the table of course do happen, but that's reserved not especially for the crowd that has really bad situation at home, instead it's the ones that know people, who are involved in drug-related business.
And last I thing I should probably mention - we have a lot of universities where at least the first 2-3 years were you can't really work part-time if you want to actually go to lectures (given that there are no part-time works outside of the interval 8-9 AM to about 6-7 PM and you're usually at uni from 8-9-10 AM to around 4-5 PM) as most universities have a pretty set schedule and you can't choose to go at different times. And weekends don't really work out to manage the number of hours.
Of course, there are some exceptions to all this, but that's how the general public in my country lives. And parents do want their children to start understanding what they're learning before they start working. My parents didn't want me working before I finished second year - I'm working now and my grades have suffered while my attendance is almost nonexistent.
Although in the end, shouldn't we all go our pace through live? If some need more time at home, be it because they aren't mature enough yet, or the economy isn't on their side, in the end, everyone should try to do what would be the best for them in their specific situation.
Edit: some spelling, tho I'm sure I have more mistakes
Of course at some point we all start finding jobs that once proove to be stable enough, moving our comes as an idea, but it's usually a couple or 2-3-4 friends getting together.
This is also common in the US. It's not terribly common for college aged kids in the US to live completely alone with lavish apartments or homes ate 18 or 20 years old. Living with roommates in your late teens/early 20s is the norm. Some of the assumptions I'm seeing on this thread seems to interpret American sitcoms as a reflection of American life, where you turn 18 or 19, get a fancy job, and "move out" to a fancy apartment where you live alone in a big city. That's not common at all. Most people at that age either live with roommates, or their parents (though working is still common living with parents, because parents- aside from very rich ones- don't just want to give their grown kids a nonstop funnel of money for clubbing and smoking. From my viewpoint, that's very spoiled).
Your country sounds very privileged if the general population not only has access to inexpensive college, but is expected to attend to such a degree that this is the norm for everyone. In the US, college is very expensive, and even though college enrollment rates are rising, having a college degree is still in the minority (I know, if you listen to Reddit boys whine, you'd think American kids are being marched into universities at gunpoint, but that really is a pressure only for relatively privileged people here).
Although in the end, shouldn't we all go our pace through live? If some need more time at home, be it because they aren't mature enough yet, or the economy isn't on their side, in the end, everyone should try to do what would be the best for them in their specific situation.
Well, yes. Again, this idea that all American kids are flung out into the streets to get jobs and pay for their own life on their 18th birthdays 100% is very incorrect. At 18, 19, 20, even older, most still live with their families or with roommates. It's just that not everyone's family can afford to keep feeding, housing, and clothing adults who don't work (whether or not they go to school). And even those that can can't or don't want to afford providing the luxuries that an adult or near-adult wants, and realistically should be entitled to if they have the means. So for most, the options do remain "get a job to handle your own luxuries or expenses" or "let mom and dad take care of it and be treated as a baby."
Oh, I never assumed that at 18 everyone gets thrown out to work and live alone. I was just pointing out that moving out (especially alone) isn't really a thing here at all. Amd also living with roommates is also a new trend.
Well, tbh university here is helped out by the country, as it's seemed as an essential part of education, and that's the reason it doesn't cost that much. Although, most universities cost around of more than the minimum wage for semester (this has been getting better lately, but the minimum wage refers to how much is made monthly at full-time job and no student starts working full-time). Also, staying home means you're expected to help out, I hope this is obvious.
And well, as I said, most university programs here don't really allow the time for even part-time job, as attendance is expected, so if you're a full-time student (we have full-time option and also an option where you study intensively for two weeks and then go to the exams, dunno if you guys have that and how you mifht be calling it) your parents have to provide you with roof over your head and food to get by, until your 25 (if you're still studying at that point, namely had majors, tho at that point people usually have moved out already.
Where do you live?
I'm 21 bought my own car, am roomed up with my sister (we split bills) we pay for pretty much everything on our own and I think if anything as an American I'm kind of behind everyone.
That culture is changing. It may have been true when there were more jobs available and when having a college degree meant something. Now, unless you major in the very few fields that result in a good salary right out of college, you are out of luck. Most people I know moved back with their parents after college. I certainly did. I even moved back with them after grad school while I looked for a job. People made rude comments sure, but screw them.
It's not that weird to do it the other way in America. All of my siblings and I lived with our parents after college for a few years until we saved up enough money to move out.
Either way is considered fine.
I guess it's part of our "corporate" mentality.
I worked babysitting and cleaning and things before I was legally old enough, then had crap regular jobs all through high school. I worked three jobs to put myself through college even with student loans and all that. Now I work two jobs to pay the bills and pay off the student loans.
Welcome to American life.
What does this mean? How can you work 3 jobs and study? Even if you don't sleep, the day would need to have 36 hours minimum.
Wow. I had to get a job at 16 to save up for a car and college. :(
Most young people in other countries don't have cars. This is a huge difference in culture I guess.
I'd say it more a difference of city planning. America is a rugged and vast place, and I believe is larger than Europe. Not to mention cities here were founded with the automobile in mind so everything is much more spread out,and public transportation is lacking. You need a car here really.
Yeah, I've heard that a lot. I tried to poorly give an example of how Americans view us when we talk about stuff because they imagine things are the same/similar around he world. If I say my parents fully supported me financially until I was 25, you will look down on me, since you don't take into account the free schools, free healthcare, no car, no gas, free university, free dormatories (includes 3 meals a day, internet, heat or a/c ) and no extra curriculars. My biggest expence was the dentist, because the free ones can see you after 2-3 months and do a poor job that results in even worse teeth.
America is slowly shifting to young adults being less independent as everything is getting stupidly expensive and wages aren't growing like they should to match. Its more common than this thread may make you think. I wouldn't say some people wouldnt lookdown on someone in that situation unfortunately but if they do they just don't realise how lucky they are to be in a good financial situation
NZ/Australia is exactly in the middle. We stay at home and go to university, but work on weekends/evenings/days off. Then we get a proper job and move out. We don't marry until like 15 years later now though. It used to be more like the US but now it's more like Europe. That must be an economic thing.
I loved having a job in high school.
We don't have free education or healthcare so that probably contributes.
I think the culture of having to be completely independent after high school is changing in America. As a senior in college it is not uncommon for recently graduated friends to tell me they are going to go back home to live with their parents while they search for a job.
If your friends are searching for a job and presumably don't have money , what other option do they have than moving in with their parents?
A lot of parents hope that you will have been searching for a job during college and that you will have one lined up to start after you graduate.
True when I read your comment I skipped over the graduated part
Yep, I started working summers at 15 (high school), worked through college, and of course ever since. Parents can’t afford to support offspring. At least mine couldn’t. It’s ridiculous. I’m not upset with my parents AT ALL, because they did the best they could. It’s just how it is. America.
Also, the comment belies the belief that families HAVE the ability to help their kids out
With like 45% of the country (not sure of the actual number but it’s freakin’ large) don’t even have $400 on hand for an emergency...that’s not every situation mind you...but the economic conditions for like 60% of this country, who live in the richest country on earth, are truly awful
I think parents also push a lot of their kids to get jobs early, but there's also the independence factor. Everyone wants to leave their parents home asap.
I'm working two jobs and I'm still in high school, but I was talking to my friend who's in college rn and he still hasn't got a job, I was very, very concerned.
HOAs, how do these even work. The amount of overt control they excerpt over a person's home is insane to me.
The vast majority of Americans do not live in a neighborhood that has a HOA.
That's something that gets emphasized on reddit. I wouldn't be surprised if <1% of Americans live within a homeowners association.
Beginning to realise that!!😃
I live in an HOA neighborhood. Its crazy to me that I live in a "free country" yet the amount of rules I have to follow just to own my home is craziness.
You probably got a pretty good price for the home though, given that fucking nobody wants to be part of HOA aside from pseudo fascist maniacs.
I understand must of the U.S. don't have a HOA but even for those that do the pettiness of the rules seems unreasonable to me. It's unheard of where I am. Why would you willingly join one? Or by a house there? Is it an exclusion thing or a clique thing? Even the most exclusive gated community here would tell each other to get stuffed if there was a limit to the colors you can use (for example). Just an aspect of life in the US I am boggled over! Thanks for the replies!
We love the neighborhood. It's on the nice side of town, closer to my husband's job and to the next city over. (Where my son's father lives, so pick up and drop off is easier!) And our kids get to go to a MUCH better school district. There is no sort of exclusion or clique thing in ours. (Though I have heard of those.) We didnt have to do anything special to buy our house here. We just have to pay $250 a year for... well I'm not even sure. Haha. And then of course we have to follow a MILLION petty rules. Some make sense and I understand like no junk in your front yard and keep your lawn mowed, green and no weeds because it just keeps the neighborhood looking decent. What I DONT get is, fines if you let your weeds go too long. (Say you've just been REALLY busy and forget weeds for a few weeks. You can expect a letter threatening to give you a fine.) And the fact that we can't have a swing set in our back yard unless it is made out of a specific color/type of wood. Also, we cannot have a shed in our backyard that is higher then the fence. And there are a bunch more rules that are like that. Oh and if you didn't attend the last meeting (which we weren't even notified of until the day before) you can no longer attend the meetings. So anything regarding the neighborhood - we aren't allowed to learn about and talk about at meetings anymore. Which draws me back to wondering why we have to pay the $250 anyways.
We have done rules like those here but it really centres around land use, ensuring people are in suitable conditions and the permanence of structures. The other issues are what I am thinking of. Not being allowed to attend if you miss one meeting, some might not think that's punishment! Wouldn't it be more neighborly if they offered to help our referred to a local handy man who could more the lawn rather than fine you? Are the fines enforceable? What are the consequences for non payment?
It's a community organization. When you buy a home within an HOA you are agreeing to be a part of that community and follow the rules. You have a say in the rules, it's pretty much just a little mini-governing body of neighbors. The vast majority of neighborhoods don't have HOA's it's most commonly seen with housing developments where all the homes are extremely similar and with townhome / condo communities where walls and common areas may result in shared expenses. Most HOA's actually have very little control, it's the ones in upper class neighborhoods that tend to be strict.
There are residents association here for similar things like shared areas or walls in apartment blocks. But what they can our cannot do is limited. There would be uproar here if people thought some neighbors could have a say in the colour they have to paint their house or how often the lawn is mowed, as one seem people complain about. I actually live those threads!
Well yeah, but it's also freedom of association, nobody is forcing you to buy a house in an HOA and having your property included in a new HOA is not something that typically happens by force. You're more likely to have the town or village you live in fine you for not mowing your lawn than to live in an HOA involuntarily.
Being fined for not mowing your lawn is crazy. What's the rationale? I would throw anyone out of my house if they dared tell me how to keep it. Meadow planting is getting popular here.
You have to opt in. Homeowners associations don't just appear out of nowhere, they are created when the community is built. If you don't want one, don't buy a house that has one, it's not hard to find houses outside of a HOA.
Not true. Had a small community of 6 families land next to us was sold and developed. The developer used a third party to set up an HOA for that neighborhood.
We started getting bills to pay our yearly fee. We refused. Fast forward a year. City council said because the land around our little street was developed we were now in the neighborhood and had to pay the fee... We moved to rural Oklahoma to get away from all the bullshit.
I’m from America and that is absolutely crazy to me.
that was bullshit and they couldnt force you to do that, sounds like someone in the neighborhood knew someone in city council to send you some bullshit. you could have told them to fuck right off and never paid.
Yeah, I always was thinking this is over the top, but I only get glimpse how it is, from various material, and popular culture TV shows. Is there some good length material to read or write watch about it, or exemplary material.
When I was little they kept sending my mom letters because we had a basketball hoop on the sidewalk. Basically you pay someone to make sure all the houses look nice and not let them fall into disrepair or overrun with weeds. But sometimes their rules are just ridiculous.
Trump and the presidency/elections as a whole. It just never stops! It's politics 24/7 and both sides are so unbelievably combative and hostile to each other constantly it seems (in reality and online). People in Europe seem to take politics/elections far more as a circus you just ignore until its over.
The news networks have gone and turned it into sports, except there's only 2 teams. Always something to analyze. That next big ~~game~~ meeting needs to be beaten over your head. Every past decision scrutinized by both sides for days afterwards.
When MSNBC/Fox News and the rest all decided to become the ESPN of politics, it made it much worse.
[deleted]
Its not journalism. Its propaganda.
If you're in the US, it's propaganda meets advertising.
Advertising is just capitalistic propaganda. Ignoring the direct company goals, it has the overarching effect of indoctrinating us into consumerism and apathetic acceptance of more direct ideological propaganda.
I agree. Watched both Fox News and cnn yesterday and after about 10 minutes of people saying the same thing slightly differently with commercials in between it really felt like we’re indirectly being divided and made to buy shit we don’t need. After the 08 housing market crash my dad (former home salesman) watched Fox News all day until he was able to get a job 6 months later. It made the house crazy because he continued watching and I think the news was able to capitalize on his anger of being unemployed and fear of what was to come. They really are great at what they do
Exactly. I had a hostile family because of the news, too. My dad used to drink and all their kneejerk topics kept him blasting my childhood mind with anxiety and feelings of judgment.
I do believe generalized advertising and capitalism normalizes the mindset that every voice around is trying to exploit us. How does a person get on that big corporate TV channel if their ideas aren't somehow profiting someone?
I sincerely believe Sanders was easily marginalized and tossed aside by the media and many voters simply because voters are brainwashed into thinking every person around is actively trying to profit from us.
It's like there's no alternative but to hope someone's selfishness coincidentally includes benefits for us. That's apparently the mindset voters have when they choose to support the Blue Oligarchs or the Red Plutocrats.
However, also if you're in the US: propaganda is something used only by dirty foreign countries run by communists or Islamic priests. Never in America!
This thread is propaganda.
America is experiencing a war of propaganda from both sides, and everyone loses. It either makes people rabidly fanatic, or plain disinterested in our current political events. I don't really think there's an end in sight either
It's not propaganda, it's story telling
I'm probably going to get blasted for this but MSNBC reports the news factually while tossing in their personal views here and there. Their pundits are biased and opinionated, for sure, but they will report the news accurately and own up to mistakes they may have reported erroneously (for the most part). Can not say the same for Fox News and they seem to willingly push false narratives and bury any mistakes they've reported.
TV news is dying in America, and it has become a cluster of clickbait to try and get as many views as possible.
Yup, this is the real answer. American news media has not updated itself to reflect major changes in media consumption. Europe has had problems with this too, but not as with the disasters the US has had from a reliability\slant perspective. The US companies adapted to sell better instead of going toward what their customers were actually interested in. As a result they're selling better than they were to people who don't really want news, they just want entertainment. They're doing worse than ever compared to the population though. As cable TV dies, this is likely to be less of a problem as lots of TV broadcasting goes under. There will still be video newscasts, but they're likely to move to online streams. Without the need to produce 24/7 content to fill the stations time they're likely have less broadcasts that are just annoying talking heads that no one wants to see.
Anchorman 2 has a perfect parody for this.
US mainstream news isn't journalism anymore.
Yes, when a Presidential candidate says that climate change is a Chinese hoax or that vaccines cause autism, if you say anything about this at all, you are biased.
Of course.
well, when "trump had 2 scoops if ice cream!" makes international news, its pretty clear theres some bias
Ahhh come on, now. Trump having double dessert in front of everyone was a pretty funny anecdote, no matter your political leaning.
your comment makes no sense.
Reporting that the president likes to have 2 scoops of ice cream is evidence of bias how??
Are you aware that that is from a TIME magazine interview?
How a journalist can pick team?
They don't. The person who owns the station/news outlet does.
This did not really start till the 90s. I still remember clear as a bell a local newscaster giving his opinion during a story and I am thinking "WTF, I don't want your opinion... just the facts." The only opinions were during a once a week editorial or Sunday morning shows. The news was strictly 18 killed when... Police are asking for any witnesses to come forward, etc.
And now I'll see news articles that are 90% twitter posts about "what's going on"
It's like real life is the ultimate reality show now and everything has become gossip.
This is when the equal time requirements were dropped for political programming, and the political talk-shows really took off, especially on the conservative side.
I have not watched TV news in years. Only a youtube vid of clips here and there. Not just for the commentary, but 95% of it is negative and it pulls you down with it after awhile.
It wasn't as bad as now, but I remember my father calling Walter Cronkite a "pinko" (his word for Democrat/Liberal) back in the sixties.
Journalism has been like that forever. You just haven't learned history about it.
Most don't. The American right has spent years pushing the idea that the regular news sources are biased against them, and that only the conservative news sources were unbiased.
News source have always been influenced to some extent by the need to make money, so sensationalism has always been an issue to some extent, but it's especially so for the 24 hour news sources. This isn't a partisan thing, though.
Journalism is dead. If I had a show where I invited a member of Congress on and then went full Frost/Nixon on them, nobody would ever appear as a guest on the show ever again.
I'm still trying to process the whole Trump White House Press Corps situation. I always had this mental picture of White House press conferences as these ordered, professional affairs, no matter which party was in office. I can't even imagine a previous administration threatening to cut off the press, or any of the other circus-like stuff that's gone on recently.
Is it rude to say the errors in your grammar/syntax are cute? I apologize if so, but the way I’m reading it in my head sounds cute.
[deleted]
It should’ve been:
That's what I don't get. How can a journalist pick a team? This issue is also in my country. Made me not want to watch news.
This also isn’t the only possible answer. You could leave out the a in front of team and make it teams. You could rephrase the entire last sentences to “It makes me not want to watch the news” the the is optional, because news can be taken as singular or plural. You could have also moved the not around to say something like “Made me want to not watch news” which is still correct.
There’s plenty of ways to do it, and you’re still got your point across, so it’s not like it’s a big deal or anything.
How a journalist can pick team?
When the owners realized there was more money in tribalism, fear, and hate, than there was in facts.
In the end, there's never any true lack of bias. However, this might interest you the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Try BBC, they're pretty neutral.
I’ve said for a while that politics is just a sport where both teams win and the fans lose.
To be honest, if the networks actually were the ESPN on polical "games", it would be better. At least ESPN explains both teams and their motivations. News networks just tell one side or the other what they want to hear and about how the other side is evil and wants to take their freedom. That's where the issue lays.
MSNBC is orders of magnitude better than fox. Fox is practically a propaganda network. The / suggests the falsehood of both sides are the same.
Don't forget CNN!
CNN isn't even all that biased compared to MSNBC and FOX, it's just garbage.
The most accurate line I heard about CNN was from Jon Stewart: "There bias isnt hard left or right, its to sensationalism". CNN takes every little thing and blows it to epic proposition because the 24hr news network is built for things like 911, not the normal mundane stuff. So every thing becomes as big an issue as they can make it cause thats what gets the views. They especillay come off as left biased right now because Trump makes losts of little mistakes, and as they need to fill their air time they harp on them rather than the overarching issues.
Overall the news networsk should just be news for an hr a day, 2 if something big happens. no one needs that much time to talk about the rest.
"There bias isnt hard left or right, its to sensationalism"
That's a brilliant way to describe it.
As an example, compare the BBC website to the CNN website. Look at the difference in colours, fonts, layout etc. BBC looks like a generic, formal news outlet. CNN looks like the site you end up on when you click the wrong download link on a torrent site. It just bombards you with headlines tailor-made to shock you, and each one is more obnoxiously bold and angry than the next.
That's a really perfect description. I miss Stewart, dude.
I wish a more popular leftist channel existed though. As they may focus on the big issues caused by Trump instead of the small issue of the day. For example, net neutrality is about to die but nobody is really talking about it.
EDIT: /s my dudes. Biases suck as far as news goes.
I'm confused why you would want a more biased news source. That's the problem now a days. The current events happening in america are highly nuanced and don't fit into this tribalism narrative driven mess we have now. Everyone watching their biased news sources and not exploring a separate interpretation or an unbiased presentation of what is going on is creating massive divide on issues that shouldn't be partisan.
Apparently I have to edit in my /s. I thought it was obvious but forgot how fucked the political scene is right now.
I watched CNN this week for the first time in years because of the Anthony Bourdain specials, and as soon as they finished and they went back to regular programming I was blown away by how biased I thought it was (I can see that sensationalism bias for sure).
Maybe it's that I haven't watched cable TV news since about 6 months after 9/11 and I was burned out on the coverage and that all news channels these days are such a circus that even though CNN is relatively tame it seemed crazy to me because I hadn't watched cable news in 16 years.
Even ESPN is a shit show, I hadn't watched ESPN in a decade for various reasons, mostly that I watch soccer now more than any American sport. Now I listen to sports podcasts from across the pond (for soccer), and it's funny that they actually talk about the sports without getting political or moralistic like the American sports media tends to do. Ugh!
Actually that was all fox news. It's not a "both sides" issue. Roger Ailes specificallt outlined his strategy of "call every other media outlet liberal biased so that we appear more legitimate" in a memo called "The plan to put the GOP on TV".
The fact that people mistakenly believe that MSNBC is the leftist counterpart (despite them hiring Joe Scarborough and Megan Kelly, who are conservatives) just shows how wildly successful Roger Ailes was in his plan.
sometimes I feel it’s not fair Ailes’ plan works yet no one else on the other side of the fence can outplay that.
Always something to analyze.
Oh man, I turned CNN on for the first time in years to watch the Trump/Kim summit. Jesus Christ, after every step Trump/Kim took, it was 5 minutes of talk about "what does this mean? If you relate it to blablablabla" when it could be something as silly as the two shaking hands and then walking in different directions.
Even ESPN jumped in on the politics train. It's gotten to the point where using a combination of Chrome extensions and extensive filtering I've made Reddit my bastion against politics.
That might be the best description of our entertainment news media that I have ever read. Well done!
I love how, and by love I mean hate, there's always something to analyze, but everything is homeopathied down to meaninglessness.
The animosity in politics is relatively new and it's gotten worse over the past 10 years
Honestly, it was like that here too for the most part until Trump became a serious candidate. It’s only gotten hostile and combative since then really. Before that, you could disagree and still be friends or even talk about the circus at work. Not anymore.
We also hate it.
Not true. Have you forgotten all the attacks on Obama? The birth certificate issue went on for years.
I do remember that, and I think that was part of the beginning or maybe even middle of the divide. I see things like that as as a seed to what it has blossomed into. but that was still a relatively fringe group. Instead of a relatively small group of people being angry, virtually everyone is.
OK, I give you that. The percentage of angry people may be higher or rather, more people feel free to show their anger in public.
Another person shared an interesting study that is making me reevaluate things a bit. It may be that they feel more empowered to share what has always been there, bubbling beneath the surface.
Actually, that scares me more than imagining the right actually shifting. Maybe they’re just more vocal?
The news media is like clickbait. Terrible stuff and scandals do better than good news or unbiased does it matter that Obama was born in the us? Yes. But 4 fucking years to decide on the issue? No. Both parties are guilty of fearemongering and polarization. if you go outside and talk with your neighbors the world is a less scary place. People will also pay attention more to threats (real or perceived) than actual facts tell a voter about policy they may ignore it. Tell the voter their morals and lifestyle is threatened by this policy whole nother reaction
Both parties are guilty of fearemongering and polarization.
Both are guilty but they're not equally guilty. One party is clearly worse.
Huh. Thank you for this. I lived in the US before I was an adult, and these days (living outside the US) I had been wondering: Have Americans always been this hostile about politics and I was just too young to know about it?
I mean, there were hostile conservatives after Obama won the election, but they weren’t the majority of conservatives. I had conservative friends in college, even though I was fairly liberal then. We got along great.
Now, I don’t know any moderate conservatives. Liberals have also been pulled farther left as kind of a response to the conservative shift. I’m a moderate liberal, so I feel really isolated. I can’t even talk about politics with my parents anymore, and we used to discuss it all the time.
Everyone is just so angry right now. It’s honestly terrifying.
My conservative parents have gone farther right over the past few years.
I myself am independent.
And I agree. Everyone is constantly angry. And its scary.
Edit: also is it me or do the people who are in really deep into their political ideology tend to talk about it a lot.
I can’t even talk about politics with my parents
My parents aren’t the issue, but my friends are.
My two closest friends are both on Team Trump (I definitely am not) and we just don’t even try to talk politics anymore.
There is no middle ground anymore.
There is absolutely no middle ground anymore. My dad was always a moderate conservative, and we had really interesting discussions. It was a good perspective for me because it gave me insight into reasonable points from the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, now it just descends into him getting angry and defensive. When Trump first got he elected, he told me he thought he was kind of an idiot and made conservatives look bad. Now he’s all “We have to support our president.” And “Liberal media is abusing him!” It’s pretty depressing.
The whole Trump thing burned the bridge between left and right in the US and that's exactly what they wanted.
Divide and conquer. I wish I knew how to rebuild those bridges.
My parents legitimately think that Fox News is the "most unbiased" new source. My dad told me to stop being so "nitpicky" when overhearing a debate with my brother where I was asking where he was getting his claims from and that we should just debate what the other says. If I cite any newspaper (USA Today, New York Times, BBC, Associated Press, etc) or even studies from organizations like the CDC they'll tell me that they are "leftist propaganda" How can you have a debate on something when you can't even agree on the facts and reality of the situation? Anything I say that is different from their opinions is "that's what THEY (the liberals, the Democrats, "academia," some unspecified group) want you to think." My mother called me "brainwashed" and "uneducated" after the election and that I was "swayed by the popular media instead of what's right." Specifically she said "I just can't understand how my own daughter could ever vote for THAT woman." "I understand you're right to vote for whoever you want but you just didn't vote while really thinking about it." She was disappointed in me for daring to disagree with them. They call me "the family liberal who likes to disagree with us."
The middle ground is dead. The second you say you are on the opposite side you are the enemy. You aren't someone who they disagree with that they may be able to work with to find a solution and improvement for as many people as possible, you are someone trying to tear them down and destroy everything that they want.
moderate liberal, so I feel really isolated
Moderate conservative. I feel the same way. I would love a place on Reddit where we could talk about this in civil manor but crazies from both sides would infest and ruin it after a short period. Sad but true.
That would be paradise. Actual political discourse without the heat of extremism? Discussing nuances and legitimately listening to the other side, both sides backed up with real facts, studies, and surveys?
I haven’t really had that since college, and I don’t know any moderate conservatives to help keep me grounded and share legitimate arguments from the other side. I miss it.
Moderate Liberal here too.
I hate discussing politics now days.
I can not discuss with either side without turning into an emotional argument.
This NK stuff is a prime example. We are literally experiencing a historical moment in the world and people are more concerned about bashing Trump than witnessing and enjoying the moment.
Idk if we are though. Trump has given NK major concessions without receiving anything concrete in return. If it works out I'll eat my words happily, but I think that it's all show. Meanwhile he's alienating our allies the whole time. This isn't me shitting on Trump either- I'll happily admit when he does things I like. This just seems like everyones celebrating too quickly
If you are referring to suspending the wargames as major concessions keep in mind the US didn't have any scheduled until next year.
It's not just that though, they also talked about lifting sanctions. North Korea has reneged on a bunch of these kinds of deals and talks in the past and they really can't be trusted until we get some kind of guarantee or verification. Trump is ready to celebrate a foreign policy victory when literally nothing has been achieved yet.
Furthermore, he floated getting rid of regular joint military exercises with one of our closest allies in the region without telling them or the Pentagon. That's fucking stupid.
Serious question, why can't the US re-implement the sanctions if NK isn't cooperating?
How do you know that Trump didn't talk to SK regarding the military exercises?
Also Kim has already agreed to go to the Whitehouse as well as invited Trump to go to NK. That alone is a victory. (A small one but still one.)
why can't the US re-implement the sanctions if NK isn't cooperating?
Other countries like China and Russia don't care as much if NK is cooperating with some international mandate, and don't have a lot of patience for an on-again off-again sanctioning of some 2nd world backwater by the United States. The same is true of Iran and Europe. The Europeans don't exactly want to sanction Iran because they benefit from trade with Iran. When the US breaks some deal not to sanction Iran on questionable grounds, the Europeans are less likely to cooperate on sanctions.
I know Trump didn't talk to SK because there were reports of SK being like "Hey wtf, we don't know what he's talking about".
Bringing a fascist dictator whose family is responsible for the death of millions to the white house where he can spew his crap is not what I would consider a victory.
Good point but at that point I don't think Trump will repeat the process. I'm not sure he would give NK a second chance. I'm not sure how that would turn out.
Do you have sources for that? I've seen a lot of people saying Trump should have talked to them but I've not seen anything from their leader (or people close to him) saying it.
Really? Would you rather NK doesn't change and continues to oppress its people? I would think any progress is good progress given the situation there. I'm not sure how it can get much worse short of NK getting invaded. Although that might make the situation better in the long run.
Besides, I thought diplomacy was putting your differences aside to come to mutual agreements. Refusing to negotiate with anyone who is willing to negotiate seems like a poor foreign policy to me. Especially if those negotiations could result in the "fascist dictator" willingly abdicating their position.
I mean if there was a possibility that Hitler could have been convinced to step down wouldn't it have been foolish to refuse to negotiate with him?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/world/asia/trump-military-exercises-north-south-korea.html
Moon isn't saying it but the South Korean military is.
I obviously would prefer if North Korea would not be a fascist dictatorship, but legitimizing Kim by inviting him to the white house does not serve that goal. The South Koreans should be given the lead diplomatically without having to worry about Trump's bullshit sideshow.
The western powers tried to negotiate with Hitler and were convinced war could be avoided. Hitler took their concessions then invaded Poland and France. Placating dictators (especially those with a history of going back on promises) is a dangerous game to play.
So that looks like the diplomacy was handled first and then the results get passed to the troops. That is very standard. (Keep in mind they didn't talk to SK just a US spokesperson.)
How is it legitimizing Kim? I thought pretty much every nation recognizes him as de facto leader of NK. Is that not already quite legitimate?
I also don't see a reason why inviting him is a bad thing. It gives Trump the opportunity to negotiate more. It is also a strong symbolic gesture which many Eastern cultures take very seriously.
I agree that in the end negotiating with Hitler didn't help but I still wouldn't call trying a foolish decision. Perhaps giving those concessions were but I don't know what they entailed.
As for the situation with NK, Kim isn't Hitler and the political situation is very different. Trump has also been approaching NK very differently than previous presidents. He started by enforcing sanctions and making sure NK was actually hurt by them before negotiating. That isn't something past presidents have done. So this situation is already different in that way.
With that said, if Kim backs out this time I think I would agree that no negotiations can be done while Jong-Un is in power. Perhaps a different Kim, but not Jong-Un.
To be fair, most of the taking concessions and reneging was on Kim's father and grandfather. This may be more of the same, but with a new generation of leader in NK you have to take the chance that he's not his father or grandfather.
Besides, there have been other signs that things may be different such as the Olympics. There are also people that have speculated that some of the assassinations that took place may have been to pave the way for this.
https://i.redd.it/zql2tr0owr311.jpg
There you go. SK's official response. Doesn't seem like they are worried about the concessions.
Because Trump is a fuck up and he has been fucking up and he will probably fuck up again. If he pulls it off its great, but I thinking he will set up some fucked up half assed deal that will ultimately set us back.
I don't think Trump is actually going to achive anything with these NK talks. He's shown off how bad at diplomacy he is through his interactions with all the countries who used to think of America was bonkers but still a good ally and trading partner. Though if he succeeds I'll happily eat my words and admit that perhaps insanity was just what we needed to deal with NK.
As an aside I despite my skeptisism I do think we should at least note that meeting with Kim is a big step up. But we should also look at all the big issues Trump has caused on the diplomatic stage. Oh and there's the whole net neutrality thing that everybody really needs to focus on right now.
Looking at every side of things is the best possible way of going about this. It gives the people who hate Trump something political to talk about that doesn't make them rage and it gives the people who like Trump some perspective so they hopefully stop worshiping the guy and can choose to follow him or avoid him without being stuck in a cult of personality.
It's really not that historic though, that's why so many people aren't "enjoying the moment." Literally nothing came out of that meeting that hadn't been established 20 years ago except that Kim Jong Un got the propaganda photo he's always wanted.
Like, yeah, it's cool to be openly talking. But it's so clearly a vapid reality show with no point that it sucks all the fun out of it.
Actually this is not true. Trump was more of a reaction to obama than anything. The Left isn't reacting to a rightward lurch among conservatives... It's actually totally wrong.
According to a Pew study , the Democratic Party has moved much further to the left than the Republican Party has to the right. This is a study. It is a fact.
I think it really exposes a lot of bias here that there are so many people commenting on this thread who are suggesting it is the Republican Party that has gone far to the right. This is just not true. Yes, there was a move to the right in 2010 with the Tea Party movement, but since then it hasn't really changed. The Democratic Party however, has undeniably shifted far to the left and this is proven in this study. Remember, Obama and Hillary Clinton didn't even endorse gay marriage in 2008.
This is really interesting, and I appreciate you sharing this study. I’m not perfect, and I don’t have all the information in the world. This was a piece of the puzzle that was missing for me. Thank you.
I only read about 35 pages in, but I see what you’re saying. Democrats really have shifted to the left. If you have any more studies on the deepening divide in your back pocket, I’d appreciate reading them.
Unfortunately. I am still partially correct. The divide in partisanship really has deepened dramatically and measurably. I wish I could see the trends before 1994. Are the Democrats changing at a faster rate than ever before or are the Republicans more stagnated and firmly rooted than they have been in the past? I’m legitimately curious, even if the answer isn’t lined up with what I’ve previously said.
I like to know when I’m wrong.
The Tea Party Conservatives have done so much to utterly destroy political discourse in this country.
And the racists. Holy fuck the racists....
[deleted]
God, you know the both sides argument is a right wing talking point right? They push the idea that antifa is out there in the streets violently attacking conservatives when in reality the alt-right is a much larger movement. Claiming the fringe left is at fault when the GOP is embracing the alt-right wholeheartedly is so disingenuous.
Two Republican Senators, and plenty of civilians, have been violently attacked by left-wingers. Political violence isn’t at all exclusive to the right.
Those people are in jail and this is a straw man argument. Bringing up a few incidents of the mentally ill perpetrating acts of violence does not excuse how the GOP has fucked up this country.
Do you have anything but straw man's and a few incidents to back up your claims?
He was saying that left and right are no better than each other. That is true. You acted like he was talking about Charlottesville. It isn't a right wing talking point to say both Republicans and Democrats can be dolts.
I literally said both are at fault. The alt-right is a larger movement and I’m not exactly thrilled about that, trust me, but the far-far-far left is very similar to the far-far-far right in their tactics to destroy civil discourse. No one side is SOLELY to blame, that’s what I was saying.
Cool. I'm saying the GOP is a huge reason why politics is so shitty right now, and claiming that both sides somehow contribute equally when one is quite obviously acting in bad faith is shitty.
I don’t disagree with that, but never once did I claim that both sides contribute equally. I just said that they both did. I don’t like when people cry “strawman!!!1!!” after any time someone argues with them but this is a prime example. The last two things you claim I’ve said about politics in this country were never said by me.
non of the 'uber left' are holding office right now or are evenc close to it.
You're kidding right? The Tea Party has destroyed political discourse? Antifa and far leftists who say that half of the country are morally depraved and evil people just because they voted differently certainly hasn't destroyed political discourse. No. It was the Tea Party with their rotten ideas about small government.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/
I'll just drop this here.
Sure, it was antifa that reguarly referred to Obama as a Muslim Kenyan Terrorist Sympathizer who wants to install Sharia law and regularly eepicted him as a racist charicature and loved imagery of him hanging in a noose.
You fucking clod.
The tea party came first though, so yeah.
You should note that the polarization is far more right than left, and the right has pushed things a lot more. We should be angry. Conservatives complained incessantly about Obama, then turned around and elected a charlatan like Trump. The have the gall to be proud of their ignorance too. Call them out for their bullshit.
I think another aspect of the polarization worth mentioning, beside people who genuinely move their views further to the right or left, is that moderate views, whether right or left, have been portrayed as more extreme than they are. For instance, a European-style universal healthcare system is "literally" a step toward Stalinism in some people's heads.
This is also, in part, the fault of treating political differences as cohering to social identities that lands one some place in a spectrum between two extremes. "Centrism" and being a "moderate," in this way, acquiesces to the very scheme that drains its popular support, a scheme I think people should begin to question.
I'm getting downvoted for the comments in this thread but I'm angry so fuck it. Comments like yours that complain that both sides are contributing to the political climate are part of the problem. The "conservatives" in this country haven't had a substantive policy goal for over a decade. The democrats brought us back from the brink of economic annihilation and at least tried to reform the bullshit health care system and the right responded by electing a bunch of tea party nut jobs which lead to the most unproductive and obstructionist congress in history. They stole a supreme court nomination by refusing to vote on one for a year.
Polarization is a myth. The right will bitch and moan about socialism while destroying the social welfare systems started by the new deal and cutting taxes for the people that need a tax cut the least, while ballooning the deficit they claim to give a shit about. These aren't political differences, this is a small group of people that have convinced a larger group of idiots that the left is out to get them while looting the country they pay lip service to.
I didn't say that both sides contribute to the political climate. In fact I believe that American conservatism has largely accelerated this polarization, in part by portraying liberal political views as more radical than they are.
Whatever equivalence which may exist on the left is nowhere compared to the highest rated cable news network and the whole industry around it having perpetuated it for decades. For contemporary American conservatism, political polarization is a growth marketing strategy, and a highly successful one.
The left is doing the exact same thing to the right....border control is racist now? Wanting to deport illegal citizens is racist? Not wanting protests at sports games is too much to ask? Having an economic plan similar to that of even Bernie, is now "far right"? Remember how he hated the TPP and wanted to renegotiate a bunch of our trade deals? Not within the past 10 years starting believing that men can suddenly be women is far right and straight up "intolerant" while shouting down speakers and rioting is just using your first amendment rights?
Trump isn't far right, far less conservative or crazy than many presidents before him, and all of this started happening when people started to feel like they'd be attacked the second they voiced their opinion on him, moderates were being attacked in the streets and it was being justified because they supported Trump.
The left is doing the exact same thing to the right
Who, aside from the offense porn snapshots of tumbler or facebook statuses shared in right-wing internet circles, is doing this? Is it as comparable to what's perpetuated by Fox News or PragerU or any number of organizations which has made it their marketing strategy? The difference is between random comments by individuals and a cultural industry onto its own.
But the whole conversation of "they do it too" or "they do it more" just perpetuates it by making polarization itself a tool to polarize.
Okay, you CANNOT compare Fox News and PragerU. Prager is very upfront and honest with its leanings, it makes no claim to not be a right wing organization.
I'm not comparing them. I'm associating them, along with other organizations within right-wing media, either upfront about their political mission or not, as a part of a general conservative effort to polarize American political discourse.
I've seen all of these opinions massively upvoted on Reddit as well, and I was being pretty forgiving with the things I even brought up...that shits not even the really radical stuff...I'm not talking about fucking cringe compilations.
And yes, places like CNN now act like some of the exact same border control measures Canada uses are now racist. Questioning if it's the cops, or the people the cops generally have more trouble with is now dismissive. Implicit bias is now trained into people at a large number of corporations because otherwise would literally open them up to financial liability. Literally saying "there's fine people on both sides" is enough to set off triggers. Racism is now justified through diversity programs because it's perceived as the positive kind. None of this shit was mainstream during Obama OR Bush, who likely believed in a lot of the stuff that would be considered far right today. You have people literally praising an old conservative that was far more pro-war, pro-religious, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, simply because he isn't Trump.
The problem with border control isn't the border control, it's the thinly veiled xenophobia that's driving it. So yes, it's racist.
I like how someone proves my point one comment down yet I get downvotes, oh Reddit.
I don’t disagree. I’m angry too.
I just think there comes a point when that anger is just making things worse rather than helping readjust. I honestly don’t have a solution to the divide. Both groups are working with entirely different sets of information, and the whole alternative facts thing and distrust of legitimate sources makes it pretty hard to discuss anything rationally across the aisle.
There is no solution to the divide. I would argue that most people on the right wing of the political spectrum in this nation are irredeemable morons. There's no convincing someone who is already positioned against logic in favor of grand conspiracy theories. These people exist in every society and they are the intellectual dregs.
Instead you need to take that anger and channel it into something productive. Help engage the uninterested and apathetic and convince them to participate in the political process. More people in the US did not vote than voted for Trump or Clinton.
[deleted]
Why is the right allowed to claim that the liberals are too thin skinned and they need to be less politically correct, but when liberals call out the right's bullshit, it's suddenly coastal elitism or making politics more hostile. We should be able to discuss the policy positions of the political right wing in this country on its merits, and if the merits are fucking stupid, we should rightly criticize them viciously. They're going to bitch no matter what we do, call them out.
You can “call them out” all you want but all you’re doing is pushing moderates to the right. The rhetoric you’re spewing has convinced multiple people I know to become Trump supporters. You’re a perfect example of the division in American politics.
Okay so when dickheads like McConnell spend a year not holding a vote for a supreme court justice simply because they don't like the president that should be okay? Obama put forth an extremely center, innocuous, well liked candidate and they would not vote on him for over a year. They stole that fucking seat. And this is just one example of the bullshit the GOP has been pulling for the last decade.
Why is it that we aren't allowed to bring shit like this up because it makes moderates uncomfortable? This is the conservative party. The party without any policy goals besides looting this country for the rich and kicking down the ladder of opportunity for everyone else. When Trump supporters that I've "convinced" to vote for a flaccid imbecile with zero experience in law or policy come up with some policy positions that would actually help the average american then come to me and we can have a civil conversation on the pros and cons of the law. But if you guys are going to continue to screech like children about how "libruls" are ruining this country in some vague ass way while you have control of all three branches of government then kindly shut the fuck up.
This is the shit that convinces people to vote Republican. By all means continue spewing this shit you’re only helping Republicans.
If stating facts offends Republicans, what could I possibly say to convince them of anything objective?
It’s not the facts, it’s the way you present them. I don’t consider myself a republican but I am more right than left, and though I don’t factually disagree with anything you said (and neither should Republicans), your constant belittlement of right-wing beliefs and practices with these ad hominems is what is going to cause the most friction, upset right wingers, and push them away from understanding and supporting your views.
I'm not trying to convince republicans, because they clearly aren't paying attention.
“The right is more polarizing!” “Call them out on their bullshit. They are proud of their ignorance!” Okay lol
You couldn't be more wrong.
According to a Pew study , the Democratic Party has moved much further to the left than the Republican Party has to the right. This is a study. It is a fact.
The fact that so many people have said it's the Republicans moving far right and not the opposite serves as a good example of the bias of Reddit.
First off, the article you linked is so obviously biased. Why wouldn't you just link to the study itself rather than filtering it through some website nobody cares about?
Second off, if the left getting "extreme" is demanding a fair healthcare system then I don't know what to tell you dude. The right is over here claiming that a religious group needs to get banned from the country and Democrats are the extremists for claiming that corporate profits are indeed at record levels while public infrastructure rots.
Yes, enforced economic redistribution, violations of property rights, attacks on the Second Amendment, and the increasing expansion of government are extreme.
Is "enforced economic redistribution" code word for paying taxes now?
Welcome to the club.
As a Canadian watching from the outside, I feel like the anger started brewing during the Bill Clinton years, but really started coming to a boil after 9/11. The country briefly came together after the attack but those on the left really hated Bush and wanted him out. Then Obama came in and while he was actually quite centrist, something about him just threw the right into a full tizzy. The vitriol has just escalated from there and is really at its peak right now.
That “something about him” was his skin color, though most refuse to admit it. That’s where the whole birther and “he’s a Muslim!” came from. They would have disliked him regardless, but that tidbit pushed it from dislike to outright hate.
Sure, there was a lot of dislike toward Bush from the liberal side, but it wasn’t hatred, and you could still associate and discuss politics with Bush supporters as a liberal. Sometimes it was heated, but it was never nearly as bad as it is now.
I remember a lot of volatile hatred towards Bush towards the end of his tenure. A lot of people branded him as a war criminal and murderer and the such.
Through the Obama years it’s calmed down a lot though and I think most people have a more moderate toned view of GWB, but to say that the left didn’t “hate” Bush isn’t entirely accurate in my eyes.
A lot of people branded him as a war criminal
We had state sponsored torture, at his directive. Make of that what you will.
The left didn’t like Bush while he was in office and certainly were fired up after the whole “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco and other things. I can certainly get on board with there being a divide before Trump, and I think that situation probably deepened the divide too. However, I also remember that I could still talk to my parents or my conservative friends, and even if we disagreed, things stayed pretty civil. Remember when it was a huge deal when the Dixie Chicks said something against Bush in a concert in France? Something like that wouldn’t even be surprising anymore.
That civil discourse across the aisle is gone. Instead of it just being heated in political-spheres, it’s heated anywhere politics is even mentioned, including this thread. I believe Trump exploited that divide and fanned the flames to get elected (which worked well for him) and that things have absolutely worsened divide-wise in the past few years because of it. If you don’t see that, we can part ways civilly and agree to disagree.
This is the problem right here. Saying "if you didn't like Obama its because you're a racist" is fucked up. This is what shuts down conversations and makes Americans hate each other. Don't say that shit. Cut it out.
I think there are legitimate reasons to disagree with Obama. I never said everyone who disagrees with him is a racist.
However, pretending that racism didn’t play a factor in the visceral hatred some conservatives had for him is just turning a blind eye to reality.
You're so wrong, saying Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla is part of rational political discourse
I think there are legitimate reasons to disagree with Obama. I never said everyone who disagrees with him is a racist.
You wrote:
That “something about him” was his skin color, though most refuse to admit it.
Yes I did.
I don’t see the words “all” or “everyone” or any qualifiers to make it seem like I’m speaking about everyone who ever disagreed with him ever.
I’m sorry if you feel the need to keep debating after I clarified, but there’s really nothing more that can be said.
"something about him" lol.
there was definitley hostility before but nothing like what happened after this past election.
The above poster is down playing things. Things have been exceptionally bad since 2008 and the rise of the tea party. For example, the Republican congress denied Obama over 1000 federal judicial appointments which absolutely crushed the US legal system for the next decade "because he's evil".
For whatever reason, people are really pushing hate / division towards anything Trump and Republican related. At this point it's dangerous to mention that you either voted for Trump, are a Republican, or are a Catholic / Christian.
It really shows how hypocritical part of the "Left" has become, and how far some people will go to, because their candidate did not win.
We don't hate you guys because our candidate did not win, we just realize how fucking stupid ya'll are for electing and believing in a con man like Trump. We've finally realized how far off the deep end people subscribing to the right wing bullshit have gone, so we're finally calling it out for what it is. Honestly the things Trump gets away with are astounding. Not even policy wise but shit like the things he says about John McCain, and you guys won't hold him accountable for any of it.
The idea that you're getting persecuted for being a Christian is especially hilarious to me as an ex-Christian. You guys live in one of the most religiously tolerant societies in history and are a plurality in this nation. When people finally speak up and say "Hey maybe we should make our laws more secular and inclusive" you see it as persecution. No I don't want to hear about Jesus in a public space. Keep your religion to yourself and your church and nobody will give a shit.
Have you researched ACrispyPieceOfBacon’s history? You might be getting trolled.
I don't care I'm done just not saying anything. Let my comment stand as an edifice yelling into the cloud, "fuck you guys".
"Dangerous." Despite what Fox News tells you on a daily basis, you are very unlikely to be assaulted by radical Antifa leftist roving gangs of radicalized college gender-studies majors for saying that you voted for Trump.
You may, however, be called a bad person with cult-like worship of an incoherent, thin-skinned, endlessly whiny man-baby who loves, praises and admires dictators, loathes democracy, free press, and American allies, never ever ever stops playing victim, and who stands in stark opposition to pretty much everything Jesus Christ ever talked about. (What are the seven deadly sins? Pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth? Has there ever been a more perfect encapsulation of those seven character traits than Donald J. Trump?)
And then, having been told this (gasp), you will have many willing platforms to discuss how having someone dare to tell you that makes you the most oppressed person in history; many people are saying so, so many people, it's all so terrible, sad, believe me. (Also, all those snowflakes need their safe spaces, amirite? Freedom of speech! Fuck your feelings!)
You need to realize that this isn't "because their candidate did not win." This is very specifically because of the odious shitstain who did. I used to be able to get along perfectly fine with Republicans who I disagreed with about Bush because I thought there we might have some basic values in common, like "it's bad to praise neo-Nazis" and "adultery is bad and not proof of how 'alpha' you are" and "daily whining is annoying" and "saying 'I love sexually assaulting people but I couldn't have done it to that person because she's too ugly" is fucking horrible, and "it's embarrassing to Tweet ALL CAPS Nonsense LIES with Childish Slogans as your Primary Method of Communication."
At this point, I truly believe that (as Trump very publicly bragged about) in the eyes of his supporters, he can literally do no wrong. Commit blatant crimes and corruption cancel elections, destroy democracy, you'd roll with all of it. Anyone who dares question him or criticize him, however impeccable their conservative cred, gets called a RINO and purged from the party; loyalty to Trump is all that matters. That's a cult. And I'm sorry, but that's worth opposing.
Thank you for the perfect stereotypical response, for Reddit to see.
You're welcome. Glad I could be "dangerous" to you by telling you that you have bad, extremely hypocritical opinions and you follow a bad leader.
Truly the evils of political correctness and safe spaces will be destroyed when you never have to suffer the dangerous trauma of hearing that said to you.
Maybe try digesting some of what is said?
"Dangerous"? Lmao, I did a spit take. I think you mean that it makes you feel uncomfortable? But that was a very unfortunate choice of words.
Really, your comment is enlightening--some people seem to truly believe that other people are as upset as they are because they are sore losers. It shows a difference in core values: being as angry as people have been about petty losing? Completely conceivable to you.
Being as angry as people have been because some of these things actually affect our daily lives, and because now I have to hear all the little old white ladies in my life say how racist they are out loud now (instead of our comfortable old DADT agreement), and because I don't understand how "shake things up," or "jobs in my industry" is an even weight to condoning racism and mysogyny... that you can't fathom? Really tho?
It also shows a willingness to completely ignore history--this didn't happen with Bush. There are real, legitimate reasons for that.
Liberals/leftists have ALWAYS been this hateful towards Republicans. Only lately have Republicans started fighting back, and they now have certain outlets that express their points of view. I'm 60, I can assure you that leftists/liberals fought equally hard against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes. They all fall in lock step behind a Democratic administration, and it is quiet and seems all is well with the world until the next Republican comes along, and they call him raaaaaacist, stupid, misogynistic etc.
No, it has been this way since Clinton was elected, if not Nixon or Kennedy. Just have the internet now.
Honestly I don’t think you’re wrong. The fall of the “conservative democrats” around the time of Kennedy may have had something to do with this. Also, I always think of the Great Society as the first thing in modern America that average people REALLY disagreed on.
Seems to be getting worse in Ontario too. A lot of us vs them mentality where the other party is an enemy. Didn't feel like this a few years ago.
It was absolutely also like this during the later years of dubya
It’s only gotten hostile and combative since then really.
What??? Clinton, Obama? Impeachment, constant fighting? It started well before Trump. I hate it that everything and the kitchen sink now is "Trump's fault".
It was never this bad before though. It felt so distant at the time. Now I've had to break up friendships and pretty much disown family members.
[deleted]
I feel like I need to do more, but the fact is I do not know what I can do. Cutting these people from our lives is not only hard, but it also does not really seem to help much because it just lets them sink deeper into whatever stupidity they have locked themselves into.
It's been hostile and combative, on a national level, since Gingrich decided it was a great idea to take the most extreme hick candidates he could find and get them elected in the hopes that he could control them. It's just been getting worse since then, as the right is being pulled farther to the edge.
I agree that fueled the deepening divide. I feel like it’s an infection in American politics, and Trump is just the head rising to the surface. I’m just hoping we can overcome it and it doesn’t explode.
Um no, under Obama if you disagreed with him you'd be called racist. In that 8 years, I was called racist simply because I disagreed with the president who happens to be black.
My mom says this same thing. Maybe there’s some truth to it. If you had legitimate policy concerns, I get why that would be frustrating.
Unfortunately, the whole birther thing and claims that he was a Muslim was absolutely fueled by racism. A lot of the time too, the people vehemently opposed to everything Obama did couldn’t give me actual policy reasons and would just say, “I just don’t trust him.” Sometimes that was from an inability to articulate exactly what they believed needed to happen, and sometimes it was from latent racism. It’s hard to tell the difference.
[deleted]
It wasn't a fringe thing, there were elected politicians spreading that crap during his administration. Polls at the time showed around 40-50% of Republicans thought Obama was a Muslim, and similar numbers of Republicans thought he was born in Kenya.
I live in Indiana and come from a conservative family, so I had a lot of exposure to this particular line of thinking. My own mother continues to believe this, much to my dismay. I don’t know how popular it is elsewhere, but among conservatives in the Midwest, that’s a fairly common belief.
Odd. My family is Midwestern and conservative and never embraced this idea.
Rural Midwest? I probably should have specified that as well.
Otherwise, be thankful you have a reasonable family.
Ah, yeah, that’s more understandable. We were from a suburb outside a decently large city in Ohio. I am thankful that my registered republican dad isn’t a nutjob every day.
I disagreed with Obama on a lot of issues and was never called a racist. Maybe there was something else you did.
As a Candian looking in I agreee with you. When Obama was in the Right was constantly trying to get him out of there but that was normal, politicians are always fighting.
When Trump came around and formed a cult of personality that follows him blindly things started blowing up. It became Trump and his supporters vs all the people who hated Trump.
That's also spreading, I live in Canada, a foreign nation where Trump actively hurts us. I know a few people who love him, these people also tend to be uneducated, angry men, who label themselves as hardcore Canadian patriots. I'm like how the fuck can you call yourself a patriot and like Trump, you're not American and never will be no matter how much you want it so stop pretending.
To be fair Trump became a serious candidate around the same time it started getting obbious Hillary was going to be the only alternative.
That whole election was choosing between a whole wheat shit sandwich on a blue plate and a pumpernickle shit sandwich on a red plate.
That whole election was choosing between a whole wheat shit sandwich on a blue plate and a pumpernickle shit sandwich on a red plate.
Equating both sides is such a lazy argument.
If you want a more accurate metaphor Hillary would be bland and more of the same so something like an egg salad sandwich with stale bread. Probably not anyone's first choice but still edible.
Meanwhile Trump would be a shit sandwich with Russian hooker urine dressing.
[deleted]
Sure it wasn’t all peaches and cream before, but there was always middle ground, reasonable candidates, and discourse on both sides. The trenches have deepened and grown farther apart, and everything has gotten far more radical. I don’t think it’s “Trump’s fault” necessarily. I think he’s symptomatic of the deepened divide, but he has absolutely fueled the flames and intensified everything. That’s how he got elected.
This is utter bullshit you downvoting moron. It was always there. Trump did not bring anything into existence that did not already exist - and politics already was extremely partisan for a very long time before him.
Look, I addressed this above. I think Trump exploited a divide that already existed, but I also think the rabid anger has come out of the woodwork largely because of his candidacy and presidency. I’m not talking about disagreeing or even heated debate. I’m talking about open hostility, hatred, and vitriol.
We’re disagreeing over semantics, and it’s stupid.
Wrong
People in Europe seem to take politics/elections far more as a circus you just ignore until its over.
No, adults don't really do this.
I guess it depends on your circle. In my experience adults absolutely do. Its the elderly that actually pay a lot of attention to politics.
Its the elderly that actually pay a lot of attention to politics.
Is this that joke where all the youth yell and moan at the elders for voting in parties that focus on the elderly and not the kids, despite the kids not voting?
Politics is a waste of time. Guess I'm not an adult.
Yeah, most likely - or a sheltered manbaby
I'm sheltered in that I pay for a roof over my head with my wages, yeah. You are only here for a short while, don't waste your time being so serious.
Caring about the future of your country is too serious for you, point noted.
The result has very little impact on my life either way. I have more enjoyable things to be doing with my time than trying to unpick the lies of politicians.
Okay, you're too cool for school and don't care about boring banalities like politics, point noted.
Now you get it!
Things are changing quite rapidly and vary wildly country-wide, but in an area near me in the UK, you have:
Borough Council elections in 3 out of 4 years (elections by thirds)
Parish (Town) Council elections once every 4 years
County Council elections once every 4 years
Police and Crime Commissioner elections (a recent introduction as well!) every 4 years
Parliament elections at least every 5 years
So that's a lot of elections, and occasional referendums (two nationwide in the past 10 years) as well. Then you have London, where Borough elections come just once every 4 years, 99% doesn't have parish councils, and there are no county councils... but there are London Assembly and London Mayor elections, and additionally Borough mayoral elections in a few areas.
So if you pay attention to below the national level, politics can be rather 24/7 in the UK.
Oh don't worry, there are plenty of Americans waiting for this to all end so another clown can take office. It's just a battle of rich fighting other rich at this point.
The faster everyone realizes this, the better off we will be
That's exactly the attitude that let a corrupt clown like Trump in.
A total inability to think critically and see the actual differences between the parties.
I voted against Trump. But let’s stop pretending Hillary wasn’t a corrupt piece of shit as well (all those things she did to win the primary, completely ignoring smaller states in the campaign trail). It was a vote for who was the lesser of two evils and that’s how it is.
Man, it would just suck to have less evil in the world, huh?
Also, despite countless Republican investigations, they never found anything corrupt done by Hillary Clinton. Beating Sanders in the primary isn't 'corrupt.'
The DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders from the start which wasn’t the smartest on their part. And completely ignoring smaller states in the campaign trail is a good reason she lost in the first place.
Pretty sure he ran in all the primaries, and that the DNC didn't change any votes.
People just like having something to bitch about.
Or to have as a scapegoat for their misery.
Exactly. Trump and Obama are so similar, I can barely tell the difference.
You’re fuckin dumb.
What a well articulated counter-point.
People in Europe seem to take politics/elections far more as a circus you just ignore
This is why shit like the Brexit happens. Pay attention to your elections.
All those times in history where something insane happened in a society and everyone just sat back and did nothing makes a lot more sense now.
People would rather pretend they have nothing to worry about.
Everyone should at least read some excerpts from "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945" http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
MLK's letter from Birmingham jail is also quite appropriate in parallel. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html
"Instead of pushing to get our boy in to the White House, let's destroy the opponent instead." is all I hear every election.
Yep. Election campaigns here in Australia are just a 6 week affair, and although there’s obviously some preparation and posturing outside of the campaigns, it certainly isn’t the continual onslaught you get in the US. The last Federal election campaign here was a little longer than normal (7-8 weeks?) and there were articles popping up lamenting how it was so “incredibly long” and complaining of election fatigue. As someone who’s lived a good portion of their life in the US as well, I chuckled quietly to myself...
both sides
I don't want to start a big thing, but please don't equate "both sides." It's been a deliberate tactic of the conservative wing of american politics to push the narrative that both sides are the same in an effort to suppress voter turnout and chip away at the concept of objective truth.
[deleted]
Fair enough some people go for the jugular in hating on conservative voters, but haha - no. R/politics is no way shape or form in the same league as 4chan and the_donald.
both sides are so unbelievably combative and hostile to each other constantly it seems (in reality and online).
Thankfully, the "both sides are the same" bullshit is starting to come to an end.
Thankfully, the "both sides are the same" bullshit is starting to come to an end.
If only! It was somewhat quiet last year, but I'm seeing BothSidesism make a comeback given how the primaries are progressing and people are--per usual--becoming politically aggressive, uncompromising, and puritanical again.
It happens every election season, but especially every 4 years.
I think we should try to show people how this mindset doesn't make sense, but the voices in my head say I should stab my eye out so I don't need to sleep anymore and then throw sewage at people in the street. So maybe both sides have some merit.
I find this cycle was especially bad with the disinformation campaigns and "meme rhetoric" taking hold. I don't think people realize that the subconscious effects of this is going to be deep-seated for a very long time.
Well, when this mess drags most of the world, including your part, into the next massive war, you'll understand why we were paying it so much attention. We're doing literally everything we can and cannot stop it.
To defend my fellow Americans I've never had a negative experience in person while talking about politics. Online is a shit show, but everyone's been very respectful in person.
Italians must really love their circus.
Apparently after 9/11, the news became more politicized. I think it's gotten worse with social media now.
I wouldn't say that European politics are much better. Bring up immigration around a bunch of Europeans and watch what happens.
On reddit, a lot, but irl - almost nothing.
Am American. Can confirm. Politics is 100% toxic and hostile.
[deleted]
Especially when the people who don't pay attention eat up the propaganda as readily as they do the logic.
Please help us.
Just, go take away his phone or something. I've been hearing about him for so long.
American politics is so sick on many levels. They only have two real parties, a lot of things go "first past the post" way, and they use totally outdated structures like the electoral college. This leads to a blind either-or way of thinking in politics without relateable structures apart from a few core believes. And politics that is totally stuck in the "you are either for me or against me" is incapable of compromise, leading to a basically non-working government - even with one party having the majority in both houses and the white house.
Basically, American Politics is broken, and the people involved are incapable of changing themselves or the system per se.
Honestly I think we're going through a crisis of democracy at the moment. I'm just glad it's yet to turn into the 60s/early 70s.
There is a show on showtime calles the circus that follows politics. Its very good.
In Australia, I think we got more coverage on the American elections than we do our own! It's ridiculous because we have no say in it.
Still stuff going on in European countries its just not widely covered. From what I know May/Brexit is still daily news and Macron is dealing with a lot of protests from students and workers.
I'm amazed that anyone thinks this is something new. It's been going on for over 200 years! At least we're not fighting a Civil War (the deadliest conflict the U.S. has ever been involved in) over our differences. Political differences were a whole lot more violent in the past.
Regardless if their outcome, thank God us Americans still care about our elections.
Believe me, even Americans are sick of it.
I now know more about American politics than I do about my own country's politics.
I lived for a while in germany, about two years. I'm pretty sure they discussed politics more than weather. At least, my people did.
Oh, in Poland it's like in America
They wouldn't do it if they weren't raking in lots of cash.
Meh, it helps to think that the damage he does will mostly be short term, and at best he will be a footnote in the history books 100 years from now. So while it is emotionally heavy hitting, his damage is mostly temporary.
In Argentina, we see the US political clusterfuck as mild.
Here's an actual politician/senate candidate from the left wing party of my country: http://imgur.com/OpuS7Yg
in reality and online
It frankly isn't. I don't begrudge my neighbor for voting Republican.
What CNN/MSNBC/FOX talks about doesn't necessarily reflect daily life all across America. Don't forget we have 320 million people.
The results of a US election have much more of a global impact than other countries. If you knew the size of the military here youd actually be scared to realize the US essentially controls the planet with muscle. The economic impacts are just as large. So that is one reason that educated people here care, the other half just wants to root for their own ignorance and feelings, and to win. It's become like a sport here
Yet in most of Europe we still have a greater voter turnout. By a large margin.
To be fair I think it's the media, not the actual government. In the US we get blasted with world politics as well and based on the coverage it sounds almost equally insane.
Many of us do ignore both sides of the circus. The problem is that we don't make the news/online.
I pretty much just ignore politics. Can I move to Europe? I would like to ignore politics and not be outed as a horrible piece of shit by my family for doing so.
To me it seems like Americans are way to obsessed with food, junk food in particular. People seem to discuss new burgers or other items, seasonal changes in the menus etc. Amongst the people I know, we usually make our own dinners at home, and fast food is more of a treat you get once, twice a month, tops.
This observation is actually what inspired this post!
Huh, well I guess there's something to it, then!
I think it has a lot to do with the fact we work so much.
We pride ourselves on the ability to work long hours to make shitloads of money and at the end of the day it doesn’t leave us time to cook a meal at home.
I don’t like it.
I mean I work 12-16 hours a day and by the time I get home I have 2 hours or so before I go to bed to start the grind all over, it doesn’t leave me a lot of time and it’s much easier to stop and pick something up for cheap on the way home.
No prep, no dirty dishes, no thinking.
I’m not saying I do this personally, but that’s the logic behind it.
We pride ourselves on the ability to work long hours to make shitloads of money
All at the mere expense of our mental and social well-being.
It's OK though because you have a really sturdy safety net in the form of a universal healthcare sys... oh.
Please don't remind us ;_;
and a substantial savings acc....
nevermind
or an intact investment portfoli... oh yeah....
[deleted]
I get those 'looks' at work quite often. I am an hourly employee who is not authorized for OT. I am typically the first one out the door. If I can take a short lunch a few days a week, then I'll get to clock out even earlier on Friday. This is my goal, every week, but I still get comments about not being a hard worker. shrug Screw 'em. I do this do get paid, not because I love it or the company.
You lazy bastard.
I'm on day 17 of my 18 day OT push. I don't recommend it. 18 straight 12 hour days. I hate my life.
Lol. I had one week of 5 hours of OT. The HR lady flipped her shit (not at me, my boss as I wasn't pre-authorized for OT).
I hope you get out of there soon or something changes for the better, friend. Work is not worth killing yourself over, regardless of your age. A balance in life is essential for happiness.
Thank you for the kind words :) Oh, I'm aware. I'm covering a coworkers vacation as we are shorthanded. And I am looking for something better, they've screwed me out of my last promotion and raise, and I'm down with it.
I come to work and browse reddit and search and apply for jobs currently.
Good. I just hope your job browsing doesn't get noticed! I'd browse for jobs at work, but I'm in the middle of the damned floor which is filled with nosy women. Best of luck in your future!
I work at a remote site with no direct management. The others in my small team all know I’m looking, and are as frustrated as I am on the fact that I was left behind and stonewalled.
That's good. Honestly, I hope you find something good very soon. Being in a job you hate, where you are not appreciated or respected really sucks.
[deleted]
7 days a week? If yes, thats fucking brutal.
I can normally do these 2-4 week stints with no issue, but the wife had to get sick and end up in the hospital so I go work->hospital->home->work->etc.
And you’re looked at as lazy or a whiner for pointing out how much it sucks
I know it dude personally who takes Pride on this and thinks that the president only getting 4 hours of sleep a night is something to Aspire to.
"All at the mere expense of out mental and social well-being."
As if we had those to being with. 'Murica.
12-16 hours a day
And people give shit to japan for this on reddit.
Japan is our identical cousin. We're the evil twin, tho.
I work 12-16 hours a day
Another problem in the US. How is that acceptable. Sure anyone on minimum wage will have a hard time getting by even in Europe but if you get at least a decent job a little bit over the minimum wage you can safely work 8 hours a day like a normal person and get by fine.
Min. wage in my state is 8.25 an hour IIRC, my last paycheck made me cry a little
In my state, minimum wage is $7.25.
I mean where I'm from, minimum wage in dollars is 1.5 USD an hour. However our standard of living is significantly lower and while it's still pretty low, you would still fair better on minimum wage over here than on minimum wage in the US.
It really depends on where you live here.
A slightly above minimum wage job here at 40 hours a week will barely get you a 5 by 5 cardboard box, utilities not included.
Living in the boonies in poorville USA? Yeah you could probably get by with that kind of money, but nobody willingly lives in poverty in the sticks.
Well I was referring to living in any of the major cities in my country.
Yeah, but your major cities over there is like our small towns over here.
How is that relevant? I also wouldn't be able to survive in the US with my salary over here. It's about context.
I was saying your major cities are the equivalent of any podunk USA town, which ties into my first comment.
Exaggeration? Slightly, but mostly truth.
Yes but we are talking about standard of living here. Our major cities provide the best standard of living in our country. Have relatively higher costs of living but also higher salaries on average. I'm pretty sure the same can be said about your major cities too. Hell, the population of my country is less than that of New York City but that still doesn't change anything.
Most of our wages here suck.
You will rarely find an increase of wages in higher cost of living areas, hence a 5 by 5 cardboard box.
[deleted]
Psh, who said we get to keep our money? All my money goes to my student loans.
As long as I'm salaried, I don't work overtime unless I have to, or unless a little extra work now will make the next day at work much easier. In my line of work, getting the job done sometimes requires a bit of extra time here and there, but I absolutely do not compromise the time I set aside for myself. If I'm not happy outside of work, I sure as hell won't be happy at work either.
I don't know what the argument here is. I mean people all over the world work hard. That's not a unique American thing. I would think it's more because fresh food is expensive there (I live in South Asia and it's super cheap, where as your popular fast food choices are actually more expensive). Also your labour laws aren't great.
When you break it down its cheaper to purchase food and cook on your own (here in the US) than it is to get fast food. I often hear people use the excuse to eat fast food because its so cheap for a family. This is not true, you can buy beans, rice, chicken breast, assorted veggies and make much more than one serving for the cost of a meal at a fast food chain.
Except if you factor in the time to prepare, it would break even (at best) again. It's obviously always going to be cheaper to cook at home if you value your labour and time a $0.
Good point. I do enjoy cooking so I guess I don't factor that in. I understand that it takes time to prep and cook, which a lot of busy families don't have. But overall, it can be done healthier and less expensive that what you'll get from prepared foods. I used beans, rice, and chicken as examples because they are easily accessible to most, inexpensive, and can be prepared quickly depending on desired outcome. I am just tired of hearing that you have to be wealthy to eat healthy, that is not the case. Just dont shop at high end grocery stores. I like to know whats going in my food and body.
[deleted]
The thing you need to remember about America is that it's a vast country, with extremely different cultures depending on where you go. Not all of us are rolling around eating fried mayonnaise balls and sugar bread from giant box stores.
True! For example, the only fried thing my local BBQ joint is a deep-fried triple-stacked oreo kebab!
The thing you need to remember about America is that it's a vast country, with extremely different cultures depending on where you go.
As a European who's lived in the US, I call bullshit.
The differences in culture in the US are regional "dialects" of the same overall culture. In the US, the differences are bigger between the big city, the suburbs and rural areas, than the differences between the south, midwest or the coast. You're still Americans.
Compare that to Europe, where you actually have vastly different cultures, living together on a continent, where you can drive through them one by one.
Go to Vermont then go to Alabama and call bullshit again. They are as different as Spain and Estonia - two places I have also lived.
This is true! I just can't get over the guy talking like nobody in the world has ever worked hard and eaten healthy at the same time.
I don't think they're talking about Americans being the only ones working hard. The actual point is we spend all of our money getting into school to land that perfect, well-paying job, only to end up with massive heaps of student loans or other debts because America's financial system is fucked. On top of that, your entry level position pays chump change because you "lack experience". To pay for these loan bills, healthcare etc. we now have to work excess hours and there is no time left in the day to cook an actual meal. 16 hour work day give or take commute time leaves you with zero time before you have to "rinse and repeat". I'm going through this now and I know exactly what was meant by ". That is all.
This is true. In Hong Kong, for example, McDonald's meal is around the same price as your typical neighborhood HK Cafe breakfast/lunch set (basically western ham and eggs breakfast + some sort of simple noodle soup + drink).
Oh wow. Now I understand
Pretty much. My family usually orders out relatively nice food. There’s a place near my house that makes family portions of Italian food that we get a lot. We also get a lot of subway, chipotle, pizza, pre made grocery meals (sushi, frozen meals). My mom works weird hours running a business, and my dad works from 8am ish-7 pm or later from home. I am 18 and my siblings are 16 and 10 so it’s just necessary a lot of the time. We have family dinner 2x a week but it feels so tense and my brother (16) has dinner at a friend’s house usually. Even when my mom is around she is usually working on her phone. I feel so lonely at home that I stay at my boyfriend’s house most of the time since he makes me feel less lonely. His mom cooks from scratch sometimes and even knows what I like to eat.
I am 18 and my siblings are 16 and 10 so it’s just necessary a lot of the time.
Whenever I was allowed to stay home alone for a day or two with a friend from the time I was about 14 we made pretty much all our own meals at home. There was the occasional pizza or something like that, but it was much more common for us to cook up something. You and your oldest sibling should honestly start learning how to cook by now if you don't, and the youngest can help out with some easier stuff.
[deleted]
That sounds horrible (to me at least). I consider the family dinner to be the event that keeps the whole family together, since you have to quit doing what you're doing and just focus on the food and each other. It really cements the connection you have with each other. And it pains me to hear you being lonely during dinner.
It is. My sister (10) has a very bad eating disorder so, although it’s not her fault in the least, it makes it more stressful. It’s mostly because my dad has no clue how to handle it. He once made her eat all her food before she could try something else. Me and my mom were furious. I’m sure everything is even more difficult for her.
My wife and I work pretty similar hours to your dad. We manage to have a home cooked meal 6 nights per week and eat out 1 night. Saying it's necessary a lot of the time is just not the case.
I'm 30 now but from when I was 15 myself and my brother (11) would cook dinner for our family. I think the problem is that no one in your family can cook.
That's a big part of it. There's also been a cultural shift that really gained some steam after WW2 that began the shift away from taking care of yourself and your family in ways that aren't financial. Being able to spend less time and effort on food choices frees up that energy to be spent doing other things. Then as opportunities to do more further developed and become common there was more and more of a market to 'simplify' meal time. Now that expectation to do more is the norm and most folks are raised in households where food and meal time is an afterthought.
Why was this such a thing in the US and not a global phenomenon? There are a bunch of good reasons but generally a big thing all through the 50s-80s was that the US had something to prove to the world. The US had to show that we aren't stuck in the old ways of the past but we're shiny and new and futuristic. Looking back it's easy to see how meal time was a significant factor of this. Who has time to spend slaving over a hot stove when you can just pick something up and devote your life to higher endeavors?
I mean I work 12-16 hours a day and by the time I get home I have 2 hours or so before I go to bed to start the grind all over
Been there, done that. Do yourself a favor, my friend, start looking for a new job which pays better. You will very soon become resentful and hate your life. Remember, the vast majority of people never got ahead or got rich by simply "doing their job".
I actually love my job. I love what I do and who I’m doing it for.
I do not mind working those hours if you the people have what you need.
I’d work longer if they would let us.
That's great.
It also helps if you’re mentally unstable, no sane rational person would be in my trade willingly.
Naaah. In my country people work ridiculous hour shifts, and junk food is non existant. I totally see where you're coming from, but I believe it has more to do with being in the Holy Land of consumerism and insidious advertising. Here, where a dollar is worth 2X in our coin, there's no fucking way we'll be able to afford junk food at that rate.
But the fact that a prepackaged convenient junkfood is not available, that doesn't mean there isn't a culture of office food. There are tons of food joints, usually run by orientals, and half of them are vegetarian. It's really, really, really common -about one every two blocks-.
Same deal: no prep, no dishes, no thinking. But healthy. Yesterday in the office I had a spinach tortilla, no oil, no salt. There's a big culture of healthy eating. But there's also a big culture of "fast" eating, but not junk food.
Same, in China nobody there has time to cook, everyone works themselves to death, and in fact buying fresh ingredients and cooking is often more expensive than just eating out plus it consumes their incredibly limited time. When I went back recently we ate out at what's considered a fast food place. Soup noodles. With freshly cooked meat and vegetables and a little bit of sauce and herbs. The best "fast food" I've ever had and cost 60 American cents. People in China regularly eat out or take out every weekday and you're hard pressed to find fat people there.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact we work so much.
BINGO
ability to work long hours to make shitloads of money
And yet, the folks who are the hardest workers tend to not make the most money.
Americans think being in an office past 5:00 pm means they're working hard. My wife's father had a job at 6 years old power washing school buses at night to help feed his family
No 6 year old should have to get a job period. That's not something to be proud of, that's something to be angry about.
Welcome to life in developing countries
make shitloads of money
lolllll
I don’t know about you, but I make bank, my wife’s income not included.
I scrape by, happy that you're banking so well. What do you two do If you don't mind me asking.
I’m an electrical lineman and she works in education.
Did you need a degree or is that a trade?
It’s a trade.
It has a very long apprenticeship due to the dangers inherent of the trade.
Maybe....but this is only based on you and the people you know. If there's a McDonalds in your country you can bet there are folks who over eat fast food. It might be more prevalent in America but something tells me this isn't exactly a widespread difference either.
You can never be sure when dealing with anecdotal expercience. But i do really feel eating out is far more prevalent in America than in other places. (but that's coming from what I hear on reddit, how often people talk about eating out.)
I think it kinda depends what lifestyle you are into and if you live in the inner city vs living in the burbs or rurally here in New Zealand. Some people would hardly ever eat out if they were say a family living in a rural area, but inner city single 20 somethings would probably eat out 3 or 4 times a week. Eating out 7 days a week for dinner like I here some people on reddit say they do would definitely be considered unusual and probably not possible economically for most people.
I live in Spain and until today the only group of persons i know who where obsessed with fast food specially McDonalds where a few High Schoolers of my class and they at most only ate there one time per week.
The impression i get of USA is that one time per week is like saying never.
You might be right! Personally though, I have a hard time with generalizations. Maybe it's pedantry, maybe just overt skepticism. I have known people to eat out a lot because they're pretty well off and can afford to go to mid to upper class restaurants every night. Essentially they're having other people prepare their meals. I've known people to eat out consistently because of depression or because of convenience too.
But I've also lived in England and experienced the exact same thing across different kinds of people. And then again it matters what the context is. Yeah, obsessives in particular might come from the US, I suppose. I know that I'm prone to wanting to check out whatever a new promotion is because the ads are designed to get one to go back and try them out. It's rarely worth it but it's also near instant gratification when eating for pleasure is all a person is after.
I guess if it is an American thing the reason for it is probably complicated.
covers user name
It’s as if they’re having a steroid induced food Olympics of extreme flavors that’ll burn the acid out of your stomach
Have you seen the responses commenting on our working conditions and hours? None of us have time to prepare food.
Yeah I work a split shift. I do half my shift and am off for a couple hours and am back on for the remainder of my shift. I get up at 10 am and get off at 9:30-10:00 pm by the time I get off work there are no hours left in my day for mostly anything.
American here who doesnt eat fast food and who cooks. Its insane that some members of our family/friends think my girlfriend and I are crazy for cooking meals from scratch. We get elaborate with it so i get thinking thats crazy, but we've had family over for a a simple BBQ who were like "why do you make your own burger patties, the frozen ones are fine" or "why are you husking corn, the frozen corn on the cobb is waaay easier" it blows my mind the trade off so many Americans make for easy > tasty/healthy. The worst is when people do this with kids, we have a relative who's 5 yr old son "will only eat pancakes or McDonald's fries" because thats all they fucking feed him. They actually use microwavable pancakes too!!! The kid is obese. One time at a family party i got the kid to try a strawberry and just as he bit it, his mom was like "oh he wont like that!" And took it out of his mouth. Insane. This is a sore subject for me, end rant.
I enjoy cooking quite a bit, but I can definitely relate to people who make lots of small trade-offs because my primary limiting factor is time. I work full time and commute an hour and a half (at least) each way to work. By the time I get home, I just want food in my mouth. I don't have the time or energy to do something elaborate, or to get to the store for any extra ingredients I've forgotten or fresh stuff I didn't want to buy ahead of time. So I compromise. Frozen veggies, because they're better than no vegetables and I don't have to worry about them going bad. Frozen meats because I live alone and chicken comes in large packages that I can't get through before it goes bad. If I'm making a meal for a group of people, I'll absolutely use the best ingredients I can find and make everything from scratch. But trying to cook for myself on a weekday is a different story.
Frozen veggies are just as healthy as fresh vegetables. You’re all good!
3 hour commute, holy shit thats rough. And yes i agree we all make some trade offs due to time, i was more ranting about the people dont even.consider the fresh option ever.
Amen. I cooked way more when I lived closer to work and got home at an easier time. Kinda miss that, cooking was a nice way to relax at the end of the day, and now I view it as a time suck.
I love the phrase time suck. And I also love you.
I'm French and food is culturally important to my family. I would get so.fucking.triggered by the strawberry. Do what you want in your kitchen, but don't belittle anyone for making an effort for you, and don't stiffle the development of your child's tastebuds.
Preach. I never understand being a "picky eater", its basically just preventing yourself enjoying soo many wonderful and delicious things.
I understand being a "picky eater" only if you tried it a few times. I absolutely despise spinach but try it every other year or so just to see if I like it now, but every time I eat with a group and spinach get's served and I don't take something from it, everyone flames me a being "picky". No I tasted the food quite often and I don't like it.
Same, I have never had a taste for seafood, just can't stand it. But I'll try a bite every once in a while.
I had some amazing alaskan king salmon a while back. Fresh caught off the same day off the olympic peninsula in Washington. But store bought stuff just turns me off.
I also used to hate mushrooms, but it turns out it was just because my mother bought crappy mushrooms and didn't cook them properly.
It's ok to not like things, and it's ok to be stubborn, it's genetics or culture, it's mostly imposing it on others that would get me started.
When talking with kids about food, there is one thing I don't accept and that is them saying they don't like something they haven't tasted. They are free to say it doesn't smell nice, it doesn't look good or that they do not wish to try it at the moment, but I'm not having that someone doesn't like something they haven't even tried.
I'm a picky eater. There's a good bit that I won't eat, but the three biggest are avacodo, Cole slaw, and whole or diced tomatoes.
Avacodo I'd pretty easy to work out. I know yall say it tastes great, and I have tried it. But the consistency is something I can't get over. Which I do find ironic, because I eat plenty of things of the same consistently (peanut butter springs readily to mind).
Cole slaw. I used to have to eat this at potlucks. It's so fucking gross. Most foods, I understand people have different tastes. But I do not understand how anyone could possibly eat this abomination, much less enjoy it. The very sight of the stuff will still set off a gag reflex, and I'm pretty sure I'd still puke it up if I ate it today.
Tomatoes. I'm a bit more acceptable of the tomato. I'll eat it in soups, chillies, pizza sauces, tomato soup, etc. But I don't like whole uncooked tomatoes. I think it's the smell. I grew up on a small farm, we had a greenhouse that we grew tomatoes in, and the smell in there was overpowering.
I eat vegimite though, and I'm not Australian, so make of that what you will.
How do you feel about sour cream, ketchup, or macaroni salad?
Sour cream yes, ketchup I don't use, but if it's on a burger I'll still eat it. Hold the macaroni salad
Cole slaw.
Inferior to sauerkraut or kimchi in every way every day of the week.
I love both sauerkraut and kimchi.
Wait, isn't Coleslaw not a fermented food? These three things strike me as VERY different and hardly a replacement for each other
That's the thing about picky eaters. Those delicious things are delicious to you, but to them they're tasteless awful mess.
For me, I'm very particular, but I'll eat pretty much anything. I just don't like avocados (don't like the taste or texture), sea cucumbers (again, texture), and condiments (don't like too much stuff on food). Thing is, if you put ant of those in my normal food, I'd eat it. Guac in burrito is ok. Mayo or ketchup used in low amounts is fine. But if I can taste it or see it in large amounts, not eating it without scraping out the food.
I get it, was speaking more about the type that refuses to try anything
its basically just preventing yourself enjoying soo many wonderful and delicious things.
What is wonderful and delicious to one person is bitter and awful to another. I literally gag if I eat an olive, but my wife loves them. I can eat peanut butter straight, but my wife won't go near it.
If you still cannot understand it, look up super tasters. Basically finds most vegetables too bitter and don't like them.
If ypu try something a dislike it, cool, thats on you. Im speaking more about people who WILL NOT try anything new. I dont like crabs or crab cakes (many people think im crazy) just not my cup of tea, but ive tried them a bunch. Just dont be close minded was my plan
One time at a family party i got the kid to try a strawberry and just as he bit it, his mom was like "oh he wont like that!" And took it out of his mouth. Insane. This is a sore subject for me, end rant.
Oh man. I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with your whole comment, but I haaaaaate this. I don't have any issue with kid's meals at restaurants. Fine, feed them chicken strips at a sushi restaurant, the middle of a nice restaurant isn't the place for a 4 year old throwing a tantrum. But outside of that, what is people's opposition to feeding children food? Not even exotic or overly healthy food, just food? Yeah, a kid will not get on a diet of pancakes and fries exclusively based on simply being "picky" or being a "supertaster" or having a child's palette. There's zero reason that kid can't have a strawberry, other than his mom told him it was scary and yucky and he won't like it. And now, despite not even knowing what a strawberry tastes like, he thinks he doesn't like it.
When I was small, people would marvel that my mom would give me vegetables and fruit, and I'd eat them. Her response: "she doesn't know she isn't supposed to like them." And I was a picky kid. If I did not like something, I would not eat it. But she didn't decide ahead of time I was too delicate to eat anything but french fries, and never let me try. The "kids don't like vegetables" is a cartoon stereotype. Most kids won't go "yeeeUUUUUCK" when presented with a stalk of broccoli unless something or someone has told them that broccoli is gross. Much less strawberries. WTF? Most people, even picky people, like strawberries.
I've been getting into cooking in the last six months to a year, and I totally understand the desire to want to make things from scratch now. Not even for the taste/health benefits, but because of the sense of accomplishment. I can't think of many things I enjoy as much as cooking for family or friends and have them really love it, and the more that is made from scratch the more proud i feel.
Such a good feeling
Here in Europe its other way around. You are crazy if you eat that crap every day
I once saw a BBC video about the revolutionary idea of making a sandwich at work instead of buying one every day. Minutes long. With step-by-step instructions.
I am skeptical.
But in all seriousness, Americans wildly vary in our restaurant habits. I most often eat out when I'm with a bunch of friends. It's quick and fun to relax and eat something good together on a Friday night hangout, no fuss. But at a party, we'll prepare food for guests, who also bring items to share. Otherwise, I'll eat out if I'm in a time crunch or something. And then it's either a burger - which is not worth the trouble of making at home for one person - or some takeout I can stretch to 2-3 meals. I don't know what PhilyMick's family is on. None of that is normal. I didn't even know they made frozen corn on the cob.
What kid wouldnt like a strawberry! I have to buy at least three punnets at a time when theyre in season as they just get demolished within minutes. Kids can be fussy with food sure, its an evolutionary trait that kept them from eating poison berries 1000s of years ago. Doesnt mean they wont enjoy fresh fruit and veg if you keep giving it to them. My kid loved broccoli as a baby, wont eat it now. Doesnt mean its not on her plate at least twice a week. She will eat it raw and stolen from the cutting board thou... Also, frozen patties are not just fine, not when you have handmade ones.
Damn, my son is like that too.
He LOVES McDonald's fries and microwaved pancakes. To be fair though, he's a big fan of strawberries, too.
Also pretty much any kind of vegetable or chocolate or nuts or candy or rice cake or anything else that's edible.
And I think he's getting a taste for legos.
I hate cleaning
Fruit is the default kid food where I am from. All kids like fruit I don't know any child that would turn it's nose up at a fresh strawberry.
I don't get it man. Is everyone's sole existence there just to work, watch Netflix and discuss sports?
fast food is more of a treat
Really? Fast food is something i'd eat if i can't find anything better. It's more of a 'last resort' than a treat.
Except kebabs though, those are wonderful
Treat as in "Okay I will let myself have some greasy food just because it tastes different/yummy for one day"
Change treat to cheat meal
I always hate myself after eating fast food so I haven't had more than a single burger in like 2 years
Yeah it's like.. You meet up with friends for beers and a burger. Make it a thing. I'm sure there are people here with other attitudes towards junk food but that's how I see it. The people I know also don't eat junk food a lot
"Treat" as in "it's 3am and I'm drunk and craving something greasy and full of carbs"
Just don't think too hard about the quality of ingredients in kebabs (assuming we have the same kinds), they're probably as bad for you as they taste good :(
It's the best when I got 5-10 minutes to take the train or buss and I'm hungry but going into the store would take too long and I don't want candy so I just go to like Burger King and ask what they got on the shelf and take that then take the train.
American here, I've never met anyone who gives a fuck about the new fajita at arby's or whatever, when people eat fast food they just eat what they know most of the time. Who the fuck goes to Mcdonalds to eat the new jr ultra jumbo bacon diet burger instead of just ordering a big mac. I don't know about other people, but I also don't eat fast food much because chinese food is a blessing on god's green earth.
The chinese food you're eating is also fast food by the way.
I didn't know food that I buy the ingredients for and that I cook in my kitchen is fast food
Didn't know you were unaware that mentioning 'Chinese food' in a thread about fast food does not imply Chinese takeaway.
That's on you for assuming where I get my food from.
Or it's on the person making ambiguous statements.
Apparently you've never had a McRib or Shamrock shake.
American here who does notice fast food new items. I'm a floor sander who works all over my state. Fast food is literally I think invented for contracting type work. The monotony of ordering the regular items would succccckk. Changing up the menu is for their regulars.
I’m over 30 years old, born and raised in the US, and I’ve never had friends/family get a hard on discussing new menu items.
Yeah I’m 23 and I’ve never seen this either. But it’s a thread circlejerking on how America sucks so what do you expect.
These people definitely exist. Maybe you live in a more healthy area, but I know many people who eat fast food like crazy.
I really don’t think this is a purely American phenomenon. I’m an Aussie and honestly I eat a fair bit of take away. I try to mix it up with different / healthier options if I can but at least twice a week ok eat at either Mac as / kfc / hungry jacks. R.I.P me apparently
Aussies are some of the healthiest avocado eating people I have ever met...
I don't eat much/any, but I have co-workers that lose their minds over changes in the menu, especially stuff like the double down, or kfc bringing back hot and spicy chicken, they harp on and on, it's most definitely not just an American thing.
To be honest if KFC brought back the tower burger I would be all over that shit
Gotta live in a hipster area like the bay area ornportland. Once a new place pops up its instagram, yelp, and Facebook central about going to it and updating their statuses about how cool they are for eating there.
I see this on youtube videos all the time. Hell, good mythical morning alone seems very centered on chains. Do you really think it doesn't exist?
Not saying it doesn’t exist. But it’s not as common to come up in conversation like OP stated.
It’s not that common where you are. In blue collar or urban areas it’s very common though.
I'm 40 and I don't see this either. If we talk about it all, we are talking about how disgusting the foods in the commercials look and how far is too far. ( It's been too far for about 20 years now)
I suspect the commenter thinks of barbecue as an Arby's menu item.
And/or they think barbecue is always slathered in sweet BBQ sauce.
As an American with American friends and family I don't always relate to, cooked meats and brewed beer discussions are prevalent in many parts of this country.
I also suspect that the commenter could rant all day on how his country's cooked meat is better than American cooked meat and how his country brews better beer than America, which would make it not unusual to talk about food.
Most of the time I have experienced it, it is people mocking some ridiculous new item being advertised.
There is also a distinction between discussing the double down or hotdog pizza and discussing a new local restaurant, at least in my opinion.
My family has, I haven't but my parents go fucking nuts over the new item at fast food place and then order way too much and gorge ourselves. A lifestyle I'm still trying to get out of after moving out. We were a very fat family and considering how my parents didn't care, I wasn't really allowed to care because I wasn't really in charge of what I ate growing up. OH and this whole thing about how we must make a small child eat his entire large amount of food in one sitting because that's what a "big boy" does needs to stop right now. We essentially train little kids from a young age to gorge themselves
Its because your not a foodie
Most people actually don’t get fast food all the time. I get excited for a seasonal Starbucks Frappuccino, but I’ll have it just the one time, as a treat. I’m not sure why people think everyone in America is always eating at burger joints.
I guess one issue is that some people do go to cafes for lunch on their work breaks rather than bringing a sandwich from home?
I work in the military, and so far in my experience that has absolutely not been the case. Any time you go somewhere new, or prepare to go somewhere new because you might have to, the first question that gets asked every time is "what is there to do there?" And what follows is invariably an hour long conversation about different places to eat. As someone who hates eating out, it is incredibly irritating. I ask hoping to hear about night life, or outdoor activities, or clubs or something. But people just drone on and on about whataburger, or raisin canes, or buffalo wild wings, or a locally owned favorite eatery. And then those same people complain about nobody ever wanted to do anything and I'm like "well how about make a suggestion about something besides eating."
i would say that the US is going through an interesting phase as far as meals go. Fewer people are cooking their meals less often so it opens the door for all these businesses to cash in on that market. I suspect it might be somewhat related to our work-life balance. Because i feel like i get SO little time after work that spending an hour cooking dinner plus the hour to go grocery shopping and plan my meals for the week is so time consuming. I end up using services like BlueApron that deliver ingredients to your door (still need to cook though) and that helps a lot but several days a week i still end up eating out for dinner.
Another huge part of this is that men AND woman are working full time because everyone has college debt. My parents grew up in an era where it was not uncommon for the wife to stay at home. That resulted in plenty of grocery shopping and home cooked meals. I suspect this trend is common around the world but its likely another factor that has changed how american adults create and consume their dinners. My wife and i get home form work in the evening, worn out and drained, neither of us want to go grocery shopping and then still cook.
So that lifestyle results in people talking about all this new food in their area and menu changes and such because they are consuming so much of it. I try to keep it somewhat healthy-ish when i do this. Its not just burgers and fries each time, or ever.
+1.... also our commute times are much longer than a generation ago. Half of the ppl at my firm travel well over an hour to get home in the evening. 20 yrs ago it would've been 35 to 45 minutes for the same route. All my co-workers mention how they would love to cook more at home, but we all step in the door past 8pm.
I kind of see the opposite (and this is more of a Western phenomena than an American one). People are seeing food purely as sustenance. Calorie count, vitamins, nutrients, etc. They don't gather around the dinner table anymore, picturesque kitchens where the only used appliance is the blender, fridges filled with nothing but Gatorade and beer. It's odd to me. It's food, one of the defining pillars of various cultures around the world. Friendships formed, wars fought and worlds conquered for spice and flavor. And now, when almost everything is available to us, people go "gimme that bland stuff".
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels this way! When I went to China recently (like this previous may) , cooking or eating out with family is a long social affair. Meal prepping together is a huge deal, eating together with friends or family is not just about the food. And in regards to the food, it's not just the taste that matters. Even at home or in lower end, local family cafes, food always looked absolutely picturesque. It was like anime food. Food is such a huge deal that it's really a shame that young people in China have no time to cook or enjoy eating anymore. One of my cousins is a major foodie (puts American foodies to shame my goodness) and she never has time to enjoy a good eat :( My retired relatives when they came to America last year said, "Americans eat to live, but Chinese live to eat." It was an interesting observation.
As an American, I don't relate to this behavior either. My coworkers go absolutely nuts for some new burger, or a new taco, or whatever. I could not possibly care less. Food is food, eat it or starve.
I will say my wife and I go out roughly once a week, but that's usually someplace nice, not a fast food joint.
Edit: I just want to say that I’m not against going out, and I’m not against fast food. I love me a good burger or some tacos any day. It’s hard to explain the level of food obsession going on at my workplace, but imagine 4 stoners talking about food for the entire day and you get the idea.
Edit 2: YEAH GUYS FOOD IS GREAT I LOVE IT YOU LOVE IT WE ALL LOVE IT. Cool, now go talk about it to people who care.
Thank you for saying "could not care less".
I don't know why it's so hard for people.
Because people who pay attention to grammer are a diamond dozen these days.
bone apple teeth
Because language is fluid and also sarcasm exists
Words also have meaning, and you either could care less, or you couldn't. There is no fluidity here, only basic logic.
Um sorry bro but there is a spectrum of caring. It isn't just either you could care less or you couldn't.
/s =)
Well, that's just aluminum nucular
Because "could care less" is also acceptable. It's a sarcastic phrase.
No, it’s not acceptable. It’s wrong, and you are wrong. The correct way to say it, even with sarcasm, is I couldn’t care less.
Sarcasm is a tonal adjustment, it has no effect on the meaning of the words.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/could-care-less/
Well, say whatever you want.
I could care less.
Twitching Intensifies...
FIFY I could care less, But I don't know how.
Food is food, eat it or starve.
Please eat only Nutraloaf and get back to me.
There's a difference between just eating to survive and enjoying food. People who like to try new things enjoy new tastes etc. Eating can be a fun way to experience other cultures and tastes you wouldn't get with your regular routine.
And people generally tell their friends about things they enjoy - so why wouldn't you tell them about some delicious thing you ate.
I think OP gets that, but I think he's referring to people who obsess over it. Yeah people have different tastes and do not enjoy eating the same thing everyday, but some people really make it out to be a way of life more than just mere food. At the end of the day, it's meant to just be nourishment.
At the end of the day it's not meant to be anything. Culture creates meaning and food is a highly cultural item in most places of the world, for very understandeable reasons. I get it, you are not connected culturally to food, but don't go around to say it's "just nourishment". That is ridiculous.
That’s fair. I think of it a little more simply as if we were animals. Lions don’t go from cuisine to cuisine taking in the “culture” of their prey. It’s more like: I’m hungry, I satisfy that hunger, I move on with my day. Humans are fortunate to be able to use food to bring us together culturally. I’m with you on that, truly. I still do think SOME people make it a lot more than it is though.
For some people eating out is one of the few ‘experiences’ they can afford.
I remember really wanting a video game but it was so expensive there was no way I could afford it until at least a year or two later when the price went down. So I got McDonald’s meal instead to cheer me up.
Used to live in a place where moves were $10+ bucks and that’s only the cost of the ticket. Once you add up bus fair, snacks&drink and the ticket you were looking at $40 per couple. Or we could order a $9 pizza and download the movie. Which is still nice but not the same experiences.
I’m currently a broke college student living in a town with a strong local food movement and so many amazing restaurants but I can’t afford to enjoy any of it. Every once in awhile as a treat I’ll get a fancy ice cream cone or a nice sandwich. It’s really the only “luxury” that I can afford and (somewhat) justify. Eating something nice for once is a nice change.
I used to think like you.
But then I realized it makes a lot of sense to seek out new experiences for our senses of taste and smell.
Would we cast haughty aspersions at someone who enjoys hearing new music, or seeing new art?
Wanting to experience new food is quite similar.
Chairman Kaga?
Username checks out? /s
It’s not that I don’t like food, but when you have 6 people rushing the break room for bbq, in Austin where bbq is literally everywhere, it’s a bit ridiculous.
Going out for food isn't just about the food. It's about the experience.
For those 6 people, they're leaving their place of work for a significant amount of time with people they can socialize with. They'll see interesting people, have some good conversation, and leave well fed and satisfied.
I don't think that's ridiculous.
Maybe what you're honing in on is them lacking the ability to articulate that. They'll simply say "Ooooh my gaaawd Karen they have the BEST short rib" or whatever. But don't blame food or the people who enjoy going out to eat for that.
I think I'm not explaining the situation very well. This isn't people leaving to get out of the office and get food. This is a bunch of people sending one guy to get breakfast tacos, eating them at the office, and then telling everyone with ears how amazing they were. I once overheard them talking about the tacos they had at 9am and how amazing they were at 4pm.
I'm pretty sure a lot of that is just them trying to bond and relate with their coworkers.
And failing, apparently. DoomWillTakeUsAll was not receptive to the smalltalk.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe they're just really good tacos?
[removed]
I now realize why they don't invite you out for tacos. :)
I wish they'd stop inviting me. :p
I enjoy a good burger or taco on the rare occasions we can afford it. I'm trying to figure out how to make $20 feed us until payday right now.
/r/EatCheapAndHealthy may be helpful
Will look into that thanks!
Find a large cut of meat on sale and cook it. Spread it out with various cheap sides or veggies. Honestly some meat and rice can be a great meal with the right seasoning or sauce (or both), and if you can add veggies even better. Dried beans are also cheap and filling.
Just my 2 cents, my wife and I lived check to check for a long time.
I did actually cook some dried beans yesterday that I'm going to turn into refried bean burritos today. There's no way I could get a large cut of meat but I can find some other vegetarian proteins.
Sorry, there were definitely some assumptions made on my part.
what? You're fine I appreciate the suggestions
I think he's Canadian
I think it's easier because you are married. Most food is packaged for multi person meals, so someone who is single like me either has to make the meal and let some go to waste, make the meal and eat leftovers, or make part of the meal and make it again soon so the remains don't spoil.
With a restaurant it's a lot easier to go there and get a meal almost perfectly sized for just one person and not have to worry about waste. So when a new item is added we are happy that our options have expanded.
I would argue that you should stop buying prepackaged food and learn to cook. You could cook like 3 large meals on the weekend and be set for the entire week, that’s not a bad position to be in.
Eating left overs is for plebeians.
You're taking it a bit far but I can definitely relate. I'm not a fan of eating the same thing multiple days in a row unless it's something I really love.
Also a lot of meals don't taste as good reheated.
It's not "left overs" if you specifically cooked a large batch and separated it into numerous meals. Also, left overs are fine, stop wasting food.
I hope your comment meant "learn how to cook and use your leftovers in other meals".
But leftovers are fine, like, totally fine. Hell, I'll take beef bourguignon leftovers any day of the week.
Where I work a lot of people eat out just to get away. Because if you dont physically leave you arent getting a lunch because people will come and ask work questions. When the weather is nice I can get away with bringing something from home and eating in my car but if it's too hot or cold outside I'll just go anywhere I can.
I have the same issue with the group of (obese) ladies sitting behind me at the office. All damned day, food, food, food.
I sit across this girl who is CONSTANTLY snacking. She's happy and living her life, so I don't know why this bothers me so much but it does.
I have a coworker like that, but she has to make a bag of popcorn every single afternoon.
I'm the same way about food. I really don't care about it at all, and eat the same 5-9 things over and over that are very healthy and filling, but the repetition baffles people. I credit (blame?) having a big family where mealtime was chaos and a means to an end, not an enjoyable thing. So many of my peers dine out, have brunch, try new places, and are really food-focused. On the one hand, it's easy for me to stay thin because I don't snack or obsess about food, but I also feel like I'm missing a huge cultural component
yeah if we go out to eat, I want it to be somewhere quality. Good meats, fresh fruits and veggies. I physically feel shitty if I eat a bunch of fast food.
Fast food in Europe and Asia are way more expensive than the US. You can pay upto 15 francs in Switzerland at McDonald's for a burger+drink, and in the Us that would be 4$.
In India, it's 120 rupees for a big burger - I could get a all you can eat buffet for 20 rupees.
Also, for someone into food and working out, if you don't want to spend the time cooking, fast food can be very amazing - Taco Bell and Chipotle are the best post-workout meals you can get from fast food stores.
I don't know what burger + drink you're getting for 4$. Not even McDonalds has prices that low.
Triple cheese + drink is about 450
Mcdouble and a large diet Coke would be 2 and change. Small burger tho
A bacon Mcdouble and cup of coffee is $4. Just sayin’.
McD's prices all soda at $1. They have several burgers at $3 or less. If you don't get the deluxe things, it's pretty easy to stay under 4 (though the typical American would probably still be hungry afterward).
[deleted]
Lol what. That guy is strange man, all the people I know only go to McDonalds for breakfast when they’re really pressed for time and/or traveling. Even then there’s usually better options.
I will say I’ve had worse breakfast food from non-fast food chains though.
EDIT: Haha after reading your other comments sounds like his family had no idea what the hell they were doing in the kitchen and probably went to McDonalds every day.
Well American breakfast culture in much of the nation varies. Work days it is usually simple (cereal, fruit, oatmeal, toast, bagel), but lots of people will enjoy a full cooked breakfast or brunch as a treat which will include eggs, bacon, sausages, waffles/pancakes, hashbrowns/potatoes. Lots of local cafes in the US specialize in making good breakfast food, I rarely make it for myself.
McDonalds breakfast is basically a fast foot version of that.
slices of bread with cheese/jam
If you could get ahold of some Wonderbread and Kraft singles, you might have an idea why this isn't more common in the US. At least not without making it a grilled cheese.
We DO have great breads and cheeses, mind you, but they're not the default mass consumer stuff. And they're certainly nowhere as cheap.
That's just depressing. Do people really eat that for lunch? Seems like something I'd make when I get home drunk from a bar.
[deleted]
Most places? Where have you worked that you think most places have a cantina with a salad bar? In 30 years of working, I can think of one job where there was a cantina with a salad bar and that was in a factory in a tiny small town that didn't even have fast food places. There were literally no options aside from packing your lunch, which most people did.
In some office buildings I've worked in -- the larger ones -- sometimes there is like a small snack bar on the ground floor. Okay, that was just one place, come to think of it.
Actually that's what we eat here for breakfast or lunch as well in the Netherlands. Obviously not limited to that but its common. Usually with a fruit and milk.
Man no wonder people say Northern European food isn't the best. Most adult Americans are used to something more substantial. This looks like toddler food not adult food. For lunch I had a romaine lettuce salad with grape tomatoes, kalamata olives, artichoke hearts, shredded havarti cheese, some canned tuna and italian salad dressing.
It's really not that bad except and besides that it's healthy and can be tasty. We have real bread and cheese etc so a sandwich with ham and cheese isn't the same as the American one.
If it makes you feel better, I'm an American who had never had breakfast at McDonald's lol. They do have decent coffee though.
[deleted]
He made spaghetti bolognese once. He started by boiling the pasta, setting it aside and then starting on the sauce. The sauce was a pre-made one where you just brown some mince
I have a friend who's actually really good at cooking. I love when she invites me over for dinner because she always does really well. With one exception: pasta/spaghetti. She pulls the same shit of cooking the macaroni before anything is ready and just uses jar sauce.
It's mind boggling to me that she does so good with everything else but completely fails at spaghetti.
Traditional Norwegian breakfast can absolutely get to fuck though. I can't imagine anything more boring than bread with cheese or jam for breakfast. I don't go out for breakfast or lunch, but there's a line.
These days I rotate a few granolas with different kinds of yoghurt and a good crispbread with some rich liver paté or something like that.
[deleted]
The worst one was back in school when the lunch was two pieces of slightly dry bread with a single suspiciously sweaty slice of Norvegia on it.
I rebelled against that from a very young age. Just awful.
But you do realize Scandinavia is the complete opposite of the spectrum and is considered weird in this respect. You have so few restaurants, I'm surprised tourists don't starve.
[deleted]
Have you been to France or Belgium? Everything is a restaurant. Sometime it seems like they just sit around eating, I’m surprised anyone gets anything done.
McDonald's has decent breakfast. Like above most sit down pancake places.
I think it's more a reflection of a society with a ton of fast food and restaurant access. I live in Japan and Japanese people are just as food-obsessed, if not more, than Americans. Junk food, trendy food, chain restaurants, specialty restaurants, etc. I also live in a major city, so most of the people around me have access to all of this, which could flavor my experience. But I don't think it's just American culture...if anything Japanese culture is more fanatic about trendy food lol.
Post WW2 America was bombarded by the idea that cooking your own food from scratch was a waste of your precious time and shortcut products were healthier. A lot of baby boomers who grew up middle class never learned to cook. Even my mother-in-law who grew up poor on a farm - views cooking as an almost “lowly” task that reminds her of poverty. My mother simply never learned.
The Netflix produced documentary “Cooked” adapted from Michael Pollan’s work explains it pretty well. His other works are more in that vein - but I haven’t checked them out yet.
You have a point, but I don't think we're obsessed with junk food / fast food. I've had discussions with friends about our favorite wine, favorite burger, that new Mediterranean restaurant down the street, etc. It's not like we sit around going "Man I love Burger King, their burgers are the fattiest and therefor the best. Let's go there for lunch and on the way let's stop and grab the new flavor of dorito's I've been dying to try it!"
Yep but some people are like that. Like my family, it's so gross to watch
Yeah that is a shame. I guess when you have a culture that loves food so much, it'll pour over into everything from fast food to veganism. Food is food.
Having grown up like that, I was the same way. I didn't know any different until I met my girlfriend and I realized how disgusting it was to live like that. Since then I've definitely changed my eating habits a lot and now going over to my parents for dinner is a battle of who's gonna complain first about only having 2 scoops of I've cream after their 4 tacos and a large soda and there I stand in the background with my water, 2 tacos and getting made fun of for "eating like a bird"
Look at our commercials, almost all of it is advertising fast food. We’ve been inoculated since we were children to the world of fast food. Some meals give you toys: such as kids meals, cereals, etc.
On top of that we have an INSANE work culture here. So that does not leave much time to cook. Also as someone pointed out, buying healthy food isn’t that cheap; i mean like reallymeat and veggies a re not cheap. Think about the fact that we have different types of grocery stores. Why? Seriously why aren’t places like Eriwons or Whole Foods the standard? I don’t have the answer but i can tell you that where i shop (Food4Less) they do not have what Whole Foods has. Buying nutritious and healthy foods just seems more expensive.
In my experience it depends on what part of the country you're in. I grew up in the Northeast and I had fast food maybe once a month and in my average sized town we only had McDonald, Burger King, and Subway and those 3 served my town as well as a few towns around us.
Then I moved to Texas. Having fast food once a week is not normal, having it more than once as week is normal. My SO had fast food 5-6 times a week growing up! Home cooked meal was considered the treat. And there is sooo much variety. My SO's moderately sized home town has a McDonalds, Burger King, Chick-Fil-a, Taco Bell, Wendy's, Subway, Whataburger, In-N-Out, Jack in the Box, Sonic and more. And that doesn't even include fast casual places like Panera or Chipotle. Most towns in the area are like that.
This is spot on. Number of podcasts I listen to with US hosts where they seem to digress into talking about junk food every week. It's bizarre.
This is a big one. I have lived in the US and outside of it for over 5 years in each, and I was really surprised when I thought about how I had not eaten a home cooked meal in a long time. Now it’s my norm!
An article about how in-n-outs burger buns weren't up to scratch has 10k upvotes on r/news rn
But it's what a hamburger is all about
Amongst the people I know, we usually make our own dinners at home, and fast food is more of a treat you get once, twice a month, tops
That's the norm in the US, too
It's the sugar in everything. Literally addicted and it's in our faces 24/7. Oh and not to mention, a bag of salad costs more than a double cheeseburger and fries from mcdonalds. And when the president keeps upping taxes on wages plus upping taxes on everything that then causes food prices to go up, it's much easier and cheaper to eat off the dollar menu every day.
That’s also partly due to work/life balance and wages. Many people in low wage jobs can’t afford fresh fruits and vegetables for a proper diet. Then there are those that are just plain lazy.
Lots of disposable income at the cost of long high stress work days = fast food boom.
seasonal changes in the menus
Do you not have a favorite dish at a favorite restaurant which can only be had when some item is in season?
Sure some places might be happy to serve the strawberry laden something or other in the middle of the winter with a bunch of frozen strawberries they bought from Sysco that were originally grown in Mexico before being frozen, packaged, and shipped across the country.... But places that care will simply not make that desert until strawberries come into season in the summer.
Do you not have a favorite dish at a favorite restaurant which can only be had when some item is in season?
Sounds like we have very different restaurant culture (I'm in the UK). I rarely go to the same restaurant twice, even if I like the place. It's such a rare event that we eat at one that the idea of going to the same place is insane to me.
I don't understand why you wouldn't go back to a place that made something you really enjoyed. I mean, I understand going to new places is also enjoyable (and part of the fun of eating out), but to (almost) entirely forego the places that you have enjoyed in the past seems insane to me. Especially when you find a chef that really hits your food buttons.
But even if you go back another time, by the time I go back I sure has hell can not remember what the menu was like the previous time I went...At most I can remember that I enjoyed what I ate the last time I was there.
I eat out maybe once every 3 months and it's almost always a special occasion. Chances are I'm not even physically near the place we went last time or it's not just for me to decide because it's someone else's birthday or whatever.
Also in my experience, it has never really happened that I went somewhere where the food wasn't good enough. Just do a bit of research ahead of time and it'll be fine.
I will say I'm extremely interested in the so-called "Impossible Burger". I don't think it's available anywhere where I'm from.
You drastically overestimate how often I visit a restaurant! Twice a year maybe? Three times? I've lived in my current home for just over two years. I'm more likely to go to a restaurant if I travel (e.g. for my 30th birthday I was in Manchester for a gig and had a meal beforehand).
The chances of being in the same place long enough to exhaust my different restaurant options have been fairly slim during my adult life. I could try somewhere new or I could go back somewhere. As it's a special occasion I'd rather try something new. It's exceedingly rare for me to be disappointed, although the missus and I do play "who won dinner?" when it comes to our selections.
If I had all the disposable income then perhaps I'd keep going back to the same place but it is pricey to eat at restaurants, at least here in the UK. When I can justify the expense it's got to count!
Oh, it's expensive to eat at restaurants here in the US as well, though we manage to go out to a mid priced restaurant once a month or so. There are a lot of low priced options, some are quite good, most are not; but they're still not as economical as my making dinner at home.
No not really. I don't have a favorite restaurant, and I have no idea what kind of different things they serve during the year.
That's a shame. Finding something you really enjoy is a wonderful thing.
Why do you need to eat out to do that though? Favourite meals cooked by yourself, by family or by friends can be just as good.
You don't HAVE to eat out for that, but eating out is a treat and should be pleasurable. That pleasure should coincide with eating seasonally prepared dishes by inspired chefs doing things you can't do in the kitchen.
I cook nearly every meal I eat, but I still look forward to eating the duck confit at Cin Cin once or twice a year, or an appetizer of caviar and champagne at the Plumed Horse before digging into whatever the chef has created that evening.
I don't disagree, but I still see the people I eat out with as what makes the experience more than the food itself. I suspect this has something to do with the price level of restaurants you/one can afford though...
It's about a lot of things, the experience included.
If your coworkers get super stoked about the McRib or the Shamrock Shake it's not because the McRib or the Shamrock Shake are any good (they're not), it's because it brings back fond memories and it's hard to get. If the McRib was around all the time, people would never order it.
It's the same thing with seasonally changing menus in mid-level and fine dining (where I choose to spend my money a couple of times a year), with the benefit of being really good. That duck confit I mentioned? It's available most of the year, but I only go to the restaurant once or twice a year (if that) so it's always a treat when I get it and mildly disappointing when I can't. It's extremely good, better than any duck confit I've tried making, and reminds me of every other time I've had it, the company I was with, the wine I was drinking etc.
So, to dismiss seasonal menus as nothing to get excited about is unfortunate, especially when so many seasonal menus at so many restaurants are seasonal specifically to bring you the best dining experience possible.
Enjoy a good dinner at a well reviewed restaurant with a local hot shot chef, save up if you have to, travel if you have to, work it into a vacation if you have to. Take good company (even if that company is just yourself). Eat whatever the specials are that evening. It will be memorable and enjoyable and if you had the specials, you might not ever be able to get them again.
I also only go to restaurants on rare occasion, but there are still certain fruits and vegetables I'll only buy during certain times of the year because they're more expensive otherwise, which affects what I cook.
Do you not have a favorite dish at a favorite restaurant which can only be had when some item is in season?
As an Australian, is makes me sad that Pumpkin Spice Latte's are only available for like a month here, which also happens to be our hottest so not a great time for them, but they're the one thing like that I've ever found.
Americans are way to obsessed with food, junk food in particular.
Yeah, there's a lot that goes into our food to make it more addictive (ie: sugar and corn starch in literally everything thing, and they've been worked on to make it more addictive).
we usually make our own dinners at home, and fast food is more of a treat you get once
There are lots of people who do cook at home, but a lot of more would do this if they had the time. The average life in corporate America can be pretty high stress; long hours, long commutes, little free time or breaks. This leads people to resort to eating out to save them time on preparing food, cooking it, then cleaning.
People seem to discuss new burgers or other items, seasonal changes in the menus etc.
Kind of goes to the prior point of eating out being common. If you're used to eating the same choices of things every day, it's nice to have a change. Also, America is pretty rich in culture and diversity in a lot of pockets. A lot of people here would want to try food from a country they've tried before if a restaurant for it opens up.
We work and are stressed so much, we are tired at the end of the day. Fast food is quick, easy and cheap.
Umm that’s just under the radar advertising on reddit.
We have too much miney
With how charged everything is, I think it's just that food is a relatively safe topic to talk about with people. Sure, you'll get your health nuts or extreme vegan going off every now and then, but casually talking about a new burger joint or beer you found is a fairly safe topic.
But then again, my family and I like food a lot and we talk about food a lot, so I may be a bit biased.
I think this is more specific to socio-economic factors. I only eat out 2-3 times a week to try new restaurants or for dates / with friend groups. There are restaurants who have seasonal menu items, but I don't "chase" those.
[deleted]
Oh...wow yeah I didn't think 2-3 times a week was a lot o.O I know people who eat out way more than that.
Which also doesn't help with the healthcare issues we have.
You've clearly never eaten a McRib.
It's so god damn cheap to eat out in the US. That's what I noticed when I was in Florida.
if i eat out everyday for lunch, thats like $10 a day. In a work week, I'm down $50. I can spend $20 and have food for 2 weeks! FOOD FROM HOME IS GREAT
There are some smart people who pointed out that the popularity of the food network started really after 9/11. When people are miserable and scared they need to turn to something to make them feel better, and in this case it was food. Alton Brown touched on it a bit in his episode of 'Hot Ones' (youtube show). He got in right before 9/11 happened and he said the shift was very noticeable. People wanted an outlet for their depression and these fun food based tv shows gave them that. Then food culture sort of blew up and once instagram hit, forget about it. Now everyone could become a food critic.
I love these massive generalizations. I rarely eat fast food, and neither does any one that I know. How many Americans have you actually spoken to? The vast majority of us cook our own dinners at home.
It's a generalization, however, it certainly struck a nerve with many people here. A lot of people recognize what I mean, a lot don't. Obviously I don't think every American is obsessed with food. But there's a cultural thing about it that I haven't seen anywhere else. I mean..look at TV in USA...it's loaded with fast food commercials. It's like food that other people make for you has become something else, I don't know, entertainment?
Yeah what is with that. I (non-American) work with Americans and they constantly talk about restaurants, trying x and y new places, talking about travelling to cities for food-related purposes (“oh you should go to Austin, they have amazing BBQ” or whatever). They eat out a lot. I’m lucky to go out to eat twice a year. Nothing to do with not being able to afford it - I make good money - but it’s just not something that was ever a regular part of my life. It’s for special occasions not an everyday meal.
You leave my American obsession with burgers alone >:(
I’ve been transitioning myself out of fast food and take out. It’s just expensive and hard to get healthy options.
I’m American and I work at a restaurant and we literally have two different couples of people that dine in every single day.
Lots and lots and LOTS of advertising.
A huge part of this is because there is an effective subsidy on minimum wage work. If you make minimum wage and work full time, the government recognizes that you are too poor to afford housing/food/etc. on your own and helps make that up.
And at first you might think that this is good for workers. That it helps them. But this isn't subsidizing the workers. It's subsidizing the places they work for. It's making up the wages that they need to live.
If a job is worth so little that it can't support a person when it's done full time, then the job isn't worth being done. This is why fast food is so insanely cheap in the US, and why people can afford to go out as much as they do.
C'mon, White Castle has the impossible burger. How can we not talk about it?
It’s pretty regional, where I live in Colorado people are very obsessed with health food. Most people I know do not eat fast food.
If you ever are blessed enough to eat a McRib, you will understand.
The obsession has died out a lot with millennials. We're entering a health - conscious period, so while everyone I know does eat out a lot, but it's almost never fast food.
Locally owned, sustainable, and farm-to-table are much more common, especially in cities.
I think that's more of an outside perspective due to marketing. In the 30 years I've been an American, the only time I've talked real in depth about food is with my current colleague but he is an aspiring chef so, I may ask for tips on certain meals because I enjoy cooking...but the detail of those conversations are like "hey man, it's raining so I can't grill my burgers...what's the best way to cook them on the stove?"
Otherwise it's just co-workers asking each other if they want to go out for lunch.
What’s your work life balance like? Wage levels for the cost of living? Cheap calorific crappy food fills a need here, and soon, it will fill a need there too....muahahahahahahahah ahem. I’ll show myself to the next thread. Robble robble!
I wish I could afford to be home more and cook. I don't eat it constantly but I eat a lot of prepped junk, but leaving the house at 7am, getting home at 8pm really drains the will to make proper meals, or accomplish much else for that matter.
Have you tried a slow cooker? Aside from that honestly it's perfectly possible to make healthy, tasty food in the evening that you can freeze and have enough to last quite a few days.
How do you eat lunch when youre at work? I make breakfast and dinner at home but i usually buy lunch because its easier/faster.
I bring food from home, either sandwiches or leftover dinner.
I only get fast food maybe once every 2-3 months. I bring my lunch to work and otherwise eat strictly microwaved frozen food. Yeah, we may cook now and then, but that takes a lot more time than using the microwave.
Is this frozen food that you warm up in the microwave food that you have prepared yourself? I'm guessing not because you say that you only cook every now and then.
Where I'm from those microwave-ready meals you get from the store is still considered junk food to be honest.
Compared to the 70s, the frozen food now is awesome. Quite tasty. I remember saying ich when my Dad wanted to make Elio's Pizza. I don't really have frozen pizza anymore, but last time I had some it was def not that 70s stuff.
I view fast food as a last resort instead of a treat. I typically only get it when traveling.
Not using the metric system. Seriously, why? The only reason it feels natural to you is because you grew up in it
[deleted]
Hold up, do you really depend on such fractions in the imperial system?
A foot is made up of 12 inches. And inch is made up of whothefuckknows
In my language it literally translates to thumbs, so I've always thought it's just about that big. Maybe my thumbs are thin, but it's not
Fellow nord?
Nah, European tho. Czech
1 inch is 3 barleycorns. As for what a barleycorn is: No idea
You use them whenever you go to the shoe store and measure in that metal contraption.
A barleycorn is obviously four poppy seeds, which naturally is six points, and of course it logically follows that a point is twenty twips.
Pretty sure that once most people get down to fractions of 32 or more, they say "fuck it" and switch to metric if at all possible.
For anything smaller than an inch that needs to be measured accurately, yes. Fortunately most things that require it are scientific instruments and those are all metric, so its mostly wrenches and screws and such that you see that.
Down to 64ths you can will typically use fractions. Smaller than that you'll use decimals. Dude must have been working on something precise because that is 1/32 away from being 3 and ~~a quarter~~ an eighth inches.
Just saw the carpentry. Leaving it. But please don't build my house short.
Edit: 16/2 is not 4.
It's actually 3/32 away.
Shit, you're right.
Yes, but carpentry in construction is typically only to 1/8" accuracy.
The tape measure may have ticks to 1/16", 1/32" or 1/64" of varying heights so you can figure out which one it is if you really, really need more accuracy.
Yes, and there's no reason for it. If you tell someone you need something 3.25 inches long, they'll look at you like you just ate someone alive. Say 3 1/4 inches, and they're fine.
Yep, Tape measures are commonly marked to 1/8s, some are marked to 1/32 for finer measurements. It’s a huge pain having to count the gradations to see which fraction it is.
Basically, yes. Though I feel like in most cases going into the 32nds isn't going to be likely. Decimals don't really solve the issue if you're trying to measure things with tape measures like he would in carpentry.
During the late 19th and early 20th century when other countries were adopting the metric system the US had one of the biggest machining / fastening industries (screws, bolts, etc...) all of those measurements were in imperial, to have to re-tool everything not only would be a huge cost, but would hamper a major exporting industry. Even now, metricization of everything (we already switched to metric for STEM) would take a lot of money, and the benefit isn't necessarily worth it. There just isn't enough of a benefit for the average person to justify it.
Saying your height in feet and inches is still much better than the metric way though. That's the concession I'd give you guys.
I just moved to a new apartment and decided to use metric to measure my furniture and doorways to facilitate moving into a new place.
Fucking WOW...
But that is the point of metric.
Imperial is for everyday life not for measurements. If you aren't doing calculations like that imperial works better for everyday life
I agree. I would way rather be 6 3 than 180cm. You are spot on. If it's your job then metric is ideal, but if it's your mum imperial will do fine.
I'd rather be 6'3" than 180cm but that's only because I'd lose 6 inches in the conversion
Yeah I must be 190cm. Too tall.
uhhhhh....no.
But how. In everyday life you don't need to do conversions all the time 99% of the time estimates work perfectly fine and that is what imperial is great at. A foot is a perfect length for everyday measurement while a meter is way to long and a decimeter I way to short.
Think about a yard which is basically a meter literaly no one has ever used it.
Yes obviously metric works better for calculations like that but for everyday life imperial is pretty good
Trust me, there are people in the states that would love to use 10mm, 12mm, and 14mm sockets on everything.
If I could fuckin FIND my 10mm socket...
2 is 1 and 1 is none.
Try telling that to my dad
Yes. This one. On grindr, the default system for distance is imperial. So some people will be like 2458 feet away. And it confuses the shit out of me. How do you guys even manage to understand it?
Idk why grindr would do that to you. It should just say half a mile.
Unless it's atleast a mile, grindr would show the distance in feet. I just switch to metric though but still I find imperial quite hard to understand because Im not used to it.
Oh, weird. Sounds like some weird design flaw. Imperial likes its fractions, so it should go down to a quarter mile (if that tinder does half mils at the smallest) and then just say less than that if it's talking about distance. Feet is typically only used for distance when being sarcastic or if it's really close.
But yea, switch to metric if you know it.
I was about to say that’s a little over half a mile, but I doubt that would help much haha
It’s like 63 meters I think. My conversions aren’t the best
Finnemore's excellent radio sketch where Celsius meets Farenheit seems relevant.
https://youtu.be/nROK4cjQVXM
Your post is going to attract some attention so as an American Engineer that works internationally, I'll put my 2 cents here.
The cost of changing everything to metric would be trivial compared to cost savings of a unified standard and many costs people assume exist do not actually exist.
Americans already know the metric system and just need a very short time period to be able to become familiar enough to estimate things in metric.
The actual cost stems from the very base level of industry
The biggest step our country can take to moving to metric is to simply stop creating any new regulation or standard in customary units. We live with mixed units already, it's no big deal if the building code switches from studs every 16 inches to every 40cm.
Anecdote:
I know of a company that was building several automated production lines to send to Egypt. They were building some in Europe and decided to have some exactly like them built in the USA since the European facility was overbooked and the USA one had spare production capability. The owner of the company was adamant that US built ones be exactly like the European ones and to just use the European drawings to build them. Because they could not get metric steel box tube in the US, the drawings had to be tweaked a little, then in order to use cheaper local equivalents for things like hinges and handles, those parts were swapped out. The next thing you know, not a single part was identical between the two machines and the US version had customary fasteners all over it. Now I'm not saying that was necessary, a lot of that was a good old boy mechanical engineer that went out of his way to change out all the metric fasteners. When the machines arrived in Egypt, they complained that they had no tools to fit the fasteners and the Owner of the company building the machines found out the US version was far from identical to the European version. He was livid. The engineer that swapped out all the metric fasteners for customary ones wasn't fired, but he was informed he would get no raise or bonus until the cost of the full tool set, tool box, and shipping to Egypt were paid off, $9k.
People who need to use metric do use it. Scientists, doctors, the military, etc.
People who don't need to, don't. Centimeters and inches both work well enough around the house. No need to fix what isn't broken.
Many manufacturing companies use imperial because they have equipment that’s in imperial.
No need to fix what isn't broken.
Did you read this on your Nokia3310 or a smartphone? Some stuff are improved and just more effective.
And also your dicksize would be increased aswell.
Nah 6 inches still sounds better than 15 centimetres.
Nah 6 inches still sounds better than 15 centimetres.
Yes but what about 150 millimetres?
Yes but for everyday life I personally believe Imperial is better.
Obviously for calculations metric is better but a foot is a perfect length to describe thing and what so wrong with the base twelve system. The meter is way to long for everyday stuff and a decimeter is way to small. There is a reason why we have a yard (basically a meter) and no one uses it
Also when do you need to know how many feet are in a mile.
Yes but for everyday life I personally believe Imperial is better.
This is just how you standardized to the measurements.
Obviously for calculations metric is better but a foot is a perfect length to describe thing and what so wrong with the base twelve system.
How about something that is 10 cm long? Or 100 m
The arbitrary number doesnt matter, and the measurements can be swapped easily.
3 metre ? Aight 30 dec, 300 cent, 3000 milli
The meter is way to long for everyday stuff and a decimeter is way to small. There is a reason why we have a yard (basically a meter).
An object is 6 metre long,
Thata 60 dec, 600 cent 6 000 milli metre.
or
Maby its just me, but 19.8 feet and 236 inches doea not match as the same length for me.
While 6 and 6 000 i can comprehend.
Also when do you need to know how many feet are in a mile.
If you are painting a fence that is a mile long but your paint comes in squar feet?
But that's what I'm saying in everyday life you don't need exact amounts. And 19.8 and 236 does feel right to me because I'm used to it. And it's not like it's some arbitrary number it is using the base 12 system instead of 10.
And for painting a fence who has a mile long fence for one and two at that point just use metric because that is more of a calculation not an everyday thing
Yep, this.
Switching would be expensive and the units aren't inherently better.
This. With EVERYTHING in imperial units (all road signs, legal papers, records, products, etc.), switching is basically impossible any time in the near future. They've tried. It just won't happen.
The UK was all imperial not so long ago and is about 90% metric now. Old people still moan but it's no big deal.
(ok tbh the reason is americans are stubborn af but you didn't hear this from me)
The U.K. Is also 1/40th the size of the us. If we switched to metric we'd have to replace pretty much every road sign in the us, update cars, along with updating records, food products, it'll also impact the housing industry. not to mention that it would take a shit ton of time for the public to get used to it. Switching to metric is just unnecessary and a complete waste of money. If we can't even fix our crumbling infrastructure were sure as hell not spending tens of millions of dollars to be able to say centimeters instead of inches.
We kept Imperial for road signs.. we still use miles for distances.
You don't have to do it all in one go.
Re:Size. Geographically the UK is tiny but it has much higher density. Comparing size is irrelevant. In population the UK is only about 1/5th. Much smaller but not 1/40th.
Another point is that people like working with simple numbers, and switching to metric might not simplify much (short term at least) because so much in the US are already built around the imperial system. Changing over to metric will lead to a lot of 'dirty' numbers.
If major city roads are built in a 1 mile by 1 mile gird, it's always going to be easier to to measure as 1 mile than 1.609km, and if you're putting a shelf into a 6ft by 8ft shed it'll always be easier to cut an 8ft plank using an imperial ruler than to cut a plank 2.438m on a metric ruler
Actually, they are inherently better.
Foot-pounds are only about a 100x better than *ugh* Newton-Meters.
[deleted]
"The units are intuitive because they are derived from natural lengths" is a common argument I hear from people who like metric system.
We use inches for stuff like monitors, television, some trouser brands use inches as well.
With that, it boils down to most of us knowing how stupid it is, and also knowing that literally all of our shit is already measured in it and it would cost way too much money and also we're just not feeling it right now.
I'd agree with this, except for temperature in relation to weather.
I use the metric system everyday. It's definitely better. But that's just how engineering goes.
It would take an effort to change. There would be no reward for the effort. I ask you now, why would one do anything like that?
There would be no reward for the effort.
This is dead wrong.
The same could be said about the metric system
Almost the entire world uses the Metric system.
does that make it inherently better?
No, it doesnt. You are right in that regard. What does make it better is the sheer simplicity and ease of use in factor 10. Try explaining the metric system to somebody. Once you explain one unit, every other sub-unit is just factor 10. mm to cm to meter to km. Then try explaining the arbitrary nature of inches to feet to yards to miles.
Edit: I am american and even I can't tell you how the first three correlate to miles without looking it up. And off the top of my head I can't tell you how many inches are in a meter without consciously doing math in my head. Which makes everything take more time, thus making it less efficient.
It's easier to say in lay terms always. A mile is way bigger than a foot. Almost unfathomable. But what do you need to measure in the in between? The whole system is pretty well designed for things that will be measured by a lay man and not for exact measurements.
I'm here for a defence of the imperial system.
One the inepeial system works so much better in my opinion in everyday life. A foot is a perfect unit of measurement for every day stuff and in metric there is no length around that distance. while sure metric is way better in Mathematics and science but most people don't do that.
When people complain the ammount of feet in a mile is confusing and no one will remember it I says why would you there is almost no situation where you would need to know how many feet are in a mile. I know how far a mile is I don't need to know how many feet are In a mile.
Lastly celsius vs fahrenheit. For weather fahrenheit IS SO MUCH Better. The average climate where I live is literally 0-100 while in celsius it would be like - 15 to 30.
Pretty much everyone who would need to know metric know it but for the vast majority of people who don't need to imperial works a whole let better for them.
-15c is freakin cold dude. That must suck. I'm used to about 0-35c so that suits us. I have no idea what that is in Fahrenheit but I'm sure it doesn't matter. It's just what you're used to. EDIT: I actually meant to write this to agree with you but needed to point out how cold that shit is.
Yeah I totally agree It is what you are used to and I am also blind to it.
I live smack dab in the middle of the us so everything comes to us. Cold, heat, wind, rain not to mention its humid as fuck because we are next to two of the biggest rivers in the country(this is actually why tornadoes are a thing when cold and hot air mix rapidly it basically forms a tornado)
And yeah it can get cold here but that is nothing to more Northern places and you get used to it. The biggest killer is during end of winter early spring it will go from around 20 degrees (-7) to like 60 degrees (15) in a few days and then a few days later it will go back to around 20
The federal government actually passed a bill officially changing the US to metric back in like, the 70's, but they just didn't really implement it. Also, while most of metric is nice, Fahrenheit is better than Celsius for daily use since most places in the US get to a low of ~0F in the winter and ~100F in the summer. The larger scale means you can easily distinguish small changes better that with Celsius
It really doesn't matter. People make units for different purposes. Metric is for scientists to easily convert between orders of magnitude. Imperial units all have there own reason they are the way they are, and are just as valid as metric.
And what is this "own reason"?
one of them is easy divisibility. Imperial units can easily be divided by 2,3, and 4 and still be expressed as whole units.
Depends on the unit.
I'm not getting into another fight about it but I maintain that Fahrenheit is a better measurement of human comfort level than Celsius.
Supposedly we haven’t changed and will never change because of how expensive it would be to do so. I had many teachers at my university say this.
Yeah pretty much. It's kinda like how in Europe there a billion different languages and dialect, thousands of different currencies you have to exchange at a loss, and having to buy a different sim card for every country you visit. I will say tho the cell service in Europe is amazing! I love the low prices and not having to sign a contract. Just buy your phone put your sim card in and off you go.
Metric is better for exact, imperial is better for rough and basic measurements. Fahrenheit is better than Celsius imo, two degrees Celsius is the difference between a coat and no coat. I like that our words are smaller too. It sounds lame, but really, it's what makes speech comfortable. Height being measured in feet and inches prevents you from talking about hundreds of centimeters or roughly 2-3 meters. A mile is a long distance, it's nice to have that for talking about walking or driving. Over a mile is a long way to walk, again, it's comfortable to say less numbers and fill your mouth with less syllables.
Liters and gallons, seems pretty interchangeable until you get to cups quarts, teaspoons and so on. How do you measure that stuff in metric? Base ten is an easy conversion, but isn't too practical in a lot of situations because you're left with one useful measurement for each task. I love imperial, but please tell me why your system is better.
Any of the medical cost related stuff, like "So I broke my toe, anyway we're obviously homeless now..."
Especially shocked when it was things basically everyone would have to do, like hearing about delivering a baby resulting in $20,000 bills and then going back to work the next day, how does anyone have a baby without a 6 figure income?
Studies have shown that for an average American to live comfortably with children and without fear of bills, expected or otherwise, you would need to make at least $107k/year.
It's about $30,000 for a birth without complications now.
Poor people without insurance just never pay the bill, they have to deliver your baby if you show up at the hospital, but there goes your credit rating!
Will probably never have kids because of the high cost of living as it is. The US has the lowest birth rate it has ever had. The salaries just haven't kept up with the cost of living and 40 million people have student loan debt totaling $1.4 Trillion Dollars. My apartment alone is $1,500/month without utilities included. I've also paid about $10,000 dollars over the past few years in medical/dental treatments out of my pocket.
My family's out of pocket medical costs (including the monthly premiums) will cap out at like 14k or something and I feel fortunate. How insane is that?
"My skin is falling off. What do you guys think I should do?"
Go to a doctor. I live in a developing country, but it would not even cross my mind not to seek medical care for some of the stuff I see here. Even my employers would not let me stay at work if I looked sick in any way that could possibly backfire on them.
If I read "I vomited blood and bile, but my boss is making me work an extra shift" I'm always gonna bet it is an American speaking. But that's, like, my opinion, man...
Yeah, I live in an East European shithole and we have way better healthcare than the US. My previous insurance package was around $25 a month and covered 90-100% of almost everything.
Also, paying for an ambulance sounds absolutely insane.
East European shithole
lmao
Eh, probably just stomach poisoning with your esophagus bleeding from the stomach acids being thrown up. Your esophagus will clot and you'll be okay. I've cut myself on glass really bad, lots of blood, on my right hand. Pretty deep. I ran it under some water, poured some vodka on it, more water. Wrapped a kitchen towel around it, got some duct tape, wrapped it as tightly around the kitchen towel as possible, kept my hand above my heart. 6 hours later, unwrapped cleaned with soap and water, re-wrapped with new towel. Went to the drug store, bought some good thick bandages. Kept it clean and changed bandages regularly. Today, I have a big scar on my right hand, but hey, at least I didn't have to go to the hospital, pay the hospital $2k to sit in a waiting room for 3 hours for an MD to numb the area, sew it up and then send me on my way. Hospital in my mind is only somewhere you'd go if you think were actually dying. There are a lot of dumb people who go there for minor injuries and get thousand dollar bills that they easily could've avoided by going to a primary care location or just googling how to fix it.
go to the hospital, pay the hospital $2k to sit in a waiting room for 3 hours for an MD
That there is the part I can't get my head around.
Most high deductible insurance plans force you to pay up 100% of the first $5000 per year in medical costs.
That shit ain't right...
I know! Who gets such a low deductible? Mine is 10k per year and my family reaches it within the first 1-3 months. 5k would probably be within the first two weeks
my price was for a single person with no spouse or kids.
oh yeah and $200 a month just for the privilege of that coverage.
My brother's girlfriend had open heart surgery recently, afterward she had a pnuemothorax (collapsed lung), went into the ER, waited around for hours to be seen.
I remember getting a kidney infection w/stones in Japan at the same time my sister got the same in the U.S...I had medical insurance through my job, it was required.
I took paid days off to go for out-patient IVs for a couple of days. Doc took X-ray to monitor the stones, told me the biggest was on the cusp of being too big to pass, drink three liters of water a day to avoid lithotripsy, I'd feel like dying but it would pass. He'd done his residency in the U.S. (where to our credit they do have some of the finest medical schools) and spoke great English.
When the stone passed, I was at work. I screamed "jingo ishi!" and ran out of the classroom. My boss was at the front of the center and looked surprised. She said, "but you would be in a lot of pain then," to which I just nodded. She asked me if I wanted to call an ambulance, and I said no, I'll take the subway, and rode an hour home curled up in absolute agony. I made it to my building, went up into my shower, turned the water to hot, made peace with death, and vomited and shuddered and shrieked until the thing passed.
And then I was fine.
I said "no" to the ambulance because in the U.S. they cost $1000 bucks a pop. In Japan, turns out, they are free, and some drunk people use them as free taxies when they've had too much (not cool).
My sister got a kidney infection coincidentally at the same time. She was house-sitting for my parents.
Her best friend had some instinct when she didn't answer her phone, and went out to my parents'. My sister was lying on the couch in their living room, feverish and unconscious. She had not gone to the hospital or called 911 because she didn't have insurance.
My friend drove her to the hospital. They hospitalized her for one night of intravenous antibiotics, then released her with oral antibiotics. This cost $4000 (I gather this is pretty low, actually, might be the state and year--2011).
She continued having pain (probably stones), she went back, the doctors retested her urine, no infection, told her she was imagining things; she went back twice, in agony. NO test for stones (the FIRST thing to look for in kidney pain w/o infection; stones and previous infection are often related). They still charged her a thousand bucks more for the lab tests that showed she had no infection.
Who knows the size of her stone, but eventually it passed, because she got better. Could have been medical emergency if it hadn't.
My doc found the problem immediately, I was treated, whole cost was fifty dollar co-pay.
I remember my brother tore his MCL and his ACL landing badly on a basketball jump. He had insurance, but still paid over $10,000 out of pocket for the surgery.
I can't believe I lived my entire young adult life here uninsured, especially considering my reckless ways. I also once cut my hand pretty badly and called my mom, who duct-taped it shut for me and wrapped it up (small scar today).
Now I am back here I am intentionally keeping below the poverty line so I can get Medicaid, which means mental health care, PCP, free meds, free ER if I need it. I am single with no kids living in a town with low rent so I have the option to do that while figuring out my next step in life.
I came here after making what I felt was the decision not to be an expat and live away from my family, two years ago, early thirties (back from Mexico, where I also had better healthcare and discovered I have kidney disease because I have four kidneys--only two of them are a l'i'l wonky, haven't caused problems for a while). Trump got elected, the man I met and began dating raped and then stalked me, and altogether I'm considering leaving this place again, maybe permanently.
Glad I did the CELTA and taught ESL for over 4 years, as well as getting my Master's and teaching a few other subjects. I might be well-placed to get a job at an international school down the line and leave this country for good. (My sister is in London on the NHS right now--no more dying to save money on medical care for her!)
It's expensive, I have a high deductible, so I would've had to pay for it entirely out of pocket.
I understand the concept. I don't know why the hospital would charge so much. For something like that, even my developing country healthcare would fix it for "free" - meaning it costs tax payers money. Don't get me wrong, if you get cancer or need special procedures or a particularly rare test, you'd be screwed. But the thought that in one of the richest countries in the world the hospital would let you bleed for 3 hours and charge you 2000 for the privilege blows my mind.
I remember going to the er for a medium sized cut, i waited for ten minutes then a few minutes of numbing and stitching i was on my way home. Waiting for 3 hours for stitches is crazy.
Your low on the totem pole. The nurse you see first will probably clean it, wrap it up tight, then you'll be sent back to the waiting area until your number comes up for you to see the MD or NP who will do the minor procedure.
"your low on the totempole"? i'm gonna take that like a cut is a low priority. But if you meant that i can see why, i'm from a small country so our er's aren't all that busy.
It's sad. My boyfriend got a really big, deep cut that was starting to turn yellow because of an x-acto knife incident in his architecture work. Doesn't have insurance but didn't want to get bacteremia. Went to a state hospital's urgent care. Got his wound looked at with no real treatment. The cost? More than $1,000!!
Wait, are employers not even required to pay the medical expenses of injuries that occur at the workplace? That's insane.
Even in Canada, if injuries occur at the workplace, they're paid for out of insurance the employer pays for, rather than the taxpayers.
Christ, it’s hard to believe we’ve gotten to the point of performing battlefield medicine in our own homes to avoid medical bills
lmao, by back's skin is actually peeling off atm.
I dont get sunburns but it looks like my brother's sunburns when i wake up
If you work at a unionized company, you can get paid time off and the union will make sure you won't get fired if you have to leave because you are vomiting blood
I know the whole point here is to talk shit on our health care system, and rightly so, but part of that is most people I know hate going to to the doctor, myself included.
There's nothing wrong with our doctor's offices (my insurance has no copay so it's a free visit usually) I just hate dealing with it. Skin falling off? Eh, I'll grow more. What are they going to do for me anyway?
Political corruption being institutionalised and politicians mentioning religion. Rule of thumb in the UK is to never being up religion in an election campaign, you will be thought of as a weirdo. Its a private thing and talking about it openly makes people uncomfortable.
[deleted]
I think Tony Blair was told to play down the fact he's quite religious wasn't he?
He probably didn't need to be told. He was savvy enough not to lay it on until he stepped down. He also delayed converting to Catholicism until after he left office, as that would have been a media shitshow.
That's one thing we in America don't really get. Who gives a shit if you're Catholic?
It was a contentious issue before Kennedy.
True, but we're pretty much over it.
yeah because the muslims and the mexicans are the new boogiemen over the irish or italians.
You sound like a bot.
havent gotten that one before. Bot for whom?
For the far left. It just seemed like such a knee-jerk canned response. Not subtle at all. Beep-boop, America is racist, kleep.
We weren't even talking about that.
Is he wrong though?
It's certainly true in the UK. For a long time there was a lot of prejudice against Irish catholics, only within living memory has it shifted to black people and latterly Muslims.
You said people weren't bigoted against catholics anymore, and that's a well examined element of the shifting notion of whiteness and acceptability. We can always find ways to divide us and hate the other, when it's just protestants and catholics its hate each other, when it's christians and muslims it goes again.
A big part was less the Catholicism and more the religion. Conversion is an uncomfortably strong statement of belief for a lot of people. Taking any religious position prominently is uncomfortable, more recent issues affected the Liberal Democrat’s whose Christianity being brought up was kind of an issue (plus potential homophobia). At least for Blake. Not to deny that people care about catholic politicians in Northern Ireland obviously, also it’s come up with a big politician Jacob rees- mogg but for that it’s because of his rampant sexism, homophobia and hypocrisy .
I don't think most Europeans in Prot. nations would mind having a Cath. PM. It's none of their business anyhow. However, the UK has a law that forbids Catholics being PM and vice versa. So I think it's one of those archaic laws that they cannot bring them themselves to to throw away.
Yes, I knew they had laws, but it just seems like that would have changed or become outdated by this point.
Most of our old laws arent changed untill they become an issue. If a Catholic were to be elected the law would be done away with but because repealing old laws is a process we just forget about them.
In the US we have laws called "blue laws," which were originally laws that determine what you can and can't do on Sunday; they're laws that are still on the books, but aren't at all observed anymore. Granted, they aren't laws about the requirements for high level officials, but rather things like "you can't drive a Conestoga wagon north down Main Street on Sundays."
Thats fair enough. Our laws about religion come from a time before there were white peoplr America when being the wrong religion wad punishable by death. For a long time Catholisicm v Protestantism was a highly contentious issue and even the cause of war in western Europe
Definitely. It's very much present in the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That is directly because of the wars of religion of the 17th century. This clause, and in fact much of the causes and issues surrounding the American Revolution are, I believe, an extension of the English Civil War.
The UK is a country that takes it time to change/amend/rewrite its laws. Most other European countries had a (cough several cough) massive upheaval changing the basis of law, effectively burning the old redundant or not-up-to-modern-standards laws of yesteryear.
You’d be surprised. I had a teacher in high school let her true self slip once in class and make a really biased anti-Catholic statement in class. Never saw her the same way after that incident.
It'd immediately provoke questions on abortion rights, divorce, and homosexuality, and there's also the issue of anti-catholic sentiment in some spaces, along with a general attitude that it's unbritish. In some circles, it would dredge up the anti-papal attitudes and arguments, sneering and suggesting the prime minister was in hoc to some old guy in italy and not truly independent and secular. (this argument about why Catholics are bad rulers has lost a lot of legitimacy compared to historically where the pope had temporal power and alliances and utilized excommunication and so on to pressure nations into particular stances, including wars, but it's still brought up in the modern day. It's relatively recent history, you can make the argument that before 1945, no Catholic could be trusted to govern a democracy in its own interests, often the catholic church backed absolutism and dictatorship, and opposed democracy, but stopped doing so after throwing their lot in with the fascists and being embarrassed by that.)
It would mean every time the pope said something, the prime minister would be assumed to endorse it and be asked about it, which means his religion becomes very prominent and that's a vote loser in a country like ours. He would be forced into looking wishy-washy and insincere about his faith (In which case, why convert) or like a theocrat. He'd be painted as a "Bad catholic routinely sinning and ignoring the pope" or a theocratic nutjob. There would be no compromise on that, the media would push him into one or the other.
Some protestant extremists would also hit the roof over it and would never stop trying to take him down.
Conversion is a strong statement of faith, people would have assumed he would govern as a catholic.
You’re not allowed to be Prime Minister unless you belong to, or agree to convert to, the Church of England.
My understanding is that is one of those theoretical things. I believe it goes back to the Catholic Emancipation Act, when the law forbade a Catholic from advising the King or Queen on which Anglican Bishops to appoint. Obviously she doesn't decide that any more but does sign it into law, so a Catholic PM would be seen to do that advising legally. In practise the Chancellor could do all that I believe, thus circumventing the Catholic PM problem, but its never been tested in practise.
I could be absolutely talking out of my arse though.
The United States had the good fortune to form after the schism between the Protestants and the Catholic church. The UK saw hundreds of years of fighting between pro and anti-Catholic forces. Civil wars were fought over the issue.
Catholics lost.
I seem to remember him being mocked (while in office) for saying that God told him to go to war in Iraq.
God...good thing he’s not American being a catholic politician is almost as bad as being a Muslim politician. Think about it there’s ever only been one catholic president and anti Catholicism is still strong here especially in the south and Midwest for obvious reasons
What are you talking about? Plenty of major politicians are Catholic, including Paul Ryan, who is the Speaker of the House and from Wisconsin. I've heard politicians criticized for a lot of things, but never being Catholic.
Historically that has been the case...maybe that’s a product of me being from an even more so Protestant centric culture in the south but JFK was our only catholic president and that wasn’t until 60. Also, I’m pretty sure there are more prominent Jewish and Mormon politicians than catholic ones right now
I think Bill Clinton was Catholic
Bear this in mind... There’s only been 2 Chaplains of the House of Representatives. The most recent 2.
well established for ages we can't have Catholics in charge. nevermind the fact they'd probably gift away NI
Despite Blair being probably the most religious PM we've had in years - literally converting to Catholicism - the interview where it was brought up, Alistair Campbell interjected with "we don't do God"
It's just not the done thing
I do so love the clip of Paxman (iirc) asking him if he prayed together with George Bush.
I haven't seen the clip in a while but I remember Blair looking kinda stunned and just saying "uh, no. No, we... we don't pray together." He looked like he'd been asked if they'd ever seen each other naked.
I think your forgetting about the daughter of a minister who said that God is guiding her decisions in Brexit.
She is a rather horrifying anomaly. I internally wince whenever she mentions anything of the sort. Though I am biased, I pretty much wince whenever she says anything.
Which I find hilarious, given that you have a state church led by the ruling monarch.
But we try not to talk about it. You should also note that we still have bishops sitting in the House of Lords though.
The Lords Spiritual need to get the fuck out of the Lords. They're pretty much the only remaining part of the religious establishment that can still impact democracy.
A relation of my wife is a bishop. He is a fantastic bloke, absolutely agree with all his political opinions but he hasn't been elected so shouldn't get a say.
As it happens he'll be running next election, not sure if he's asked to be a bishop and an mp
Nobody should be in there by virtue of their office. After removing the Lords Spiritual I would still want any appointments committee to put some bishops in there, in the same way that they have other religious leaders in the Lords. They just shouldn't be there no matter what.
One of the big criticisms of them at the moment, apart from the fact that it's entrenched religious privilege, is that they hardly turn up and the big names like York and Canterbury are too busy running the Church to fulfil their duties. You could easily have a couple of bishops specifically selected for their knowledge/interest in politics and have them put forward as the appointees.
Now you might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I was going to point that out as well, but forgot to by the end of my comment.
Ah well, overall we're probably glad you didn't point it out. Rule 1 for dealing with the English (I say English because as an English person I can't really speak for the other nations within Great Britain, and it probably applies to everyone outside too, so please don't attack me for saying this): we are about as contradictory as you can be.
Except when it comes to self-policing orderly queues...
Well naturally not then. We tut viciously.
Hahaha yes. I take offence when the “rules” of queuing are ignored, and I do make a passive aggressive tut too... #UKProblems
Only when really pushed to the brink, of course. I tend to take steps such as raised eyebrows first.
Maybe he craved a healthy dose of buggery from the priests, just to calm him off for a bit.
[deleted]
Yeah. I think if the President was any Republican but Donny boy she'd practically live at the White House if she could
Running through the wheat fields
Thatcher in the Rye
naughty
Alastair Campbell (Tony Blair's spin doctor) once interupted an interview when a question about his religion came up to say "We don't do God".
That works particularly badly for her not so much because of the taboo of religion being used in politics in our country but because as someone who was raised by a person that should have, in theory, instilled in her some quite positive human ideals and traits, she is actually a terrible example of a human being with all the caring and warmth of an old fashioned coin bag. I think she took her upbringing and decided "I'm going to live the opposite of all the things my father teaches his parishioners". Her advisors will be acutely aware of this fact. People like her should not be running around boasting about being the daughter of a vicar... it makes him look like a failure as a parent.
Wow - 2 quite religious leaders of Briton since the 2000s. How religion is Britain? That's more than I would have thought
Three if you count Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister and also son of a Church of Scotland Minister.
But see above - it's almost unheard of for politicians to bring up their religion on the campaign trail or once in office. Admitting it guided their thinking on policy would be a black mark.
The 2011 census says 59% of UK citizens identify as Christian, 5% as Muslim, and 25% as non-religious.
As a rule though religion (like a lot of things) isn't really spoken about in the UK as a matter of course, it's certainly much less openly displayed than the US and IMO than in a lot of other European countries.
Recent polls have pushed up the number of no religion.. The christian number is also likely inflated as culturally christian, religiously christian, and non practising christian get mixed together. e.g. technically CofE but doesn't go to church, say prayers (except for sporting events etc)
Not very religious at all as a people but very religious in law as Western democracies go, so it makes sense somewhat. Britain is most certainly not a secular country.
This is anecdotal, but I grew up in south wales and throughout my entire education I only met two people who were Christian. One of those was american.
Not very. Most people will likely claim to be religious but they aren't actually practicing. Many of them would basically be atheists who identify as Christian for cultural reasons.
I wish that was the case here in the US
What's a vicar
Priest/Father/Pastor/Reverend. Whatever you call the basic parish level figure that runs the service, but for Church of England.
Narrator:
She wouldn't.
No wonder she's so fucked in the head.
I had no idea he was catholic until after he left the PM position.
Political corruption being institutionalised
That’s cute.
Signed, a Brazilian.
I honestly think the United States will not have an openly atheist/Muslim/Jewish/other non Christian religion President before I die.
Can we really call Trump Christian / Religious though? It feels like a lot of this associated with him is from cabinet members / Mike Pence, not Trump himself.
Just because he is kinda crazy it does not mean he does not claim that he is christian. There is not really any kind of strict definition or rule who can be a christian, other than being baptized, and anyone can claim that they are.
Yet the laws many of them want to enact are based on a very very strict moral code....which they don't uphold.....
I guess by that definition no one is truly Christian, apart from one weirdo in Texas who does everything the Bible says
[deleted]
That's bizarre to hear, shouldn't the older stuff be more accurate since it's closer to the source material? How can Christians allow people to edit the word of God himself? Seems a bit... disingenuous, almost like they're adapting the religion to their own interests
I don't think that was targeted at Trump. America has a history of this despite the goal of keeping church and state separate. Look at Jimmy Carter and George Bush, both political parties, both openly religious. Not to discredit either, but religion shouldn't be so involved in the political thing.
America definitely wasn’t created with the goal of keeping church and state separate. It was created with the goal of letting all religions exist.
No he isn't. His mannerisms and behaviors are the exact opposite as what would be expected of a Christian. People claim they are all the time though.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
It doesn't really matter though. He ran on a platform that was in many ways Christian, and he ran with an Evangelical running mate. When all is said and done he was a very Christian candidate, even if his personal religious devotion could be called warped at best or absent at worst. He ran an explicitly Christian campaign, even if its a brand of Christianity you don't see as legitimately Christian. And I think that's in the end what really matters.
You don't have to act like a Christian to behave like one, if fact most of them don't (love thy neighbour, not being judgemental, not lusting after money etc don't seem to be practiced by anyone other than people seen as weirdos bordering on cults).
Well, you came close with Bernie Sanders.
However, he is pretty much only Jewish by name and didn't seem religious at all.
As my friends described herself: jew-ish
After all, a Jewish person doesn't have to adhere to Judaism, even if they often do. The whole Jewish identity thing is super fascinating to me.
Hell, it took until the 1960s for there to even be a Catholic president (JFK), and people were even upset about that!
I work in a museum about the assassination. They had some of the pamphlets from his election that were...out there. "The pope is going to run the white house!" was the least of it.
I thought the last president was an Open Atheist Muslim Nazi Jew Communist. I mean, I could be wrong.
And when Trump was elected, so many people said "Thank God we Finally have a Christian President", that I think Trump is the first Christian President America has ever had.
Possibly, although 50 years ago one would have said that about black people. Although also 50 years ago one would have said that about insane people.
Donald Trump was far from the first insane President America has had. He just embraces and flaunts the crazy, Nixon (for example) tried to hide it.
Bernie is running again, a Jew turned Atheist so there's a chance
I hope they don't have any openly religious people again ever, regardless of whatever religion. That should be kept separate. They can do religion in their personal life and after their 4 years are up. Sounds like UK has the right idea.
I mean, I highly doubt Trump believes in something more powerful than himself, but he is paying lip service.
If the next president was Catholic, I’d be shocked.
Rubio has a decent shot to be the republican nominee, I can't think of a Catholic Democrat with a decent shot though
I actually liked Rubio. I thought he would have a unique perspective on life for immigrants and natural citizens.
I have no doubt he will at one point become the republican nominee in his life time. His upbringing is so relatable, and his connections to Hispanics could relive some of the antagonism large portions feel caused by Trump. It would be stupid to not have him be a major force in their party
I mean when 80% of the population is Christian is it supposed to be shocking that the few people who do become president are Christians.
Honestly, as an American Jew, I can truly say I hope you are right. The dog whistles and coded phrases had started in a really low key way during the primary season, I can only imagine what a Jewish presidential candidate would bring out in the general election, or his/her term.
As a comparison, you saw a resurgence of open racism after Obama was elected (maybe people thought, ok, we have a black president, equality is here, I can be a racist in public now), so I REALLY don’t want to see what happens with a Jewish (or Muslim) president.
Edit: I know we had Joe Lieberman as a VP candidate, but we have become so much more vile and hateful as a nation over the last ten-twenty years (at least it seems that way to me).
[deleted]
about 3.3 million Muslims and 5.5 million Jews in the USA out of a total of almost 330 million so not so far from each other.
They have an atheist in the white house right now.
You misspelt antichrist.
True, saying you are not a christian in US politics is political suicide.
Pretty sure to qualify for a president in the US being Christian is a requirement. But don't quote me on that I don't have a source.
Edit: Yeah I wasn't pretending I was right, I literally said I DON'T HAVE A SOURCE
I’m surprised so many people are missing the joke that the US won’t elect someone who doesn’t say they are some type of Christian to office. And thus being a Christian is a requirement
If you mean this literally, as in the Constitutional requirements, no it is not. And there is a passage in the Constitution that specifically states no one can be required to take a “religious test” to hold public office.
That sounds extremely unconstitutional
It's not actually a law or anything, but more an unwritten rule simply because a large chunk of our population gets hung up on the label.
It's not required for the President, legally, but it is required at the state and local level in a lot of places.
Its a private thing and talking about it openly makes people uncomfortable.
I thought this is how brits felt about basically every topic.
Except the weather.
literally laughed out loud. coworkers think I'm insane. thanks.
We’re all mad here.
Political corruption being institutionalised
There are so many countries in the world that are a million times more corrupt than the US. I think that's a pretty poor example of an American-specific issue.
I think I get what he's talking about though. Here's an example:
Mexico: You get pulled over by a policeman (who is paid poorly), who realizes you are from out of town and finds some reason to threaten to haul you to jail. You pay a bribe, the policeman lets you go.
U.S.: The local government creates a "road construction project" that involves no actual construction and goes on for decades. Every day, they have a cop hiding behind something catching people speeding in that zone -- even if the lower speed limit sign is hard to see or stolen. The cops pull people over (sometimes even if they're not speeding or doing anything wrong) and write tickets to them. The money from those tickets goes into a pool of money either for the city or the police, and police are paid out bonuses based on the number of tickets they write.
So we have a good amount of corruption, but we make a system of it instead of leaving it up to individual government workers. That being said, with some of the stuff going on with members of the Trump administration, even "classic" corruption seems to be on the way to being more commonplace here. The stuff Scott Pruitt has done would have resulted in almost anyone else being fired and possibly indicted.
The local government creates a "road construction project" that involves no actual construction and goes on for decades.
This sort of "corruption" (like pork-barrel politics) happens on some level just about everywhere. It is in no way unique to the US.
If you let your local government continually create speed traps like that it isn’t them being corrupt. It’s them realizing that people would rather try and avoid a speeding ticket than pay more taxes.
Political corruption being institutionalised
lol... That is like most every country.
Political corruption being institutionalised
This really isn't as bad as a lot of other places. The corruption we have (granting contracts to friends, insider trading in congress, and gerrymandering) are nothing compared to places with really bad corruption issues (placing family in all positions possible, outright bribery as normal business, and all together falsified elections).
Don't get me wrong, we're crooked, but we're miles from as bad as we could be.
unless it's a certain religion from the middle east with tendencies for spontaneous combustion.
Case in point: Tim Farron
That was more down to his belief that gay sex was a sin rather than being christian. The nutty religious stuff that came afterwards just heaped more soil on the coffin.
True, but he only thinks that gay sex is a sin in the first place because of his hardline Christianity.
Quite. Only one leader of his party (and the older of its predecessors, the Liberal Party) ever hasn't been a Christian (Clegg), but the things that Farron has said and believed didn't/wouldn't ever have come from any of the others in the modern day.
[deleted]
Broadcast regulations help keep ours (nominally) in check. Cant carpet bomb television with ads saying your opponents are the agents of Satan etc.
[deleted]
Yeah for real, the newspaper situation in this country is ridiculous.
Murdoch can fuck right off
...or mass media is more corrupt
Bro, you need to take a closer look at your government if you think institutional corruption isn't a thing.
So Northern Ireland was never a thing?
religion in NI is the exception as its mixed into unionism/nationalism so its difficult to separate out. NI until recently didn't get much attention from the rest of the UK, left to their own devices, but the recent DUP deal with the conservatives and ROI liberalisation of abortion laws have pushed them back into the limelight.
Politics and religion in Northern Ireland seem just as confusing and unrelatable as they do in the US, in all honesty.
Political corruption is not indtitutionalized. Its people in opposite parties accusing everyone in the other party of being corrupt that is institutionalized. The justice goes balls to the wall on corrupt politicians. Former ilinois governor tried to auction of barrack obamas senate seat. He is serving a long prison sentence.
If you can set up a superpac to support a candidate then that is just corruption. The stunning lack of rules restricting political campaigning is what institutionalised corruption looks like. Ban campaigns' ability to buy ad time on television and radio then block government officials taking jobs in companies they regulated for 5 years after leaving their previous position.
If you can set up a superpac to support a candidate then that is just corruption.
Huh? How is supporting a political candidate "corruption"?
Well you see when I can get you enough money that you will almost certainly win (because all that matters on voting day is your party affiliation and how many people have positively heard of you) and you can return the favor by introducing and supporting legislature that would help my business make more money people tend to think of that as corruption.
As a general matter, I agree with you and would support significant campaign finance restrictions as a fairer, more democratic system. However, I don't know that I'd really view the alternative (what we have now) as inherently or institutionally "corrupt."
Any explicit quid pro quo or even coordination with the candidate is illegal. So you're supporting the candidate you like, though not able to coordinate with them, or actually give them money to line their pockets personally, and then hoping that they pass laws consistent with your beliefs.
That sounds a lot like politics.
[–]gaspara112 -1 points 2 hours ago Well you see when I can get you enough money that you will almost certainly win (because all that matters on voting day is your party affiliation and how many people have positively heard of you)
This is not borne out by evidence. Past a certain threshold, spending more money does not win elections.
Yep, it’s oft commented here in Australia that if a politician during an election campaign mentions God, any chance they had immediate evaporates, whereas in America, those that DON’T mention God have zero chance. Which is why you see even obviously non-religious US Presidential candidates always making at least a passing effort to appear religious.
you know what else makes people uncomfortable? BEING NAILED TO A CROSS
In Turkey every big politican mentions Allah in at most 3 sentences. Religion really speaks to people without much knowledge or intuition about politic subjects. It's great for advertising.
Political corruption isn’t nearly as institutional as you would think. But one of the parties plays it up because a distrust in government paradoxically gives them more power.
it makes me uncomfortable too and im a Californian.
God Save The Queen
You think political corruption isn't institutionalized in the UK....
That's a 'special' kind of sweet...
You do realise that our politics is just as bad as America's if not worse because how we go through the same processes is less transparent?
American politics being "corrupt" is almost entirely a meme. USA politics and government is arguably as transparent as any democracy has ever been, in all of history.
It's (an annoying) part of the American zeitgeist to "hate the government" and not trust politicians. 99% of the time it's a bunch of crap.
The problem with American politics is that people(very generally speaking) are especially entrenched in viewpoints and many will not change their mind when faced with correct information that conflicts with their viewpoints. Americans add a lot of ego to this, and then you get idiot situations like right now.
I will rephrase. The lack of controls on campaigning (superpacs etc) and the unrestricted nature of political advertising on television and radio before an election mean that it is possible for individual politicians to be pushed into office by a small number of financial backers. This does not need to be a coordinated quid pro quo simply because the financial backer can select candidates that do what they want anyway. What is more worrying is that individuals and organisations have amassed so much wealth that they can run a news organisation solely to elect candidates that they select. Left or right, it doesn't matter. Money should not be what decides an election.
This isnt true though. Data shows that past a certain "marketing threshold" additional spend does not yield additional votes.
The threshold is fairly low, and reachable by any realistic candidate.
A) what do you mean by corruption and B) I'd be more worried about a system where it's unthinkable to mention faith.
If you are confusing campaign finances with "corruption" then you need to seriously examine the heavy censorship you are living under for the sake of avoiding that.
Here is America, if you're trying to win the south or the extreme conservatives, say you're a Jesus lover and they'll all collectively jizz in their pants
That's not true at all, there were much more "Christian" Republican candidates than Trump, yet Trump swept the south. This argument is pretty invalid
The Republican primaries just happened in Alabama and the ads on local news networks were nauseating. Ad breaks would literally be just campaign commercials and they'd all say the same thing.
Protect guns, defend faith (just Christianity though, not like it was under attack), defend the constitution, defend families (I think this is an abortion thing?), support Trump, be tough on criminals, drain the swamp, bring fresh ideas as a political outsider (even though these people had been running for decades), and one slightly unique thing about the person. Literally every commercial had at least 2/3 of these talking points.
There was one commercial supporting a judge who "looked a man in the eyes and sentenced him to death." It's fucking crazy that's seen as a reason to vote for someone.
That's because he spoke to a certain crowd of people, blue collar workers. He promised things no other candidate ever did and that's what won him the election
never being up religion in an election campaign
I really wish it was like that here in the USA. It can get really vicious sometimes, and it is usually just pandering.
I never knew that. I live in Poland and whish such a rule existed here. Really it would changed a lot for better.
mentioning religion is political suicide here.
That might largely be because when you did bring up religion a lot in politics it was when you killed people for their sect. ("You" as a country, no offense.)
Reminds me of a French politician that made clear on twitter that he was a catholic. 10 minutes later he tweeted again: "But not a practicing one". Also he was from the Conservative Party
Don't forget, there are still several states (seven or eight, I think?) where atheists are legally prohibited from running for elected office. You must profess faith in God or you can't be in the government in, say, North Carolina.
Those laws are only still on the books because nobody ever tries to enforce them and they would be struck down as 100% unconstitutional if anybody did try.
Of course, you guys have been having a lot of trouble with antisemitism, and I've heard that Brits treat being identifiably or proudly Jewish as rubbing your religion in their faces whilst seeing no problem with Christian holidays being public holidays.
Religion is embraced in the US for the most part. At least in the "bible belt" you can assume most people are religious
politicians mentioning religion. Rule of thumb in the UK is to never being up religion in an election campaign, you will be thought of as a weirdo. Its a private thing and talking about it openly makes people uncomfortable.
Your money doesn't say "In God We Trust"
Neither did the US before 1957 (1864 for coins). E pluribus unum was a nicer motto anyway.
E pluribus unum was a nicer motto anyway
Agreed, much nicer.
yeah, except for the lib dem leader getting blatantly harassed by reporters tiring to get him to say homosexuality is wrong.
Which is interesting given that Religion was likely the MOST important thing in British politics from Henry VIII till maybe a century ago (think of Prime Minister Arthur Wellesley for example). Maybe it’s a phase countries go through and eventually get over.
I wish.
Same in NZ. I wouldn't have a clue what religion our PM is. Wouldn't surprise me if she was an atheist.
How does that work for muslims?
Sorry, I mean "asians".
I've been put off a couple of politicians who discuss their religion. I think it's because I want my country's leaders to think for themselves, not address issues based on the teachings of a 2000 year old book.
Well when the whole reason your country exist was to escape religious persecution from the church of England religion is going to be a big thing.
maybe we'd get better birth control/abortion clinics if we followed your footstepts ;(
In the last election Tim Farron had to vehemently downplay his religion and categorically deny that it would have anything to do with his job, that he could and would be entirely secular. Still seen as suspicious though.
Strange coming from a country that elects Muslim politicians at an alarming high rate.
Why would you quiet down your religion?
Are the British people just cowards?
I thought Christianity was just so ingrained into the UK that it was assumed your politicians were religious and it therefore just doesn't come up because its assumed to be a matter of course.
And every single government has institutionalized corruption. If you think you don't you're just blinding yourself.
The UK is mostly non religious. Culturally however there is what would be termed "cultural Christianity), celebrating christmas, easter etc.
The UK is both majority Christian (barely) and majority Atheist. Have fun with that one. We also have a much less uniformly Christian government than the US manages.
Christianity informs our culture, but we are far from being religious as a nation.
Anti-vaxxing. I know it was started by an English dude, but I think US took it to a new level
Please don't believe most of us are that stupid. It's really just a super loud uneducated minority
You're such a populous Country that an 'Uneducated Minority' is usually the equivelent of a small country in Europe.
laughs in Indian
As an American from a state with a lot of Native Americans, my first that was "Shit, that was dark. Those guys should have learned the dangers of disease." Then I thought about the context and went, "Oh, ha ha, yeah, I bet China and Indonesia would laugh with you too."
Yeah I mean, it's really funny when a European nation with the population of a medium sized Indian city is having secession issues. Why can't you idiots with an inflated sense of self worth just get along?
They are both brown, yes. Good job, Chris C.
lmfao. i dont know why, but the "in indian" part is really cracking me up. thank you, reddit stranger
हंसते हुए हा हा हा
हंसते हुए हा हा हा
Had to use google translate. Was totally worth it.
Your comment convinced me to check. Such a simple phrase, yet so profound.
lol -- I showed my mom (Native Hindi Speaker) and she told me it wasnt right though, but close enough
What is Indian? I've lived in India for all my life, and haven't heard of the language.
Which language from India? There's well over 10....a neighbor friend of mine who speaks Tamil can't understand anything that comes out of Bollywood since there's not enough overlap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
Sanskrit.
Chill, I'm Indian. I was just making a joke.
I know, I was just curious.
Did you read about how some Anti-vaxxers manipulating baby products (like diapers and bottles), inserting anti-vaxx propaganda and sealing the packages again? It happened at some Walmarts. It blows my mind that something like this could happen in a country as big as the US, where not vaccinating your kids could have such a devastating effect. But that's the thing about stupid people: they really like to make their voices heard.
Wow
I know, right? (Found in a sealed Nuk bottle pack sold by Walmart)
I believe a big part of who supports this is Republicans who have been pushed into a corner of distrusting the government and believing in bullshit conspiracy theories that belong in the National Inquiror. Also, Republicans tend to claim to be Christian's and therefore hate anything having to do with actual science.
Most anti vaxers are not republicans and way to play into the whole political football team mentality. Anti vaxers are distributed almost equally across party lines. You have your religious nutbag anti vaxers, your Uber liberal hippy anti vaxers, your essential oils will cure everything anti vaxers, and your I’m a bored housewife that read one link on Facebook anti vaxers. Stupidity has no party affiliation and unfortunately runs rampant in both.
While people exist in each of these areas,, a huge incrycame from Republicans from the last election when Republican nominees wouldn't tell people they should vaccinate their children because they didn't want to alienate voters.
That falls on the idiocy of the person not the party.
it's enough to jeopardize the necessary quota (96%, i believe) for herd immunity. the movement has become terribly dangerous. in parts of europe too, by the way. there have been several outbreaks of measles in france since 2008.
I believe anyone who wants to not vaccinate their children should only be allowed to use separate school specifically for unvaccinated children. Strip away the herd immunity and have them reminded what the fuck polio is. Also, have the infection rate and mortality rate for vaccinated vs unvaccinated schools published publicly.
Yes. This.
They usually tend to be upper middle class women though. Not exactly uneducated, which makes this even more baffling.
Right, they're just educated enough to think they understand medicine without ever having taken a physiology class.
They're the same person who regularly tells me "I know enough not to click on bad links in random emails, now tell me why my computer is in Russian."
lmao I actually just clicked a bad email link at work yesterday for the first (hopefully last) time so this was right on the nose. I realized as soon as I did it and changed my password immediately, but I still called IT to tell them what I did just in case. Too many people are too prideful to admit they made a mistake.
That's exactly what I'd call 'ignorance'
Meh, it's usually like realtors or office workers, or a stay-at-home mom who got married into upper middle class. It's really the least educated upper middle class people.
Yep. My cousin's never wanted for anything really - just got knocked up at 19 and never looked back. Now she has 3 wonderful unvaccinated children because she is the textbook upper middle class piece of shit conspiracy nut, mostly based on all her 'caught mum fucking the pool guy' trust issues but she is wilfully blind to all that of course. Also, did you know the world is definitely flat?
[deleted]
Jesus Christ.
right? and this is (well, was) at a selective-ish high school, too.
I like to call this specific intelligence. Smart a about one thing and an idiot about others.
uneducated minority
Nope. They are usually well-educated. I think I read that the most well-vaccinated state is Mississippi.
Mississippi resident here. This is our only positive claim!
The problem is, if that loud, super uneducated minority gets to an 8% of the population, your country is absolutely fucked in case of s viral outbreak of an easily preventable disease.
I just think it's weird that anti-vaxxing is an issue (or even a topic of discussion) at all.
Republicans hate science because of evolution, and want their followers to distrust big government telling them what to do. Also, they fucking encourage all sorts of conspiracy theories and air them frequently and proudly in defiance of logic and reason.
Anti-vax bullshit is not a partisan issue. Dumbfuck hippies are just as likely to support it as dumbfuck Evangelicals.
Out of 150 students I have around 3 unvaccinated, anti-vax kids.
oooh oooh.... tell him the good news about Flatearth!
Boy oh boy if I wasn’t a poor US college student (for reasons mention above), I would gold this so hard.
I'll accept this comment as an honorary gild. Thx mate
They're not even super loud, it's more the people complaining about it on Reddit that overexaggerate how prominent it is.
It's hard to believe that when you guys elected a retard.
It was between two people with scandal after scandal. We were screwed with either candidate
Let's not pretend they were at the same level of stupid.
the only "loud" thing about it is people screaming about how dumb it is
which is how it should be, but still
That's my experience with America in general. Lots of craziness and insanity online and in the news, but you go there or meet Americans abroad and they couldn't be nicer people. I've had so many great experiences with Americans that I totally ignore all the crazy shit in the news.
Don't worry mate. Stupid minorities fuck perceptions up the world over.
To be fair it's hard not the connect the "uneducated minority" to America in general after they chose your president.
George W Bush ran on a campaign of not being one of those "elitists" who thinks he's above everyone else. At that point it became clear we weren't trying to elect the best person to offices anymore. We were trying to elect the person most like us.
At that point we were solidly in a downhill slide.
What's even more fucked up is its actually aspirational. They aspire to be like Trump.
But they never can be. Normal people can't stupid and/or crazy their way into money. You need to be born rich for that to work out.
Dangerous though. I'm glad we have mandatory vaccines here :/
And then Donald trump happened.... so consider it hard for me to believe you
And our President.
Yeah, he doesn't help
It was a good amount of people for a while though. Also depends on your circles.
Yeah but that minority has apparently been able to being back measles in some states.
Sadly most people who believe that garbage are very educated and wealthy. Such a shame they wasted their parents money on million dollar educational.
Theres also 350 million people in the US. Naturally there will be a larger number than in Britain total, not by percentage. That, and how our spoken Americans are with their opinions, makes for very loud and obnoxious antivaxxers
Yes but it's a large enough minority isn't it?
But that isn't true. The Pacific n northwest has some of the highest rates of antivaxers. They are educated. They just think they know more than the doctors.
The only anti-vaxxer I know is super educated, and she has studied the literature and the issue in general much more than you have, I guarantee. Don't confuse refusal to blindly follow authority with "uneducated." She might be wrong, could very well be wrong. But I've seen enough of doctors in my career as a lawyer to know that if you pay them enough they'll say and do anything. When a kid is perfectly healthy one day, gets a vaccination, and the next and from then on is sick, that is bound to change a few people's opinions about it being a mere "coincidence"
Don't confuse refusal to blindly follow authority with "uneducated." She might be wrong, could very well be wrong.
Fair enough argument, but I would like to make a point of order: The (long-since barred) Doctor who came up with the anti-vaxx argument admitted nearly two decades ago that his study was 100% fraudulent. It was pure fiction, and he admitted this fairly quickly after it was questioned.
Note also that his intention at the time was not to get people to stop using vaccines altogether, but rather, to get people to use HIS MMR vaccine instead of his competitor's.
Last i checked that motherfucker filmed a movie about how vaccines are dangerous as well. Clearlt he is enjoying the attention, knowing fully what he said was nothing but a huge, stinking pile of lies.
I'm sorry mate but pretty much all of science is more trustworthy then you're one "highly educated" friend. Also even if Vaccines somehow caused Autism (they don't) based on the low percentage chances of a kid having Autism and the high chances of them getting a horrible or even fatal disease if they don't vaccinate it's still for the best to go ahead and vaccinate. Plus not all Autistic people are the kind you see on Anti-Vaxxing shows and the like. Most are actually pretty normal.
For example, you're currently reading something written up by an Autistic person.
From an undereducated perspective, how often does Autism develop in people over a certain age, say 4 years? Everyone anti-vaxx mentions autism in everything. At first I assumed they waited until the kid was 3 or 4 until they started vaccinations. Now I see things about kids as old as 6 without vaccinations. Is there a risk of a 6 year old developing autism?
Autism usually develops when you're a baby or a really young kid. I showed signs at like... 2. Or actually I shouldn't say develop as it's a Syndrome that affects one's brain. As far as I know people don't really "develop" Autism in the same way as one would an illness. You either have it or you don't, sometimes it just shows itself later on. Though I don't know if it's possible for signs to only start appearing at say, 6.
This is all based on what little I know of how Autism actually starts though as I've never really looked into that despite knowing I have it. All I really know for a fact is that Vaccines don't cause it.
Signs may start appearing earlier than 6, but depending on the situation the child is in and their access to healthcare, sometimes it doesn't get properly diagnosed until the child is in school. This happens more especially when the parents don't trust doctors and thus don't take them in for checkups or ask them about abnormal behaviors/ behavioral development.
Autism is something someone has from a very young age, probably from birth. Doctors can detect signs as early as 6 months old, but most will not diagnose it until the child is around 2 years old. I doubt a person could just become autistic after 6 years, but it is possible to go a long time without being diagnosed. I was diagnosed at 13, but looking back, it was obvious even in my earliest memories that there was something different about me.
Often, autistic children aren't noticed until they start having significant difficulties. A lot of things people think of as "autistic traits" are really "traits of an autistic person who is under significant stress". Things like meltdowns and self-injury are a result of stress, not things that autistic people just do for no reason other than autism. Sensory issues can also be much harder to deal with when under stress. An autistic kid could be doing fine, until their environment suddenly changes to one that's unfamiliar and unfriendly to their senses, or until they are being asked to meet expectations that are beyond their abilities.
School could easily introduce a significant amount of stress into an autistic child's life, which may make it seem like a 6 year old suddenly developed autism. There might have been signs before, but since they weren't causing obvious problems, the parents would not think to get their child an autism evaluation. Some people are able to mask their autism well enough that they aren't diagnosed until late adulthood. Unfortunately, it's a lot harder and often expensive to get evaluated as an adult.
I'm a pediatrician. She has not studied the literature more than me.
Funny, there are other pediatricians who disagree with you. But hey, keep trying to make the public think that you are God because you happened to graduate from medical school. My son is in medical school right now, blindly accepting what they teach him. Wasn't too long ago that physicians were scoffing at whether fibromyalgia was a real disease, and scoffing at the idea that antibiotics could cure ulcers and back pain. If you are a real physician, you know I am correct.
You have no clue what you're talking about dude lmaoooo
You are just as bad as her. You are taking her word for it and know absolutely nothing. My wife is a pediatrician, they dont get paid by the drug companys to give vax's. The perceptions of people are so wrong, ots actually kinda scary. People can have reactions to things, are you anti peanuts? Should we get rid of them? There are WAY more people are allergys to all sorts of things than to whats in a vax. Theres no way of knowing what a kid may be allergic to if they have never had it before. The stupidity of the anti vax people just infects the other morons and its like a virus of its own.
see, idiots like you are a major reason that there are anti-vaxers. you act like a little teenage girl with your vitriolic response. it's like you are a blind partisan arguing for your party. take it back a notch kiddo. careful reasoning, logic, and cool-headed words will win more converts than calling people names.
Shut up retard
Says the person who blindly follows a friend who friend who did their "facebook research" Unlike you, my wife is a pediatrician, my mom is a pediatrician... you see they have actual info on the subject, actual training 12 years of schooling and their own practices and have to study every god damn night so that they can inform anti vax dummys, why they are dummys.... theres only one problem, you people are so ignorant, youd rather have your kids get all sorts of shit, than to understand why there are certain chemicals/compounds in the vaccines to start with.
Also, don't confuse educated with smart. Plenty of people with higher education are still dumb shits.
She's wrong. And stupid. Her poor children.
Eh, her kids are half her. I mean they're innocent half dumbasses, but they're still half dumbass.
Half dumbass. 😂
Being read up on poor sources confirming their own biases doesn't make them well read on a subject. If they had a degree in medicine and published a peer reviewed article on the matter, they can feel free to break the mold. Until then, it behooves them to trust what the vast majority of actual experts agree upon.
Shut the fuck up you anti-vax shill. I've ton a fuck ton of research and vaccines are 100000% safe and effective. Anti-vaxxers have literally no argument, and zero REAL evidence to back up their claims
Yer a lying sack of shit. The vaccines absolutely do have kids getting sick from them. The official thinking is that the harm of some kids justifies giving them anyway. But nobody in their right mind thinks that they "are 100000% safe and effective." Now resume blindly following like a sheep.
You're just delusional dude lmao. YOU are the sheep you clueless idiot
Blind refusal to follow authority is just as bad as blindly following authority. For one you're likely just taking another just as or more faulty authority for granted without realizing you are. It's like all the people calling people sheeple for believing mainstream shit. They group up in places like r/conspiracy and follow their own internal authorities that are even more off kilter than the mainstream authorities.
lots of things that are "prominent" in America are just a loud minority
EDIT: this blew up thanks random strangers.
Flat Earthers too. There's literally many times more people complaining about flat earthers than there are actual flat earthers.
A loud minority that would still be bigger than a lot of countries. That's scary.
its just the size of america and
Oh god it's been so long there is no way that candleja
and...?
and...?!?!?
Old study, but it's about 9% of the populace. I don't know what the number is in other countries but it really is an insignificant group in the grand scheme of things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/
It’s not insignificant if they are spreading diseases like Measles. Fuck those people.
That's still 30 million people. 3 times the size of my country population.
That's just because the US is so large. Nothing scary about it.
We have 10 million people and we don't have 9% of don't believe in vaccination. It's closer to 0.5% to 1%. 9% it's scary because it's a sign that is something that it's growing.
That low? The US has higher vaccination percentages than most of Europe so I guess we'll have to see if that changes in the future.
We have people who do not vaccinate but it isn't because they don't believe it. It's free, they are just uninformed.
That doesn't sound so different. Those particular Americans are just misinformed/uninformed as well.
they are just uninformed
How does this make them different than anti-vaxxers?
The difference is that one group doesn't do it because doesn't know they can or should do it, the other believes they shouldn't do it.
Not knowing you should do it and thinking that you shouldn’t do it are literally the same thing.
Not at all.
Why would it be the same? I don't want my children to be vaccinated because I believe they will become autistic is very different from: "I don't even know that vaccines exists".
So its.. the same thing?
what’s the difference in the end?
but my country is smart and the us is stupid and fat! /s
Not even that it's a loud minority, it's mainly just reddit. Anti-vaccination was on the news cycle for about a week a few years ago. It's an extremely small group of people and 99.99999% of Americans would never have to worry about their kids being near an un-vaccinated kid. Reddit has always had a bit of a hive-mind when it comes to beating "dead-horse" issues. Makes America sound like this awful place with a million issues when it's mostly just redditors harping over nothing
Reddit LOVES easy targets.
earth flattening intensifies
That, and the internet makes it easier for idiots to find each other and organize. (this can be applied to many other "issues"). Frankly, I'm glad for our freedoms, and I think it's vital that they are maintained/expanded whenever possible. It's the edge that leads. Not that I agree with anti-vaxxing.
I love this so much.
your the loud minority /s
Now YOU'RE the loud minority!!!
The worst kind of wrong is LOUD WRONG
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
The phrase, “You’re not just wrong; you’re loud wrong” is gonna be a thing
[deleted]
Being proud to be black is somehow criminal or something? Wtf is wrong with being proud of who you are
[deleted]
There's a difference between saying "I'm proud to be white" and "White pride". One is a statement of heritage. One is a loosely veiled (edit: loosely veiled at that time, not now obviously) nazi/white supremacist slogan from the civil rights era. What are you actually saying? And no, people aren't fooled by most dog whistling and gentrification of the nazi/white supremacist movement and you shouldn't expect them to be. If you slide white pride into a longer statement hoping no one will notice, then they do you shouldn't be surprised either. It's obvious nazi propaganda.
Everyone is free to be prideful of their heritage. Personally, I think it's silly. Why should I be proud of something that I had nothing to do with and I just happened to be born? I'd rather be proud of my own actual accomplishments.
It's not being proud of being black, it's being proud of dealing with discrimination your whole life and not letting it get to you. It's proud of hearing people say racist things to you all your life and still be able at the end of the day to say "These people are wrong and I love myself regardless of their opinion". Do you honestly think people would be proud of being black if racism was not a thing? It's the fact they're able to withstand the difficulties that come with being their race that makes them proud
Sorry, but I wasn't speaking about people proud of being black (or any other race). I was very specific when I said, "prideful of their heritage" which is more about culture than skin color. It's pride in food, music, etc. and so yes, I do think that such pride would exist without racism because it's not specifically about skin color. I just feel like all that stuff is nothing that I personally contributed, so it's silly to be proud of it. I'll take pride in myself, but not in my ancestors, in other words.
Oh well the comment I originally replied to did say specifically black people being proud for being black, that's what I was disagreeing with
Oh I know, that's why I just specified to avoid further confusion. I was speaking to a much more broader point, obviously.
Like Trump supporters?
[deleted]
Eh, I mean, majority of voters did not go for Trump.
It's worse in Britain. You should see our measles rate. One of the worst in the developed world.
I'm not saying you're incorrect because I have no figures, but that's crazy to me. I'm pretty sure everyone I know is vaccinated.
Who's out there not vaccinating kids? Jesus H...
https://www.popsci.com/measles-vaccination-rates-outbreak#page-3
Holy fuck even a quick google search brinks up so much
how is this happeninggggg
It's mainly apathy though, not anti-vax.
[deleted]
I've met a British anti-vaxxer as well, he was hardcore, they exist. I met his kid too and wanted to abduct her to get her vaccinated. I still wonder about that kid and if there's something I could have done.
According to the WHO measles has been eradicated in the UK from endemic transmission. Where are you getting your facts?
Various measles outbreaks over the years, I don't have figures but I can point to the outbreaks. At least one last year.
Also cases in 2017 confirmed by laboratory.
There was also an outbreak in 2013, but you might think that is too long ago.
Not that I don't believe you, but can you point me to anything on that? All I can find is that the UK eradicated measles back in September.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/measles-eradicated-uk-mmr-vaccine-controversy-anti-vaxxers-infectious-a7970251.html
Most of us don't understand it, either. It's a combination of the luxury of being able to be paranoid about mundane things, and a willing ignorance of basic science. See also: Jenny McCarthy.
We want to reduce republican voter turnout since we want them to die, its a conspiracy.
My neighbor is an anti-vaxxer, she also takes her kids to a naturalist instead of a doctor. She's also a fucking moron. Shes all super pissed she has to get her kids vaccinated to go to school because they'll get autisim or some shit. I literally can't talk to this lady for more than 5 minutes before head exploded from too much stupid
she also takes her kids to a naturalist instead of a doctor.
How is this not considered to be child abuse?
Those kids have gotten sick so many times, it's sad. When I'm in charge of my little sister for the weekend, I don't let her play with them
What absolutely blows my mind is that even if vaccines were proven 100% to have a tie to autism, how is a chance of your child being autistic worse than a chance at developing a fatal disease? Who in their right mind takes that trade?
I dunno man but anti vaxxers are also just some of the all around less intelligent people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. Like they're just dumb people all around, like lacking any common sense dumb
I've talked to some people and apparently it's not that autism isn't worse than getting a fatal disease, it's that the fatal diseases are also caused by the vaccines.
she also takes her kids to a naturalist instead of a doctor.
What? What is that!?
A naturopathic doctor is a licensed professional but instead of actual medicine they prescribe things like herbal supplements and dietary changes. They're helpful for minor ailments that are not life threatening but too many people rely on them for everything including serious conditions like cancer and just die because of ignorance. Your kid should be going to a doctor, straight up thats a fact. If you have a minor rash and creams don't help, try a naturalist, they're good at those sorts of things. If you feel like your on deaths door, go to a fucking hospital
Something something natural selection
It cant be that prevalent. Someone brings up the dreaded anti vaxxers in almost every reddit post ever
If only. Several countries in Europe too are showing sign of resurgence of diseases like measles up to 600% since before the anti-vaxxers started showing up.
I know a girl who is a nurse of all things that's an anti vaxxer. She doesn't seem to realize all her articles and doctors she's following are all people that have been deemed medical quacks and have been disbarred. All her research has been disproved by other medical professionals or research.
One of my former friends I learned is an anti-vaxxer. Whatever, its her choice but she as telling me her reasoning and she had no educated point on anything. It was all personal opinion. "I've never been vaccinated and I'm fine. Why should anyone else do it?" (Yes, her ACTUAL words). One of the many reasons she is a former friend
Well, started by an English dude who was hired by an American couple to find a link between autism and vaccines so that they could sue a vaccination company for giving their child autism.
Idiots.
The best part is when the doctor came out and said he LIED about his "findings" and everyone still believes it's TRUE. The person ADMITTED HE MADE IT ALL UP. Yet people would rather believe the made up story and put themselves, their kids and millions of others at risk.
You'd find it shocking to believe that Mississippi has a 99% vaccination rate, but Washington State has a 95% or 90% vaccination rate, mainly due to the "all natural" hippies that live mainly on the west coast (this is not meant to be political, just pointing out that sometimes the truth is contradicting) https://i.imgur.com/QLUGI9v.jpg
I was literally appalled the other day to see a commercial urging people to revaccinate for whooping cough since idiots aren't vaccinating their kids anymore and people are seeing diseases that my generation only ever heard of while playing Oregon trail.
Send help. Ugh.
The US may seem homogenized in how we’re portrayed, but much of that is consistent advertising.
My country is fortunate to have such a large land mass and population which almost entirely speaks a shared language. But there are so many subcultures, factoring ethnicity, class, and climate. Certain ones (such as Native American tribes or refugees from Sarajevo) don’t receive as much awareness as their populations would suggest.
There is plenty of rural land in the US where an entire ideological community can flourish. The Amish are one group that Anericans stereotype chiefly on their cultural separation from the popular culture.
https://www.popsci.com/measles-vaccination-rates-outbreak http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/data/en/ Blatant lie right there we are not the ones causing anti-vaccine problems.
Just because you have good vaccination rates doesn't mean someone in the country couldn't have created the whole anti-vaxxer thing
Your saying the movement is stronger here but it has had 0 affect on most people while the movement in Europe spurred a major measles outbreak. The antivaxxer movement is very small usually under 2 percent of people in the west but it’s relatively lower in America.
Yeah, tell that to Italy
Also a think in Australia, why whopping cough came back for awhile.
We do everything Bigly around here... like Yuge!
Don't we always?
Unfortunately this is spreading to my country as well.
at least we dont have gay frogs! incase you have no idea what i am talking about
it was started by an English dude, but I think US took it to a new level
This is like, everything about America.
We have those nut jobs in Canada, too, unfortunately.
We have an anti-vaxxing group in the netherlands as well, but they are very orthodox christians. So a rather small group that doesnt ever grow. So nobody cares about them not vaxxing.
Seems the American anti-vaxxer dont do it on religious grounds though (most at least).
The same thing happened with dispensationalism in the 1800s. It's kind of like when those American record companies would market less successful music to other countries, but in reverse
Sadly, we have this in in Europe too :(
The US takes everything to the next level, it's who they are
We actually have that in The Netherlands as well, mostly in the bible belt.
Unfortunately it has become extremely popular to view scientists as being less knowledgable about the fields they dedicate their lives to than is Joe Shmoe
The only people who believe in anti-vaxxing are wackadoodles that don’t speak for the rest of the country
Australia has too. I have to bite my tongue a lot.
~~US~~ social media took it to a new level.
https://www.popsci.com/measles-vaccination-rates-outbreak#page-3
Is that why the US is largely escaping outbreaks from many infectious diseases while Europe is struggling? Anti-vaccination movements are everywhere, but you're right, I guess its only in the US...
There was an article on anti vaxxing in Europe a few months ago where they pointed out which countries were the worst and I think that was Ukraine, Romania, Hungary and Italy.
But in the US vaccinate for a hell of a lot more than European countries do. MMR vaccine is not required in Germany before entering school. In the US we vaccinate for chicken pox, not in Germany.
You can ask for the vaccine (we did) but many parents to not and are passively anti-vaccine. It’s a different perspective on the same issue.
Disclaimer: I'm pro-vax
Reading the posts of the pro-vaxxers, they also seem nuts to me. But I guess extreme circumstances lead to extreme measures. In the US, everything gets pushed to another level.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The worst part is when someone makes a comment like that, and just dumps "sources" line after line. Every single one is from either Facebook or a url that begins with "vaccinetruth" or some other.
It's bad enough if someone is delusional about vaccine conspiracies, but when they start quoting other charlatans that can fool someone else for being legitimate, they're adding a new link to the chain.
there is strong evidence showing that there are vaccines (common and uncommon) which should not be trusted
Super vague statement while also providing no evidence.
The main problem with anti-vaxxers is their assessment of risk. Every action one takes has some associated risk. I'm as pro-vax as they come but I'm not pretending that vaccination carry zero risk. However, I understand that the risk of not vaccinating is much larger than the risk of vaccinating.
[deleted]
There are few things I hate more than being stuck behind someone in a queue who insists on paying for their $20 bill with a check. They take five minutes to write it, employee takes it, runs it through the machine ten times because there is so much dust in that machine that it no longer functions. UGH. If you're over 70 and reading this, please just carry cash. Come to rural Ohio, nobody is going to rob you here, and if we do, we only want parts from your tractor.
Yeah, nobody except elderly people or people paying rent use checks anymore. And people paying rent might use money orders.
I paid with checks a couple times but only because I forgot my wallet at home and had my checkbook in the car for when I had to pay rent.
Lisa needs braces.
[deleted]
Goddamn, wish I had a dental plan.
No one really does this anymore and when it is it is usually for bills which are done online now and paychecks which are direct deposit bow
For colleges it is because it brings in money from not only tickets but mech, and it brings in students who want to play for or just have a good team
Yeah Healthcare is shite
We have always been a militaristic country and every time a republican comes in charge it gets bigger and every time a Democrat gets in charge it usually stays same
Basically some people view being organized with an ID system is bad for you so basically you just use drivers license. For social security wise that was used for something very minor (forget what it was) and because it is so hard to get an ID system in America government were just like fuck it use this social security system that has literally no protections for you and have it control your entire life.
Cgp Grey has a video in it
Uhhh idk capitalism?
Yeah no idea
This is a weird thing. I have an aunt and uncle who live in a trailer home and it seems they are kinda stuck there on of their children is getting married and moving into a trailer home when in all reality they could probably rent for around the same price.
America is large. Like really really large. Basically because of that we have a fascination with cars because we need them to get around and if you don't have a car your practically can't have a job. Gas is also a lot cheaper then in Europe. Right now it is about 2.70 a gallon where I live. It is higher then usual because summer is usually more expensive.
The reason busses are thought of lower class is because they are. Our public transport is terrible, dirty, and overall bad.
You can get a state-issued ID here in the usa, but since most people drive, you can also just use a drivers license. It is intentional that it doubles as an ID, and you get it from the same place. (Department/registry of motor vehicles) They are also laid out the same way as eachother.
I assume overseas if you don't use drivers licenses, you either have a seperate ID card (which seems redundant to us) or use a passport. That is where our differences become apparent. I imagine most europeans have a passport. Seems reasonable given the size of your individual countries and how easy international transport is for you...
Here's the thing: most americans don't have a passport. You only need one if you travel to another country, and most americans never do. Our country is so big that traveling between states is often enough excitement for some people, and international travel is not cheap here. Many of us will never be able to afford it. Passports aren't cheap themselves, either.
As for social security numbers... We aren't even supposed to be using them for anything other than government related business, but use of them is so common now people just hand it over freely, thinking nothing of it. Here in the USA we are basically just numbers to organizations.
Here in the USA we are ~~basically~~ just numbers to organizations.
FTFY
What do you use for ID?
Most Americans don't have a passport unless they intend to travel abroad.
National ID cards. It's a smart card that looks like a driver's license.
That's a no no here.
People are too scared of being tracked.
Shit, there's no evidence they can handle the data they already have.
In Austria, and most of Europe, almost everybody has a passport and if you don't wan't to carry your passport everywhere you go, then you can get a personal ID that you can also use to travel through most of the EU I'm not sure about other countries but here a drivers license is also a valid form if identification. It might not be everywhere in the EU though.
Your drivers licence might be accepted but its not actually an official form of ID. I got pulled over by customs once (i am german, live in the netherlands, work in germany, had my dad's car and got pulled over by german customs/police after the border). I only had my drivers licence. It was okay that time but they reminded me that (i think its cos there is no address on it) you have to have your personal id or passport with you at all times.
I recently moved to Europe and was told the same when I got my license--you need it to drive but it's not supposed to be used as an identification.
In the UK, a drivers license has the person’s address and photo on it so it can be used as ID. We don’t have ID cards here like you guys in mainland Europe do.
Yeah I guess it's cos you don't get your drivers licence until 17/18 if at all but you are required to have ID at 16 - I guess it's also to check if you're allowed to drink beer and go to the disco. If you don't have an ID then you're not old enough for either. Also a lotof people don't have a passport because you don't need it in the EU and Switzerland only if you travel outside of that.
Wait... What's weird about cashing checks? Is that not common in other countries?
In Ireland no one is paid by cheque anymore and no one pays by it. It's only used by the elderly at this stage.
That's exactly how it is in the US, too.
Not for rent
I pay my mortgage online. I figured everybody does these days.
Eh, I got paid by check at my last job. It was a very blue collar sort of job (exterior house painting) but every two weeks boss came to the job site and handed us checks to cash.
Also pay for things like rent with check all the time!
Even my 70 year old Maw uses contactless! Cheques are practically dead in Europe.
That's pretty much how it it's here. I work retail it's only the elderly using checks. Before they were debited instantly like a debit card it was elderly and people trying to "float" a check until payday (no money in account but would be by the time the check hit hopefully). I own a check book but can't remember the last time I used it for anything.
[deleted]
I'm an aussie too. The under 25s at work had never even seen a cheque before working (we still use bank cheques in QLD for conveyancing settlements). Meanwhile when I was at high school I learnt how to write cheques and balance written ledgers in business studies.
Lol not really no..
I am in my mid 20s and I have never seen a check in real life. So I'd say they are not really common
That's so strange. I pay my landlady a check every month. Did the same with my last landlady. Got paid by check every two weeks at my first job. Graduation money from family and friends: a good chunk were checks. Friendly spotted me money for something pricey before PayPal and such had taken off? Paid him back by check.
Maybe it's a regional thing, or I just associate with weird people.
What’s wrong with respecting military service?
It's horribly frowned upon if you're sick , it's just plain sad.
I’m a 22 year old American and I actually write checks quite often. I get discounts at some stores if I pay with a check instead of using a debit card
We use drivers licences as ID in Australia. It's the standard form of ID.
We also have 6 (or 8?) sick days per year. Taking any time after those are used up either cuts into your holiday leave or you don't get paid.
Here in California it is required by law that an employer let their employee go and vote while they are still on the clock. No matter what day of the week it is.
How is the glorification of the military absurd? These people offer up their lives so that we can feel safe. I’d say that deserves far more respect than we currently give them. My sister and my brother were in the military and my boyfriend is currently in the military. Basically you sign a piece of paper saying that they can send you wherever they want, make you do whatever they want, and pay you relatively very little for it. These folks are signing their lives away. And not only that but there’s a chance that they could die on duty. Regardless of politics, it is honorable to sacrifice one’s life for their countrymen.
I have many family members that have served, but I don't get military worship. The system is just exploiting the poor with few options in life. I respect them but not the military machine if that makes sense.
First, respect the men, not the machine. Second, “exploiting the poor”? They’re not exploiting anyone. The men and women who join know the costs and risks of the job.
These folks are signing their lives away. And not only that but there’s a chance that they could die on duty.
The men and women who join know the costs and risks of the job.
If you don't think these people are being exploited then why are so many veterans with injuries or issues being swept under the rug?
I could understand the glorification if the country at least took care of the people who needed help when they came home.
I know some are helped btw. I also know a lot aren't.
I already mentioned earlier that they deserve far more respect than we currently give them. I know that a lot of veterans are neglected in this country. That’s why I said that.
Well, agree to disagree I guess.
Signing up to do a job doesn't deserve mindless respect and gratitude.
Doing a good job or being injured while doing it deserve respect.
Btw there are several other jobs that the workers are more likely to be injured and killed at work. They don't automatically get a 'thank you for your service' when people find out what job they do.
I'm going to back you up here, because I personally just send our military a thank you and be on my way. I don't really hold them up on some pedestal, but you did something for me and I'm going to thank you for it. And I don't think I'm in the majority.
As long at they actually served (i.e. did more than basic training) since a lot of hot heads go through basic and start talking about how much better they are than civilians, until they get deployed and actually earn respect, then they're typically less hot-headed, or not at all. I love our military, but man that stage of my friends irked me.
Do you actually believe that they fight to preserve your freedom? They're fighting to fill the pockets of arms manufacturers and protect American foreign interests.
The glorification of military service to honestly absurd levels
I'm guessing, people rever our military because they know in their hearts that these soldiers (I use the term loosely, as only those in the Army are technically considered a "soldier"), who have volunteered for this role, put their lives on the line for every person who lives in our country. They fight and die solely so that each American may have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, so that every American may benefit from them.
solely so that each American may have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
... uhhh huh
I didn't forget to add "to protect and uphold the Constitution"...
Gotta ask, how many vets have you talked to? I honestly can't think of more than 1 who was gung ho about America and protecting freedoms. Most I've talked to went in because of financial issues, men and women. A few went in because of the romanticism that you mention.
In fact, the people I've talked to who actually think soldiers were "honorable" in their actions and intentions are the reverent civilians who've never served. Maybe their family did, which was common back in WW2. Also, draft dodgers are bad? Why? Why would anyone be required to fight and die for something if they don't believe in it? Our society has an unhealthy preoccupation with patriotism and the military, and it's pretty much because of peri- and post WW2 propaganda.
To be 100% honest, I am a vet. My father is a vet. He and I were both about protecting the freedoms of our fellow Americans when we served. Most of my brothers & sisters in arms felt the same way as well. In fact, I still feel the same way about it. If I were asked to serve again, I'd do again with the same gusto.
Yeah, sure, there were those who joined for the free "travel" and the "free" college money. Hell, I knew those who joined to avoid jail time.
Yes, I would concur that those who believe that soldiers were honorable where those who perhaps never served. But I personally feel a sense of honor and pride when I see the new generation of soldiers. Whether that be at the airport as they come home from overseas or even on the news as they're doing their jobs. As for my thought on draft dodgers, yes, I think they're bad. I see it this way, when your country calls upon you to serve during its time of need, and you look Lady Liberty square in the face and you do all you can to avoid that call, I see that as disgraceful. Cowardice, even. Why should they fight? Even if it's something they don't believe in? Because your country needs you. Your country is counting on you. Perhaps the safety of your fellow Americans depends on you.
Perhaps it is an unhealthy preoccupation. Perhaps I'm old fashion. Perhaps. It's all about the perception of the people I guess.
nobody uses checks anymore
high school and college sports give a tribal sense, for lack of better words. feels good
yeah healthcare sucks dick
we tend to(right or wrong) police the world, to an extent. since we are doing this it is imperative that we have the best military in the world
you can get an ID card here, its just pointless as it just works as an ID and your drivers license already does that job.
yeah that part of capitalism sucks. cant do anything about it other than find another business(not all businesses have garbage rules regarding sick days and paid leave)
yeah politics as a whole is fucked. but it rarely infringes on our day to day lives so people dont riot as much as they probably should
not sure what you dont get about trailer parks. other places have slums
cars>buses especially the longer the commute, i dont have all that much experience actully living in the city though so buses might be better for within a 5 mile radius, which in america, is rare depending on where you live(anywhere not in the city)
If American s had unlimited sick days no one w would work.
I guess there is the whole step where you go to your doctor too, that isn't a thing for Americans.
They way I am used to and think of as normal, is that if you feel sick your call in to work say that you aren't feeling well and visit a doctor instead to figure out what is wrong with you. After waiting in a waiting room far too long you are seen by your doctor who tells you what is wrong with you, prescribes you something if needed and gives you a note that says you are sick and won't have to work for x days. One copy of that note goes to your employer and another goes to your health insurance. The sick time gets extended by your doctor as necessary.
You continue to be employed at full pay for the entire time you are sick and any attempt by your employer to change that will result in a lawsuit that they will lose and some very bad press.
If your sickness is long term and you end up missing more than 6 weeks of work things will get shifted around a bit, but you will still end up being paid (just not by your employer anymore).
If for some reason you get sick during your vacation, you in theory even have the right to deduct those days from that time and get them back (in practice I don't think many bother with that).
Of course cheating is still a thing, but in this set-up it involves a doctor deliberately signing a piece fo paper saying that you are too sick to work when they know you aren't, this can have very negative consequences for everyone involved.
Nobody cashes checks in America anymore either. I wouldn't say greyhounds are for the lower class, but America itself relies more on individuals having there own form of transport instead of public transport like Europe so it could be argued that greyhound is used more by the people who don't have a car but can't afford to fly. And there are some people who live and die by upholding the military to a weird amount of respect but I wouldn't say that's the majority of the nation. However I still believe it is good to have some form of respect for the people serving in our military.
I guess you haven't been to Western Nebraska then. I have seen people write checks at the bar...last year.
Haha sorry when I said nobody I didn't literally mean it. I just meant check writers are in the minority by a good amount.
I live in Denver and I never see anyone write a check here, but when I go back where I grew up in Nebraska and I see someone write a check, I am thinking don't you have a debit card?
Yeah debit is the only thing I use and occasionally a credit card. Honestly I never even carry cash on me anymore.
How much money teachers make. I'm a supply teacher in Canada and make more per day than veteran teachers in a lot of US states. Tip: more people will actually want to work in your district if you pay well
American here, My art teacher was asking for supplies like pencils, paint, etc. The school gave her $100. $100 in a school of 500+ students. Then the school turns right back around and builds a brand new basket ball court and buys 2 new football scoreboards. Like seriously?
teachers are also paid poorly
edit: thanks u/Kukri187 I remembered and fixed it
I am amazed they gave her anything. Teachers I know have to buy basically all of their materials out of pocket. Its disgusting.
I had a cooking teacher (home Rec? I believe) and they only provided her $50 to buy food for all her classes per semester. She used her own money to buy extras so we can all actually learn to cook
buys 2 new football point scorer things.
I'm not sure if you mean goalposts or people.....
edit: /u/bettazg28 , NP, It occured to me after that you probably meant scoreboard, but people seemed funnier.
Depends on where you live. A 20 year teacher with a master's will make between 80,000 and 100,000 for 180 days of work. Plus pension and full benefits.
Australian, at an Anglican school the teachers get paid borderline six digits, not too sure how public schools are paid though. Full on private school teachers get paid fortunes
My girlfriend is a teacher right now at a private school. She makes 15 an hour, plus has to pay for health insurance. She also gets no vacation or sick days. We are trying hard to get her into a public school but it's very difficult because of how competitive it is
She makes 15 an hour ...
it's very difficult because of how competitive it is
Not trying to be cheeky, but the answer is right there. That's basic economics. More competition means more supply and less demand. Prices (salaries) naturally fall. It's not meant to pick on teachers; this applies to everything in a free functioning economy.
[deleted]
Wow, if only the USA had a teacher's union...
/s
It's a lot harder to strike and get better wages when you feel the guilt of abandoning students. Other professions have a much easier time.
Ah. A unionized government monopoly. Would could go wrong?
Yeah I totally understand why it's like that. It's just that I had no idea it was THAT competitive that teachers with 8 years experience and master's degree made $15 an hour! (We just started dating)
Don't forget about negative externalities. Teachers expect it to work out and then an abundance of teachers for teachers, certifications, and policy gets in the way
People really don't like taxes in America, you have to understand. It's why teachers are low paid, and why college and health care are privatized
Pack of greedy c*nts
The whole country was founded on the principle of tax dodging. Not surprised in the least they don't like taxes, even for public medical care
That's also why we don't include the sales tax in the price of the product listed on the shelf, instead adding it at the register, so everyone sees how much the government is screwing us every single time we pull out our wallets.
Overseas, it's a nice tidy single price so you don't realize there's a 21% tax on an item, when in the US we'd be throwing that junk in the harbor while dressed up like Native Americans if someone pulled that.
I don't think this is a fair assessment. We don't like the fact that we pay (relatively) high taxes, but don't see meaningful returns from paying them - such as affordable health care, higher ed, and teacher's pay.
Americans do not care about education as a whole.
I still think teachers' salaries are way too low in Canada too.
why? a lot of canadian teachers approach or make 6 figures.
Public school teachers in Vancouver at the TOP of the scale make 80 grand a year. With a Master's, they make six or seven grand more. No one making that could afford to buy a house or even a condo in Vancouver these days.
No one making that could afford to buy a house or even a condo in Vancouver these days.
so? you don't need to buy, you can rent. it's still a decent living.
But 80 grand is not six figures as you suggested--that was my point. I used the Vancouver School District as an example to show that even in school districts that are very expensive, the top-of-scale salary is not enough. And if you wanted to live near your work place and raise a family, even the cost of renting as opposed to owning is extremely high.
Edited to say I'm not a K-12 teacher.
im not familiar with vancouver so that may be the case but i know in alberta and ontario for sure, teachers make a lot more, even in smaller towns. even when i went to school years ago, some of my teachers were making 110k
I think the average after only 10 years in both those provinces is hovering around 100k now.
Wow--really? Do you have a link to the pay scales? Here's [a link] (https://bctf.ca/uploadedfiles/SalaryGrids/SD39.pdf) to the Vancouver School Board pay scales: starting salary is fifty grand; top of the scale, just over eighty.
The average house price in Vancouver is currently 1.2 million. I sure wouldn't be going into teaching if I wanted to live in Vancouver!
Another follow up: I found this 2014 grid which shows salaries across the country, and no province has even teachers at the top of the scale earning over 100,000. The one exception is the NWT because the salaries are always high there to entice workers.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-604-x/2016001/t/tbld2.1-eng.htm
You dont think teachers should be able to buy a house in the city they teach in ?
buying a house is not a necessity... thats like saying "don't you think a part time mcdonalds employee should be able to buy a house in the city they live in". buying a house has nothing to do with the job or what they should make for the job.
A mcdonalds employee hands you fries. Teachers impart reading /writing / math skills, acceptable behavior, social mores to the next generation. It has been the bedrock of modern societies for hundreds of years and is a literal pillar of society along with government and healthcare.
But no, let the venture capitalist own a house.
A mcdonalds employee hands you fries. Teachers impart reading /writing / math skills, acceptable behavior, social mores to the next generation. It has been the bedrock of modern societies for hundreds of years and is a literal pillar of society along with government and healthcare.
But no, let the venture capitalist own a house.
Most teachers in Canada can. Teachers in Vancouver would have a much harder time.
Oh sweet summer child....
Well, if you combine the two or three jobs most American teachers work, you’d still be short of that by a significant fraction.
[deleted]
Yeah--don't get me started on the OTHER profession I think is grossly underpaid. Honestly, K - 12 teachers and nurses should be making twice what they do.
[deleted]
I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Are you saying that nurses and teachers earn twice what people with a straight BA earn?
But a Bachelor's degree in an academic subject isn't going to get you a specific job straight out of university anyway.
So if you get a BA and then follow up with a two-year teaching degree, you get a job that pays (starting salary with Vancouver School Board) about fifty grand.
If you get a BA in, say English or Philosophy, you'd likely need further vocational training or graduate school to get a job that pays much more than $20/hr. But even a BA and a $20/hr. job will earn you over forty grand a year.
I may have misunderstood your initial point though.
[deleted]
Oh--I thought you were referring to people with similar years of vocational education.
I think you can only compare teachers and nurses to others with similar years of vocational education--i.e., other professionals: for example, accountants, lawyers, engineers, doctors, etc. If you do, I think the salaries of nurses and teachers would not match.
[deleted]
But we're not talking specialists here. For a straight MD, it's a four-year BSC followed by three years of medical school. Some Canadian universities are moving to a six-year (straight from high school) MD (but that's beside the point--sorry!).
The average lawyer's salary in Canada is 115 grand. Engineers and accountants are surprisingly similar to teachers and nurses.
So maybe those assholes do get paid enough.
My strong feelings on the matter could well be that you couldn't pay me enough to be a K-12 teacher or a nurse.
[deleted]
Yeah, I think it's Queen's that has the six-year MD program. Other countries have the direct-from-high-school MD programs as well--Ireland, for example.
This article that cites Canadian Lawyer statistics to indicate that first-year associate lawyers get a bit less than what you suggest is the average lawyer's income, so something is whacky in terms of our disparate sources.
Anyway, here are the starting salaries for various professions in Canada--nurses and teachers don't do very well at all: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/financial-road-map/advmanulife/advmanulifearchives/top-20-starting-salaries/article4505934/
They provide an arguably more valuable service than your career, whatever that is.
[removed]
Yeah, in Germany, being a teacher at a high school basically can set you for life.
Teacher pay varies widely in the US. For comparable hours and job prerequisites teacher compensation isn't that bad. Especially mid-career. Some places are brutally low, though.
Especially compared to psychology and sociology, teachers do not do bad at all. Soft sciences just do not pay nearly as well as the hard sciences.
I just don't understand why they do this. Teachers are so valuable and the fact that they are willing to pay out of their pockets for the students, shows how much passion they have for their job.
How much do you make their if I may ask in the United States the average teacher pay is 59,000k which is pretty damn good if you ask me for a job with a 2 and a half month vacation
Averages are worthless when talking about incomes across the US. The COL in different parts of the US are so drastically different that hard numbers are almost meaningless.
Not a teacher but I don't think it's a full vacation. There's many meetings and class planning is done over the summer. The teacher is the one who goes in and decorates their classroom and makes the entire year's lesson plan. That all takes time also. Many teachers coach or teach summer school also.
That building is locked up tighter than Fort Knox from a week after school ending until a week before school begins, with teachers having negotiated reporting days to handle clean-up, training, and prep for only 2-4 days after the end of the last year and before the beginning of the next. Only the custodians and administrators are inside every day.
The teachers that do have to report for meetings, or teach summer school, are paid a daily wage above their annual salary.
I don't think the person is talking about "mandatory" meetings. I think they're talking about when grade levels or subject groups get together to plan and work over summer since there is not enough time during those contracted days/hours to actually get the work done.
Yes not all of it is vacationing but why would you decorate your classroom and make a new lesson plan each year every teacher I have talked to only changes shit every 3-4 years
Not a teacher but I don't think it's a full vacation. There's many meetings and class planning is done over the summer. The teacher is the one who goes in and decorates their classroom and makes the entire year's lesson plan. That all takes time also. Many teachers coach or teach summer school also.
Circumcision.
Every time I see a post regarding it there's always a huge thread where people are fighting regarding the hygiene myths.
Almost no one here is circumcised outside of religious reasons and I've yet to find a dirty dick that's dirty because of that and not because of the general hygiene of the person.
Edit: The post said "Things that are frequently brought up by Americans". I understand that it is not soley an American issue.
Also added text.
It's actually becoming a lot less common here. I work with kids and in the past year I took care of four boys who were circumcised and two who weren't. In the case of one who wasn't, his older brother was. Some time after having him his mom decided it was unnecessary and opted out of it for the next kid. I'm seeing it more and more.
opted out
It's so weird (and unethical, if you ask me) that people have to "opt out". Foreskin isn't a life-threatening condition, so why would they do it without the parents' permission in the first place?
Parent comment used "opted out" incorrectly. It's virtually always offered, but it's not like it's a default that happens automatically unless you specifically stop it.
It's common. It's certainly not mandatory.
Glad to hear that. Thanks for explaining. :)
Yeah I've never had a kid so I don't know, I'm sure it's different in different hospitals and birthing centers though.
I'm gonna be honest I don't know how it works as far as them offering it, it being expected, or whatever. I'm sure it varies with different hospitals and birthing centers. I just know it's considered the norm, but that's changing.
Definitely not opt-out when it’s happening but the culture surrounding it makes it seem like the default is circumcising and doing otherwise is actively choosing not to.
It’s even worse because that leads to mistakes where it happens against the parents will
I've only had the one kid in a hospital, but she never left us and didn't have a penis. What is going on in places where they take your newborn somewhere else? I mean, I guess C-Sections and premature babies, but if they're doing circumcisions on a premi, that's fucked up.
I’ve seen someone mention that it happened to her son on here
"Man I'm so fed up of having to wash my hair all the time"
"Hey why don't we tear all your hair out and salt your head with chemicals so it doesn't grow back?"
"Uh no, you're alright. I'll just make sure I wash it"
I will never understand the hygiene arguments. Even if they were true it's like, just wash your dick.
But then I'd have to touch a dick, and that's gay
Not if you say "no homo" in the mirror afterwards
It's only gay if the balls touch. Otherwise you're fine
You're safe if there's 2 other people there, because it's not gay if it's in a 3-way.
Dude you're a genius. We should just scalp all babies within their first year of life!
If God meant us to have hair he wouldn't have given us the means to chemically sterilise the scalp!
"Hey why don't we tear all your hair out and salt your head with chemicals so it doesn't grow back?"
As someone who shaves their head regularly: If only.
Nobody does it for hygiene man. It's because dad's want their sons to look like theirs. That's it.
That's worse, I think
Meh, not really. Isn't a good medical reason, sure. Cultural reasons are incredibly influencal and persist all over the world and are manifested everywhere. Circumsision is one such cultural norm.
It's way worse. I don't think it's acceptable anyway, but having tangible benefits makes it a little more palatable.
Saying that the vanity of the parent who wants his kid's dick to look like his (for what reason, are they going to perform as a father/son circus act or what?) is an acceptable reason is kinda revolting. It may well be a cultural norm (though it's not even a century old in the States), but it's not normal
It is by definition normal in the us. I believe the word you're looking for is natural. And it's not about there being a reason for the sons to look like the father's, there is no circus act. It's quite common and easily understandable for a parents to desire sameness of offspring, for their kids to reflect themselves. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying how it is
But it is objectively wrong though.
For example, if a man was born without ears, he could hear and had ear holes, he just didn't have ears and he never had any problems with it his entire life, and then when he had a normal son, he was like "doctor! please remove my childs ears, i would like him to look like me." no one would be ok with that. No one. Because it's not a good enough reason to mutilate your child.
Just because it's normal, doesn't mean it isn't 100% morally wrong.
I am not arguing it's morality.
Youre arguing multilation because it looks good in my opinion
Thats an order of magnitude more fucked up. What the fuck man, have mercy on your son, it's HIS dick.
Disgusting
I am not for circumcision. I never said I support it, at all.
People really have a way of jumping to conclusions based on nothing.
Morality isn't objective. All you are doing is claiming your morals are absolute truth when obviously they arent.
Edit: Downvote me all you like. The fact that we are even having this discussion only supports my point. Pushing your ideology and morality on others and making the assertion that yours is the "right one" is ridiculously hypocritical of everything you just said.
Very "American" thing to do.
You have the right idea but backward execution. In this case someone is pushing circumcision onto a newborn when they can not consent. To overrule someone's right to body autonomy, medical necessity must be shown. If there is no medical necessity then the decision goes to the patient when he is able to make his own informed choice.
If an adult chooses a circumcision for himself there's no issue, he is free to decide for himself.
Ethicist Brian Earp discusses the problems of using your personal values and preferences to decide on someone else’s circumcision. I recommend watching the whole video, it's well thought out and you might like it.
I'm not defending circumcision. I am against circumcision. But that is my personal moral philosophy and isn't objective truth.
But that doesn't mean I cannot defend or justify my moral compass. It just means that there isn't some mythical guiding force that determines "right" and "wrong".
People can rationalize, justify, defend, and argue "right" and "wrong"; "good" and "evil". That doesn't mean you can ever justify why they are the universal truth as defined by the guiding laws of the universe.
Ethics and mathmatics are not on the same tier of objectivity. Everyone's moral compass is different. It just so happens that utilitarian and outcome-driven morality is popular these days. That doesn't mean it is the universal truth.
That was my one and only point. Interesting video by the way.
I think you can make a pretty good argument that cutting off parts of other people's genitals is morally wrong. This isn't a discussion about truth of the stars, bring it back to the topic at hand.
If your moral compass says one thing, that's fine for you. You are free to get a circumcision. But as you said your moral compass is not others, and literally forcing ideology, i.e. circumcision, on to someone else is "ridiculously hypocritical of everything you just said."
This isn't a discussion about truth of the stars, bring it back to the topic at hand.
Other people claimed that morality is an objective truth. Not me.
You are free to get a circumcision.
I straight up said I'm not in favor of circumcision.
Susim-the-Housecat claimed morality is objective. I stated that it wasn't. That was my one and only point.
You can talk to other people about what other people said.
The whole point of saying that you can get a circumcision for yourself is that you can apply your moral compass to your own body, not to other people's body.
Honestly I don't care about your one and only point anymore. Don't cut anyone else's genitals.
While we're at it in this thread, comments like these are another Americanism that seems to be extremely prevalent online lately. Bold confident assertions that are completely wild and crazy. Just really strange beliefs that are otherwise settled issues internationally, but Americans seem so certain of. You see it a lot with Trump supporters, but it's all over the place politically and socially in the US. It's as though changing your mind or not being certain about something is worse than death.
comments like these are another Americanism that seems to be extremely prevalent online lately.
That morality isn't an objective concept and not everyone shares the same morals? I didn't realize not being a moral-centrist was an "Americanism".
Bold confident assertions that are completely wild and crazy.
Last I checked, not everyone shares the same moral compass, culuturally or invidually. Not exactly a "wild and crazy concept".
t's as though changing your mind or not being certain about something is worse than death.
And yet here you are pushing your moral compass on me as if it is the absolute truth. Ironic.
Your moral compass is not the same as mine. Americans' are not the same as Europeans'. Eastern Asians' are not the same as South Africans'. Central Americans' are not the same as every country in South America.
To make the asinine assertion that morality is an objective existence that is shared by all is ludicrous. Know let me ask you. Whose morality is the "right" one? Let me guess, "Western" values? How convienient.
Pushing your ideology and morality on others and making the assertion that yours is the "right one" is ridiculously hypocritical of everything you just said. I hope you realize that
Why exactly is your morality better than mine? Why is European morality better than East Asian? Why is Japanese morality better than Chinese? Why is American morality better than Central American?
Who's right and where is your evidence? Please, support your case. What is your evidence that morality is objective? The Bible?
The question of moral relativism is a settled matter in philosophy. Search for it on the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, its not necessary to discuss it further here.
You're sort of proving my point further with the above comment.
The question of moral relativism is a settled matter in philosophy.
Not even close to being true.
Provide hard evidence for your case. A half-baked thought experiement by a handful of people is not evidence. For every source arguing it is objective, I can find two that argue the opposite.
You're sort of proving my point further with the above comment.
You have not even made one solid arguement. Instead you keep throwing out hypocritical concepts.
Do you have any idea how many atrocities have been commited due to moral absolutism? Everyone seems to have the right answer. How convinient.
Every war criminal and despot in history believed that their morality was absolute truth.
You're a case study in the failed education system of the US if you think for every source of information there is an equally valid counter source, or "alternative facts" as you may call them. I've referred you to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on "moral relativism", it provides an excellent overview of the topic.
if you think for every source of information there is an equally valid counter source
You haven't provided a single valid source. Saying "go look on the Standford encyclopedia" is no better than saying "Google it".
Also, FYI, I don't know if you realize this or not, but the Standford Encyclopedia is full of disussion papers not actually proving anything. They are making arguement and discussion.
I can find Standford papers arguing against objective morality too you know.
I've referred you to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on "moral relativism", it provides an excellent overview of the topic.
You've made the absolutely absurd claim that one of the greatest debates in the history of philosophy, one that is still hotly debated today, has been "settled" and have provided no evidence to support such.
Now who is presenting "alternative facts"?
Please go to /r/philosophy/ and claim that this debate has been settled. See how that works out for you.
Social norms can change quickly. This shows circumcision rate is 58.3% in 2010 for newborns. That's quite a while ago now and I think it has changed quickly with internet access to information. How do you know at birth who will want to be circumcised later in life? And there's the obvious logic that a patient left intact can choose to be either intact or circumcised according to his values, but someone circumcised at birth can not choose to have his foreskin back. There is an important disparity in actions he can choose as an adult. Because circumcision is not medically necessary the decision goes to the patient when he is able.
I agree, I do not support circumcision. Never said I did.
This was to address the idea that 'cultural norm' is a legitimate reason (and yes you insinuated that it is).
Imo medical surgeries need medical necessity. Doubly so when we're talking about someone else's most personal and private body parts.
It is a legitimate reason. That's WHY it's done. this by definition makes it a legitimate reason. this is NOT to say it's JUSTIFIED.
So again, my first reply addressed your argument that 'cultural norm' is not a legitimate reason.
If you'd like to debate you have to give an argument.
Argue for what? It's a semantic disagreement. I'm saying that it's a legitimate reason because it is quite literally the reason why people do it. You say legitimate to mean morally justifiable
Looks like we're both misusing it. "conforming to the law or to rules."
Good post. Well written. I agree with it. I don't get why people are down-voting this. It's definitely a cultural reason as I know atheists that have gotten their kids circumcised so "they don't get made fun of". Down votes are supposed to hide shitty comments, not opinions that you don't gel with.
Permanently changing your child's body because of a temporary problem is not okay.
Did we say it was? Ya'll are reading between the lines...
I know atheists that have gotten their kids circumcised so "they don't get made fun of"
I'm literally replying to a line in your post. That isn't reading between anything.
Yea, but how in that context, did that make you think that I was pro-circumcision? Or maybe you aren't and you are just stating your opinion. Just weird man lol
I didn't think you were, I was replying to the terrible logic that bullying is an okay reason for circumcision.
Gotchya. I agree. Hard to tell that in the comment chain, but that was my bad. So now you have to start telling us about these cats...
Yup, I don't mind tho nor am I surprised. Reddit hates circumcision. I didn't even say it was justified lmao, just why it is so popular
Here on Reddit, when someone says a fact, we all believe that that person agrees with that fact
Both my boys are circumcised, and so is my husband, though that isn't the entire reason we decided to do it. We aren't old, but when we were born, it still very much the norm to do so. We grew up hearing about the health benefits and even when we learned human anatomy and such, the pictures they show of a penis was always a circumcised one. So, when we had our boys, the doctor asked us if we wanted to do it. We asked if most people do, he said 'yes'. We had considered not doing it, but, honestly, neither of us has ever seen an uncircumcised penis and we had no idea if we had to do any special cleaning or anything (some people say you do, some say you don't) our mothers kept talking about the health benefits to doing it (some of which are bogus), but in the end, it was just easier to do it.
[deleted]
This is a very nuanced and thought-out post that contributed a lot to this conversation, thank you.
Was easier to do something than just not to?
I love that you share your experience and everyone instantly downvotes you. I think you had a very typical experience and your story shows exactly how this culture continues. The anti-circumcision people on Reddit are just about as annoying as anti-abortionists.
Not enough Redditors understand (or care) about Reddiquette.
Sadly true
Only in America.
Yes, correct. That's the culture I'm talking about in this post
Yeah, I don't understand your downvotes. You make a valid point.
It's super easy to explain this too..
Dad, Why's your dick look different than mine?
Well son, back when I was your age they used to chop off the end of your dick.
SHOCKED AND TERRIFIED LOOK
But don't worry son, we don't do that anymore.
You're so right. My mom pushed and pushed to get my son circumcised because he would want to look like his dad. I did tons of research. But research aside, I couldn't imagine tearing a piece of a body part off of my new baby. That's what made me do my research. Whoever puts their baby through that just so they fit in culturally is silly.
This is kinda funny to me. My father was circumsized, cause he was a jew.. Not once in my life did I think "damn I wish my dick looked more like my father's" :D
Oh good! Makes me feel better. I seriously think sometimes when he gets older he will be upset that we decided NOT to circumcise!
But that would be fine, because there's nothing stopping him getting it done if he wants to. But if it were the other way round, he'd be screwed; stuck with a body he doesn't like for his entire life. You gave him a choice, and I can't imagine anyone being mad about that.
Let me put it this way, without trying to be an asshole lol. But how often do you anticipate your son even seeing your husband's dick?
Never thought about it really. I found it odd that that was her ONLY argument.
You guys are so prude.
I've take showers before or after my dad and we happend to be naked at the same time in the same room.
There was no weird thing, no awkwardness, just waiting for the shower.
That's just not a reasonable thing to be upset over.
He might feel that way in his teens, and then get over it and be glad you never did it.
I felt that way a bit when I was younger, although really I was pissed at US society for making mutilation so commonplace that I had to feel like the weird one.
Right? My dad is also circumcised because that was the norm then here as well, I was aware what circumcision was from an early age and how he had it and not me and not once did I think "Maaaaan, why isn't my dick like my daddy's?"
I am a man. Never in my life have I compared my dick to my fathers. If that was true then start by shaving the childs head or painting it grey. And do some hair implants on the chest. Those are the body parts you actually look at 99% of the time you see your dad
My friends mum had him and his brother circumcised just because she found it more attractive. Silly cow.
Why was she concerned about the appearance of her offsprings’ genitalia?? She won’t be looking at then after they’re potty trained (i hope).
this is bad. I am thinking about a father trying to convince a doctor his 1yo daughter needs implants...
Not me. I’m cut. My wife and and I decided not to put our baby son through that
I'm personally glad i got it done instead of having weird anteater dick lol. But i know there are good reasons to leave it natural
The problem here is that circumcised dicks are the weird ones. The rest of the planet has their natural dicks. Don't get me wrong, I'm circumcised and have no issue with it but uncircumcised only looks weird because you grew up circumcised.
That's... just how they look (unless the foreskin is pulled back). I don't get why people think it's weird. Do amputees think non-amputees look gross with all their digits?
Me too lol but we're not allowed to say that or else reddit will lynch us
I think Reddit has a solid reason for standing against genital mutilation. Removing the foreskin reduces sensitivity and pleasure, plus the reason isn't even religious!
Circumcision was proposed to as a solution to boys from masturbating and removing the clitoris was suggested for girls. I'm sure the vast majority of people in America think removing the clitoris in babies is cruel and inhumane. However, because we've been mutilating male genitals for years, we view it as normal.
yep totally agree. still happy it was done to me tho, personally.
Just chiming in to say I've read all your comments and agree with your message, even if it's been misconstrued by a large number of people here.
I also disagree with the decision being made at birth, and feel there is no solid reason to circumcise your child.
Having said that, I'm also glad I was circumcised, as I prefer the aesthetic. I don't think that's wrong. Reddit tends to go way overboard on this topic.
very true! thanks for being reasonable and actually reading the words i write
In all fairness people might be less likely to it if we just stopped calling it circumcision and started calling it dick cutting too.
Person 1: "So you gonna get your kid a dick cutting?"
Person 2: "Yeah, I was but now that you mention it that does sound like a bad idea."
Well, it's called genital mutilation for females, so why not for males too?
I think the best way to refer to it (that isn't biased one way or the other) is as a cosmetic body mod. You don't go performing body mods on children (because that's just fucked up), but adults should be free to get whatever mod they want. Just like circumcision.
I know that sounds good and all, but you'd better believe that if this was commonplace, a MASSIVE portion of the population would be advocating for making Male Circumcision illegal, for the same reasons why a massive portion of the population scream that everyone should be mandated to give their children vaccines, even if the core reasons are massively different.
People, regardless of race, nationality, or religion, don't like it when a significant amount of the population stands out in a way they don't personally agree with or understand.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
Did you just compare vaccinating children to getting a child's genitals mutilated? What?
It's actually marginally true that circumcised men have a lower chance of carrying STDs than uncircumcised men (though IIRC, the gap is similar to the gap between men and women), but this is hardly surprising given that they have less to infect. Presumably, castrated men have even lower STD rates, but somehow I don't see that catching on
And eunuchs have even less chance of STD’s.
Actually a castrated man with sexual arousal (and assuming it doesn’t negatively impact his ability to find willing sexual partners) would probably be more likely to engage primarily in anal sex resulting in a higher rate of stds
People bring up UTI rates how foreskin almost doubles the rates, but neglect to mention that UTI rates in men are essentially zero; double essentially zero is still essentially zero.
As a cut American, I really wish I wasn't.
I didn't even know what it (circumcision) was until late middle school/early high school, I just figured everyone was, and that was learned from a sex ed class. I just don't get it. If I ever have a son he will be a whole person, free of genital mutilation.
I'm not a man, but I imagine washing your dick just masturbating with soap which sounds awesome. How could anyone have a dirty dick when a clean dick is just an orgasm away?
No!! Don’t use soap to masturbate. I’m sure all men on reddit can attest to this, bad idea. But yeah, clean your dick thoroughly with soap, rinse, then masturbate.
I mean, don't put it way down in your Urethra... what the fuck are you doing with soap that it's a problem for your dick?
[deleted]
In the days of lice it probably made sense. These days though, we have shampoo. Similarly, just wash your dick though
I never got this either, and then lived in a town with a hippie commune for a while. Female friends of mine said that they encountered smells around dirty uncircumcised dicks which would make Satan himself gag. Still just a matter of taking care of yourself but I guess the risk of poor hygiene being magnified is at least somewhat valid
Wouldn't do it to my kid, for the record
Actually, there are some health arguments, you can listen to this episode of the podcast Science vs
There are no health arguments aside from pressing medical need that justify mutilating a baby's genitals. A lot of the evidence that it results in lower rates of particular cancers, for instance, may not actually be particularly compelling but even if it were, get it done when you're 18 and it's a choice.
Almost nowhere outside the US is this considered a normal practice, and the places where it is it's usually religious.
[deleted]
You need really special drugs to keep the penis from bursting due to getting hard for like 3 months
Not sure where you got that from but i've got my foreskin removed when i was 19.
After the surgery that thing was basically "healed" after a week. It still caused little pain (especially because i was still extremely sensitive) every now and then until it really fully healed but that only took like 2-3 weeks.
I was allowed to masturbate/have sex after 3 weeks. Although i've waited 2 more weeks just to be safe.
Not even sure what you mean with "penis bursting" lol.
That’s bullshit.
My mate had a circumcision as an adult, medically required.
His lusty lady wanted him in the sack after just 3 weeks.
NHS who like to be cautious suggest abstentions for 4 weeks.
Where the fuck did you get told you need drugs to stop your dick exploding?! Sounds like you been speaking to a cultist fella.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/#recovering-after-male-circumcision
Poor Carl. Seeing it happen to him on Shameless was painful.
Actually it's a completely different operation when you're old enough to get an erection. You need really special drugs to keep the penis from bursting due to getting hard for like a month
This is total nonsense. Absolute 100% horseshit. However told you this was making it up, or pushing an agenda.
They just wrap it up in a sturdy surgical wrap and tell you not to have sex for a while. The worst you're gonna do is tear the stitches.
It's what I read on a website that I now can't find anymore when I was looking to get the procedure done. I hate that.. I know I read about it, I know for a fact what they said but I must've gotten lied to. I remember being terrified and deciding I just wasn't going to have it done.
IIRC correctly they discuss UTIs and HIV.
“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And they can easily be treated through standard antibiotics if and when there's an issue.
“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” Also circumcision is not effective prevention. Condoms must be used regardless.
Again iirc they were lacking information regarding sensitivity. We know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. This diagram was from a study measuring sensitivity on multiple points of the penis. The full study here. If they referenced studies that said 'no effect', commonly those are surveys on 'do you enjoy sex' often on men that had issues (thus needed a circumcision) so if you fix the issue of course they will like it. They're "poor quality questionnaires".
This is beside the obvious ethical consideration that medical surgeries need medical necessity. If the surgery isn't necessary then the decision goes to the patient to make their own informed choice when he's able.
I think I've been misunderstood... I'm against circumcision (I'm intact myself and happy to be) but I was thinking that was interesting...
In the episode, they say that it's good for STI, when there is a high level of risk and I think that's almost all.
In Denmark there's actually a political petition to make circumcision on young boys, for non-medical reasons, illegal and classified as abuse.
I know nothing of Danish politics - would this affect the Jewish or other religious circumcisions? Is there some religious observance protection/clause?
well,the general understanding is that the petition has been put forward in an effort to stop religious circumcision, as religion seems to be the only reason people do it here. It's really not something that's done in DK, unless there's a medical issue,or you're either Jewish or Muslim.
I personally find it really odd that it's a normal and somewhat expected practice in USA.
"If you don't like the rules,don't come here " is fast becoming a common thought
Understandable, thank you for a genuine response!
That's happening in a few places in Europe. Wonder why...
[deleted]
I think that's what they were implying...
Dunno, seemed like they was trying to make it seem like it was something else
Because there are people moving in to our countries that do that shit. It wasn't a problem before.
[deleted]
It's weird because it's infant genital surgery. Imagine doing surgery to a newborn girls vagina for the purpose of "it looks better" when they're an adult. You'd be looked at as a crazy person.
I'm uncircumcised and outside of hearing the elephant trunk jokes, it's never caused me problems. My wife is cool with it, every GF I've ever had was cool with it.
[deleted]
I’m not religious, but god bless you none the less. For fighting the good fight.
[deleted]
Then on a slightly unrelated note; It’s perfectly fine to not want to have kids. Screw weirdos that say differently.
[deleted]
Thank you on behalf of your hypothetical future son!
[deleted]
[deleted]
well maybe it should be a little higher on that list because ive seen it happen in two separate grades. its really hard to become comfortable with your body at that age and if you have a group of 10 kids on the first day of gym class all making fun of your dick when you never even realized it was different until that point and you literally cant do anything about it, its going to leave a lasting effect on your body-image and self esteem. My buddy went through this and of course you know kids draw dicks on literally everything in middle school every day, well they would only draw uncircumcised dicks on his binders and shit so everybody knew he had an elephant trunk too. its up to you. you could get really lucky and just have a kid that isnt affected by that at all.
God damn what school did you go to? If anyone saw each other's dicks at any of the schools I went to the first question would be "Why you looking?" Not "was he circumcised?"
kids on the first day of gym class all making fun of your dick when you never even realized it was different until that point and you literally cant do anything about it
Literally nothing he can do about it? I mean at that point the kid can choose to be circumcised. That way you're not forcing genital surgery on an infant without their consent, they instead choose it for themselves.
At my school in NZ there were a few jokes thrown at the one kid who admitted he was circumcised, in which case there literally was nothing he could do about it. I bet he wished he was given the choice; which of our two scenarios would you rather be in?
In the spirit of this thread, is being naked in front of your classmates common in the US?
That is the definition of a subjective opinion. As far as bullying goes, kids are going to bully other kids regardless. It’s not justification to permanently surgically alter another human being without their consent.
you better hope his extra skin is able to shield him from the completely avoidable extra bullying then ...
None of my childhood friends were ever naked in front of me, and I was never naked in front of them.
I think if someone made fun of my penis, the general response would be "why are you looking at his penis"
Also, your solution to bullying is to mutilate your child's genitalia preemptively? Ridiculous
"Completely avoidable" is nonsense. If it's not his dick, it'll be something else he gets bullied for. I don't think you understand the nature of bullying.
And I'll reiterate - violating your own child's bodily autonomy in an attempt to "avoid bullying" is insane.
I disagree.
For men to get federal school aid in the US requires you to join the selective service, which is the inactive US military draft. IIRC the military mandates circumcision.
FGM is a huge thing and has many campaigns against it. Why not circumcision? That's what I think. It's cruel to any baby!
It has nothing to do with hygiene? People only do it because "it looks better"?
It was previously thought to be more hygienic but the studies done were super dubious. They studied uncut folks in developing nations with limited access to clean water and "normal" hygiene practices and compared their cleanliness. It wasn't necessarily the foreskin causing problems it was the lack of basic hygiene.
If you're circumcised or uncircumcised you should be washing your dick/balls with warm soapy water every damn day in a shower. For uncut folks just pull back the skin and wash.
There are studies that say intact penis is more prone to UTI and infections. But apparently, they gave parents incorrect information and told them to try to retract and clean under the foreskin of the infant penises. In reality, you're supposed to wipe it like a finger until it separates in its own.
Oh, and now people pro-RIC (routine infant circumcision) are saying it also decreases the chance of getting HIV. But in a first world country, you can just take Prep in order to prevent it, if you're one of the at risk groups.
It’s unbelievable isn’t it.. people thinking about how a baby’s penis looks??
Americans do it because Jewish doctors advise them yo do it. This way Jews can blend in into the society.
The vast majority of Americas don't care either way.
yes both of the continents don't care
You'd be like damn, what happened to the poor guy's dick?
I totally relate to that. I'm not American and didn't know anything about circumcision, so the first time I watched porn I was definitely weirded out
If I remember right that was something that essentially happened in one of the sequels to the novel 2001 a space oddyssey. The dude from the first one is way in the future where circumcision is now illegal and he gets with some chick, they go to do the deed and she is all, get this illegal dick away from me!
3001, or "Arthur Clarke's wonderful vision of the future"
I haven't thought about that book in years, but I really liked it even though it was so different from the first three
I started it when I was a kid and this was before I understood you needed to read the prior books first. I thought the movie was gonna be enough. Nope . I stopped about a quarter of the way through. Benn meaning to read them all just never got to it.
Haha the movie isn't enough AT ALL... it's a great movie, like objectively, but it is not great at explaining the why... If you have time I thoroughly recommend reading the whole series, it's one of my favorite series ever only eclipsed by Foundation
Oh I do plan on it. I feel like it is pretty unique as I am pretty sure the book and the screenplay were made alongside each other.
They were! Clarke explained everything, everything, in the book, and Kubrick showed all of the visuals with little explanation or backstory.
"get this illegal dick away from me" lol
I don't think there's really a logical case to be made for it, it's mostly just people who've had it done or have had it normalized trying to defend it as a reasonable thing to do.
I had mine done when I was around 6ish because my foreskin was too tight. 0/10 would not recommend. It was the worst pain ever. I can still remember having to build a blanket fort around my dick so I wasn’t too cold but I couldn’t let anything touch it because of the pain.
Aside from an actual problem I can’t see any reason someone would want to subject a baby to that pain. The only good thing is a baby is so young they don’t remember it and end up with the memories I have.
Navy did it to a friend of mine. Was just one less thing for the dr to worry about on the ship so gave them a local and boop. No change in sensations or anything so not a big deal either way.
I had only been with circumsized men until my last ex. Now, I kind of prefer uncircumcised; they’re funner to play around with and they look like they have a turtleneck. It’s cute.
Imo I think it's the women who have an aestetic preference for circumcised dicks. Which in turn makes it a male preference if most girls think uncircumcised is wierd. Feedback loop of culture.
Imo I think it’s the women (in the USA) who have an aestetic preference for circumcised dicks.
Not the case in basically the rest of the world.
And of the handful of American women I've had an encounter with, none had any preference for cut vs uncut. I understand that that is anecdotal.
Yea just throwing it out there. I've heard women have conversations about it and they literal cringe and say uncircumcised dicks look wierd .
Chiming in from the American side here. I think that another large issue with this is that while hygiene may not be as large an issue as it was made out to be, un-circumcized penises do require some additional care - drying them properly, for example. This is less of an issue with circumcision. This means that, in one scenario, a parent will have to have an awkward conversation with their child about their dirty sinful sexual organs and how to keep the shame from building up under the foreskin. The other scenario, they can pretend that their children won't use their dick for evil, and not have to have that conversation.
And if the choice is between "having a healthy conversation about your natural body with your kids" vs. "bottling it up and expecting them to figure it out on their own because you aren't talking about that shit" - they're going to go with the latter.
I'm not excusing or defending, just providing some perspective. I imagine that this is rooted just as much in our weird sexual hangups as it is in anything related to hygiene.
Just show them that they have to wash there too? If that's weird for a person to do to their child maybe they shouldn't have one? Are we going to stop changing their diapers too because we're too close to the sexual asshole?
I think you're misunderstanding my comment. I'm not offering this as a defense or excuse. I'm explaining another contributing factor to why it's done so much in America.
I agree, just have the fucking conversation with your kid. But Americans have weird hangups about these things.
un-circumcized penises do require some additional care - drying them properly, for example
This confuses me as an owner of an uncircumcised penis.
Can you elaborate what you mean with this?
The foreskin or the head underneath do not get dried separately or in any kind of special way.
I'm sorry you're being downvoted for this comment. If I understand correctly, you're not defending circumcision, just explaining the mindset of people who choose to do it to their sons, yes?
Yep, exactly. :)
[deleted]
Piercing baby girls' ears is also something I disagree with and certainly doesn't 'look better'. Goddamn.
[deleted]
No no. Sometimes people pierce baby ears when they're like, not even able to stand. It's pretty creepy until they at least get some hair on their head.
let's ram a needle through the flesh of my baby girl, because it'll look so cute, who cares about the pain she'll endure
What the fuck is wrong with these parents, straight up fuck in the head.
[deleted]
Yes, it's completely dumb.
Would you tattoo a sleeve tattoo on your daughter's arm because it looks better in your opinion?
Would you give your son a younger piecing because it looks better?
Fucked in the head mate, that's what you are.
Okay, maybe you think it looks better. That’s absolutely your preference and you’re allowed to have it. But you can’t force your sexual preferences on infants. It has no medical benefits and is a cosmetic surgery that parents can (but shouldn’t be allowed to) choose for their infants. If the child thinks their penis would look more appealing I’m 100% in support of that person making that decision for themselves when they are of legal age to undergo cosmetic surgery.
In my limited experience, I have never met a man that was mad that their parents left their bodies intact.
[deleted]
Let's just say that if we choose to do something to our own body because we think it looks good, then that's fine. I might think a face tattoo is a good idea for me, but I would never make that decision for someone else.
With all the comments this person is posting it just seems like they are rationalising the circumsision of their child. They wont admit they abused their child so they'll argue in circles.
I was under the impression that you were defending circumcision by equating that decision it to a parent’s decision making process when it comes to a haircut or something trivial and non permanent.
Circumcision is the only legal way for a parent to force their sexual preferences on their child. Any other surgery is considered highly illegal for both the parents and doctors.
I understand that people have the ability to perform circumcisions on others, but I don’t think a parent saying ‘I like the way it looks’ is a sound logical argument that should be the basis for an non reversible cosmetic surgery (that has negative consequences and no strong positive ones). I completely understand that in some countries a parent can use the logic ‘I like the way it looks’ to justify their decisions regarding circumcision. I was simply trying to imply that just because you’re using logic doesn’t automatically mean that it is sound logic for this specific situation.
I believe that a parent can cut their child’s hair until the child is old enough to express how they would like to look, but cutting a child’s hair is not a permanent decision that changes that child’s body forever.
You can say ‘I like the way amputees look’ and use that logic to cut off your child’s arm, but you would go to jail because many, many other people have established that is not sound logic to warrant the action.
Hair grows back, and it's my hair that I'm having cut.
Foreskin does not grow back, and a baby can't give consent. And even if I did think that it looked better, that would be my opinion, one that my hypothetical son might not agree with.
Piercing babies is wrong for the same reason.
To get federal school aid in the US requires you to join the selective service, which is the inactive US military draft. IIRC the military mandates circumcision.
All men have to register for selective service when they turn 18. Full stop.
The military does not mandate circumcision.
Not at all true
Here circumcision is something only Jews do, because of religious stuff. Or people born with fimosis. That's it. I don't get the rest.
Being gay, it took me a long time to understand the "uncut" category in porn.
I assumed it was the extended directors version.
A+.
fun fact...it has been shown that being circumcised leads to a 50% reduction in your chance of contracting HIV and 30% reduction in chance of contracting HPV/Herpes but these numbers are for heterosexual males and they don't have any good studies for gay males.
edit: apparently people don't like it when you cite statistics from scientific studies
I'm not saying the baseline risk is enough to merit circumcision to try and lower it, but you can't deny that the results exist.
That's the relative risk which sounds impressive. To put the same data to show the absolute risk: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” Also circumcision is not effective prevention. Condoms must be used regardless.
And HPV is better addressed by the HPV vaccine.
if you are going to cite statistics you should source them.
Well yeah because the mucous membrane of the gland turns into plain good ol skin because of friction. You also loose sensitive, potentially taking longer to finish.
I've yet to find a dirty dick that's dirty because of that and not because of the general hygiene of the person.
I'm curious as to what type of employment you...hold.
Top secret dick inspector.
Is most of your work done undercovers?
I mean... they could just be a woman/gay dude
Sex Worker or Doctor is the hottest new drinking game.
Eh?
This is one of the things mentionned here that I think a lot of people from the US haven't realized isn't normal. Like most Americans are tired of hearing about how cheap healthcare is everywhere else and how crazy it is that everyone owns a gun, but for real...
Circumcision isn't a normal thing anywhere else, it's not even discussed as a serious point of debate, yet every time it'S brought up on reddit people discuss it as if it was normal. It's not, weirdos.
I heard that once upon a time it was a hygiene thing but since most people have access to things like running water and soap nowadays people can just wash their dicks.
Breast cancer affects 1 in 8 but we don’t cut off one breast to halve our chances. Penile cancer is rare but preventing penile cancer seems to always come up as a justification for this ridiculous ~~cultural practice~~ mutilation.
Personally I don't really care about it. I don't think it's weird to be uncircumcised, but I don't feel like I've been mutilated because I am circumcised. Sex still feels great. That being said, if/when I have kids, I won't do that to them because I don't really see a point.
The interesting thing is, if you were circumcised as kid, you can never know if sex would feel way better uncircumcised :)
Truth, I'll never know otherwise, so I don't fret over it
Yeah, not like things don't work. Though in the case of potentially having children in the future, I'll definitely have to do some research in order to make an educated decision with their best interests in mind. Actual research, not like anti vax "research".
Except for adults who get circumcised for medical reasons. I've seen some that have said it didn't change at all. That's kinda anecdotal, but it'd be hard to do a controlled study on that haha
The foreskin softly covers all those pleasurable nerve endings keeping them nice and sensitive. Remove the foreskin and the constant touching of rougher surface, mostly material, toughen up the nerve endings making them less sensitive. I'd go with uncircumsized dicks have more fun.
I'm very tired and I read that last sentence as "uncircumcised ducks" and was so confused.
It’s also required in some religions, so then it becomes a religious issue as well.
In what religion is it required?
Judaism and Islam. Some sects of Christianity.
Judaism requires male circumcision. Muslim men also tend to get circumcised, even though it's in the hadith not the Koran itself. Some Christian denominations also require it. Laws prohibiting male circumcision under consideration in Iceland and Denmark are antisemitic.
CC /u/Sockbum Circumcision is a religious obligation.
are you not aware why circumcision is a thing at all?
No I'm only familiar with one sect Christianty and its views on circumcision. Obviously recommended but not "required" by any means.
as an uncircumcised American, I don't understand it either. it seems like more Americans are moving away from it though. I think these days it's more of a "uncircumcised dicks look weird" thing than it is cleanliness.
[deleted]
lol you ain't lyin
"Normal" is subjective. Because most men in the US are circumcised, that is our normal.
I'm pretty sure by normal they mean the default human state.
to me, a circumcised dick looks weird, i mean, the way the skin sometimes colors.
They also act as if slicing the foreskin off a baby is somehow not an act of genital mutilation and normal? If I did the same to a baby girl's labia it would be a cruel and savage act.. Oh but it's acceptable to do the equivalent to a baby boy?!
[deleted]
Actually, it's more like he's saying "I can't hit a girl, so a girl shouldn't be allowed to hit me". He's advocating for infant circumcision to stop, not for labia cutting to start.
There's no correlation between my statement and yours. I know my comment is difficult for you to comprehend. All that burger fat your redneck hillbilly ass has been chopping on over the years has clearly clogged up your little brain. I'm sorry your parents sliced off your foreskin. Those obese fuckers probably needed it for topping on a pizza pie. YeeHaa! XD
Honestly, I’m an American who was raised only slightly religious (Catholic), and I’m circumcised. I honestly have no idea why though? (I don’t plan on asking either.)
Male Genital Mutilation. Call it what it is.
I think it should be illegal to ok or perform a permanent modification to your child’s body for anything but medical emergencies. This extends to earrings IMO. Most parents pierce their kids with piercing guns and piercing guns can’t be sterilized. They then put gold jewelry in and gold jewelry slows down healing. It’s just a slight pinch, there’s no way she’s not going to be able to get through that as a teen/adult. But if you piece her without her consent when she’s still an infant she won’t be able to get rid of the scars if she decides not to wear earrings. They’re small, but they’re still in a pretty visible place.
Is it common to pierce baby girls' ears in the US?
My sister got her ears pierced at 2. She almost immediately ripped one out ripping her ear lobe. Even now as an adult you can see a slit split In her ear.
Extremely, unfortunately.
I was 12 the first time I saw an uncircumcised penis, and it took me at least another 5 years to figure out what was "wrong" with it.
When I asked my parents about it in my late-20s, I was told it was just what you did with newborn boys, it was expected and pretty much automatic. (I have no children of my own)
I think the whole hygiene thing is a front to make people feel better about the fact that their genitals were mutilated without their consent at birth.
I guarantee that most, if not all proponents of circumsion are men who are cut themselves. Gotta defend that because they can't accept their dicks were mutilated for no reason.
This is precicely why cultural change is hard, the older generation have to accept they were wrong, and in this case it’s an extremely personal thing to have been wrong about. Men are very defensive about their dicks.
Yep. Have never had an circumcised man. All uncircumcised. All clean and hygienic. No problems at all.
People actually defending it too... poor dicks look like they've got roadrashes. Foreskin is so silky smooth and nice... and not dirty. When people take up the hygiene it only tells me more about them.
It’s mutilation. I’ve had 6 doctors suggest circumcision after my son was born. Refused angrily every time.
Utterly disgusting practise. But like most of America... You just do it and don't question convention.
I don't understand it at all either. It's just not a thing where I live, it's mutilating a baby's body part. It's just weird.
It was basically used as a theory to stop masturbation..... Don't think it worked.
It was actually started by the Kelloggs guy
Yes the guy who made cereal
Born in Europe, not chopped, and I have never had this problem besides when I was 8ish years old and thought it was smart to not wash for a week. My dick was fuckin gross as hell, but that is 100% entirely due to 0 washing of said dick. It's like the entire country has decided they've made a grave error, and now they just make people believe lies so they all feel better about losing some of their dick as a baby. It's literally retardation on a national level.
I mean I think it looks nice on me but I guess I don’t really care either way
[deleted]
one kid even tore it a bit from jacking off too much.
I know I shouldn't laugh...
Because following that logic we should have remove all teeth- every dentist can tell you horror stories about rotten teeth. Or never implant pacemakers because in tiny per cent of patients they might be a cause of infection.
As stated, I was merely sharing some funny stories of what can go wrong, not propaganda in favor of circumcision. My other comment mentions I don’t really see it as the right thing to do.
Consider that of course you'd see the patients that have issues when you work in a urology clinic. The question should be on an absolute scale how common are they.
“It has been estimated that 111 to 15 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And they can easily be treated through standard antibiotics if and when there's an issue.
I've not seen any medical literature on 'rotting off'. Please provide any source you have.
Also, I'd doubt you'd see the complications that would go to other clinics for corrections. I wish I could find it again but there was one clinic where the Physician gave the numbers he saw and I worked it out to 10% to 15% of circumcisions had complications. And that's just the ones that go to the clinic, there are other effects such as:
The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. This diagram was from a study measuring sensitivity on multiple points of the penis. The full study here.
And there are mechanical functions of the foreskin and a role in lubrication during sex(nsfw slides)
[deleted]
Meh. I didn't really have a choice, the doctor did it when I was born. It's my dick, there's no changing it, so I don't really worry about it.
Eh I like mine. I prefer the purple helmet to the hooded monk. 10/10 would snip again.
Almost no one here is circumcised
There's Muslims here too.
What?
I'm saying here In Europe there are muslims too, so there are circumcised people here too.
I'm not in Europe friend. But I see what you're getting at.
In Canada it'll cost you 500+ dollars to get your child circumcised if they're past the newborn stage if you decide to do it for cosmetic reasons. You're really that bothered by a little piece of skin? I can think of a lot of things I could spend five hundred bucks on first.
Plus the foreskin works kind of like lubrication because the skin moves around more, lowering the bad kind of friction.
It really sucks that your parents make the decision for you.
Such a waste of dicks
I noticed it’s mostly Caucasians that get their kids circumcised here. Latinos, Asians, blacks, and etc mostly have natural dicks.
The hygiene excuse is such bullshit.
If these idiots think a foreskin would make their dick dirtier, then they never had good hygiene habits to being with. Americans generally don’t have good genital or anal hygiene, so it makes sense why they’d think so.
this comes down to the question of whether it's worth protecting idiots from themselves.
Americans take a similar stance in airbag design. Europeans choose to make the assumption everyone is properly wearing their seatbelt and put a small airbag in just the right spot. if they're not, the airbag isn't doing much and you're fucked. in the US, we make an attempt to protect idiots not wearing it properly and give them a big airbag to try and keep them from killing themselves.
Here allow me to explain. There was a guy Kellogg (the same one as the cereal) who basically wanted every person to be completely miserable at all times.
He pushed for it in hopes to prevent anyone from sexual pleasure, then used the hygiene argument.
Started to help deter evil sexuality, in early 1900's, has continued as that is what many are used to.
Not true, it has been a religious things for hundred of yeras.
Yeah, perhaps in Judaism. But not for Christians in the US, as far as I'm concerned.
It would have started where the Abrahamic religions started in the desert. It was hard to keep clean with no water so male and female circumcision started, this over time got mixed with religion which spread across the world and now much of the world follows the rules of a small group of desert tribes from thousands of years ago. The main reason now in America is it's another easy thing the Doctors can charge them for, it always comes back to money now.
Most christians circumcise their kids in the US, often for religious reasons. They don't have to though.
Pretty sure you’re incorrect. Most Christians in the us do it because that’s what they view as normal.
I guess I could be wrong, do you know if there is any polling on this type of question of Christians in the US?
In one of the Epistles, Paul literally writes that there is not longer any reason for circumcision to be a thing any more as it was symbolic of the old Covenant between God and Abrahman, but Jesus’ death created a new Covenant. He basically said that you can do it if you to, but there is no religious requirement for it any more.
yeah, you don't have to do it, but lots of people still do it.
I have to admit, I'm only drawing from my anecdotal experience. But I don't know of any major christian sect that mandates circumcision.
I'm not aware of specific polls on this subject.
I don't think any christian sect mandates it, but I guess I just felt that many people did it for religious reasons, but I was guess I was wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/
Found a poll on it.
For the thousandth time no one thinks that uncircumcised dicks are less clean, they think they are harder to clean.
I mean that argument doesn't really hold weight either. Unless you have a medical condition like phimosis or something then it's no harder than cleaning any other part of your body. You just pull back and wash.
It does though. With a circumcised dick you literally just have to run water over it. Unless you're trying to suggest that literally doing nothing isn't less than pulling back and scrubbing...in which case you're just delusional.
There is no part of the body that is cleaned just by "running water over it." If you're not actually washing your dick, you're far more disgusting than any uncut guy I've ever met.
Maybe not for you but for me it works fine
No.
I genuinely can't understand how someone who pretends to know the body of a stranger they've never met better than that person themselves thinks they are in any way being rational or logical. What's it like to be you, and to be so limited and self centered in your thinking?
I genuinely don't understand how someone can think it's acceptably hygienic, let alone clean, to not actually wash themselves. You don't have some special quality that makes you different from the rest of humanity, dude. Wash your fucking nasty dick. I'm sure the people around you will thank me when they don't have to inhale your musty taint stank every day.
I mean I don't smell so I'm pretty sure I'm just good only using water on 80% of my body 80% of the time. Once again if you want to believe that you know me better than I or anyone around me does even though you're a complete stranger, you just go ahead being an idiot.
Lmao, sure you don't; just give "noseblindness" a quick Google for me, will ya bud? One day someone's going to slip up and clue you in that everyone knows you as The Stinky Guy, and I hope then you look back on this conversation and feel appropriately chagrined.
Yeah I'm not noseblind if I don't wash for example my armpits, I can tell that I smell. I just don't have a smelly dick like you, sorry bout it.
I don't have any dick soooo, nice try but projection's not gonna work here.
You don't even have a dick and you're pretending to know how much hygiene one requires. Incredible. I think you may be the most arrogant and stupid individual I've ever dealt with on Reddit. Congratulations.
I don't have to have a dick to know that something that spends the whole day expelling piss, wallowing in ball sweat, and 6 inches from the asshole cannot be cleaned simply by letting water run over it. You're a filthy fucking pig and you need to come to terms with that. We're done here.
Yeah...you have no clue how the male anatomy works, or how smells work. Please stop talking about things you have literally no knowledge of it's really only making you look bad and giving me quite a bit of second and embarrassment.
By the way, has saying "we're done here" ever worked for you lmao? Might as well just get on your knees and start begging to have the last word, you'd look just as pathetic but without the "insolent toddler" vibe that saying that gives you.
... I'd hope you use soap/body wash on your dick regardless of if it's circumcised or not.
Nah only occasionally or before/after having sex. I know it's hard to imagine having an uncircumcised one but it really doesn't need it
Clearly you aren't frequenting the same places on the internet as I am. I consistently see people saying uncircumcised dicks are inherently dirty.
I’m circumcised (American + Jewish parents).
Now I feel weird... but also unique.
Well, maybe not that unique because I live in an area with a lot of circumcised people.
But hey, at least now I know why people were giving me weird looks when I went to that Japanese public bath.
I moved to America yesterday and here are some of the things I found interesting:
Older people are always smiling at you/waving/chatting you up. It's really nice but some times you almost feel like everyone else is in on some joke. Everyone has been really nice and friendly which I really appreciate.
Commercials - your commercials suck. I can't remember what it was I heard on the radio but I remember it sounding like a sleazy business deal taking advantage of people who don't know better.
There are soldiers in uniform at every major airport returning from deployments I'm assuming. I'm front Canada and the military just doesn't have as much presence there so it's interesting to see. All the airports offer them priority boarding but I haven't actually seen the military personnel take advantage of that.
Lots of flags, lots of patriotism. Idk if it's superficial or not but I'm just not used to the quantity of it yet and it comes off as a little weird. This coming from someone who is a very patriotic Canadian. Possibly this intensity is artificially increased because July 4th is coming up.
Gorgeous scenery
Also I'm super homesick and kind of miserable. I miss my family and friends and home a lot.
I've heard that people are more social and friendly to strangers in general in the USA - is that true? Apparently people just casually chat with people on the street. If that's true, I kind of envy that. It sounds nice.
Especially in the Midwest, people are just really friendly. People will chat with you in the grocery stores or what have you.
I once got a business card in a restaurant after chatting with a guy at a salad bar who was in the my field and he heard I was looking for a job. Was weird, but that's the stuff that happens in the Midwest (that was around Chicago)
I work in Boston, having moved from the UK.
Massholes, by and large, are more outgoing and friendly than the average person in Britain.
Can confirm. I’m from MN and we’re a friendly bunch.
My coworkers in WI are the same way. I try to focus on my work and leave everyone alone, but they come up and chat with me, hug me, and follow me. I'm not from the midwest nor am I a social person, it is weird.
Don't try it in NYC. We're rude but nice though and will offer help for directions and subway protips. But no chitchat
once had a guy in nyc give me wrong directions, then after we had gone our separate ways he ran a block back to me to correct himself... i was so surprised
Yeah it is true as far as I have seen and it is really nice.
I think that probably is true in a lot of places here (America). I laughed out loud reading your post, though, because I live in a region where you mind your own business, don’t talk to strangers, and basically avoid eye contact. I get a little weirded out, and exhausted, when I go a couple hours away and everyone wants to say hi and talk. I mean, I just want to listen to this podcast for 45 minutes and do some fast grocery shopping but everything takes soooo much longer if people are talking to you the whole time. Oh I’m exhausted just thinking about it.
Yeah, it freaked my ex (who was Australian) out. He was like "but why are you talking to that stranger in line at the grocery store?"
I dunno, man, cuz she's a nice little old lady and she's waiting just as long as me.
Honestly, that sounds awesome. In my country, speaking to total strangers (aside from regular questions like when asking for directions and stuff) is considered weird.
It sounds nice
for some
I've heard that people are more social and friendly to strangers in general in the USA - is that true?
Depends on what part of the country you're in...East Coast/Northeast, the answer is usually no, people will ignore you...in the West, Midwest, and South, yes, that's very common.
It's easy to forget that cultural norms can differ a lot between different places in the USA. We Europeans are not used to such huge countries.
So true! I mean, it happens in Europe, too -- Bavaria/Bayern is quite different from the rest of Germany, they speak four different languages in Switzerland, the food in Italy will vary dramatically depending on where you are in the country, the UK is comprised of four different countries, there are many ethnic divisions in Spain, etc.
If you travel to another state (or even a different part of the same state if you're from a big state), the way people speak can be quite different, the food can vary, the geography and climate are extremely different, attitudes are different, politics and religion are different, their history is different, etc.
I have people wave/smile/talk to me a lot in my town and I live in Canada. Mostly because I'm a cashier at a gas station in my town and so everyone recognizes me.
Some days it's great, and others you just want to be left alone to walk your dog in peace. Thank god for headphones.
It depends a lot on who it is, where you are, and when it's happening. Older people are more likely to be retired, so they have all the time in the world. In smaller towns, the pace of life tends to be slower and there are fewer people around, so people tend to be more able to stop and chit chat with a stranger for a while. And obviously people tend to have more free time in the evenings and on weekends.
Compare that to, say, trying to stop and chat with a twenty-something on the street in New York at 8:45 on a Tuesday. They're probably in a hurry to get to work, so they don't have time to stop and say hi to the literal thousands of people they have to walk past on their commute.
That's why a lot of big cities get a bad rep when it comes to being "rude" and "cold", in my experience. There are just so many people that stopping to acknowledge every single one would take forever. So you don't smile and nod to every single stranger, and if someone is blocking the way, you just brush past them and maybe call them out for being in the way of everyone. Sometimes, the nicest thing you can do for a stranger is just get the hell out of their way and not waste their time.
Not so much in the northwest (Oregon and Washington). If you’re a stranger looking to talk to me in a public space, you better have a reason.
Part of the flag thing is that it's pretty much the only decoration you can put up without offending someone. It's an easy, neutral decoration.
Also I'm super homesick and kind of miserable. I miss my family and friends and home a lot.
If you don't mind me asking, where did you move from and why did you move?
Alberta and I moved because I got a specific job that I needed to get to advance in my career. I plan to move back afterwards but I'm sure I'm gonna fall in love with America too.
Aren't Canadians supposed to be the friendliest people on earth who never lock their houses?
Outside Vancouver and Toronto, everyone is super friendly. I moved to a smaller town and I can't believe how friendly everyone is....even Home Depot employees!!!
I'm from small town Canada and I would generally describe Canadians as far more polite than Americans but I would characterize Americans as more friendly in a verbal sense. Everyone is really nice in my home town but strangers don't just start conversations as much as they do here in the states.
as someone who lived in canada for almost 20 years, in more recent times, its a really fake friendly often. a lot of canadians are also super easily offended these days too.
Hey, chin up Canuck. We’ll grow on you.
Besides, what are the chances that Trump will want ANOTHER wall?
Ah shit, I made myself sad.
Haha thanks man, I in no way meant to insult America. This place is awesome. I just really miss home/family/friends.
if you want some real, over the top patriotism, come on down to Texas. We’ve got more Texas flags and anything Texas shaped than you could imagine. Everythings bigger in Texas.
Haha I actually did spend a month in Texas and that inspired a lot of the above. Awesome place, aside from the work related stuff, I thought Texas was awesome. Great food too.
glad you enjoyed your stay :)
I really did! I'm from Alberta, the Texas of Canada - famous for oil, beef, and cowboys but with much less decent Mexican food unfortunately
I have an American flag, but I primarily fly my Ohio flag. Personally, my regional pride is a lot stronger than my national pride. I’d go to war for my state. I don’t know if I’d go to war for the country.
But neither are superficial to me. I love the patriotism here—but yes, I do dislike it when it is superficial
Yeah I know what you mean. I think superficial is the wrong word, I meant that the patriotism is a lot more apparent and kinda in your face compared to Canada. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just a cultural difference.
[deleted]
That's very true for Canadian travellers. But it's not like that in Canada itself.
This is funny to me because I work in the US but take calls from both US and Canadian customers. I always find that the Canadian customers are much friendlier and always want to strike up a conversation other than the reason for calling :)
Oh thats interesting, I'm glad you find Canadians friendly!
Compared to Canada I'm surprised you find Americas scenery gorgeous.
Where I'm from in Canada is also gorgeous (IMHO) but in a different way for sure. I love the big deciduous trees here!
We do have a lot of flags, but it gets even crazier the closer we get to July 4th.
When I was in the military the airlines always offered in uniform active duty military get priority boarding, but I wasn’t allowed to travel in my uniforms so it’s a bit of a catch 22.
Also I kind of agree that the fascination with the military love is a little weird so I would have felt weird using it anyway.
Thanks for your perspective!
The flags never stop.
American here and the flag stuff is a little bit regional and a bit new.
When I was growing up (80s-90s), private people just didn't have flags out except for leading up to and right after the 4th (usually no actual flags, just flag themed stuff or mini flags on a kebab stick) or for election campaigns (in the form of lapel pins mostly). But there were always flags in every classroom, at every post office, at every government building, etc. You'd probably have a few upper middle class suburbanites with a flag on the front of their house, but that was a bit weird.
Then I moved for college, then again for work; now I travel for work a lot. This "Americans and Flags" topic comes up a lot so I started noticing. Some places are still relatively flag free, but other places it's like someone was paying people to put up flags. Flag ownership is definitely on the rise since I was a kid. I was trying to note a pattern of demographics for places that have the most flags, but it seems random. One shitty PA town is dripping with flags while another has none; liberal southern city has a ton, similar liberal southern city has practically none. One street in my city (US city that isn't Chicago) has them on every other house, the next has no American flags, but does have a Scottish flag, Welsh flag, and a Chicago flag. It's weird.
Lol that's pretty interesting. Thanks for your perspective!
A lot of the patriotism is real. Coming from the businesses of course it's just a way to get customers, but that alone shows you how much of the customer base cares about the gigantic flag at your dealership.
Superficial was the wrong word to use. I think I could have expressed myself more accurately by saying externally apparent. Canadians love their country too but Americans love their country and show it a lot. When you're in America, you are very aware you're in America. At least that was my experience thus far. I might just be biased because I feel so far away from home.
When I visited America, the flags were everywhere and it kind of weirded me out, but it's their culture so I just accepted it.
Many of the American commercials would violate Canadian advertising laws so I'm very thankful I don't have to hear or listen to that nonsense.
Yeah their commercials are really awful
It’s not a joke, friend. I’m from the southeast and most folks wave even if you’re just driving around town and it’s a total stranger. I promise we’re not messing with you, playing around, or otherwise trying to harass you. By the way, welcome! I can only imagine being away from home sucks, but I hope you find a way to be happy here and find things you enjoy doing!
Thanks man! Yeah I felt like people were truly being friendly and I really appreciate that. It's probably my favourite part of American culture that I've experienced thus far. But I think it's human nature to have that fleeting thought that other people think youre weird lol. Thanks for the welcome though! I'm sure in time the homesickness will die down, America is really awesome!
The soldiers you see are more likely on leave from their stationed domestic base and are flying home to visit. A lot of airlines will give uniformed military priority boarding AND they have been known to get free drinks in uniform (my ex-boyfriend used to wear his on leave if we went to bar). We have a cult of the military here that goes along with the flag and nationalism schtick. But ya, there's usually a reason for them wearing their uniforms and most of them aren't returning from deployment- though some could be coming in from international bases like Korea, Germany, Okinawa, etc.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. I was listening to what a group of them were saying in the airport and I think they were coming back from Korea. It sounded really interesting and I kinda wanted to talk to them but I didn't want to intrude lol.
When I moved from NZ to Australia I noticed the patriotism too. Very nationalistic and weird. NZ is Australia's Canada and Australia is America's bitch so I think there are parallels. I also got homesick, but it was really unexpected. Almost a physical thing instead of a mental one. Is that your experience? (Not that it's related but why not ask?)
That's pretty cool, you still in Australia? Do you go back home often? For me its primarily emotional but when I'm stressed my stomach goes haywire and I'm in the bathroom all the time so I do have a physical component. Is that what you felt?
you still in Australia? Do you go back home often?
Yes and no. Far too rarely in fact. I don't really know what I was talking about re homesickness but I remember I wasn't at all motivated to make something of myself like I thought I'd be.
Making something of yourself looks different for each person! Plus home is close by so that option is always open :)
it sounding like a sleazy business deal taking advantage of people who don't know better.
Yeah that sounds like the majority of American business look at apple for example they are the goal for those companies. Sell things that came out years ago for more and claim they are yours and new
I’m sorry we suck. I really am sorry. I’d like to leave for someplace better, but I don’t think any country will take me.
Oh no, I think all the Americans I met so far are awesome! It's just I miss my home as is natural.
I thought you were going to say you are coming from the other side of the planet... Canada.. give me a break...
Being broke because of some random injury.
Or just electing to not see the doctor in America because you can't miss work and the doctor costs too much.
Then you die of cancer or some shit.
Christianity. I feel like christians are way more fanatic in the US than in europe.
An acquaintance went to Rome and posted a picture saying something to the effect of “so good to see Christianity expressed without fear” and I was kind of flustered. What country is she living in? I see Christianity expressed without fear all the hell over the US so what is she on about?!
She still angry about those starbucks christmas cups.
I am a Christian and that was the most confusing complaint about anything that I've ever seen.
People who complain about a private company not featuring Christmas symbols on their coffee cups are absolutely mental.
Starbucks: "This year, we're doing something different. We're giving you a blank canvas, and letting you create your own Christmas cup designs!"
America: "Hey everyone, STARBUCKS HATES CHRISTMAS! GET 'EM!"
I feel like that was Starbucks saying "You fuckers bitch about our shit every year. So this year you get nothing. I say good day!"
NO CUPS. THIS YEAR OUR BARISTA'S WILL JUST THROW YOU COFFEE IN YOUR FACE, LIKE THEY'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO. IT'S THEIR CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR.
Clearly they should be displaying Christmas symbols on their cups because this is America, and we're a Christian Nation! Since they're in a Christian Nation, they OBVIOUSLY are all Christians, so why wouldn't they have Christian cups? You need to stop watching all that Liberal media!
/s so much /s
It’s not as if Starbucks is a private company that wants to reach as many people wants possible, right? That would be crazy-making! No, they are obviously a Christian company so GIVE ME MY CHRISTMAS COFFEE!
/s
Also their logo used to have nipples, but that was rightfully censored by a redesign. I mean, can you imagine what the wanton display of a small line drawing representation of the nipple of an apparently female mythical creature on a paper coffee cup would do to the soul of our great nation?
They also had to zoom in on the mermaid's face. This particular mermaid (Melusine) has two tails which she holds up on either side of her, and apparently that was "too sexual" (it looked like she had her legs spread). America just could not deal.
My urge to jerk off into my burnt cup of coffee has been noticeably reduced since then.
I've been leaving lots of Reddit comments this morning so it was very interesting getting this response and not knowing the context lol. :)
The first starbucks over in Pikes Place Market here in Seattle still has their original logo ;)
Yeeeeuh, that’s the stuff! Also, spices? They used to sell spices?
Cinnamon lattes come from somewhere right?
The invisible hand of market forces sometimes needs the help of the visible tantrums of idiots, right?
Also if I remember correctly the majority owner of Starbucks is Jewish.
Sounds like my parents. No joke
My mom very non-jokingly made a very similar argument when it happened.
I am so sorry.
Christians can be really hypocritical about businesses and Christianity, well usually it's the conservative evangelical types. They'll argue for businesses' rights to discriminate for religious reasons, like against LGBT types, and that that should be the business owners' freedom to do so. Then they'll get all upset the moment a company says Happy Holidays or doesn't put up things celebrating their Christian holidays, so not to offend people that celebrate other holidays, and then call it religious discrimination or an attack on their religion. Conservatives evangelicals love to have it both ways.
Edit: Emeralids_ gets gilded for saying the most obvious thing that many people agree with, yet in my conversation below he supports business discrimination and argues that Jim Crow laws were the only reason minorities were discriminated against...
well usually it's the conservative evangelical types
You've got that right. Thankfully I'm more of the Classical Liberal Eastern Orthodox type.
I do agree that businesses should be free to refuse business to anyone. If a business won't serve you, take your business elsewhere and put them out of business.
But I also agree with you that businesses are definitely free to not celebrate any and all holidays that they choose. It's all up to the owner, and if people don't like it they can go somewhere else.
I do agree that businesses should be free to refuse business to anyone. If a business won't serve you, take your business elsewhere and put them out of business.
I personally think this is idealistic at best, but realistically it is an incredibly flawed and ignorant view. That is not so easy if you live in a small town. Also, there was a reason these laws came about, businesses everywhere used to engage in this type of practice against minorities. Most of the time there were no other businesses and minorities had to figure something else out. It took decades of having anti-discrimination laws and cultural changes and progress before we got to a point where people think we should end those laws and "people could simply take their business elsewhere."
My guess is you aren't a person that would be subject to business discrimination, aka white and not LGBT. It's a lot easier for straight, white people to hold this view because they'd most likely never be a victim of it. However, I'd bet straight, white people would be furious if it actually happened to them. A prime example of this is when conservatives get upset when the "mainstream media" doesn't pander to their views (even though Fox News is mainstream) and act like liberal are trying silence them. I can only imagine what would happen if people were refused business based on their political preferences.
Also, I'm a Christian by the way too.
I see your point, but one flaw in the logic of pointing to historical racist discrimination in businesses is that that racism was enforced by Jim Crow laws, and those were finally repealed in the middle of the 20th century.
If one business refuses to serve a certain class of people, then that business would lose profits and those profits would go elsewhere.
You can order basically everything online these days anyway, so that sort of thing isn't an issue anymore.
Also, while you may be right that I probably wouldn't be discriminated against based on anything but my religion at times, that's hardly relevant to whether the government should be able to force companies to serve people that they do not want to serve.
Edit: well down voting is a bit rude. It’s not a disagree button, it’s a “this is basically spam” button.
If one business refuses to serve a certain class of people, then that business would lose profits and those profits would go elsewhere.
If you try to minimize this to basic elementary economic understanding then that might be true. But this world is very complex with multiple variables and things are never as simple as that. I've actually seen conservatives argue that businesses would discriminate against minorities back in the day so they wouldn't lose more business, aka their white patrons would leave if they saw minorities at the store. This was from Dinesh D'Souza, but frustratingly enough, he was trying to make a stupid argument that there are times where racism was okay.
You can order basically everything online these days anyway, so that sort of thing isn't an issue anymore.
Oh so it's okay for people to be prejudiced against others because you think everything can simply be shipped? Not every business sells a physical good that can be shipped. Many businesses sell a service.
but one flaw in the logic of pointing to historical racist discrimination in businesses is that that racism was enforced by Jim Crow laws, and those were finally repealed in the middle of the 20th century.
This argument is actually very flawed. You cannot simply chop up all of America's history of racism and discrimination to Jim Crow laws, as many conservatives would want people to believe. I find that argument is used as an easy scapegoat to America's history of racial discrimination that ultimately stemmed from people's prejudiced thinking. There is so much more history of racism and prejudiced over the past 100+ years that go well beyond "government enforced laws." Also regarding Jim Crow laws, it wasn't like white people were speaking out against these laws either. They were the ones that campaigned and enacted them.
I'd recommend you read this book or at least read the about part of it. It gives a better idea of what actually happened that gets easily glossed over. I've read the first 3 or 4 chapters. To sum up America's racial discrimination to Jim Crow laws is incredibly misleading.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/white-rage-9781632864123/
Edit: Other people are downvoting you. Furthermore, the upvote/downvote buttons are used as an agreement/disagreement button. Reddit idealistically wanted it to be kind of what you claim it is. Realistically, no one gives a shit. Get over it. You are wrong.
When you're the majority and used to being the oppressor, being forced to treat others equally feels like oppression.
I'm not following you. A business choosing to not include holiday symbolism on their product has nothing to do with majorities and minorities.
People getting mad about it does.
Does it really? People get mad about a lot of things, very few of which have to do with what you're referring to.
That and the outrage over, "Happy Holidays" is something that I just don't get. I celebrate Christmas and I still say, "Happy Holidays". I say it from before Thanksgiving up through New Year's, it just encompasses everything. I still can't believe that a Presidential candidate was cheered for saying that we're going to say, "Merry Christmas" again.
That's because ignorant people are easy to placate. My mom is one of them and it's not like she doesn't have bigger problems than the cashier saying happy holidays. But by all means get wrapped up in that one issue. That's why they are easy to campaign to. I don't know if she's just that filled with hate or if life is so terrifying that it's just easier to hate people over small things then to contemplate learning or adapting. My whole family tree is rotting with these people, half on welfare, and it's like they can't understand. Or won't.
It's Fox News provoking their viewer base and getting them aggitated to try to increase voter turn out. If you make someone feel they are at war, generally they care a bit more
Yeah, especially considering that a company like that is trying to make their product as appealing as possible to the widest range of people possible. The US is all about capitalism but apparently this is about people being offended and couldn't possibly be about marketing choices
I couldn't agree more, what I can't understand is why not having Christmas cups is a better marketing choice than having...
Because not everyone is Christian? Being neutral is appealing
Still can't understand why... If they had christmas cups people who celebrate christmas would have more of a reason to buy starbucks and people who don't wouldn't care...
But they do care. Some people care as much as those who critizise Starbucks for not making christmas cups. I am pretty sure that they did some market research to decide that their sales would be better without christmas symbols.
Then I would say two wrongs don't make a right... Both sides are just stupid to start a battle over this
One of the founders is Jewish. MAybe they just decided to stay out of specific religious terms.
The Starbucks Christmas ordeal was started by a “pastor” who’s entire persona is built on internet trolling and outrage culture, and a right wing engine constructed to maintain a victim complex took off with it.
I think I remember seeing that video now that you mention it.
That was very strange.
Turns out pandering to hateful people earns you the support of hateful people.
Better to complain about a private company not expressing their Christianity than the people who complain about how the US is a "CHRISTIAN NATION" whenever certain topics (gay marriage, abortion, etc) come up.
Maybe sometimes. There's nations where the state has an official religion but there's no huge discrimination against other faiths (As per the UK). Arguing a nation is a "christian nation" isn't particularly harmful. It's when it's explicitly secular and people a shrieking to change that which is dangerous.
But the U.S. was built on freedom of religion and separation of church and state. The Bible shouldn't dictate any of our legislation. And thus, Starbucks can whatever the fuck they want with their cups.
But Church of England is not exactly a religion, we all know why it begins /insert eggplant emoji here /
It was in Yes, Prime Minister ( I love that show) that the CoE is more like other state office and that actually no one goes there or really identifies with it but it is great for the general conscience of the citizen to know that such organization in fact does exist.
To be fair it was mostly fabricated outrage. People only started caring because the media told everyone to care about it. No one would’ve noticed had someone not reported on it blown it out of proportion
I was working at Starbucks when that happened a few years back, it really was just a couple old, white people who were upset. And it boiled down to a youtube Evangelist(?) who started the whole thing in a campaign to make money somehow. He had a real thing for hating starbucks, including accusing the company of making their coffee out of aborted fetuses.
But the really crazy thing was that his entire plan to "get back" at the company, was for people to go out and buy drinks at starbucks and tell us their name was "Merry Christmas". Their plan to get back at the company was literally to throw money at Starbucks
How dare someone not depict our half-pagan, overly consumerist festival on the crap they want to sell?
Especially since not all Christians are in agreement about Christmas,My neighbors are Russian and celebrate Christmas in January.
And some Christians don't celebrate Christmas at all.
Exactly. There is no mention of Christmas in the bible and an appropriated pagan tradition used to make Christianity more palatable would surely be repugnant.
Ah yes, my fellow Eastern Orthodox brethren in Russia never switched to the newest church calendar IIRC.
So their calendar is a bit off and it doesn't really have anything to do with religious belief.
I have not met one Christian that was actually mad about that. Just saying.
Oh I have. Part of the charm of living in a small rural town. We have a lot of the nuttier religious types. People said they were going to boycott Starbucks. The thing is though we have to go like 30-40 miles in one direction just to get to the nearest Starbucks. They weren't buying anything from them anyway.
That's insane. I'm a devout follower of Christ and a lot of people in my area are as well. Never ever heard anyone complain. I honestly assumed the whole thing was blown out of proportion. It misrepresents what Christians are meant to be like; gentle, patient, self-controlled, forgiving, and above all focused on more important things than a cup. I'm thinking that it might have been a thing in your town because they think that's how Christians were supposed to respond. One person hears that they're supposed to be mad and then the rest follow the course. Which is stupid.
It is simple. Starbucks is a communist lefty organization. So everything they do is unamerican. Have cups that celebrate Christmas explicitly? They are commercializing Christmas and corrupting Jesus! Non-explicit Christmas cups? They are waging war on Christmas and everything Jesus!
Rinse and repeat for anyone not bribing you to stay out of the crosshairs.
So what you're saying is that you just can't win?
Aw heck
I like foxes.
I applaud you. That's just about the perfect response to that stupidity.
I was once in Starbucks listening to a bunch of old white guys complaining about this. One of them literally said (loudly, like yelling), "I'll say Merry Christmas to whoever I want to and I hope they get offended!" So I told him, "Good news, you've offended me." Then he got all pissy about me being in his private business. But they stopped their yelling/complaining, so win for me.
Blown out of proportion, very few gave a rat's ass about that shit.
I still say these people never existed, and it was all a big viral marketing ploy by Starbucks.
But if not God, who will protect Starbucks from mass shootings?
Most of those outrage campaigns were waged while Starbucks was headed up by CEO Howard Schultz... he's Jewish. Then they go on to complain about having to make cakes for gay weddings and how it violates their closely held religious beliefs. Some people just can't handle not being in control.
It was another non-issue brought about by social media and shit "news" companies making a mountain out of a molehill. I bet maybe a dozen people complained initially, and then it turned into a "national conversation."
The most irritating thing about that was that it was seriously only one guy. One video blogger got all in a huff and made such an ass of himself that the videos went viral and everyone started thinking that christians everywhere were making a huge deal of it. But it was ONE GUY. And yes, a few of his crazier fans did kinda follow him, but it wasn't actually a big deal. But that's how our society is now. Since everyone has a camera any stupid thing someone says will get ascribed to a whole group.
So yes, overall, christians are a complete pain in the ass and we need to get their dumb views out of government and all that, but the red cup thing wasn't a christian outrage over the "war on christmas" incident, it was an American outrage at outrage, which generated more outrage.
Because of one fucking crazy guy with a camera.
That's the thing. Very few people actually compleined. It was like 2 people on Twitter. No one really gave a shit. Then everyone freaked out about those very few people who complained and made it into a huge thing. There was no original outrage, just outrage in response to "outrage"
It was like 2 people on Twitter.
And this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giU4TyVJ7v8
It was viral marketing.
According to my parents, Starbucks (a private company) deciding not to make specifically-Christmas-themed cups was "the government censoring our free speech." Personally, I thought that free speech included the ability to not say something as well, as long as you weren't saying that nobody should say it, but apparently I'm wrong.
Funny thing about those people is that the ones who think a private business has the right to run their business as they see fit (usually meaning the "right" to discriminate against gays) are the same ones who want to force a coffee franchise to celebrate their preferred winter religious holiday.
It becomes clear that these people are just coming up with arguments of principle that they don't actually support, simply because it sounds like a fair reason to support their hateful beliefs: throw away the gays and non-christians.
I like to trick people at Starbucks! I tell them my name is “merry Christmas” so they HAVE to say it and write it on the cup! How clever I am
/s
Also a Christian. I remember asking my circle of Christian friends if anyone was upset or knew anyone who was upset about the cups. No one was or knew anyone who was. The whole thing felt manufactured.
I still don't understand why Starbucks would not feature Christmas symbols... The way you phrased make it look like they did and then stopped, if they stopped because not Christian people complained then they're just as stupid as the people who complained about them taking the symbols off
Every year they had a different design on their "Holiday" cups, which were a different color (green or red) than normal. Never specifically Christmas, it tended to be intricate snowflakes or filigree deer or evergreens or whatever. It was sorta Christmas-ish but also mostly winter-ish.
And every year it was different.
One year they had a simple design and people started a trend of elaborating it - drawing ornaments onto the evergreens or whatever it was.
Starbucks thought this was REALLY COOL so the next year they used solid-colored cups in the Christmas colorthey usually did, and said, "Here! A blank canvas for you amazing artists!"
And a few people lost their bananas over it.
Oh, so that's why they changed to blank. That's actually a pretty cool idea, but I'm not sure that it was marketed well because I go there all the time and never knew anything about it.
The not-Christian people never had a political campaign center a speech around boycotting Starbucks for having Christmas stuff.
People who complain about Christmas symbols on coffee cups are also mental.
The audacity!
I mean, yeah, probably. She confuses me on a lot of levels. She's utterly and entirely reasonable in like 99% of areas and then she does that shit.
And The Gays™.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU TOO.
This pisses me off to no end. I just don't get it. For me it's like such a non-subject.
You mean holiday cups- stop being so offensive.
The Starbucks Christmas cup internet meltdown has become my new favorite holiday tradition :)
Fun fact: Starbucks is Jewish-owned.
Relevant graph is relevant.
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/g33nTNM
You take your oppression and get out!
Oh, didn't you know? Obama revived the persecution of Christians while he was in office. Saying "Merry Christmas" was punishable by being thrown to Muslim lions and atheist tigers at the Colosseum
I can't believe you forgot the Christmas Eve executions in '09.
Obama dressed up like a Muslim (because he totally is one), grabbed his Arab made AK47 and executed a bunch of old grandma's for saying Merry Christmas within 200 miles of the Whitehouse.
You must be on my dad's email list.
There's several people like this, and Dale Partridge (an extremely conservative Christian dude who packages and sells his own 'biblical' version of Christianity) constantly warns his followers that "the persecution of Christians" is coming. Whatever the hell that means.
Jesus, I just became a dad, is this going to happen to me?
Avoid a steady diet of Fox News, right wing talk radio, and Breitbart and you should be fine.
Where will I get my unreasonable fear and worry?
Oh thanks a lot you jerk. I had almost completely repressed the memory of that night.
RIP Nana
Its ok the death panels and fema camps meant their days were numbered anyway.
Those old grandma's names?
Albert Einstein
You left out how this all happened in Benghazi and was well-documented in Hillary's private emails because she was a secretary and it was her job and that's why people consider her complicit of war crimes and why they want access to her emails so bad.
Remember, Remember
the massacre in December...
So these are the death panels I've been hearing so much about. I see...
It’s really frustrating because there are places where Christians are persecuted. When the typical Western Christian acts like they are Public Enemy #1 the ones that actually need help get overlooked. No one wants to hear about persecuted Christians because they assume your going to lecture them about Starbucks cups and not how some Christians get killed in some countries.
As a Christian living in America it drives me crazy when people do this. It's basically, "You're going to let other people who aren't Christians have rights?! How dare you?!" When really their lives are cushy and nice and "persecution" is anything that slightly inconveniences them.
Absolutely. I went to catholic schools and they used to claim Christians are persecuted because Christian morals aren’t how the majority of people in our culture live and because our culture is filled with people not living like that. Like of course it’s not cool to live according to your rules, drinking and fucking are pretty universal as to what a significant portion of young people really like to do. Also what you’re saying is basically that in order for you not to be oppressed you have to actually be oppressing every other religious group. Also seriously freedom of religion goes both ways, you get to practice your beliefs so long as you aren’t imposing on anyone else’s rights or causing them harm against their consent, but at the same that means I get to freely and openly not believe and live according to my morals and not yours. If I want to drink and sleep around and marry someone of my own gender it shouldn’t matter that your religion says you can’t.
The fact that some Christians feel oppressed because I get to marry my fiancée and because they’re expected to treat others as they wish to be treated is fucking infuriating to me.
Agreed. It's especially galling when people claim that enforcement of the separation of Church and State is persecution. Like, the reason some of us don't like talking about being Christian is because we get lumped in with nut jobs like that. Just be a decent human being and shut up about it! There's not much more to it!
Religion is like a penis. Its great to know you have one, you can be proud of it, and play around with it in private or with others who are into it, but don't go whipping it out in public and shoving it down other people's throats.
I would like to add, please don't shove it in children's heads, even if they're yours.
There’s definitely people who are really shitty to Christians in the US, but people pitching a fit acting like their rights are being violated because people say “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas”, calm the hell down and get some perspective! (Also that’s stupid because there’s two non-religious holidays that fall during the holiday season anyway - thanksgiving and New Years - plus there’s a handful of Christian holidays that aren’t Christmas in December and early January, oops).
I always saw "Happy Holidays" as an all-inclusive expression, not necessarily for atheists or non-believers, but for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I never saw it as an attack on Christianity but as a way to include everyone in on the greeting/well wishes to strangers during that time of year.
To some Christians, saying/hearing “Happy Holidays,” means that society is saying other religions are then just as valid as their own, when they don’t believe this to be true.
When much of your religion hinges upon the belief that others are going to hell for not believing as you do, that you have the right to judge them and find them lacking, and then have the right to actively try to convert them to your religion, it makes sense why they get offended. They think their religion is the only one that matters and others don’t deserve respect nor the right to exist.
I'm a strong believer in Jesus, and my whole world revolves around that. I've given 3 years of my life to study the Bible and we are not given any right at all to judge other people, or to find them lacking. In fact, we are given the example of the opposite in the book of John.
2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
I am sorry for the Christians who judge others. We may not believe that certain practices are good and may be considered sin, but no one is sinless/faultless. Romans tells us that.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
We are told to love others and not to judge. We should be showing people love more than any other people group if you ask me.
I would also argue that many "Christians" are cultural Christians of the Bible Belt and don't actually know what their own bible states. They grew up in a "christian home" and never really paid attention during sunday school.
/rant.
Thanks for showing the other side. It's precisely why I said "some," and not all Christians.
But then again - how do you explain the basic principle of non-believers going to hell for not believing in Jesus? That alone is judgment upon others' beliefs. Why does what others believe or not believe about your Jesus factor into your version of hell at all?
Growing up Jewish and now being an atheist, I've been bombarded by Christians trying to convert me over the years - from the simple knocks on the doors handing out pamphlets, from friends telling me they were concerned for my soul because I was destined to go to hell if I didn't accept Jesus, to being tricked into going to haunted houses that ended with being ushered into a room and being forced to watch conversion videos.
I know it's not all Christians, but it has been a huge part of my personal experience with Christianity. (To someone else's point about it being all Abrahamic religions - I've never had a Jew, Muslim, or even beyond that - a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and on, try to convert me or force their religion on me - only Christians.)
What always did strike me as odd, is how conversion of non-believers is a tenant of many sects of Christianity. Inherent in this IS judgment of others religious beliefs. In Judaism, there isn't the belief in spreading the religion and it is extremely difficult to actually convert to it. There is just a fundamental difference there in beliefs of "live and let live" that I can never come to terms with.
I have a helpful analogy (my favorite analogy) for that: I know how to cure a disease you have and I’m trying to share it with you so you may be cured.
I’m sorry if you feel like christians are judging you for your beliefs. We should really be spreading the perfect and unconditional love of God because that’s literally what we were commanded to do. A lot of us are too blinded by technicalities and are becoming a lot like the religious leaders of Jesus’ time that He himself rebuked.
But that’s the problem - you viewing other’s religious beliefs as a disease with you having the cure.
There’s a certain arrogance to that and inherent belief that your beliefs are more valid than others. Why can’t you just believe what you want and let others do the same?
I’ve been told the very same thing by a friend once haha.
It’s fine if you don’t believe. The only job we have is to let you know it’s there—that it exists. We shouldn’t really be forcing you to anything—which I think is what most chrsitians are doing wrong.
Hey. You’re free to believe in whatever you like. That’s none of my business. Imma just let you know that there is hope out there if you ever feel the need to reach for it.
Edit: hmm let me clear this up: regarding the analogy, the “disease” isn’t your beliefs that are different from mine. It’s sin (because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God) (that’s prohibiting us from entering into the presence of God like how the priests can’t enter the holy of holies unless they’re essentially clean) like the sin that has been passed down from Adam and Eve plus all the other sins we commit. Sorry for the long edit T T
This is exactly what I’m talking about.
I have hope. I have my own beliefs. I want nothing to do with yours other than to recognize they exist and let you live in peace with them.
The idea that you think I may need your version of “hope” is exactly the antagonistic indoctrination that makes it clear that Christians don’t respect other religions and belief systems.
I respect that and I also wish peace to you. I wish you well.
I don’t believe in what you qualify as sin either. So again, that’s your belief.
Yes, again, I respect what you believe. Please respect mine. Peace bro
Edit: sorry if it seemed like I was trying to argue with you. I just wanted to explain my side of things, not force anything onto anyone. Sorry. I sincerely wish you well.
As a Christian, all this mushy, "all religion leads to God" nonsense does not jibe with me. We're all sinners deserving of damnation, and all those who reject Christ will die in their sins, and face everlasting torment in Hell, where their fire will not be quenched.
Some of my Christian predecessors talked about the reality of Hell:
John Calvin: "Forever harrassed with a dreadful tempest, they shall feel themselves torn asunder by an angry God, and transfixed and penetrated by mortal stings, terrified by the thunderbolts of God, and broken by the weight of his hand, so that to sink into any gulf would be more tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors."
Jonathan Edwards: "The world will probably be converted into a great lake or liquid globe of fire, in which the wicked shall be overwhelmed, which will always be in tempest, in which they shall be tossed to and fro, having no rest day and night, vast waves and billows of fire continually rolling over their heads, of which they shall forever be full of a quick sense within and without; their heads, their eyes, their tongues, their hands, their feet, their loins and their vitals, shall forever be full of a flowing, melting fire, fierce enough to melt the very rocks and elements; and also, they shall eternally be full of the most quick and lively sense to feel the torments; not for one minute, not for one day, not for one age, not for two ages, not for a hundred ages, nor for ten thousand millions of ages, one after another, but forever and ever, without any end at all, and never to be delivered."
The Bible gives many details about what hell is like.
There are two stages: Hades (the place where unsaved souls immediately go upon physical death); and The Lake of Fire (Gehenna) which is where all of the unsaved souls are cast into, after receiving their final judgment from God. There are some differing aspects of each.
Regarding Hades, which is a foretaste of the final hell (Gehenna), it is temporary, and is described as being "under the earth". Lost souls will be able to see each other and communicate. It will be a place of immense heat. There will be confinement and pain. There is no escape and there is no hope. It is possible that there may also be the presence of demonic beings, who will cruelly taunt the unsaved.
Regarding Gehenna - the Lake of Fire, the final hell - it is the blackness of darkness, and is eternal. All who are cast into this place will be in solitary confinement. There is no communication with any other being. Souls will be ceaselessly tormented forever with unquenchable fire that burns, yet does not consume. As in Hades, there will be degrees of punishment; the severity of the torment for the unsaved soul, is in direct proportion to the number and type of sins committed during earthly life. Thoughts, words, and deeds will be taken into account. It is permanent, no escape, no hope.
The worst prison on earth cannot begin to compare to the abject horror, terror, and misery of hell. Jesus spoke more of the awfulness and the dangers of hell than He spoke of heaven. Fear not those who can kill the body, and that is all they can do, He said....instead, fear Him who has the power to cast both body and soul into hell.
So you proved my point. Another Christian trying to impose their beliefs in sin, sinners, and hell on others.
It means nothing to me.
I'm trying to save my fellow man from being condemned to eternal damnation in the fires of Hell, from the sensation of being punished with everlasting burnings from the wrath of God.
By a miracle of their most omnipotent Creator, they can burn without being consumed, and suffer without dying.
Why wouldn't I try to save them from an immense fate.
My mother is not a Christian and I sometimes agonize about the fate awaiting her on her death. :(
I’m trying to live my life - one where I don’t believe in hell or your Jesus - and don’t want to have your beliefs forced upon me. Just as I can imagine you don’t want me to do to you.
So please, keep your religion to yourself.
No can do. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power unto salvation for everyone who believes
No one is saying you should be ashamed.
I’m saying what you believe should not be forced on others.
If you don’t agree with that, send me your address and I will come to your home and return the favor and force my beliefs upon you.
You sound insane. You are precisely what's wrong with those of your religion. This kind of talk is exactly what turns people away from religion.
"Believe what I believe or suffer for all eternity."
You really believe threatening people is going to convince them? That's absurd. Keep your beliefs to yourself.
Helpful Hint: That is also found in Judaism and Islam as well. (Not surprising really as they are all Abrahamic)
Judaism doesn't believe in hell nor conversion really (it is discouraged).
I don't know enough about Islam to say if they believe in hell.
Except the whole thing about not judging others, which is pretty much THE central tenet of Christianity.
I use it interchangeably with "Merry Christmas"
As an atheist, I say Merry Christmas too. It's not a big deal, lol.
I say Hail Santa.
I might use this.
It just sounds kinda silly to say holidays.. I read something like 90%of Americans celebrate Christmas and less than 5% of Americans celebrate other holidays like Hanukah, Kwanzaa, winter solstice.
Besides if that's the case why not use holidays for any holiday. Easter, Halloween, fourth of July. Let's just say happy holidays instead to avoid those that don't celebrate them.
There’s definitely people who are really shitty to Christians in the US
While I'm sure this does happen, a lot of Christians simply view a lack of deference to their beliefs as persecutory behavior. It's an incredible amount of entitlement. I've told some Christians before that their beliefs sound bizarre when approached from a neutral standpoint, especially when considering the strength of the evidence in support of them, and in response got asked, "Why do you hate Christians?"
Like, muthafucka, if you had listened to a word I just said you'd know I wasn't even talking about Christians, but your inability to handle criticism of your ideas without taking it as personal persecution is definitely not helping me not hate you.
Who is “shitty to Christians in the US” and how exactly?
Yeah I’ve definitely had a few people personally discriminate against me for being Christian but some individuals treating me like crap =/= nation wide persecution. I mean, as a Unitarian and a follower of an Indigenous variety of Christianity, I’ve even had other Christians treat me like crap over my religion. But obviously I know there isn’t a Christian wide persecution of Christians. Sometimes you just run into shitty people.
Christians are being killed in some third world countries though and we should pray for them.
If you don’t mind me asking though, what does “Indigenous variety if Christianity” entail?
I’m Metis and we traditionally follow a blend of Christianity and Indigenous religions (mostly Cree or Ojibway). Some Christians consider is pagan or heretical.
I say "Happy Winter Holiday of Your Choosing!" I know of 4 religious holidays during December. I'm not about to only say "Merry Christmas" and not acknowledge the other 3.
You mean reddit? They're pretty shitty to Christians, no shock given reddit is vastly liberal bias. But liberals are so tolerant riiiiiiight
T_D is leaking again.
Aww, the poor persecuted christians are getting triggered again. SAD!
I mean, I'm not religious, but you'd have to be blind or a fool not to see how shitty religious folks of ANY stripe are treated on this site.
The second someone professes any kind of faith all I sever see is "LOL U ARE AN IDIOT WHO BELIEVES IN FAKE FAIRY TALE SKYWIZARD OMEGALUL!!2!!1"
It's honestly kinda gross, and only fuels the persecution complex of the truly delusional even more.
I mean, I'm not religious, but you'd have to be blind or a fool not to see how shitty religious folks of ANY stripe are treated on this site.
The second someone professes any kind of faith all I sever see is "LOL U ARE AN IDIOT WHO BELIEVES IN FAKE FAIRY TALE SKYWIZARD OMEGALUL!!2!!1"
It's honestly kinda gross in general, and only fuels the persecution complex of the truly delusional even more. Like, how hard is it to just not be an asshole.
Mocked and or ridiculed... Case in point from Phillips response
I left Egypt at the age of 13 due to religious persecution and this bothers me to no end.
In Egypt Christians are killed, discriminated against, treated like second class citizens etc.... here you guys are upset because someone said "happy holidays"
A lot of Christians killed in other countries are by other christians. Like the Congo and Rwandan genocides.
When the typical Western Christian acts like they are Public Enemy #1 the ones that actually need help get overlooked.
The typical evangelical Christian's definition of religious freedom is the freedom to practice religiously-inspired bigotry without the state or society intervening.
Definitely don’t tell a western die hard Protestant that Hamas protects Palestinian Christians and Israel mildly persecutes Christians within their borders...that does always make for good entertainment though
Ooh source? I'd love to show that to some people I know
I learned this in my Islamic history class in college but when I get home from work today I will definitely research some sources to give to you. How does that sound?
That sounds amazing, thank you!
Could I get in on that source train?
Yes you can they’ll be coming tonight!
Alright two sources to get everyone started!!
1st book - Una Mcgahern’s “Palestinian Christians in Israel: State Attitudes Towards Non-Muslims in a Jewish State” (2012); lecturer in politics at Newcastle University
2nd book - Khalid Hroub’s “Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide” (2006); senior research fellow at the Centre of Islamic Studies, coordinator of the Cambridge Arab Media Project at University of Cambridge and professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Northwestern University in Qatar (and TIL that is a branch of THE Northwestern in Illinois haha)
I suppose it's because many persecuted christians are arabs, or live in muslim countries.
I think these tend to be the same people who say, “Oh, you think women aren’t seen as equals in America? Take a look at REAL persecuted women in the Middle East, snowflakes.” Yet they’re whining about Starbucks cups.
Funny how religion in general brings out the worst in humanity in a lot of cases...
People of opposite religions have been killing each other from the time religion first began as a concept...Yes, Christians get killed in some countries, but so do people of other religious persuasions.
It's called religious fanaticism, and I believe Christian people aren't averse to killing people who believe in other religions either...Quite the conundrum, wouldn't you say?
atheist Tygers
"Did He who made the Lamb make thee?"
"No. I guess not."
I remember there was a super low-quality meme-esque photo bouncing around Facebook in 2009 saying that Obama banned Christmas trees in the White House and that he was trying to remove Christianity from the country. It takes 5 seconds to google "Obama Christmas tree" and prove that that is completely false but it still was shared by seemingly half of my friends.
The Oakland Coliseum is a shithole. I really wish they would have venued the Christian-killing events in SF.
I could have sworn is was atheist lions and Muslim tigers. May have been some Jewish bears as well.
and then him and his shakira's came to ma house and took errr guns
Saying "Merry Christmas" was punishable by being thrown to Muslim lions and atheist tigers at the Colosseum
In fairness to Obama, those events were LIT.
are christian humans halal to muslim lions?
I sure hope it's Ramadan when I get thrown to the Muslim lions.
And daytime.
Thanks Obama
Dude I'd go to a zoo where the only exhibits were animals that had somehow been taught to have religious convictions.
Uh. Don’t forget the gay bears!
Were there Jewish bears? I have to know if he properly completed the set.
But Muslims don't eat swine.
I work in England running the social media for my international company, and we got an American woman saying 'I'd never come over to England because I, as a white christian woman, wouldn't be safe there. It has fallen to the Muslims'
Meanwhile I'm reading that comment, the whitest most christian woman in my office of 100% white people, and I actively developed my Christianity at the encouragement of Muslims. Absolutely hilarious. I have never, not once, been attacked for being Christian or white. I've been attacked for being a woman, but only ever by white men. The Muslims were nothing but lovely to me.
I'd have laughed had I not become immediately furious.
I'm English, and I've recently moved to the American Mid-West for work. Once every few months I get into a blood-boiling conversation at a bar with some utter twat about how Europe is overrun with Muslims, and you can't walk about London without getting covered in acid. The best bit is when they try to convince *me* that I'm wrong about the place I've lived most my life (and that I go back to on a yearly basis.)
The thing is, though, watching American news, you can sorta get why some conservatives believe what they do. Every-time someone in Europe with a tan so much blinks in the wrong way, it's blasted across conservative American media channels. No wonder Americans think that there are hordes of immigrants rampaging their way across the continent.
Edit: Did just want to make it clear, I'm not insinuating that any American, conservative or otherwise, is lacking in intelligence. I guess if I had a point, it'd be if you get your information from one source, you're less likely to question it. If you've lived in some tiny town in Southern Illinois your entire life, why wouldn't you believe the news channel you, your family, and all your mates watch? It's just a shame that this lie is being propagated.
Every-time someone in Europe with a tan so much blinks in the wrong way
Imagine what they'd do if they found out there are Muslims in the US! All sorts of "non-white" or "non-Christian" people, actually. My workplace has a sort of generic prayer room for people to use, and there are Muslim prayer mats in it, and whatever else they need to do their prayers. In America.
Hell, according to some people (usually the same ones you're referencing), we had a Muslim president for years. He wasn't even a valid citizen! ISIS literally embedded a foreign-born, American-hating, Sharia law-enacting black Muslim into US office. Apparently.
Sharia law Muslim terrorist president... kills Bin Laden.
Of course, it was all a fake news story. Obviously made up to get people to think he wasn't a terrorist himself.
Oh it's great. Especially on the internet. I used to use a certain site a lot, but stopped, because every other thing would be 'MUSLIMS IN ENGLAND EVERYONE'S GETTING ATTACKED WITH ACID AND MACHETES' and every time I said 'no... that's really not the case' I'd get absolutely flamed. Mostly by people living in America.
They seriously do that on the news? Good lord. American news channels are an absolute insult to journalism. Oh god, like the time that a 'terrorist expert' on Fox said that there were certain areas of the UK that were no go zones, like Birmingham and Manchester, because of Muslims. My white, female housemates at the time were all from Manchester and they played that clip over and over again until they were crying with laughter.
How are those morons even allowed on TV spreading such dreadful bullshit
They're allowed to run that bullshit because we have enough people dumb and close minded enough to believe it. It's infuriating and absolutely insane that politicians managed to make critical thinking an anti American characteristic.
They seriously do that on the news?
At least on Fox “it’s entertainment not news, and no reasonable person could be led to believe that it’s news” News.
Oh so it's kind of like Charlie Brooker's News Wipe
Except not funny
Or based in truth
And people actually believe it
Wouldn't it be genuinely great/concerning if it turned out that Fox News was just one big social experiment to see how wildly wrong they could get things before people stopped believing it?
That would be funny right?
Guys?
Nah, it’s more like the news version of stores that sell water pipes for tobacco use only, definitely not for marijuana, and don’t even think about calling it a bong.
The issue is that about... how many people still support Trump? That many people still watch Fox news as an actual news channel anyways, even though it constantly lies and even admited that they do a few times.
Manchesters great, but I only say that because I live here and know it. I'd still be weirded out going to Birmingham but it's less about the rapid expansion of Muslims than it is about the additional tons of council estates that breed unsure hate. I lived in Nottingham for a while and that place had a high ratio of immigrants, it was pretty racially charged even though it's a university town/city, though everyone was nice except for the poor white people that weren't students :) feels weird when the immigrants feel safer to be around.
The corollary to that is Europeans that think the US is a shooting gallery with gunfights on every corner.
Yes, shootings are obviously a problem. But it’s not that you can’t go to the grocery store without being shot at.
We don’t think that. I for one am terrified of the thought of having guns legalised here like they are there, purely because I’m frightened of myself. Disclaimer, bit depressing, but I know for a fact I’d be dead if there was a gun in this house.
Edit: downvoted. If you don’t like hearing about it, don’t read it. Unfortunately many people experience it.
As an American who likes guns, and has a long history of depression, this is exactly why I have no intention of ever owning a gun. I enjoy going to a range and shooting for a few hours, I don't need to own a gun for that. If I had a gun in my house I know it would just take one really bad night of drinking and the possibilities of something very bad happening increase tremendously.
Somewhat similarly, I fully support people's right to own a gun. But I refuse to have one in my house because (a) I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old, and (b) I am a huge klutz, like literally-walk-into-walls and trip over paint.
The odds of something bad happening in my house are too high for my personal comfort.
I grew up shooting and sold all of my guns when my son started crawling. I just made the personal decision that his safety trumped my hobby.
This is a huge side of gun violence that I don't think we talk about enough in America. Suicide is a growing problem here, and most of them are carried out using a firearm. The majority of gun violence is suicides. Guns are an *extremely* effective way to kill yourself, much more effective than pills or hanging or letting the car run in the garage. When people use those other methods, they often survive, and get another chance to get the help they need. I can't remember the exact number, but something like 50% of non-firearm suicide attempts end up failing. That's a *ton* of people who get a second chance.
I have a friend who tried to hang himself in college while he was drunk. He fell off the chair and passed out, and survived. Like you, if he had a gun, he wouldn't be alive today. This is the way guns kill the most people, and we continue to act like it's *other* people doing the shooting that we need to protect ourselves from.
Yeah, that's the exact same way I feel. I happen to live in an area of the US where guns aren't as common as in other places, and I'm somewhere between ninety-five and ninety-nine percent sure that I would have put a bullet through my head already if there was a gun in my household.
Send me a PM if you ever want to talk about anything
Thanks bud, appreciate it x
I’m here for you too my friend
Thank you x
Man, I can’t even imagine what that’s like.
The only thing I can say is life’s worth fighting for even if you can’t always see it.
I mean, I'm in the midwest and there are grocery stores I don't go to cause they've had shooting incidents.
St. Louis?
Close. KC. But, yes, this could also work in St. Louis. Probably moreso, actually.
Yeah, I'd agree. People make stupid assumptions everywhere. I've just been exposed to the "Europe is overrun" one very recently and aggressively, so it's at the forefront of my mind.
No one actually thinks that.
[deleted]
Depends how you track school shootings. If you consider any shooting in the vicinity of a school, yes. Mass shootings of children in schools is not a weekly occurance.
'Any shooting' including suicides at closed facilities in the middle of the night and practice at gun ranges...
You can just tell him, no, school shootings are not 'one a week' and nothing like it. There are too many (i.e. more than none), but inflating the numbers idiotically only makes the entire endeavor to fix the problem harder.
The problem is that some of the non-shooting incidents involve similar circumstances to shooting ones. A couple of weeks ago, a kid in our city took his dad's gun, brought it to his high-school in and shot himself. It was suicide but raised the same sort of fears: Why was the gun not secure? How was he able to get his hands on it so easily?
Why was the gun not secure? How was he able to get his hands on it so easily?
I mean kids can pretty much get into most of their parents shit by a certain age.
I'm that case I'm going to place the blame securely on the parent for not securing their guns properly. It's not that hard
A rational assumption, I mean, how many of us found porn? Is a gun that different?
There's actually less now than there were in the past, but that doesn't fit the media/government story of fear-based rule.
Well... that may depend on your area... lately we've had a disturbing number or shootings and such in my little town.
No one actually thinks that though whereas you constantly see people online saying Europe is taken over by Muslims.
Go to the south side of Chicago.
west side these days is worse.
Been there, done that.
It been a few years ago. I’m sure it’s not gotten better, has it?
It's bad. The problem is social media enabling 24/7 beef, and the lack of organized gang structures following the crackdown on the Bloods and the Crips. Makes it a lot hard for cops to do their jobs.
I've never seen anyone shooting outside a designated shooting situation, like a range or a shooting session out back at a farm. Lived in America for 42 years.
America is big, many people have a very diffrent experience
I know. That is a hilarious misconception.
unless you're in certain neighborhoods in Chicago.
I never have (or will) thought that way as an American. I've seen it personally though, and it's tough to educate people in America. They would rather be wrong and attack your beliefs than to question themselves. Critical thinking is getting to be a rarity over here.
Yeah, but I think I'm maybe giving Americans a hard time in my original comment. Thing is, when your only source of news is telling you one thing, of course you're going to believe it. I don't think Americans are any more or less stupid than anyone else, just perhaps a bit isolated.
I don't think they are dumb or stupid. It's just very difficult to change someones opinion in America because they never "look at the situation in another person shoes". It all comes down to critical thinking.
I get what you're saying. Yeah, I think especially in the Midwest, it comes down to this cultural ubiquity. When everyone around you looks and thinks like you do, it can be harder to look at the world from another perspective.
Is most of your experience coming from Southern Illinois? Outside of the Universitites, Southern Illinois is very different from many other parts of the country. There are a lot of small town people who know nothing outside of their hometown. People in more metropolitan areas are not so isolated
I live in a Muslim majority area (one of two chunks of the city where all the poor people live and the other one tends to be aggressively racist), there's even a mosque opposite me. Most of the shops in the main road area muslim-owned and full of vegetables I've never even heard of. My local Asda stocks camel milk (it tastes like what I imagine camels smell like). Guess what? I've felt safer living here than I ever did in the other area or in any other white-majority place I've lived. The people are kind and friendly, they never blast music at 3am or have fights in the street. I've never been cat called or followed home and that used to happen all the time because I have a vulnerable aura. The Muslims aren't talking over but even if they were it feels like most of what they're bringing to the community is positive. The EDL existing doesn't mean the old white woman down the street is going to assault you, the IRA bombings didn't mean every Irishman was out for our blood and the recent terrorist attacks do not mean every Muslim is an extremist.
Fun story, I once told someone this and they were adamant I must have some 'foreign blood' in me. Nope. One of the whitest people you could ever hope to meet, traced back to the Viking invasions of the area. You can care about other people without having anything in it personally.
It's not all American news, it's just certain propaganda networks peddling faux news in order to push an agenda.
That's fair. Where I'm located specifically, however, right-leaning networks seem to be a bit more prominent.
Are you talking locally? Nationally fox is pretty much the only right leaning news, that's why it's used as an example for right leaning news so much
Sinclair broadcasting is an organization for right wing propaganda and they've been gobbling up local stations fast.
Never heard of them, I hear abc is doing the same, I wonder if there is a broad casting competition going on right now.
Edit:not sure why I'm down voted when I didn't even give an opinion....
There’s a great John Oliver segment about them. It’s terrifying.
certain propaganda networks peddling faux news in order to push an agenda.
Sadly, it’s pretty much all networks. It’s just a matter of which agenda they promote.
Enough with the false equivalency. There's only one network that is consistently and unabashedly untethered from the truth.
RT?
Fox. They've even admitted they "don't have to give out real news" before.
But still, have you watched RT? So much propaganda. Constantly. Like running a train of propaganda.
Frankly I want to know what RT stands for.
It’s the abbreviated branding of Russia Today.
Ok, good to know. Ya I can imagine how that'd be a propaganda paper...
Not paper. Website & tv channel.
Russia Tonight?
Russian Times?
Rastafarians? Terrorists.
I meant I don't know what news station you're talking about ahah.
Oh, they’re the pro-Russian news service. A lot of their editorial decisions get made by someone in the Kremlin.
Oh. Ya that sounds like it would be rather biased and propaganda-y.
RT isn't that bad actually when they're not covering Russia.
TheErE iS oNlY OnE NeTwOrK. Lol you know how crazy that sounds, seriously sit down and watch abc the unabashedly attack trump regardless what he does. Fox Defends him 99% of the time (except when he passed tariffs). I'm on reddit a lot which without a doubt is left leaning, so I try to round out what I watch and listen to news wise, in my opinion ABC is the worst by far in the anti-trumo agenda, even after getting a sit down with north korea, they credited south korea. All the other news channels it's obvious who they pander to but they all make attempt at defending argument. Abc is just bad
That is a fair observation, but I just want to clarify one thing. There may be particular biases in news coverage across each network, but really, let's not fool ourselves here: there really is only one major network in the US that consistently and continuously pushes falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and lies in the service of an agenda. And that is Fox News.
Russia collution, the black guy who charged cops and got shot was innocent (can't remember name), new tax plan raises taxes on americans, trumps sexist because he made one comment over 30 years ago, going to cause a nuclear war with north korea.
Seriously if you think fox news is the only who pulls that shit then you are already suckling the teet of the other big news channels. They are ALL pandering to a base audience in the extreme, I think ABC is the worst at this, the other news channels are bad too but after listening to ABC I can't stand news for the rest of the day
Russia collution, the black guy who charged cops and got shot was innocent (can't remember name), new tax plan raises taxes on americans, trumps sexist because he made one comment over 30 years ago, going to cause a nuclear war with north korea.
Which of these are falsehoods, conspiracy theories and lies? And even if you do cherry-pick a few times that, say, ABC reported something incorrectly, it still pales in comparison to the sheer quantity that Fox News produces.
[deleted]
Here's a (non-comprehensive) list of some of their doozies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#Content
all the ones above are exceptionally false
lolwut. Just because news channels are covering the investigation into possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, doesn't mean that they are perpetrating falsehoods. You understand that, right?
[deleted]
That's funny, I wasn't aware that you had access to the investigation findings by the FBI and the special counsel. Oh wait, you don't.
[deleted]
LOL if you think that everything you've seen on TV is the extent of the investigation. Boy, are you going to be disappointed.
[deleted]
Yeah, I think you were about to prove that ABC lies more often than Fox News. What happened to that?
Wtf why are you down voted
Reddit is overwhelmingly upper middle class white people. They disparage mass media, but loathe Fox and its untermenschen viewership.
She's watching too much Fox news. Consuming propaganda is bad for your brain cells.
Well you can't walk around America without getting shot. Especially going to school. We're all a buncha cowboys who open carry glocks on our hips.
I know right, I'm from Birmingham and according to all the Yanks, it's a Muslim war zone where if you're not Muslim, you're dead. (All the Yanks is hyperbolic as all hell because it was America's Daily Mail, Fox '''''''news'''''' which said it, and fuck if they've ever done anything newsworthy or correct in their lifespan.)
I had to block my Grandad in Law's posts on facebook after he posted about how he was shocked that the UK voted in a Muslim mayor. He was going on about how Muslims were taking over and that they were going to start controlling everything. I just commented on the post saying that in UK politics, we don't care what religion you are as religion is never mentioned in politics unless you want to commit career suicide.
That's refreshing that people understand that. There are still some people over here who think that it's the start of Muslims taking over the government. I don't really comment much about the prevalence of Christianity in politics and the religious advisors to the president because I only hear of snippets. But technically isn't your government also supposed to separate religion from the state? How come no-one brings this up when people are being accused of not being a good Christian or a different religion as everyone accused Obama of being. Seems like everyone is persecuting Muslims as though it's a Race and we backpedalled 100 years.
I’m American (northeast) and have literally never heard of this stereotype. Are they confusing the middle east with London or something? I grew up in an uppity super rich neighborhood in the U.S. and there were tons of muslims and Sikhs (not that thats bad obviously, they were exactly the same as everyone else plus some fancy headgear).
go ahead and insinuate, fuck, say it straight out: america is full of idiots. when religion and politics get involved it's amazing to watch otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people put blinders on.
I'm not insinuating that any American, conservative or otherwise, is lacking in intelligence. I guess if I had a point, it'd be if you get your information from one source, you're less likely to question it.
I think you contradicted yourself there. :)
Thats true. The media portrays everyone brown as a threat to America.
I hate racism in media. Left leaning stations also go anti-cop black guys can do no bad narritive. While conservatives go pro-cop this guy deserved it.
Strangely enough I prefer the right leaning stations on that coverage because a lot of the time the black guy who was shot deserved it (not cuz he's blacl, but because he charged/attacked police)
They have to keep up the dstraction from all the shooting incidents that is so chronic in that country.
You mean the once a week incident that makes national news? So like 52
Carbondale?
I got this so much, the only way I could get them to rethink their view was to point out how ISIS looks like amateur hour compared to what the IRA did, so I ask them if I should be afraid of Irish people using their logic. Even things like pointing out im 5-6x more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK (even accounting deaths from terrorism), that a Brit visiting the USA is like an American visiting Brazil didn't shake their belief that the UK is 90% Muslim and there's a terrorist attack every week.
TOOOOTALLY AGREES! SPECIALLY THE PART WHEN THEY POINT OUT THAT "YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT" SORTA MENTALITY! BLOODY HELL! UGH.
The problem is you’re in the Midwest. We call that “fly over country” for a reason, lots of uneducated people who never leave their bubble out there. I frankly love the UK, and will be there next month.
Is there a good spot to watch the WC final in London, btw?
there's a few big screen events all over london but i'm too lazy to google. Otherwise absolutely every single pub in the country will have the games on and you won't struggle to find showings. Also if we win, the country will cease to function for a couple months just as a warning
if we win
Haha. Cute. :)
I would be tickled to be around to see that.
I'd be amazed to see that. :D
GL, y'all.
Jesus mate you’re just talking about morons.
Everything else you said is irrelevant.
I suppose I am
Aren't there a lot of immigration isues in Europe?
There have been Issues in either Sweden or Denmark with an increase in Rape statistics I believe but general crime rates have not risen in countries that have taken in immigrants.
IIRC the rape statistic in Sweden is higher due to the way they count the occurances.
After doing a quick Google search I came across this article which stated
"In Sweden, each case of sexual violence is recorded as a separate incident. So for example, if someone says they were raped by a partner every day for a fortnight, officers will record 14 potential crimes. In other countries the claim could be logged as a single incident.
Sweden also significantly broadened its definition of rape in 2005, which means the word "rape" can be used to record acts which would be called assault or bodily harm in other countries. That led to an increase in the number of rapes reported in the country in the years following the law change"
ahh right that makes sense, wasn't sure about it but did remember reading about some of the Swedish were concerned about the increase of Rapes by immigrant men; Thanks for the clarification!
No wonder Americans think that there are hordes of immigrants rampaging their way across the continent.
But there are. Maybe not in the UK so much but on the continent it is happening.
Funny little anecdote. I was in Tübingen, Germany, for last new years. Tübingen has, I believe, the highest concentration of immigrant refuges per capita in all of Germany.
I left my wallet in a coffee shop off the one of the main streets. I only realized hours later, and essentially gave up the wallet as stolen, and figured I'd just cancel the cards and that would be that.
My mate, who was from the area, laughed and told me that this was Germany! We walked the 30 minutes back to the cafe, and sure enough, someone had given it to the barista, who had kept it behind the counter.
I'm not going to make an assumption regarding where you're from, but coming from someone who has frequently and recently been to the places that are believed to be "no-go" zones, I can tell you that I felt safer there than any given major city in the US or UK.
No-go zones are a myth. This does not change the fact that hordes of immigrants are in fact rampaging their way across the continent. Read about the attacks at festivals across Europe
You've very ironically missed the entire point of my first post. What I'm trying to say mate is that I've actually lived there, so I'm struggling to understand how you think that your idea of the EU is somehow more "correct" than the reality that I existed in.
OK so millions of immigrants have not flooded Europe in the last few years and the attacks at festivals are a myth. Got it.
No, you see there are many immigrants but they're more like a gust of wind than a tsunami. They just blend in.
It's OK, Marty Lives in the US, probably has the best spot to watch the (cough) invasion of Europe.
PS a lot of american ancestors (what 2, 3 gens back) are immigrants who attacked the locals. worked out pretty well for them. (the immigrants and possibly my relatives)
Sure. They really blended in at the festivals and at the pools
Arrogant.
Am from the continent, the only time I ever, ever hear about Muslims rampaging across Europe is from Americans on the Internet.
Pretty sure the European media covered it
Shouldn't be too hard for you to provide a source then.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/19/muslim-immigration-trojan-horse-invasion-ukip-conference-aldo-carcaci
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/10/denmark-swings-right-immigration-muslims-besieged-holbaek
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4235655/now-philip-hammond-is-finally-out-he-must-shut-the-door-behind-him-and-take-control-over-our-laws-our-trade-and-especially-immigration/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cologne-attacks-trigger-raw-debate-on-immigration-in-germany-a-1071175.html
there aren't really that many muslims, they make up just over 5% of the population (i think). big cities are far more diverse than more rural areas, so in a small town most of the people you work/study with are white british.
also wtf is wrong with muslims? i know there's isis and that but that's like saying you're afraid of irish people because of the ira.
People here in the US seem to think that muslims in the UK government want to institute shariah law, somehow
lol really? how does this sort of misinformation spread?
I'm not even sure... He seems to think he heard it on the news or something. I don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to believe about anything.
Fun story: I did my dissertation on the representation of Islam in the media, and for it, I needed to interview some Muslims. So I emailed a facebook group I found in my hometown asking to interview them. Turns out, in my town of nearly 80,000 people, there were only 3 other Muslims in the town that this guy was aware of, and my minimum group size was 5.
It's because the places with higher Muslim populations - London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford - are usually the places that, historically, people from Pakistan/India/the Middle East immigrated to in the 50s-70s.
I know, the IRA have killed far more people in the UK than any Muslim extremist group have, and yet the Irish are considered fine (now... they were not back then)
I suppose we're just going to have to wait for another group to emerge to be scapegoated before Muslims are off the hook
yes you're right, and also i didn't realise the ira killed more people than muslim extremists. it was before my time. i think that the media/society make it seem like there are a lot more terrorist incidents than there actually are, or at least makes it seem like it's a bigger danger than it is.
related story: when i went to london for a school trip recently, they kept warning us about terror attacks and even gave us the three-step instructions on a card so we'd know what to do. i know they meant well but they act like terror attacks happen every other week.
In the early 90s there were many many bombing attacks by the IRA.
Yeah, a few of my friends live in London. They're really blase about the whole thing.
After we did what we did to India and surrounding areas, effectively just moving in and taking over, I think they're well within their rights to move over here.
[deleted]
source?
It's bloody crazy. Sure, we aren't as Christian as we once were, but that's because ethnically white Britons are become more atheist, not because the Muslims are taking over.
Honestly, our attitude to religion has never been as devout as America's (even during Cromwell's reign). Like I'm a practising Church of England Christian, and let's be honest, it's Catholocism Lite with more divorce and contraception, created for the express purpose of divorce.
Also we're a really private nation, and religion is a really private thing. I'll tell people I'm religious when it's appropriate (like in this discussion), but the most you'd see of my religion in day to day life is the cross necklace I wear.
Every single one of my friends and co-workers are atheist
I have a big soft spot for the CoE, it's just always seemed like a really warm and chill denomination compared to the hell and brimstone churches in America. There also seems to be a greater sense of understanding/acceptance between believers and non believer s in the UK. I've heard that in the more religious states in the US, saying you're atheist is almost equal to taking part in child sacrifice. And in return, atheists see the religious as stupid and ignorant.
And Cromwell almost left England in the 1630s because he didn't see the general atmosphere as being puritan enough, especially when Charles 1 was actively pushing high Anglicanism, which was, to the Puritans, a little too like Catholicism. America was founded by fundies, and has only become more fundamental over time.
I do love my little church. It’s still far behind our American counterpart (Episcopalian is Church of England which you probably knew) in terms of equality, but it’s more open to change than a lot of other sects. And, because it’s catholic lite, we get the super cool churches that survived the Reformation. My church is nearly 900 years old.
There is I feel, a lot of atheists can understand why people believe in a higher power just as a lot of religious people can understand the reasons behind atheism, but for the most part we just get on with our lives. Of course there are fundies in all aspects of religion and atheism but there always will be.
Yeah, Charles II came in and it was basically party time after that. I can see why the more religious amongst the English would have left. Sorry you’ve got to deal with the consequences though...
I was raised US Episcopalian, which is Church of England, but no monarch. It really is a chill denomination.
US Pentecostalists and Southern Baptists, a lot of em aren't bad, most aren't bad on their own, but get them in a group and fired up about witnessing, hell, and anything else...
There's actually sociological research into this. Grace Davies coined the term 'belief without belonging' and 'belief in belonging'. In the US, religion is seen as a very social thing and your friendship groups would be very centered around your church congregation, many people go along with religion in the US just so they can keep the sense of camaraderie and having a solid social support through the church.
Although British churchgoers do have the feelings of belonging about the church, if they attend regularly they're much more likely to have genuine beliefs in religion than just longing for the social aspect. It's part of why social attitudes about religion differ so wildly between the US and the UK. The sociology of Religion is absolutely fascinating
The whole "ZOMG EngLaNd iS LitEraLLy SAudi ArABia!!11!!!1!" is a Fox News production based on the London mayor being
A. Muslim, and
B. unwilling to put up with Trump's bullshit.
God the UTTER MELTDOWN of the far right when he was voted in. It was hilarious. He’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but he’s not bad.
As an Australian living in the US, that's how I feel about "oh I could never visit Australia - so many dangerous animals". Jesus Christ, you have bears and pumas and coyotes and and shit in this continent ... actual predators. You're not worried about those are you? And you're worried about a spider? You know how many people have died from a spider bite in Australia since the 1970s? ONE (in 2016). And we curse that guy because otherwise we could say literally zero people have died from a spider in the last half century. Australia has zero land predators ... most of our animals are cute small furry things (marsupials) that are totally harmless. Plus, even if you were bitten, Australia doesn't have rabies and other diseases prevalent in the rest of the world. It's also one of the most urbanised countries on earth (far moreso than America which has a much higher proportion of rural residents), and a visitor is unlikely to see anything more dangerous than a pigeon during their time in Australia (unless they are out there actively looking for it).
Anyway, er, I digress. Dangers such as this, and such as 'muslims in Britain' are always ridiculously overblown in Americans' minds for some reason. Never mind the fact you have 100,000x more chance of dying any time you get in a car than being affected by anything like that during your lifetime.
I'm more concerned about people's experiences with big spiders in their houses. Yes, they may be harmless, but they scare me.
Ah. Well those big ones are Huntsman spiders and actually exist in most of the world (everywhere except northern Eurasia and the northern part of North America: see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntsman_spider#/media/File%3ADistribution.sparassidae.1.png )
So you’d have to avoid a lot more countries than just Australia if that was a major concern.
But they are truly harmless to humans as you say, and are actually considered beneficial by many, as they eat mosquitos and insects that you don’t want in your home). They don’t weave webs either so no mess. They just sit up in a ceiling corner waiting for an insect to wander past.
As a visitor to Australia you aren’t more likely to run into one more than any other warm climate country. In 30 years living in Australia I’ve had to remove one from the house maybe half a dozen times. So yeah they exist, but we are talking about a once-every-couple-of-years “oh look a spider”, not a constant battle. And chances are if you live in a modern, more ‘air tight’ home, you’ll never see one. They can get in more easily on older homes that aren’t as well sealed.
Eh, you need to go looking for Brown bears unless you live in Alaska or BC. Black bears are sissies, deer are way more dangerous than them. Pumas are around but I've never once seen them in 33 years and they don't really attack people.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. You don’t worry about those in N America so why worry about even less dangerous things in Australia.
Oh I'm with you, I lived in places with Black Widows and never freaked out about it.
This is the result of watching Fox News. My father-in-law says he won't go to France anymore because it is all Muslim now, and it is dangerous.
Has your dad even ever been to France?
His father-in-law likely couldn't point to France on a map.
Many times, but not in the last 5 to 8 years.
She just means you don't kowtow to her frequently enough for her liking.
ohhhh nooooo
well, looks like we won't be seeing her on our fair shores ever.
What a loss.
I'm so upset
^^^^/s
Literally snorted. By the way can I come live with you? Well not WITH you but in your country?
As long as you aren't someone who talks to other people on public transport and is good at queueing I don't see why not.
Please be aware that liking tea is not mandatory, but if you do, Yorkshire Gold is the best one.
OMG that sounds wonderful. Almost every day some guy on the bus decides that because I'm female and daring to exist in public I'm his bestest buddy.
Oh goodness me no, that's just bad manners. Unless they're drunk or a bellend, but usually they will receive a round of tutting from other passengers if you make it known you're not into it.
Also the no public transport rule goes out of the window when people are drunk. We like to make friends with everyone on the planet when we're drunk, so be aware on Friday nights, Saturdays (all day) and occasionally Sundays if there is a bank holiday the next day.
I have heard that public drunkenness seems to be more tolerated in Europe than the United States. Being drunk in public (depending on location) is more often than not a good way to get arrested.
[this is a pretty good representation of average drunkenness in public in the UK] (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/03/like-a-beautiful-painting-image-of-new-years-mayhem-in-manchester-goes-viral)
The policemen aren't arresting the guy for being drunk, mind, they're arresting him because chances are he's tried to fight one of them
And yes, this is at Christmas, yes most of those women are wearing short dresses and no jackets. It's weak if you do that.
Where I live winter temps are easily -12 C at night. You wear coats and nobody cares.
So you can only drink at home?
Or do bars/clubs offer rooms (with beds) until you are sober again?
Most of the time cops look the other way if you are just tipsy but they can arrest for public intoxication. How strict it is enforced depends on area. In most places people who want too get totally trashed do it at home, bars will cut you off and bar drinks are expensive. Hotels do often have bars though so in that sense yes there are bars with beds.
The odd thing is that we even do this for places not as "exotic and far off" as England. During our last election cycle I had TV commercials informing me that my (very safe moderately affluent area) had been OVERTAKEN BY MS-13 (a very real and angerous gang) and that NOBODY WAS SAFE ANY MMORE.
I'm sure MS-13 exists...and that it's prevalent somewhere -- it just isn't where I live, and no TV ad can convince me that a war is going on outside my front door when it isn't.
Lol, "London is so dangerous, it's overrun!". I go out almost daily, where the fuck are the guys with AK's?
[deleted]
I became FAST
I removed her comment from our page and sent a message saying something passive aggressive saying how very sorry we were that she would miss out on the beautiful scenery and diversity of the British Isles and how proud we were as a country of our history or something. Also that comments that picked on any specific group of people would be removed from our page.
bless you, this made my day.
No problem. My first job was in an organisation that was 99% Muslim. Genuinely nicest people I ever met and ever will meet. They were so excited about me being a Christian, loved talking to me about it and making me think about my religion, not in a “why not be a Muslim” way but in a “think more deeply about your religion” me. They are what inspired me to try and become a priest, even with one guy listing off his contacts in the Church and asking how he could help.
Also, they were all from different places ancestrally, so Eid was amazing. So. Much. Food. I am yet to have another Baklava as good as the one the custodian made for us all.
That's just the best. And yeah. My masjid here is culturally mixed and oh, the food. Bliss.
You're more likely to be critisised for being an atheist. I mean, Christians and Muslims believe in the same god as far as I've been told.
Not just the same god - Muslims believe Jesus is an incredibly important prophet and so celebrate his life similar to how Christians do.
Also the majority of people in the UK are atheist so... you probably won’t be
I sometimes am, but rarely and offhandedly.
I occasionally tell my atheist friends (all of my friends) not to step on holy ground or they’ll burst into flames... I also call them hell bound heathens... does that count
(I mean none of what I say seriously)
Closer to just about a quarter of the population of the UK are atheist, thought that's still a sizable amount.
I had my (conservative) boss tell me there were whole towns in England where it wasn't safe to go, because they were taken over my Muslims. I looked up the stats on the town, it had like a 25% Muslim population or something. He didn't believe me because it was from Wikipedia, citing the UK census.
That’s hilarious. Yeah, the max population of Muslims in the UK are 5% - and that’s counting people who say they’re Muslim because their family is (but drink alcohol etc)
The queen literally heads a Christian church...what planet is that lady living on?
I think the fact it’s called the Church of England may not have clicked in her mind...
I'm Canadian and, although some of the influence have seeped into our country, it's considered rude to even ask.
[removed]
Sure thing, and while I’m at it I’ll also tell it to the millions of children both domestic and worldwide who were systematically abused by various Christian churches (like the Catholic Church for instance)
I’m not defending what the Rotherham gang did. It was abhorrent and disgusting and I hope those... creatures who perpetrated it suffer, but here’s the thing: people can be cunts regardless of religion.
Edit - let’s also not forget Jimmy Saville, the most abhorrent pedophile to ever inflict England existed, and was protected but the entire BBC, a predominantly white organisation.
[removed]
They were either kids in the system or kids who were known to be ‘difficult’ who were targeted because they were kids in the system/‘difficult’, and therefore less likely to be believed when/if they spoke out. That, combined with the fear of racism, is why the gang managed to get as prolific as it did.
What sources mention that they were targeted for being Christian?
[removed]
At no point in either of those statements did they say they were Christian. What they said was that they were white and not Muslim.
Again, this is not to deter from the fact that these girls went through horrific shit at the hands of these monsters, and again I maintain (as do social workers and judges) that this gang was not looked into properly because they were Muslim and therefore workers didn’t want to seem racist which was... a disgusting oversight.
But the only mention of religion was that they were not Muslim. Say they were chosen because they were white, say they were chosen because they were wearing the “wrong thing” (in quotation marks because there is no such thing as the “wrong thing”), but do not say they were chosen specifically because they were Christian.
Also I do not deny that Christians are persecuted throughout the world. What they have to go through in some countries is abhorrent. But Christians are most certainly not persecuted here, in the UK, for their religion, which was my initial statement (a woman not wanting to come to England because she was a white Christian) and to say they are makes a mockery of those who are being murdered for their religion, no matter what religion that is.
[removed]
The common denominator here is that the kids were all non-muslim, not that they were Christian.
Try moving to some hell hole in the middle east where Muslims burn churches and synagogues, and throw gays off buildings. You'll see how lovely the Muslims really are!
That's like saying the entirety of Americans are horrible people because a few people did that exact thing to black people and black churches in the latter half of the last century. You know, the NUMEROUS times that the lynching of a black person for looking at a white person funny became a community event? And if we're going more recent, we can also talk about the continuous news stories that stream through about people shooting unarmed and harmless people (not just black people, people in general) for reasons due to religion, gender, race, and sexuality.
The people that do that in the Middle East are disgusting and dreadful people, just as the people who did/do that in America are disgusting and dreadful. However, not all Americans take part in attacking others, and a fair few fight against draconian and harmful laws, just like every single Muslim person I know (and I know a hell of a lot of Muslims) fight against the horrible unfairness and inequality in the Middle East.
Instead of tarring all people with the same brush, help the ones who want to make a difference.
The people that do that in the middle east ARE IN THE MAJORITY. The minority who don't want the Christians and Jews slaughtered, and the gays thrown off buildings, the women stoned, the girls forced to have cliterectomies against their will, ARE AFRAID TO STAND UP against the majority. Sorry, but as a northerner who has lived in the south most of my adult life, the northerners by and large DO tar every southerner as a racist and a bigot. I lived long enough in the north to see that racism is just as bad up there. Pretty sure you haven't been around as long. If you have, you'll have noticed that EVERYWHERE Muslims go, they bring terrorism. Name a country where they reside that doesn't suffer from their terrorism. Oh, yeah, you can't.
Looking at Muslim countries with widespread religious persecution, we get...
Saudi Arabia
Libya (non-government controlled areas)
Iraq (primarily Muslim on Muslim)
Sudan (North)
Afghanistan
Pakistan
That's 6 of IIRC 51 Muslim-Majority or heavily Muslim nations. The most populated countries are places like Indonesia (1/6 of ALL Muslims live there) and India and Pakistan and Malaysia and Brunei. In terms of raw numbers, Southeast Asia has many more Muslims than all of the Gulf + Middle East + North Africa combined.
Why is it specifically North Sudan? Why is the South safer in those terms/?
In my reading on the subject, the far North of Sudan is pretty terrible. South Sudan was created to get away from it.
Your comment says more about you than it does any Muslim.
Funny, people like you have no problem with others condemning Nazis, and rightly so. Then you get all soft and gooey when it comes to Muslims. Nazis are just Muslims who dressed better, and didn't throw gays off of tall buildings. Not a dime's worth of difference between their values and goals.
You're an idiot. A shallow, hateful idiot, and I hope that you don't breed.
No woman would ever fuck this loser lol
Yeah? So you like Nazis then? Want to bring them back? At least they would kill the Muslims, end that problem.
Muslims are nothing like Nazis, mate. You’re closer to a nazi than most Muslims are.
Now fuck off, fascist swine.
Hate Jews? Check. Use terror to gain political power? Check. Believe that they are the Superior Ideology and attempt to force others to submit or if not kill them? Check. Attempt to invade other countries and force their ideology on the invaded country? Double check. Burn Synagogues and churches, attack queers? Check mate. Uh, you ignorant fuck, you don't know a damn thing about Muslims.
I know more than you do, you small minded bigot. Take that bullshit and fuck right off.
[removed]
Yeap, I suck cock. There’s nothing wrong with it. And once again, the fact that you think sucking cock is an insult says a lot more about you than it does me.
Fucking asshole.
A lot of the time, christians here think they are going to have a fight when they go preach or hang up a flier or something.
This is reinforced by the christians who very publicly go looking for a fight.
It's also reinforced by children of hyper-conservative christian parents rebelling against their parents, and christianity is the sticking point for them.
It doesn't help that they hear it from the pulpit every Sunday. I used to hear in church about how the world was turning against us and we weren't allowed to practice our faith and I believed that shit when they compared it to christians being literally fed to lions thousands of years ago. The persecution complex runs deep in american christianity, which is brutally ironic since they're been the persecutors for our country's entire history. Even when not persecuting people on strictly religious grounds, there was always a "and this is the way the lord says it should be" narrative around it.
Seriously.
I'm a slacknostic. Being an American, the plurality of people in my orbit probably self-identify as Christian and that's cool. Since I like most people, I probably like most of them.
The reality is that in about 75% of towns in the US, if I were to run for public office against someone who was a registered sex offender, my religious non-affiliation would be more damaging to my election prospects than my opponent's criminal history.
my religious non-affiliation would be more damaging to my election prospects than my opponent's criminal history.
A little off topic but I find it fascinating that in my lifetime it was a huge deal when a Catholic won the White House.
People literally thought JFK would be taking orders from the Pope.
Anti-Catholic prejudice was really common in America's history. It's definitely a lot better now, although it still pops up occassionally, and the history of it is completely ignored.
Easy solution: at that point you fabricate a religious affiliation.
I.E. Two Corinthians
And a pizza place?
Slow down. Doug Jones just won in Alabama against evangelical Roy Moore.
By 1.5%. Against a literal pedophile.
In a off year special election. It was nothing short of amazing
It was amazing, but the fact that it was amazing is somewhat illustrative of the problem.
Its never good enough
In many states, you can not even legally run for office if you’re an Atheist.
There’s this really weird stat that a number of white American evangelicals believe they are more persecuted than black Americans. I’ll try to look up the study, but a portion of people in churches are becoming almost like Amish separatists in their view of outside society. My wild guess is that it has something to do with the differences in what people see in mass media and what they experience in daily life.
I'd be perfectly happy for them to live their own secluded life and leave the rest of us the fuck alone like the Amish do too. I have no beef with the Amish, at least not from what I know of them and not anymore than any other Abrahamic religion. They're doing their thing and not getting in other people's bid'nis, they're more or less alright by me.
Are you sure it wasn't a joke?
Like I don't know, but if she posted it at the Coliseum or something (Where Christians were actively persecuted) she might have been being ironic.
Oh, it was 100% not ironic. She's That Way about religion.
Christianity was founded as a religion by, and for, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the forgotten; slaves, serfs, peasants, dissidents. Christianity has come to completely dominate life in many places in the USA but within the religion is retained the message of persecution and struggle. Christians want to feel something like what Jesus felt but there's no opportunity for them to experience genuine oppression so they have to make things up like the "war on Christmas," the audacity of a plain red coffee cup at Christmas time, and the existence of real science education in public schools.
Fear, entitlement, and fear of losing entitlement is what passes for Christianity now.
In Canada people are definitely afraid to admit to being Christian. Mainly younger people. Just out of fear of being judged or ridiculed, because it's much less common over here.
I full on his my religion from my friends until I was like... 20 because they were all atheists and I was embarrassed. Come to find out that none of them care and they often ask me genuinely interested questions about it now. Wish I could have told younger me there was nothing to worry about.
Understandably so as most of us would react the same way if you told us you believed the sky was purple. We won't hate you because of it, just think you a few bricks short of a stack is all.
Usually it's US Christians who think having to coexist with instead of dominate other religions is oppression. I would love to see them react to a mosque shutting down Times Square for a few hours for an Ashura mourning or if the thoroughfare of a town was leased by Hare Kishnas for Rathayatra.
Ao much so that lgbt+ people are legally discriminated against. You can be fired and refused pretty much any service for being gay in MOST states. I think it's 30 currently
Growing up Methodist we heard a lot (like, a fucking LOT) of stories about how we risked being attacked for our faith, how if we witnessed the Word we'd be persecuted or mocked, and that it was all a ploy by Satan to get us to stop being open about our faith, and we needed to prepare ourselves to fight off these machinations by being stalwart and strong in the face of derision, and testify witness and reach out to people that needed Saving.
Personally? I just think the whole damn religion is standing on the shoulders of the days of Pontius Pilate when Christians were actually being persecuted. They've got a whole pitcher of Persecution Kool-Aid they get people to drink, and it's got a lot of Christians actively looking for something to be "persecuting" them.
Modern day Christians are basically conditioned to see persecution around every corner, which isn't all that hard in a country full of people who can't handle anything being mildly outside of their personal comfort zones.
To paraphrase Men in Black, "A Christian is good. Christianity is panicky and paranoid, and you know it."
Especially in the south where there is a church every 6 feet.
Christians have a persecution complex it is literally built into their religion.
Because she can't speak the language, so she's just assuming.
To play devil's advocate, in the USA we don't have large public monuments that you have to cover your shoulders/legs to enter. We don't have Christianity worked into every facet of life as a matter of course.
Because our Christianity is so batshit, we have a lot more resistance, which keeps it out of public culture. In Europe cultural Christianity seems totally engrained.
To be honest we also have several non-religious monuments you have to cover yourself to get inside as a sign of respect like the Altare Della Patria which houses the tomb of the Unknown Soldier; I’ve seen several tourists being bounced for trying to get in with their shoulders uncovered or with excessive cleavage showing.
You don’t?
Absolutely not. The only places I can think of where you might be asked to change clothes are churches (which, again, aren't historical landmarks to visit) and nice restaurants.
Consider the sign "no shirt no shoes no service" which indicates that you cannot come in wearing just a bathing suit. This is a sign we actually NEED in the USA lol.
I’m surprised. Apart from religious buildings the idea of showing up to a sacred place like the Shrine Of The Flags or the Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier feels alien and not respectful to me; I’d never go wearing flip flops, swimsuits or low cut shirts.
We don't any association of "covering skin = respect" beyond wearing normal clothes, again because Christianity isn't ingrained in the culture.
You think it’s because of Christianity? Culture is so strange sometimes.
American conservatives (Christians, racists, anarcho-capitalists) take any request to be nice or respectful of others as an attack on their very way of life, and have developed a psychotic victim complex as a result.
She is playing the victim. All conservatives need to feel victimised to justify how they vote.
What, exactly, did she mean by that? That Christianity was expressed fearlessly, or that it was expressed without the usual guilt, fear, hatred, and other baggage? If she meant the second, I’d call that good, too.
As a religion, Christianity has serious issues but could be worse. It’s the judgemental, overzealous, hypocritical Christians that concern me.
Because in America, atheists and other religions sued to keep school-led prayer out of public schools. Also because of people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas.
Yes, these people have no conception what religious persecution actually means.
Somehow people seem to equate others having freedom to worship/practice their own faiths as an attack on Christianity.... sigh
It's the narrative that the political right in the US has been weaving for a long time. They tell Christians that thier religion is being attacked because the victim mentality is easy to exploit.
There are also more people on the extremes of religiosity, both for and against, in the US as well when compared to places like most of Europe. It tends to be a side effect of the polarization of politics and society that is happening as well.
I grew up in the church. One of the things we were taught was how the early Christians were persecuted and that brought them closer to God. For many of our group it became, "If you aren't being persecuted then you aren't closer to God." So they began making up persecutions thinking it helped made them Godly. Unfortunately I didn't have the balls to tell them it just made them liars.
Maybe she meant in fear of god? i can't speak for her obviously but it seems in America a lot of people only practice religion out of straight fear of god, where as over here people practice religion because of their piety
She would have taken that simple question as an assault.
There's a pretty intense amount of persecution complex happening in a good portion of American Christianity right now. Particularly in the more fundamental/evangelical sects.
Over the past decade or so, there's been a pretty distinct drop in religiousness in general in the US, and especially for evangelicals. Along with that, they've seen some pretty big losses in the 'culture war', particularly in regards to things like gay marriage, which most evangelical groups were strongly against.
When confronted with this reality, rather than look inwards to see if there's something about themselves or their message that is failing to resonate with America at large these days, most of them decided to just believe that there's a war being waged against them. And the Republican party has heavily stoked that belief, using it as a political tool to get evangelicals on their side and motivated to vote.
It's well known by christians that a lot of our views are met with aggression, pressure, or mockery when shared in public. I know this personally, other do too.
I mean it depends. There's a lot of perceived prosecution, (and some actual). Just look at the recent case in Denver where their supreme court ruled that the religion protected class was a lower priority than a gay couple's rights.
Full disclose no skin in the game either way just thought it was unsettling that the courts would put two protected classes at odds.
Every major city in America shames Christians at every level - publicly, privately, in media, etc.
Some people think that because they're criticised for being bigots and overall assholes that means they're being persecuted.
I see Christianity expressed without fear all the hell over the US so what is she on about
Far right TV lies to them, the best way to convince people to grasp super tight on their christianity is to tell them they have a muslim president or muslim immigrants trying to take it away from them.
THIS is what kills me in America right now. Anti-semitic and anti-islamic crimes (and sentiments) have exploded since Trump has taken office, but the Christians have co-opted this narrative and are playing the victims.
They just are so used to ONLY hearing/seeing Christian culture, that any expression of other cultures/religions making it into the mainstream is interpreted as an attack on them, rather than just others having the same freedom to express their religions and be represented in society.
Because in most work places they ban talking about religion like they have banned politics in a lot of offices.
Even if you put it up in public in most cities people will complain it's an attack on them.
It's funny cause I read your comment completely the opposite way from how you/she meant it. Like, in the US, Christianity is expressed through fear - you must fear the other, fear god, fear etc.
Most of the middle east and many museum-dominated areas of Europe.
i'm a catholic. my dad is a very active catholic and he expresses what a lot of older christians have begun saying: they feel persecuted. i'm not sure if it's true or an illusion gleaned from media. i've never felt that way myself but i can be pretty dense sometimes.
There is a shitton of money to be made convincing churchgoers that they are victims and under attack.
You should tell to your aquaintance to visit the church prisons. The one I visited once had the torture devices on display in the same room they were used. Utterly chilling.
Not to mention that Romans literally killed Jesus.
Ironically, US christianity looks down upon Catholicism. Everytime I see american christians talking shit about Catholicism I'm like "Excuse me! We originated the religion!"
She from the Bible Belt? Because they can get pretty crazy down here.
The oppressed majority.
She's saying if you tell a gay person they are going to hell, they get mad at you for some reason.
Maybe her ideal political situation is a literal theocracy like the Vatican?
Something not mentioned is that Christianity has also been largely commercialized in the US. People have hijacked it here and ironically, behave in quite the opposite manner of the tenets in which they profess to believe. It's unfortunate because you'll never hear about the 'great' Christians cause they're doing stuff but you only see the idiots parroting on TV.
Given Jesus angrily booted out all of the money-changers in the temple I hate to see what he'd do to American megachurches.
Didn’t Jesus get so angry that he wove his own whip to beat the money lenders in the temple with?
Not quite, I believe he made a whip to drive out the animals they were selling, and then he overturned their tables. I don't think the Bible says he actually beat people with anything.
He didn't beat anyone. He used the who to drive out the "sanctified" (read: expensive af) animals that vendors were selling in the church walls.
Yep.
That takes a special kind of angry. Good thing they didn't have machine guns back in those days, it would have been a bloodbath.
[deleted]
Not getting angry, though he did say hating a person, even if it's in your own head, was akin to murdering that person.
Well fuck, put me in prison I guess
That's basically the point yes, if you preach perfect morals we all go to prison(hell)
That’s a main point in Christianity in general. No person is good enough on their own to go to Heaven.
Most would be burned likely. I've been to two megachurches who act just like a local small church, just with a large population. They talk the talk, and do more than just walk the walk. One of the churches I visited, the preachers that led the church took a salary of $40k in a decently large city and besides health insurance, he didn't take anything else.
Nor should he. The less money he takes, the more for the community.
It depends on what's provided for him. Most churches will provide housing for the pastor so that's cared for. He didn't need more, so he took just a bit more than he absolutely needed to save for retirement.
The place I live in is predominantly Catholic and so am I, and it is bizarre to me that a pastor will retire and need to fund it himself. Catholic priests and clergy are cared for and have their needs taken care of for the rest of their life. They take vows of poverty, however, so that is why.
It was basically retirement funded by the church, but it was included in his salary. Weird way to do it but I'm not going to judge.
"you're selling t-shirts?! Holy hell!"
I would actually pay good money to see what he would do to those megachurches.
I’d actually love to see it.
I went to Saddleback as a young teen (on holiday to the US from the UK with my family) and wew that was an experience. The thing that stuck with me at the time was that there was a whole segment in the kids bit about american history and patriotism? Which was... just bizarre. Like... you couldn't hate america and be a good christian? very weird. There was also a little tuck shop and games machines.
Looking back, it's pretty fucked up that that cash wasn't going on helping the community or good causes. (although, considering this is the US, and good "christian" causes can be bullshit like "gay reeducation", maybe that wasn't such a bad thing)
Great cookies though.
I'd love to see him do something to them. Get 'em outta here.
Legit Jesus flipped tables for less.
I would LOVE to see what Jesus would do to American megachurches.
Whoa, cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.
Whenever I want to rage I just watch the video of the two megachurch pastors discussing about why they need private airplanes. Jet airplanes. Plural. Insane.
I think it's somewhat the same all over the world that you don't really hear about the vast majority of normal religious people because they're just pretty normal people albeit with other beliefs. The ones you hear about are extreme in one way or another.
This is highly prevalent in some other countries too. A lot of it depends on whether the government will step in if it becomes a profitable business and re-classify it as such. Countries that do this seem to have less problems. In America you can call your business a religion and charge people for imaginary things that provide no benefit of any kind, actively work to thwart the investigations, kidnap people, have multiple actors working to reinforce the public image you want and run PR like a megacorp and no one steps in at all.
I believe you mean "tenets," not "tenants".
sry auto correct from phone.
and ironically, behave in quite the opposite manner of the tenets in which they profess to believe
All around tho
You don't understand, it's like an investment. I give the church my money and I get considerably more in heaven, a place where wealth doesn't matter, but at least my angelic neighbors will know that as a mortal I loved God a lot more than they did. I think the current rates are like 7 to 1 or 10 to 1. Anyway, I'm going to be set for afterlife. I can't wait till I die!
Sorry to be that person, but it's 'tenets', not 'tenants'.
I can fully relate as a Muslim. You never hear about the good Muslims or average Muslim on tv, rather you only see the Wahhabi nut heads (the extremist ideological group that consists of Isis, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and those that want Sharia laws everywhere they go)
cough cough protestants cough
This commercialization is in many ways an unintended side effect of the constitutional freedom of religion, as—rather than being state-sponsored (i.e. officially subsidized)—American religion had to compete on the open marketplace of culture. It did so, quite successfully, through commercialization and establishing itself as a purported moral arbiter against change, making it a ripe force for the political right wing (which relies heavily on a "follow the rules" authoritarian follower mentality.
Check out R. Laurence Moore's 1994 book Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace of Culture (Oxford University Press) for an in-depth look at this thesis.
It seems like just about every church that I've been in, people know and are aware of this. As far as Christian persecution in America goes, I think that part of our cross to bear is being thrown into the same box with all of these people getting bad press- by default. You know, the child molesters, the millionaires, the spectacular healers, the politically charged-biligerently opinionated-ever angry folks, the Trump worshippers, the people offended by the hype of coffee cups and chicken restaurants and Holiday greetings etc.. the drama that comes with all of these things is grieving. Mainly because it causes people (outsiders and Christians alike) to stumble and to ridicule and mock our God/savior who loves us more than anyone ever could.
I'm not saying that this is anywhere near the level of persecution happening worldwide, but to be totally honest, it is difficult and somewhat discouraging at times to be automatically associated with all of this chaos. Persecution can be experienced in several different ways to varying degrees. But as a Christian, persecution should never be a surprise. Literally most of the New Testament tells us that we will be persecuted.
Then you shouldn't come to Nigeria. It's a different ball game here. More like Christianity for profit.
I agree. I am an Australian and lived in America for a few months - people there are way more vocal about their religious beliefs there. It’s a private thing here that would not come out in a work/acquaintance situations but there it’s very out there - like the first thing in peoples Business Instagram bios for example.
It's highly dependent on where you are in the US, though. When I was on a road trip in the South "What church do you belong to?" was a not-infrequently asked question by strangers, religious billboards and bumper stickers everywhere, channels of televangelists on TV, etc. Massachusetts, on the other hand, is one of the most liberal and least religious states, and wearing your religion on your sleeve to the extent that Alabamans or Georgians might is very outside the norm.
That is true, I was in Texas so I saw a particular part of the US and it’s culture.
And even texas is super varied. Austin vs Houston is a fucking culture shock.
Yeah we were based in Austin, which I thought was way more liberal than the rest (and it was) but it was still a huge culture shock coming from Australia in regards to religion. I am in the wedding industry and a lot of our networking is via Instagram and I was surprised how many business accounts included the owner being a “Jesus lover” or “Christian” or something of that nature in their bio.
Houston was even more so - our Uber driver tried to get us to join his church when we drove passed it, pushing hard on how great it was etc. And offered to stop so we could get a tour and some information (it was the Joel Osmond’s mega church). Even that I know his name is weird to me - those “famous” preachers/pastors aren’t a thing here.
I'm an American from a non-American background. I live in the South. It's kind of an unspoken thing among the less religious (and even some of the religious) that businesses/ads that push how Christian they are are out to rip you off or outright scam you. Those ads only convince a certain subset of the population.
From the horror stories I had heard in the industry at first I thought it was maybe a subtle “no same sex weddings” warning. But many of the people I spoke with were quite open to that and working with those couples.
Makes me wonder if it's because they're real Christians in their hearts and they love everyone as Jesus said to or if they're real American Christians and money is far more important than anything in their supposed holy book.
(it was the Joel Osmond’s mega church)
Joel Osteen, and he's a giant mega douche who is hated as much by many as he is loved by some. He wouldn't open the doors of his church to help people in the hurricane, despite all his millions. Meanwhile, our long-time hero Mattress Mack (furniture store) immediately rushed to people's aid, let people stay in his store, etc. People look at Joel Osteen as one of those who says and Mack is one who does--you can call yourself a Christian all you want, but what you demonstrate to others is what counts. (If God exists, I think that's how he'd feel about it.) Joel is an utter shithead, and his church is a borderline (?) cult.
I have a coworker who's into Joel (she's otherwise intelligent and decent, LOL). She doesn't go on about her religion in a big way, and it'd be against work policy for her to lay into it, but she's mentioned it at intervals. Another coworker's Jewish (this comes up around the holidays and around his dietary needs at work events). Another has mentioned his church in terms of social conversations (like what he did over the weekend involved some project at the church). Another's religious but keeps it to himself (but then, he keeps everything to himself--he never talks). Otherwise, I don't hear about what people's religion is here, and I'm sure some are atheist/agnostic.
So basically, I don't personally experience a heavy religious angle in Houston. Some people are into it. A lot aren't. There's no judgement against you if you're not, generally, and if there is, that person can get fucked. I mean, it's a big city, on its way to being third largest in the country, and the most diverse in the US. We have Joel "fucking" Osteen here, but we also have a Zoroastrian church (or whatever they call it). We have Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Satanists, you name it.
I've accidentally seen Joel Osteen's show a couple times.
It's weird to me that his dove or genie lamp or whatever it is logo is all over the place, but not the cross.
Also, his church is a former basketball arena and that's just crazy.
his church is a former basketball arena
To me, it will always be the Summit.
I'm not sure how Christian he really purports to be? I gather he pushes the prosperity gospel. I mean, he could just as easily be running a pyramid scheme or something.
Yeah it's totally prosperity gospel which does sound like a pyramid scheme.
The south tends to be more religious in that way, but I think that was more evident to you since you were in the wedding industry. Traditional weddings can vary from religion to religion, and the question is probably more just the customers wondering where your starting point is.
Come up to the northern corner regions of the country and you will see far less of that.
I hadn’t thought of that aspect. At first I thought it was a subtle “no same sex marriage” as I mentioned below but many I spoke to who had it in their profiles where more than happy to work with any couples, so you have made a good point.
I am in the wedding industry and a lot of our networking is via Instagram and I was surprised how many business accounts included the owner being a “Jesus lover” or “Christian” or something of that nature in their bio.
That is definitely a non-zero contributing factor. America has a schizophrenic relationship with weddings - part legal ceremony and part religious event. So including your religious leanings in your business makes some sense marketing-wise.
Because only in America can someone profit off of religion.
I guess you've never seen the Vatican
Catholicism is just that sketchy cousin in the corner involved in a cult in America. I choose to act like they don't exist
Lol. Catholicism is way older than most forms of Christianity.
I'm aware but we don't live in the past and the controversy that have come out of that church have made me despise them and I'd just rather they didn't exist, but the current pope I think is doing a lot of good for them and paving the way to make it much better
I don't like the stuff that comes out of the church either but to deny that it was the reason for most Christian sects in America is just plain wrong.
I'm not denying that at all, I agree 100 percent with you there. I'm saying that Catholicism, the actual religion, not it's sects or anything like that, is an over traditional cult like religion, similar to Mormonism, while not as extreme. I'm fine with it's sects, they've done nothing wrong as far as I know. The Catholic Church needs to reform or get out and until then, stay away from me because you've done nothing but bad for the most part. BUT and this is a big but, the current pope is starting to change my views on this church. He's a reasonable guy that understands the world is different now and his faith needs to change otherwise it will die out.
One of religion's earliest uses was to make money. It didn't begin in the U.S., or is it unique to the U.S., but it is way more common there.
Honestly Austin is a pretty racist city. The infrastructure is literally designed to segregate and isolate minorities from whites.
You must only have spent time out in the Houston suburbs, because actual Houston is pretty solid blue. I mean they elected an openly gay mayor a few years ago, and the city has rainbow flags up all over downtown right now for Pride Month. Not exactly Republican Central.
I'm in Oklahoma and a few months ago I was waiting in the lobby to finish up my taxes when someone asked me what church I went to and if I would be interested in going to theirs.
I took a trip from New Jersey to North Carolina last week and saw two young ladies praying together over their food in a Chick fil a, I almost fell off my chair I couldn't believe people pray out in public.
If you don't mind my asking, what walk of life are you from that praying out in public is abnormal or frowned upon?
I live in New Jersey. I'm not really sure why, but praying out in public would get you weird looks pretty much anywhere that's not a church.
I think it might be the vast number of liberals in New Jersey who, at least in my experience, scoff at religion.
It's abnormal in any place that's not very religious. I wouldn't say it's frowned upon, and it certainly happens, but it's not routine in any way.
All the places I've lived in in the US, it would be at least notable (as in out of the ordinary, and so you notice it: "oh those people are praying in public... huh").
I grew up in the D.C. area. It would have been unusual enough there that people would notice (but no real reaction past that). Same for where I lived in California and Seattle. When I went to school in Utah, it was not unusual, but made for awkward false-starts when those that didn't pray would pause while the prayers finished.
I have never been to a part of the US that is like that. France is honestly more open about their Religion then Portland is.
Ayup. The best part.
Maine?
It's almost surreal driving around Massachusetts as there are old churches everywhere. Seems like every town has 3 or 4 but the majority of them have since been converted into other establishments or outright abandoned. Religion used to play a huge role here and now it's just like a distant memory.
The Catholic Church Pedophile Priest scandal really was the deathblow to a lot of churches in Massachusetts. Attendance went way down, and the lawsuits sapped the money that the church had saved up.
I mean there's nothing going to sap the money the Catholic Church has. They own so much of the feckin world. Like in Ireland until recently people used to always leave money to the church. Even back in the 19th century when things were very grim after the famine people had to give a penny to the parish priest every week to keep the bishops in their palaces. Feck the lot of them.
The Catholic church is also one of the biggest land owners in New York City.
I believe that each Archdiocese has their own funds and budget. I know that the priest sex abuse scandal and the lawsuits that followed it sapped the Boston Archdiocese hard. They had to close many catholic schools and churches.
Interesting. I didn't know that, I'd have thought the church as a whole would come to the rescue for all those projects. Afaik they did here when the abuse scandal broke. Mind you our govt isn't forcing them to pay because they're cowards.
You have to remember that the priest sex abuse scandal was world wide. I don't know if the Vatican could have bailed out all of the local churches
Not here in southern Mass where everyone is a Portuguese , Puerto rican or Guatemalan. There is religion everywhere here although its not being thrown at you on a daily basis.
Huh. I always hear about eastern and western MA, but never southern.
The south coast is where its at bby.
I have lived in Alabama for 20 years but I am Catholic. So when people ask me what church I go to, I tell them it's St. Vincent's and that pretty much shuts them up. I've never had a problem with anyone, I do believe people ask that question just to be friendly. Anyone who tries to evangelize or tell me "Roman Catholics are not real Christians" I tell them to shut up and firmly tell them it's not Christian to judge my faith without knowing me. Then I start telling baptist jokes.
Here's one made for Alabama:
How do you keep your baptist friend from drinking all your beer when you go fishing?
Answer: Take two baptist friends fishing.
It always gets a chuckle.
Alabama maybe, the few times I've been there so many signs of religious nonsense. But I've lived in Georgia my whole life. People here don't seem religious at all. Perhaps I'm in a fairly liberal area idk
time to move to massachusetts then
As a MA native who has spent time in rural red areas you saved me the trouble of posting.
Ive grown up and currently live in Georgia. People do not walk around asking what church you go to. I can’t recall the last time I had a conversation about church with someone I wasn’t a friend with and I go to a southern baptist church.
"What church do you belong to?"
I live in the Deep South and respond with Scientology.
Sadly common here in Tampa, the Scientology bit, at least, so it hits harder here lol
[deleted]
In my experience, since church in much of the South is as much a social gathering as a religious one, it tends to be a question that leads into extending an invitation if the person is new in town and doesn't know anyone else or figuring out any mutual acquaintances if they've been around awhile. Though honestly it's not something that gets asked too often. I've only been asked a couple times and it always takes me by surprise.
Do they mean physical church or denomination?
I wonder if "the Communist Church" would be acceptable.
Here in Northern California, I know a small handful of people who go to church regularly (maybe four people of all my acquaintances). Religion doesn't come up in conversation often, although we do sometimes talk about meditation, and lots of people do spiritual things like burning sage.
If someone asked me what church I belonged to, I'd be completely taken aback. In that situation, they would have pretty much obligated me to divulge that I'm an atheist. I can't imagine the conversation would go well from there.
That's another thing. In Europe being an atheist is perfectly fine. I'm from Spain and we're a primarily Catholic country (67%, acording to their numbers), and I've never had any trouble coming out of the atheist closet. The other day the new Cabinet had to be sworn into office and the President and the 17 ministers did it without a Bible or any mention of God, and it was fine with everyone except a couple of far-right crazies. There was a poll a few years ago asking americans 'would you vote for a candidate if s/he were...' and atheist was the least accepted option. Why is being godless so bad?
Yeah, we aren't exactly loved here. IIRC, wasn't there a study done here where people were asked who they trusted more, an atheist, or a rapist, and the majority of people chose the rapist?
"What church do you belong to?"
Shit, I used to be Catholic but I wouldn't even know what a proper answer to that was. Before I learned about America and their like 500 different brands of church, I only knew Catholicism and Protestantism as the two flavors of Christianity.
Most likely they mean what actual physical church to, not just Baptist, Methodist, etc
Please don't group us with Alabama... They're with Mississippi. We're with South Carolina. (Tennessee and Florida are separate too)
As a Torontonian living in Boston for school though, Massachusetts was very religious to me when I first arrived here. People actually went to church and even took Lent seriously here. It's all relative I figure.
florida here, there are so many pro-life billboards out here that it isn't even funny anymore.
I believe Vermont is the least religious state (according to Gallup). Still, the whole of New England is relatively irreligious by American standards.
Meanwhile, in the country with a state religion (the UK (well, England)), religion just isn't a topic of conversation.
My buddy moved from Chicago to Charlotte, people at work would straight up ask him “do you tithe?”
I was stunned that people still think they need to do that.
Whwre in the US are you from. I think it depends a lot on region. In the south people are more vocal and showing about their religion but in New England you wouldn't know unless you asked.
I am from Australia but we were in Austin, Texas for the three months and hoping to move back more permanently. I understand the south is very different but even “liberal” Austin so many of the people we met we knew their Christianity/church very early and it was a big culture shock for me!
Austin may seem liberal wheb you're in the south but might not be as liberal as other states like Massachusetts.
It does make it easier for us non-religious to avoid the crazies. That should be the real joke in America:
“How do you spot a Jesus freak?”
“They’ll cram it down your throat fervently.”
I’m starting to think this might just be an American thing.. The joke I’ve always heard is “There is no such thing as a vegan atheist.. What would they tell you about first”?
I do think "being immediately open with strangers to assess whether you're similar" is an american thing. We are one of the most transient countries, with people making more than 2 major relocations on average.
Growing up and living among the same neighbors, schoolmates, family, coworkers- not really a thing. My dad's lifelong friends are neighbors and schoolmates from childhood. My lifelong friends are scattered across 3 states and 2 countries. I don't have any "default" friends where it doesn't matter our views on politics, religion, food, anything because "family friends" are friends forever. I also don't have anyone to make introductions to new people for dating/friendship. When I enter a new environment it is important to quickly assess who might be similar to me & who I want to avoid.
I think this is spot on and it's probably pretty unique to American culture.
Do people flaunt atheism? In California, I hear the vegan flaunting joke all the time, but I’ve only ever heard of people like jehovah’s witnesses and avid/fanatic Christians flaunting their religion.
I just can't pass up one of my favorite jokes...
How do you know if someone doesn't like vegans? Don't worry. They'll tell you.
Do people flaunt atheism?
Absolutely. My favorites are the bumper stickers so people can advocate just how little they believe in your religion.
CrossFit
So true! If I see someone interesting on Instagram and they put Jesus at the top of their bio, ‘aww man. Well back to the explore page!’
But that’s just me.
I find it so odd, especially if it’s a business account. I am in the wedding industry, so a lot of our networking is on insta and I see so many accounts for photographers/bakers/planners etc have it there. Like for me, I am not religious but if I were I wouldn’t put something like that on my personal account even but it most definitely has nothing to do with my business. It was certainly a culture shock networking and working there.
Especially if you're a choir boy.
Underrated comment lmao
I mean, he said "cram it down your throat." I took the low hanging fruit.
We have a similar saying in the UK."You never need to ask a Yorkshireman where he's from - he'll have already told you".
Yes, but how can you tell after you've reached the age of consent?
I’ve found that the real pious ones have a sort of... vapid emptiness in their expression. Like optimistic about everything but over the top.
I'd have to say, if you're not christian, people tend to be a lot cagier about those types of questions/declarations. I'm a pagan in a conservative field... I don't tend to talk religion or politics with my coworkers.
There's a saying in the south that a church is a poor man's country club. Religion is often used as a status symbol. I've frequently heard more affluent families talk about how they are a "Good, Christian family." It's a way for them to showcase their wealth without broadcasting that they are wealthy.
Ditto for social justice in the blue states.
Yeah, religion is seen as a very private thing here in the UK too - people don't openly talk about their religion at all. Asking someone a question about their religion is seen a something very personal, something only shared between friends.
I literally didn't know my grandad was a Christian until he died and had a traditional Anglican funeral. I asked my dad about it, turns out he was religious.
It's not quite like that over here in the Netherlands. It's not like people go around asking you for your religion all the time, but it's not really that weird to ask "are you religious" or such either.
If a random guy on the street asked me what my religious beliefs were, it'd just be random and weird, but I wouldn't find it inappropriate or too intimate to share
same in Canada
If you went my American standards (ie how often people discussed religion out loud in conversation, how often bible verses are put in a person’s Instagram bio) you’d think everyone in Canada was an atheist
I literally NEVER, EVER hear anyone talk about or reference religion, at all. You’d have to specifically ask someone if they believed in god to know. No bible verses showing up all over my Instagram feed, nothing. I have no idea if any of my closest friends believe in god. They may, but it’s never in the forefront of ANY convo.
Same in Canada.
Totally depends on where you are. Just within the same state, I was born and raised in an area where nobody cared about your religion and you generally don't discuss it. Moved about two and a half hours away (same state) and everyone is Christian... and it's a big fucking deal.
Churches are businesses in the US. Every single service. Every event. Every time the marketing coordinator (Preacher) takes the mic, he encourages his livestock to spread the word.
Hearing this for decades causes a person to identify as a preacher, thus relentlessly go on about it in everyday life... even with strangers.
It's much better than doing hoodrat shit, but I can see how its annoying.
Not every church is like that
A concerning number are, however.
True. But the majority are. It's a business.
Not really, the church is used to that are like that are mostly Evangelical. See ya if you live in the southern United States then yeah that's going to be most of what you see but if you live pretty much anywhere else you're going to find that your church is operate differently. You're always going to have a few outliers far far far from every Church behaves that way.
Just the ones that get big enough that this becomes inevitable behavior.
You mean like the 2 biggest churches on earth? The roman catholic church and the eastern orthodox church?
I've worked with hoodrats and I much prefer them tbh. That mix of creativity and common sense born of a hard life is WAY more valuable than the deceit and moralizing that goes on with church people. I'll amend my opinion if a sermon ever makes me cry the way a good spoken word improv can.
I like your opinion. I use the term hoodrat to imply murder and drugs, but I do appreciate their more stylish version of hillbilly livin
A lot of us in America wish it was more private.
I work at a food place and these two people came in and talked for 3 hours about their Religion to each other.
Americans are a lot more vocal about everything in general, though.
People are very open with religious beliefs when there is a majority. Such as in the south the majority of people are really passionate about being a catholic. While me in California, religious beliefs aren’t expressed as often because of the serious verity of religions.
Not all of em consider it a private thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Sydney_anti-Islam_film_protests
Unless you are in Sydney...
Small town of 1000 people? Better have 7 churches that believe the same basic thing since 90% of practicing Methodists and Presbyterians can't tell me what the difference is.
Presbyterians are Calvinists and Methodists have roots within the Anglican communion and are not Calvinists.
Sure. I'm just saying in my admittedly limited anecdotal experience, 90% of small town Christians attend the church that their grandparents attended and couldn't tell you the difference and wouldn't have different beliefs/opinions if they attended the church across the street instead of the one they usually go to.
I go to the one with the best potlucks. I was Baptist until Mrs. Johnson and her strawberry pie passed away, now I'm Methodist.
This made me laugh way too hard at work.
I have to say, Methodists do throw very nice potlucks and icecream socials. If you want BBQ, though, Baptists and Church of Christ are the strongest contenders. Or if you're vegetarian, you could try an SDA gathering... they invented cornflakes!
Do not join the SDA. They are insane and will try to convince you, like they did my Dad, that his cancer could be treated with aloe vera and oil... He is dead now.
Ouch, I'm sorry.
Calvinism is a more strict take on Christianity as a whole but that might be my bias as I was raised in the Episcopal church which is extremely liberal by comparison to pretty much all mainstream Protestant churches.
Calvinism isn't "more strict" per se. Here is the difference on the major trends in Christianity:
Calvinism - this is not a denomination. It is rather a soteriological belief or a belief regarding the exact mechanisms on how we are a saved. A Calvinist believes that before the foundation of the world, God predestined those who are to believe in Christ and be saved. This is not done based on anything inherent in the person but based on God's good pleasure. Historically, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, some Anglicans and Puritans were and are Calvinist.
Arminian - sort of portrayed as the "anti Calvinism" but that isn't exactly true. However, it too is a soteriological system. It believes that God predestines those who believe but based upon seeing that they would believe. So, essentially, God looked into the future, saw who would choose him, and then elected them to salvation. Historically, this belief was and is held by Methodists, most "non denominational" churches, and some Anglicans.
Denominations:
Reformed - reformed is a more encompassing theology than that of Calvinism but includes Calvinism. The saying goes "all reformed are Calvinist but not all Calvinist are reformed". Reformed is the other wing of the Reformation, next to Lutheranism, and finds its immediate beginnings in France and Switzerland, following Zwingli, Calvin, and Farel. Reformed denominations took on different distinctives depending on the country. In Scotland, it was manifested in the Presbyterian Kirk. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Reformed. In England, the Puritans. In France, the Huguenots. German Reformed, Polish Reformed, Czech Reformed, etc.
Broadly, this strain of theology believes in the regulative principle of worship which means they only worship according to explicit commands in Scripture. Usually also have a presbyterian government, which is essentially democratic republicanism. Though some, notably the New England Puritans, were and are congregational.
The United Church of Christ is descended from the New England Puritans but frankly their theology is nowhere close to what the NEPs taught.
Reformed theology is best understood through their confessions which are:
Presbyterian - Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession, Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism).
Dutch and most continental Reformed - Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt, Heidelberg Catechism).
Congregational Reformed - Savoy Declaration
Reformed Baptist - Second London Baptist Confession of 1689
French Reformed - French Confession of 1559
Lutheran - The other wing of the Reformation. This strain of theology, obviously, comes from Luther and Melancthon. Its teachings are best understood through the Book of Concord, which contain their various confessions. They differ from the Reformed chiefly in these ways -
They hold to the normative principle of worship. What is not condemned in scripture is okay for worship.
Higher sacramentology, such as maintaining the corporeal presence of Christ in communion.
Not maintaining predestination as held by reformed, though not as loose as Arminians. The joke is they are too Arminian for the Calvinists and too Calvinist for the Reformed. To be specific, the difference between a Calvinist and a Lutheran boils down to whether one can lose their salvation or not. In Western Christian theology, the focus in salvation in on justification - or being made right with God. A Calvinist believes those who are predestined are justified (unconditional election) and that they will infallibly persevere until the end (perseverance of the saints). Lutherans will agree that God predestines those who will be justified but does not believe that all who are justified will persevere. Instead, a select number of the justified (the saints) are then elected to persevere. So Lutherans reject the term perseverence of the saints and prefer perseverence of the elect.
Anglican - Anglicans are weird, mainly because their focus during the Reformation was on outward unity not inward unity. For this reason, they cared more about similar worship rather than similar theology. Hence the Book of Common Prayer.
Because of this, their confession is much smaller than the above two traditions (39 Articles) and you can fins a range of beliefs in the Anglican communion. Reformed, Arminian, Crypto-Catholic, Lutheran, etc theologies all have a place at the table in the Anglican communion. As can be expected this has caused a lot of problems historically in terms of unity.
This is a veeeeerrrryyy brief rundown of the main Reformational factions. As an aside:
American Evangelicalism is the child of Anabaptist and Pietist movements.
So yeah, there ya go. Don't spend the information all in one place.
Edit: expanded more on Calvinist/Lutheran distinction.
PS: Denominations also aren't inherently liberal. Some here have mentioned that Episcopalians are liberal and Calvinists aren't etc. This is a misunderstanding. There are conservative Episcopalians just like there are conservative Presbyterians. And Liberal Presbyterians like there are liberal Episcopalians. A liberal presbyterian denomination would be the PCUSA with the OPC and RPCNA being conservative. In terms of Episcopalianism, TEC is liberal while the UECNA and REC are both conservative.
Not exhaustive. Simply some common examples.
And since we're talking about American Christianity, don't forget New Calvinism, the "liberal" form of evangelical Calvinism. It's an odd juxtaposition, talking to someone who has tattoos, smokes and drinks and looks and talks like a hipster, only they also believe you're predestined to go to hell and they are not.
New Calvinism is hipsters who read R.C. Sproul once. Talking denominations, they are usually found in the PCA. Naming is unfortunate because there already was a New or Neo Calvinism which was a Dutch Reformed movement in the late 19th and 20th centuries.
I like that there are two users named Calvin talking about Calvinism. This is a first for me.
Beautiful summary, btw, I wish I had more than one upvote to give.
Username really checks out here!
I've been outed. sprints off
And yes, the Calvin in my u is THAT Calvin. My whole life has been leading up to this reddit post. I've peaked.
I figured there was a 50-50 shot between being a John Calvin reference or just a huge Calvin and Hobbes fan! (Of course, getting into soteriology tipped the scales somewhat in favor of the former)
Well Calvin for C & H was inspired by John Calvin (Hobbes by Thomas Hobbes) so it all works out in the end, I suppose.
For confused non-muricans: Episcopal is basically the Anglican church in the USA.
Episcopal church which is extremely liberal by comparison to pretty much all mainstream Protestant churches
Apparently you've never heard of the United Church of Christ. They've been performing gay weddings for over a decade now.
The Episcopal Church ordained lesbian priests in the late 80s. Their first openly gay bishop was installed about 15 years ago.
The first lesbian UCC pastor was ordained in '82, and the first gay pastor predated that by a decade.
Ok so the UCC is likely more liberal. The first openly gay priest in ECUSA was the mid 80s
I love this fight over which church was the most open and accepting.
It wasn’t a fight over who was more accepting but who was more liberal in terms of politics.
Potato Potato. It was just such a wholesome argument.
Oof almost had em
If it’s in the south, that’s because culturally they see no difference. Christianity is treated as a monolithic thing and the church you go too is more for social purposes than any religious doctrine beyond “Jesus good Satan not so good”
Right, and that's how I've seen it for the most part. But it just seems so odd that we need 8 churches in a town of 1500 that all effectively preach the same thing.
They don’t though. It’s easy from a non-religious perspective to think that “they’re all effectively preaching the same thing,” but for a young person, for example, after twenty years of weekly services and religious education, even minor differences can widen into yawning gaps in mutual understanding.
The church is more like the community center for okaces your are describing. Like in England where every neighbor Hood has their own pub. Imaginw that with churches .
90% of small town Christians? Its more like 90% of ALL people who claim to be Christian.
But they would never attend the church across the street because they are devil incarnated, of course. Because they are different.
I get what you're saying, but most people who follow a given religion aren't super educated about it.
I know a lot of Catholics that can't tell you what the Consecration is.
the Consecration is
8 second cooldown AoE, does damage over a certain duration. Used for keeping threat on large groups but it also boosts many of your other abilities (Depending on your talent choices)
👉😎👉
4 mana, Paladin, Deals 2 damage to all enemies
I know a lot of Catholics that can't tell you what the Consecration is.
It's fucking snack time. The best part of mass!
Not quite. That's communion.
The Consecration is the blessing ritual the priest does over the bread and wine, which results in Transubstantiation.
Basically, it's when the priest prays until the bread literally becomes Jesus's body, and the wine literally becomes his blood.
Catholicism is weird.
Catholicism is weird.
Being almost 2000 years old has a way of doing that. For centuries, all the nerds that today obsess over Elder Scrolls lore or make headcanons about anime were in monasteries coming up with increasingly confusing theology.
This is so going on my Facebook
And then getting burned at the stake for being "fucking heretics"
I'm looking at you, Lollards, Cathars, Hussites, Iconoclasts, Waldensians, etc etc etc
I'm looking at you, Imperial Cultists, Tribunalists, Thalmors, Wood Elves, Argonians, Khajiit, etc etc etc
Congratulations, you know that. 90% of practicing Presbyterians and Methodists don't.
So what’s the difference?
They have different takes on the path to redemption as well as different church structures.
What's the Calvinist take on it, versus non Calvinist?
There's a number of points where they differ and belief is not necessarily monolithic across all branches of a particular Protestant sect. One of the major sticking points between Calvinism and Lutheranism is Calvinist "limited atonement" vs Lutheran "unlimited atonement". That particular issue led to a lot of heated letters being written back in the day.
The Catholic Church takes the unlimited atonement side but Lutheranism differs in believing that atonement comes through faith alone. The Catholic side is that faith and "good works" are necessary; there's biblical support for that but one of the major issues leading up to the Protestant Reformation is that the idea of doing "good works" had changed into "pay a fee to wash away your sin" since giving money to the Church was considered a good work.
EDIT: Just to be clear this was a particular difference during the Reformation period when these groups were forming. For information on modern differences contact a Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. for information on Calvinism and consult Lutherans (99% of their denominations have "Lutheran" somewhere in the name so they're easier to find anyway) about modern Lutheranism.
And if I recall correctly, even Lutherans can be divided on the subject. There's a lot of debate over whether God predestined us "into faith"--meaning the more typically Calvinist viewpoint--or "unto faith" (meaning that God foresaw that we would choose Him and therefore retroactively predestined us).
I grew up Lutheran but I attend a Presbyterian church now, so I'm not up-to-date with a lot of the Lutheran debates anymore.
I'm honestly not up to date on the modern versions of either movement, just pointing out differences they had during the tumultuous Reformation period. Even then "Calvinist" was just a term created by Lutherans to group together people that mostly agreed with John Calvin but just like with Lutheranism there were quickly a number of different "factions" established within Calvinism each with their own particular dogmatic point to pick.
I'm sure in the ensuing centuries the focus of a particular Protestant sect may have shifted from the original issues they had with Catholic or Orthodox dogma. The Catholic Church no longer offers Indulgences anymore after all so it's not as if there's Protestants still railing against them for that (or if there are someone should really tell them about the fact that Indulgences don't exist anymore).
One of my earlier comments was shared (thank you /u/filbertsnuts) but I thought I'd give you a more specific rundown of the soteriological differences.
Calvinism, for better or for worse, has been codified in TULIP, an acronym for the main tenants. They are as follows:
T - Total Depravity. A better term is radical depravity. This belief is not that humans are as depraved as possible but that we are completely fallen and cannot choose God by our own will. An example would be a drop of poison in a glass of water. The water is not now totally poison but it is nontheless completely contaminated.
U - Unconditional Election. This is the teaching that God chose before the foundation of the world who would be saved. It is unconditional because it is not based upon anything in the person.
L - Limited Atonement. Many prefer definite atonement because Calvinist don't teach the atonement was limited per se but it was intended for a specific group of people (the elect) and no one else. There is a formula that is usually held: the atonement was sufficient for all people but efficient only for the elect.
I - Irresistible Grace. This is the teaching that God's grace in salvation cannot be resisted. All who God intends to save are saved.
P - Perseverence of the Saints. This is the belied that those who are elected will persevere and not fall away from the faith e.g. God elects 100 people then those 100 will ultimately be saved.
Arminians differ on the points as follows:
T - Classical Arminians believe in T but with a catch: when Christ died He made it so humanity was no longer TD and could chose God. Modern Arminians largely scratch TD all together.
U - Arminians believe on conditional election: God saw who would chose him and then elected those who did so.
L - Arminians believe the atonement was indiscriminate. Christ died for all (however, unlike the Calvinist, the atonement could theoretically be ineffectual for all if no one chose God).
I - Arminians believe saving grace can be resisted. Not all who God wants to save are saved.
P - once saved, one can fall away from the faith and not persevere to the end. However many IFB (independent fundamentalist baptists) believe in OSAS (once saved always saved): if you believe in God, you're saved no matter what you do. You can fall away from the faith and become a pornstar but because you once accepted Christ you will always be saved (ironic as IFBs are the stereotypical bible thumpers who "dont drink or chew nor go with the girls that do".) This differs from perseverence of the saints because the saints in Calvinist theology will always grow in holiness.
Lutherans differ from both by kind of being mixture:
T - Lutherans believe in total depravity
U - Lutherans believe in unconditional election....to conversion. God elects to conversion (not necessarily salvation).
L - Lutherans believe the atonement was unlimited like Arminians.
I - Lutherans believe that grace to conversion cannot be resisted but grace to sanctification can be.
P - not all elected to conversion similarly are elected to persevere. Instead, God then elects some out of the believers to persevere until the end e.g. God elects 100 people to convert and elects 50 out of the 100 to persevere to the end. The other 50 are left to fall away from the faith.
This is a more analytical comparison between the views and how they differ from Calvinism. Don't even get started on the difference between these guys and Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. We will be here all day :P.
/u/CalvinSays has a great explanation that is far superior to anything I could provide
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0m3bty
I understand most of those short words.
are ~~not Calvinists~~ Wesleyan-Arminians.
FIFY. :)
Both are heretics 😎
That doesn't exactly clear things up.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0m3bty
/u/CalvinSays has a great write up
you are the 10%. Also I don't understand anything you said except there is Calvinist = yes and Calvinist = no. No idea what Calvinist is though.
And they can't just meet in different rooms of the same building?
i always thought it was weird that there was always these variations. Cant we just say "if youre down with Jesus go here"
Small town of 1000 people? Better have 7 churches that believe the same basic thing since 90% of practicing Methodists and Presbyterians can't tell me what the difference is.
Unless you live in the rural South, and those 7 churches are all Baptist.
Part of that is likely due to the fact that American small towns are not like European small towns. The population of a typical American small town is generally spread out over a large geographical area so they might be better served by having multiple smaller churches in different locations. European small towns are generally much more compact so it's much more efficient to have one or two large churches since everybody can walk to them.
Near where I live in Missouri, there is town with a population of 250 that has a Baptist Church across the street from another Baptist Church.
Baptists. Small town of 5,000 people and we have 7 Baptist churches.
Every time a Baptist gets mad at a preacher they start a new church.
You're not far off. I just googled my town. 17k people, 19 different churches in city limits. Thats not including the 4 I can think of off the top of my head outside city limits.
"We believe the Bible" is the typical answer when you ask a Christian what sets their specific denomination apart.
No idea what the other 2999 Christian sects are doing.
Which is why you go non-denominational :P
Just the Bible. No extra BS on top of it. Different people within the same church have different interpretations of things and are okay with disagreeing. The pastors even encourage you to come to your own conclusions rather than just blindly following someone else's views, including their own. The details aren't nearly as important as the overall message anyways.
Where does the "extra BS" start? The New Testament?
Salvation through faith or predestination?
Seem like some pretty big differences to me.
Adding things that are not actually in the Bible anywhere or focusing on some specific verse while ignoring others. And it's also BS to force someone to follow one interpretation rather than explain the different things a verse could mean and let people make up their own minds.
OK, which Bible do you start with?
Salvation through faith and predestination are both in the Bible used by Protestants. Which is "extra BS"?
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter. There are people who believe either one at the same church. Whether or not it was predestined doesn't change the fact you're saved if you believe Jesus died for our sins.
No.
The point is it's not possible to say your church believes "just the Bible" because there are literally thousands of different groups who make the same claim. There are multiple Bibles and there are multiple interpretations from each of those Bibles.
Non-denominational just means you're free from affiliation with any pre-existing sect. It doesn't mean that your beliefs are pure Bible.
"Just the Bible" is almost meaningless. It's like answering "the kind with a roof" when someone asks you what kind of house you live in.
There are not multiple bibles. There are different translations, but there is only one Bible. And we go over many of the different translations to see how and if the meaning changes.
I didn't say my beliefs are just the Bible, I was explaining that the church does not add anything that isn't actually in there. There are plenty of churches who had their own layers on top and then claim it's "just the Bible". Or focus on a single verse or passage that they run super far with while ignoring other verses that they find inconvenient or go against their narrative.
But just because everyone makes that claim does not make it false all the time. For every few that aren't just The Bible there's one that is.
This is flawed logic: Most things are X, but all claim to be Y. Therefore, everything is X and nothing is Y.
There are not multiple bibles.
Oh my sweet summer child
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Only one is the actual Bible. Although I see your point. I have never taken a Bible history course but I assume there's good reason we ended up with what we have today.
And that doesn't change my point that there's people adding things and meddling with it.
Only one is the actual Bible.
Which one? And how did you determine that?
Again, I have not taken a Bible history course. I personally have no idea how one would go about that but somehow they did.
Every one of those bibles (that is still in use) is considered the "real" Bible by the people who use it. They all have their reasons and their research to come to that conclusion. How could an outsider like me determine whose claim is correct?
I assume the "real" Bible is the one you use at your church. Did you know that your church uses the "real" Bible before you joined or did you just get really, really lucky?
I don't know anything about this subject, nor did I ever claim to know anything about it. I'm aware of how dogmatic it is, but I don't require knowing every little detail. Everything I've learned has made logical sense to me and I can extrapolate that this same logic applies to how the books were chosen.
I don't know how an airplane actually works, that doesn't mean I don't trust it to get me to my destination.
And I don't believe in luck. But that's a whole other story.
So... if you don't know how to determine what the real Bible is, how do you know you have the real Bible?
What would you do if you found out that you have the wrong Bible?
They are all still relatively similar, so if that were the case I'd just read and work through the new bits.
I think Jews would disagree!
How is that you know there is a real Bible and how do you know that the Bible you have is the real Bible? I'm genuinely curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion without (it seems) even knowing that there were other Bibles out there.
Already explained that.
I'm aware of how dogmatic it is, but I don't require knowing every little detail. Everything I've learned has made logical sense to me and I can extrapolate that this same logic applies to how the books were chosen.
I'm sure that if you ask someone else who believes that a different Bible is the "real" one why they believe that, they would provide a similar answer. Everything they've heard about it has made sense.
How can I, as an outsider, tell whether you or any of these other people have the "real" Bible? What sets the logic you've heard apart from the logic they've heard?
I don't know.
But looking back at that Wikipedia page you linked, it seems like people only seem to disagree when it comes to the Old Testament, not the New Testament. I would argue that the Old Testament is not as relevant since Jesus's resurrection wiped out most of the Old Testament laws anyways. And a lot of the Old Testament only applies to specific groups of people or regions at the time or is there to provide a historical account (whether metaphorical or literal) of things.
It seems like you feel like your Bible is the right Bible but you're unable to say why.
Saying that the differences between versions is unimportant seems to run counter to your claim that your church uses the correct Bible and nothing else. I think those differences are very important to some people. Jews could make a case that the entire New Testament is "extra BS," could they not?
Let's look at this a different way. How confident are you, scale of 0 to 10, that your Bible is the "real" Bible? 10 means you are certain that it is and you cannot be mistaken.
I'm not saying the differences between versions is unimportant, I'm saying that everyone seems to agree on the most important part, the New Testament. Most of the Old Testament rules were canceled out when Jesus died for our sins. And Even if the extra books people were adding are legitimate, they probably don't contain anything very important. Or else they would have been included in the first place.
9.
But you're wrong. Not everyone agrees that the NT even belongs in the thing. Remember that Christianity split from Judaism. The Christians kept using the same book. They're the ones who added stuff from the point of view of Jews who did not become Christian.
I know you don't mean to say Jews don't matter, but you're kind of saying Jews don't matter.
They don't matter when we're talking about Christian denominations. Judaism is a different religion. They don't have The Bible, they have The Tanakh.
Methodist hymns have a dotted 8th-16th rhythm (heavily swung, think "mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord") and Presbyterians sing the same hymns with even 8th notes. Outwardly that's the only difference. Methodist churches are weird though, they run the gamut from almost Pentecostal with altar calls and fainting all the way to Anglican lite with incense and chant. Most are in the middle though.
Small town of 1000 people? Better have 7 churches that believe the same basic thing
Americans don't really care about minor doctrinal differences. If they don't like the local church of their current denomination for whatever reason, they'll just go to a different one. Statistically, Americans are more loyal to their cellphone provider than their church.
Bishop California has 13 churches for just around 2900(?) People. Absolutely great place if you go fishing up there though.
I am from Georgia, my hometown of 120 people has 2 white churches and 2 black churches.
I don't know the difference, but I don't really care, either. I didn't take any classes comparing religions. And the church I grew up in discuss it either.
within less than 10 miles of my small town there are at least 5-6 churches and I know of another one being built. As well as a plot of land that says "Future site of blah blah blah church" :| 3 of the churches btw are all right in 'downtown' and a forth just barely down the road from 'downtown'.
In my experience, atheists know more about the different sects of christianity than christians. You're lucky if they know more than the three main branches (catholic, protestant, orthodox) and that Mormons are actually christians too.
Church is a business.
I’ve driven through small towns in the US where I swear it seemed like every single building I drove past was some sort of church of a different denomination. And this wasn’t even the South, this was Arizona.
Ones right and ones wrong
Them not knowing the differences is a biblical literacy and church leadership problem. It’s not actually indicative of similar beliefs. Christians never would have split off from each other into separate denominations if their beliefs were truly similar. The problem is most Christians if you asked them what the gospel was, wouldn’t be able to give you a straight answer or the correct one. They don’t even know basics. They definitely don’t know what doctrinal differences were a big enough deal to have them fracture apart from each other.
To be fair you guys worked that shit outta your systems like 900 years ago.
900 years ago
Historians are collectively having a stroke reading this.
Like in a circle?
But not like a real circle, more like a freaky circle.
Slow clap
Slow fap
Fast Fap
Edit: Apparently reddit doesn't enjoy fast fap.
Edit 2: There we go, the fappers are off of work now.
They had to work up to it
Slow nap
No homo fap.
A not-insignificant-amount-of-homo fap
A very-much-homo fap
Reddit needs a bestof sub for one liners.
No, with an altar boy.
Could you explain the joke for me?
Sorry, it's a bit of a circlejerk.
They are stroking their cocks in a circle.
No, that's only the Greek historians.
then it's on to the daisy chain!
Less of a stroke then. Maybe more like... a jerk?
I'm more interested in the type of cracker.
Of Willis?
circlestroke
My sides
No that ones the church, historians prefer to do theirs alone in libraries.
[deleted]
Wait, are you Rory Williams?
[deleted]
So... Rory Pond?
Historians are collectively having a stroke reading this.
I was told we wouldn't have to learn dates.
Sorry to say you've been lied to. Dates are important.
Really jostles your archives, huh? I just throw numbers around. Sorry if I gave you conniptions.
I am anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused him such pericombobulation.
This guy Blackadders
I have a cunning plan...
I will return before you can say antidisestablishmentarianism.
It's even more serious than we thought. Someone get the autonumeric derivanator!
jostles your archives, huh
LOL. I want to be an Archive Jostler. New life goal.
http://conniptions.gives
Conniption is a great word more people need to use more often
Sound a bit like daygo talk to me
Accurate....I’m a historian and I am having a stroke.
As are many protestants
I don't think they're supposed to.
We had a clerical - fascist government in Austria from 1934-38.
So no
tbf they were also working things out 900 years ago, and 1400 years ago, and 1700 years ago. And almost every time in between.
Post Rome Europe?
Christ make it stop help
Impossible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.
What's the real answer
More like 400.
[deleted]
2018 - 1648 = 370
I mean...the first of the inquisitions was 900 years ago...so...
actually not. just read Dante.
Maybe America needs a good old fashioned Crusade?
DEUS VULT!
IT'S TIME TO RETAKE
UH
SHIT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO RETAKE
"IT'S TIME TO RETAKE CHRISTMAS FROM THOSE SECULAR LIBERALS
SANTA VULT"
[deleted]
make Christmas great again
Make America Great Britain Again
Now THAT i can get behind
by putting an embassy in Jerusalem.
All hail our new National Anthem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GANm-bsuAok
hail it!
Make Christmas Merry Again
Make Christmas Merry Again! If anyone says Happy Christmas...
Make Christmas back off Thanksgiving again!
Make thanksgiving disappear again!
"CHRISTMAS IS A PAGAN HOLIDAY AND COMMERCIALIZED, A TRUE CHRISTIAN CELEBRATES THE BIBLICAL FEAST DAYS. DEUS VULT"
And, we will celebrate in historic American fashion. There shall be a parade, a feast, gifts that were bought on shiny plastic promises, and a commercialized display of blindingly enraged consumerism the day after!
And then we'll slaughter the natives
We did that already, and that was after the disease and the European empires got to them! There aren't enough left to bother!
IT'S TIME TO RETAKE CHRISTMAS FROM THOSE CHRISTIANS
SATURN VULT
They wouldn't say "vult" because that's educated foreigner talk.
Down with those plain, red, heathen Starbucks cups!
Let’s take back Big Macs back down to $5 for a combo instead of $8
that will never happen due to inflation. If it ever goes back to $5 it means the country is in the shitter and undergoing massive deflation.
Alright then, let’s take anime back from weeaboos then, idk let’s take something back
We've tried Canada a few times. Mabye we should try again. Mabye Micronesia too. We occurred Japan for a while also.
Why let a lack of holy land to retake get in the way of a good crusade?
There’s some enterprising americans that decided to make their own holy land. They got a whole state out of it.
The crusades were more about retaking Europe than the holy land. Look at how many battles there were and were they were.
Petronople, or Amerinople, or Constantinople.
or
JERUSALEM
THE UPPER PENINSULA! FUCK YOU MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN IS COMING IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!
[RETURN TO DEFAULT SETTING: SACK CONSTANTINOPLE FOR NO GODDAMN REASON]
We could to a take-backsy on the whole "War of Liberation" idea and take back our WWII holdings.
RECLAIM THE COLONIES FOR THE EMPIRE!
The sacred city of Ottawa? Or vanquish the demons in Mexico City?
Tell that to the UK.
WE MUST RECLAIM THE COLONIES
I feel these words are gunna be prince Phillips last
Don't forget your tea. I'm gonna make that whole harbor taste like Earl Grey!
That's a waste of perfectly good tea, blood will suffice
Our informed Democracy?
Not a problem. Just sack another Christian capital, like they did during the 4th crusade.
maybe not retake but we could always invade cuba again? inconsistent results but when it works it works
BRING BACK MANIFEST DESTINY
The middle east is basically jesus' house. That's the same thing as a crusade right?
How about your own country?
I have a dream...
ARENA BATTLES
Televised. Turn it into entertainment.
End of the year have the Grand Melée. Every religion large enough to field a force can take the field.
Put your faith where your mouth is, we'll find out who's god is on who's side.
Legal betting on what goes on in the arena, and see your local bookee about betting on the post Melée riots.
Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuuuuuumble!
Taxes
The Colonies
Retake Palestine
Take Jerusalem for the Christians!
It's a Christmas Miracle!
RETAKE WESTMINSTER ABBEY FROM THE HEATHEN ANGLICANS.
OR MAYBE LUBECK OR SOMETHING.
WHATEVER JUST INVADE SOMEPLACE.
We'll retake Utah from the Mormons and California from the Scientologists!
Canada
Europe?
MANIFEST DESTINY
IT'S TIME TO RETAKE THAT OIL OVER THERE IN THAT OTHER COUNTRY!
San fransisco?
Because why let being a few centuries late get in the way of a good Crusade?
Just call them ‘peace keeping’ or ‘humanitarian intervention’ these days, ‘crusade’ has too much baggage :P
Just have to pretext it as saving London from the Nazi zombies.
Hellsing?
GOD WILLING WE'LL ALL BE RICH!
Have you not been watching since the 1950s?
And what are we doing in the middle east right now? According to Bush this war is a crusade against terrorism.
Nope. Inquisition. It has come time to have a proper Spanish-style Inquisition. Torture and bonfires made out of heretics to everyone!
"The Dark Ages"
"The Obama Years"
collusion? conclusion! delusion-illusion
I thought we just had one in Iraq?
Trump is already doing that dummy. In the old times they started with Constantinople but now he just jumped straight to Syria. He’s slowly making his way to Jerusalem which he already owns a part of because of the YO WAIT HE RECLAIMED THE HOLY LAND BY PUTTING AN EMBASSY THERE HE FINISHED THE 9th CRUSADE
DEUS VULT
Well, we did steal the holy land in 1945.
That was like, payback for Constantinople.
Jk but I see images like [this] (https://pics.onsizzle.com/the-first-crusade-began-in-1095-the-truth-460-years-3418875.png) get tossed around a lot.
[Also this video] (https://youtu.be/8Dl6U4SRhcY)
That year is not all that' significiant.
Nah we tried that, went well for a few months but turned into kind of a mess.
Nah we just ran out all the fanatics - guess where they all went ;)
I mean, yeah, you dropped a ton of puritans in lil' 'ol America, but you undeniably worked out a lot of fanaticism to the point where you had to good sense to drive out the puritans.
I'm from about 5 miles away from where the Mayflower settlers were from, and local history says the reason we kicked them out was because they were very zealous in trying to ban Christmas.
Given this was both the Birthday of the Lord and a bloody good excuse to have a party, we naturally took exception to this.
insert intolerance of intolerance in tolerants quote
They all burnt each other up?
This is one of the only comments on reddit I’ve laughed out loud at! Thanks!!
I literally cannot conceive of an Anglican fanatic. You MUST have some of these biscuits they’re divine!!
If someone is willing to cross an ocean for their religion back then.. they must be a fanatic.
Actually you didn't run out of fanatics. As I recall, last century we had to sail across the Atlantic and save the world from them ;)
Edit: I may have laid down the sarcasm too thick about Team America.
My real point was that Europe was nearly destroyed by fanatics less than 100 years ago, so I don't think it's safe to say that Europe has run out of fanatics. The world probably never will, at least until everyone dligently takes their Somas.
As I recall, you only came because of pearl harbour and was fine with letting europe burn. At the time the US forces got invovled the war was already a sure win, but it would mean most of europe would become communist teritory and that was simply too much for you to bare.
I know they teach you guys in school that America won the war, but what they seem to neglect is the +28million russians who died Winning the war and defeating 80% of the german forces.
Don't get me wrong, we owe americans and montgomery a great deal for reaching scandivia before the russians, but the war was already won come Normandie.
Say what you will about the military contributions of the Americans in Europe during WWII (and I’m of the opinion that they did more than you’re letting on) but for months and months prior to Pearl Harbor the USA was pumping tons of loaned money, equipment and real estate into the Allied war machine. That’s not insignificant.
[deleted]
well the context was USA saving europe. I don't think Japan ever had their sights on invading mainland europe. In fact I'm not sure what they possible could have hoped to achieve.
[deleted]
No, it couldn't've.
The UK was never going to fall, the USSR was always going to steamroll Germany in the end, and most of western Europe is increasingly better disposed towards its memory of the Soviet Union than the reality of America. Japan couldn't hold China, let alone advance across the entirety of Siberia.
That aftermath of the war, however, would've been a horrorshow of unspeakable proportions. If only America's ruling class could stop making it look attractive in retrospect...
Lol you have no idea what you are talking about
I may have laid down the sarcasm too thick about Team America.
My real point was that Europe was nearly destroyed by fanatics less than 100 years ago, so I don't think it's safe to say that Europe has run out of fanatics. The world probably never will, at least until everyone dligently takes their Somas.
[deleted]
because like all of the things you mentioned were based on religion. Especially the starving people in Eastern Europe, which was done by the anti religion soviets.
I didn’t know WWII was a religious war. I didn’t know the USSR created a famine in Ukraine because they didn’t like their religious beliefs there. I didn’t know the Nazis only rounded up outspoken practicing Jews instead of genetic Jews, Gypsies, the old, disabled, Communists, etc.
I was being sarcastic
haha sorry, early in the morning here and I totally missed that
I'm pretty sure the Puritans left because you became equally fanatical in a different way. But I guess we're just gonna pretend the Church of England doesn't exist.
Now that's just not nice... you should take them back now, we're all good here. >.>
And then they beat your ass ;)
Did you just assume that all of europe consist of Germany and Italy. Classic NA logic ;);)););););M
I didn't read that the way you did, awkristensen. Maybe OP will chime in.
However, historically, English Puritans moved to America, mostly the Northern English colonies, and then a hundred and so many years later, defeated the same English/ UK nation.
Not the 20th century wars...
Well, there’s also France...
:D
Did you just assume that all of europe consist of Germany and Italy[?]
In 1943? Pretty much, yeah.
More like 350 years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
The Troubles officially ended in 1998, so more like 20 years ago.
There was a HELL of a lot more to the Troubles than religion.
Absolutely. But you can't deny that the Troubles had its roots in the Reformation.
Not quite, the European Wars of Religion were some of the worst in human history. The Enlightenment has its name not because of the Middle Ages, but because the Renaissance Reformation was seriously fucked. The Reformation was a pretty brutal time period with Catholics and Protestants having at it to the extent of there being crusades called against the Protestants.
You mean the enlightenment? Cuz the reformation was 500 years ago.
The end of the Reformation was the end of the 30 years war which was 360 years ago
Ah I see.
The ironic part is most the crazy fundamentalist in America are protestants and therefore a direct result of the reformation. Partially because of the persecution of Catholics throughout American history, the outlandish ones didn't survive.
And then the reformers went too far the other way and you sent them to America.
The Reformation would like a word. It triggered some of the most destructive wars in European history. Somewhere between 30 - 40% of the German population was killed in the Thirty Years War and that was less than 400 years ago.
Was Donald Trump your history teacher?
300*
like 90 years ago.
FTFY.
So did you guys though. It's the same history. Unless you are a native american but that's unlikely.
You made me snort heavily.
I approve this comment.
And 500 years ago... And 2000 years ago... It's been happening mostly continuesly for the past 2000 years. In the 1600's protesent England would brutally and publicly murder any person of Catholic faith. It's been a rough time for Christans for just the entire time the religion existed. Even now it's rough from the extremisits here in America, Jerusalem in Israel still sorta being fought over. It'll never end unless Christianity falls out of favor.
Oh yeah, right before Christianity started.
Now they import their religious fanatics.
More like 80 years ago, we watched our nations burn and populations decimated in the deadliest wars humanity could muster at the time.
Plus advances in science and social views made people question if there is a god.
And sent them here on the Mayflower.
They worked it out ~250 years ago by sending all their cults and fanatics here.
I really wish more people realized that America was settled/established/populated by a mish-mosh of crazy Christian cults rejected by the rest of the world, and here we are today.
Part of it was sending the nutjobs to America.
not even 70 years i think. big chabges have come since the 60's
They still have it quite bad, it's just not as publicized.
For example to be a member of a church in some European countries you have to register with the government and your tithes are handled by the state taxing authority
they most told the fanatics to "hit the ~~road~~ sea, Jack"
About 350 years ago, and it took a century of conflict.
We literally sent the zealots over there.
And those who didn't moved to America. But plenty of puritans still stayed. I've met plenty of fanatic Christians here in Finland, but they might not be as visible and common as in USA. But they are everywere.
It's my understanding that they World War One'd themselves out of being super religious.
Yeah try more like fifty years ago (though even that isn't really correct).
That wasn’t fanaticism, that was retaking Europe from genocidal maniacs. Seriously.
Closer to 70. The first World War started things, but the Nazis really did it in.
Edit: And Communists. Can't forget them.
To be fair 900 years ago most of you WERE Europeans to begin with.
Also all the European fanatics came to America for religious freedom.
Well at least 1 of the religions did...
If by worked it out you mean sent all the fanatics to America then yes.
One benefit of state religions. No need for advertisement and no competition. They thankfully didn't see the backsides to that in time. Now we don't care.
Ireland would like to have a word...
In the 17th century there was the 30 Year War in Germany that was a giant religious war between the Protestants and the Catholics. It wasn’t 900 years ago by a long shot. You make a somewhat valid point. One of the main reasons is that the US was founded by frustrated Calvinists. England was prosecuting them and the rest of Europe was just too damn liberal, so they went to the colonies where there was freedom of religion and established the shit out of their own religion.
The West was colonized after that...
They just replaced God with government. The US is trying
While I like this meme, it's not like the USA and its people just materialized from nothing. In a lot of ways, that history is our history too
The outcasts came here. We're still suffering.
By shipping them over here.
Don't blame Monsieur we have no sense of history in the United States.
Stalin made a dent in the problem...
Yeah. By sending them here. Ugh.
And sent the ones with issues to the US
Almost like...a purge
400 years ago*
They "got it out of their system" by sending them all over here.
The weird fanatics left Europe and came to the new worlds. IE Puritans.
No shit. Where I work you could be an awful person and people will tolerate it but be an atheist and no one will trust you or like you.
Try being a pagan. My old boss, a fundamentalist, caught sight of my pentagram that I had accidentally worn to work. I let her think I was Jewish for the rest of the time I spent at that office rather than risk my job.
caught sight of my pentagram
Just say you're five-sixths Jewish.
slow clap
It's really kind of disgusting, the general relations between Christians and Pagans. The church has a long, long history of persecuting, hating, erasing, and annihilating Pagan cultures and people.
Shortly after Christianity took over the Roman Empire, the Pagans became systematically oppressed. Countless territories were taken over, and the "savages" they contained forced to convert or die, from Germany to (in a way) the Americas.
And unlike in the Holocaust, where the offending party realized their mistake and ensured it would never happen again, tons of Christians continue to hate Pagans and Pagan traditions.
Seriously dark stuff.
continue to hate Pagans and Pagan traditions.
Well they love Easter and Christmas and they are 100% stolen pagan traditions
I'm always tickled when speaking with the local Christian College kids around these holidays. Watching their faces, when I explain to them the pagan symbolism of the Christmas tree or Easter egg, is one of my greatest joys.
They either argue otherwise or go really fundamentalist and stop having a Christmas tree and celebrate "Passover" instead of Easter.
What's absolutely baffling is that as much shit you can catch for being a pagan in this country, Christmas was a pagan tradition and do was birthdays, celebrating the new year. All of it pagan but don't tell the Christans that. They don't like it when you tell them they're belief systems originate from a different religion AT ALL.
Objection, that's my FAVORITE thing to tell people.
It's probably worth pointing out that while "pagan" is a catch-all term Christians have traditionally used for non-Christian beliefs, the modern "Paganism" the commenter was probably talking about, is a new, separate religion that takes elements from multiple different old religions and combines them with ones unique to itself.
So it's not a direct continuation of, say, the cult of Zeus, or the worship of the Norse Æsir. Nobody knows anymore how they were originally worshipped. Also, things like animal sacrifice don't exactly fit into modern sensibilities.
I agree entirely with that first point, but...
Also, things like animal sacrifice don't exactly fit into modern sensibilities.
it's not like we don't constantly "sacrifice" animals for our own enjoyment. Most of us are fine with slaughtering chickens, cows, pigs, and fish for that sweet, greasy meat. Sacrificing them to a god isn't a real stretch with that in mind. I guess it's still wasteful, but so are Christmas lights.
True, but what little we know of the worship of Thor, for example, at least a part of it was a yearly ritual in Uppsala that involved hanging farm animals from a tree. Animal rights people would fly into rage if that happened today, and it does seem pointlessly cruel from a modern viewpoint.
Which royally stinks. Pagans are nice!
When did the Roman Empire reach the Americas?
They didn't. I was referring to the European powers, who were under Christian rule at the time.
Coulda got a fat paycheck from a wrongful termination suit over that though 🤔
Not really. In my state people can be fired for no reason at all, and I doubt shed have been stupid enough to state that I was let go for religious reasons.
Plenty of states have an at-will employment clause, but I'm pretty sure if you feel like it was due to religious bias you can sue, regardeless of if they actually state it's for religious reason.
Source: took a government class or something, really not qualified for much more than that.
Edit: then again, if it's legal to deny service because of religious beliefs, maybe its legal to deny employment.
Can sue, but winning that lawsuit is the tricky part.
Boss: he (she) was lazy, often showed up late, failed to meet deadlines, was rude or hostile, etc.
None of your co workers will testify for you, cause they're afraid of getting fired, and it's not really their problem, and anyone who isn't a coworker is considered an "unreliable witness".
This is America. You really think you'd have a chance?
My fiancé and I are Buddhist. He was a delivery driver with the best times and ratings in town, but the manager was openly hostile about his prayer beads and he was fired for unclear reasons.
Meanwhile, I had to let that fact into a conversation with my manager. He was cool with it, but there's been a severe increase in Christian station usage on our communal Pandora station.
It's a fun time.
Can’t tell f serious or not lol
It terrifies me that adults can think organized religion and going to church and all the weird is normal. It really is scary.
Where do you work, a church?
Oilfield
Hey that's my work!
Fearmongering gets you places.
I’m from an area/group that tends to use religious slang a lot, ex. “God bless” or “lord knows” etc despite overwhelmingly not being religious... apparently I’ve given off the impression to people that I must be a pretty pious person where I’m at now because of it.
Jokes on them, I’m an atheist bisexual polyamorous “commie” who spends more time playing D&D and browsing e621 than anything else!
...I keep all that quiet tho. My grandmother once told me I’d burn in Hell for playing Okami, ha. Depending on the area, tell someone you’re not religious and it’s assumed you’re a bad person.
That’s so fucking relatable. I picked up the slang through my catholic upbringing. Although I’ll admit I probably do come off as the type of woman that’s in a lesbian triad…
Religious slang while not being religious is queer culture
Agreed
I mean, America was founded by puritans who felt that Britain wasn't hardcore enough about their Christianity at the time.
[deleted]
they ran away to Holland. Then the Dutch were like "GTFO" so they came to America to escape "religious persecution".
You've both managed to confuse the Pilgrims and the Puritans and completely misrepresent the reason the Pilgrims left. Good job knowing absolutely nothing.
They didn't think it wasn't hardcore enough, they thought it was too Catholic. Their complaints were more or less the same as those of Martin Luther just a century prior.
When the majority of your Country's initial population referred to themselves as Puritans I'm not surprised that religion is such a polarizing thing.
I live in the UK there are a few mad.fuck nuggets out there but they tend to keep to their own type, I had an lady in her 50s say to me and I quote "if you don't believe in God then how do planes stay in the sky ?" When I offered to explain the idea of differential pressure to her she declined the offer and then explained that my sister was autistic because my parents were sinners and that she would be going to hell to burn of ever. I politely told her fuck off.
my history teacher in school told me that part of the reason for this is that when America declared independence and went to war with the British Empire, all of their pastors were from the Church of England which is part of the British state. So they all packed their bags and left which left a vacuum for more fanatical preachers to take the pulpit.
That's a big part of it.
When the colonies rebelled, the priests and bishops of CoE were recalled. Beyond that, CoE bishops refused to consecrate American bishops, because part of the consecration involved an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
It wasn't until 1784 that Samuel Seabury was able to be consecrated by Scottish bishops, becoming the first American bishop. Of course, rebuilding the clergy structure would take some time, given that until 1784-5 no bishop could ordain priests in America in the CoE/Anglican Church. Being that Catholics were a small minority, this meant that the predominant American church was decimated for quite some time, leaving a vacuum for more radical independent preachers to rise and form congregations.
That, and a large percentage of US colonists were religious nutbags to start with
Which is way off; many other churches had existed for a long time in America. New England was, in varying degrees, solidly Congregationalist a nd Baptist territory from the day of the first settlements.
I’m so used to hearing American politicians proclaim “God Bless America”. But if I heard anyone here say “God Bless the United Kingdom” I’d be completely shocked.
That's because Europeans kicked out the fanatics and they went to North America
Yeah. It's also weird as a Dane. Here people have starting imported the discourse from the American debate about religion not realizing that they are attacking a straw man
Shit like that happens everywhere. I live in South Africa and I see loads of old classmates get sucked into American race politics, 95% of which have no basis in this country. It's madness.
Well, you guys did kinda have like, a bunch of holy wars so...
Ireland would like to have a word.
Thats because you sent your religious dissidents over here.
Ironically, our lack of State sanctioned religion has helped it to remain strong in the U.S.
Swearing on the bible would never fly in most european states.
You can swear on whatever book you please here
In the U.S., it's "swear or affirm", so a bible isn't necessary to be under oath here, but it's typical. Atheists or Christians can lie, either way, and be prosecuted for perjury.
Swearing oath on the bible as a president would raise a shitstorm without precedent where I live. We talk about it every time we talk about religious differences with the U.S
Some fundamentalists get off on the idea of being persecuted.
I totally know what you mean. Living in Canada, throughout my childhood I always thought that Canadian and American culture was basically the same, but as I got older I realized how common Christianity is in the States. In Canada, I never knew anyone who was even remotely religious at all, until I went into high school. There was a small group of Christian kids, but everyone just saw them as the weird kids. I remember a lot of people couldn't even really believe that they were actually religious. People would say things like "So you actually believe in god?" It's so strange because I often see Atheists being hated on and portrayed as assholes in American TV, but from my experiences it seems to be the exact opposite here.
There was a study i read - the US likes to appear more religious than it is. It's become this weird semi facade bullshit, like north koreans 'loving' dear leader
Yes. Yes they are particularly here in the south unfortunantly 😕
I'm a pastor, and I feel exactly the same. I've been offered jobs in the US, but I'm just too scared that I'll have to deal with "American Christianity" as me and my friends have started calling it.
Sadly "American Christianity" is just largely about Nationalism and Capitalism. Often there is little Christianity involved.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8qfwn2/in_2015_user_alabama_hellbilly_uploaded_a_series/
I have to pretend to be christian to get a job...insert this is america meme.
True, much of it has even little to do with Christianity. All that hating isn't exactly what Jesus was about.
Well, that's because the Puritans left and came here. I blame them for everything that sucks about the US.
Yeah, as an Australian I don’t think I’ve ever come across any overt religiosity in my life within Australia. However I spend a fair bit of time in the US and it’s crazy: huge billboards on the highway saying “Jesus saves”, people shoving their religion in your face in public settings, door knockers coming to your house.
And one of the most obvious manifestations: radio. Flick through the full AM and FM dials in most Australian cities and you will find zero religious stations. In a couple of the very biggest cities you might find one such station. But do the same virtually anywhere in the US and you’ll find a lot. Midwest and south in particular you might have 6 separate religious (or religious music) type channels. I’ve been in regions on road trips in America where I’m just sitting in the car pressing the ‘seek’ button on the radio and it’s like, nope that’s religious, that one too, and this one, hmm this one isn’t religious but it’s crazy talk radio, etc etc.
Our country was largely founded on fanatics kicked out of Europe (mostly the UK).
Well, you guys did send over the fanatics.
Australians got the criminals we got the puritans
Australia got the better deal
Europe sent all the religious loonies to the new world
For the most part yes, but Christianity is still a very powerful political and social force in much of Europe. Much more so than the US in many southern and eastern European countries like Poland, Malta, Greece, and Romania.
Maybe that's true for central EU, but in the east there are some really extremist and fanatic christians
While this has some truth to it, I personally have seen this exaggerated.
Someone from my town, who went to high school with me, participated in a documentary. He described the town as "Christian, conservative, and bible thumping." He described our high school as being very homophobic.
It could not have been further from the truth. We had a GSA, and he was part of that GSA. and it was around the time that Massachusetts had legalized same-sex marriage, there were a lot of open discussions about this in our school. We had comprehensive sex ed, we learned about birth control, there were no "bible thumpers" that I recall. And I wasn't even raised Christian. We had a whole Jewish community, I still to this day couldn't even tell you where the local church is. And this guy went on camera, and lied about his background, but kept the area he was referencing ambiguous enough that no one would comment directly on it.
It is because of him, that I have a hard time taking statements like "conservative Christian town!" seriously. Yes, you do have conservative areas and youth Christian shut-outs, you do have homophobia. But I feel like it is easy to exaggerate in many situations. It is the overcoming-adversity story of the decade, to say that you come from oppressive conservative environments.
[deleted]
This entire country is not skewed right.
I have considered that his point of view isn't my point of view. But there is a difference between that, and lying. He went on camera and described our school as this big bible thumping place that only preached Christian values. We shared a lot of classes, I knew him, I knew many of his friends. It was a lie. And it's probably the reason why he didn't say the town's name, or school name, just gave an ambigious "I come from a town in ____" It is because he was fabricating a story to fit the narrative of the documentary.
There is nothing wrong with having felt discriminated against for X, Y, and Z, as long as it's truthful. If he had felt a certain way about something, he is justified. But you can do that without implying that your friends and teachers blatantly and intentionally discriminated against you and preached Christian morals when they didn't.
As I said... it's popular these days to say "I come from a conservative Christian background, I broke free from it, everyone was of the Church and I felt like an outsider." This is a popular, and favorable thing to say.
Plus, I wouldn't have even called it a liberal Christian town. It's simply a town. Sure it had Christians, like most towns in this country have secular, to religious, Christians. You'd be hard pressed to find any town in America, Europe, South America, Australia, that don't have churches and people who go to them.
We have evangelicals, you guys don't. The catholics and non evangelical protestants are relatively chill.
Throughout my life, I have received way more shit and hate for being slightly religious than for being a homosexual guy. I told that to an American guy and he said that would be absolutely unimaginable in the USA.
Anything is more fanatic in US than EU except in dignity.
We have a lot of people who seem to preach nothing but hate, and that overshadows the many more Christians just being well, Christians.
You hear about how so and so are threatening to kill gay people because it's a sin, but you never hear hinges like how a local church's just funded a mission trip that helped build a school and wells in India or helped a homeless man get a home and a job.
Nothing exciting about Christians being Christians. But Christians who act nothing like Christians? People eat that up so the media reports that.
Weird aside, was rewatching Preacher and it hit me in the recited prayer of confession. 'What we have done and what we have left undone'
Down here (well, RC anyway). It's 'what we have done and what we have failed to do' which puts a remarkably different spin on it to the layman
it also a great way to make money. start a church, mentally lost people will come, ruse them into giving you money to "support the church". all you gotta do is read sermons once a week and build a church.
A weird thing I see with this, even as a Canadian, is that when I'm seeing Christian Americans vs Christians elsewhere is that Americans seem to really be into Jesus.
I've lived overseas, and I've lived in the States, and I now live in Canada. It's not like Jesus goes unmentioned elsewhere, he's still a huge part of it obviously, but people thank God for things. People pray to God. I feel like you don't hear about "Jesus Freaks" outside of America (as much, at least. I wouldn't claim elsewhere lacks them), because if you're super religious outside of America you're just orthodox or highly practicing or something. But in the states it feels like they're worshiping Jesus more than worshiping God. Which I get is technically meant to be one in the same, but... I dunno, it just feels really weird when people go on about how Jesus did all this stuff for them and saved them and helped them get to work on time and ensured their favorite character on Survivor got to the next round in a tone that suggests Jesus is some invisible guy who is very literally present doing these things for them, like he's an x-men character or something.
That's because Europe exported all its crazy fanatics to the American colonies.
Protestant groups like the Calvinists were more or less the religious extremists of the 16th and 17th centuries. Groups like the Puritans were too extreme for even "mainstream" Protestants so they left for the colonies so they could practice their brand of Christianity without persecution.
Calvinist sects like Presbyterianism had a lot of influence on early America and much of that influence still exists in American culture to this day, even though present day Presbyterians only represent a small fraction of the total American Christian population.
When people talk about Europeans escaping religious persecution in their countries by going to America. A lot of those people fleeing just wanted the right to persecute others themselves.
Also America was less religious before the cold war wheretje government pushed Christian god everywhere because communists where athiests (in theory ateast).
For example we have "in God we trust" on our money. This was not something done in the 1770s when we were founded, the founders would have spat in that person's face, it was done in the 60s to combat communism.
At the moment, yes
Remember that large portions of early American settler were puritans. So Europe got rid of some of its fundamentalists and North America really hasn't had enough time to put grow them.
I can partly relate to that, but that's cause I live in the Dutch bible belt
Take a guess who were the most likely to emigrate from Europe to the US... a lot of normal people of course, but pretty much most of Europe's extreme religious groups too.
That's because they're all descended from bible bashers who believed the general flavour of Christianity in the 17th century wasn't nearly puritanical enough. Singing? Dancing? Revelry of any sort? Christmas celebrations? Football on Sundays?! You better believe that shit was so bang out of order, it was worth risking your families' lives sailing across the ocean to escape.
I may be exaggerating, but the general idea is there.
That's because the worst nutcases back then left Europe and went to America.
It's because they all moved here. And invented new and interesting forms of heresy.
Well yeah Europe had gotten it's whole Christ fanaticism out of it's system by like the 1800s
That's what happens when you spend centuries kicking the crazies out and sending them over here.
That's pretty much America with everything.
Likely a result of our Puritan roots.
Well, Europe did send it's crazy christians to America...
The Puritans fled Europe and went to Anerica because Europe wasn't conservative enough, that's why you see such crazy ideas.
That's because the people who founded the colonies WANTED to be like that and the Europeans wouldn't let them so they left (Quakers, Puritains, Shakers, many many others) Pennsylvania being a perfect example
Maybe if you guys in Europe didn't push the Christian agenda so hard the last two thousand years we wouldn't be this way. :(
P.S. also at least we don't have a Pope country
All the most intense Christian's came to America
A lot of this started with the racism of slavery and Jim Crow. Excluding blacks et al, and excusing yourself from what Christ taught is a twofold product.
Southern Baptists and Pentecostals are much more up front about it. But most Protestants in the US aren't overboard with it. At least the ones I've lived with and been around. Usually the furthest they get with it is inviting you to Sunday service or maybe asking if they can prayer for you. But there are for sure some fanatic Christians living in America.
The US is gigantic, and depending on where you are really depends on what kind of experience you’ll get. The South and Texas will be prouder of their faith. Most Catholics keep pretty quiet about their faith.
If you live in a big city or liberal city you’re not allowed to talk about religion or you’ll be considered a fanatic or extremist.
Its almost like we were too religious and got kicked out of England.
Well, they were just having too much kinky sex in Europe and all the prudes were tired of it and left to America. We got the fanatics.
I'm pretty sure we were supposed to be "raptured" about 40 times now since I've been able to read (am 21). I don't even know where that came from. Christians here are nutty.
There's more rural parts of the US than Europe. As urban areas trend away from more "classic" levels of devotion to accommodate the wide variety of backgrounds in a metro area, the religion becomes a way to differentiate "us" from "them." The religious population would likely be more rural, and therefore more homogeneous.
TL;DR there's more racists over here
They aren’t fanatic over here. That is just the result of the news stories about them that you may have seen. Vast majority just go to church and are normal people.
Remember how they left Europe because they are nutjobs and came over here? Yea, that's why they are fucking insane.
Well to be fair your muslims are way more fanatic than ours.
Saying you're Irish when you were born in America
Especially when no one in their family has been to Ireland since 1845
I just do it to explain my alcoholism. I have very little Irish ancestry as far as I know.
And they say "good for you man! practicing your ancestry! very nice!"
Apparently alcoholism knows no ethnic boundaries. Who knew.
Not to be a dick, but comments like this are really annoying to Irish people.
DUNMAGLASS
Slainte
It’s because we’d rather be Irish
Yeah, I think it's funny how some Americans speak no other language but English, have little to no clue about the world outside of the States but say things like: "Oh, I'm also part German, part Czech, part Polish and I have some French in me as well! My cultural heiritage and ancestry are very important to me!"
I can see why behavior like that can be very annoying, but in a country like the US it makes sense. When immigrants come here they’re surrounded by strangers and of course they miss the warmth and familiarity of the culture they left behind. They hang out with other immigrants who share the culture. They band together in a community to help each other survive and thrive in a new place. After a few generations or so the family integrates into mainstream American culture and have put down roots, however there are still aspects of the original culture that are present amongst these families. And of course, in a country full of immigrants people value their lineage. Everyone here wants to know where they come from because we don’t have much of a shared human history compared to Europe and Asia and Africa.
Also, keep in mind that a lot of people came here not because they necessarily wanted to but because they had to — bad experiences at home, lack of financial resources, no future in their current country. They brought the love of their country with them. In a country where everyone isn’t the same people feel the need to stick with what they know and differentiate themselves from others. It translates into ethnic pride. Does that make sense?
(It’s also not surprising that most Americans don’t speak another language — we don’t really have to and we don’t really get to practice because everyone already speaks English anyway. We’re lazy, everyone already knows that about us.)
Americans only speaking English is a product of having next to no exposure to any other language except Spanish and the world having settled on English as the de facto common language. We just don't hear other languages unless we make a big effort to try and find foreign media. It's not like there are tons of foreign blockbusters in our movie theaters or tons of foreign language singers on the radio (there is usually one hit song with Spanish in it, currently Despacito).
Early education in foreign languages in schools is often non-existent and if a school does have it, usually limited to Spanish. Later language education in school normally takes place for two consecutive years somewhere during the ages of 14-18 and normally is a choice between French and Spanish with only the very rare school offering something else. You aren't going to learn much going to a single class for two years when you basically don't hear or see the language anywhere outside of class.
Finding foreign language media is also way more difficult than you would think in the age of the internet. You can't filter shows in Netflix or Amazon by spoken language, so you just have to try different titles to see if they have a foreign dub (maybe half have spanish and maybe 0.5% have something else). Because of region locking, we can't get most foreign language shows available in other countries.
My wife is Italian (as in Italian passport) and wants to teach our kids Italian. She has been unsuccessful finding any kids shows that have Italian language dubs on Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon. Even shows we know are in Italian other places, like Chuggington are only available in English in the USA. Youtube searches are dicy at best and the websites for Italian TV stations and shows don't let you play videos with a US IP address. You can't rent movies in Italian, there is no Italian speaking on TV, there is no Italian on the radio. The only Italian my kids ever encounter is my wife and whatever episodes of Italian Sesame Street or Chuggington I torrent because torrenting them is the only way to obtain them.
An American learning Spanish is about on par with a Brit learning French. An American learning French is on par with a Brit learning Flemish.
Why wouldn't their cultural heritage be important to them?
If it really was then they would know some things about their supposed heritage.
I mean yes a lot of Americans like to spout off their ancestry but most likely they will never declare their cultural heritage is important to them unless they know a bit about it.
Yuah, I agree with that
They do.
Most don’t from my experience, can’t even point out the countries on a map if they tried
Most do from my experience and are aware of the genetic difference that separates them from others.
Fair enough, different experiences I guess
Doubt you be so critical of other countries showcasing ethnic and national pride when they can't even spell the name of their country.
You’re just being difficult on purpose.
Nope, just sick of hypocritical ignorant Europeans spouting off shit they know nothing about.
What don’t we know about mate? Tell me
Holy shit, where do I begin? I mean there's so much What do you want to talk about?
Gun violence being overwhelming a black issue yet many British claim "America" has a gun problem. White Americans and White Europeans kill each other at about the same rate. You are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly racist. Pick one.
The alleged religious fervor of Americans. Black and Hispanics are vastly more likely to be religious than white Americans. Yet British complain about "Americans" being religious zealots. Again, you are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly racist. Pick one.
Health care - a vastly complex issue far over the heads of most Europeans. Their argument is something like "Why can't Americans have a healthcare system like a country that's 95% white?" Hmm.... I wonder why.
Many of these "problems" British have about Americans either stem from British being incredibly ignorant or incredibly racist. And yet, every waking moment of their lives they try very hard not to come across as ignorant or racist.
It doesn’t fucking matter what race is killing people with guns, it’s still a gun problem. In some cases e.g school shootings it’s probably more of a mental health problem that’s not being properly taken care of
Here it says that 70% of white are religious in America, I don’t know why you’re bringing race into this argument again.
Healthcare, again, why did you put race as an issue into this? If you can actually give me a solid answer that would be great.
You’re whole argument seems to revolve a lot around someone’s race and then accusing others of being bigoted or racist. No one has said that it’s only white Christians that are constantly talking about it, no one has said that it’s only white people killing others with guns. I’m starting to think that you’re some kind of racist yourself, saying that British people are racist and ignorant smh
So you're racist then. You're saying blacks aren't civilized enough to have guns.
Here is a study from the same research group proving my point.
African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life.....Latinos also report affiliating with a religion at a similarly high rate of 85%; among the public overall, 83% are affiliated with a religion.
I'm bringing up race because it's very obvious to most Americans you have a stereotypes about typical white Americans that are laughably inaccurate. And you think you can "prove" your stereotype correct by Googling some statistics about gun violence in America. And it's VERY OBVIOUS you don't understand the American culture and norms, and it's VERY OBVIOUS you haven't even thought your argument through. It's very easy to get you in this trap, call you an ignorant racist and watch you try and squirm your way out of this hole you dug for yourself.
Healthcare, again, why did you put race as an issue into this? If you can actually give me a solid answer that would be great.
Because the UK doesn't have 20,000,000 people living in their country illegally putting an undue strain on its healthcare system. The NHS is having a hard enough time with its 3 month waiting period. Good luck getting that number down while importing hundreds of thousands of hajjis. You'll be begging for privatized healthcare soon.
edit: I'm hoping Trump gets the US out of NATO so Western Europe will be forced to pay for its own military. I'm sick of subsidizing the costs for these Euroasshats.
You’re whole argument seems to revolve a lot around someone’s race and then accusing others of being bigoted or racist. No one has said that it’s only white Christians that are constantly talking about it, no one has said that it’s only white people killing others with guns. I’m starting to think that you’re some kind of racist yourself, saying that British people are racist and ignorant smh
Go ahead, call me a racist. It has zero effect on me and being racist certainly isn't illegal here like it is in your shit country. But with your arguments, your hatred of gun violence and religious people, it's very clear you are a racist too.
Of course I hate gun violence (who doesn’t), I never said i hated religious people anywhere. Furthermore how did I imply that black people aren’t sophisticated enough to have guns? You’re pulling things out of thin air mate. It’s alright if you’re angry that other countries are better than yours, America doesn’t always have to be the biggest.
Of course I hate gun violence (who doesn’t),
Blacks. Seriously dude, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Try that sissy shit around blacks in the US you'll get your ass knocked the fuck out.
I never said i hated religious people anywhere.
It's a sentiment most Europeans share when discussing Americans. This thread is a perfect example. The Finnish guy with his numbered comment said religious people are "slow in the head" and was put-off by American's religious fervor. Little did he know he was calling America's oppressed minorities dumb, and that makes him guilty the worst crime imaginable--racism
Furthermore how did I imply that black people aren’t sophisticated enough to have guns?
Well, you hate gun violence. Blacks kill with guns 15 times more than whites. White Americans kill at the same rate as other whites in countries with little or no access to guns. What other conclusions are there to draw?
edit: go ahead and google to try and prove me wrong. You won't. I'm starting to like educating you daft eurofucks.
Jumping to conclusions again my friend.
“It's a sentiment most Europeans share when discussing Americans. This thread is a perfect example. The Finnish guy with his numbered comment said religious people are "slow in the head" and was put-off by American's religious fervor. Little did he know he was calling America's oppressed minorities dumb, and that makes him guilty the worst crime imaginable--racism”
You’re just proving to me more and now that Americans are brainwashed idiots. Your comments make almost no sense. It’s better if you stop talking, you’re damaging the reputation of your oh so great country.
Lame. Whatever dude. Keep up your racism I'll report you to the proper authorities.
Well then for some reason you've experienced a weird minority of Americans.
Why would it be important to them, what benefit is it other than on St Patricks day being able to tell others your "Irish", no one in Ireland considers americans with Irish ancestry "Irish", we just play along to be pally with the government, eg Obama coming to his hometown.
Doesn't help that most of the stuff they know about Irish culture is actually racist stereotypes. They also seem to really enjoy going to Ireland, proclaiming their Irish heritage and then ordering an Irish Car Bomb or Black and Tan in a pub.
And yet holding Jews to the same standard is a crime in Europe. You're a strange, self-loathing bunch of people.
They have phenotypical differences and a genetic stock that makes them different from others. Like I've told others, I doubt you are as critical to other ethnicities. Go to a Jewish board and say these things about Jews. Now fuck off you raging bigoted anti-semite.
yikes judging from the few comments you posted you definitely don't seem to be the brightest guy
Boring, predictable ad-hom attacks from a coward. Don't reply to me unless you have an argument.
A point to make is that ancestry and citizenship are two different things, Americans generally aren't claiming citizenship. If you moved to the USA, I assume you'd have a lot of cultural pride for whatever country you came from. If you raised children here, you'd teach them about your country its traditions, and instill it as a part of your family and identity. That's exactly what our ancestors did. And because it's a nation of immigrants, everyone had that same path, which made it a shared trait for Americans. Not saying that a lot of the time the American descendants get it right, but that's where it comes from.
[deleted]
I mean, it's just shorthand for "of Irish descent." We're a relatively young country and many of us find it interesting to trace our origins to some degree or another. We're a big melting pot and so I think we appreciate the individual ingredients that went into making each of us.
Is it uncommon in other countries to have knowledge of family history and ancestors?
It's by no means uncommon, but in the UK you wouldn't hear someone say "I'm Irish" if their nan was Irish but they themselves were born in England. We like to know our family histories, but it's not something we make into an identity or feel the need to tell anyone unless they're genuinely interested.
[deleted]
It has nothing to do with nationality or citizenship. The context is always heritage and ancestry.
[deleted]
No, you said when someone asks you your nationality you tell them you're an Aussie.
There isn't an American who would answer that quesiton with "Irish."
Exactly. When I'm asked about my nationality, I'm American. When asked about my heritage, I typically say German/Irish. I'll go into more detail if they ask, but that's about it.
I'm proud of my family's history. Especially my great great grandpa Adolf who refused to change his name in the 40s.
I'm proud of my family's history. Especially my great great grandpa Adolf
er...
who refused to change his name in the 40s.
...phew!
The USA is a cultural melting pot and everyone likes to define themselves as what their cultural heritage or national descent is. We use the word "nationality" interchangeably for that here. Like if anyone from overseas asks me what my nationality is I will say "American." But in america if someone asks my nationality I would give my heritage, which is itialian, french-canadian, mexican and irish. Nobody in america is just going to say they are american. (Like no shit, but what do add to the melting pot?)
I’m guessing this is largely because the native Americans are the only ones who’s ancestors are literally purely American?
That makes a lot of sense.
Even still, they came over on the land bridge. Go back and everywhere is full of immigrants.
“Descent”.
You can still be American if you were born outside of it
[deleted]
surely some are in actual Ireland?
Yeah but we're all leaving because rent is fucking insane.
Aside from what others are posting, we also have a bit of a different perspective on our history and what it means to be able to say "I'm American" than other countries do.
For us, we tend to run across so many people that have only been in the US for a few years or their family only goes back a generation or so before they've come from somewhere else. For most of us, we can only really trace back 2 or 3 generations if we are lucky. It's not like Germany where you can literally go back to before Germany was a unified federal entity, or something even crazier. Its all very recent, and most people know which parent, grandparent, or great grandparent came here. Up until just after the civil war the US was only roughly settled along the eastern coast, and it was very much a frontier of nothingness past the Appalachian mountains. That's only 150 years of stable cultural identity, which was then completely reshaped by ww1 and 2.
So, because of that history, we tend to see cultural identity being more as a thing you are in terms of what values you hold. If you immigrate to the US and get citizenship, then besides not being able to become a career politician, you are as every bit an American as I am. Our culture is much more a transient state, and this is sometimes why we struggle seeing it from the European perspective.
> If you immigrate to the US and get citizenship, then besides not being able to become a career politician, you are as every bit an American as I am
This is no different to Europe, except you aren't precluded from being a politician.
Anyone else noticed that Americans of English heritage never claim to be English though?
Probably because the English are always the baddies in old movies
I’m American but my wife is an immigrant; she found it odd as well that Americans do this - “I’m Irish!” - “I’m Chinese!” - “I’m Polish!” Even though we were born here.
It’s ironic with all the anti-immigration stuff going on now, but when you grow up in America, remembering your family’s “roots” is a really big deal. It’s really strongly hammered into your brain at a young age to remember what country your family originally immigrated from, and preserve some customs or traditions if possible.
There was a thread in r/NoStupidQuestions or r/TooAfraidToAsk that explained that Americans of any colors would be hard pressed to find information about their heritage beyond the fourth or fifth generation above as opposed to Europeans who have that information readily available to upwards of two to three centuries.
I wouldn't know about readily. My famioy doesn't know back for more than 130 years. I did find out on geni.com some ancestestors from before the Great Northern War however.
[deleted]
It's because just being American is boring. You can compare America with yogurt, the only difference between yogurt and America is that after 200 years the yogurt would've developed a culture
Americas culture is just being a mix of a bunch of different cultures.
But if your parents were Irish, but you were brought up in the US, it could be part of your culture. I used to live in an area in North America with a large population of Italians and most of them had never been to Italy, but they thought of themselves as Italian first and identified as such.
What I find a bit odd is that people from Ireland get SO bent when anyone in North America says they're Irish. Obviously, they mean their family has an Irish background. No other country seems so touchy about this.
I'm not American btw.
"What I find a bit odd is that people from Ireland get SO bent when anyone in North America says they're Irish."
It's weird when American-Irish get offended when you call them American too though; guess it's cruel to mess with someone's identity.
I lived in NJ for a while, first Irish person I met, I was like "OMG, I'm Welsh!"
Hahaha--because Welsh and Irish are the same thing!!
A lot of it is a game of who’s got the better or more interesting ancestry.
Ambiguously self identifying as a particular group is definitely not just an American thing.
Race is so heavily embedded in American society that when you ask someone what they are almost everyone will think you’re asking “what is your ethnicity?”. They’re ethnically Irish. No one in America that calls them self Irish is saying they’re an Irish citizen.
Some French do that too. For instance, I met a girl claiming she was Maltese (father from Malta) but she would just spend there couple of weeks during summer and would not even speak the language.
Maltese people speak English though.
They also speak Maltese.
Did a DNA test and was surprised to see I have 33% Irish decent. Never once claimed to be Irish. It's just something people do on st paddy's day to bring attention to themselves
It seems like it's because they don't have a whole lot of their own culture? They have some, sure, but it's nothing compared to the densely packed traditions of most other countries, and a lot of it is actually just stuff immigrants brought over rather than individual American shit. Not saying it's because they massacred native Americans but that sure didn't help.
MILLIONS of Irish people came to the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They were treated horribly. They lived together in various cities. It makes sense that they would band together and pass down the importance and love of their Homeland to their children and grandchildren.
Not sure why that's weird. Seems reasonable.
Just doesn't happen in the UK, so it's not something I came across until I moved to the US for a year
You do realize people from other countries do this as well?
I am 3/4 Mexican and 1/4 Scottish/Irish. It is where my blood came from. Almost no one except for Natives are from here so we like to know where we came from originally. I was born in the US but I still feel a connection to Mexico, Scotland, and Ireland. My grandfather's parents came from Scotland and Ireland and I definitely plan to visit. Maybe I will have a little genetically in common. I hope.
what part of Scotland? My family live by fas lane, the big Navy base by Loch Lomond
I am sure I can dig that info up but since my great grandmother is no longer alive I wouldn't be able to ask her. Also my grandfather died long before I was born because he had my mom at an old age so I couldn't ask him either.
It's a great county; if you don't mind the rain too much. Highland games in Dunoon are good if you get chance to go
I live in Seattle. I am sure I can handle the rain.
Anything related to the fast food stores.
Fast food is all over the world now, you dont have it?
McDonald is in almost every single country in the world. I'm pretty sure they have fast food
I heard that McDonald in US is considered trashy food for poor people, but when I visit some here, it costs event more than normal lunch and it's nice and clean (still proper food is better) inside.
it 100% is trash food in the US.
Our McDonald’s in Australia are pretty great. Dare I say their food tastes really good, at least here in Australia. I tried a quarter pounder and hash brown when I was in NYC and it was no way near as good as what we have here. Too dry and rough.
Here’s an interesting article about Aussie McDonald’s: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/mcdonalds-in-australia-vs-america-2015-10?r=US&IR=T
When you get the chance to visit, try some McDonald’s hot cakes or an apple pie.
It looks like the main reason its so different is different food regulations. They can get away with much more in the US
a quarter pounder
You mean a royale with cheese?
Why do people think this? The food you get at McDonalds isn't any different then what you get at almost any restaurant, just streamlined. The trash food is a misconception based on cost. The ingredient quality guidelines are actually very stringent.
The food you get at McDonalds isn't any different then what you get at almost any restaurant, just streamlined.
You're right, but the food is still mostly burgers and fried items.
The quality might be better now than it used to be, but it had such bad quality for so long and used to be dirt cheap. Now, even if the quality is better it still tastes the same but it's just as expensive as going somewhere better.
Where are you buying burgers that are like McDonald's burgers?
the fact that mcdonalds in America doesn't rot. Have you seen how long you can leave out a mcdonalds burger without it going bad? My little brother did it for his Jr High Science fair project and he went 2 months with it. Could have gone longer but he had to turn it in with the project. At the end of the 2 months it looked exactly the same as it originally looked but drier
Have you tried that with other foods? Food in general will have a very hard time rotting if there's no moisture in it.
Well, the project included their burgers, fries, nuggets, and pies. None of them rotted.
I think they mean with other non mcdonald's food.
Ohhhh. Yes. We used burgers,etc from Burgerking, Mcdonalds, and homemade. Everything but Mcdonalds rotted
Damn, I wasn't expecting a legit answer.
Also damn, McDonalds uses a lot of preservatives
My brother wasn't the first person to do this project either. There is lots of news stories where they show exactly this
here is lots of news stories where they show exactly this
Yea, but fake news and everything... ^^^^^/s
I'm just loopy from little sleep and lotta work.
McDonalds is barely real food
Not the dollar menu thats what you always get the dollar menu
Yip, it's called McDonaldisation, where they have McDonalds or something similar round the world so the tourists won't feel as alienated. Like I think there's also Disneyfication or maybe I'm just misremembering it, but there's also another term for making everything be touristy and being what the tourists believe the cultures are without being true culturally. There was an entire Economics Lecture televised in BBC called McMafia where the plot is James Bond if 100% of it was just an Economic lecture and nothing bloody happened.
Mr. fat boy Kim over there just put a McDonald’s up I believe in north korea
[deleted]
How so? They seem pretty much the same for me except you have to pay for your ketchup packets.
[deleted]
They are shitpits in Spain
Pretty trashy in the uk
Very classy in upcountry Thailand. It’s where university students love to go on a date when they want to impress their lover.
At KFC, they eat everything with a knife and fork, (even chicken wings) holding the fork British style. Very high-class.
It is generally not "completely different".
Completely disagree. During High School and college I worked at McDonalds for over 8 years. I have been to Mcdonalds in China, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada, and many places in the US. Yes regions have some small differences, but the product as a whole is remarkably consistent.
No they are not.
They might have a few menu differences and a different interior, but from what I've seen they're pretty similar.
This is simply untrue.
Tastes different (different food standards) and the sizes are much smaller.
i think he means big branded chains
Just about none of the US chains. And right now, none in walking distance.
[deleted]
The closest Mcdonalds to me is, half an hour drive away. But then again, the closest kebab is few minutes away.
But except Mcdonalds and Subway, and few KFC we dont have other US fastfoods. Would love some burritos.
Do you have mission burrito
No burrito. :( I like burrito.
You don’t have mission burrito in your area?
Ireland. And, no, I don't and can't drive, so walking distance matters.
I guess the service is kinda different like say not all countries have drive through/ drive in (confused which one is it) systems [we have that only on the highways here] and McDonald's here doesn't employ 18 year olds who work their part time (they're usually in their mid 20s) - cultural and social differences I guess
Like the person above from Texas, the area you live in makes a difference. The reason the US has so many drive throughs is because the infrastructure is based on cars. Most people can't walk there in a reasonable amount of time. My parents live ~20 minutes from the closest McDonalds and their McDonalds tends to employ even older adults (30s/40s) because of the job economy in the area. You usually see teens working there in larger cities because there are more jobs and people with more experience dont have to work fast food jobs.
We have it. They are called chickens. You can't catch one on a chase. It will outrun you. Unless you tire it out, the fucker is the fastest food you'll see.
To me it's the sheer amount of chains. Here we have mostly McD, not many other chains. When you go out to eat, it's usually a local restaurant. When you go out for a coffee, it's not necessarily Starbucks. When you order pizza, it's often from a local place etc. Of course chains exist here, but it's still very different from the US where the same few businesses seem to dominate (fast) food culture.
Not like the states though. In canada i never understood how you always hear about people being fat because all they can afford is fast food. Its super weird as here groceries to make a full day of meals is cheaper than me going to get one fast food meal. I hear in the states its dirt cheap though.
[deleted]
It's the same cost-wise, but families that "can't afford" anything but fast food typically don't have the time to cook or plan meals.
For example single parents who work multiple jobs.
Yeah, even at grocery stores, junk food is traditionally cheaper than healthy food or even many ingredients (unless you get really basic ingredients in bulk, but a lot of people are too lazy to make food from scratch). It's definitely not impossible for even a low-wage family to eat healthily, but fast food satisfies hunger which is often the first priority, even if it's not good for you. I was never in terrible shape but I've cut out all junk food and I feel much healthier, and I don't feel like my budget is very different either. I do put in a lot more work with food prep than I would if I ate worse, though, and America is (and really modern times everywhere are) all about the fast life, so for many people the time saved is somehow worth it.
Eating fast food every day is far more expensive than making your own shit.
Unless you eat the reallllllly shitty stuff off dollar menus maybe.
i never understood how you always hear about people being fat because all they can afford is fast food.
Because it just isn't true. Unless you are completely homeless it is cheaper to eat healthier food.
You can definitely eat cheaper by buying food at the grocery. Fast food is convenient and not expensive though. Those people are just justifying their laziness.
Try coming here, and seeing them literally around every block. And some brag about eating it often, like it's the high life.
[deleted]
Yikes. Congratulations on dropping almost 1/3 of your weight.
American living in the UK here:
I miss having drive-thru options like I did in the US. Sometimes I need a quick bite to eat and to eat lunch in my car.
If I want that here, my choices are McDonald's or McDonald's.
In the US its McDonald's, or Jimmy John's, or Chic Fil-A, or Burger King, or Panda Express, or the local gyro shop, or Subway, or the local Mexican restaurant, or Taco Bell... you get the idea. I can have something different every day of the week and can find something reasonably healthy at most drive-thru restaurants. Also (not drive-thru), but I miss Panera Bread.
There are drive thru Paneras. All new stores have a drive thru now.
Source: used to be a slave in Paneradise.
This is also something I can't relate to. Why would you eat food in your car??
It's a mobile enclosed space with a chair that you own. Why wouldn't you?
Also, many of us are only nibbling on fries and a quick sip on our way home to eat that burger. Ain't got no time sitting at a fast food restaurants.
Hygeine
Why would you eat food on an airplane?
Cuz hungry
I don't know if you were there recently but Panera quality took a huge nosedive. :(
Luckily my husband makes kickass broccoli cheese soup.
I stopped going the day they got rid of the French onion soup. Bastards.
Why would you need options when Greggs exists?
Sometimes I need a quick bite to eat and to eat lunch in my car.
Honestly, I don't think you do. Arrange your day accordingly and this will never happen.
Yo this is awesome. It can only get better! I always like reading this sort of thing on reddit
The heaviest I ever got was maybe 215 and I remember at the Chinese buffet I'd fully load my plate 3 or 4 times and end with an ice cream cone. My roommates and I went there a couple times a week. Now that I'm back in shape, all I can muster is one moderately full plate and a couple small pieces of sushi and I'm uncomfortable for hours.
I can't comprehend how it was physically possible for me to eat that much back then, much less why I'd want to.
I can see how once in a blue moon it could be fun but dude, were you not constantly in gastric distress?
Not constantly... but there was a race to the only toilet when my roommates and I got home.
$60, 14,000 calorie meal.
I do that when I'm drunk and I always forget that I can't eat that much at once most of the time.
I'm 290 now and I can't even eat two, wtf. I don't even break 2.5k calories most days I've tracked
[deleted]
I think I'd gain weight even looking at that many calories in one day
😳
Can I ask why that made you feel proud? That's frightening to me.
Good for you for eating less and dropping that weight!
[deleted]
That's really interesting actually! Thanks for sharing. It makes sense.
Oh man I feel you back in January I was 237 lbs now I'm 198 and i cannot eat nearly half of what i used to be able to i just get so full now
Good for you!! Internet strangers are really proud of you!!
$60, 14,000 calorie meal.
That's a week's worth of food, wtf
[removed]
[deleted]
wtf
I remember at Uni we considered it 'awesome' to have had mcdonalds for breakfast, BK for lunch and KFC for dinner on a roadtrip. Just thinking about that disgusts me now. I went from about 68kg to 115kg and then lost most of it and am now at 75kg.
Honest question. How would this possibly be something to be proud of? Like, what was your logic at the time?
A defense mechanism?
It really makes no sense.
[deleted]
Makes sense except for the fact you were overweight in the process. Your example is more like a person who drinks a lot but then just pukes everywhere, that's not a skill worth having.
Glad that you're healthier now!
I'm honestly jealous of that metabolism. If I tried to eat like that, I'd be 200kg.
[deleted]
The thing that blows my mind about American gas stations and fast food places, is the 100ft tall signs on the side of the highway. In Canada we have signs too, but they are max like 20 ft tall. You drive across the border and all of sudden every gas station and food place has 100 ft sign you can see from miles away.
That's advertising for you. The longer you see it, the more it i influences you. That's why in America, they advertise McDonalds and candy junk and shit during kids shows, to hook you early when you don't know better , yet the sensation of a clown ia somewhat familiar and comforting, inviting. And that's the process.
To be fair, growing up dirt poor meant Hot N' Now was a luxury...
Seriously, I never loved it but McDonald’s meant a hot meal that my parents could afford. Beat PBJ or ramen again
If you eat fast food every day or even close to that, youre probably not only unhealthy, but bad with money. I rarely eat fast food, usually only when im away from my home, or out with friends, doing it less saves tons of money
I've never in my life heard someone bragging about how much fast food they eat.
Trust me: be glad you haven't. Once you do, you'll wish you hadn't.
Also dependent on where you're from. Seattle for example has I think like maybe two fast food chain stores in the city proper. Doesn't mean there aren't lots of places with food that's bad for you, but fast food chains are rare unless you get out of the city.
Seattle for example has I think like maybe two fast food chain stores in the city proper.
Obviously you have never set foot on Aurora or Lake City Way.
I meant more of like Queen Anne to Beacon Hill, Sound to Lake. Aside from a couple Subways and the McDonalds down by the Bon there's really nothing. Not counting things like Dick's obviously.
Yeah, those are the super nice neighborhoods.
Yeah, and they sort of form the basic city center of Seattle. I mean aside from parts of Aurora and Rainier Valley there's very little fast food at all until you get up near Shoreline or close to Sea-Tac/Renton. Not to say there isn't any at all, but considering the population, it's very low. There are many cities in the US that are significantly lower too.
[deleted]
I’d say the opposite actually. There are tons more opportunities for mom and pop type restaurants inside major cities. Not that you can’t find fast food as well, but it’s not the dominant food type. The suburbs tend to always have at least one or two of all the major chains. In some towns, that’s basically all they have
My city also has for more local restaurants than chains
Ever been to Vegas or LA? Fast food central
I've been to many, was just saying there are some areas of the US where fast food is much less common.
Compared to me. I have an 8 min/1.5 mile drive from the highway to my house and on the way there, there's a KFC, Dunkin, Rally's/Checkers, Pizza Hut & Wingstop combo, McD's, Wendy's, Tbell and two taco joints.
Oh yeah, for sure. I went to high school in a Navy town and along the main road through the town there were at least 15 fast food places in a city of roughly 20k. Shit can get out of hand some places.
some brag about eating it often, like it's the high life.
Even the president!
"McDonalds is just the best folks, they share my name, they know what they are doing. They make the best beef, and i know alot about beef"
Given the reputation your president has I cannot tell if this is an impersonation or a quote
Pro tip: if it's grammatically correct, it's probably not a quote.
I'd hope he get a heart atrack, but i pity the poor soul who lost their life and have it donated only for it to go to him.
I only eat it when im broke waiting for my next paycheck.
You and me both.
Literally, where I live, there is a Wendy's next door, Hardee's across the street, McDonald's down the street, Arby's down the street in the opposite direction, Taco Bell next to that, another Taco Bell in the opposite direction AND a Chik Fil A next to that. not to mention the Macado's, a Mexican restaurant, Italian restaurant, ( Applebee's and Famous Anthony's used to be across the street but they closed) and more..many many more..
All of these being in less than a 5-mile radius.
Dude I can beat that. I have a walmart here locally that has a McDs inside of it. Outside in their parking lot is Another McDs. Down the street 600ft is Another McDs. Next Door to the Walmart is a Wendy's, a Taco Bell, A Burger King, a Sonic, a Popeye's, and a Firehouse subs. We literally have 3 McDonald's within 700ft of each other.
That is intense.. I don't understand why there are so many of the same restaurants right next to each other... It's like going to the beach and seeing 3 CVS all on one street..
Thats exactly it! I actually watched a documentary of Japan about how they are so obsessed with 7/11 that they will have 7/11's right across the street from each other
That almost seems like a waste of money to me.. like, wut? lol
I mean... I guess if they are THAT busy..
It could be some sort of market saturation strategy to strangle local competition.
This is true.
Yeah that is how Starbucks takes over neighborhoods.
Yeah that's the difference. I am from Germany and you don't get to decide which fast food chain you visit unless you have a car or live in a city. It usually is just McDonald's, Burger Kind or KFC. SUbway exists too, but I'd struggle to name 7 big fast food chains existing here from the top of my head.
I think that is a good and maybe sucky thing? A personal thought anyway. Since these restaurants are so close, after work my bf and I are too tired to cook or go to the store, so, unfortunately, we take the easy route and hit the drive-through. We are getting better about it.. but the convenience is still there.
Absolutely. We don't have like any American fast food chains here other than McDonald's, KFC, Subway, Burger King, and pizza chains like Domino's and Papa John's etc
People speak about Taco Bell or Wendy's or Carl's Jr or some shit on here and I don't know about them like at all. There's so many fast food chains in the USA it's unreal
Just that. We have McD, BK and… Boojum?
What on earth is Boojum?
See, this is how I feel about Taco Bell, Carl Jr, etc.
Boojum sells burritos and similar food.
Don't forget Chick Fil A, Whattaburger, Bill Miller's, Taco Cabana, Taco Bell, Denny's, 5 Guys, Chipotle. All these plus about 5 more are within a mile radius of my school.
I didn't know ChickFilA had any locations outside of the US and (I think 1- in an airport) in Canada.
I don't think so either. I was just adding to the unlimited number of fast food chains in America.
I haven't heard of Bill Miller's or taco cabana and I'm American
Those might just be limited to Texas (or the south) then. There's usually one on every other street corner here.
In Germany over the past few years we've got Chipotle, Dunkin Donuts and Five Guys.
I'm not sure if they will last though, they seem to be so popular among the under 21s that it's seeming to put anyone over this age off from going in one, while non branded alternatives are picking up the trade from people with real disposable income.
Five Guys is the shit. If you want the most American dining experience possible, go there.
After you grab your order from the counter and go to sit down, the grease from all the loose fries has seeped through the bag since their idea of a "medium" amount of fries is "fill up the entire bag". You can literally see the oil from the fries darken the bag in real time. It's beautiful. The food itself is good too.
Oh to be fair we do have a Krispy Kreme and a Five Guys in my town too, but they're the only ones around in the entire county probably
We have a TGI Friday's as well but that's more of a restaurant than fast food I think
Five Guys rules but it's so expensive. Dunkin Donuts is horrible and Chipotle is okay but overrated
Fast food is everywhere.
And you wonder why we're all overweight.
Fast food doesn't make you overweight. You can be overweight and eat nothing but carrots all day. You can eat fast food 5 times a week and be extremely fit. The reason people are overweight is because they eat too much, not because of what they eat.
You're not wrong, but you must see how much easier it is to overeat chicken nuggets than carrots. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have personal responsibility but you'd have to admit it's a factor.
That's the same with any type of food, not just fast food. The way you gain weight is by eating a higher amount of calories than you're burning. That counts baked chicken, steak, seafood, and every other high quality food you can think of. It's easy to overeat anything. The problem is people don't exercise, and they get fat instead of gaining muscle.
It's also highly unlikely that you will be "extremely fit" eating fast food 5 times a week. Sure, gaining and losing weight is a matter of calorie intake, but what's in those calories will greatly affect your health and fitness no matter what else you're doing. If you're just eating a little bit of garbage vs. a lot of garbage, you're still eating garbage.
As long as you meet your nutritional goals, your fine. Just meet your calorie and protein goals for the day, and you're good. You just have to make sure you take into account what's in the food you're eating. I'm sure there's a way to meet those two by eating fast food 5 times a week.
Keep in mind that they use psychology well, too. Colors such as red, orange, yellow, and even brown have been shown to encourage hunger in people. Now, go take a look at how often those colors show up in fast food logos and store designs :)
Just reading them it's getting me hungry...
mmm could really go for some red right now
I'm an American in the UK and the volume of fast food and junk food I see here is on par if not greater than the volume i see back home.
Yeah, but it's very different, like random small kebab places vs regional or national chains. The things that are eaten, etc.
Would you like to supersize that?
I was surprised that (apparently) Americans use a different oil to cook than most of europe which means things like fried chicken taste vastly different.
[deleted]
Restaurant. Noun. "A place where people pay to sit and eat meals that are cooked and served on the premises."
They absolutely are restaurants. They are certainly low quality restaurants, but to say they aren't restaurants is inaccurate.
They're just gatekeeping
Are they not called restaurants where you're from?
Not American, but they're still restaurants here. They have the license and everything.
I don't think that's his or her point. A restaurant traditionally is different from a fast food place.
[deleted]
Oh. We call them "Fast Food Restaurants" but you mean just calling them "Restaurants" and putting them in the same category as proper restaurants with service staff etc. I get you now.
Nobody says "let's go to a restaurant" and gets McDonalds in the US either.
The US court system/ police seems like an utter clusterfuck of precedence, voting the officials and strange judge-jury relationships.
Voting for judges is SO fucking baffling. I remember first encountering it on an episode of Fresh Prince and I thought it was made up for the show
Who the hell looked at politicians and thought "yes, yes, let's replicate how well this is going for our criminal justice system"
How else do the citizens remove a lenient judge who sends carjackers to three months in halfway houses with the rest of his sentence suspended, or a hanging judge who sends potheads to the maximum time in prison? Voting for judges allows the community to direct how they want justice to be carried out for them.
By having laws that make sense and being able to discipline the judges within the Judiciary Branch.
Well, we do have those too, for both Federal and State judges. I would argue that the US Judiciary is the only branch of government still functioning as mostly intended.
So, how does "a lenient judge who sends carjackers to three months in halfway houses with the rest of his sentence suspended, or a hanging judge who sends potheads to the maximum time in prison" happen?
There's no cut and dry answer to every situation, so the law and judicial case law give a lot of berth to a judge's possible choices in any one case.
The civil court judge in my county is a libertarian running on the Republican ticket, he's practically Tina Turner in Thunderdome, with "break a deal, face the wheel of justice" seeming to be his ethos. Contract law is king, he doesn't care if you felt you had to buy your kids an Xbox for Christmas, if you subsequently didn't pay your landlord, your kids can play xbox at the homeless shelter because you're being evicted before February. He goes in accordance with a strict reading of the law, no continuances or delays without verified reasons.
In the next county (a Democratic stronghold), the rent court judges will allow six or more months of delays, especially in winter, before considering eviction, all the while the landlords aren't getting paid by the tenants. Both courts operate under the same state laws, with radically different processes even though the ultimate result is almost the same (excluding the lost rent from the excessive delays).
This can barely be called rule of law. The inequalities shown here are so rampant that the law is in effect, arbitrarily applied.
I agree, those tenants in the next county need to get their crap out ASAP so people that will pay their damn bills can move in.
But if the judges over there didn't give all those continuances, they'd lose in the primary election (there's never a Republican candidate on the ballot) for being racist after all the ministers and preachers started talking about them on Sunday.
Because judges are people, and people are different, as are their backgrounds in legal education and philosophies on penal response (retributivism vs. utilitarianism, etc.). You may have a judge who, because the Legislative Branch has drafted laws to the effect saying that sale of cannabis represents a harm to the community, will enforce the law in that way. Judges are necessarily bound to the law of the Legislative Branch, but their interpretation of that law and the degree to which they observe themselves bound differs on not only the judge herself, but on the jurisdiction, the circumstances of the case, etc. It's a lot of moving parts that results in the example you've mentioned. However, if you want ab easy answer, I would argue that these unjust rulings begin with irresponsible legislation, even if they may be reinforced by politically biased judges in rare cases.
The above is not unique to the US, by the way.
But, on the other hand, when our nutbag of a president implemented that insane travel ban, it was the judiciary who said "hold the fuck up, not only is this unconstitutional, it's morally indefensible." And they've been defending that position since. The courts don't bat 1000 in the US, but at this point in my legal education, I would argue their record is way more consistent than the Executivd branch or Congress.
EDIT: I feel compelled to add that the examples you list almost always contain attendant circumstances that judges/juries must also take into account. What if one of the carjackers you mentioned got a lighter sentence due to a clean prior record and compelling evidence of acting under duress? What if that pothead was also found to be selling to minors, or engaged in a violent felony in an additional charge to the sale? Both of these additions would lead to further questions without easy answers, but hey: that's law.
I have a feeling you think I believe the USA has a shitty Judiciary Branch, and I don't.
There are parts of it that don't make sense (such as voting for judges), it doesn't mean everything is wrong.
Those problems I listed weren't my invention, they were what I was responding to initially.
I believe we might have lost track of that.
Fair! Apologies, I don't mean to come off as aggressive, truly. I just rarely get a chance to rant about how great (albeit imperfect) the US Courts are. I truly believe it's the US's last remaining semi-functional branch of government.
nah that sounds like a d i c t a t o r s h i p
America is a democracy, the best democracy, nobody has a better democracy.
You forgot biggest. The biggest democracy. Not small at all. Everyone else is jealous.
Nah man, laws protect people and regulations make sure shit is done right. A tight run on the judicial system doesnt mean a dictatorship. Law, (like science) is not a democracy; the general public are too thick to be in charge of something like that.
Considering he was parodying a trump quote, I don’t think he was serious.
Ohhhhkaayy. I'm not good at getting sarcasm through text :P
The Constitution didn't trust the federal judiciary with enforcing internal discipline, it placed the power of impeachment with Congress, which they have repeatedly used.
State and municipal judges are selected and removed in different processes from federal judges, in municipal settings, election is usually the easiest since you'll face the same judge you and your neighbors elected when you're accused of speeding or lawlessness.
More fucked up is that we have mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Even if the judge is lenient, there's a minimum amount of time (determined at a higher level) that they have to lock drug offenders away for.
People own prisons and make money off of them, too!
A judge needs to be independent from the public. Otherwise you get mob justice. You get a judge sentencing a first offense shoplift to the max so he can appear tough. You get ads comparing how much jail time each judge handed out.
The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive fines or punishments, the appeals court will reduce the sentence if it doesn't fit with case law.
That may be the theory but it isn't the practice. The amount of deference to sentencing judges is obscene.
Because the judges are able to work within the bounds of the 8th Amendment jurisprudence. What you consider cruel and unusual or excessive punishment might not rise to that level when viewed by the Supreme Court.
Except the majority of people who would hold those kinds of court changing opinions are uninformed of what's going on and even if they are they don't vote.
Most judges do run unopposed, but it still gives the people the power to intercede should the judge's behavior exceed the community's boundaries.
Keep in mind:
A. Not all US judges are elected. State Judges generally are, but Federal judges are appointed by the Executive power, and vetted and confirmed by the Legislative. Generally, people aren't appointed unless they have shown a long history of competent, consistent legal practice. We have seen a slight (emphasis on slight--the few examples of unqualified people we have seen were widely publicized, but most of Obama's federal nominations were re-instated) deviation from this standard under the current administration but fuck me if that isn't the case in all aspects of our current government.
B. Those judges who ARE elected aren't your typical Joe shmoe. Unlike running for political office in the US, being elected to the bench generally requires a similar competent and consistent history of legal practice, or at the very least a history of legal practice appealing to the values of the community's constitutents. Either way, you need to know what a motion in limine actually is.
Wellllll actually... there’s quite a few people on the bench who have no clue about the law. When Your Judge Isn’t a Lawyer
Oof. Eight states? I knew about Montana, but I didn't know it was that many.
Yep - surely the best judges should be appointed, not simply the most popular judges.
In Missouri for the major counties the judge is appointed by a committee. Then the governor picks one out of that batch and then the voter vote yes or no. I don't see why this is a bad thing it isn't like anyone can just run to be a judge
I'm American an find most European opinions on America ignorant at best. But yes, this is strange and baffling. It is a somewhat recent thing in US politics. I think most Americans haven't given it much thought.
I mean it's not that weird. I've just had an exam on comparative constitutional law and the idea of electing judges isn't too out of left field with regards to some of the philosophical/ historical theories about how to organize democratic legal order.
Don't wanna make this comment to worldy, but if you're going to give somebody legal powers you need a reason to valide it and elections are a very 'natural' way to justify powers in a democratic legal sphere.
There are good arguments for both ways of selecting judges. Both kind of suck.
How is voting for a judge bad? Don't you want choice in who has such an important role
In Missouri we have the missouri plan where judges are appointed for a committee then the governor approved them or vetoes them and the lastly the voters vote yes or no.
Like the brock turner case the judge was just voted out in an recall electuob
Don't you want choice in who has such an important role
It's precisely because it's such an important role that it shouldn't be left up to the dirty tricks and nonsense of politics.
Except when there are situations where
Hence ajit pai wasn't elected and we are gettng rid of Net Netruslity even though a majority of people want it
How is that any better.
The missouri plan is literally the best of both worlds. 3 are appointed by a committe then the governor chooses one of those and the voters say yes or no.
I would rather that then have someone become judge because they told the politician or who ever elects them that they will rule in their favor. (which has happened many times in Supreme Court justices)
Hey man the founding fathers were perfect and replicating clearly flawed systems because that's the way it is, is just the cost of freedom!
Democracy I probably the best system out there an would work better if politics wasn't such a game and issues weren't made to look only two sided
Democracy yes, having the lowest voter turnout, with billion dollar elections and vote differing depending on location when it isn't being snuffed out by people who don't want you voting? not so much.
I agree that the electoral college is garbage, it is not very democratic either, and the vitoria turnout isn't a problem with democracy but with society, so if not democracy what should it be then
turnout is because people know that if they live in a heavily red or blue area there's little point in voting for the other guy, coupled with lack of faith in the system, apathy, contentment whatever else. I think when most western countries are around 70%-90% while America is the lowest measured at 48%. Source is a bit old but I don't expect much changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences
I like democracy but it requires a motivated informed public that America does not have. you cannot have serious discussions and policy debates when a significant part of the population doesn't believe in science when it disagrees with their feelings. But no, the system is dogshit and will continue because of an undue reverence for what some slaveowning dudes two hundred and fifty years ago said.
I agree, George Washington didn't want a two major party system, the two parties system is the most retarded part of the government. And if we had more unbiased media that would really help with the informed citizens to.
It was probably good for the time, just needs to change a bit with time.
Because Britain back before 1776 was trying to appoint their own judges for the American colonies that would only answer directly to the British government and before they were doing that specifically the only way to have any authority over British appointed judges was to threaten them with their salary.
Voting for judges was originally a pretty good institutional reform. Parties were stuffing the courts with partisan hacks and the general decided that wasn’t acceptable.
I'm American and find most European opinions on America ignorant at best. But yes, this is strange and baffling. It is a somewhat recent thing in US politics. I think most Americans haven't given it much thought.
As a law student in Brazil, this is the aspect of America that shocks me the most. Its hard to believe that in comparison with a country like Brazil, American court system looks utterly barbaric.
Edit: I elaborate a bit down the thread.
Harder to corrupt the voting process than a person who assigns judges.
There is not one person who assigns judges in nearly every system... In Germany for example the highest judges get to be voted in by the parliament and that with at least 75% so everyone makes sure, they do exactly what stands in the law and don't act according to their opinion.
[deleted]
you misunderstand, what if the electorate does not want evenhanded justice? /s
What's that '/s' doing there?
/s at the end of text indicates that text should be read in a sarcastic manner.
Maybe I should have added one to my comment...
[removed]
[deleted]
But to be elected as a judge you have to first be a long term lawyer, it's less of a straight popularity contest and more of a "this guy has a tendency to sentence to the maximum but we have rowdy youth that we would rather not see become criminals just because they had some drinks while underage, let's get this other guy that goes a bit softer on the youth."
You'd be surprised. You most definitely do not need to be elected as a judge. In more rural areas many judges have no law background.
..are you serious? Well, learned something shocking today.
Judges who haven't studied law? I'm sorry, but that is mental.
Here's an article from the New York Times (from 2006). It mainly covers the lowest tier of local courts in New York state: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/nyregion/25courts.html
These are New York’s town and village courts, or justice courts, as the 1,250 of them are widely known.
...
Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many — truck drivers, sewer workers or laborers — have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles. Some never got through high school, and at least one went no further than grade school.
...
The examination found overwhelming evidence that decade after decade and up to this day, people have often been denied fundamental legal rights. Defendants have been jailed illegally. Others have been subjected to racial and sexual bigotry so explicit it seems to come from some other place and time. People have been denied the right to a trial, an impartial judge and the presumption of innocence.
...
New York is one of about 30 states that still rely on these kinds of local judges, descendants of the justices who kept the peace in Colonial days, when lawyers were scarce. Many states, alarmed by mistakes and abuse, have moved in recent decades to rein in their authority or require more training. Some, from Delaware to California, have overhauled the courts, scrapped them entirely or required that local judges be lawyers.
He's full of shit, you absolutely have to have gone to law school, pass the bar, and worked as an attorney before you can become a judge.
There is no requirement in the Constitution for a Supreme Court Justice to be a lawyer.
Justice Kagan was never a judge before becoming an Associate Justice.
The lack of requirement comes from the previous practice of individuals apprenticing from lawyers, thus being "learned in the law" and then sitting for the bar exam. It used to be that if you graduated from a law school, you didn't have to take the bar, and is still that way in Wisconsin from the two schools in that state (the practice is called 'diploma privilege').
You are all over the place. You said judges in rural areas do not need law backgrounds to be judges. Now you're talking about supreme court justices. Depending on the state, judges are elected or appointed by the governor. Federal judges are appointed by the president and reviewed by Congress. Maybe up to the early 1900's you could get away with 0 legal experience, new flash being a lawyers apprentice would give you a legal background, but no one would nominate a judge with zero legal experience as it is political suicide. I didn't say there was a constitutional requirement for a supreme justice to be a judge before becoming an associate justice. Kagan was a law clerk and a lawyer before becoming a supreme court justice by the way. Diploma privilege makes sense because apprenticing with a lawyer will give you a legal background. Does working under a lawyer and going to law school at the same time not count as a legal background to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan#Early_career https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-are-judges-selected.html
You missed that Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law.
I don't know what your point is. She did that after going to law school, clerking with two judges. But I guess that doesn't count as a law background.
It’s also not true
It has been repeated in this thread, and so far the people you say are wrong are in the majority. I'll believe them till evidence to the contrary is brought up.
Edit: So someone linked an article, turns out /u/Clarkness_Monster was wrong.
What? What sort of argument is that even lol. More people say Man U is better than Arsenal, it must be true!!
I'm simply waiting to suspend judgment till someone has better evidence than: 'believe me because I told you so.' So far people have told me both, and no one has linked any stats or whatever. You haven't.
You take issue with that I see?
Edit: Oh look, some kind dude actually gave something tangible. Turns out side A was right.
Next time if you throw yourself in such a discussion, look up and/or link some evidence, cause you are looking a bit foolish now don't you?
You’re looking foolish for thinking this is a widespread problem
Oh, I think this is a 'widespread problem?'
Show where I said anything like that? I never did, didn't I?
Look bubba, you might wanna stop talking because you are really grasping at straws right now and it is kinda pathetic, you are only giving me more ammunition to humiliate you at this point. I'm starting to feel sorry for you, and I don't want that.
It's definitely true.
Here's an article from the ABA journal website detailing an example of judges without law degrees.
That’s one rare instance in some small town place. It said he normally does administrative things but has been presiding more and has been training. It’s not accurate to say this is common, any average sized city and this wouldn’t fly at all.
Here's another article that both discusses the same in New York, and references an earlier Times piece placing the number of such judges at more than 2,000 in the state a decade ago.
Not trying to bullshit; reality is what it is.
Again this is specifically about small towns. It said the “court rooms” were personal offices, basements etc. While it may not be a great thing, it’s not really affecting a lot of people. These are small towns dealing with small town things. If there are real charges involved the real law is called in. People are acting like the Supreme Court justices might as well be some milkmen. And inb4 you cite some article about a 1940 justice that didn’t go to law school or pass the bar or something. That was when clerkship and experience was the requirement, not a formal degree
But at the same time you can have absolute idiots assigned to a jury
EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't think the jury system is 100% terrible. I just believe that it allows for people who aren't informed on the matter, or are not too law-savvy, to pass judgement.
I dont know why you got down voted its true, you see people from all walks of life going to jury duty. One lady kept standing up and saying I dont trust the police so anything they present I wont believe, although Im not sure if she was serious or just trying to get out of jury duty.
And there are mechanisms to prevent issues stemming from awful jury verdicts: (1) the unanimity-- how hard would it be to find a dozen people to all agree on the same awful interpretation of jury instructions, (2) judgments notwithstanding the verdict, (3) appeals, etc.
can you elaborate? Im curious as to what you mean.
[Edit: Thank you u/Rokusi, u/Thevoiceofreason420, u/ShamelesslyPlugged, u/Ratwar100. I’m very glad with the elucidations. I see now that I was a bit misled by the TV version of American justice and maybe I was too harsh on the words]
Firstly, I don’t have a deeper knowledge beyond the news I saw on the matter in the last ~10 years, specially here on reddit. But I think I know enough to see the stark differences in the results of American and Brazillian justice systems.
The main difference certainly is that judges, prosecutors and sheriffes are elected in USA while in Brazil they are careers were you need first to complete a 5 year law graduation and then pass on a public exam insanely extense and hard that most candidates devote years of studying to pass. Now, I understand the merit of the common law system in having people with political legitimity via representation on the judiciary branch, but they can have consequences that would be almost impossible to ocurr in Brazil.
For instance, and I don’t know if I am being influenced too much by Law and Order and CSI... the classical case of the prosecutor who go harsher then the reasonable to incriminate someone with the aim of improving the chances of being reelected or starting a political career (sometimes even forging evidence or making absurd plea deals). In Brazil, a prosecutor is a civil servant invested in a well-paying job, tenured, and with a huge social status (the same for judges and sheriffs). He doesn’t have incentive to falsely incriminate somebody. In fact I don’t remember ever seeing a prosecutor or a judge trying a political carrer.
You can see this in the plea deal bargains too: how in the hell a person can bully a suspect with something like “Hey, you better accept this 2 years of jail time or we will make sure the judge gives you 20 year!” Even if the prosecutor secretely has nothing on them...Too many ignorant inoccent people get caught in this trap. In Brazil we have some pleas, but is normally of the kind “Hey, snitch your boss and we will give you less jail time.”
Then you have the jury... again, I understand the merits and the legitimacy of “being judged by you peers”, but in pratice you have a system of selection of jury that naturally filters the most discerning and opionated people and lets only the suggestible morons to judge. Add the pure adversarial court system (in Brazil we have an inquistive approach, where the judge can be active in requiring evidence) and you have cases where for instance the jury doesnt have access to crucial evidence. I’m pretty sure I heard about cases that someone was acquitted because the jury just didn’t see the incriminating video... In Brazil the only crime that goes to jury is “intentional murder” and even than a lot of people feels it is a bad idea... Every crime here is judged by a professional judged and can be appealed to a panel of judges, and then to a Superior Court and even to the Supreme Court after, so it’s very hard to jail an inocent here.
(Talking about crimes, it is very hard to understand that Americans see defamation as a civil court case an not crminal one, with the effect that if you are poor you just cannot prosecute someone for defamation. In Brazil, it’s a crimminal offense handled by a prosecutor and you pay exactly R$ 0,00 for the suing. [Now again: I understand the free speech protections behind the American choice in not criminalizing defamation, but when you see the consequences...]. By the way, if you can prove you are poor you can sue at civil courts without paying the judiciary services, and at small claim courts it is free for everybody by default).
[Edit: I had some more comparissons, but it's becoming too long. But other things I remember: for-profit prisons, the “kids for cash” scheme, the lack of worker protections (like that case where Gorsuch rule against the man who broke a little bit of his work contract just to not freeze to death...).
Of course the Brazilian law system has his problems too. For instance we lack badly the "punitive damages" institute. If we had this idea here maybe we could have stopped the continuing "rape" of Brazilian consumers by banks and telecoms some 30 years ago... I could go on, but I talked too much and I'm feeling like ranting already.]
Judge appointment varies from state to state, not all are an elected position. We also have multiple layers of appeals courts. Some cases are determined by a judge.
Our legal system is highly varied on the state level. Louisiana uses a Napoleonic system. It is best to avoid television shows entirely when evaluating our legal system as much js factually inaccurate.
Which js not to say we don’t have a lot of problems.
The main difference certainly is that judges, prosecutors and sheriffes are elected in USA while in Brazil they are carrers were you need first complete a 5 year law graduation and then pass on a public exam insanely extense and hard that most candidates devote years studying to pass. Now, I understand the merit of the common law system in having people with political legitimity via representation on the judiciary branch, but the can have consequences that would be almost impossible to ocurr in Brazil.
I want to clear something up for you - almost every single Judge and District Attorney (prosecutors) in the US has a law degree and has passed the bar (our version of an entrance exam). In my state, you have to have practiced law for a certain numbers of years (which implies passing the bar) before becoming a Judge, and I'd assume other states have similar qualifications. Just because they're elected doesn't mean they're not career lawyers. District Attorneys are similar, you gotta be a lawyer who's passed the bar to get on the ballot.
Now Sheriffs are a bit of a difference. A lot of places in the US have a bit of a duel police situation. You have the Sheriff, an elected official, and the chief of police, a bureaucrat appointed by the municipality (City/County).
For instance, and I don’t if I am being influenced too much by Law and Order and CSI... the classical case of the prosecutor who go harsher then the reasonable to incriminate someone with the aim of improving the chances of being reelected or starting a political carrer (sometimes even forging evidence or making absurd plea deals). In Brazil, a prosecutor is a civil servant invested in a well-paying job, tenured, and with a huge social status (the same for judges and sheriffs). He doesn’t have incentive to falsely incriminate somebody. In fact I don’t remember ever seeing a prosecutor or a judge trying a political carrer.
I'm not going to say it doesn't happen, but that's certainly not the norm. Its one of those things that you hear about the few exceptions on the news, and then they get picked up on Law&Order plus CSI because they make for good TV. This is kinda like being afraid of air travel because sometimes planes crash. Yeah, planes crash happen, but they're not common.
You can see this in the plea deal bargains too: how in the hell a person can bully a suspect with something like “Hey, you better accept this 2 years of jail time or we will make sure the judge gives you 20 year!” Even if the prosecutor secretely has nothing on them...Too many ignorant inoccent people get caught in this trap. In Brazil we have some pleas, but is normally of the kind “Hey, snitch your boss and we will give you less jail time.”
Very hard to get numbers on people who accept plea bargains while being innocent. Plea Deals are a problem not because prosecutors are secretly trying to put innocent people in jail. Trials are expensive - the goal of plea deals is to get cases completed without having to waste time and money on a trial. So yeah, the problems with plea deals are more of a symptom of the war on drugs overcrowding the court system than anything else (not that I really agree with them, just saying they're something we can't really fix without fixing something else).
almost every single Judge and District Attorney
Yeah that is still shocking, it might not be many or most but the fact that there are some judges wholly unqualified is bad enough for my tastes.
Edit: Well turns out there are judges without legal background
There may not be any - I'm not well read up on the laws of all 50 states.
I know some places don't require you to be an attorney to be a municipal court judge, but city court judges usually have limited enough power that it's probably not a huge deal.
Sherrifs are the chief law enforcement officer over a county, chief of police is head of a single city or town municipality. Sherrifs almost always outrank a chief of police, although in some cases, the chief of police is also the sherrif. And for less populated counties, the sherrifs office might be the only form of law enforcement.
Sheriffs can have different roles all over the country but in general the sheriff's office will either do administrative functions in a court house, or be the law enforcement for a small town too small to have their own police force so they contract out the sheriff's office.
I've never heard of sheriff's outranking police though because in areas where there are police, the sheriff's office does completely different jobs. In anywhere I've lived with its own police force, the sheriff's office pretty much exclusively works with the court and jails. They provide security to the court buildings and jails, serve legal notices, prisoner transports, and bunch of other administrative stuff. But they have nothing to do with the actual day to day law enforcement because the police do that. So no the sheriff isn't "outranking" the chief of police.
Also counties have very little control of the cities within them in general. Countries pretty much exist to make bureaucracy a little bit easier and that's it.
You have to be an attorney to be a judge but not all attorneys are qualified.
In my jurisdiction three of the seven judges had never had a trial before they were elected. No courtroom experience. But they were elected nonetheless. And yeah, they make dipshit decision after dipshit decision.
The main difference certainly is that judges, prosecutors and sheriffes are elected in USA while in Brazil they are carrers were you need first complete a 5 year law graduation and then pass on a public exam insanely extense and hard that most candidates devote years studying to pass.
We actually consider this a major strength in the American system. Judges are near uniformly experienced attorneys. There's a common saying that goes roughly "A year of hand-on experience is worth two in a classroom."
the classical case of the prosecutor who go harsher then the reasonable to incriminate someone with the aim of improving the chances of being reelected or starting a political carrer (sometimes even forging evidence or making absurd plea deals).
This is definitely not how it works. An attorney lives or dies by their reputation, not their accomplishments. If a prosecutor has a near 100% conviction rate, but is known among his peers as a dishonest weasel, no one is going to support him for fear of tanking their own reputations. A lawyer who is aiming for a high office like a judgeship needs to portray that he is a straight-shooter as much as that he is competent. It's a big reason why the courts system is so notably trusted in a society that inherently doesn't trust government.
how in the hell a person can bully a suspect with something like “Hey, you better accept this 2 years of jail time or we will make sure the judge gives you 20 year!” Even if the prosecutor secretely has nothing on them...
It doesn't work that way, either. The big one to start with is that a prosecutor cannot secretly have nothing. The rules of discovery state that the prosecution has to share the evidence they plan to present with the defendant before trial. If the prosecution neglects to include something or doesn't give discovery in a timely fashion, it's an automatic acquittal. That said, "hiding the ball" is a thing and some prosecutors do try and do it.
Second, plea bargains are almost always good deals considering everyone, including the defense counsel, knows that the prosecutor will be able to put on a good enough case for a conviction. The incentive for the prosecution in a plea deal is to save their limited resources so that they can go after bigger fish. The incentive for the defendant is that they get a much lower sentence than they would get if convicted.
I’m pretty surea heard about cases that someone was acquitted because the jury just didn’t see the incrimination video
Isn't that a good thing? Our system was designed to force the government to stay honest. If we're going to take away an American's most precious possession (his freedom itself), then the government had better have its act together.
Every crime here is judged by a professional judged and can be appealled to a panel of judges, and then to a Superior Court and even to the Supreme Court after, so it’s very hard to jail an inocent here.
A defendant has the right to wave a trial by jury and have a trial by a judge. It's just considered a bad idea because you can pursuade a jury much easier than a judge (And with jury nullification, the jury can choose to simply not convict the person even if it's clear they're guilty. For example, see OJ Simpson)
Talking about crimes, it is very hard to understand that Americans see defamation as a civil court case an not crminal one, with the effect that if you are poor you just cannot prosecute someone for defamation
Criminal is where the state brings the charges, and civil is where the case is brought by an individual (Criminal cases are always titled some variation of "State v. X" for instance). In addition, defamation is a tort, and the general rule for torts is that plaintiff attorneys only charge if they win (and in doing so, they take a percentage of the damages). So a person would always be able to "afford" a lawsuit for defamation provided they can convince a prospective attorney that they have a potentially winning case.
Jury system can have a lot of flaws. People that acted against the law may be acquited just because they were eloquent in their defense or appealed to emotions. A person can kill a thief in an excessive use of force and be acquited because the victim was black and some of the juries were racist and undervalued his life(I'm not making this up).
Plea bargains seem good until you notice that a lot of people simply take them because they knew their attoney would not make a good defense, even if they did nothing wrong. You are basically making a deal that may suspend one of your fundamental rights: liberty. Wasn't liberty an inalienable right? It's the duty of the State to prove you're guilty, not bully you with fear into giving away you liberty.
People that acted against the law may be acquited just because they were eloquent in their defense or appealed to emotions.
Indeed, that's the jury system working as intended. It's not perfect, but better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent be wrongfully convicted.
Plea bargains seem good until you notice that a lot of people simply take them because they knew their attoney would not make a good defense, even if they did nothing wrong.
I'm sure you have your sources, but in my experience this is absolutely not the norm. A lot of times the accused is guilty and knows they're guilty, and they believe their attorney when the attorney tells them that they are probably going to be convicted based on the evidence.
It's the duty of the State to prove you're guilty, not bully you with fear into giving away you liberty.
And you're free to protect that right, and your attorney will stand by you all the while. But there are significant consequences should the state successfully prove your guilt. It's the equivalent of your mom telling you to fess up now and she'll go easy on you. Is she bluffing or does she really know? How much are you willing to gamble? The State doesn't have to offer plea bargains at all, it's just simply a mutually beneficial exchange. In an ideal world the State wouldn't need prosecutorial discretion, would never need to offer plea bargains, and would have a 100% conviction rate.
Sadly, in the US, Public Defenders are badly underpaid and overworked. Some have as little as fifteen total minutes to spend with their clients, from start to finish (the system in New Orleans, Louisana is a prime case of this problem). As a result, many of them accept Plea deals -- and this is where many prosecutors get their "97% success rate" from, even when the vast majority of cases end in Pleas.
The high conviction rates are evidence of the opposite, that prosecutors only bring charges when they are almost certain of the evidence, meaning that many marginal cases are not brought forward.
Sadly, in the US, Public Defenders are badly underpaid and overworked. Some have as little as fifteen total minutes to spend with their clients, from start to finish (the system in New Orleans, Louisana is a prime case of this problem). As a result, many of them accept Plea deals -- and this is where many prosecutors get their "97% success rate" from, even when the vast majority of cases end in Pleas.
Generally speaking, ADAs are just as overworked and underpaid as public defenders. In most states their pay is generally on the same or very similar scales.
"and you have cases where for instance the jury doesnt have access to crucial evidence. "
Thats false. The only thing you dont get to hear as a juror is the prosecution, defense, and judge arguing over something. One time they released us cause it was taking them a while to reach a decision. No evidence was ever withheld and there was nothing we weren't allowed to see.
No evidence is withheld, but things can be withheld from evidence.
Also, there are generally two systems in the US - the federal system and the state system. The federal system judges aren't elected while the state system judges are elected and then retained. People don't run for judge against an opponent; it is yes or no if they are doing a good job. The whole idea of an election is to give the voting public a say over the judge and recall bad judges. For instance, this judge was recalled for giving a champion swimmer a six month jail sentence in a rape case. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/us/judge-aaron-persky-recall-results-brock-turner/index.html
People don't run for judge against an opponent; it is yes or no if they are doing a good job.
They absolutely do run against opponents in some states.
Even on retention?
I'm not sure, probably, since every state is different. I'm just saying there are definitely times where two or more people run against each other to be judge.
Prosecutors and judges aren't always elected. In some states they're appointed, in others they're elected. Federal judges and prosecutors are appointed, not elected. I don't know if any states appoint sherrifs, but that's a possibility too.
All you have to do is watch any recent documentary following someone through the court system to see this... it is scary. I am not saying he is innocent, but the recent Netflix documentary on Michael Peterson is scary.
I know they had an agenda, so I was personally swayed by it, but based on what I saw, I was surprised at how much he got fucked.
Minimum sentencing laws and the strike system comes to mind.
Not to mention private prisons.
How is our court system barbaric? We have by far one of the best court systems. Unlike some countries who try to prove innocence which is bull shit, we have to prove someone guilty before slamming them in a jail cell. The only thing I'd say sucks is our jails, as it doesn't do any form of rehabilitation and just causes those who get out to continue along a bad path.
In which countries do you need to proof your innocence?
lol
It's insane how many deep developing countries feel more like home to me than parts of the US. And I'm a US citizen.
It's insane that you're being downvoted for this.
No one's stopping you.
Why do you have the need to be defensive about this?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Just because he implied he felt other countries "feel more like home" you had to tell him to go somewhere else.
Why?
If a developing nation feels more like home, then he should follow his heart and go home. The choice is completely his.
Let's say you go on a vacation to a hotel.
Everyone there treats you nicely, if you feel very comfortable, and enjoy your stay there.
Meanwhile, you have a few things to fix in your house.
Does that mean you need to abandon your house and pay to live in that hotel forever or you try to fix the place you love and live in?
You're really stretching your analogy. A place doesn't "feel like home" simply because it's nice and you enjoyed your time there.
Home is where the heart is. It's where you belong.
My analogy may not be perfect, but you understand what I'm trying to say, I'm sure.
The OP might not recognized the place he is in right because it seems (at least from the outside) that everything is on fire and people are hating each other, where in the past things might have been different, or they might be more hopefull.
It doesn't mean that because somewhere else seems like more what he thought his "home" was like before he should just run away from the place they are.
I'm an expat and there are thousands of american expats where i live (Philippines). You only live once. give it a try.
Remember that all media to reach you is purposefully scripted and tailored to be as sensational and attention-grabbing as possible. The purpose is to sell ads beside the fanfiction content for profit.
Law enforcement and justice systems for the average burger are great.
We do it so we don't have politicians appointing judges who are in their pocket. It makes the judge accountable to the people instead of whoever put them in their job. And if the judge misbehaves, we vote them out.
Exactly. Appointed judges are just as susceptible to political pressure as elected judges.
Dude here in India, couples get arrested or even lynched for holding hands in public. The guns are only fired at innocents here protesting for their own rights. Recently, police fired on protesters who opposed the Sterlite copper plant because it caused a helluva pollution.
A party MLA raped a girl and her father was beaten to death in police custody for reporting the incident.
On the other hand, a boy who was talking to a girl was almost lynched to death by a Hindu mob while police remained mute and calm. All this craziness makes me appreciate any other country's law and order/Police force.
As a cherry on top, even if a suspect is arrested, the case usually lasts for decades. India is a cesspool you don't want to visit.
I understand your point, and would agree zhat the Situation in many states is worse, on the other hand this fact does mean by no point, that the US Situation is good
At least you don't get lynched for eating what you want. At least you don't get arrested/killed for holding hands with your loved one. At least you don't receive hate from your own countrymen for your religion. Man shit is wild here. Not even comparable to the US. Trust me.
Also, in the US, if you happen to be particularly concerned about lunatics trying to kill you, in the vast majority of the country, you can arm yourself without issue and legally use lethal force in self-defense.
The fact that judges are an elected position in America still blows my mind. That’s like electing a doctor or an engineer or something. They are professionals that should be appointed based on their skill and experience.
There are two judicial systems in the US, Federal and State. Article 3 federal judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by Congress, and serve for life. They are only removable through death, impeachment, or retirement. Every state has its own process for appointing or electing state judges. In my state it is initially an appointment process in which lawyers are nominated by thier peers and appointed to the bench by the governor. They then come up for retention elections every few years. It has benefits and drawbacks, but saying judges are only elected is false.
Well I never said they were only elected. But some are.
I’m at least somewhat familiar with how it works in America (I have a law degree, and part of that included studying comparisons between all the major legal systems of the world, focusing on common law nations like our own, but also looking at administrative law based nations too). There are two judicial systems (Federal and State) here in Australia too, so that is hardly unique to the US.
We're not saying we're special by making the Federal/State distinction, we just don't want to give the impression that the above comment is true in that we elect all of our judges. Further, while I understand the reticence in the notion of electing people to the bench, there are sound arguments for the practice, and it generally works. Generally.
You know, I knew they elected judges some places in America but there are even places where they don't even need to have a law degree.
To make matters more confusing in some states judges are elected and others they are not. Attorney Generals , the top prosecutor, tend to be elected everywhere.
This, and bail. Who tha hell thought it would be a good idea to let the richest people get out of being locked up by paying?!? Why has the amount of money you have available anything to do with if you should be locked up or not? There are only three reasons why someone not convicted should be behind bars: Risk of destroying evidence, risk of fleeing and if they are considered a danger to society. Being poor doesn't qualify in my head...
Legal systems in general make no sense. I find it hilarious that when choosing juries in Ireland if a potential jury member has any knowledge on a related topic they’re passed up for someone else. Educated people in general are passed over.
Like it’s great I now have a background that would make me a massively unappealing choice now but I can’t shake the feeling that I’m the best to call out something on DNA tests that is pure bullshit for example.
In the England & Wales, police officials have been directly elected by the public since 2012:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales_police_and_crime_commissioner_elections,_2016
It really isn't all that different to US counties directly electing sheriffs (which was term used when proposed by the then Shadow Home Secretary in the early 2000s).
Also, the highest court justices in the UK used to be members of the legislature (Lords) until as recently as 2009, when it was outlawed by the European Court of Justice (IIRC, and as far as I know there is no intention by the government to reverse this change in the Brexit process).
I don't really have any qualms with electing sheriffs. Ideally, they would campaign themselves as just and present all the qualifications they would to a committee or whoever would hire them if that was the system. Whether they're hired or elected both have avenues of corruption and ways to ensure it works out.
On the other hand, elected police and crime commissioners was a terrible idea because of the (entirely predictable) fact that turnout in the elections is dismal, and no-one really knows who the candidates are or their policies besides vague party affiliation.
The judges in the Lords were also still appointed just as much as they are now.
I think the real problem is the importance - and vagueness - of the US constitution gives judges in America far more political power than in the UK, and thus the posts are far more politicised.
Yeah, I agree on all points. Although I think elected PCCs could potentially work better if the elections were taken more seriously by the government, media and public.
There are multi tier system. Federal is not the boss of everything. There are state laws. President cant even pardon for state crimes. Then local areas have their own laws. It comes from separation of powers. It can be a mess.
In eight states, the judge sentencing you to jail doesn't even need a law degree.
But on the other hand, no 1700s-chic wigs required.
Sure but which state has them anyway (exept UK)?
It really isn’t tbh. People just find all the small cases of it and blow it up and make it seems like it’s every time. Hundreds of criminals are apprehended every day and only like 1% of them actually has any corruption.
[deleted]
Well, the US is a republic and uses representative democracy, as the founders wanted to avoid mob rule that could occur in a pure democracy. While imperfect like all governing methods I think the core system works, it’s the stuff bolted on that could use some improvement.
Notwithstanding the positives of the way the US system works - for example, although I disagree with how it affects the electoral college (but it's subjective, of course), the equal number of senators for rather differently sized states works well - that's not what representative democracy means.
Representative democracy means that the direction of the country is decided by (in theory) expert officials who are elected - as opposed to direct democracy, where decisions are made through referenda.
Representative democracy ideally needs to represent the people - so the President being elected in a way other than popular vote is certainly not an inherent part of representative democracy.
Furthermore, I'd argue (but again, it is subjective) that allowing a single elected official to yield so much power is inherently opposed to representative democracy - since a single person who is (usually) elected by not much more than 50% of voters isn't representative of the voters as a whole, I would think. There is a way around this - several republics have presidents with little power (Germany, Ireland, Iceland...), and at least one (Switzerland) has a 'group' head of state, where multiple elected officials form a primus inter pares executive. Of course, the US isn't unique in this aspect - France also has a rather powerful president.
Can my mom vote for the president instead of me, as my representative? That's not democracy.
It's a representative democracy. We elect our representatives by popular vote, but the presidency is ultimately decided by the electoral college (which votes according to the popular vote of their state, though that's not strictly required).
Your vote definitely matters.
though that's not strictly required
That's the problem right there. The vote doesn't matter any more than your reddit comment.
That's only for the presidency. To date, a faithless elector has never affected the ultimate outcome of an election.
The United States is a union of states, and the president is chosen to represent all of them. China has over four times the population of the U.S., but I doubt you'd say they should therefore be allowed to decide our laws.
I wasn't aware China and the US are one country.
They should definitely be allowed to decide their laws.
I always find it odd how they can effectively choose who is on the jury. Being able to dismiss people from being on the jury just seems very messed up
I've lived in the wonderful USA for 15 years, and some things that were so novel at the beginning were:
1) People leaving work before they had finished their workload. They'd be all "the work will be there tomorrow". WTF? We can do that?!
2) Flags. US Flags everywhere.
3) Let me go to the doctor...oh, the bill is here. OMG! Never get sick again.
4) Friendliest. People. Ever. "What do you mean you have no family to spend Thanksgiving with? You must come to our house!"
5) People from many races/nationalities/ethnicities all over the place.
6) Driving safety courses.
7) Cheap credit.
8) Self-service gas pumps.
9) People using turn-signals (Although this is becoming less common)
10) Alcohol during lunch is frowned upon? Ok...I guess.
And so many more...
I like this one because it's not just slamming on my beautiful country. It is mainly just quirks.
If you're higher up in the company, leaving work for tomorrow won't fly, and holy shit do people not use turn signals where you're from?! Does everyone die?
It is a beautiful country! Like all other countries it has some flaws, but it is a great place to live. As citizens, it's our duty to work towards fixing the flaws while upholding the ideas/systems that made this country great.
I'm a happy immigrant originally from the city of Monterrey in northern Mexico, where people drive very aggressively. At least 1/3 of the locals think turn signals are optional, and a good number of fools think that the turn signal is an invitation to block you from changing lanes. The city has the dubious honor of being #1 in car crashes in the country. Car insurance is very expensive.
Where are you from that drinking during lunch is normal? I’ve only run into it in Vietnam & S. Korea... they put drinks back during the work day
Not OP but I regularly drank a pint or two at lunch. This was when I was in sales. It was kind of expected that we’d have ‘working’ lunches with different clients and we’d all be drinking. Never more than would preclude us from driving under U.K. law because we had to continue the working day in the afternoon.
Hey I may not be the norm though. Maybe I was just extremely lucky with where I worked.
Definitely stopped drinking at lunch when I worked EMS.
But started right back up again when I started working in the building/construction trade.
Yes, this is similar to my experience.
UK probably, I work in insurance and it is requirement to be a drunk to work in the city (of London )
Lol Korea has massive drinking culture. There's a reason why soju ( Korean spirit) is the number one selling spirit on the planet
From the city of Monterrey in northern Mexico. While I worked there, a glass of beer or wine during lunch didn't raise any eyebrows. During business lunches, consuming alcohol was almost a guarantee. Now, going back to the office drunk would have been a fireable offense or at least grounds for your supervisor to have a talk with you.
Maybe this relaxed attitude came from having a mayor brewery (Cerveceria Cuauhtemoc-Moctezuma) headquartered in the city. You may be familiar with some of its brands: Dos Equis, Sol, Tecate, etc. I had buddies who worked at their headquarters and their cafeteria offered tap beer along with lunch.
Somewhere in Europe, probably. A lot of countries don't have issues with people having a beer at lunch.
For #1: it depends on the job. Some people have the type of job where the work is coming continuously. So maybe today you made more progress than yesterday, but over 2 weeks everything evens out.
Go to Oregon or New jersey and see how pumping gas works out. I used to live in WA and visit family in OR and at times forgot and had an employee yell at me for pumping my own.
I think self serve is way better. Why should people be paid for the simplistic of tasks. Not to mention the ammount of people that drive off with it still attached
I agree self-serve is a much better system!
5) People from many races/nationalities/ethnicities all over the place.
I wish more people appreciated how awesome this really is.
Haha 10...really? I thought the servers were looking at me funny cos of my Aussie accent, and poor attempts at saying "Pinot Grigio." 😂
LOL. Aussie accents are awesome!
not affordable health insurance
student debt,
military draft
being forced to work 2 jobs
the thread of being homeless
the fear of loosing your job because of health problems
There is no longer a military draft. It's all volunteer now. Unless you mean the selective service, which is a pre-draft registration in case a draft was ever brought back.
Ah okay, I didn't know that, nice to hear :)
[deleted]
thats true. But in germany there is no draft at all :)
Who's being forced to work two jobs? Missed that law being passed...
I read often about that, that people are often not able to feed their kids and pay rent from only one job.
The fact that the US government shut down two times within the last couple years with basically zero consequnces. It basically means all your politicians dont give a single shit about the citizens and would rather continue their pitty fight, its despicable.
Government shutdowns don't really have a huge effect on the US though.
When I was deployed we were hours away from not getting paid and forced to continue to work. Government shutdown would have screwed the entire military over.
The federal government has shut down over a dozen times and the military continued to patrol, sail, etc, every time with the promise of being paid in the future.
Except you are getting paid when it's all said and done.
Just for the recent one, normally they'll pass a bill to negate that.
But it didn't.
But the parks! They close! /s
It does in the dc suburbs, primarily MD/VA
Tbf when DC was originally made the only people supposed to live there was the president and his family.
I'm no fan of Trump but to be fair, the last shutdown was over less than 12 hours after it began
There shouldn‘t be one to begin with..
Not defending the government shutdowns but wasn't there a country in Europe that went several years with a government?
Maybe you're thinking of countries that took a long time to form a new government after elections, but generally the old one just kept functioning during that time
When there isn't a government here in Italy after the elections the old one keep working as an "exiting government".
Germany took 4 months to form a government after elections. People got pissy, so they promptly formed basically the sam government as before. With the left-center and the right-center (Merkls party). Even though the left center party wanted to do oppsition this time. Opposition leader is atm the far right AfD in combination with the far left, the greens and our version of a libertarian party.
In those 4 months the old government kept operating basically on standby mode.
They didn't have a functioning parliament, so couldn't pass new legislation, but government employees carried on as usual, and in the event of any national emergency they could have formed an emergency cabinet (or the equivalent) to deal with the situation.
Yeah Belgium, but that's just how Belgian government is structured.
The politicians in the parliament change but the underlying bureaucracy is the same without change from one government to another government, so they can easily run the day-to-day business but actual political decision making was completely halted.
It’s the same in the US when the federal government shuts down the local governments don’t and specific portions of the US federal government don’t either.
It doesn't mean that the country stops. While a new government is being formed, the government in function keep running the country.
It is just that they cannot pass too much legislation, but usually the budget has been approved way before the election.
There were a lot of consequences for regular people- eg one of the ways our food stamp program got administered couldn’t operate correctly during the shutdown.
And not all our politicians, it’s pretty much 100% a republican tactic so far. I think democrats had one for like a day on the weekend but that’s it. The problem is that some of these things aren’t petty- eg if the alternative to a shutdown is losing healthcare coverage forever and expelling half a million Americans from the country, it’s not so easy to decide what to do.
Im sorry i didnt really express myself well enough. There were consequences for the people but not for the government.
EDIT: consequences as in politicians losing their positions and re-elections etc. They basically fucked everone over and then went back to work like nothing happened.
Yea this is true. Fingers crossed they finally start coming in the next midterm.
It's a consequence of the two party system. Each side just blames the other for the shutdown. Even if general public opinion somewhat favors one side over the other, people forget about it by the time the next election rolls around. There are few true swing voters regardless.
Also shutdowns rarely take place during an election year. This year's was an exception, but it was over the weekend so the public was largely unaffected.
The party system has genuinely ruined this country and made any talks of politics a legit joke.
*petty
The american healthcare system, and general views towards taxes.
Its seems like alot of people in the US want excellent public services, but dont want to pay towards it.
As a bonus phone/cable/internet bills. I pay £17 a month in the uk for unlimited 4g data, unlimited texts and 200 mins. Which to extend to 600 mins is gonna cost £3 more when i "upgrade". I dont understand how it costs like 5 times as much in the US for a similar service.
Edit: to anyone saying that 4g data thats then throttled to 2g after less than 10gb is the same as "unlimited" i dont think you understand how it works.
Edit 2: I'm on the three network UK for those interested.
I think Britain seems to be particularly good for mobile data prices. They cost a bomb in Germany, so it's not Europe-wide.
[deleted]
Also have to remember the relative size of your country and population density. The cost to get service across the entire nation is very high. Everywhere has pros and cons. Think of all the space and beauty in Canada and you might find it's a price your willing to pay.
In Canada at least they have a somewhat decent reason to cost more since we have a rather small population for the vast territory over which you have to build a network. Even if you account for lot of it not really being covered, you still have to link your network in all the parts that are covered and those aren't exactly next to each others. 33 million pop all the way from BC to Newfound Land. That's a lot of hardware to build/maintain.
It's somewhat exaggerated in Germany. First of all, Germany isn't even that expensive - they're on the pricier side of the spectrum but certainly not dead last.
Secondly, the German market is a little peculiar. Sticker prices are high but who in his right mind pays for that? We just got my wife a Vodafone contract with 26GB for about 17€/month. I admit it's not great but it's a lot better than people claim it is. Just need to put some effort into it but that seems to be too much to ask for from the Otto Normalverbraucher. Same picture with gas, electricity, bank accounts, travel, etc.
I live in Germany, so I see the sticker prices, but how did you manage to get this special deal?
mydealz.de and wait a bit
Just shop around, there's always some offer available. In my case I went through logitel.de to get the vodafone contract (Red L + Gigakombi).
In Poland you can get unlimited calls and texts plus 10GB of 4g data for about $15
Its seems like alot of people in the US want excellent public services, but dont want to pay towards it.
You're getting it mixed up, those are different people.
The people who want public services and don't mind having taxes raised to pay for them.
And the people who don't want there taxes raised so they'd rather those services go away if it means lower taxes.
those are different people
Thats not true, everyone wants good medical service, but so many are convinced that good medical care for the poor cannot possibly exist, and that if it is made a public service, it will by definition be poor health care.
The people who want public services and don't mind having taxes raised to pay for them.
Because they're not the ones paying the taxes, they're the ones getting the services.
Not everyone is born being able to pay for everything.
Not everything has to be a way to make money.
And that has what to do with this?
Are you from the USA?
The one and only United States of America.
No need to downvote me for asking this man, come on...
I just wanted to get an idea of where you're coming from.
Do you assume only rich people pay taxes?
Do you assume they don't benefit from public services?
Do you assume only rich people pay taxes?
Effectively, almost half of the country does not pay net taxes to the Federal govenrment. ~47%. Taxes fall on the middle and upper classes mostly.
Do you assume they don't benefit from public services?
We don't need more government services. We've got too many as it is.
If you have only half the population paying taxes, there's something wrong with your tax system.
Tell me about it. One party gets most of those votes by constantly selling them more government services on the backs of those of us who are net contributors.
You're making this a "sides" issue, it isn't partisan.
Contradicting views should be able to fix those things together in a healthy democracy.
No democracy can withstand it when one side is constantly voting themselves more money from the public funds at the expense of the other.
Yeah there is but its those lower down who dont pay taxes not the ones who already pick up their slack
Only cutting their taxes will not solve the problem.
Ever heard of sales tax? Or income tax? Or gas tax? There’s even cigarette taxes that mostly poor and uneducated people pay into, which is quite hefty. Get your facts straight.
I'm talking about net taxes paid versus benefits received
[deleted]
No one said that. Obviously some poor people work. Less than middle class and upper class folks, but some of them do work. But you can't get blood from a stone. Any taxes to increase services will fall primarily on the middle and upper classes.
I'm classified as poor, i work on average close to 46 hours a week. Saying poor people don't work is an incredible misunderstanding of what qualifies as poor.
Nationally poor is considered less than 20k per year, but if you tried to live in Seattle on less than 40k good luck. With average rent being 1k for a 1 bedroom in the shitty part of town, that is half of your income on just rent. Add in the ridiculous sales tax, property tax (which the landlords graciously pass on), car tab fees, gas tax, cost of food being nearly double what it is else where. You can see how it starts to add up quickly and 20k means homelessness while 40k means living pay check to pay check. Just because we don't all bring in 3 figures doesn't mean we aren't trying or don't pay our due.
I'm single, i don't get tax breaks. I love well below my means because even taking out (what feels like) a massive amount of taxes i still owe at the end of the year.
Average hours worked are considerably higher for the top couple income quintiles than the bottom couple. Rich people work more than poor people by a good margin.
Certain people work more than others. I've met people who work 2 40 hour per week jobs just to make ends meet. Then you have Elon Musk who probably works 20 hours a day because he wants to. That is the difference, need vs want. I can work a little bit less and make ends meet, but i cant afford a vacation. Even taking a week off to stay home hurts my pay check.
So yes, certain people work more than others, but it isnt because of wealth. It is because of circumstance and personality.
When was the last time you took off from work? For me, about 8 months when i had relatives visiting and only like 2 days.
Point being, poor people don't work harder. They don't work longer. That, and that they're not as intelligent, is generally why they're poor. We shouldn't be encouraging them.
Okay, i get it now. Sorry for feeding him guys, my bad.
This is generally speaking pretty true, not always but generally.
I just don't get this. Admittedly I don't know too much about the American health care system, but would you really be paying more in taxes for universal health care than what you pay to a private provider? It's not like the free market is producing cheap quality options if it's so difficult for people to afford. And like hospital bills for homeless people are still taxpayer funded, just also with a profit margin for the provider so wouldn't it be cheaper for preventative care?
My taxes for our current national health care system THAT I DON"T GET TO USE are more than I pay for health care on an annual basis. So, yes, I would pay more in taxes for national health care than I pay for my health insurance.
Never been on any social services. Will be paying on my student loans until my kid is out of college. I'd still rather pay more taxes for social services/education in general.
Educated population=higher wages in adulthood=more tax funds and less on social services. Also, no risk of bankruptcy for illness!
Oddly enough I think it's those who use the social services that are against paying for them. It's a weird double think along the lines of 'i actually need these services for [reasons], everyone else is just lazy'. Or they're [rightly] using the services in a time of need and are working to get back on their feet.
But what do I know? I'm just some asshole that gives a shit about her fellow man :/
[deleted]
The better educated with more earning power vote blue
Eh, not so much.
Blue states outearn red states, on the whole.
Yes, but the richest parts of the blue states tend to be red.
[deleted]
Simply false. Look at New Jersey. Blue state. All the high earning counties are red to red leaning.
And the people who don't want there taxes raised so they'd rather those services go away if it means lower taxes.
Until they personaly need them. Then they will raise hell about it.
As a bonus phone/cable/internet bills. I pay £17 a month in the uk for unlimited 4g data, unlimited texts and 200 mins. Which to extend to 600 mins is gonna cost £3 more when i "upgrade". I dont understand how it costs like 5 times as much in the US for a similar service.
The government created regional monopolies for telecoms and mobile service providers through ridiculous regulations on starting new ones with existing infrastructure, and through giving them money that they didn't use.
Agreed. I pay £14 a month for 30Gb of 4G data, 300 mins and Unlimited texts on Three. Along with worldwide plan usage and free Netflix/Apple Music streaming.
The UK is amazing for great value mobile data plans. I would be surprise if there are many better value deals anywhere in the world.
Question as someone looking to upgrade, does that include your phone or did you buy that separately.
Sim only deal, I bought my phone outright.
Yeah...American here. I’ll go ahead and fill in the details.
All of us want great services. Half of us want them to be public and thus want taxes to pay for it. The other half want them to be private and thus don’t want those higher taxes. That’s the basic overview. When something here seems contradictory, that’s a good indication that the population has very different views on it.
As for healthcare. It’s a mess. But that’s largely because of insurance. So, a while back, we had reasonable hospital fees. We paid, but they were not crazy. We had insurance for the big stuff. Fast forward and now we have insurance for everything****. So now individuals don’t pay: large companies do. So what happened? Hospitals charged more, because that’s how economics works. What company wouldn’t charge more if they could? So now we have crazy bills that can only be paid by insurance. It’s kinda like car dealerships, in terms of people and other companies being screwed. College debt is also along this vein.
As for phone service, it depends. If you get service from one of the big four, you’re going to pay a lot. But that’s where the best service is. I recently swapped from AT&T to H2O Wireless. While I still get similar LTE data speeds, I noticed that I can no longer do group texting. That being said, I spend $36/mo for 6 Gigs of LTE, throttled to 2G speeds for going over. Also included is unlimited text and calling. So, mine is a little more than yours, but not by much.
So, that’s the general theme: stuff here is expensive, but only if you want the best stuff. Getting okay stuff is somewhat affordable. And so on.
I get 42gb of LTE for 28 days for 2.2$
I dont pay that much for my phone at all, but I dont have a smart phone so I dont need 4g data and all that fancy stuff. Flip phones are actually starting to make a come back in America.
In Belgium I pay €18 for 5gb 4G, unlimited texts and 60mins of calls. :(
Eh, cell phone plans a reasonable if you look around.
I get unlimited talk/text and 10GB 4g data/unlimited 3g for $25/month.
What the fuck? Which network are you with??? I am paying £25 a month for the exact package you described with Three.
on exactly the same plan as OP - and I'm with Three
£17 for all that? Was it like a special promotion or something? I'm checking now and I can't find that... Is your plan SIM only?
To be fair, I've been on it for a few years - was £15 p/m initially but they've raised it slightly since. But yeah, it's SIM only.
[deleted]
He's on Three, it's £17 a month if you commit to a one year contract, or £21 a month if you're on a rolling 30 day contract like me.
Just a quick one - who are you with? I'm with O2 on 20gb for £20 and your deal sounds better...
Don't bother looking at the prices for Canadian phone plans then. Considerably worse than the US.
Who you with?
The people who want excelent public services dont have the money to pay for the services and want other people to be taxed for it, the people who want low tax rates dont want the services
Who the fuck is giving you unlimited 4g for £17 a month?! I've seen three offer it for something like £25. But haven't had a look in a while
I mean, it makes sense historically. We decided to fight the most powerful country in the world because we had to pay a little bit of taxes. It’s kinda our thing
Americans always like to say that their income taxes are a lot lower then Europe/Canada/anywhere. The American system is like the base model car.... everything is extra. You buy a car... pay taxes on the purchase price... pay taxes on the gas you put in it... pay tolls to drive on the roads.... pay for yearly registration... pay for a yearly inspection... pay a yearly “personal property tax” for owning it.
Try living basically anywhere in the USA and having a job you have to get to without owning a car... it’s almost impossible.
Just charge me more income taxes so I know how much extra money I have instead of nickel and diming me on on everything after the fact.
I have unlimited without a throttle cap (I may see some slowing down if congested after 50gigs, but that's rare). That costs $50 per phone with unlimited texts and minutes. It's high, but a decent price for the US.
That's because the people who want it aren't the people paying for it.
I pay £17 a month in the uk for unlimited 4g data, unlimited texts and 200 mins.
I live in Finland (but from UK) and pay 11 euros per month for unlimited everything. Makes the UK look very far behind.
I'm on the same package as you, its actually 1TB before they throttle you, not sure how badly they throttle you though. I used to regularly hit 500-600GB a month at full speed back when I didn't have broadband.
Did you buy your phone or have a contract?
Come to Canada, you’ll love it lmao
You are absolutely correct - Americans' wants far exceed what they are willing to pay for. Of course, this has created a time bomb that neither major political party is willing to publicly address. My guess is that when systems start to fail and a few people die, Americans will do what they always do and find a convenient scapegoat to abuse - probably the gays again.
I think , that we have more than enough money from taxes and it most likely doesnt need to be raised in most areas. but that BUDGETS on local-city-state-National levels are completely messed up and wasted on junk if you look into them.
Because those cell providers have to build a network across the third largest country in the world and keep it updated. There are highways in the Lower 48 where it is 350 miles between gas stations, but people expect to steam 4G the entire drive.
What are you talking about? $50 bucks for an Unlimited Everything plan valid for use/calling anywhere in North America. Now compare that to Canada, where there is no such thing as "Unlimited"
First off, Canada is part of North America. Secondly, there is no such thing as Unlimited in the US. It is Unlimited* with an asterisk. They changed the definition of unlimited.
There’s a lot of fraud in the US and the government is so slow/inefficient that everyone is scared that increased taxes will just be wasted
Soooo many commercials. In the UK in a half hour show you have 1 ad break. Or 3 in an hour show. America seem to have a break every 10-15mins.
In my experience it works out to about every 8 minutes.
Are out actually serious? I'd forget what was going on. Plus the recaps after every advert drive me mad. Especially watching USA shows in the UK where we cut the ads out. We still get the recaps so it's like Deja vu
A half hour run time in America is only 21 minutes of show. The other 9 minutes is the same pool of 7 ads on repeat.
That's why I quit regular TV a while ago. If it's not on Hulu or Netflix I don't bother.
From what I've noticed a 30 minute episode is really about 20-24 depending on the channel and I frequently see movies that are maybe an hour half long be 2 to 2.5 hours
Gun violence.
Not being able to go to the doctor because it costs too much
Massive college debt
[deleted]
My daughter would have died had it not been for the NHS. I know for a fact I wouldn't have been able to afford hundreds of thousands of pounds for the amount of care/surgeries she's had. Obviously I'd have sold everything I owned if I had to, to save her but I'd be in so much debt right now.
I am so, so grateful for them despite the occasional flaw.
"CHARLIE GARD! ALFIE EVANS! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BABY DEATH PANELS!"
--The American Right-Wing
Opponents of Universal Healthcare will bleat about supposed "death panels", but insurance companies literally using actuarial tables to decide whether or not your treatment is going to cost them too much money seems far closer to the concept than anything that exists in the NHS.
I suspect this is the reason people in America talk about death panels. You couldn't really conceive of such a thing in the UK, but if in the US they really do exist already, it stands to reason that they'd be replicated by government in socialised healthcare ?
"If we implement socialized healthcare, they'll start denying people care and they'll all die!"
-Some Right winger that doesn't know current insurance SOP, probably
I mean, the worst thing that can happen (Germany in this case) is that insurance denies payment for some treatment. Usually some experimental treatments or some where insurance thinks the standard treatment is equivalent. At that point you have to pay for it yourself. Not an option for most people since thats usually thousands of euros. Which is equal to the standard for America apparently.
Depends on how many thousands we're talking, here. Those outrageous medical bills and shit that you see posted on Reddit sometimes are just routine procedures, I've never seen what experimental treatments end up costing, particularly ones which require long hospital stays.
Probes late to this but my sister worked in the hospital Alfie Evans was in, apparently the protestors set up their protest right outside a room where parents would take their recently passed away child to be able to hold them for a while and say all they needed to say. Can you imagine being one of those parents? You've just lost a child and all you can hear is people shouting and screaming at the nurses and doctors who tried to save your child. I imagine it was horrible.
Wait, Alfie Allen as in the actor? What does he have to do with socialized medicine? I'm confused.
They're referring to Alfie Evans, a 24 month old child who was rendered into a semi-vegetative state due to the catastrophic degradation of his brain tissue, with an estimated loss of 70% of his brain nerve fiber, due to a degenerative neurological condition.
Controversy arose after the doctors in charge of his care opposed his parent's attempts to have him transferred to a care center in Italy that was willing to put the boy on life support indefinitely.
In the doctor's view, such action would not be in their patient's best interest, as there was absolutely no prospect of recovery whatsoever. The damage was irreversible and continued to progress unabated, so from their perspective it essentially constituted an unnecessary cruelty to keep someone who's only detectable non-autonomic brain activity consisted of periodic seizures alive through artificial means on an indefinite basis like that.
This view was unanimously supported by multiple third party medical professionals from other nations who were brought in to deliver expert testimony during the eventual court proceedings.
But obviously that can be a difficult thing for parents to come to terms with, and his chose to fight the decision tooth and nail. And while I certainly don't blame them for their reaction given the circumstances, the fact remains that they were more than a little dishonest in their statements to the media, which served to rally some particularly fervent supporters to their cause.
Okay, this makes more sense, thank you.
Poor little guy. :-(
OP probably meant Alfie Evans
He spent too long on the waiting list and now they've missed the critical window to sew his dick back on. :'(
That's just "Murica" for you.
It's funny because even the right wing conservatives here in Canada would never think about removing our health care.
The right wing in the UK encouraged voters to leave the EU so they could put the membership costs into the NHS.
Which was a complete lie.
And the funny thing is that people believed them. The number of people posting this shit on FB was unbelievable.
Murica vs. Mercia.
What does Theon have to do with the health system over there?
I’m genuinely curious now.
[deleted]
Oooh, hahah!
No worries!
I didn’t understand any of this but he yelled it so now I’m scared, should we defund planned parenthood?!
Kid hadn’t a chance of living. Not one.
Which is the point. The Healthcare System decided that they were no longer going to pay for his life support as ruled by a death panel. The outcome was determined by the system, not by the patient or, in this case, his care givers. That is exactly a death panel.
I think the point is that the poor lad was effectively dead already and all medicine could do for him is to keep him breathing in a vegetative state. I just hope he couldn’t feel pain.
But didn't the parents have an option available to prolong his life with minimal/no suffering that was denied by the system? Who chose death for this child is the point I ponder.
He was in such a precarious state it's likely he would have died on the flight to the US, where the treatment was supposed to take place. The doctor that was pushing the treatment was only doing it for his own financial interests. It was a sad case all around, and the poor boy should have been let go months before it became an international story.
Prolong his "life"? sure, there were options over seas, but let's be real here, the poor sod's brain was 70% water by the time he died. He was never going to live a complete life.
Well, I'll probably die before I'm 60. Very possibly sooner! I guess I'm not going to live a complete life either. It sure is nice there's no death panel deciding my insulin is too expensive to pay for.
Hindsight is 20/20 but dead is forever.
He was a vegetable, his brain was fluid. That's not "probably die before 60".
The question is whether parents should have the right to subject their child to clinical trials which cannot possibly work, and the courts correctly ruled that the answer is no.
If you want to volunteer for a trial then that's fine but forcing another human being to remain in pain is unethical.
It sure is nice there's no death panel deciding my insulin is too expensive to pay for.
The NHS pays for your insulin so is probably the worst argument you could have made.
Regardless, try having a look at your own system - how many Americans sufferer worse outcomes because they can't afford preventative medicine? How many Americans face bankruptcy due to medical expenses? But you are too scared off some made-up bogeyman "death panels" to consider doing anything about your actually real problems.
But didn't the parents have an option available to prolong his life with minimal/no suffering that was denied by the system?
In short, no. No such option was available, because no such option physically exists right now.
Nothing which could have halted or slowed the irreversible degradation of his brain issue, and nothing which could have prevented the constant epileptic seizures which constituted his only non-autonomic brain activity from at least January 2017 onward.
The Healthcare System decided that they were no longer going to pay for his life support as ruled by a death panel.
No they didn't. If that was truly what happened, then how do you explain the hospitol's unwillingness to transfer him to Italy, where someone else would be paying for the life support?
Here, I summarized the case in reply to a different comment in the thread, and I'll paste it here to help fill you in on what this case was actually about.
"They're referring to Alfie Evans, a 24 month old child who was rendered into a semi-vegetative state due to the catastrophic degradation of his brain tissue, with an estimated loss of 70% of his brain nerve fiber, due to a degenerative neurological condition.
Controversy arose after the doctors in charge of his care opposed his parent's attempts to have him transferred to a care center in Italy that was willing to put the boy on life support indefinitely.
In the doctor's view, such action would not be in their patient's best interest, as there was absolutely no prospect of recovery whatsoever. The damage was irreversible and continued to progress unabated, so from their perspective it essentially constituted an unnecessary cruelty to keep someone who's only detectable non-autonomic brain activity consisted of periodic seizures alive through artificial means on an indefinite basis like that.
This view was unanimously supported by multiple third party medical professionals from other nations who were brought in to deliver expert testimony during the eventual court proceedings.But obviously that can be a difficult thing for parents to come to terms with, and his chose to fight the decision tooth and nail. And while I certainly don't blame them for their reaction given the circumstances, the fact remains that they were more than a little dishonest in their statements to the media, which served to rally some particularly fervent supporters to their cause."
The outcome was determined by the doctors.
Wow, someone who was beyond saving died. Who would have guessed that would happen.
Which is exactly what death panels decide... which is what happened... but "it never happens"... but it happens....
The point is not the outcome, but who makes the decision. Death panels make that decision for you, which they did.
Because they're experts in the field and know a hell of a lot more than the parents
So death panels DO exist and they are experts in the field of "who we should pay medical bills for and who we should not pay medical bills for". Am I getting you correct?
Its not a question of money, its a question of quality of life
Hey guys! I get your point, I just don't agree with it. But I'm 100% sure if it was you or your kids you would want to make that decision.
As for "quality of life": nonsense! Nobody can decide the quality of another's life.
You can decide the quality of another's life if you can medically assess someone as having no response and the minimum brain function.
There is no life to live.
As for "quality of life": nonsense! Nobody can decide the quality of another's life.
Bullshit. Take a moment and actually read the following:
On 14 December 2016, Alfie was admitted to Alder Hey Accident and Emergency Department with a history of coughing, high temperature, and a reported episode of rhythmic jerking of his jaw and all four limbs. On 15 December, he showed sudden unprovoked movements compatible with infantile/epileptic spasms. An EEG performed on 16 December 2016 confirmed hypsarrhythmia. A further EEG was taken in January 2017 and "was markedly different, showing attenuation with little in the way of reactive response for protracted periods of time. Changes only really occurred when Alfie had an epileptic seizure."
-
The High Court ruled in favour of the hospital on 20 February 2018. In their judgement, the High Court stated that an MRI scan taken in February 2018 revealed that "[Alfie's] brain [was] entirely beyond recovery" and that "the brain was now only able to generate seizure" with "progressive destruction of the white matter of the brain which Dr R interpreted as now appearing almost identical to water and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
-
In a High Court judgement of 11 April 2018, the judge remarked that "by the end of February the connective pathways within the white matter of the brain which facilitate rudimentary sensation — hearing, touch, taste and sight, had been obliterated. They were no longer even identifiable on the MRI scan".
The only nonsense here is your insistence that this was a decision based on money, despite the fact that it would have been significantly less expensive for the doctors to have simply said "Alright, if you want to take him to Italy, then go for it", at which point he would have no longer been their problem. They would have saved on a full year's worth of life support, multiple MRI and EEG scans, and the entirety of the court proceedings.
But they didn't, so obviously money was a non-factor, here.
But I'm 100% sure if it was you or your kids you would want to make that decision.
If it was my kid, I would never even dream of subjecting them to an existence where the only thing that they're capable of feeling is the hell of absolute nothingness punctuated only by intermittent seizures, much less deliberately prolonging their suffering with no hope of recovery.
And if it were my brain that was irreparably degenerating, then I can only hope to be loved enough that somebody would be willing to make the same call for me.
So you keep quoting "the high court". Why? JUST think about that... or don't....
So you keep quoting "the high court". Why?
Because in court the doctors have the obligation to prove their claims with objective medical evidence, such as the numerous MRI and EEG scans that were provided, and are also held to the scrutiny of outside experts who have nothing to do with the UK's healthcare system.
Now, answer the question that I already asked you: How could they have been motivated to end his life support in order to save money, when the decision they made cost significantly more money than the alternative?
Or are you just going to keep ignoring it because you don't have an answer?
Oh, was that a question? Sorry.
Answer: I cannot know how they were motivated. I cannot know another man's mind. But, if it is (and this is also assumed) NOT a financial reason then why would they not release him as it would be cheaper, you admit. And if there was even a remote possibility of improvement, why NOT release him?
Point: if it was a lost cause already, why not gamble on the side of possible?
[deleted]
Yeah, yeah, sounds like "patient incapacitated, I know better than guardian" sitch. OK, if that sits with your conscience, fine! Now apply that to your son. Still works? Then be silent.
Personally, I want to decide, not ANYONE else. Not you or your appointee, or your designated "expert". And if letting someone else decide is freedom to you? Then you should think about that.
If it was my kid, I would never even dream of subjecting them to an existence where the only thing that they're capable of feeling is the hell of absolute nothingness punctuated only by intermittent seizures, much less deliberately prolonging their suffering with no hope of recovery.
Now apply that to your son. Still works? Then be silent.
Are you fucking illiterate or something?
Are you a fucking idiot? Can you not even grasp the overall and wide ranging significance of the decision at hand?
Don't be superficial and presume you're high intellect, it comes off as retarded.
The fuck are you on about? Are you just trying to draw attention away from the fact that you already received an answer to that question?
And if there was even a remote possibility of improvement, why NOT release him?
Because as you've already been told on numerous occasions now, there wasn't even a remote possibility of improvement, and because making children suffer for no reason is wrong.
Point: if it was a lost cause already, why not gamble on the side of possible?
Because that would have required subjecting the child to further suffering for no reason, and making children needlessly suffer with no hope of improvement is wrong.
OK, now apply your same same reasoning to the mentally handicap and the infirm.
Just because your country's technology and medical science hasn't the resources or technology; it should not be a death sentence due to closed minds and "liberated" intellects.
OK, now apply your same same reasoning to the mentally handicap and the infirm.
Okay, what about them?
Are you suggesting that they are unable to derive meaning from their existence, or that they are only capable of suffering?
Or that only you can decide if you are suffering?
I like cold showers, so if a panel decides I'm suffering, kill me? The mentally handicap or infirm, although suffering, may sincerely love life! Alfie may have derived tremendous joy from seeing his parents face IF EVEN FOR THE BRIEFEST OF MOMENTS, but oh, he's suffering: kill him.
I like cold showers, so if a panel decides I'm suffering, kill me?
Could you, ya know, stop wasting my time with inane bullshit?
Your showers aren't on par with a degenerative brain disease, even if you are acting like it.
Alfie may have derived tremendous joy from seeing
No, he couldn't have. By January 2017 his visual processing centers had been destroyed. While there was nothing functionally wrong with his eyes, he was effectively blind due to having no means of processing the information they relayed.
It's becoming more and more clear that you don't even give a shit about the realities of what this kid was put through. You just want to protect your own comforting ideologies at any cost, even if you've got to lie through your teeth to do so.
Inane bullshit? Your point is "death panels don't happen" and then you go on to defend a death panel for several pages because you "feel" a death panel was appropriate.
You even go on to say that Alfie was suffering and the death panel (that you insist doesn't happen) did the right thing in killing him, but then explain that he had no brain function at all; how was he then suffering?
If he was going to die anyway, and he had no brain function (you said this) with which to suffer, then why kill him? Why not let his parents grieve and feel they did everything they could for their child? Money. Power.
If you can't even admit that death panels exist while actively defending one; YOU must be suffering a brain disease.
Or are you just avoiding admitting you are wrong, and that indeed death panels DO exist?
No. Even in private health-care, which is available in the UK, the case would have gone the same way.
It was a legal case to stop action for the child and not allow them to send them abroad, or anywhere else to seek care. It would be cruel for anyone to prolong a childs suffering.
This is the same case for those with religious 'beliefs' who oppose treatment and lead to a child dying - the government intervenes and the child is treated.
No. Even in private health-care, which is available in the UK, the case would have gone the same way.
It was a legal case to stop action for the child and not allow them to send them abroad, or anywhere else to seek care. It would be cruel for anyone to prolong a childs suffering.
This is the same case for those with religious 'beliefs' who oppose treatment and lead to a child dying - the government intervenes and the child is treated.
The government decided over his parents, that they couldn't save him, and it was time to die. They couldn't say when he'd die, or what he was dying from, but, hey, today is the die we take him off his equipment and let him die. Oops, we thought it would be quicker. Oh well. We're off to something else, don't try to take your baby home or the police will arrest you.
His parents couldn't take him home, they couldn't take him to another hospital that offered to take him, he had to stay in the hospital to die. Parents had no say in the matter. That's a death panel.
Parents, who knew fucking nothing, weren't allowed to extend the suffering of a child with only 30% of his brain left.
They could say when he would die, the answer to that being soon after he was removed from life support.
What he was dying of was irrelevant, because no matter what it was, it was beyond help of any kind.
The government didn't decide, the group of world leading doctors, who were immeasurably more informed in the specifics of this case than you or I, were the ones who made the decision.
Its still sad. They just sat there and let him die. Parents should be able to choose treatments, not the government.
His brain was water. He only moved and twitched because his brain stem was not. How is it humane to keep a shell alive? This case was passed from the lowest courts to the highest courts to the EU court of human rights, who have been known to grant murderers asylum in a country in the past because to deport them would deprive them of a family life, and even they were like 'woah, nope, this is far too inhumane to keep him alive'
Also it makes me angry that you've put that people just 'sat there and let him die'. The staff at GOSH, one of the best childrens hospital IN THE WORLD, tried everything they could to try and save this child. Do you think they'd just have him in and go 'nah can't be bothered lol'. It was after they'd exhausted every possible route that they finally decided that it was inhumane to keep poking and prodding at him hoping for the best.
And if you cite the doctor in the US offering to help, then you should read up on it as well. The doctor retracted his offer to help once he got the full story on him because absolutely nothing could have done anything to save him at that point despite best efforts.
The other thing that really irritates me about uninformed comments like the one above (that you're responding to) is that they usually go on to say 'social medicine-don't want to spend money-cheaper to kill the kids instead'. Both Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard spent well over a year in paediatric ICU. The average cost of one day's stay in a PICU being ventilated is around £6000 minimum. That means that the treatment costs for those two boys would have been going on for £1.5 million each, at least. Whatever these cases were about, its clear that they weren't about cost. Some of the comments on Reddit at the time of Alfie Evans death were atrociously uninformed-comments about starving him to death, stopping the fluids to save money-the cost of that would have been pennies compared to what had already been spent. The NHS has a lot of problems, but no one has ever been made bankrupt by being unable to pay their health costs here, and no one has been too worried to seek medical care because they were too worried about how much it would cost them.
I didn't even consider that. Why did I not consider that? Because at no point did either of the hospitals or news coverage mention the cost of their care (that I read... they may have in something I haven't)
I love the NHS.
Both Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard spent well over a year in paediatric ICU. The average cost of one day's stay in a PICU being ventilated is around £6000 minimum. That means that the treatment costs for those two boys would have been going on for £1.5 million each, at least.
Hell, it's even better than that in Alfie's case.
The fact is that it would have been significantly less expensive for the doctors to have simply said "Alright, if you want to take him to Italy, then go for it", at which point he would have no longer been the National Health Service's problem. They would have saved on a full year's worth of life support, multiple MRI and EEG scans, and the entirety of the court proceedings.
But they didn't, because it would have been wrong.
That whole case was so sad. He had no hope of recovery. His brain was physically deteriorating. He shouldn't have had to suffer for as long as he did.
I feel so desperately sorry for everyone involved in that situation. The parents genuinely thought there was a hope, the staff at GOSH were being threatened, the courts were being threatened, people were weighing in on it completely unqualified giving he parents MORE hope and the staff/courts MORE threats...
And of course, the biggest victim of all, poor Charlie.
And now people are using it as an argument against the service that tried and worked to try and make him better for so long. It’s abhorrent.
Yeah, all the people who were screaming that the hospital were trying to murder children and saying that the hospital should be tried for murder in the Alfie Evans case - that made me so, so angry. Those doctors did all they could.
Oh the Alfie Evans case. I got so bloody angry at his father for riling up the mob like that. He also tried to sue Alder Hey for murder but it got immediately thrown out.
If that mob cared SO MUCH about the health of a child, they’d have left the sick kids, the doctors and nurses just trying to do their work, and the bereaved parents alone and done their protesting elsewhere.
I felt sorrow for the parents in Charlie Gards case but Alfie Evans dad made it incredibly hard for me to feel sympathy for him (the father, Alfie Evans breaks my heart). Especially as all the Italian hospital would have done was put Alfie on a different kind of palliative care.
That man put those staff and those families in the hospital through absolute hell because he wanted his kid to be put through the trauma of going to another country to die elsewhere.
Yeah, it was dreadful. Charlie Gard's family at least had some dignity and respect for their son and for the children around him. Alfie Evans' family behaved horrifically.
Just a shell, not a human at all, not a parent's child. How great EU countries are willing to keep murderer from facing justice for their crimes, yet unwilling to let grieving parents take their child home to die.
They alone decide when a child's life is not worth living? Parents have no say?
I'm sure they were right about the prognosis, but what right do they have to say it's over, he dies today? Actually, we can't say when he'll die. But we start the process today. And, if you try to take him home we'll call the police.
Charlie and Alfie’s parents were fighting to keep the children alive against all medical recommendations. The hospitals were fighting to give the children palliative care (end of life care - not just shunting them off or euthanising them, just making them comfortable until they pass). The hospitals actually offered both sets of parents support should they have wished to take the children home to die.
No human can live without a brain. Neither children had working brains - and when they scanned Alfie Evans, they discovered his brain had dissolved into water. What EXISTENCE is that? What kind of person are you to say that that is ok? No memories. Barely any instincts. Can’t even breathe without being physically made to - not even signals to the brain. Because the brain isn’t there. It was entirely inhumane to force that child to keep living.
The EU court thing about the murderers was more to point out how extremely dedicated to human rights they are - even a murderer is given the right to a family life. And these children were therefore given the right to die with dignity and stop their suffering.
Ironic username.
It wasn't the government, it was a team of doctors at GOSH who determined that there was no possible treatment. Considering it ended up going through the courts and they still decided in the hospital's favour, I'm inclined to believe that a team of doctors at one of the best children's hospitals in the world knew what they were talking about more than a pair of grieving parents.
Yes, it's sad that that little boy was so ill, but he was a human being, not a doll to be dragged around at the uninformed whim of parents.
You'll get a lot of backlash for things like that in America. We're very protective of "sanctity of body" issues. You might need vaccines, for example, to attend public school, but they'll never be mandatory for all births. The idea of the government deciding what we should be injected with is weird to Americans. We'll do it gladly if it's a suggestion, but make it an order and we'll fight tooth and nail.
Seems bizzare. For me, I agree with your right to be a moron with your own body, but when it involves public health, or the life of another person, I think that supersedes your right.
Yes, these heartless parents that have no idea what is best for a child, and just want to drag him around for show. Why should they have any say what happens to their child?
Let me ask you, how many times have those doctors visited his grave, do you think?
Of course they're not heartless. They were/are grieving and naturally wanted to keep their child alive at all costs. It's just that the cost was too high for the benefit of their child. I have so much sympathy for them, but I also believe their grief and fear lead them to act in a way that was not on his best interests.
They certainly did have a say in his treatment as long as treatment was possible. It just got to the stage that they were desperate to keep him alive when his brain was basically fluid. There was absolutely no point in what they wanted to do. It's extremely sad.
Emotion shouldn't be the only thing that makes these decisions. Emotion is, by nature, irrational. I have no doubt that the doctors involved did not take their decision lightly, but the fact that they are not as emotionally connected is a desirable thing in this situation.
I mean this to come across as politely as possible, but your comment about them visiting his grave is a little reactionary, dramatic and irrelevant.
Yes, these heartless parents that have no idea what is best for a child
Evidently they don't, because they chose to try and prolong his suffering with no chance of recovery whatsoever. Literally the only time he had measurable non-autonomic brain activity was when he was suffering from the periodic seizures which defined the final year of his existence.
Needlessly prolonged torture is never in the best interests of a child, and if you disagree, then you're wrong.
You're an asshole for calling them heartless, though.
[removed]
They wanted to take him home to die.
No, they wanted to take him to Italy to be placed on life support. This isn't up for debate, the court records make it perfectly clear.
The pulled the plug, took the parents to court, couldn't even tell them what the child had, and refused to let them take the child for a second opinion.
The fact that you feel the need to resort to lies shows that not even you believe your own bullshit.
Then he couldn't have been suffering.
Wrong. Learn the basics of how a seizure works before you embarrass yourself further.
Torture is how you describe your medical care?
No, it's how I describe forcing somebody to live through the process of their own brain turning to soup.
and that his caring parents were just impediments to their superior decisions.
That's because that's exactly what they were. The prevention of needless suffering is superior to the facilitation of needless suffering, and doctors know more about medicine than those two ever will. Reality doesn't care if that hurts your feelings.
They obviously loved their child, and only wanted to spend his last days with him.
Then why did they try to prolong his suffering on life support? Their actions were excusable due to the situation they were in, but at the end of the day they were prioritizing their own needs above those of their child.
I hope you never have children, which I'm guessing you won't. You're subhuman.
I'd be insulted, were this not coming from someone literally advocating for the needless suffering of children.
First, I apologize for my rude and derogatory tone. That is not helpful, and I'm sorry. I got a little headed. Thank you for responding.
No, they wanted to take him to Italy to be placed on life support. This isn't up for debate, the court records make it perfectly clear.
Yes, failing that, they wanted him to come home to die.
The pulled the plug, took the parents to court, couldn't even tell them what the child had, and refused to let them take the child for a second opinion.
The fact that you feel the need to resort to lies shows that not even you believe your own bullshit.
Which part is a lie? That is my understanding of the situation.
Wrong. Learn the basics of how a seizure works before you embarrass yourself further.
Literally the only time he had measurable non-autonomic brain activity was when he was suffering from the periodic seizures which defined the final year of his existence.
Your words. There is no suffering is there is no higher brain activity.
Torture is how you describe your medical care?
No, it's how I describe forcing somebody to live through the process of their own brain turning to soup.
What you are trying to describe had already happened.
That's because that's exactly what they were. The prevention of needless suffering is superior to the facilitation of needless suffering, and doctors know more about medicine than those two ever will. Reality doesn't care if that hurts your feelings.
Knowing more about medicine does not give your the power to have life and death over the patient. Why did they keep him alive for over a year, if he was being tortured by his brain turning to soup as you say. The Italian doctors were willing to take him, they know as much as the English doctors. They determined it was not unreasonable to continue life support.
They obviously loved their child, and only wanted to spend his last days with him.
Then why did they try to prolong his suffering on life support? Their actions were excusable due to the situation they were in, but at the end of the day they were prioritizing their own needs above those of their child.
You have no idea what they were prioritizing. They clearly had the most at stake with their child. The doctors again kept his child alive for a year on life support, they couldn't have felt they were prolonging the suffering too much.
I'd be insulted, were this not coming from someone literally advocating for the needless suffering of children.
Again, sorry for being insulting and rude. However, I hope you are never in the situation where someone has life and death control over your children. And, do you think if this had been a son of the Royal Family, they would have treated him the same way?
Children are their own person; parents should not be able to prolong a brain dead child's potential suffering because of their feelz.
the government
Something that's come up on a few threads: in the US, "government" may include any of the three branches, including the judiciary. In the UK, "government" refers only to the executive branch.
Did you really just call a parent's love for their child, feelz? I hope you never have to face what these parents did.
Yeah and they are. I love my children like more than anything else in the world and would gladly trade everyone else's life to bring back the still born baby my wife had to give birth to around 3 years ago. That shit still tears my heart to pieces. Even if it was possible, it would be terrible fucking policy on the part of everyone else in the world to allow that shit to happen though. That hospital spent literally millions of pounds trying to save and care for Alfie Evans. They only stopped when a council of the best doctors on those issues in that part of the world determined that was no possible good outcome and that over 70% of his brain had deteriorated beyond repair. When a parent is trying to overrule a panel of the best medical professionals available to your country (as well as many imported specifically to give expert testimony on this), they may be wrong. That needs to at least be given consideration. If you won't... You're literally fucking everyone else's possibly savable kid over so your kid that has no chance of survival can continue to suffer if they can even feel anything at all. At that point you're putting your feelings over the child's well being and other children's well being. What do you say to another parent that watches their children die in their arms when they can't get that level of care for their savable child? "Lol, fuck you" ? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
These arguments always act like there's an unending level of critical support room in hospitals and top medical professionals. Support that goes to one family with a child that can't be saved is actively denying another child that can be saved.
Yeah and they are. I love my children like more than anything else in the world and would gladly trade everyone else's life to bring back the still born baby my wife had to give birth to around 3 years ago. That shit still tears my heart to pieces. Even if it was possible, it would be terrible fucking policy on the part of everyone else in the world to allow that shit to happen though.
I don't think those parents wanted to 'trade anyone's life'. They wanted to take their doing child home.
That hospital spent literally [millions of pounds trying to save and care for Alfie Evans
Not really relevant, but ok. And wasn't it the NHS, not the hospital?
And I'm sure they spent millions on the trials.
And they didn't really save him, did they.
They only stopped when a council of the best doctors on those issues in that part of the world determined that was no possible good outcome and that over 70% of his brain had deteriorated beyond repair.
I don't question the determinations of the doctors. I question that the doctors, who likely never shed a tear over Alfie, and who never visit his grave, have 100% over the life of someone else's child. They alone decide when to pull his plug. They decide there's no second opinion. And they decide he can't go home with the parents. He can die just as well there, and cheaper.
When a parent is trying to overrule a panel of the best medical professionals available to your country (as well as many imported specifically to give expert testimony on this), they may be wrong.
They weren't overruling them. They just wanted (I'm guessing) to feel as they have Alfie every chance. Or, to let him die at home. They never got that chance.
That needs to at least be given consideration. If you won't... You're literally fucking everyone else's possibly savable kid
How? Because your system doesn't want to spend enough money? And, they weren't asking them to. They just wanted to take Alfie out of the hospital, to another that had accepted him. It wouldn't have cost the NHS a penny.
At that point you're putting your feelings over the child's well being
To let him die at home?
and other children's well being.
No. You're not.
What do you say to another parent that watches their children die in their arms when they can't get that level of care for their savable child?
I'm sorry you lost a child, but you clearly know nothing. There aren't people standing outside with sick kids waiting to get in. If there are, that's a problem with the NHS.
These arguments always act like there's an unending level of critical support room in hospitals and top medical professionals.
There could be, but according to you, the NHS apparently has decided sick kids aren't worth the money. But again, they could have freed up that bed right away for free. But no, Alfie had to stay there and die right then.
Support that goes to one family with a child that can't be saved is actively denying another child that can be saved.
So get more support. The only limit is rationing by the government. And we shouldn't let kids die to save a few bucks.
And, they would have saved money by releasing him. So I guess it was so important that he died right then, that per you, other kids probably died because he used those resources.
The parents didn't want to take him home, they wanted to put him on continuing life support in Italy. This was what had been the case before it was determined the best scenario for the patient was to allow him to die. This would not have cured him and would've likely prolonged the potential suffering of the child, this continuing pain was fairly obviously not in the best interest of the child.
After the transfer was denied, they wanted to take him home.
And, there is no evidence he was in pain. And, I don't doubt the doctor's assessment. Obviously, the parents wanted him cured, but after that was not possible, they wanted palliative care.
The hard part for me, is that the doctors have 100% of the say, and the parents have 0% of the say. That's not right.
Parents don't always have the best interests of their children in mind. Take, for example, the anti-vaccine movement. These people, if parents, would quite obviously not be looking out for their child's health. However, In theory (and generally in practice) the doctors do have their patients best interests taken into account. In this case, the possibility for the child to have been in pain was too big to allow the parents to prolong his life for their own emotions; the hospital provided the best environment to allow the child to die in peace.
It was nothing whatsoever to do with the government. In the UK, children are not owned by their parents: any medical treatments proceed in a 'best interests' manner, as judged by medical/nursing professionals working with the family. This prevents parents from making choices which may actively harm a child (for example, a child with diabetes who needs insulin treatment but whose parents want to try prayer instead). On the whole, medical and surgical treatments are carried out with parental involvement and agreement, and its not that often that there is wholesale disagreement between what the medical profession advises and what the parents want. If there is no agreement reached, then the judiciary steps in (the judiciary is entirely separate from 'government'). There is well established case law about this-the courts will hear from all sides, will take advice from experts as to what treatment, if any, is in the child's best interests, and then decide. Sometimes the decision is in favour of the treatment plan proposed by the clinicial staff, sometimes the court chooses to go with the parents wishes (as happened in the case of Charlotte Wyatt).
It's not always a given that the medical profession preferred option is the one that 'wins', but in all cases, the court is guided by what is in the child's best interests based on the evidence, and in the case of Alfie Evans, withdrawal of intensive care to allow him to pass peacefully in his mother's arms was considered the better option, rather than dragging a brain-dead child across Europe to a hospital where the proposed 'treatment' plan was to continue to ventilate him for a further two weeks only-the hospital admitted there was no cure and they were offering nothing that he wasn't already getting. He had multiple seizures even with the slightest movement, he had virtually no functional brain left, his lungs had repeatedly collapsed because of the ventilation-keeping him alive like this when there was absolutely no hope was considered by the court to be cruel.
In the UK, children are not owned by their parents:
This is the most horrifying thing in this thread. Not owned, of course. But the idea that parent's rights are second to doctor's opinion is horrifying.
Why? You appear to be assuming that all parents have their child's best interests at heart. They don't. Most do of course, but there are parents who make poor choices for their child's health care, and parents who make actively harmful decisions about their child's healthcare, either out of ignorance, desperation, or based on their own wishes or beliefs (such as faith healing and laying on of hands, or refusal to accept organ donation or blood transfusion). Children have to be protected against these poor choices, which is what the courts are for. It is very uncommon for there to be such a gulf between what the parents want and what medical staff are recommending, but in those cases where an agreement can't be reached, and where the child is potentially at risk, the judiciary step in as an independent body to listen to both sides.
In Alfie's case, the court ruled that further treatment was wholly futile and to continue would only cause further pain and distress. He was having continuous seizures, his lungs were collapsing-ventilation is painful, intrusive and full of complications, and the court ruled subjecting him to that when there was no possible benefit, no possible cure or gain, was not in his best interests. It would have appeased the parents, but for Alfie continued treatment was cruel and futile. And the court was there to act in his best interests, to reduce his pain and suffering, not his parents. It sounds cruel, but ethically, the court cannot stand by and watch a child be subject to that sort of painful and harmful intervention if there is no benefit to the patient.
It's not just a single doctors opinion. It never is in these complex cases. There will have been an entire team of consultants in Alder Hey-paediatricians, neonatologists, paediatric intensivists. They had involved consultants from Great Ormond Street, and from Germany, Poland and Italy. This was a team consensus-everyone was in agreement that there was no chance of survival and no treatment to be offered. The only disagreement on the medical side was that the Italian hospital would have continued to ventilate for a while longer (whilst acknowledging that this would have had no benefit whatsoever). This wasn't just one doctors opinion: this was medical fact, tested, re-tested, and examined. In the UK, the parents do not have a right to inflict harm on their child, and what the parents wanted for Alfie would have inflicted harm. It sounds horrible, and it was obviously that they were absolutely desperate and loved their child utterly, but the fact remains that what they wanted to do would have resulted in pain and discomfort for him with no benefit. And the law does not allow that.
[deleted]
The idea that the decisions of uninformed parents are second to an expert doctor's opinion is even more horrifying.
Yes. Or, the expert decisions of teachers. Who do these dumb parents think they are, that they should have any say about the life and death of their child?
The government should just take all the kids at birth, raise them right, and lock up any parents that try to interfere with the government's right to raise their kids.
Teachers don't usually make decisions that decide whatever a child lives or dies, though.
I'm not saying parents shouldn't raise their kids as they see fit, but when it comes to extreme matters of health, doctors should have the final say. It's not okay for a child to suffer because their parents make the wrong choice; sure, the doctor might make the wrong choice aswell, but I'm more willing to trust a medical expert with that choice than your average joe.
Teachers don't usually make decisions that decide whatever a child lives or dies, though.
Education is very important.
sure, the doctor might make the wrong choice aswell, but I'm more willing to trust a medical expert with that choice than your average joe.
So you'd be okay with that? And it's not so though the parent's have to come up with their own plans. They have the doctor to help then make the right decision. But the final decision must be left to the parents, if the parents are truly acting in what they think is the child's best interest.
[deleted]
Should the child have to suffer just because their parents refuse to listen to reason?
No. And children't can't be forced to suffer, regardless of what the parent's want. But life support isn't necessarily suffering. And medical knowledge doesn't equal ethics.
The parents should have some say in what happens to their children.
No. Doctors should choose treatments that will work. Not parents
So parents have no say? They turn over their parental rights to doctors? It's a good thing doctor's and hospitals never make a mistake.
I dont think they have no say at all, often a doctor will outline options and the associated risks and let the patient or their family choose. But in this particular case, there were no options available, and a team of medical professionals who spend every day doing all they can to save kids lives determined that there wasnt anything elsethat would work.
Which is fine. And I actually agree with a doctor's assessment. However what I don't agree with, is it the parents did have no say at this point. It's clear that was not what they wanted.
That's because (in the case of Alfie) 70% of his brain had turned to mush and there was nothing that could be done.
The doctors had to weigh the chances of survival (extremely slim to none) against the chances that prolonging his life would cause undue suffering (entirely possible) and it wasn't worth it.
The doctors know best. The parents decided that they did, and it was ruled that it was not in Alfie or Charlie's best interest to continue treatment.
You typed three sentences and two of them managed to be utter nonsense.
The “treatment” they wanted to provide Alfie Evans was palliative care, not a cure. End of life care. He didn’t have a chance of loving a good life for long.
Most bankruptsies in America are due to medical. In most of those bankruptsies the debtor had medical insurance.
Imagine the combined number of bankruptcies if one could escape student debt in addition to the figure for medical debt.
If 7 years of no credit is worth academic and medical debt write off then there is something seriously fucked with those industries.
I've even heard that newly minted doctors would just bankrupt themselves if they could discharge that academic debt. One of the most highly paid professions willing to go without credit for 7 years just when they start to actually earn money? Insanity.
And the Tories are gutting it piece by piece as we speak
It’s awful to see. And no matter how many times you shout and point it out they won’t change
No different to New Labour my friend, sad but true.
It's such a relief not having to choose between your family's health and your family's future.
Without that coverage, you're choosing between your daughter's life and her ability to have a successful future. While the choice is obvious, you should never have to be in that position.
Be vigilant. There are those in your country who would like to shrink or tear down the NHS and move towards a more privatized, insurance based system like the clusterfuck we have in the US.
Nice to see good news NHS stories.
They saved my wife who had 2 ectopic pregnancies. Required 4 surgeries in total. And then funded 2 rounds of IVF because we couldn’t have kids naturally anymore. And now we have a son... who then also needed surgery at 10 weeks.
In my opinion they are our greatest institution and should be protected at all costs.
In the US you still have access to care for the big stuff like that. People who need multiple transplants or open heart surgery get the treatment. Then they get the $500K bill later. They can’t pay it so they don’t. Those costs get shifted to others and raise the costs for everyone. It’s screwed up.
Where people don’t go to the doctor, is for the small stuff: sore throat, flu etc... there is becomes a cost/benefit analysis.
they dont make you pay beforehand. Family works in hospital, illegal immigrants will go to emergency room for routine stuff get the bill and just never pay it. No one is going after them
Not in any way defending our shit system, but they aren’t going to let a child die because you can’t pay millions of dollars. They bill you, you say either accept what I can pay or fuck off, and they usually accept it. That’s why the bills are so high, they get as much as they possibly can out of everyone and pass the buck on to whoever CAN afford it.
...thats not how medical debt works
oh for gods sake guys, tone it down with the smugness. Comparing yourself to the US is setting the bar pretty damn low.
I feel like people in Europe don't understand how insurance works in the US. If you have a decent job you have insurance. You have a maximum out of pocket expense per year. Usually 3,000 dollars. Once you exceed that, they pay it all. I don't know how much you pay into NHS, but I'm sure it's more than what I pay for insurance monthly. (40/month)
So in the event of some catastrophy, I'll end up paying 3 grand. However any major provider will work out a payment plan if you don't have 3 grand available.
It's not the "worry free" system of NHS, but it's not some terrible god awful thing. And if you're healthy, it's way, way cheaper.
EDIT: I love how I get downvoted for trying to have a reasonable discussion about the differences in healthcare. When discussing differences is literally the point of this fucking thread.
So in the event of some catastrophy, I'll end up paying 3 grand. However any major provider will work out a payment plan if you don't have 3 grand available.
In England/Scotland/Wales you'd pay nothing in the event of a catastrophe. No worry about how pricey things are going to get.
Also, you automatically pay into National Insurance when you get paid, if you don't earn much I don't think you pay anything in, same with Taxes. The more you earn the more you pay in.
And if you're healthy, it's way, way cheaper.
Over here we generally have the idea that you pay into it for the good of everyone using the service. We (mostly) don't have that selfish "why should I pay when I don't use it" attitude over here. (as much as it comes across, I'm not meaning that last part as a insult against the US)
If you don't earn much, I don't think you pay anything in, same with taxes
Oh God, don't say that. The people opposing nationalized healthcare here in America already have a hard on for "worthless lazy migrant Muslim Mexicans siphoning off our tax dollars"
"worthless lazy migrant Muslim Mexicans siphoning off our tax dollars"
Simultaneously stealing their jobs AND being lazy.
I think it's just a different attitude on the whole. The US is way more individualist and self reliant. The idea that the government should care for you isn't highly regarded here.
NHS isn't free for society. It's also not something you have a choice about. You have to give the government the money, as you say.
Here, that's why there was so much resistance to the affordable care act. People don't like being told how to take care of themselves or what they have to do.
It's a complicated subject. The US system isn't ideal, but for the vast majority of working adults with decent jobs, it's good. Where it gets not so good is the working poor. Those people get the short end of the stick.
Still, most people in the US prefer the freedom of choice that comes with choosing their own plans and not being forced to give the government more money.
Even in the parts of US health care that are socialized, people really like having different choices. My mom is on Medicare and she is griping about the traditional plan this year because there isn't much flexibility and there are lots of rules. I told her to get a Medicare Advantage Plan when enrollment comes up again.
Yeah but if you dont have a good job, or ypu lose your job, then youre fucked.
Also means you have to make financial decisions about your health which often means people leave things too late, whereas with the NHS you cang o get checked out as soon as youre concerned about something.
If you lose your job, you can use COBRA.
If you're unemployed, you have zero income and can't be denied emergency medical assistance.
If you lose your job, you can use COBRA.
COBRA is crazy expensive and probably not an option if you've lost your job and don't have another source of income.
When my wife was pregnant with our daughter she and I both worked. Her job was better than mine and offered an amazing health insurance plan. I worked for a small company which offered a really pathetic health plan. It was something you'd never want to use unless you had some kind of health emergency.
When my daughter was born she had a lot of health issues which required a lot of intervention and regular therapy sessions, so my wife quit her job so she could take care of her full time. Since my employer's health plan was so crappy, we did the math and decided that using COBRA would ultimately be cheaper. But while it was the better of the two options, it was definitely not cheap. For us, as a family of 4, our premium cost was over $1600 a month. We ended up staying on COBRA for 18 months, which was the maximum allowed by law.
I'm glad COBRA was an option for us, but we were lucky to be able to afford it. A lot of people would not have been able to.
Emergency assistance, sure, but what about everything else? Are you supposed to just cope with it if you've got something that's not immediately life threatening?
Kind of? If you have a condition that prevents you from working, you get on disability, and you'll get federal medical coverage.
If it doesn't prevent you from working, you'll need to get back to working to get on to insurance.
Once you retire, you have medical coverage.
Do you know how long it can take to get on disability sometimes?
Usually 3,000 dollars
Are you sure that's usual? I think the previous insurance I had through work was more like a 10k or 15k out of pocket max. Now I have an insurance plan with a Health Savings Account, and I specifically choice the one with a 4.5k deductible because everything after that is covered 100%, the plan that had a 3k deductible wasn't 100% coverage for everything. So if 3k OOP max is usual, then my employer has some shitty insurance options.
Edit: and looking at all the healthcare.gov, the plans available to me have OOP maxes of $5.8k+
I can only speak to my experience. I've never had an out of pocket max over 3k.
I think part of the downvotes are that your numbers are off. I'm willing to provide screenshots of my costs if that would be helpful?
Usually 3,000 dollars
The out of pocket maximum varies by health plan. Mine is $6,850.00
any major provider will work out a payment plan if you don't have 3 grand available
You are correct for emergency procedures. However, I had a non-emergency, but medically necessary procedure earlier this year. I had to pay what remained of my deductible in full before they would schedule the surgery, ~$4000. I then got a refund (~1200) from the provider because I had additional expenses which went against my deductible before the surgery took place. It's complicated.
what I pay for insurance monthly. (40/month)
I openly acknowledge I have a very generous health plan from my employer. I pay $169/month. My employer pays the other $867.50/month. I have only anecdotal evidence of this, but $1000+/month for a contractor to cover their with private insurance family is common. This is what made people upset about the ACA, and I can certainly see why. However, it does not change that people need health care, and health care is expensive.
you're healthy, it's way, way cheaper.
Not true. A major complaint about ACA was that it does not "award" people for being healthy. It is against the law (for now) to charge a diabetic more, or refuse them coverage because their medical care is quite expensive. To be blunt, healthy people are paying for sick people. As a healthy person, I'm ok with this. Many Americans are not.
Honestly, getting into a discussion of what your plan and my plan covers and costs is kind of pointless. There are great plans, and shit plans out there. I know I have a good plan, it's a major benefit of my job. Hell it's even a 90/10 plan instead of a 80/20 plan.
The point I'm trying to make is that in the US you have choices. If I work for company A, I get plan A. Company B, plan B. The coverage and everything else might be better or worse. Personally, I'm OK with that because those variables come with varied cost. I like having freedom and choice when it comes to my money and healthcare. I don't just get money taken from me by the government on a continually escalating scale based on wage for medical services. The CEO and the basic full time worker at my job pay the same for their healthcare, which to me, is good.
Also I don't see how you can say being healthy doesn't cost you less. You paid a shitload of money last year by your own admission for a medical procedure. I didn't have any surgeries and didn't pay anything. You might not get reduced premiums but the healthier you are, the less you pay out.
I'll reflect this back to earlier comments about culture. The US is a country driven by individuals. If you put in work and effort, you get insurance and coverage. You don't work, you get the most basic of coverage.
The mentality around that which is owed to society at large is different. In the US we provide the bare minimum as a safety net because there are no barriers that prevent people from achieving what they want via hard work and productive outputs, which is fundamentally necessary to a society.
In the US the default mentality is to provide for yourself, by your own actions. Our social safety nets, healthcare, and founding documents reflect that.
For my standpoint, having private insurance covered by my employer is a better deal. I'm in my 30s and healthy and haven't had to be into the doctor for awhile. Also, preventative exams (cancer screens, wellness visit, etc.) are free of charge. I can see why someone who has significant health problems might like the NHS or single payer but if you are healthy the US system is a better deal. Single payer means that I'd be dumping a whole lot of money into a system I'd likely not use.
Yeah but... What about all the other people in your community? I can believe all these healthy people with good jobs arguing that America's system is better. It's only better for YOU.
I don't care. I care about me. It is better for me so I prefer the current system. I pay taxes to help poor people, but why should I have to deal with crap single payer health insurance at an even higher price than I pay now. It strikes me that the European system is really brutal to the middle class and upper middle class in terms of taxes and the like. The "elites" seem to be preventing the serfs from gaining material prosperity. Don't people want to own their own houses and be able to live in relative comfort?
Private health insurance costs more than the taxes you pay for the NHS, but not by a huge margin. Im in favor of a national health system for the us, but you cant pretend it is free.
Private health insurance costs more than the taxes you pay for the NHS, but not by a huge margin. Im in favor of a national health system for the us, but you cant pretend it is free.
But at least this way there's no such thing as a copay, or exclusions. You get ill, you're treated. End of story. Exactly how healthcare should be.
Agree. I was just commenting on the cost. It isnt uncommon to hear people refer to nationalized healthcare as "free healthcare"
People call it free because its free at the point of entry. It's easier to say that "nationalised healthcare".
No she wouldn't have died here. You would've been able to get her treatment and you wouldn't have sold everything you own to pay for it. What would've happened is the price would've been brought down to a value you could have reasonably paid and the hospital would've written off everything else as a loss. The only people who pay face value are the uber rich people without health insurance.
Except you DID pay for it, it wasn't free.
Why do you think taxes are so high in the UK?
If you make enough to pay tax, you wont miss it. We probably pay less in healthcare tax than most Americans pay for insurance, and we never have to worry how much ours is going to cover, because everything is covered. Even our prescriptions have a price cap, and are free for people on benefits.
I also never get this argument - you people never complain about schools or police and fire services being paid for by tax, so why medicine?
Not only do we pay less in healthcare tax than Americans pay for insurance...we pay less in healthcare tax than Americans pay in healthcare tax!
UK tax spend on healthcare per capita per year: $4000 US tax spend on healthcare per capita per year: $9000 (plus your insurance, deductibles, copays, prescription charges...)
Ok then, have fun losing half the money you earn, that's rightfully yours. And that's just to income tax...
No one loses half of their money due to income tax.
The top income tax rate is 45% which kicks in at a £150,000 (~$180,000 or so, I think) salary, plus national insurance which is negligible at that level.
But even if that top tax rate was 50% - which has fairly high popular support (admittedly, less so to those who would be affected), it would still hold true that no one loses half of their entire income to income tax. Because that's not how tax bands work.
Pretty sure that's comparable to the tax rates we have in the US.
So what are the lower tax bands? Most normal people in the US won't hit a top rate of more than 24% on their income to the federal government. I'm assuming that you are getting soaked at lower brackets as well, not just top brackets.
0% up to £11,850, 20% up to £46,350, which is $62,205, The next band is 40% though, which I imagine is higher than the second band for the US?
Yeah, that is high even on the 20% band. They do tax every dollar in the US but there are deductions that make it a wash. But ouch is that a squeeze on middle class taxpayers. I make a little under 100K and I could not imagine being considered "rich" and having to pay a 40% marginal rate. That is a rich person's tax rate, not a middle class one.
I will, you have fun paying just as much on tax AND insurance and still being left bankrupt because you got something that wasn't covered, or had it too long, and then also paying $1000 in prescription medication.
Ok then, have fun losing half the money you earn, that's rightfully yours.
Well, if it was rightfully yours then you wouldn't owe any taxes.
Ah, not free, but much cheaper.
UK taxes for the NHS < American insurance + American taxes for medical care + copays and other payments you make yourself.
Ok then, have fun losing half the money you earn, that's rightfully yours. And that's just to income tax...
My dad was diagnosed with cancer last November. Because of the type of cancer^* it was, he was signed on to a course of treatment currently in its second trial stage. As well as 6 rounds of chemotherapy, there was also a Stem Cell transplant involved. Because of complications after the Stem Cell transplant, he was in hospital almost permanently for 8 weeks, including an 11-day stint in Intensive Care.
He's been in remission since April. His bill, for the whole thing? £0.
The last 7 or so months have been some of the toughest, most stressful of my life. My mum has been going through hell - and my parents are well off. I cannot imagine how much worse it would have been had we been having to worry about paying for the treatment as well.
^* Stage IV Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with Secondary Central Nervous System Lymphoma. If you were interested.
Cancer treatments can literally run into the millions of dollars here. Some insurance companies will even drop you on the spot when you're diagnosed.
Which brings me to another issue of mine with privatised healthcare.
Opponents of Universal Healthcare will bleat about supposed "death panels", but insurance companies literally using actuarial tables to decide whether or not your treatment is going to cost them too much money seems far closer to the concept than anything that exists in the NHS.
Exactly! There are cases of insurance companies saying things like "a wheelchair for a paraplegic or anesthetic for surgery aren't really necessary"
Some insurance companies will even drop you on the spot when you're diagnosed.
No they cannot. That is illegal. There is so much misinformation in this damn thread
Illegal
Cannot do
You say that like giant corporations that see fines and lawsuits as business expenses care
I assume you have never worked in business
Isn't that exactly what insurance companies are for? Wtf
I beat mast cell lymphoma (early stages, thank goodness) and I just want to say I'm wishing your dad lots of love and health.
Yeah I could sing the praises of the NHS all day
Yeah, that shit always gets me as a Canadian. My American friends will bitch about being sick or having some issue, and I'm always like "Why the fuck don't you just get it checked it out?" Then they remind me that it actually costs them money.
It's amazing for what it does. It gets shit because people expect more out of it than the funding it receives allows. Being able to just check in and make sure that ache or weird thing isn't serious is great. Yes it's annoying to have to mash redial over and over at 8am to try and get an appointment, then having to deal with work or using a vacation day because the appointment is at 11.40. But knowing that if you have a heart attack or get hit by a bus your family won't be bankrupted by it is worth it.
Oh yea as a fully insured german that's a very foreign concept. Whenever I have a glance at what kind of probs people post in personalfinance sub I always scratch my head about it. Making less money in total/y after tax and insurance I seem to enjoy a higher standard of life. The only thing americans are ahead in is popculture and convenience (having stores open all the time and stuff).
Oh and being able to go to a mall to buy an assult riffle is just bonkers.
Yeah, here in belgium, people hate on rsz (it’s more than healthcare but that’s one of the important parts) . Most of them complain that we are paying for people who don’t want to work and who just want to profit from hard working people (which isn’t really true.) We are paying for when we fall sick. We are paying for each other. No one could ever pay for cancer treatments on their own but by sharing the burden we keep each other alive.
Shit, i never thought of it that way. Always been on the fence with NHC. Guess makes sense to have a tighter culture with less space separating everyone unlike here in the states, if you dont focus on the east coast that is.
The Affordable Care Act did nothing to address the issue, either. It was a gift to hospitals and big pharma. Source: am insurance agent and voted for Obama
As much shit as the NHS gets in the UK, it’s incredible how lucky we are to have it.
No that can't be correct. American Conservatives who have never been to Europe much less left their home State and Fox News have told me its awful.
We're so lucky. I would have died had it not been for the free healthcare and the expertise of the NHS. They are under a huge amount of pressure, and I'm so grateful for the doctors and nurses - and everyone else who works for the NHS.
[deleted]
I am in the US and I can walk to the hospital around the corner, get treated and walk away without exchanging a penny.
The thing is. I watched this documentary like show where someone went to America and one of the things they did was ask people from West Virginia I think or the appalachians, if they wanted a healthcare system for everyone. Note, that they were there for free dental care because they couldn't afford it. Yet, they want a universal healthcare system because they don't want to pay for something that they might not need.
Whenever I talk to anyone from another country they're like "ugh our healthcare system is so bad, sometimes people have to wait a whole week to get a mole removed, it's insanity" and I'm like "lol you just die in the US stfu."
We all had to re-apply for our medical insurance after it expired, and I'm honestly baffled. i want to go to the DHS and ask why, exactly, my husband qualifies for Medicaid and Medicare, as always, and I get Medicaid....but my 10 year old son qualifies for no medical insurance whatsoever. I'm convinced it's an error on DHS's end, but my husband says this is just a result of the new laws. Anyone have any insight?
Edit: Update...despite being told my son didn't qualify for medical insurance, my son tossed a letter at me last night that my husband never gave me, and it contained my son's insurance card. So much for telling me he didn't qualify, jerks.
Mate I’m so glad we have the NHS. Paying because of something that wasn’t my fault is such an alien thing to me.
Yep, if it wasn't for the NHS I'd be dead roughly four times already
Lucky there is still someone else to pay for it.
You are paying for it. It's your taxes working to support your lives. Quite logical, really.
In the U.S., people are somehow succeptible to completely different logic, due to the amped-up propaganda machine of late stage capitalism.
I cracked my little toe a few years back, and I had to wear a boot for a couple months. I shiver to think how much that could have cost without insurance, because we still had to pay $200 for it+taxes
A few years ago I read about how the NHS came about and it was really fascinating. Sure it has flaws, but for the most part it was people, well more accurately your leaders, saying "ok, this is messed up, we need to fix this" after WW2.
The closest we had to that was the New Deal in the 30's. The ACA was an attempt to get to a NHS level, but politics got in the way of it being a full solution, and now it's being slowly whittled away rather than being used as a platform to build on.
NHS getting shit at a political level is ok. Keeps it improving imo. Nurses and doctors etc are all legends!
Free healthcare is the norm in Europe and arguably over the world. I would say that Americans are the unlucky ones.
The NHS only gets shit because most Brits don’t know any different. If they saw first hand how it is in other countries they would be more grateful. Thats not to say the NHS doesn’t have issues but most Brits just want something to moan about.
It gets shit? I had the impression that everyone in the U.K. loves it.
I feel this is unfair to the point i had to comment. Sorry if it comes across snooty. Its not so much the NHS's fault as the government though right? Those guys work so damn hard and are doing the best job out of an awful situation. Same goes for teachers, they cant be blamed for how our education standards are slipping.
Nah, you’re not lucky. Never think that. Living is a basic human right. Americans are instead very unlucky that they’ve fallen in that hole. A hole that is hard to escape because of the rich elite and brainwashed 2 party fanatics.
The NHS shouldn't be getting any flack to be honest, the government is crippling it with fees and fines
Pisses me off when people moan about an hour or 2 wait time, or a rescheduled surgery (not life threatening) but they neglect the fact that it's absolute fucking free.
As much shit as the NHS gets in the UK, it’s incredible how lucky we are to have it.
it will even get better with 350 billion GPB a week soon
Don't be silly. It's £350 million, not billion.
Don't be silly, its 350lb of lard
D'oh my bad. Makes perfect sense. Give everyone lard > make them morbidly obese > privitise the NHS > make billions overnight from sick fat people > give that money to the EU to pay for Brexit.
it's getting more every week! ;) isn't it trillion now?
Not sure if sarcastic...
me not either
I absolutely adore the NHS, and I have a friend who’s against it and it makes me so angry. It’s saved at least five members of my family, and I have to remind myself every day not to take it for granted.
i read NHS as either nation honors society or national hockey score
Most Americans can't really relate to the first one, because gun violence is less common than the media would lead you to believe. If you asked a hundred people if they'd ever been in close proximity to actual gun violence (like, directly involved) I'd be willing to bet on average less than one would truthfully answer yes. The problem is that the media in America thrive on fear and controversy. Gun violence gives them both of those ratings monsters in one fell swoop.
This.
Almost everyone in the US has had to deal with our dysfunctional, crazy expensive healthcare system at some point.
Almost everyone has either had or been close to someone who has had significant student debt.
Gun violence and mass shootings are terrible, terrible things, but they impact a vastly smaller population than the other two.
Also a majority of gun statistics are suicide. Which yes are terrible but it is also kind of misleading and should be treated separate from.
Pretty much everyone I know has a gun or wants a gun but I have never directly known someone to be involved in gun violence
I think the argument for considering suicide as part of gun violence is that easy access to a gun enhances the chance of someone actually going thru with and/or being successful at committing suicide if they are in a dark place.
I agree that there should be some weighting of those numbers tho - you almost certainly have people who would go ahead and do the deed regardless.
I'm honestly more afraid of other drivers than gun violence. I know ai live around shitty drivers and I've already been in multiple accidents. Guns don't concern me at all, the cars to either side of me and behind me are terrifying though.
Having had some negative experiences with a well armed crazy person...both concern me. But statistically, there's just no competition - driving is dangerous as hell, though some times are safer than others:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7n08ri/us_fatal_drunk_driving_accidents_in_2016_by_day/
Yep, I meant to expand on that initially to say that many of us deal with the other two on a daily basis, but I got caught up in making my first point and forgot. Thanks for that.
Um.... this type of anecdotal evidence has everything to do with where a person lives and nothing to do with fact.
I live in a nice suburb of Minneapolis. I never witness gun violence.
The two years I lived in a ghetto in St Paul, I saw it EVERY DAY.
In fact, when I consider my neighbors from that time period - I can guarantee they are not flipping through Reddit and jumping in with their casual thoughts on healthcare and student debt, let alone a topic they are actually intimately familiar with.
There is a correlation between poverty and violent crime that many but not all Americans are fortunate enough to be shielded from. Therefore, "it only happens on tv."
In the US we eschew sensible and affordable mass transit because people from the good neighborhoods are afraid of poor people being able to more easily access said neighborhoods. Thus, zero movement on extending the lightrail south or west of the cities here in Minnesota.
I'm about to go full rant here, because I have a big problem with the poverty in this country and how we choose to address it, which is by ignorning it and shoving it into specific neighborhoods to avoid it.
Your survey in those places: 100/100 and you can start with the 6 year olds. They are the only ones who don't run from cops and white people.
Dismissing gun violence as fiction is just... it is uninformed. And you're lucky that you don't know better.
Dismissing gun violence as fiction is just... it is uninformed. And you're lucky that you don't know better.
When, anywhere in my post did I claim that gun violence was fiction? I also never claimed that it wasn't highly localized either. You assume that I've never lived in a shitty neighborhood and heard shots ring out in the middle of the night. You'd be wrong, but you can assume whatever you want about me based on my 10 character username and the zero other information you have about me.
What I'm saying is, as an entire country, a relative few of us directly deal with gun violence in our lifetimes, and even fewer of us directly deal with it as our daily reality. Not once have I said that those people who do deal with it as their daily reality don't exist, but that in the grand scheme of things, they are the vast minority in this country. I'm not in any way trying to downplay the things that people in that situation still deal with everyday, but the idea that guns are everywhere at all times and everyone in the country worries about getting shot every time they go to the supermarket is and pretty likely always will be completely fabricated.
Appealing to people's emotions with quotes like "Your survey in those places: 100/100 and you can start with the 6 year olds. They are the only ones who don't run from cops and white people," isn't going to change that.
The media focuses on mass shootings, and understandably so as they are big events, but it may mislead some to believe they make up a bigger percentage of overall gun deaths than they do. In reality they make up a small portion of them. But it is a fact that total gun deaths per capita are much higher in the US than in any other developed country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
That graph is highly misleading though, and cherry picks which countries to compare to in order to have the desired effect. "But it is a fact that total gun deaths per capita are much higher in the US than in any other developed country," is a bit misleading as well, since "much" is such a relative quantifier. I wouldn't necessarily consider it a fact that it is "much" higher. It also depends on what you'd consider a "developed" country.
Here is a more exhaustive list.
If you sort column F from Z -> A you can see that the US ranks far behind several developed nations in gun homicides per capita - not only that, but we're talking very small differences here in the big picture. 3 people killed per 100,000 vs. 1 person per 100,000 is, in reality, not as big of a difference as that graph would have you believe. It sucks, yes, and I'd love to see it lower - but at the risk of sounding callous, ~1 death vs. ~3 deaths out of 100,000 people in an entire year is a pittance in the grand scheme of things.
I use this as a source because I believe that homicide rates are the most important numbers to consider. Accidental gun deaths are a tragic, however avoidable, side effect of gun ownership and I don't think we can blame those deaths on the 2nd amendment or gun ownership in general, but rather as a reason for moderate restrictions on firearms licenses and proper training.
Which developed nations are we far behind?
American here. Pro gun. You’re right but it more of were in the states have you lived. Because if I asked 100 people it be more around 30. I grew up in south la. Lived in wats and Compton for a year or so. I know a lot of law enforcement guys. Someone who lived in Beverly Hills it’s probably 0.
Fair enough, it does become highly localized at a certain point as well. I live in a very gun friendly state (Arizona) but not in a bad area - so it would be easier for me to find people who hadn't been affected by it and would be willing to share that information truthfully.
I would be willing to bet that about 5 would say yes. And that is primarily due to people serving in the military
I think a veteran or current serving member of the military could understand the context of the question. They wouldn't include the fighting overseas in their answer.
Yep, also because fighting overseas definitely isn't "gun violence in the US," that's a military conflict. It's a huuuuge difference.
Most folks in the service don’t see direct combat. Something like 15 folks to support every trigger squeezer.
You dont have to be a trigger squeezer to have the building you are in hit with some AK rounds
That would count as direct combat
no it doesnt.
Yes it does being actively shot at counts as combat
It counts as combat, and it is the type of combat most veterans experience. It doesnt make you a combat soldier.
No most veterans are never shot at at all
Most veterans are never shot, or work in roles that you would not normally expect someone to be shot in. Most have been roughly shot at atleast once
Still not quite comparable to domestic gun violence...
Man, I'm not trying to start a gun debate, but gun violence is waaaay overplayed. It just gets tons of airtime due to it's shock factor. It's the ultimate easy way to get views.
Most gun violence is either related to suicide, or the vice trade.
Very very few random acts.
It's actually why the random acts get so many views. It just doesn't happen in daily life.
For the majority of Americans the most types of violent crimes you'll see in your community are domestic issues. In larger cities you have gang related stuff. It really depends on your region.
I think a lot of Europeans struggle to understand size of the US. In a lot of parts of the country you can have a low murder rate for a 6 hour drive around you, then hit a huge spike in a big city, then drop like a rock. It's just that the international news focuses on all of the major urban centers and the random acts that happen throughout a country housing over 300 million people. It really skews perspective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country
The role of mass shootings in overall gun deaths is the only thing that could be considered overplayed. But gun deaths per capita is much higher in the US than any other developed country. That's just a fact.
Still more than so many other countries.
American here:
I live in a major city that has just seen it's 12 homicide of the year, it was a stabbing. I once had a gun waived at me while I was working at a gas station back in the early 90's. Cops responded quickly and scared the guy off, then tackled him. I go to the doc I choose when I choose to go and pay about $15 bucks per visit. My last shoulder surgery cost me $125.00 and was performed by a surgeon I chose because he specializes in sports injuries. I have a job that provides excellent health insurance for myself and my spouse, which is just one reason I continue to work at this job. I have no college debt because I worked while I in was school and choose to go to a college that was affordable and had good academics instead of something with brand recognition.
This is more common than Reddit would have you believe.
doubt it given the college and medical dept in america. guns is something as a texan never experienced. ive only seen guns like 3 times in my life and those where because i was close to cops.
I would say prior to the 2008 downturn, it was still possible to go to a public university and pay for it with money from a part time job in which you worked at least 30 hrs a week without loans. After the downturn, federal and state spending on public universities were cut and tuitions started to sky rocket. You might have just gone to university prior to the big tuition problems hitting and have no experience with it.
As for healthcare, it's a race to the bottom for a lot of companies. People who had decent healthcare saw a lot of their plans change to extremely shitty plans that shifted the burden of payment over to employees. For example, a friend of mine had an estimated $500 co-pay for her delivery via her old insurance. A week before she was due, her company switched to plan that required a $3,000 deductable and you still paid 30% of the bill after. She begged her doctor to induce her early and he wouldn't. Her bill went from $500 to $8,000 in a week because of a healthcare change at her work. Her situation is not unique. I worked for a pharmacy for a few years and saw a lot of shifts in coverage, co-pays, and deductables in that time. It's great that you have good healthcare- I had similar coverage when I worked for Kaiser- but please recognize that your situation isn't a measuring stick for society. Plenty of people have done what you've done and not had your same experience.
Nor is my experience unique.
Reddit seems to love making sure everyone knows the only way you can afford an education in the US is to take out more debt than you could possibly ever earn. Because of that debt and your inability to pay it off Vito is going to break your legs. Because of our healthcare you'll end up owing more money, someone will come and break your arms and you'll just suffer in silence so you don't have to owe more money. At the end of it, you'll walk with a limp, you're arms will never be fully functional again, and finally you'll be shot while buying groceries.
This fatalistic view has not been my experience (apart from one time in college when I had no dental coverage and didn't realize I could speak with my dentist and work out a payment plan; such was my ignorance).
My point was more that you should never use your own experience as a stick to measure others. You haven't been to college in almost 15 years- a lot has changed and you have personally experienced none of it.
Nor should Reddit be someone's only view of a country.
While I've not gone to college for quite some time, my wife is currently attending classes as a state school. We are getting loans to pay for it, we are in less debt than many people who decide to buy a new car.
And she hasn't been shot either. We did pay $300 dollars for an ambulance ride and ER visit once however when her appendix ruptured.
The problem is that it's so prevelent now that it has come to define a generation, which is why the world knows about it. Please don't assume that the international community's only resource for their opinions is Reddit.
Part of the problem is that things like Reddit give people's voice a wider platform than they would have traditionally had. Unless you think people increasingly being denied health insurance, are increasingly going bankrupt from healthcare, are increasingly not able to afford college, or are increasingly getting shot.
I don't think those percentages are drastically increasing, I think we're hearing about it more. While Reddit isn't the only place where the international community gets its news, it is one of MANY places where sensationalistic, short attention span, hyperbole passes for news. While this is not new in the news community, the ease with which people from all over the planet can gather his 'news' is unprecedented.
I donot know if your reply was sincere or not (Im assuming it was). I just wanted to point out that your reply would make an excellent copypasta. I can just see it being spammed and it looks glorious.
I donot know if your reply was sincere or not (Im assuming it was). I just wanted to point out that your reply would make an excellent copypasta. I can just see it being spammed and it looks glorious.
Absolutely sincere. Thank you!
What about your cousin who hasn't got the talent you have for a good job?
My cousin is free to shop around through a variety of states and a variety of employers to find one that provides him with similar benefits. My cousin is also free to organize a local group of people to stop working for an employer that does not provide those benefits and demand that they do. Likewise my cousin is also free to join a group of people that are already organized just for that purpose. My cousin is also free to continue receiving an education, in the trades or in something more white collar and esoteric; potentially self funded, or funded by scholarships and grants. My cousin has an awful lot of choices.
Sounds very inefficient.
Well, my cousin also has the option of joining the military assuming he/she is reasonably healthy. In 5 short years they'll have earned money, learned trade skills, qualified for the GI bill (which pays for a good chunk of college) received free health care, and would be guaranteed some amount of free health care after exiting the service.
That would be simpler (i.e. not having to do their own homework) and would only require a trip to the recruiter's office.
Well your observation has a few points to it. Gun violence is majorly blown out of proportion with misrepresented numbers being spouted by the anti gun people. Firearm homocides account for less than 10,000 deaths a year, of those about 1/3 are people killed by police, 1/3 are self defense and of the remaining 3000 or so most are gang related, 100 or so are mass shootings, accidents make up less than 150 deaths a year but most of those are actually mis-categorized suicides as many states do not have suicide as an option for cause of death.
I like guns. I do. But I would never make the trade to be allowed to own one, in exchange for having a police force that has to deal with every citizen they encounter as though they may be armed.
For the last 2 points, it's summed up by saying that people in power will find a way to milk people for more money if left unchecked, and the people who should be holding them accountable aren't going to rally against them due to alignment in tribalistic politics.
[deleted]
The real issue is domestic accidents. The school shootings emerge more from overall lower mental health and gun culture than gun regulation. But domestic accidents generates much more deaths than school shootings.
In reality, violence over all is down and isn’t like it’s portrayed on TV. My entire state of 5.5 million people averages 1 murder every 3-4 days. Suicides however are at about 2 per day.
My entire state of 5.5 million people averages 1 murder every 3-4 days. Suicides however are at about 2 per day.
That almost identical to Canada with a population of 36.29 million people. And that's down. Oh my.
Edit: added million
Canada has a murder rate of 1.68/100,000 which is pretty close to Minnesota (where I live) which has a murder rate of 1.8/100,000. There are regions/provinces in Canada where there are practically no murders, and others with a 4 to 14/100,000 rate.
Yes but those regions basically have no population whatsoever which makes the homicide rate jump so much. Overall the US has an insanely high homicide rate compared to the developed world. It is higher than that of Mozambique, Ruanda or SUDAN!
This. The "big" shootings and the drug trade are a convenient distraction because honestly stricter gun laws may or may not help with that. Yes, if criminals want guns they will get guns.
The actual epidemic that no one cares about is accidental death and random escalation of petty incidents due to gun involvement. Most gun death occurs when the involvement of the gun was incidental or at least not pre-meditated. If the domestic abuser has a gun in the house, he may kill his wife in a fit of rage. But he's not going to go through the hoops of buying a gun IN ORDER TO kill his wife.
The actual epidemic that no one cares about is accidental death and random escalation of petty incidents due to gun involvement. Most gun death occurs when the involvement of the gun was incidental or at least not pre-meditated.
This is not factually accurate.
Per the CDC, there were approximately 36,000 firearm deaths in 2015 (the latest report available). Of those, there were ~22k suicides by firearm, ~13k homicides by firearm, and only 489 were accidental discharge of firearms. Statistically, most gun deaths occur from suicides.
Of the ~13k homicides by firearm, almost 7k were non-Hispanic black males (compared to 3k NH white males and ~1.7k Hispanic males). Statistics show that black males are over twice as likely to die from firearm-related homicides. Many scholars link this wave of black on black crime to generations of poverty.
Sorry, I was mentally including suicide as an "escalation" using a gun.
I'm not sure what relevance the rest of your post has.
If someone was flagged as a domestic abuser they have already lost the right to own a firearm or purchase one.
Unless they're a police officer- a profession that has upwards of a 40% domestic abuser rate.
Even if that were true, and I am inclined to believe the claim, how many of those cases turn into homicide with a firearm? I was unable to find anything with a good 10 min of googling.
It really doesn't matter. Domestic violence charges mean people loose gun rights but I sincerely doubt all of those officers were subject to the same laws. They're usually exempted from a lot of gun laws to gain compliance from police unions.
So what is your proposed solution to this flagrant disregard for justice?
Campaign finance reform. We're never getting the changes we need from our representatives until money is taken out of politics. This isn't one of those simple "let's just pass a law and force police compliance"- that's a symptom of a systemic disease throughput our entire political system.
I'm there with you on that, break out the pitchforks and torches, it's time for a governmental reset.
Huzzah!
How do you apply the "lost the right to own a firearm" when you don't know what firearm that person has? Is the system expecting the guy to willingly bring his guns to the cops or something?
The cops will come and take them if the person is charged with domestic abuse. Yes this does happen and more often than you would think.
Legally, they have to register in most (maybe all, don't care) states. Obviously a criminal won't, but anyone who wants to legally own and carry one will.
Only a few states have any sort of registration.
Well, that's not true but I'm not counting them. I was also primarily referring to handguns, not long guns which there are indeed very few that require that.
Have to be charged first.
So you advocate taking away constitutional rights without any legal basis?
Accidental deaths and random escalation are virtually nonexistant
Lol that's like me saying kitchen knives escalate situations. You don't just go crazy and forget that killing is bad.
All weapons escalate situations. It's pretty hard to kill someone in the heat of the moment with just your hands and no plan.
I'm sure if challenged you can come up with several ways to do it.
suicides too. wonder how many families are in grief after a family member uses a household gun to end their life
Do you think it is lower mental health? I know with some it’s pretty apparent (I know the batman shooter was psychotic for example) but a few recently have seemed to be just young pissed off dudes, IIRC the Portland shooter has a clean bill of mental health. My impression from afar is there needs to be SO much better mental health care regardless, I’m just curious of the true impact on mass shootings
If a young guys reaction to being pissed off is shooting a lot of people that's definitely a mental health issue...
It might be an anger management issue certainly but I don’t know that’s in the same category as being psychotic etc
It's not, but mental health problems come in all shapes and sizes.
Maybe that’s what I’m trying to say then, there never seems to be a discussion around what the persons diagnosis or whatever is just ‘the persons a random lunatic no point discussing it further’ or discussing if it might be specific mental health issues affecting a certain demographic. I think it’s a bit simplistic to attribute it to JUST mental health with no follow up convo basically
I assumed they meant less mental health resources. If a teenager is being bullied and need counselling it can cost a lot of money however, if there is a national health service that provides it for free people are more likely to be able to get the help they need and not resort to drastic actions.
But hopping onto this thread, another thing i dont "get" is medication in the US (or at least, the impression of it). Soccer moms dipping into their supposedly ADD kids' Ritalin stash or something like that, is a meme. Hell, people overdosing on sleeping pills... the strongest stuff i have in the house is like 3 leftover Ibuprofen tabs. Add this on top of the general drug culture.
From the outside, America seems to be addicted to chemical bliss in general.
I guess what im saying is, it would seem to me that an increased focus on mental health would mostly lead to more prescription zombies. Being bullied and getting upset about it isnt a mental health problem, its a social problem. The bullies are the ones who need to be counselled, not the rightfully upset kid.
Medication is cheaper than counselling. Better resources doesn't mean more diagnosis it means more ability to access advice and help for dealing with your situation.
[deleted]
It's an easy example of what pressures a young person might have and might need help for
Nobody who shoots up a school/theatre is mentally healthy. It's not something that a normal, rational thinking person would do. It could be from something pushing them over the edge but not once during a normal day did I ever think "I'm going to bring a gun here and kill as many of my classmates as ppssible."
That’s sort of what I’m getting at though. Plenty of people are depressed etc who don’t necessarily have suicidal or violent thoughts, and there’s a couple of mass shooters who aren’t psychotic etc either, so it’s maybe a bit irritating for people who are in that position to see it always be brought up as a comparison point, like ‘am I the same as this person?’ it worries me a bit as well to see it dismissed to ‘ah it was just a random nutjob’ rather than look at anything else that’s in play as well.
I've gotta respectfully disagree; having been suicidal (and still am chronically depressed), I knew that my state of mind was seriously whacked; I seriously felt that no one, not even my ever-supportive family, loved me, and I legitimately thought that the world and the people in it, even strangers, had something against me personally. I knew that those feelings were whack even as I felt them; they just didn't add up with the my previous years of life experience at all.
Even then, though, even while I felt as if the world was an actually hateful and nasty place and that I was effectively alone, even considering that (in retrospect) my being bullied by one of them was almost certainly a major cause for my depression and suicidality, I never wanted to murder or injure my classmates, not even my bully.
I wanted to punch him in the face, but that's a far, far cry from firing bullets into his body. No one who wants to do that to a mass of children is in their right mind.
The media glorifying mass shootings and turning the shooter into mini celebrities
I don't think anyone who decides to just kill a bunch of innocent people is right in the head, how does one even get into that headspace if they are rational?
The thing is though, I honestly don't find mass shootings to be a good argument for gun control. As they relate to the number of people killed even just by guns, despite the media attention, it's an incredibly small percentage. Not to say they aren't horrible but that combined with other factors makes me think weapon bans are not a good answer.
You also have to take into account the number 1 response is a ban on certain kinds of rifles. That's what people call for. However most mass shootings are not significantly worse because of the use of these rifles. Rifles offer a few key advantages over a pistol, the primary three are range, penetration and capacity. Of those only capacity could be considered beneficial in most mass shootings. Mass shootings are generally perpetrated against unarmored and unarmed civilians in close quarters. A pistol would be just as deadly, with the only caveat being reloading, but capacity is the most easily over come of these advantages offered by a rifle; a few days to a week of practice can make changing magazines a matter of a fraction of a second. Rifles are no more lethal against unarmored targets at close range than a pistol, the diameter for instance of a 556 is literally the same as a 9mm, it moves faster and further though, which at a distance or against armored opponent is a huge advantage, but in a class room, against unarmed victims? Not a hell of a lot of advantage.
I also think our media plays a key role in the uptick of these events. The constant 24 hour barrage after a shooting may not put the idea in someones head but it can motivate them to shoot for infamy. We see copy cats after serial killers or suicides even, receive a lot of coverage. Of those events though mass shootings by far receive the most coverage. We make em famous and a lot of sick people already ready to snap with nothing left to lose might see that infamy and think "there's my consolation prize".
Good comment and well thought out. The only thing id like to point out is the comment about diameter of the projectile. There is 3.5 mm difference in size and the 9mm is twice the weight on average. Both are about equally damaging at close range. Its not gunsplaining or an attempt to correct you necessarily. It just brought up a thought of an anti-gun post i saw with a poster a person had. It was a black circle the size of an orange saying "this is the hole an AR15 makes". I know thats nothing close to what your statement would put in someones mind, but that bad poster example is what gets in the minds of those who dont know. The scary thoughts get passed and the image just snowballs.
Would you say a suicidal person is crazy?
[deleted]
But why would them being able to end their life because of a terminal illness so different from them shooting themselves on the head just because they are miserable?
I just believe that suicidal people need help, and if they are able to revert their situation, great. But I wouldn't consider them crazy.
[deleted]
I don't believe they are thinking rationally. But I also believe that when you have moments of rage like rage driving you don't become mentally ill or crazy because of it.
I’m not saying anything about gun control either. But it always seems to be the same conversation with regards to mental health each time
Do you think the Vegas shooter could have inflicted nearly as much damage with a pistol?
Vegas is an obvious exception. I actually meant to point that one out. However he also had fully automatic weapons which are already incredibly hard to obtain. He also breaks the mass shooter mold in age group, and by targeting an outdoor activity.
The Vegas shooter did not have fully automatic weapons. He had semi-automatic weapons with bump stocks on them. Bump stocks allow you to more easily bump fire a rifle. Bump firing is a technique of firing semi-automatic guns at close to fully automatic rates by using the gun's recoil to repeatedly flop the trigger back against your trigger finger to fire the next round. Here is an example of bump firing a rifle without a bump stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64
I know what all those things are I think bump stocks should be regulated at least. Bump fire without the stock, by using your belt loop and what not, is incredibly inaccurate and ineffective. With a stock you can at least maintain some level of control and accuracy (though still greatly reduced) and it is in essence a means to evade the spirit of laws restricting fully automatic weapons, so sure regulate them the same. Also bump firing from the hip is really dumb, so if anyone is thinking of trying it at a range for fun, don't. Apologies, I hadn't read anything since the immediate aftermath which indicated he had either legally obtained automatic weapons or modified semi-auto weapons to be automatic. I can see now that this is still how it is printed in the LA times and such but a full list of weapons shows no automatic weapons nor specifies any internally modified to fire in true full auto, just semi's with bumps like you said.
Well the good news for you is that bump stocks are about to get hit with the ban hammer. Everyone will have to turn them in or destroy them. The end of the ATF comment period for the tweak in what they interpret as "automatic fire" ends this month. The enforcement around that interpretation will probably go into effect within the next 6 months. One of the main companies that makes bump fire stocks closed its doors this month in anticipation of the ban.
Personally, I disagree with them being regulated. I also think the entire NFA should be thrown into the dustbin of history as well. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I really hate the NFA too. I feel it would be a good idea to have an "NFA license" you could get to allow you to buy whatever NFA item you want plus new machine guns just as you would a regular gun.
That would make it too easy. The whole point of the NFA was to make it virtually impossible to own NFA items. $200 in the 1930s put NFA items out of reach of most common folk. It was also a way to be able to charge serious felonies against gangsters who were caught with unregistered Thompsons. Possession of an unregistered NFA item is 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The NFA was created as an attempt to deal with the crime that was created by Prohibition.
I'd prefer a revision with universal requirements for civilian ownership that don't boil down to "pay an extra tax to own an out dated firearm at exorbitant costs because we can never make em that old ever again!". That said I don't think circumventing the law knowingly is the right thing to do either, especially as a business.
NFA items are already subject to universal background checks in addition to the $200 tax. The Obama administration changed the regulations around NFA trusts where every single person in the trust now has to go through the same background checks that an individual person buying an NFA item must go through. These include fingerprint and headshot photo submissions in addition to various other deeper background checks. It takes months for the checks to be run and to get the paperwork back.
As far as machine guns go, the NFA is not the thing preventing us from owning newly produced machine guns. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986 closed the NFA registry for new machine guns.
The thing I take issue with the most around the bump stock ban is that it is not being handled with new legislation. They are merely changing their interpretation of what it means to fire a gun in a fully automatic fashion. That, in my opinion, is a really dangerous thing to mess with because it has all sorts of possible unintended consequences.
Yes, I think it is possible. The most lethal school shooting in US history (Virginia Tech) was committed with a 9MM Glock 19 and a .22LR Walther P22. 33 people died and 23 people were injured.
The Vegas shooter used 23 rifles and 1 pistol to kill 59 people and injure 422 people (there were more injuries caused by the chaos). All in all, I would say if the Virginia Tech shooter was armed with 24 pistols he was on pace to kill a lot more than the 59 people who the Vegas shooter killed. The Virginia Tech shooter probably wouldn't have injured as many people though.
The interesting thing about the Vegas shooter is that using the bump firing technique to spray bullets at the crowd probably made him less effective at actually killing people. Had he been more deliberate with his fire he probably would have killed a lot more people.
Jeez, this is a morbid topic.
Yes, he could have. Not in that situation and at that range, but the third deadliest shooting of all time at Virginia Tech was committed with common handguns using standard capacity magazines. Those same handguns could be fitted with 100 round drum magazines that you can buy on ebay for $50.
If you've ever tried to use a $50 tiddy mag from eBay you'd know you make it about 4 rounds in before I malfunctions. 33 round stick mags would be a more lethal middle ground, at least for the 9mm.
Rifles are no more lethal against unarmored targets at close range than a pistol
Yes, they are. A 5.56 has over 3x the energy of a 9mm.
the diameter for instance of a 556 is literally the same as a 9mm
No, it's not. Did you read what you typed, at all?
Also, rifles are a lot easier to handle/be accurate with.
Of no consequence against an armed person in close quarters. Also .556 and 9mm were specified as a bullet comparison, not a specific power comparison which can vary greatly in and of themselves, but most importantly is entirely irrelevant to their lethality in a closed space against unarmored targets. You'd never know the difference between em if it penetrates your heart or brain.
I stand corrected, the casing is the same diameter on the shell, the diameter of a .556 is actually smaller than a 9mm bullet wise
Rifles are much better at range, they are no easier to handle (and much harder to conceal) and the accuracy difference in an enclosed environment is negligible. I was in the military for 6 years and have shot everything from a .22 to full auto .50cal machine guns to a literal howitzer.
BTW it's 5.56mm or 0.223 calibre bullet, not 0.556
Well sociopaths are good at hiding the crazy so.
Trust me I'm all for people owning guns but I do think it should be a little more strict.
Problem is theres so many guns already in the US both legal and illegal ones so even if we were to make them much harder to get legally we cant stop some dude driving to a shady part of town and buying a gun off someone.
At this point it probably wouldnt help too much with stopping shootings and stuff. It's a real epidemic but I believe a lot of it comes down to mental health. No sane person can just walk anywhere and start shooting random people.
I haven’t said anything about gun control, on purpose, I was talking about how the MH conversation is framed. But like are there any plans to make MH care more accessible or is that it
No clue. As far as I know not much you can do besides going to a psych on your own time.
No that's just adding to it. The bottom line is that an average person is not suited to own an assault riffle.
Nor are they suited to make their opinions public. Will you trade these rights?
An opinion doesn't kill someone if handed without caution or with malful intent. And everyone is suited to make their opinion public. But most won't give a damn.
I'm not saying to forbid weapons. But make a training mandatory - couple of saturdays or something. Handling/safety/else. Have an exam. Have a background check so people with a criminal record/reported mental health problems can't have one. 90 something % of people who shoot their guns recreationally won't have any problems to continue doing so.
Point one is completely wrong, voiced opinion have killed more people than guns a thousand fold over.
I agree, marksmenship should be a required class in middle school again like it was up till the mid 80's. My high school had a 100yd shooting range but didn't use it because of the laws changing.
I also believe all forms of internet, access and communications should require a universal ID. To get an ID should require some classes in sociology and law pertaining to things such as theft/pirating, verbal abuse, bullying, threats and the like.
Point one is entirely correct. A voiced opinion has never killed anyone. A raised hand because of said opinion is what kills. And that's an entirely different topic and NOT the same thing. Your missing the causal chain buddy. Whatever I say to you you won't die from it. Of course people have always killed each other with whatever was at hand but a gun is very convenient in that regard. You can keep a distance and barely any force is required. Killing someone with a knife or a club is more personal and labor intensive. Also the chances of someone accidentally getting killed by improper handling or whatever incident is obviously higher with guns in a household than without.
Again - a normal person would not be affected im their right to own and shoot guns with harder regulations. Just those who shouldnt have one anyways by common sense.
Think you missed the point too.
I have dozens of personal firearms and none of them have killed anyone.
Accidental gun deaths are very rare, most of them are suicides but listed as accident. The FBI has come down on several states over this in the last few years.
Common sense is a bullshit way of saying take it all by bits and pieces. No, firearms will be given up in the USA only after all the bullets have been expended on those who decry it for common sense and the children.
Then you are probably someone who wouldn't be effected by harder regulations. Actual rules/laws - obviously common sense is not enough as a base. As rare as incidents are, they happen way more often in your country than in other first world countries with harder gun laws and shootings are also an almost weekly occurance. People and guns are the two factors involved. On what factor would start working to solve that? For me it's the availability of firearms.
No, I have no problems with background checks and clearances, former military, dod clearance for work, twic, global entry & tsa precheck, etc. My fingerprints and just about everything else are all over the government systems.
Accidents with firearms that result in death account for less than 150 deaths per year in the USA.
Hmm, target the cause of most of the gun related violence, restructure how school funding is done so inner city children actually get an education. Gangs, recatagorize them as domestic terrorists and execute them. Legalize all drugs and prostitution and put it on a tax system like alcohol to defund the gangs that persist. Scrap all current forms of Healthcare and go single payer and include mental health and some forum of mental health evaluation for every child around 3rd to 5th grade. Firearms are not as easy to get as most people seem to think, you must pass a background check that will flag you for all kinds of stuff even as minor as unpaid speeding tickets.
There were 17,250 homicides in the USA in 2017, about 10000 of them were with firearms, of those about 6000 were considered justified either as police shoots or self defense.
[deleted]
Not really - it would likely lead to a Civil War. Not a hyperbole, a literal second Civil War, with millions of dead people. This might just be in the spirit of this thread - other cultures can't wrap their minds around how ingrained in the fabric of our lives the right to own guns is. It would likely be easier to remove a typical European Right to Healthcare than it would be to remove an American Right to Bear Arms, as maybe a poor comparison?
You'd have to change the culture to get to European style gun control laws, and that's a much harder row to hoe.
[deleted]
Is it fucked up, or is it realistic? Look at the terrible atrocities that human beings are capable of, both in the past as well as currently. If the right to own a firearm is rescinded, how do you propose people defend themselves? What is to stop the government from over stepping due to the fact that they know firearms are inaccessible to the general public? Do I think the average civilian should own and operate a light machine gun? No. I do however believe that the right to own a firearm is an integral part of what secures our freedom as American people.
What is to stop the government from over stepping due to the fact that they know firearms are inaccessible to the general public?
The federal government oversteps its bounds a lot though. Are there examples of private gun ownership preventing this?
Have you ever heard of the American Revolutionary War?
Sure, but in that case the colonists were revolting against a government that was an ocean away. Also virtually all the major battles were won by the Continental Army, which was heavily supplied and trained by France. Aid from France, not private gun ownership, was the most significant factor in defeating the British. Without France the revolution would have been a non-starter.
Thanks for the knowledge. I can admit that my example wasn't the best, but your question, with all due respect, isn't much better. Of course there aren't any examples of the federal government going "Yeah we were totally going to fuck over the American people, but since private citizens have guns we decided not to." The lack of such an action isn't really something that can be simply pointed out in this regard. The fact of the matter is that gun ownership is a fundimental human right in America. One which if it were not in place would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the freedom of the people.
I feel as though banning guns in America would not solve any issues, rather exacerbate them. The way to decrease violence is through education and understanding. The focus should be on treating and recognizing poor mental health, not taking away a fundimental right from law abaiding citizens who have no intention to cause harm to anyone.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Issue: if congress passed laws restricting guns further, the congresspeople who enacted these laws would immediately lose their jobs, be replaced by others who would rescind those laws, and we're back to square 1. Do you know why? because a majority of Americans don't want to lose their guns, and in a democracy we're free to decide to live like that.
[deleted]
No one has proposed any kind of gun confiscation program
Are you joking? What does "assault weapons ban" mean to you?
[deleted]
The reaction might make sense of someone was trying to come and take the gun you already legally have, tbh that is not been seriously proposed.
I think you're mistaken on this. Many lawmakers, public figures and groups have proposed "mandatory buybacks" similar to what Australia did. The NYT recently published an op ed calling for repealing of the second amendment. Look up and down this thread alone at all the people who think that Americans should not be able to own a gun.
The level of "blind refusal" you're seeing is reactionary to the clear implicit and often explicit end-goal of the gun control lobby - to end private firearm ownership. "You give an inch and they take a mile" has been demonstrated over and over again. When banning "assault weapons" fails to stop school shootings, will everyone stop and say "well, we've enacted all the common sense measures, there's nothing more to be done"? Of course not.
No one has proposed any kind of gun confiscation program, they're talking about background checks and safety measures. Congress still won't even consider that.
False. Pretty much all that is being proposed are punative taxes and bans of types of guns
[deleted]
People are not proposing what you say
[deleted]
Here is congress bills
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text
They have nothing to do with what you talk about
[deleted]
ban a type of gun that makes mass murder easier and isn't necessary for personal defense or hunting."
Except these guns are necessary for personal defense, and are commonly used for hunting. Those bills ban several of my normal hunting rifles
Here is one of the models of guns that I use for hunting and that first bill bans
https://www.springfield-armory.com/products/m1a-national-match/
[deleted]
It's pretty much accepted in my circle that those guns aren't necessary for self defense
They really are. There is no alternative method that is remotely reliable
(or even practical: under the pillow? bottom of the purse?)
Appendix carry a glock 17, a glock 20, or ruger alaskan, at least in my case
for hunting (though at least here I see a more reasonable reason for claiming to need these) and that they're just more fun to own and shoot.
Hunting is vital for tens of thousands of americans
Even my friends who are very much against any kind of ban have not yet claimed to need assault rifles for self defense... I realize that's just my circle, but this one is new to me. They're position has been that they want them and the govt shouldn't be able to tell them what kinds of guns to own.
For self defense, you want a gun with 3 points of contact, a decent sight radius, the ability for numerous followup shots, a reasonably powerful round, and a good center of balance. An AR pistol is pretty much the best weapon for meeting all of these characteristics
FYI: even in countries like Australia, who did implement a buyback program, you can have a gun for hunting. I don't know about assault rifles etc, but it is possible to obtain guns for that purpose, they just have strict laws about how those guns are stored and inspected
Australia really has 1 species of animal that weighs over 100 pounds, and it is semi aquatic (a species of crocodile). I have 8 different species of animal that I have shot out of a window of my house that weigh over 100 pounds (mountain goat, bighorn sheep, white tail, mule deer, black bear, mountain lion, feral hog, and elk)
hunting in the US and hunting in Australia is different.
Well, our legal system is pretty much also controlled by money, lobbyist/corporations.
Plenty of the fucked up things going on here are technically illegal (ie: police murdering civilians).
In many cases the legal system is used as a weapon against those it's supposed to serve.
I don't really have faith in legislation being the solution here. At least not alone.
Deport all the gangs, poor and uneducated to the UK.
But that's where we dump our gangs, poor and uneducated. Get your own place. I suggest Canada.
How about Australia, it's already a prison camp full of scum and villainy.
Not really - it would likely lead to a Civil War. Not a hyperbole, a literal second Civil War, with millions of dead people.
No it wouldn't. Gun control is stricter now than it was 100 or even 50 years ago and there's been no civil war.
Even if we were to pretend the federal government wanted to effectively ban private gun ownership, it's not like there's suddenly going to be a total gun ban with cops kicking in doors and having shootouts with gun owners. It would be a process that would happen over years or even decades. Gun laws would gradually get more and more strict. There would be gun buybacks and amnesties granted for people to turn in their guns. A generation down the road Americans would be used to strict gun control laws and the process to own a gun legally would become so arduous that most people wouldn't even bother.
Oh, I understand that the gradual "boiling a frog" process is the only realistic method to enact strict gun control measures. But until the NRA is gone it ain't gonna happen.
It's amazing to me how powerful people think the NRA is. The real reason we aren't like Europe is because of the Second Amendment and the fact that there are a hell of a lot more gun owners in this country than anybody realizes since most gun owners don't like to advertise the fact that they own guns and support gun ownership.
The NRA has less than 10 million members. Meanwhile, it is estimated that there over 400 million privately owned guns in the United States. That should tip you off that there are a lot more gun owners than NRA members.
But the NRA is one of few organizations with the money and influence to advocate for gun owners. The only other real way is voting. The NRA supports all gun owners, not just members.
I think that is hyperbole, and maybe it's the result of over-the-top media stories.
If you want to compare this to a civil war, fine. Let's talk bluntly about the civil war.
I know you didn't mean to compare gun ownership to slavery, but you did. I will not assume that you support slavery, even though the points I make may seem to allude to it. That wouldn't be fair, and I'm not about to prop you up as pro-slavery.
The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment—to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction. The slave-holding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their Constitutional rights.
This is a Wikipedia quote so take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think we can deny that the American Civil War arose because of the threat to the constitutional right to own slaves.
So why will this not happen again?
Well for one, this isn't as much of a geographically divided issue. Slavery was a very geographically divided issue. There were lines drawn in the dirt. At best, some states are more inclined to own guns than others and as a stereotypical example I'll give Texas. Lets say Texas likes it's guns a lot, and says "Screw you D.C., we want our guns. We're seceding." Who makes that decision? Gun manufacturers and retailers make up a small portion of the industry there, and there are going to be a HUGE portion of the Texan economy that prefers not to secede. Especially with these new import tariffs amirite?
Second, we're a much more connected society in recent history. It's easier to go to war against faceless enemies. But we know our neighbors. Who in Texas is going to take up arms against the rest of the U.S. just so that they can own a gun without signing paperwork?
Third, it's not the same level of motivation. The Confederate states' economy relied almost entirely on slavery, and the new president had clear goals to phase it out and abolish it. That's a tough pill to swallow. You either revamp your entire economy on some tall guy's whim, or you stand up and fight to keep it. Guns do not even come close to that level of importance to the economy.
Fourth, it's just control, not a full purge and ban. The government isn't going to knock on your door and request you dump your weapons in a burlap sac slated for recycling into steel for solar panels. It'll be a restriction on what's available to buy, along with background checks and a waiting period before obtaining a license or gun.
It's a divisive issue, but it's not civil war and the abolishment of slavery divisive.
OK, dude
Thing is, the 2nd Amendment precludes a total take-down of guns -- only a limited regulation at best (the limits haven't really been tested). As of a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in DC v Heller that guns used for "traditional lawful purposes" like self-defense can't be prohibited, and that the 2nd Amendment's mention of the militia doesn't limit its application to only militia purposes (despite evidence I've read about that would suggest otherwise, but I'm no Justice). The following McDonald v Chicago extended this to apply against the states.
So, no, you can't really get rid of guns altogether, and you probably can't even regulate them to a particularly significant extent. I'd bet that self-defense and hunting can't be touched. However, limits on things like where you can take guns, whether felons can acquire guns, and so on, are fine.
It's already illegal for a felon to own a gun. You can't legally knowingly let a felon hold a gun.
Yeah that's what I mean; I'm saying those sorts of limits are fine, which is why they still exist rather than having been struck down
Ah, I see. It was confusing because you were talking about potential stuff in the first half of your last paragraph and I assumed in the second half you were saying that those laws could be passed.
I remember an amendment that made the sale of alcohol illegal (18th). I also remember another amendment that repealed it (21st).
It can be done. Just sayin.
Yea, but an amendment is a significantly harder to get done than other bills.
Gun control is hot button shit right now and even less meaningful bills catch heat. Imagine something repealing it amending the second amendment. No way that goes through in America’s current climate
Not going to argue that it wouldn't be difficult, but to be fair I'd imagine that alcohol was considered a hot button issue back in the early 30s
[deleted]
I agree that it will effect the overall sentiment about repealing the amendment. However, the logistical process is the same.
It can be done.
Article V requires an amendment to be ratified by "three-fourths of the several states". That's 38 states. A repeal of the second amendment might be supported in a few coastal states (CA, MA, NY, NJ, ...) but 38 of them? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Repealing an amendment is a huge pain in the ass. It's difficult for a reason. And in this political climate, it wouldn't happen and would create massive problems if anyone tried.
Worrying that your kid will be killed in a school shooting is like worrying what you will do with the lottery money you might win despite not buying a ticket.
Repealing the 2nd amendment on account of school shootings is like invading Iraq because of 9-11.
Saying that no one wants to take away all your guns, just semi-automatic rifles is like saying you don't want to take away all our TV sets, just our color TV sets.
It would also lead to a lot of people not being able to defend themselves and a lot of lives being lost to that. Not to mention part of the 2nd amendment's purpose was to protect against a tyrannical government.
[deleted]
Issue being the amount of guns in the US currently, illegal or otherwise.
If a wide sweeping ban were to come through. A: there would already be a bunch deaths just from refusal to give up guns. Magically thousands of guns would have “gotten lost” overnight. B: any illegally owned gun, or any gun not registered (aka like all of them since their isn’t a national registry) would still be on the street. Now you have people unable to defend themselves, while the criminals have firearms still.
If you don’t think armed homeowners isn’t a deterrent to criminals you don’t spend enough time in ritual America or you haven’t spent any time with people committing robbery’s.
ritual
*rural *
Eh auto correct strikes again.
I was just clarifying for non american maybe unfamiliar with the phrase, rural America.
People in other countries might have reason to trust their police and government though.
Lol.
Why is that funny? Do you have genuine faith in our current administration?
You just pulled a whataboutism.
How about instead of a logical fallacy, you address some of my claims such as lots of lives being lost to that and part of its purpose of protecting against a tyrannical government.
Also, states with laxer concealed carry laws have significant decreases in violent crime.
I live in Poland. Unlike you, we actually overthrew a tyrannical government fairly recently. And we didn't need guns for it.
So because you don't need them other countries won't? That's a fairly flawed and narrowminded thought.
There is a clear precedent in the world of disarming populations and then committing m to as genocides:
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
• In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.
• In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20- million dissidents were rounded up and killed.
• In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.
• In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
• In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.
Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century
Points you still haven't addressed:
Many lives are saved annually by guns
concealed carry leads to much lower crime rates
About the lives being saved, it's not just from other people. Sometimes people need guns to save themselves from wild animals
It most certainly is
I think there's some sort of structure to our answers that's throwing me off so I'm just goijgnto clarify more specifically for anyone else who comes scrolling by.
Wild pigs for example, they will absolutely destroy farm land. A farmer's entire lively hood can be decimated by a small herd of them. They breed fast and they can be incredibly aggressive. They will not hesitate to murder you and a single shot will most likely not take them down so you need a powerful rifle thatbcsn shoot fast enough to bring it down.
[deleted]
So that's 7 countries. I give you: All 28 countries in the EU have gun control, including modern Germany. Millions of people are happy and safe.
Still not addressing the precedent I mentioned above.
Evidence clearly points towards gun control being good for you.
Prove it.
So that's 7 countries. I give you: All 28 countries in the EU have gun control, including modern Germany. Millions of people are happy and safe.
Evidence clearly points towards gun control being good for you.
And I repeat: half of Europe overthrew a tyrannical government. Without the need for guns.
Which event specifically? And this does not mean that you don't need them, it only proves it can be done without them. It would be a hell of a lot easier with them
[deleted]
Oh, i am. i am giving you 28 precedents that contradict yours.
Dude, I'm saying it can happen both ways. I'd rather have a gun to protect myself.
If the price for that would be fearing for my child's life every time they go to school, I certainly prefer the harder way.
And here you're committing a false dichotomy by pretending either we have guns and fear for our kids lives or ban them.
In every one of these school shootings there were warning signs and things that could have been done besides banning guns and existing laws that were not currently followed.
[deleted]
There's a proven, strong correlation between easy access to guns and gun violence. I've already linked it int his thread. it's not false dichotomy, when it's true.
You're still missing what I'm saying. Higher gun control leads to higher violent crime. I'm not only talking about gun violence. Look at the bigger picture.
Do you know why you were taught to look both ways before stepping onto a road? because there are warning signs that a car is approaching. But we don't get rid of red lights and zebra crossings, relying instead on everyone looking out for these warning signs when they decide to cross the road.
I legitametly don't understand what you're trying to convey here. Do you think I wanna remove all gun control measures and rely on people to report suspicious behaviors? Honest question.
You're still missing what I'm saying. Higher gun control leads to higher violent crime. I'm not only talking about gun violence. Look at the bigger picture.
Did you read the paper I linked? That's not the case.
I legitametly don't understand what you're trying to convey here. Do you think I wanna remove all gun control measures and rely on people to report suspicious behaviors? Honest question.
What do you think I mean when i say "gun control"? I don't mean "complete ban on all firearms". I mean laws regulating who gets a gun and under what circumstances that gun can be loaded and fired.
Still haven't linked it.
And we already have laws regulating where they can be fired and who gets them. My problem is we aren't following the ones we have in place very well and until we do that, i don't wanna talk about other gun control measures.
Search Velvet Revolution. Communist regime overthrown without single dead person.
And they got pretty damn lucky. If that had gotten violent from thegovernment, it would have gone a very different way.
And ordinary people wielding guns would surely help...
I think they would too! Glad we agree :)
Just tell me, how would you expect civilians to hold their own against army?
By having way, way more people with guns than the military do. This alone probably provides enough incentive for the military not to turn on its citizens.
Also, shooting at them seems like a pretty solid tactic.
The massive problem with this entire argument is that it is insane to think that a few guns could stand up to an army coming to commit genocide. You seriously think gun control not being established would have stopped the Holocaust? That cannot be backed up by fact or common sense. You are creating a false argument.
I'm a gun owner myself and I cannot stand to see these types of arguments laid out because they ignore so much. They create the nonsensical argument that crazy governments and atrocities would have been magically stopped if some people had their hunting rifles against an army who wants to kill them. The Nazis, for example, had tanks, actual military training, and an air force perfectly willingly to drop bombs.
It also ignores dozens of nations with gun control and completely peaceful governments, which makes the argument completely void.
And in a modern and real world scenario, my 45 wouldn't stand a chance against a drone strike, would it?
I don't know for sure if it would stop it, but conversely you don't know it wouldn't. I would at least like to try to save myself from a situation like that.
And you cannot deny the precedent of disarming populations and then killing mass numbers of them.
What army would sanely turn on 300ish million people with 300 million guns? They probably wouldn't, and that's part of it.
And the drone argument just makes me laugh. They are for precision strikes, not mass killings. Also, the US is huge and would make them much less practical here.
I don't know for sure if it would stop it, but conversely you don't know it wouldn't.
...Yes. We do know that it wouldn't. The Nazis, the Chinese, the Russians, ect, didn't meet people in open fields. They attacked, stormed, came at night, took people off guard, took away economic abilities, turned the remaining populous against the ones they had targeted, had training, ect.
I would at least like to try to save myself from a situation like that.
There are plenty of decent reasons to own a gun, but the idea that gun owners would be able to save themselves against a modern army isn't logical.
What army would sanely turn on 300ish million people with 300 million guns? They probably wouldn't, and that's part of it.
If we still met in an open field and took turns taking shots at each other, sure. But that isn't how wars are fought anymore. America pours more money into military technology than anyone else in the world. If it really came down to us vs them, that scenario ends with a clear victory for them. Probably with very little effort.
And the drone argument just makes me laugh. They are for precision strikes, not mass killings.
Me and my 45 (which was the example) is not a mass killing.
A lot of gun owners seem to think that guns are the answers to everything. They aren't. There a peaceful countries all over the world that have strong gun control laws and no one is being rounded up. It's a fear based argument that relies on an average person being able to take on a trained army and walk away the victor.
So the government is just going to storm every house in one night and we will never get the chance for retaliation? Is that really what you are implying?
[deleted]
My point is that won't happen in the US. Too big (both size and in population) for that to happen.
I'm not quite sure where you got that at all, honestly. What I'm saying is that the reality is the situation is not that an average person with a gun is going to fight off an army and government set on destroying them.
What I am implying is that you are ignoring the reality of how all of the situations you listed actually happened and putting the blame on lack of guns- which is dishonest to do.
With a number of people that massive, I doubt the army would try to do that.
I am not ignoring how it happened, I am simply pointing out a trend in the last 100 years.
And in a modern and real world scenario, my 45 wouldn't stand a chance against a drone strike, would it?
No, but there are three things:
A bunch of illiterate goatherds with small arms and improvised explosives have fought the might of the US armed forces to a standstill for the last 15 years in Afghanistan; see also: Iraq and Vietnam.
At best, the US "won" in the sense that they succeeded in turning these countries into shitholes at a cost of trillions of dollars to US taxpayers. That's arguably sustainable when the economy paying for it is safely thousands of miles away, not so much when it has to operate with fragile infrastructure under attack from insurgents.
Turning your own country into a shithole is a bad strategy. An actual insurrection within the borders of the United States would, most likely, be more analogous to the Troubles in Northern Ireland than an overseas war. The government would have to live with the political consequences of drone strikes on their own citizens. One wedding in Kandahar gets hit and nobody cares. One wedding in Kansas gets hit and that's going to sour public opinion.
[deleted]
It does not address the need for protecting against a tyrannical government in the slightest. As a matter of fact, there is a clear precedent for disarming populations and then committing genocides against them.
[deleted]
You need to look at it in a bigger scope than just "mass shootings". They do good in many other ways. I also have a big problem with current laws not being followed that could help prevent shootings like this. I very much want to see the laws we have in place enforced and it frustrates me to no end I don't see that.
If you mistrust your government so much why the hell do you vote them in?
I'm not mistrustful of politicians, but the government as a whole. I believe they are inefficient and bureaucratic as hell. I do want the smallest possible government that keeps its nose out of my business as much as possible.
He did address them though. He stated that your concerns are not valid to due evidence seen in other developed nations.
He said your concerns are invalid and gave a reason as to why.
No he didn't. Those countries tend to have higher violent crime rates than ones with more lax gun laws.
This is a bullshit argument.
You can easily find this on the web and I highly recommend looking up The Office of National Statistics -
United Kingdom:
“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)
United States:
“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)
Like most of Europe, the UK classes a lot of things as Violent crime -
The United Kingdom includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, as violent crime
Violent crime looks higher in Europe because by American standards we over report it. In reality it's harder to say which country is safer as the reporting doesn't paint a clear picture, but I can anecdotally say the UK is incredibly safe.
Source for ONS -
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017
Those countries tend to have higher violent crime rates than ones with more lax gun laws.
That is a 'whataboutism' as you put it. Let me break this down for you....
your original claim - self defense and check on tyranny.
his response- other developed nations don't have those issues.
your response- 'wellwhatabout' conceal carry crime/violent crime rates?
edit- formatting
No, his claim was they manage without needing guns, not that they couldn't have tyrranical governments or they don't need to protect themselves.
The 2nd amendment for the purpose of quelling tyrany , only works if you have similar firepower to said tyrannical government, they have the a10, you have an ar15, you won't be doing any fighting
If you can find that written in the wnd amendment I'll adjust to your definition. Until then, it has nothing to do with it.
Not to mention the US population outnumbers military members about 162:1.
When the 2nd amendment was written the army was using muskets, and the best gun you could buy was a musket, whereas now, if the government turned against the US people, the population outnumbering them wouldn't matter because none of those people would have the ability to perform airstrikes
You can't control a population from the air, you 100% need regular boots on the ground. And even then, how has every U.S. war since-and-including Vietnam worked out?
Point being, just because the general populace can't dronestrike at whim doesn't mean that the general populace is doomed.
I don't think a government that airstrikes it's own cities is going to have much public support. Also each State in the US has it's own mini-army controlled by the Governors you would need to get each State's National Guard to turn against it's citizens as well as the regular armed forces. Many of those weapons are also supported by and stored in civilian areas. A major uprising in the US could be pretty effective if they were smart about their targets. But people hoping to take down the government with their guns are literally asking for what would may as well be an apocalypse for the US, but it certainly wouldn't be impossible.
Air strikes only do so much, you still need soldiers. They are good for precision, not mass killings.
And using that logic for the 2nd amendment is weak, since that applies to the rest of the first 10 amendments. Don't think you want your freedom of speech revoked because you couldn't spread news or media back then the way you can now.
Yes, because America's war against a bunch of rice farmers with AK47's and SKS's in mud huts and caves went so well.
I hate that you bring up mental health when the issue isn't debated for any other reason. Gun violence is just that, gun violence. It's not weirdos or crazy people. They are people just like you with access to guns and a reason to do it.
Even if there were zero accidental, suicidal or domestic violence gun deaths, we should still push for gun control to stop mass shootings and other violent crimes' prevelance.
Because we've tried "more gun control" multiple times, and it hasn't helped. We also have more violent crime than other countries when gun crime is excluded, and other countries with similar access to guns don't have the same problems, so there's clearly a root cause that's deeper than just "having more guns".
Confiscate them. All of them. Don't just make laws that make it a mild annoyance to get em.
So who gets to do that job? And how is it implemented? Do they just ransack every single building in the country looking for metal objects?
There's all that, and then the whole Civil War that would erupt...
So I say - good luck with all that!
You make a law saying everyone must give in an X gun if they have one, and after one year you put in extremely heavy fines and punishments. Expand the police force. Over a decade or so the number of guns will heavily decrease.
In addition, if it works anywhere near where it does in sane countries, any time someone buys a gun, it should go on a list of gun owners. Look at that list, or the list of gun license holders, and take the guns away.
There isn't a list of who owns the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of guns that already exist in the US.
Most of the people who own guns would not turn them in regardless of any toothless threat made against them.
If actual confiscation was the law, there would be such a backlash that there would be an armed revolt, likely resulting in a civil war.
This isn't like taking away someone's knife - guns are a guaranteed inalienable right specifically outlined in our constitution. That would have to be the first thing to change, at least procedurally, in order to do the things you suggested.
Even most anti-gun people don't call for confiscation because they believe there is a fundamental right to self-defense as well as a need to keep the "people" armed to prevent an invasion - foreign or domestic.
I doubt you're from the US. You definitely sound like someone who doesn't understand the scope of what you're proposing. You'd need to change the constitution without voters' consent. If that isn't an act of war, then I don't know what one is. This would cause an immediate, and brutal, outburst of violence leading to an eventual civil war. Not to mention that military and police members pledge an oath to uphold the constitution and would not follow any orders to take away peoples' rights by force.
You must be used to a government who has the power to institute sweeping laws that take away rights from people. That's the only way any of your proposal could sound realistic to you.
Maybe what you really need is a history book and an open mind.
Confiscate what? Sorry, I lost them all in a boating accident.
At the end of the day, firearm confiscation works by the government basically saying, "Give up your guns, or we will kill you."
Yeah, there's things like fines and penalties in the middle, but you say, "Give me your gun," and I say, "No," when all is said and done someone still has to come forcibly take it from me.
In America, that would mean a lot of dead police/military and civilians, and a huge erosion of other rights and government/citizen relations in the process.
No, you don't need to do that. You just fine people heavily and take the money from their bank account. You can't avoid the state in the age of technology. People won't choose guns in the face of bankruptcy.
What if they then refuse still to give them up, or claim their destruction/loss or legal undocumented sale?
There are legal undocumented sales??? What's wrong with your gun control
Why should I not be allowed to sell my private property to another person I reasonably believe to be able to purchase, own, and use said property, without being forced to involve the government?
I can sell him my car without having to involve the government, why not my .38?
And you still didn't answer my question.
In most countries you can't sell your car either without notifying the government. And why should you not? Because guns aren't regular property. By the same logic, "If I can sell a sandwich, why can't I sell my prescribed drugs"?
And as for how it would be done, super heavy fines and forced confiscation. Sure, you could hide a gun and claim it, but you wouldn't be able to take it outside, wouldn't be able to buy ammo, it'd just sit there and do nothing. Over a long period of time guns and ammo would be taken out of circulation without new supply.
You just need to have punishments heavy enough.
In most countries you can't sell your car either without notifying the government. And why should you not?
Because that's ridiculous. What business is out of the government's what I do with regards to the ownership of a vehicle that belongs to me?
Because guns aren't regular property.
Why not?
"If I can sell a sandwich, why can't I sell my prescribed drugs"?
Narcotics are not constitutionally guaranteed.
forced confiscation
So..physically forcing the relinquishment of firearms as an end state.
Now we're back to my original assertion.
The constitution was written in the 18th century, before guns were anything like today. No other country sticks to its constitution as tightly as the US, and for a good reason - the world changes.
And if that really is the case, and I don't think it is as you can bankrupt people through their bank accounts, then the US is screwed when it comes to guns. Just another item in the big list of American mess.
Almost as if America is a unique situation when it comes to many things, gun control included.
When compared to other western countries? Yes, it is. It suffers from a lot of unique problems caused almost alone by the toxic ideology that is extreme liberalism.
I was going more to go with its unique history, as well as its widely diverse population and their respective histories.
Great idea! Unfortunately, there's this little called a constitution that restricts the government from doing that.
That's why you change it, and not listen to a piece of paper written when guns could shoot a bullet at a turtle's pace.
Gun control is not likely to be very effective when implemented retroactively. The guns are already out there; career criminals aren't just going to hand them in.
This I agree with. Gun control is good, but the countries where it's famously strict (like the UK) implemented it so long ago that there just wasn't the penetration of firearms into the general public like there are in the US. If every honest gun owner handed them in the US, all that would happen was that the criminals would now (basically all) be armed and the people following the letter of the law wouldn't be. In that instance you can see why they don't want to give up their weapons.
Countries like the UK saw no benefit from gun control. They only saw the natural degridation of crime over time, and misleadingly attributed it to gun control.
Exactly. There is no way to get from here to there. Any gun control law that doesn't specifically target criminals will simply shift the balance of power TOWARD those who choose not to obey.
The problem is you're looking at shootings themselves and not violent crime as a whole. For example, shootings decreased after the Australian mandatory buyback program. Sounds good, right? Nope. Violent crime stayed the same even after this. This suggests that people just use another method to commit crime, because they're evil people and laws aren't going to stop them from doing evil things. If violent crime dropped, and you could prove that it was due to tighter gun laws, it'd be a different story. Violent crime didn't drop.
Right, but if some kid decides to take a knife into school and go on a rampage, he's going to struggle to do anything like the damage someone with an automatic weapon could.
[deleted]
33 Dead, 130 Injured in China Knife-Wielding Spree
This was an attack perpetrated by a group of 5 organized people. Imagine what 5 people could have done if they had access to firearms like in America. Hundreds would have died. The incident you mentioned isn't at all an indictment of gun control. Quite the opposite.
They are accessible though.
And sure there are going to be outliers to anything, like there's going to be the gun nut who fired into a crowd and somehow hit nobody, just as there's going to be a guy with a knife who managed to kill over a thirty people and injure 130 more.
But I'm talking on average here.
They are accessible though.
Not really. The absolute cheapest were ~$5k last I looked (and it's been a few years), you need to pass a non-automated FBI background check, and pay a $200 tax on top of all of that to buy one.
Put it this way: there have been 2 (IIRC) legally owned machine guns used in a crime since 1934 (so closing in on 100 years) and at least one of them was a cop who snagged it out of the department armory.
Semiautos are similar to autos in terms of damage they can cause.
Actually true, which just proves how stupid the bans on full auto are.
I think it shows how stupid it is semiautos are accessible
If I have my old Mauser with a simple scope, and you have a milspec assault rifle with all the fancy extra bits.
Which one of us do you think would be able to kill more people?
Look up something called the Mad Minute and see how fast you can shoot a bolt action rifle. The British army was so good at it that during WWI the Germans thought they were walking into machine gun fire. Would you support banning WWI era rifles?
No because those aren't black and don't scare me.
So ban all single stack pistols?
I don't have a problem with that
How about a bomb or a molotov? no one is limiting attackers to a knife
Or a truck. Lord knows we have a lot of trucks over here.
I already linked to a per showing the role of gun ownership on homicides in total. Check the thread, please.
I can't find it if you don't mind linking it.
Other countries like the UK and Austrailia did a gun confiscation, something that will never happen in the US. Or at least they can try, it's not going to happen. To repeal the 2nd it's going to be very hard, something like 2/3rds of the states must vote for it and a bunch of other things must happen for it to go away. Statistically shootings are down right now, just that the media promotes the shit out of the bigger shootings to push their agenda.
2/3rds of representatives and senators must ratify it as well as 3/4 of all state legislators
NZ has similar access to guns as America. Yet NZ has a lower gun crime rate compared to Australia.
The reason?
The US has a fucked up mentality. I dont see violent riots in Australia, or New Zealand. I do see a huge political divide in America. I do see gang wars. And I do see the media giving the attention that these shooters so desperately want.
Media glorifies violence here, kill a few people and you get to be on TV for weeks to months.
Gangs, poverty and low education are a major problem in many cities in the USA. If you were to ignore Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and DC we would see a ~80% drop in firearm murders.
In the US if you're white and middle-class or above and don't use a gun to commit suicide, your risk of being the victim of gun violence is extraordinarily low. You're also more likely to own a gun than any other race/income demographic. Legally own a gun, at least.
Our gun violence is highly concentrated in the lower class, and even more heavily concentrated in the black community within that demographic.
I think that ties into what I said about gangs. Low income, and significantly black orientated.
And the sad thing is, the actual anti-gun people in the USA don't realize this and continue to push for the ol 'take away people's guns' strategy.
Worse, this actually furthers the insanity because the pro-gun people see the anti-gunners act like that, and go into that blank "SELF-PRESERVATION ABOVE ALL ELSE" state of mind and proceed to fight tooth and nail against any gun control no matter how small and no matter how much they personally think it is a good idea, because they see any step towards gun control as a step towards their eradication.
Though, I suppose this is yet another case of the USA's insane political division and lack of middle grounds.
New Zealand has a population around the same as a single mid-table US state. Culture and policy don't scale up easily when you have a culturally and geographically disparate nation with lots and lots of people.
NZ has similar access to guns as America
What are the NZ gun laws?
I'm Norwegian and we have access to a fair bit of firearms, but the amount of firearms a person can own is restricted and getting the permits is a fucking hassle.
Also don't you guys have to keep the ammo locked up in a safe that's separate from the weapons storage too? With a maximum of 200 rounds or something?
Could have sworn there was a nordic country like that
Not us no.
We have to keep the firearm, or an essential part of the firearm, locked up in a weapons storage safe.
The ammo must be kept separate from the firearm (unless you have a large enough weapons storage safe, in which case you can keep 2000 rounds in it with the weapons), and it has to be locked down, but the requirement is just "anything that will lock is fine, a drawer with a lock on it is fine". Hell if you have a bed with a hidden compartment or something that will do. The cops are fairly open minded with it and interpret it loosely.
Our limit for ammunition is 10000 rounds, 150000 if it's .22
If you feel you need more there's a permit for that, but you have to inform the local fire department about where you store the ammunition.
NZ probably also don't have the income inequality the US has
Doesn't that confirm that it isn't the guns fault though?
You do need guns are to have gun violence, but that's sort of the problem: focusing on gun violence over all other types of violence leads to a confirmation bias.
But yes, I was trying to say that income inequality is one of the main, if not the most, prevelent factor in violent societies. NZ doesn't have the income inequality the US does so it's not surprising that they have lower violent crime and homicide rates than the US (guns involved or not).
Yeah I can say as a very left leaning guy who supports gun reforms, the second they start seriously talking about confiscating guns I'm hiding as many as I can.
I lost all mine in a tragic boating accident.
75% of the states actually.
What's the agenda?
Remove guns from the plebes. Don't need to worry about another round of "kill the rich" if the poor are unarmed.
Sorry, you are going to have to elaborate, who are the rich, when did they get killed off in the past?
And why would the mainstream media, which is owned by the rich, advocate for killing the rich?
Surely it would be take away guns from the poor, So that the rich can kill them off and get rid of the lower classes?
Sorry, you are going to have to elaborate, who are the rich, when did they get killed off in the past?
French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Mao's Revolution. Just off the top of my head.
And why would the mainstream media, which is owned by the rich, advocate for killing the rich?
They wouldn't, but that isn't a guaranteed safeguard against it happening anyway.
Okay your comment makes a lot more sense now.
Regardless I dont think the arms that the average American citizen has is going to do much against its military.
Incoming copypasta, but if you ignore the profanity, it does actually answer your postulation relatively well.
Listen you fantastically retarded motherfucker. I'm going to try to explain this so you understand it.
You cannot control an entire country with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.
A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship, whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM to search your house for contraband.
None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.
Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many boots you have on the ground they will always be badly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.
BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.
If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.
Dumb. Fuck.
I mean I see your point, dont necessarily agree with everything you've said.
You are relying on a significantly large enough part of the population to coherently rise up and organise semi coordinated strikes against the governement.
The government that controls the ports, the seas, the internet, the electricity, the roads etc.
Let's provide a scenario, let's say a militia in Georgia has managed to gather together significant enough numbers of armed civilians that they conquer and control a significant part of the state. They are now a significant threat to the military which could justify being blanket carpet bombed. Where do they get food and oil and more ammunition from. They may have some support groups in the neighbouring states, but if the government decided to cut them off, monitoring traffic on and out, your eventually going to starve or lose momentum. Also, unlike in Afghanistan for example, where the Taliban where used to living on their land, didn't have electricity to be cut off, had support lines from neighbouring countries which were not allowed to be attacked by the US. In Georgia, the US would be able to tackle any insurgents in neighbouring states. The US can control the supplies coming into the state, they have near perfect information on where all the buildings, stores, food reserves and ammo dumps in the state are. Unlike Afghanistan where they are relying on satellite imagery and information from locals.
Similarly Afghanistan and Iraq war had a pretty unanimous lack of support from the locals.
In this scenario, how much of the population of Georgia eill be united significantly that enough of them revolt against the government to the extent they stand a significant chance.
And that's Georgia where I imagine a lot of people are quite similar in their cultural and political views.
As a country the states is hugely devided, will everyone band together in such a way that they could wage a coordinated offensive against the government and military, from new York to Houston to Vegas to San fran?
Seems a bit unlikely.
I think your better bet is to use the power of your vote and peacful protrst and striking etc to get the politicians out of the pockets of corporations, vote in people who actually give a fuck about you as citizens. Rather than letting these people run your nation into the ground and be like "oh it's alright guys, we have our guns so we can fight back and wage guerrilla that will most likely destroy whatever remains of your country after its been plundered by big money.
I think your assumption that the majority of the military would be even a little bit okay with the wholesale destruction of a state is laughable. Do you think that service members from Georgia would sit by and ignore the destruction of their friends, their family and their homes? Fuck no. I can think of no faster way to start a true second civil war than ordering the military against domestic insurgents. People care small before they care big. What's more important, the national economy as a whole or putting food on the table? If things ever get the the point where the US military is even considering bombing itself, there will be an exodus of soldiers from any problem region, as well as any moral sympathizers.
Your assumption of necessary mass cooperation from dissenters is also wildly incorrect. In fact, it's a significantly worse idea towards the objective than simply having nothing but small, independent cells. People are much more likely to take offense to their neighbor Bob getting rounded up by the secret police in front of his kids than they are for a huge militia of insurrectionists. Bob was a great guy, he was in the PTA for crying out loud. If they're taking Bob, who else are they gonna take? Maybe Bob was right last month at the BBQ when he said this shit was getting out of control.
I do agree that the power of the polls is more important than the power of bullets to steer the country in the right direction. But if you don't recognize the exceptionally important guarantee against government oppression that is afforded by the second amendment, you need to sit down and reevaluate your knowledge of geopolitical history.
You don't use the weapons against the military. You use (the threat of) them against the politicians.
The examples you gave were violent revolutions though.
hint: these people have no idea what they're talking about.
A guy named Shooter79 is talking about "the media" wanting to "push their agenda" on gun control without a hint of irony.
I interpret it as general defense against civil unrest. Someone should be able to protect their own family.
On the extreme part of the spectrum, I will say having so many weapons in the country would help support an armed resistance of the people. Not saying that’s likely, but it’s absoputely part of the calculus gun rights advocates consider.
The US has the most wealth inequality of any developed nation. The poor are armed and doing nothing about the rich in America, which isn't surprising because it turns out gun ownership has nothing to do with freedom.
My thinking is to get ratings. Gun violence will get ratings. How often do you hear about someone stopping a mass shooting for days on end? You don't. There was a school shooting a couple of months ago where one of the school gaurds stopped the shooting pretty fast, only 1 victim of the shooting. I checked most of the news sites and it didn't even make the front page on the very day it happened on most sites. The latest shooting in Sante Fe Texas didn't make as much news since the shooter used a shotgun and a revolver, something the antigunners are not after.
That's definitely their main motive. That's not really pushing an agenda in the way the other commenter implied
Statistically, gun violence is overall down, but mass shootings are very much up.
That, and very few gun control proponents are seriously suggesting to repeal 2A.
You'd probably have to have a ban of some kind on the sale of new firearms. Gun prices go up, your average gangbanger can't afford one any more. And then over time they get more and more scarce, unstable school shooter types can't afford them, until you catch up with the rest of the world.
Your average gangbanger isn't going into a gun store and buying guns. They get them on the blackmarket (stolen guns).
The black market prices will increase too, it'll just take slightly longer.
You don't have to repeal the 2nd. The courts changed their interpretation of the 2nd more recently that people realized.
You wouldn't need to do agun confiscation. Just pay people to turn in guns to a designated authority where there's a paper trail for it's destruction. And then also give anyone who got that credit a tax credit that year (limit the credit to 1-2 years from creation to prevent trickling in). Coupled with increaesd gun control a lot of people would be willing to get paid to give up their guns.
They tried this before and only wanted to give like $200 for $2000 guns. I'd rather just keep mine.
Coupled with increaesd gun control a lot of people would be willing to get paid to give up their guns.
That only leaves the people who aren't willing to be paid to give up their guns...
Then just fine them until they can't afford not to.
Or when the number is small enough charge them with misdemeanors. Changing the culture will be more difficult and will take decades.
I think you missed his point...
If the law abiding citizens turn in their guns willingly, who do you think aren't going to turn in their guns?
Criminals, a small minority. Who you can then prosecute with the law. But when guns are much more rare, they become much more rare and expensive for criminals to get ahold of. We've seen this in many countries.
The big issue is what you are mentioning: if every normal person gives up their guns and no criminals give up their guns we will have a time when there are a LOT of guns in only criminals' hands.
The counter to this is that at that point a gun will incriminate you immediately making it less likely to be used openly.
So every criminal is being prosecuted by the law right now as we speak? I can walk outside and there's no criminals? They all get caught when they commit a crime? You're assuming criminals are dumb and will just get caught.
And no country has had close to the amount of guns per capita, nor the amount of guns the US has in general. Comparing to other countries that aren't on equal ground when it comes to guns isn't a good comparison.
The only people you would want to take their guns away are criminals. Your proposal does the exact opposite.
The only people you would want to take their guns away are criminals. Your proposal does the exact opposite.
Most mass shootings are perpetrated by non-criminals. So the current method is doing absolutely nothing. Getting rid of most guns would prevent most gun deaths and that is my proposal. Gun crimes would eventually go away as guns become more rare. It's just the transition that's an issue and will always be one.
If they are doing a mass shooting, they are a criminal...
Not previously which means they can still buy and own guns just fine. You knew what I meant.
That has nothing to do with what we were talking about. We said criminals aren't going to turn in their guns. Do you think the guy that thinks it's ok to do a mass shooting is going to turn in his guns when asked?
Except 3D printed guns are already a thing, and as 3D printers reach mass audiences, anyone with internet access in any part of the world will be able to just print a gun. It's really terrifying, but also really interesting.
The courts changed their interpretation of the 2nd more recently that people realized.
Who were "The People" in the 2nd Amendment before Heller?
Militias, as the 2nd amendment stated. Before that re-interpretation you could still own guns. The local, state and federal government just had more leeway in restricting guns and requiring provisions to own.
The Heller decision was really about D.C. wanting to limit handguns and some loaded rifles in their district.
Please take remedial English so you can understand the concept of an explanatory clause. The "militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment puts no restrictions or requirements on the "right to keep and bear arms" clause.
This "collective right" historical revisionism is getting irritating.
Please take remedial history and understand what hundreds to thousands of US judges meant. Or don't because clearly your agenda is showing.
The right is specifically stated 'the right of the people', not 'the right of the militia', but lets pretend it only means militia members.... That means by current law, all able bodied men are covered, even in your interpretation.
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Yet, dozens of countries with strict gun control laws have never had a school shooting,
This is confirmation bias. You are comparing tinier countries with better social safety nets that don't have nearly the issues the Entire United States has. Mind you the US experienced similar rates of decline as Australia despite doing the opposite of what Australia did in the mid 90s. Basically if you think gun control is the solution, you are looking for an easy answer to a complex problem.
1: Hard to give up that which freed us from those you are comparing us to.
2: less shootings doesn't mean less violence.
*fewer
how are all those stabbings working out for london? And rental truck attacks in france?
Mass shootings are nowhere near the majority of gun related deaths. and mass killings have happened all over the globe with or without guns. I would rather have the right for me and other good citizens to defend myself than to have the threat of guns be changed to bombs or trucks.
It's also not necessarily the amount of guns a population holds. Switzerland has a really high guns/capita compared to not-US countries but has really low gun deaths.
The Switzerland comparison drives me nuts. Yeah, they have a ton of guns due primarily to their mandatory military service, but their gun laws are actually very strict. Former military personnel, for instance, aren't allowed to keep ammunition for their service rifles but are expected to report to the nearest armoury in the event of a war. Gun licenses are required to own and use most firearms, handguns are restricted, and concealed carry permits are pretty much only given to undercover law enforcement agents.
Former military personnel, for instance, aren't allowed to keep ammunition for their service rifles
Incorrect. They aren't allowed to use their issued ammunition outside of training, but they can buy all the ammunition they want on the private market. 5.56NATO/.223REM is not an uncommon, expensive, or difficult to find cartridge.
From Wikipedia:
In order to purchase ammunition the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns. The buyer can only buy ammunition for guns that he/she legally owns and must provide the following information to the seller (art. 15, 16 WG/LArm; art. 24 WV/OArm):[2][3]
[...]
weapon acquisition permit not older than 2 years, or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years
Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50-rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government.
In December 2007, the Swiss Federal Councildecided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers would stop and that previously issued ammo would be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.
When their period of service has ended, militia men have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. However, keeping the weapon after end of service requires a weapon acquisition permit (art. 11-15 VPAA/OEPM).[8]
TL;DR: Buying ammunition for their service rifles is subject to the same requirements as owning it. To keep their rifles after completing their service, they are required to have a permit.
Swiss gun owner here.
Buying ammo is not the same as buying guns. The wikipedia article is filled with bad translations and lack of comprehension of our gun laws.
In order to buy ammo you just need to show an ID to prove that you are 18 or older, and a Strafregisterauszug which is a small paper that you can order online to show that you don't have any crime records.
That's it. You can go to a gun shop and literally buy all the ammo they have as long as you can afford it and then keep it at home without any problems.
The WES is more like a registration system than a real permit. A real permit would be the SON which is required for fully automatic weapons.
[deleted]
I can't be arsed to watch some shit-ass YouTube video at work (and those are always such reliable sources anyway), but everything I've read on the topic contradicts your claim.
Read and learn:
In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (art. 8 WG/LArm). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
After they've finished their service, the men can typically buy and keep their service weapons, but they have to get a permit for them.
Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region, known as a canton, though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2/#but-the-swiss-arent-perfect-when-it-comes-to-guns-10
The government issues a gun to men for their mandatory military service, but the gun is taken home under "carefully controlled conditions without ammunition," said Mikton, the WHO officer who is also Swiss.
"As soon as they have finished their military service — typically around 30 years of age — they have to return the gun," he said.
Swiss gun laws are more strict than the post implies, though less tough than some other European Union countries. Swiss law requires mandatory background checks on civilian handgun purchases and licenses for the concealed carry of weapons, and it bans automatic weapons
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/30/viral-image/viral-flawed-post-compares-honduras-switzerland-gu/
All you "but Switzerland" gun nuts are right about one thing, though... America really sould adopt Switzerland's approach to gun ownership.
[deleted]
Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate that.
Seems a lot of sources got Switzerland's gun laws wrong and (especially Wikipedia) would probably benefit from having someone with first-hand experience provide some correction.
No problem.
The issue is that understanding Swiss law takes a bit of practice because it's like connecting dots. Many people when translating our laws won't look into the other laws that are linked and make mistakes.
But honestly, check that video I linked. The guy is legit and explains quite well the process of acquiring guns by showing the documents necessary to own guns.
Yes, but given the sheer amount of guns in circulation and the fact that ammo is a lot easier to peddle then guns (especially nato standard) does indicate that strict laws arent the only contributing factor.
The part I don't understand about gun violence is their insistence that stricter gun control couldn't possibly lead to less shootings.
Because it won't. Criminals, by their nature, will have guns no matter what laws you create. The real problem is gun free zones. They don't work, and in fact have the opposite impact as desired. Basically any gun free zone is just a massive target, because the criminal knows that nobody there will be carrying and be able to stop them.
maybe society is too fucked up at this point in the US. that gun control would not lower the death rates, but i dont believe that.
Look at FACTS, Japan, Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Portugal, New Zealand etc...
All of them has very low gun deaths.
And you think there are no criminals in those countries I mentioned, of course but still way lower gun deaths.
You are completely missing the point. Gun deaths in those countries are low because they simply don't have guns. Which means it's nearly impossible to get a gun even illegally.
To further add to your point, Mexico has extremely strict gun laws, but very high amounts of gun violence.
And Brazil. And Honduras.
Yet Switzerland loves guns and has record low homicides.
What are the total violent crime stats (Japan excluded)?
Even better, let's break down total violent crime by age, gender and race, then compare the US to everyone else (Japan excluded).
Once it's broken down into total violent crime by age, gender, and race (Japan excluded), only one gender/race in a certain age range per capita in the US are outliers compared to other western countries.
As far as Japan, their society is so, so different to western cultures that comparisons are pointless.
If you can cite a scientific, peer reviewed and accepted study that directly shows that a gun ban or confiscation will lower crime and gun violence, let’s have a conversation.
The problem is that doesn’t exist. But there’s a ton of studies that show crime in a given area decreases over time as education, wealth and a 2 parent family are a focus.
You can’t just compare countries, there are way too many factors to take into account. Australia right now is, supposedly, experiencing a serious crime wave. Yet they banned guns? Weird.
[deleted]
1) link
2) do they remove suicide from gun related violence. Because if they don’t, then the numbers are still grossly skewed.
3) and it doesn’t matter if they’re gun related or not. But if there was a gun ban, and violent crime suddenly went up, that’s perfect evidence NOT to enact further gun bans. It’s showing that the criminals you do have are opportunistic and understand that a defenseless population is their ideal target. IIRC, this happened in NZ already and their gun ban was reversed.
[deleted]
So there are some interesting points in this study that are worth noting. It lumps together the Americas, which includes Mexico. We're not talking specifically the USA. I can't really say I have much knowledge of Mexican culture and sadly I can only say I've heard "If you go to mexico, don't leave the resorts, and even then, people are still dragged out and murdered". Not saying true or false. But now that Mexico is lumped in, I can't speak in the facts about the USA anymore. But speaking internationally, having spoken to some international friends, I can say that gun laws in other countries sometimes aren't too insanely different than America. Canada for example, fairly similar gun ownership laws. And an acquaintance from Germany indicated theirs are fairly similar to some of the more strict states of the USA.
And to counter your #3, because this crime wave is actively ongoing, a scientific study won't exist for a few years. We can only look at the recent gun ban and see the current crime wave. But yes, I guess it's possible that maybe Australia also had a massive socioeconomic change right around the time of the gun ban.
I love that Mexico is skewing our gun violence numbers up even though guns have effectively been outlawed there.
Is gun violence an issue in Mexico? I genuinely have no idea about issues in Mexico.
There's a huge problem in Mexico because it's a drug corridor from South America into the US. And guns play a major role in the violence, even though they're effectively outlawed.
So...yes? There is a gun violence problem in Mexico?
Holy shit. I really had no idea. Keeping up with american politics is hard enough, if you're actively trying.
Mexican politics are fun, you should follow them more. Check out this article. Never a dull moment.
Just saw that on the front page. Yea...pass. Hard pass.
It doesn't matter if they're gun related, they are a repercussion of a gun ban. Banning guns tends to lead to higher violent crime rates, and more self defense abilities for guns leads to significant decreases in violent crime.
[deleted]
Here you go. Check out page number 58 on the pdf (68 for the document as a whole. It goes thru multiple points, mainly supported by studies.
Can't access at work, I will get back to you later.
Here's a preview for you... believe or not, the source is less than stellar lmao.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/nonamericans_of_reddit_which_issues_frequently/e0m8em3/
Do you understand what "scientific, peer-reviewed studies" are? This was made by some guy, named Guy Smith, and not published anywhere reputable. No, gunfacts.info is not a reputable, scientifically peer-reviewed journal lmao.
Edit: For example, from this article it states:
Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.^304
This may be true when you look at all countries... But this is cherry picking data and you can't compare developing nations violent crime to DEVELOPED society. The article plainly points out:
The U.S. homicide rate averages approximately nine per 100,000, which is five to nine times the average rate in most Western-style democracies.
and
the level of homicide in the United States stands out in comparison to other rich, democratic countries, but not in comparison to the world as a whole.
So yes. Clearly there are gonna be huge issues in gun violence in Colombia where drugs, corruption, and gangs run rampant, but to say that "oh see! They have gun control measures and look at their violence" is completely disingenuous.
Aside from that, there are glaringly massive problems with the measures of "gun control" in this paper. It even states it itself:
Column (5) of Table 1 provides the sum of each country’s responses to questions about prohibitions of long guns and prohibitions of handguns. As hypothesized, there are certain anomalies: the United States and the United Kingdom receive the same score, for example.
To say that the UK, Canada, and the US all have similar laws and restrictions on their gun prohibitions is LAUGHABLE. It was based on a long gun/handgun allowance. I don't know many people who are committing street-gang violence with long guns. They, again, cherry picked their answers because it happened to fit nicely with what they were looking to prove.
So with that said, the final regression determinations of this paper that figure that drug prohibition is a better indicator than gun restriction is highly questionable. I want to see the same regression performed with ONLY westernized countries compared. Comparing crime rates of Moldova, Cuba and Japan and calling them all even is hilariously bad.
And this was from gleaming ONE article which was stated as a FACT lmao.
I never claimed this was a peer reviewed study. It is simply a collection of studies.
If you actually look in the pdf instead of spending 10 seconds on it you will see next to most of the facts is a footnote (little number that corresponds to something on the bottom of that page), and that is where the peer reviewed studies are you are looking for.
Now go back thru it again and then come back to me once you've addressed all those points.
The poster above you literally asked you:
Prove it. Cite a scientific, peer-reviewed studies for it.
And then you provided the above article.
If you actually read my post you'll see that I dissected the first footnote for point 58 you sent. Come back to me when you've learned to read.
Also:
Now go back thru it again and then come back to me once you've addressed all those points.
Don't try to gish gallop, where you just spout a whole lot of dribble and expect that I'm gonna sit here and pick apart every piece of it. That is what peer-reviewing does and when any article is not published nor peer-reviewed in a reputable place there are GLARING problems with it; hence why it was so easy to pick apart the FIRST article named in that section. I'm not gonna go through the hundreds of "sources" as clearly they are cherry picking their data to fit whatever "FACTS" they want on "gunfacts.info" lmao
I like how you haven't even attempted to address the rebuttal to your terrible article btw lmao
Congratulations! You found one that was a flawed study! (This is me agreeing with you btw)
Here's another couple for you: guns save on average 2.5 million lives per year annually in the USA, and concealed carry has been proven to reduce all violent crime rates.
Also, did not mention this before but I should have: nice strawman by claiming I said this was a peer reviewed study. Don't commit logical fallacies, they only hinder your arguing techniques.
Edit: spellig
guns save on average 2.5 million lives per year annually in the USA, and concealed carry has been proven to reduce all violent crime rates.
Great peer-reviewed, scientific study you've cited here.
nice strawman by claiming I said this was a peer reviewed study. Don't commit logical fallacies, they only hinder your arguing techniques.
If you didn't notice, the original poster asked for PEER REVIEWED STUDY and then you linked this dribble as evidence. What don't you understand about that? How is that a strawman argument. Link a peer-reviewed, published article or don't link anything at all.
Defensive gun uses saving lives, from the journal of criminal law and criminology, which is a peer reviewed journal (per your requirement for me to comment).
Concealed carry decreases murder/manslaughter by 45%, forcible rape by 59%, robbery by 39%, aggravated assault by 52%, and overall violent crime by 49%. And if you look at the bottom of the graph, you'll see the data is sourced by FBI uniform crime statistics.
How is that a strawman argument.
It's a strawman because I never claimed my link to that article to be peer reviewed, I was simply linking it because it's a collection ofsources, most of which are peer reviewed. You are saying I claimed it is peer reviewed, but I did no such thing. That is by definition a strawman (and if it isn't, link to where I say it is peer reviewed).
And lastly:
then you linked this dribble as evidence.
I would hardly call a 128 page pdf with 593 sources a dribble of evidence.
Edit: formatting
I'm pretty sure that there are studies that suggest that increased gun regulation and lower overall accessibility of firearms leads to fewer violent deaths.
Jumping immediately against bans and confiscations is a bit of a red herring.
Cool, link one...
Most of those studies use misleading comparisons, falsely attribute the natural decay of crime over time to gun bans, or leave out critical information.
The rest of them that "prove" what youre saying either outright lie, or use logic in the same vein as using magnets to prove gay people are impossible.
As a non-American, this thread is shit.
Can we get some statistics up in here? Preferably lives saved v lives lost to guns?
I can't get sources on mobile, but from memory:
There are 35,000-ish deaths from guns a year in America.
Of those roughly 2/3rds are suicides.
There are around 1,200 accidental and war related deaths from guns a year (I don't know why these were combined when I last looked it up)
Of the 11,500-ish gun homicides a year,
Around 8,500 are related to criminal gangs and the drug trade. (That's both criminal and law enforcement death)
This leaves around 3,000 non-gang/drug trade homicides per year. (This does include lawful defensive uses by citizens and law enforcement, but I don't know the breakdown)
As for lives saved, the FBI puts defensive gun use at anywhere from 500,000 to 3,000,000 incidents per year (this number is very hard to track).
If we conservatively say that 1 in 50 of these would have resulted in a single death, then there would be from 10,000 to 60,000 lives saved per year. (This is not including anything else these defensive uses would have prevented)
If these figures are correct, then what the fuck is going on in this thread and the website as a whole? It seems to me that there is another side to this gun violence epidemic we hear about a lot on here...
Forgive me if this sounds ignorant - don't mean it to be. Would a lot of those defensive gun uses be a result of someone else having a gun? As in, if nobody had guns, a lot of the defensive gun uses wouldn't be needed?
Or more for being attacked by fists/kicks/other weapons?
It's hard to say. I imagine some of them are, most probably aren't. If I had to make a guess though; I would say most don't involve firing at all, ie: Using the sound of a pumping shotgun to scare off a home intruder, or flashing a pistol at the group of guys approaching you in the empty parking garage.
if nobody had guns, a lot of the defensive gun uses wouldn't be needed?
As for this part; if you could somehow get guns out of the hands of criminals, they would just switch to using knives (or in London's case, acid). So all you've done is make people start carrying knives to defend against knives, or using fists against fists.
The thing about guns is that they are an equalizer. There's an old saying in America "In the beginning, god made man; in 1836, Samuel Colt made them equal." Take a small 120 lbs girl and put her up against a 350 lbs man. No amount of martial arts are going to help her beat him. But put a gun in their hands, and now she stands a chance.
People who want to hurt you will try to hurt you. People who want to rob you will try to rob you. The weak will be week and the strong will take advantage of that. If everyone has a gun, at least the playing field is level. And that is something criminals try to avoid.
Ok cool, thanks for your answer! Interesting points made.
The homicide numbers are nearly split 50/50 for self defense and actual murders when it comes to firearms deaths. Banning ownership of guns would just disarm the good people who follow the laws.
I mean dozens of countries without strict gun controls have also never had school shootings. I think it's more than just guns (although the guns help), it's a part of American culture to shoot up your school.
The conversation itself is usually rather flawed. It's super, super hard to have an honest, objective conversation about guns and gun control. The left doesn't want them at all, the right wants them all, and neither side gives a goddamned about the other.
Honestly? Part of the problem is the European post gun utopia myth. A lot of people on the left cite EU countries and Australia as examples of what could be done to eliminate guns, but it's all subjective observation ("I went to london and didn't see a gun for weeks!"). The reality is there are plenty of guns in Europe, and Oceanic countries.
So the right hears that and thinks it's mass confiscation (which isn't how most EU countries have done things, Germany and Switzerland in particular have lots and lots of guns) and they hate it. The left sees it as examples of this mythical gun free society they want and love it. Neither side uses actual objective data. Neither side looks at the realities of the situations both here and the EU.
So the right hears that and thinks it's mass confiscation (which isn't how most EU countries have done things, Germany and Switzerland in particular have lots and lots of guns) and they hate it.
We are walking towards mass confiscation in Europe though. The EU basically restricts gun ownership every 5 or so years, the last restriction happened just one year ago and now every EU/Schengen member state has to apply the directive.
They use the typical "salami" tactic, since now they are considering basically every semi auto gun to be banned by default and will only be owned with a special permit under very strict regulation. Meaning that most people will not be able to own one even if they already have guns.
Since there's no gun problem in Europe, you can see why these new directives are just a way to further restrict gun ownership until nobody will be able to own a gun.
I doubt Switzerland, and more importantly, Germany would stand for mass confiscation though. Germany has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe, but they have the highest gun ownership rates, and they continue to rise.
Also, with The UK's position in the EU in question, I would imagine the pressure for more gun control lessens, seeing as they are one of the bigger proponents of it.
Right now, I also doubt they will mass confiscate guns. In 10-15 years though? Possibly.
Here in Switzerland, we will have to adopt the new EU gun laws. Each new EU gun revision will have to be followed by Switzerland accepting and enacting it.
I'm going to take a different path then everyone else here. Americans(certain ones) really like guns. We like having the choice to have any type or variety we can get. We like them so much that we have a large lobbying group for just that purpose. And we vote for people that will stop any new legislation that may restrict guns in any way. There are also gun owners(me included) that want to have the best firearm we feel we need for self defense.
When you see mass shootings on TV a gun owner will generally blame the individual. Not that he had a certain gun. Where other parts of the US would see that the person had easy access to that particular firearm and if he didn't then the shooting would not have happened.
Also it's hard to compare gun culture in the US to the rest of the world. Firearms have been a big part of the US since the Revolution. I don't think very many countries or any at all have a liking of firearms that we in the US do.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527
Plenty of countries allow handgun and long gun purchases for recreational shooting and dont have mass shootings.
The problem is that America already has a massive amount of guns. You'd have to get rid of them first before gun control can work. And getting rid of them involves trampling on a lot of civil liberties even unrelated to the 2nd amendment. That's what's so tough about it. That's why Democrats introduce a lot of nonsense legislation to make a dent in that number, which provokes cries from the right that they're trying to take away their guns. And then Democrats accuse the right of turning a blind eye to tragedies. It's an endless cycle that will repeat itself as long as there are more guns than people in America.
Dozens of other countries dont have massacres like the US, the US is special. Australia, where I live has super strict gun laws (I have been waiting 3 months for my licence so far). New Zealand however, has rather lax laws, allowing you to easily get the same guns that you people in the states have.
New Zealand however has a lower gun crime rate that Australia DESPITE having easy access to semi-automatic guns. The same basically can be said with places like Canada and Switzerland.
Everyone can agree on the fact that there is a definite problem with gun homicide in the US, I think it is just because of how your country is. For instance, in Australia we dont see commonplace violent riots like those that seem to be everywhere in the US. We dont have a huge political divide. We dont really have a gang problem.
Also some 3% of gun crimes in Australia are committed with Legal Firearms. The other 97% is done with guns that the government has no idea about. So whats the point of punishing people following the law?!
Sure, I am all for the US implementing a licencing process for guns, that makes a bunch of sense. We have car licencing, why not for guns? But restricting what kind of guns you can get? Nope. Restricting where you can store the guns? Absolutely. If I give anyone who isnt a firearms licence holder access to my safe keys, I lose my licence and guns. Which makes sense! I dont want to have some kid getting access to my guns.
It really does suck for Australians however. I live on a farm and would love to get a semi auto 22lr, or even a semi auto centrefire for pest control. But I cant. I have a friend that grew up in Africa with a little semi-auto 22lr which he loved to death. However he cannot buy one in Australia, as he does not possess the required licensing.
EDIT: Same goes for handguns in Australia. It very pretty hard to get them unless you do competition shooting. I would love to buy a 1911 and M1 Garand just for the history collectible part of it, but I cant get it. The government wont let me. Sure, collectors licences are a thing but require the guns to be permanently deactivated, so whats the point.
Source for NZ vs. AU crime http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/New-Zealand/Crime
We have car licencing, why not for guns?
Short explanation: anti-gun bureaucrats poisoned that well by abusing similar systems at the state level (seriously, look at what it takes to get a CCW in NY or CA). We don't trust them as far as we can throw them so simply refuse to give them the system at all. Can't abuse a system that doesn't exist, after all.
(non-American here) That sounds interesting. Could you give us the full story, the "Long Explanation" if you will?
Basically, in certain states with onerous restrictions (CA, NY, NJ, IL soon to be FL, etc), the state government uses their carry permit system, or their (blatantly unconstitutional) gun purchase permit system to delay for months/ deny permits to people that they don't like. They find some tiny discrepancy to deny the permit, and then poof that person isn't legally allowed to defend themselves with a gun or even own one at all in some cases.
For example: Sally down the corner, who lives in the hood, wants a firearm to protect herself and her kid from the gangbangers in her area. Permit denied. Middle class John Doe wants to get into target practice as a hobby, but for some reason, permit denied. That rich asshole Jimmy a few miles away in gated community, though? All he has to do is have the right connections (like donating to the local sherrif) and of course he gets his permit.
These systems are not based on the due process of law, but rather the will of an individual bureaucrat (normally the local police chief). If that bureaucrat hates black people, no permits for black people. If that bureaucrat hates muslims, anyone arab looking will not get a gun. If that bureaucrat hates guns, only well connected individuals can get the permit. The only way to get around that bureaucrat is to take up the denial of the permit in court, which is prohibitive enough to stop most reasonable people from getting permits to carry in these states already. If you extend this process to obtaining a gun, you will see this on a larger scale
In addition to what the others have posted, I'll add this bit of information. The LA County is home to 10.2 million people and only has 197 conceal carry permits issued. The vast majority of those 197 permits belong to ex-cops and prosecutors.
LA County is a "may issue" county, meaning that they may issue you a permit only if you demonstrate a clear and immediate danger to your life that the police are unable to assist you with. General self defense isn't a good enough reason. Have a stalking ex-boyfriend who has sent you threats and constantly violates his restraining order and the police tell you "it's a civil matter"? Sorry, not good enough. Work the night shift in a really seedy part of town with high crime? Nope. Transport valuable items by yourself and frequently work in the early morning or late night? Nada. None of that is considered a good enough reason to be issued a conceal carry permit. Even people who have been robbed or assaulted before while in these scenarios are denied permits. Ex-cops and prosecutors? They're fine.
I've heard about registering guns in CA, something about fully semi automatic AR-15 ghost gun baby killers, but I am not overly familiar with the situation in other states. If you could fill me in that would be great!
Also, I am not advocating for weapons registration, merely a weapons licence. Something that you have to provide during the process of purchasing a weapon, that says basically 'I have passed a background check already', and ideally 'I have passed a firearms saftey test, so I am not a moron'.
Canada had a weapons registry and it was expensive and useless so they scrapped it! I hope Australia does the same thing.
Question: Do you think a mandatory safety test and secure storage (ie safes) is a good basis for a licence, or even basically just purchasing a firearm?
Basically, NY & CA bureaucrats refuse to approve anyone but the rich/powerful/connected for CCW permits - the poor can just hope the cops respond in time to save them. It's not hard at all to think that if we required ownership to own that the same stuff bullshit would be pulled.
Wow. That seems corrupt as fuck. Weapons licencing here is pretty much always approved unless you have some form of criminal/mental history. And our licencing system is on a state scale, not federal.
I dont even see how wealth comes into it? The only paperwork I provided was drivers licence, proof that I had a place to shoot other than a range and a safety course certificate. I can't see any reason for CCW to be bias based on wealth.
And again as a side note, in Australia everyone has to wait for cops. Self defense is very illegal. If someone breaks into my house and I point a loaded gun at them? I just broke the law. Somehow, the criminal is the victim. Even carrying around a knife in your pocket is illegal af. Pepperspray? Bullet proof vests? BB Guns? Also very illegal.
So when do I have the right to live? Because that is important to me.
Not trying to be argumentative, seriously concerned about when the criminals rights end, and my rights begin. As that sounds like an easy way to get dead...
Exactly, it is honestly pretty frightening knowing that the government wants me to be helpless. Luckily our crime rate is pretty low that it basically never happens, but I would feel a lot safer at night knowing that I can defend myself without going to jail. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Thier reasoning is that there is a Gray area. If I ask someone to leave a party on my property and they refuse, they are technically trespassing. Can I shoot them?
Even in the US, that isn't a gray area. Trespass is trespass. Unless they are an immediate threat, you cannot shoot them. Now, if they are breaking through your window, you don't know what further harm they intend. Most places, you can shoot. In your yard, shaking their ass at you? Not a shootable offense.
At the same time, approaching with a firearm and saying "get the fuck off my property" would not be illegal in most places if that happened
Depends on the context. In many states, and scenarios, that would be considered brandishing. And thus, illegal. In fact, in most cases, you are better off legally if you use the weapon, than simply pull the weapon.
Most states, brandishing can only be in public. You cant brandish a weapon against someone who is trespassing on your property
Wealth comes into it because sheriffs are the ones that issue the permit and its an elected position. Basically you just pay X amount to their re-election fund and you're approved but actually proving that's corruption is very difficult.
commonplace violent riots like those that seem to be everywhere in the US.
56 years, 46 states, urban, rural and suburban I have never once seen a violent protest. I'm not saying they don't happen but to describe them as commonplace is entirely incorrect. You cannot base how we live here by what you see on your news or even our news.
You can find numerous examples of violent riots all accross america, specifically recently. ANTIFA and the whole Neo-Nazi bunch, its a pretty common thing. In Australia it just basically never happens. We have had a couple violent riots in the last decade or so.
Sure but the counter argument (the real one, taking away the bluster and misdirect) is that despite gun laws in many countries being much stricter the violent crime rates over all are similar or have at least continued along the same trends with or without guns. Yes most countries have less shootings per capita with more gun control but not less violent crime over all. Meaning you don't actually change anything except weapon of choice. I do personally believe in a few good laws that are near universal; safe storage requirements and universal licensing prerequisites, rather than "turn 18/21 buy whatever you want!". Also no person to person sale. I do not agree with banning specific weapons. A lot of people even in Europe but in the US on the left particularly are not aware that in say Canada or France or Germany you can own a semi-auto AR-15 style rifle, they are just subject to a lot of rules, varying by country, like specific licensing requirements and I believe France has laws about magazine size and the amount of ammunition you can own. Also most other countries aside from safe storage laws also don't allow a weapon to be carried in public. Some foreign laws I like some I think are just essentially additional taxes that make owning a weapon prohibitively expensive, which since we have weapon ownership as a right in the US we can't make it a luxury item, despite in all reality that being what it is for most Americans. I mean 100% honesty here, no one I know who owns one has ever used an AR, AK or other semi-auto rifle in self defense, they're for target shooting, sport and entertainment, they're really bad for home defense unless you're like under siege shooting out of the house for some reason.
The problem with getting some not at all ridiculous laws passed is that our anti-gun folks are VERY anti-gun and no law gets introduced that focuses on compromises that could actually say keep a gun out of the hands of a child or mentally unstable individual. Additionally because most proposed laws are outright bans the reaction has been to double down by pro-gun folks, now the hardcore gun people are refusing any measure because they see it as an attempt to slowly inch forward with more and more restrictions that antithetical to their way of life.
I don't really think either side is totally wrong or right with this. There are definitely laws that would help, but there are also definitely people that want to end private citizens ability to own weapons, and that's an over reaction. It's a complicated issue, and that's ultimately why it's so divisive.
As someone who leans towards the gun-control side of the ledger... I will say that I've slightly mollified my views. I do think that there is a uniquely cultural problem in America that strict gun control would not solve on its lonesome. We are uniquely angry and fearful, especially in proportion to our relative prosperity. Even if you banned literally all guns and gun owners agreed to that (which... LOL) we'd still be alienated and angry. And criminals who really wanted a gun to commit crimes would find a way. This is a multifaceted crisis that requires a multifaceted answer. We do have to have both serious conversation about mental health and the availability of guns in the USA. When you largely talk about 'better mental health care' as a deflection from the role guns play in gun violence, that solves neither issue.
That said, even as I've come to understand some of the arguments by pro-2A people, the events of the last several years have made me lose even more respect for the gun lobby which I didn't think possible. When experienced gun owners point out how proposed legislation likely misses the mark because of X or Y technical issue; I appreciate that, let's have a conversation about how to address this. When some pro-2A wingnuts talk shit about actual shooting victims or say they were crisis actors, or the NRA hires Oliver North as its spokesperson (a guy who compared gun control advocates to terrorists and also brokered the sale of arms to actual terrorists), then.... yeah.
Oliver North wasn't "hired" as the NRA's president, he was selected by the membership at their annual meeting from among their elected board of directors by a vote.
Fwiw, a large portion of the gun community hates the NRA, and even more hate their decision to appoint olliver north. (Ollie north has advocated for gun control in the past, is an american traitor, and all around scumbag)
That's good to hear. There's obviously more than a few differences of opinion that may not ever be bridged, but at the end of the day all we both want is less people being shot.
The issue a lot of pro gun people have is that gun control has been attempted. Many, many times all around the world. Including right here in the US with the 1994 national AWB that expired in 2004. During the time of said ban we had such events as the Columbine Shooting, and the Hollywood Bank Robbery.
When you look at the statistics, much like the war on drugs, it doesn't work. Countries often tout "our gun / violent crime has dropped 40% since the ban!". The issue however, is that crime decays naturally over time. Studies that use science, such as This one from the University of Melbourne in AUS point out that the rate of crime decline did not change after the gun ban. This means the ban had no measurable effect on crime in AUS. The same effect can be seen with all other forms of gun control I have seen around the world.
Excerpt: Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
As far as availability goes. Anyone with a moderate amount of machining knowledge can walk out of home depot with a fully functional AK47. The famous shit shovel AK for example Pandora's box has been opened, and no amount of regulation will stop guns from entering the streets.
I have seen an argument made that waiting periods reduce the number of crimes of passion. The issue is that I would never vote to even try this, because of the dozens of times anti-gun politicians have proven themselves to be liars, knowingly spreading misinformation, or outright incompetent. If this was an honest discussion, I would say try it. But the fact that things like short barreled rifles, suppressors, etc. are still banned proves to me that the anti-gun crowd doesn't want effective gun control, they want to ban anything they think is scary.
There's a lot of things different between the US and other western countries that contribute to violence other than gun laws. Lack of affordable healthcare, holes in social safety nets are two really big issues in the US.
The data supports this -- we have more non-gun violence in the US than our peers as well.
That's not to say that there's nothing that can be done to help with gun violence, it's just that a holistic approach is absolutely necessary for success.
Those that banned guns or have strict gun control already had declining gun violence. The statistics were the same before and after strict gun control was enacted. So it's misleading to say they the countries with strict gun control showed a decline afterwards, even though it was already on the decline or stagnate.
Also, most gun violence in the US is a result of drug related incidents and gang violence toward other gangs. The idea that random people are shooting other random people in the streets everyday, is just an American fantasy people from other countries have about the US. The majority of those involved in gun violence are usually involved in criminal activity. However that doesn't matter because most gun related deaths are suicides but they are still mixed in with criminal statistics.
However, more lives are saved than taken away from guns. There are an estimated 500,000 to 3 milllion guns used in a defensive situation as compared to the average 30,000 lives lost to gun violence, to which most of those 30,000 are like I said, suicides.
It would lead to less gun violence and more crime. If fewer vulnerable are armed, they'll be more defenseless.
It’s in part that there are already so many guns are in circulation that there’s no feasible way to collect them all and even after you do the fact that there are so many illegal still in circulation due to already illegal weapons in circulation prior to the ban and the now illegal ones from previously law abiding citizens means it’s going to be a bitch to confiscate weapons and those who retain them are now criminals who didn’t care about the law before or people who cannot educate family members on gun safety or practice with their firearms which makes accidents more likely to occur.
Mass shootings are perpetuated by the media because criminals see the 24/7 news cycle and want in on it. The number of mass shootings is severely exaggerated for profit (bigger numbers = more clicks). Things like accidental discharges, gang violence, and homicide are blown out of proportion and lumped in with mass shootings to pump up numbers.
Mass shootings are also able to be used to emotiomally lead people to supporting gun control, this is because if you use statistics and facts to try and back up gun control, it doesnt work. Because the fact of the matter is that much like the war on drugs, banning guns does not stop any measurable amount of crime.
The REAL reason is because the US media and culture glorifies violence. We have a massive gang problem, and large shared land borders, an illegal drug problem, and mental health problems. All of these manifest themselves in the form of gun violence. Guns dont kill people. People kill people. You need to fix the people to fix the problem.
Let’s be real, countries with strict gun control laws get mass stabbings, bombings and truck rammings. Done violence in America is largely a problem of police and the mental health system failing to intervene before people get violent. Most mass shooters exhibit signs well ahead of time.
Think about it like this: if France banned bread, would baking suddenly cease completely everywhere? Or, would there just be a whole lot of bakers who suddenly became criminals overnight?
Google the city of Chicago, New York, Detroit and see how strict their gun control laws are. Then take a look at their gun violence rate. Stricter gun control does not equal less gun violence
Hey! Don't bring evidence to a snowflake's emotion fight!
The only thing we can be sure of, is that gun controls don't work ^except ^in ^every ^country ^we've ^tried ^them.
They actually happen much less frequently now than they used to but are reported more often in the media. It makes it appear that there are more shootings than there used to be. It also doesn’t help the argument that the states and cities with the strictest gun control laws have higher crime rates.
Oh they KNOW it will. They just care about their guns more than other people, so they won't admit it.
The insistence is grounded in hard statistical evidence and data. There is zero correlation between gun ownership and homicide based on % of gun ownership and homicides per 100 people. There is hard statistical evidence that banning things makes them cheaper and more available. There is hard statistical evidence that criminalizing and industry leads to more violent crimes across the board. There is hard statistical evidence that proximity to areas where firearms are available is irrelevant due to ease of manufacture and transportation. I believe Honduras gets many of their weapons from neighboring countries...and parts of Europe and Asia and Africa and all over the planet.
The part that I don't understand is why facts are ignored due to cultural differences and personal preferences in our law.
Meanwhile the media blows up all of these gun incidents as if they happen every day all over. Yes, there have been way too many school shootings recently, 1 is too many, but the media latches onto it all way more than is representative. The U.S.A. is larger than every country population and land wise than Europe, so obviously individual cases are going to be greater. To add to that, "gun violence" is a completely garbage statistic. People who wish to litigate guns more heavily realized in the 90s that gun crime wasn't actually all that bad, so to gain more support they came up with the term "Gun violence" that includes suicides. Which makes up 2/3s of all "gun violence".
For some anecdotal evidence, I live in a rural area close to the south and besides a pawn shop I went to the other day, I haven't seen a real firearm in person for years.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
The sources I cited are just random websites but if they list the sources behind their data compilation within them if you're worried about dodgy sources.
I also don’t get their mentality around it.
“It’s a basic human right!” Just because someone has written it down at some point doesn’t mean it still applies to this society. Guns aren’t something natural. They shouldn’t be a right. They really shouldn’t
“How can I protect myself without a gun?” If you don’t have a gun. Fewer people have guns. You don’t have to protect yourself. And even if you had a gun on you at all times. You are too slow to pull it out to protect yourself.
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” Well they sure make things easier. Get out of here with your edgy bullshit.
Edit: wowowow strong opinions. Didn’t think that many people would comment. But hey this is my opinion. I might be wrong. You might be wrong. Who knows.
Just because someone has written it down at some point doesn’t mean it still applies to this society.
That's not how Constitutional government works.
Amendments?
Sure, but that's because someone else wrote the counterclaim down and passed it with a huge margin across the states -- you're adding onto the Constitution according to the procedures it itself outlines in Article 5. That's different than just saying the Constitution "doesn't apply" anymore. It's truly getting a societal mandate rather than acting alone; it's following the proper rule of law rather than ignoring it.
I also don’t get their mentality around it.
“It’s a basic human right!” Just because someone has written it down at some point doesn’t mean it still applies to this society. Guns aren’t something natural. They shouldn’t be a right. They really shouldn’t
Self protection is a basic human right.
“How can I protect myself without a gun?” If you don’t have a gun. Fewer people have guns. You don’t have to protect yourself. And even if you had a gun on you at all times. You are too slow to pull it out to protect yourself.
That is incorrect. Guns that are used for defensive proposes is not being as highly reported in the media. It doesn't have that "Ahhh" factor that a school shooter has.
A few years ago a civilian pulled out his legally owned firearm and shoot and killed a man that had a police officer on the ground and was brutally beating him... that was in the news for one day. For that short time it was in the news they put the spin on it that he should be put up on charges.
Self protection = guns ?
I just used the most used arguments I had heard. No saying those are the most used in the media. Because believe it or not, I don’t watch the american news
Yes. Guns provide the possibly necessary mechanical advantage, in case you are physically inferior to an attacker. Proper self-defense needs the right to use a gun. That's the logic.
But as a disclaimer, I'm European and don't have a strong opinion on the matter of American gun politics. I just wanted to clarify the counter-position.
Self protection = guns ?
Self protection can be a lot of things and yes firearms are one of them. If some one were to attack me with a knife, bat, steal pipe, or even a firearm... yes my preferred tool of self defense would be a firearm.
Welp. After reading a lot of comments. Guns are part of the problem but it seems there is a more bigger deep rooted violence problem in america. Can’t blame you for wanting to defend yourself. I still think guns are bad but solving America’s issues is gonna take a lot of courage and willingness. I get why so many people are attached to their gun right. America is very corrupted or so it seems.
Welp. After reading a lot of comments. Guns are part of the problem but it seems there is a more bigger deep rooted violence problem in america. Can’t blame you for wanting to defend yourself. I still think guns are bad but solving America’s issues is gonna take a lot of courage and willingness. I get why so many people are attached to their gun right. America is very corrupted or so it seems.
That's the thing guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Yes a gun makes killing easier but if the news is correct the UK mostly Paris has a knife problem, wasn't there an incident there about a year or two ago where some one drove a truck into a group of people. The same day the Stoneman shooting happened here, China had a man wielding a knife that killed a few people.
People are the problem!
In the 1960's and 70's high school kids used to go to school with rifles in their cars and trucks so they could go hunting after the school day. Kids still got into fights but no one ran to their car to arm up...
The question is what has changed between the 70's and the mid 90's?
By having a firearm, aren't you endangering your own safety, on the basis that a police officer then has free rein to shoot you if you're ever involved in an altercation?
By having a firearm, aren't you endangering your own safety, on the basis that a police officer then has free rein to shoot you if you're ever involved in an altercation?
If a armed gunman was shooting people close to me don't I endanger my safty by doing nothing? Wouldn't I endanger my safety by drawing attention to myself by running?
Just looking at the Vegas, Orlando Pulse, and the Stoneman shootings the police are not quick to enter the scene. It is my job to make sure that me, my wife, and two kids are safe. My job is not to play the police, not to look for the threat, if I hear gun shots and I can escape by going the opposite direction great if I can't then fortify my position and engage if I have to.
You make it sound like I would be running around the halls with my gun in my hand looking for something to shoot.
Most if not all legal gun owning Americans hope to never drawn a firearm on someone let alone have to use it.
Guns are the great equalizer. I think you have a misconception that guns are only used in self defense situations against other guns (which they aren't).
You don’t have to protect yourself.
It's my choice to and not your place to tell me what I can and can't to to protect myself.
Also, guns save way more lives than they take annually in the US (about 2.5 million saved per year). Not to mention states that have adapted more relaxed concealed carry laws have had significant decreases in violent crime.
Lastly, an important part of the 2nd amendment that is left out is the purpose to protect from a tyrannical government.
Also, guns save way more lives than they take annually in the US
Then clearly you have big problems.
They aren't only used to protect against people with guns...
What else are they used for?
a woman protecting against sexual assault
protecting from a mugger with a knife
protecting from a wild animal
protecting from a tyrranical government
Right, violence in general, makes sense. But as I said, then you clearly have big problems.
Something else, I might be saying something real stupid here, but I've never seen a gun up close: "protecting from a mugger with a knife". If you go for your gun while being mugged, won't the mugger have stabbed you by the point you're pointing your gun?
He could be walking toward you with a knife and you simply brandish it. He's probably not gonna come any closer and most likely would go the other way. Guns don't even have to be drawn to protect you.
Maybe you're just overestimating how common gun homicides are.
You're too focused on the guns. I'm saying US has a violence problem, with or without guns.
But you seem to think that it's a problem that guns save more people than they kill. As if one person being murdered somewhere and two people saving their own lives is somehow more of a societal failing than the opposite.
I've never said that. Don't assume things that aren't there.
Also, guns save way more lives than they take annually in the US
Then clearly you have big problems.
Yeah, if you need guns to protect yourselfs then you do have big problems. In a lot of countries you don't. The bigger the violence problems, the bigger the gun you need, right.
Violence exists in other countries too. Plus, you know, bears.
Sure, in some more than others.
The fact that we can protect ourselves against violence doesn't mean that we have a violence problem.
Also, guns save way more lives than they take annually in the US
Then clearly you have big problems.
Indeed we do, and until we can resolve them we need to allow people to defend themselves.
If you don’t have a gun. Fewer people have guns.
I guess it's sort of like a catch 22 now. If you take the guns from everybody, now the criminals still have guns, now everybody wants guns again. It's a big confusing loop.
Look at other countries. I live in Belgium. I don’t know anyone with an actual gun. I don’t know anyone who wants a gun. It’s fear that keeps you guys in that ‘confusing loop’. What if scenarios.
I know a ton of people with a ton of guns and fear plays very little role in it for very few of them.
I guess I forgot to mention the guns are already here. It'd be different if you could just start fresh and build from the ground up. But everybody still has the guns here.
Name relevant?
Yeah, no kidding. Example A.
The ability to protect oneself is a basic human instinct. Limiting ones ability to do so simply harms the people who want to live.
What exactly is "natural"? Do we only have a right to eat whatever crops grew 10,000 years ago? Is medicine natural? Is it okay to censor books, because they're not "something natural"?
Ya can’t compare books and crops to guns. Books are not a right. Growing new and different crops are not a right.
I get it. America has something wrong with it and the guns are only the very superficial part of the problem. At least that’s what all the replies on here tell me.
You absolutely do have a right to publish whatever book you choose.
Isn’t that freedom of speech? Which in that case yea you could consider it a right. But I think that you can’t just publish any book. Some will get censored/banned
Sure, some will get banned, and some guns are banned. But why do we have a right to free speech through books if books aren't natural things?
I've once read a funny analogy: "Planes don't fly people, people fly people!".
The ironic thing about "the land of the free" is that , aside from dictatorships and some former communist countries , the USA is probably the least free country on earth when it comes to being able to do your own thing.
There is so much intolerance there , or even worse , blind hate. And those feelings lead to violence. The gun laws enable it in a certain way, but the core of the problem is the American society.
Edit: btw, guys, downvotes kind of prove my point here, so thanks :-) If you do not agree you should state your opinion not downvote.
You down voted for being both ill informed and for completely misinterpreting what "land of the free" is supposed to mean.
It's freedom from government oppression. Intolerance and blind hate and violence as you've mentioned have zero relation to what freedom means.
You think blind hate only exists because of government oppresion? How wrong you are..
You think blind hate only exists because of government oppresion?
That is the exact opposite of what he said.
So he meant government oppression reduces blind hate? :p
zero relation
Which syllable of "zero relation" is giving you problems understanding?
I dont think that nor did i say anything remotely close to that because it gas nothing to do with freedom.
I agree. While there are many good people there, I also believe it’s filled with people who think the world owes them something (bad situations can lead to thinking you deserve some good karma) or that the world should be different or some people are just very selfish. Which usually leads to violence. Guns are indeed part of the problem. But they shouldn’t be ignored because of the bigger problem. Baby steps. Take away parts of the problem. Unravel the problem. Maybe even solve the problem.
Wish they could have a safer country. Maybe the issue is that the USA is just too big. Too many people under ‘one’ ruler.
Guns are the opposite of entitlement; they're taking your safety into your own hands.
That's their educational system at work. They get told from a very young age on that the USA is the worlds true leader and everyone strives to be just like them.
So if you are the greatest according to everything you've ever been told, why on earth would you begin to question that?
Funny enough this is not that far removed from say North Korean great leader doctrine or the former communist China. Especially in the latter they did the exact same thing.
Because the American right and the American gun nuts have such a hard on with the idea of murdering a potential robber. They want to be cowboys.
Better not mention that actual gun control wouldn't stop all the hobbyist target shooters or anything.
Or maybe they realize that when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away?
[removed]
Suddenly a wild racist appeared!
Actually IQ follows a bell curve in any population, not just race. Low IQ whites are just as prone to crime as low IQ blacks
That doesnt happen in the US on a weekly basis
Gun violence is mostly caused by gang members using illegally obtained weapons in drug disputes. Bubba Joe with ten shotguns isn't going to kill you because you aren't in a gang in Baltimore, Chicago, Compton, or DC.
Well no. The reason why it wouldn’t work is because there are 400 to 600 million guns in private American hands. And millions upon millions of those are semiautomatic rifles that many would (incorrectly) refer to as “assault rifles”. I have many of those rifles myself.
Now, if you made a law banning these, I would say “fuck you come and take them”. This is about how most gun owners feel. So if you actually DID try to take the guns, it would be bloodier than anything you could imagine.
So, call us callous assholes that love dead babies. That’s not the case at all. We’ve done everything we can to be law abiding and we will continue to all the way up to having to turn shit in because of bans. There will be noncompliance.
Some people don't see guns as the root cause; they would rather point blame elsewhere. To me, that is a terrible perspective. Regardless of the actual root cause, the risk is the potential for gun violence. You work to mitigate this risk by ensureing there are sufficient controls in place. The controls do not have to be limited to guns specifically either. The fact that there are people that think stricter gun control will not reduce the risk is baffling to me. Also, notice I said "reduce the risk" and not "cure" or "solve".
It's because you rarely hear about the other side of the equation. Studies show that (at least in the US) guns are used in self-defense far more often than in committing crimes. So attempting to lower the number of guns across the board without specifically targeting criminals results in more people losing their ability to defend themselves than it does people losing their ability to commit crimes.
It's not about whether it can "cure" or "solve" the problem... it's about whether it even reduces the risk in the first place.
I agree. To me, gun control does not have to equal less guns. Gun control is about mitigating the risk for potential gun violence.
Last I checked, the US is thenon,y country with its own mass shootings Wikipedia page. All the other countries don’t have enough entries for their own.
It’s fristrating - clearly stricter gun control can and does work for other countries, and if people would listen they’d find most people are advocating for reform and not total gun confiscation. In a perfect world, sure, no guns at all except for law enforcement maybe, but there’s still so many homesteaders and ranchers here who need guns because they live out in the wilderness, for one thing. But many we get more mass shootings in like half a year than Australia has had since like 1998, but nobody can seem to agree on anything to do about it -or even that we need SOMETHING to do about it.
And then people want to blame it on mental health and not guns, but nobody does anything about the mental health problems either!
Funny enough, a "weekly basis" isn't even an exaggeration. We've averaged roughly one school shooting a week in 2018 so far.
No, we have not. Period.
ETA; Please list all the school shootings that make up your "one per week".
Go read through some of the incidents included in Everytown's list of school shootings. Most of them will not match your definition of what a "school shooting" is. In fact, less than a handful will.
A school shooting is commonly defined as a spree shooting of students/staff at a school. Everytown pads it's list with incidents that do not at all fit this common definition. They include things like negligent discharges by cops, BB gun property damage by kids, and after-hours parking lot drug shootings in a dishonest attempt to make the public believe that a Parkland-like event is happening every week.
I mean ffs at least put some controls on the goddamn assault weapons.
Already done. I think what you meant is put more controls (that have already been proven to not work) on them.
Look up the CDC (I think) study on the effects of the 1994-2004 "assault weapons" ban. Summary: no discernible effects.
[deleted]
The problem isn't 'all firearm homicides' it's mass shootings.
And no discernable effect my arse i'm old enough to remember before Port Arthur, and the almost immediately discernable effects of the ban and buyback
[deleted]
The overall homicide rate wasn't the concern. The concern was for the capacity of a butthurt or disturbed individual to mow down a large number of people in a very short time, as was demonstrated by Bryant and others.
You keep moving the goalposts, but i'm putting them back. The point of the buyback was to minimise mass shootings. And it worked
[deleted]
I agreed no such thing. That's you making up your own bullshit. The point of the buyback was to prevent mass shooter situations.
Guns are required by a number of Australians for entirely legal purposes - they cannot be banned outright. However, we had seen an escalation in mass shootings, with an increasing number so the ban was implemented to prevent this identified trend.
How many mass shootings have there been in the US this year?
[deleted]
It's not, and no, your banana crazypants logic won't ever make it so.
You're essentially trying to argue that with the ban in place prior to point arthur, those 35 people still would have magically somehow been killed. By what? Pixies? Show me an actual goddamn logical argument to support your supposition
[deleted]
... You do understand homicide stats aren't quotas, yes?
Also given our homicide (and gun suicide) rates have dropped 60-70% since 1996, i'd say you're full of shit
[deleted]
Nah mate, you don't get to go 'hurrblurr U too dumb', you made a statement, you backnit up.
Also you might want to find a non-biased source for your second bit. Seriously? A gun ban on a weapon owned by a minimal percentage of the population somehow magically increased sexual assaults? Also goes on to scream about internet censorship when the two events are over 20 years apart and completely different cabinets and senates. Yeah, that's not peddling an agenda.
I suggest looking at Fact Check for starters.
America uses debt as a means of economic stability by forcing citizens to work under the threat of siezed property. For example, the U.S. federal government puts money into manipulating the public school system and university resources to both increase the flow of students and push up the cost per student.
If state schools don't meet certain rates, that state is under threat to stop receiving nameless subsidy packages, which could cause the state to shut down more than a few schools entirely.
which could cause the state to shut down more than a few schools entirely.
Welcome to Arizona.
[deleted]
From economics, history, and accounting courses.
My family is unusually business-oriented, so I learned from professional accountants and economists that the U.S. government (a) gives financial preference to industries that generate personal debt and (b) bribes states to follow federal guidelines, namely for public education.
It’s crazy because I actually have really good health insurance and it’s still cost my wife and I thousands of dollars to have our daughter
I don't believe you have really good health insurance if that's true.
I work for a fortune 100 company and have blue cross blue shield insurance. My family out of pocket maximum is 3000 dollars.
I can't believe you paid that much.
I don't even have 'great' insurance and I pay next to nothing.
Even with the ACA it's still highly dependent on your state. In Arizona everyone buying health insurance on the marketplace is stuck with ONE carrier and they only offer their shittiest plans. It's literally a government sanctioned monopoly here, and it's outrageous.
In my state I have some of the best there is. Do you have federal or state employee insurance or something?
No, I have Florida blue which is Blue Cross
I came to say these 3 things
plus Insane bias towards USA being the best country in the world Black Friday Thanksgiving
Yeah, I cannot think of another western country that has the same bias. I live in belgium and no one here think this is the best country ever. We also don’t think we are the worst but we are aware of our shortcomings.
Black Friday is crazy! I think that it’s slowly trying to worm its way into our society tho. Online sites also take part in it and I saw a few shops here that said something about it. Luckily we don’t have that same crazy mentality about it. We have a discount season instead of black Friday so no waiting till stores open and fighting for your discount/ life.
Thanksgiving is also weird imo. Glad we don’t celebrate it here lol
Thanksgiving is gosh darn amazing. You just sit around all day and eat all the food you want while watching sports with family. Pluys the whole house smells like good food.
I personally have never gone to a store on Black Friday, and the majority of Americans are smarter than the thundering masses that trample each other for half off TV's, its just that those are the ones that get put on the news. Little Timmy sitting at home eating left over turkey isn't nearly as exciting.
Also, lately I haven't been feeling like America is as great as it was...If only we had leadership that actually wanted to make america great again....
Thanksgiving is gosh darn amazing. You just sit around all day and eat all the food you want while watching sports with family. Pluys the whole house smells like good food.
So, Christmas?
Christmas for us focuses more on the gifts/family aspect. Less food, more family. Thanksgiving has no gifts, so you can focus waaaaay more on food. Like ham. Damn I love ham.
What kinda Commie Pinko eats Ham instead of Turkey on Thanksgiving?!?
The kind whos family never, NEVER, cooks it right. I don't want dried slabs of protein, I want me some warm, moist, succlent, honey-glazed ham.
Fight me bro
We have a lot of great ham in Virginia, but it's something i already eat like once a week.
The family that eats both.
Exactly. Porque no los dos?
Yeah, in my family there are no christmas gifts.
That’s right. Thanksgiving is basically a dress rehearsal for Christmas.
Basically Christmas a month early that has the benefit of allowing you to see your family and your SO’s family every year
Also the traditional food is different
I feel like this is how the majority of Americans feel. I also feel like the younger generations are less motivated by patriotism and more motivated by rewards. Of everyone I know who joined the military, the vast majority did either for the schooling benefits, the opportunity to travel, or as an alternative after deciding they didn’t want to go to college. There definitely are still a lot who are passionate about serving for their love of this country. But there are also a lot who just use their service as an excuse to say “here’s my opinion (something racist) and you’re wrong if you disagree because I served in the military”.
I think alot of the lack of patriotism you might be seeing is just because of the internet. I'm 20, so I could say I'm part of the internet generation, but it's so easy to get into contact with people ffom all over the world. I can find information on any country so easily, and quickly figure out anything I need to about them. Plus, internet news allows for international stories to circulate through different nations. All of this, I believe, is starting to weaken people's patriotism toward their own country, but strenghten their humanity and apathy toward the world as a whole, and all of it's people. Once people understand that everyone matters, not just those within your colored lines on a map, this world will become a much better place.
And personally, if I was to join the military it wouldn't be primarily for love of my country. Granted, if we were attacked or something it might be, but as of now it would be to help anyone and everyone I can, be it overseas or domestic. I don't like seeing people in distress, and feel that the military is a good way for me to help those people directly.
I live in belgium and no one here think this is the best country ever.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't really think of it in such competitive terms. Like, if someone asked me if my country is the best country in the world, I'd be like "we've got our pros and cons, but so does everyone".
I live in belgium and no one here think this is the best country ever.
Because that is nationalism and not patriotism. It's a "my country is better than yours" rather than a "my country is good" feeling. Both countries could be shitholes but nationalism can be used to ignore that and still feel superior.
Ah well we still would admit that other countries are better. Not the people in it but the country itself. Most Belgians that I know like to even joke about it. We only ever come together when there is a massive football event.
nationalism can be used to ignore that and still feel superior.
Well, how else do you think the American psyche got through the Great Depression? They just told themselves they were the best country in the world while living in a mud-floor shack.
I will say this. I don't think America is #1. But I do think it's justifiable to say that if you took one country off the face of the Earth, the US would have the most impact being gone.
I dunno, man... take away China or India and you've gotten rid of a seventh of all humans on the planet. Looking at population alone I think that's a bigger impact than the geopolitical/economic effect of removing the US.
I mean, more of the way we affect the world. China would be huge too, but mostly as far as industry.
[deleted]
Military is the modern world. The US is above china in that regard.
Most American's don't really believe in Murica is #1 the way we did during the Reagan years or after 9/11. Your average American these days sees this country as going down the toilet, and wants to return to some idealized past.
That's because they're idiots and don't realize how good they have it. The vast majority of Americans are in the global 1% by wealth and income.
A house in an LA ghetto might look better than an Eastern European home, but nobody wants to live in an LA ghetto. Add in the additional societal and economic problems we have and bonuses we lack, we don't have it good. We definitely are in need of competent leadership and unity. We need to upgrade our standards.
Is there no poverty in Europe?
Are there not ghettos in Paris or London or Minsk?
Again, the vast majority of Americans are in the global 1% by wealth and income.
Certainly room for improvement, but this idea that our country is "going down the toilet" is fucking stupid. We've never been wealthier, never been safer, never had more leisure time.
I'm not saying its going down the toilet. And IDGAF about what other countries talk about their poor as long as it's not something like a genocide or whatever. Our country has indeed been degrading. While it's not the collapse of society, there are social divisions that makes trust lost between our own citizens, and various events such as lethal police force on innocents and street shootings in some cities that make peaceful living a bumpy road.
Op said it was going down the toilet.
Qualify social divisions for me.
Again, we’ve never been wealthier. The poor have never been wealthier.
Canada has Thanksgiving too but it’s in October.
Biasm?
Ha, oops thanks
we have extreme nationalism no one gets black friday. thanksgiving is for somereason still a holiday
It's kinda ironic.
Because on the list of "best countries" the USA are not even in the top 10. They barely made it into the top 15 on rank 13.
Super funny reading about Americans thinking the USA are rank 1
Without a source, this could very easily be made up. I don't know the criteria for this supposed ranking.
There's a million different list with a million different criteria. You can find one where any country isn't in that given top ten, so it's a nonsense claim regardless.
No why, are you guys SERIOUSLY, like for absolutely REAL believing that the USA or on rank 1 ?
When countries like Norway, Germany or Japan exist ?
I didn't say that. I said that there will be at least on top 10 list that has America in the top 10, and plenty that do not. Just as there will be for most countries. Apparently whichever country your from isn't in the top 10 of reading comprehension and critical thinking.
The most important things as low crime rate , healthcare , EDUCATION , happiness , fair wealth distribution, infrastructure, low poverty AND low prisoners ( freedom) are extremely low or even shitty in the US. That pushes you down very hard.
ALSO there are a lot of smaller but very good countries that got like 5-10 million citizen.
I didn't argue any of that though, I simply stated I could find a top ten list with America in the top ten. (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/us-news-world-report-the-top-10-best-countries-in-the-world.html https://www.thetoptens.com/countries/ ) The point is the lists are subjective and overall meaningless without a provided method and metric, none of which the OP mentioned. So IDK if an American shot your dog or something, but man are you SALTY. Stay mad if that's what makes you happy :)
I said that it's ridiculous and delusional to think that the USA are the rank 1 country when they are not even in the top 10.
I made fun of these delusional clowns that's it. But nice assumptions about me tho
That's my point though, you keep referencing "the top 10". Who's top 10? By what criteria? You're just spouting off dribble because you're really angry for some reason, and it's amusingly childish. I'll be the first to admit America is far from perfect, but your blind hatred is just too funny to me.
I mean it depends. I think we have the most influence on the world out of any country. Though, I guess that doesn't make you number 1.
Influence doesn't matter.
You need a low crime rate , happy citizens , fair wealth distribution, good healthcare , amazing education, freedom and safety.
best example for that is Norway. They are ranked 1. Or Germany it's in the top 5.
Influence does matter. Especially, when you get a ton of exports from other countries.
Insurance companies are the ones who jacked up the medical bills, in the earlier days it used to be like this "my equipment costs x and my expertise/manual work costs z. So x+z equals b" and it was extremely fair and affordable to basic middle and even lower class families until insurance companies decided "het no ones really buying medical insurance because it's affordable as is, so how about we make them exaggerate the fees on paper. But then it isn't actually 10,000 it's 3,000." Which is overpriced as is, thus began shitty healthcare fees and systems.
Not to mention we are in a bit of a strange time for medical companies. We are modernizing a lot of technology, and that is expensive as fuck
Want a new MRI machine? that will be 3 million dollars
The gun violence you hear about is nowhere near as common as the news would have you believe, especially given the number of guns that are in circulation.
The issue is that it isn't going anywhere good because the NRA and the people who propose reactionary legislation that isn't based on how gun culture in the US works or on data are at odds with each other. The legislation that needs to be proposed won't actually get passed, even if it was proposed.
The legislation that needs to be proposed won't actually get passed, even if it was proposed.
It could, but only if some actual compromises were offered. You want UBCs? Fine, remove everything but machine guns from the NFA.
If your "compromise" is "we're not asking for anything more (right now)", then you get the impasse we're currently at. The blame for the problems with today's gun debate lies 100% on the shoulders of the antis and their years of bad-faith behavior.
The NRA won't budge on anything, even if it would make their case better, and generally speaking, the people who propose gun legislation know absolutely nothing about guns, so they don't legislate effectively. That's where the gridlock comes from.
The NRA is in a position to essentially dictate new functional gun legislation, but it won't. Yes, it has budged in the past, but it isn't anymore because it acts as if any ground that is changed is ground lost.
The NRA has budged in the past. They are done budging. The NRA was ok with the NFA and the machine gun ban and mandatory background checks. It's just now the proposals are all further encroachments on the right to bear arms.
50 years ago we had half the restrictions on gun ownership we do today. The NRA was alive and well for all of the current restrictions we see.
We have budged. Dozens and dozens of times. We keep losing more and more of our rights under the promise "this last little bit will fix it".
But when things are proven to not work, anti-gunners fight to keep those things banned because they have no fucking clue what compromise means.
Nothing on the NFA registry has ever been used in crime in significant numbers. Legal fully automatics have only ever been used in ~3 crimes. Not 3 per year, not 3 per century. 3. In the history of the US. Yet theyre still banned.
Anti gunners go after cosmetics and propose rediculous bullshit.
We are done giving. Its time for us to get.
The NRA has budged repeatedly
Well... america does have the ‘1 school shooting a week’ statistic. I don’t know anywhere else where that’s an issue.
Besides here we seldom hear about gun violence. It’s just not a part of our daily life. The fact that when people think about america, they think about guns is pretty telling imo.
It may not be as common. But it sure is an issue
[deleted]
There seems to be at least one a year every single year. That is absolutely not rare, like not in the slightest.
america does have the ‘1 school shooting a week’ statistic.
It's absolutely an issue. A bad one that we really need to solve. But not much of one to a foreigner. By land area, 99% of America is relatively free of gun violence. And places a foriegner is likely to go as a visitor are 99% free of gun violence.
Your plane is proabably more likely to fall out of the sky on the way here than you are to see any kind of gun violence while you're here let alone be a victim of it.
Why is a National Rifle Association with actual political power even a thing? Can someone explain?
Because private citizens who are gun owners got together to create a lobbying group to support their interests. Whether it has remained that is apparently debatable but it isn't like some outrageous evil quasi legal institution. Ham radio operators, farmers, motorcycle enthusiasts, conservationists...There are lobbying groups for almost every special interest and rightly so.
They have at least 5 million single issue voters behind them. You have tens of millions who consider what they say to be important when they vote. This leads to the NRA being the most powerful lobbying organization in washington, even when they spend less on lobbying than a lot of individual corporations, including Amazon, Google, and even Oracle
People donate money to them. They in turn lobby politicians. Many politicians are members themselves. Therefore, the group has a lot of political clout.
The NRA spends fuck all on lobbying, their power is from their members
It's a combination of them being able to donate to politicians, ensuring that they are able to run an effective campaign to get elected, along with how they represent a huge voting demographic.
It's a lobby that supposedly represents gun owners, but every gun owner I've talked to (myself included) feel as if it's a massively biased and corporately-owned organization that just pretends to be pro-gun owner. They represent gun manufacturers, which makes them no different from BigPharma or BigAuto lobbying groups.
The gun violence you hear about is nowhere near as common as the news would have you believe
Actually more common than I would believe, and far far far more common than any other developed country
That's fucking dumb. The first week I moved into my current abode someone was shot ON OUR FUCKING PROPERTY. I don't even live in a shitty neighborhood. I was shot at by a disgruntled Republican for literally existing at a bar he was at and not being from America (I'm a Swede and all Swedes are communists that need to get the hell out of America, obviously). People get fucking murdered all the time in the Twin Cities and supposedly it's a nice city by American standards. My brother told me how his friend pulled a fucking shotgun on him over an argument over WARHAMMER of all things. He couldn't even get the cops interested enough to warrant prosecuting him either.
So fuck you. I never ONCE even HEARD of someone getting shot when I lived in Sweden. And I'm glad I'm going home because it fucking BAFFLES me how Americans think "it isn't that bad". It's worse than bad. It's ebola ravaging America while Americans insist it's just a mild cold. And frankly fuck this country. I'm glad I'm leaving to go back home to Sweden.
As we all know, the Twin Cities, one of the biggest hives of gang violence, is also representative of every other part of the US.
The country has the highest rates of gun violence in the industrialized west. Holy fuck, you Americans are delusional about your disease.
I know the US has a shit ton of problems, but the circumstances are different in a country that's a hell of a lot bigger, both in population and in geographical area, more diverse over that area, and with a different social structure. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but if it really was as simple as "get rid of all the guns", we would have solved the problem already.
In the years after Columbine I remember having to do lock-down drills in case someone unauthorized entered the school. One time, in sixth grade, someone did enter the school and we went into lock-down. Shutting off the lights, crouching against the wall, seeing SWAT snipers in the bushes outside. Thank God the guy didn't have a gun, but that shit was scary. I know why school administrators do this, but there is no way in hell training 12-year-olds how to deal with an active shooter situation is OK.
Those are things I can’t even imagine as a reality here. Those things sound like they are traumatising for a child/teen. The worst we would do are fire drills.
Instead we have knife crime and student loan debt
My dad just told me the bill was over $7000 for a single shot at the hospital. Fucking ridiculous.
Who gets all that money?
The manufacturer of the $6000 syringe.
What do you mean?
What was his out of pocket?
I’ll ask when I talk to him next. Need to ask the name of the shot as well, I’ll edit when I know.
Holy fuck. I can’t even imagine that happening here. 7000 for one shot? That’s four-six pay checks not considering paying other bills. Wtf
Exactly. Since when do we have to go broke just to stay alive?
Did he not have insurance?
Fortunately. I’m just thinking of all the people who may not have as good of insurance.
That doesn't sound like good insurance, tbh. Then again, I don't know what shot could possibly be worth 7k.
The insurance likely paid almost all of that $7,000. I’m not sure if you’re following that.
I didn't. I must have misunderstood.
I’ll ask him once I talk to him again. Can’t remember the name atm.
Dont you know we dont need the devils socialism, only "rugged americanism"
Depending on where you’re from we also have like 1/3 of the taxes to pay as well.
We lose more people to suicide than murders. And we got a lot of junkies and tons of stupid fucking college degrees. People are picking dumb shit to go to college for.
And all the people acting like these are unavoidable parts of modern life/
Medical care is so fucking ridiculous. My wife had a trip to the emergency room for severe stomach pain. They did an EKG, took a chest X-ray, then gave her some pain meds and antacids. Got the bill last week. Our part after insurance is $1300. That's on top of a separate $100 bill from the doctor who stood in the doorway and didn't even touch her, and the $150 co-pay that I had to give them up front. Not even mentioning the cost of the prescriptions that had to be filled, and that I missed a day of work taking care of her.
It is too expensive to get medical treatment in the US. That's why we die from preventable diseases.
Not free at point of use medical treatment. Medical treatment isn't technically free in the UK, we do pay for it via taxes ... but if I fall over tomorrow and break my hip, at no point will anyone present me with a bill for my x-ray, or cast, or possible surgery, or physio. I don't have to weigh up my health against my bank balance.
Free at point of use medical care and education are things we must never give up at any cost.
The nationalism/patriotism. The flag waving, USA, USA chanting, and insistence that the US is the most unique and greatest country in the world, seem both strange and somewhat uncomfortable to me.
I’ve been in Chicago during superbowl this year - cabby: [excited] superbowl tonight! Are you going to watch?! Me: oh yeah, it’s a big thing here, no? Cabby: it’s a big thing everywhere in the world! Me: right..
I remember when the US discovered Eurovision some years ago, and had some trouble coming to terms with there being a giant cultural event that had nothing to do with them... I actually still think they have some problems coming to terms with that.
had some trouble coming to terms with there being a giant cultural event that had nothing to do with them
I'd figured we were used to it every 4 years the World Cup came along.
Is the US not usually part of the World Cup? If I remember right they are, its just that they don´t really pay much attention to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_at_the_FIFA_World_Cup
It was a joke about how irrelevant they (we?) are in the sport.
Ahh, gotcha. You have won a couple of times, I think you just tend to ignore it.
You think the US has won a couple of world cups? Are you insane or are American media actually on a level with North Korea now?
Boy. You have some shit reading comprehension. He made it very clear he wasn't American.
The Women's World Cup?
Can you read? The person is clearly not American.
I have terrible little interest in football, and all I based that on was distant memories of people being angry about the US and the World Cup and a brief glimpse at the wikipedia article that mentioned World Cup, US and Finals in the same sentence. I apologies and will do my best to research these matters better in the future.
Women's world cups, yes. Men's, not even close.
I don’t think it’s even been talked about since they didn’t make it. I would wager 90% of Americans don’t give a shit about soccer or what country is going to win.
Love also that australia is in it. But the us will never ever lol
Unless they join the European broadcasting union. But they won't do that, they see the word "union" and get triggered . . .
The U.S. is a union.
Oh my god lol. A new American friend of mine commented on a post I made about Eurovision this year saying "What's Eurovision? Oh I see, it's like Who's Got Talent".
I can assure you no one has ever mentioned that
I wish the US would be part of it. It's so cool, but the USA would ruin it at make it about us. meh.
USA vs russia on vote scandals?
Nope, no one around me cares about Eurovision.
lol. No one in the US gives even the tiniest fuck about Eurovision.
I don't think I have ever seen it mentioned anywhere other than reddit.
I think Europeans have trouble coming to terms that we think about them a lot less than they think about us.
I’ve never even heard of it before today.
Really. It's not like we're collectively scratching our heads, nobody's heard of it.
I'm an American and I don't know what Eurovision is. So I guess I don't care.
I have never in my life heard the term Eurovision.
Eurovision
I have never heard of it. Looked it up. Yet Another Reality TV Show where the contestants sing and dance and shit. I couldn't care less about any of these.
excuuuuuse youuuu
It's not "another" Reality TV show, it's "the first" reality tv show in 1956 and it's still going. I mean that's something!
I mean, thats impressive, but I still don't give a fuck.
Pardon me. The first, 1956, interesting. Still don't care. :)
Don't worry, I'm the only one in my friend's circles who remotely cares about it.
It's a fairly large annual song contest where each country sends a group/participant,and people vote on who wins (and the winner's country gets to host it). For example, I personally celebrate how the United Kingdom is, just like the World Cup, going to lose again (we haven't won since 1997 and have done mostly pretty shit since)
Do people like you just sit around and deliberately try to make up things to shit on the US about? Can you show me any evidence that there is a significant number of Americans that "have some problems coming to terms with" with not being included in Eurovision? To literally every American I know, Eurovision is a novelty that happens once a year.
Or just in general cabbies and restaurant staff striking a social conversation with you—that was really strange when I visited new York that complete strangers in a professional capacity like to ask you where you're from.
I still love when Charles Firth went to the US and asked about the Superbowl.
"Why should Australians care about the Superbowl?" "Because it's the all American sport!"
Yeah, Americans are strangely cocky about their country and sports
It’s because of WW2. It was to show support to every family that had a soldier at war. And that we are all together. But, the war ended and that didn’t.
The Cold War didn't really help. Did it?
No it really didn't. After WWII (specifically after the Soviets got the atomic bomb in 1949), there was a fear of communists in the United States. In the early 1950s, McCarthy went around exposing so-called "communists" within the American government and occasionally Hollywood, but this was typically politically motivated.
Anyway, the cold war was fostering a feeling of "us versus them" in America, and to show support for the United States, Americans continued with the WWII practice of intense patriotism, 'cause clearly, a communist wouldn't love America this much, right?
Several generations grew up during this era in American history, coming to learn this behavior as the norm for Americans. After the Cold War was over, the need for it disappeared, but the habit remained.
In the modern day, a lot of intense patriotism (and some straight-up nationalism) exists among Republican voters for several reasons. One of these reasons is that they are the conservative party, preferring the way of the past. Another reason for this is that some among their ranks have a habit of calling liberals "communist". After believing they have identified a communist, they revert to the age-old anti-communist measures of patriotism. That'll teach 'em.
And if anyone is interested, I can explain the "state religion" of the United States.
What do you mean by "state religion"?
Well, first off, religions have many of the same elements. These include a holy symbol (the cross), sacred texts (the Bible), a spiritual leader (the Pope), and holidays (Christmas/Easter). Any religion could be used here, but I went with Christianity since it is so familiar to most people here.
These can be translated to the United States. Christians (as one would expect) get upset by deliberate signs of disrespect (or perceived signs of disrespect). Americans tend to get very hostile towards those who they see as disrespecting their holy symbol, the American Flag. A great example of this would be how many Americans, myself included, fly an American Flag at their home. In addition, many Americans are upset by the NFL protests in which players knelt for the national anthem. This was considered disrespectful.
The sacred texts would be the Constitution. Some fundamentalist Christians are adament that people adhere strictly to the Bible. Conservatives frequently argue for a very strict interpretation of the US Constitution, and anything perceived to be a removal from the Constitution is declared "heresy".
The president will frequently serve the role of the spiritual leader (altough Obama was basically shunned from this position). If you look at Trump's position of reverence by "Patriots" , one would understand this one.
As for the holidays, the national holidays established by the federal government are treated with almost the same reverence as Christmas and Easter. Those who do not observe these holidays are "non-believers".
If you would like to find sources for this, the Wikipedia article is a good place to look. I'll provide a link to the article's sources at a later time.
Hell the 4th of July might be better than Christmas. It’s my favorite holiday anyway. So much good food and good times!
So much beer! So many hamburgers!
If you don't mind I'll ask what is your view on players protesting police brutality during the anthem?
Personally, I wouldn't do it, but I support their right to do so. I'm kind of partial to their cause as well, though.
Businesses who gained from it wanted more. To them, the war never ended.
[deleted]
We have been at war for almost a century
But why didn't that happen in the UK for instance? Every civilian here was "at war", too, as well as all their young men being soldiers at war.
Maybe it's because after it was over there was less of a feeling of being brave and conquering heroes and more like thinking "thank fuck I don't have to lie awake at night in a bomb shelter listening to the incessant drone of bomber aircraft wondering if a direct hit is going to obliterate me and my entire family". Relief rather than pride.
I’m going to be honest I really don’t have a good guess. It could be that. I think it was also papers and the news and other cultural/social things that influence how people thought about the military and their country as a whole.
[deleted]
Its honestly crazy to think we have been at near constant war for centuries and no one in the country has been alive during an attack of actual war
Somewhere in the past 10-20 years, patriotism in America has evolved from "We're awesome" to "We're better than everyone at everything and fuck you if you disagree." The first interpretation is a lot of fun. The second is stupid.
I think the distinction between nationalism and patriotism is an important one.
It is, but the excessiveness of both in the US is strange to most Europeans (At least Nordic) that I know. Most of the people that I know are "Patriots" but in a quiet "I think my country is pretty neat" kinda way, instead of the bombastic way the people of the US shows it.
Americans are brainwashed pretty early to be nationalist. My daughter went a public preschool this last year and the first thing she learned was the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I was a little upset. She can recite the pledge and do all expected motions ( hand on heart, face the flag) , and she has no idea what it all means. These kids are taught to collectively pledge allegiance to an institution they couldn't possibly comprehend. Some of the kids still struggled to write their own names, but could still pledge. It just seems like something that happens in dictatorships like North Korea. How do I explain to my 5 year old that just because her entire class is doing it, she doesn't have to pledge allegiance to a flag? It's some pretty deep stuff to discuss with somebody who still doesn't understand where she geographically most of the time. I think she should be able to pick out the United States on a map before she can pledge allegiance to it.
Thats another thing I cannot relate to at all. The Pledge of Allegiance is a really, really weird concept, and seems rather authoritarian for a nation that is so obsessed with "freedom".
It absolutely is. That's why I was kind of upset about it. I asked her what the stars and stripes of the flag represents, and she had no idea. They didn't even explain what a pledge was. It's a minefield of tough concepts that I now have to try to explain and honestly at 5 years old she doesn't have the insight or vocabulary to navigate the minefield. So instead I have to just tell her to keep doing it and don't rock the boat. This concept is definitely forced on us very early.
Agreed, I don’t get the patriotism.
No offence, I get the respect for the values of the US, they are highly commendable but it seems that the strongest patriots are not the ones who understand those values the best.
According to Einstein nationalism is a disease. And I agree with that.
The part that makes me very uncomfortable is that children have to pledge allegiance to the flag at the start of school. They stand up and collectively chant their pledge - it really looks like a dragon cult, or even something you'd expect in North Korea.
No one in school really cares about that shit we just stand hand over heart and maybe mumble along with with the speaker
Nationalism is sadly on the rise elsewhere, too. We don't do it anywhere near as proficiently as the US, but the UK is starting to go that way.
True, but what I find strange about the US is just how common and normalized it seems to be, and that it has pretty much always been like that.
It's because civic nationalism is the unifying cultural force that keeps the country together. We're a nation of something like 300-350 million people last I saw with an insane amount of diversity in lifestyle, race, ethnicity, creed, religion, etc all sharing a landmass roughly the size of Europe. We don't have the cultural, racial, or religious homogeny that keeps a lot of other nations together and prevents humanity's natural inclination towards tribalism. All we have is the fact that we're all Americans. Provided most everyone remains proud to be American then the system works, so patriotism is a big deal.
Not too related but from my perspective the UK is "classist" the way that the US is racist.
I think the UK is definitely racist too, to be honest, but yeah - we do have more of a classism issue which I think is quite intrinsically tied to how we're racist.
How is UK racist?
This article explains some of it quite concisely! I think you'd need to read a lot around the subject to really understand it, but it's a good start.
Right.
Didn't think I'd get an actual answer.
Why ask if you are not even willing to listen?
UK has a classism problem but racism isn't as usual. Nationalism is such a foreign concept to me we barely ever see our own flag
I think racism is a huge problem here, honestly! I would say that it's mostly directed at Asians and Muslims, whereas I think black people bear the brunt of it in the US (edit: probably because of population demographic differences rather than anything ideological). I also think that people tend to be less blatant about it here. I'd say that the popularity of scum like Britain First (before they were banned from Facebook lololol) are indicative of a racism problem.
The classism, though - I agree with you that it's a problem.
racism sure is still aproblem
People like you are seriously living in your own made up world.
Yup we are. It's changing slowly, but some people in the UK are very elitist.
Mmm I dunno, I think we’ve got you beat on both counts there my friend. The trouble with spotting classism in America is because of how tied up in Racism it is. It’s hard to tell if someone is being a shit-sack because their hate other races, or if they just want The Poors to get back in line.
America has always been a revisionist nation, we do horrible shit, and then to make up for it we do the absolute minimum required of us and write it down in the history books that everything worked out in the end. Despite our solutions always guaranteeing a return of the issue. We’re a country that likes to put on a pretty face, but we’ve allowed capitalists to rule for so long that’s all that’s really left, the idea of what America is and stands for is just that, it’s a figment that the upper class dangles in front of the rest of us to keep the cart rolling along.
The upper class in America isn’t overtly disdainful of the working class, but the power they wield over us and our political system feeds into a much more sinister classism wherein the general public is treated more like a herd to be corralled rather than a nation of human beings with thoughts and feelings. In America it’s all about the bottom line, and that disgusting notion has permeated throughout nearly every aspect of our culture.
My only hope is that we can skeletonize the political system, strip away the excess nonsense, the legalized corruption and start over from the base. In order for anything like that to happen though we need a massive cultural shift that I personally feel is inevitable, I’m just not positive in which direction we’ll be shifting. It would be so nice if we shifted into the direction of not being such giant pussies when it comes to taxes. People are so touchy about taxes in America cause they’re essentially used as a weapon by our politicians, what I don’t understand is how we can look and see a consistent trend of the lower class taking the brunt for the rich, it just baffles me how many lower class Americans can’t conceive of a tax system in where people pay their fair share. They immediately assume if you tax more, you’re going to have to be unfair in some way, and then nobody can be rich and thus their dreams of “making it” are dashed, so you have poor people fighting for the rich. We’re pretty dystopian over here.
Don’t be terribly surprised if the America as we know it comes crashing down in a spectacular display of corruption and greed here in the next couple of decades or so.
How is US racist?
Nationalism is sadly on the rise elsewhere
Sadly? Sad that people actually want to start caring about their country / people and culture again and keep it and the people safe?
Nationalism is a GOOD thing, nationalism is natural, it's healthy.
USA just has it completely blown out and not even justified correctly.
Nationalism rising in Europe comes from an actual NEED.
It's incredible to me that some people ( a minority fortunately ) completely lack the sense of self preservation or survival or caring about ones culture or neighbours.
Nationalism is not racism, it's not xenophobia, it's not far right, it's not "islamophobic" which isn't a real thing, it's one of the most natural things within within humans, it's survival.
If you think that nationalism is a matter of survival you need to be checked out lol
Nope. Nationalism isn't natural. As a matter of fact so-called "nation" states are a pretty new thing in the history of mankind. It isn't healthy either. In it's short and sad history nationalism fucked so many things up, I can't understand, how anybody would think, it's a good thing. Even the idea that nationalism is needed to "survive" (in relation to whatever perceived other) shows how it divides humankind. The rise of nationalism in Europe doesn't come from a need, but is born out of fear. Btw, I don't think that a majority of people are too much behind nationalist agendas.
Yeah this exactly. The idea of nation states and the very hard borders we have today are incredibly recent in a historical context. Definitely not 'natural'.
Good luck with your twisted world-view, it's gonna be a tough wake up call.
Uhm, thanks for your kind words? Very … doomsday-preacheresque. 🤦♂️
I do care about my culture. I come from a culture which has been systematically erased and wiped out by colonial powers; I care pretty deeply about it. I don't, however, like nationalism when it takes the form of Us v Them. I don't like it when it's used to justify people throwing bricks through the windows of people who don't look like us, or to treat people who come from elsewhere like they're threats, or to hold rallies in city centres where people make Nazi salutes. Sadly, nationalism and racism very often - not always! - go hand in hand, and it makes me wary when someone describes themselves as a nationalist.
I'm not even going to dignify your 'Islamophobia isn't real' thing with a response, other than to say that my Muslim friend who had her headscarf ripped off and was called a 'terrorist' on her way into work as a GP would probably have something to say about it.
Ah Reddit, Reddit never changes.
The media truly is the greatest weapon.
Yup. Nationalism rose in Serbia because the Serbs had to protect themselves. So they killed, maimed and raped a bunch of people.
So they killed, maimed and raped a bunch of people.
Like muslims are doing in Europe right now?
Which is exactly why nationalism is on the rise.
What the hell are you talking about? And do you even know about which events I am talking about?
What the hell are you talking about?
The mass raping, murdering and maiming that the invading "refugees" are doing in europe, like I said.
And do you even know about which events I am talking ?
No I haven't read up on every single country's history, besides Serbia's history is completely irrelevant to what is happening in Europe right now.
Ah yes, the mass raping, how could I forget. I was late to work today because i got raped by the invading moslem army. Really ruined my day. Every day i get raped, my girlfriend gets raped, my dog gets raped. It's getting a bit boring. And only missionary. Jesus, moslems, mix it up a little. What about my needs!
And fyi the shitshow around serbia caused the death of around 130k people. I think that makes it relevant to the point of nationalism, while i'm not sure how imaginary sexy jihadis are relevant.
Ah yes, the mass raping, how could I forget. I was late to work today because i got raped by the invading moslem army. Really ruined my day. Every day i get raped, my girlfriend gets raped, my dog gets raped. It's getting a bit boring. And only missionary. Jesus, moslems, mix it up a little. What about my needs!
while i'm not sure how imaginary sexy jihadis are relevant.
I don't know what to say, that's an incredible amount of blind ignorance, fear of reality and cowardice.
It's scary that people like you actually exist.
If only the "refugee" rape and murder spree was targeted to those responsible and not the innocent...I sure wish there were justice in it.
I don't know what to say, that's an incredible amount of blind ignorance, fear of reality and cowardice.
It's scary that people like you actually exist.
If only the refugee "invasion" were a real thing, you would be right, bu alas... Did they rape and kill people. Yeah. Are they invading? Is Europe under siege? Fuck no.
I'm sorry I am so combatative, but you straight up ignored my example of nationalism that killed 130k people to keep whining about muslim "invaders", and how nationalism is the correct response to that.
Nationalism is a knee jerk reaction that makes people proud of their heritage to the extreme. It creates some of the worst kinds of us vs them naratives, and gives excuses to the worst excesses of your nation.
A lot of the people that don't like nationalism are from Europe, where nationalism had a habit of turning into fanaticism, and combining that with being a densely packed continent where cultures change every few hundred miles, has made them wary of nationalism
You missed "drunken USA chanting"
That is covered by the USA, USA chanting part.
Yea, but drunken USA chanting has it's own category.
I have always liked the pride aspect of it, but so many people take it to the point of thinking our system is infallible, which is pretty horrifying.
Because to a lot of people the flag represents more then just USA. It is also a representation of all the troops have died fighting for the us
As an American born and bred I find it creepy too. I don't own a single flag and that's somewhat unusual.
My mom keeps buying my toddler little shirts or dresses with the flag pattern printed on it and I've had to ask her several times to stop. I can't possibly tell my Trump voting mother that I'm horrified at Nationalism (I have a few times and it ended poorly- seriously not worth it to fight like that again), so I just tell her that flag code dictates that it's disrespectful to wear the flag as a garmet and that she's wasting her money because I won't dress my daughter in them. So now we get red, white, and blue skirts that aren't flag patterned but yikes, still too much for me to comfortably see on my kid.
Screams "massive insecurity" to me.
We fight everyone constantly at this point just to feel like ourselves we need to keeo it up
I personally think that Canada is cooler, and more unique than America, because we got fricking maple syrup, and when I say maple syrup, I mean MAPLE syrup, not that gross aunt jemima stuff.
You better watch out we have held off attacking you guys and taking your resources for this long dont taunt us with food too
[deleted]
I encourage you to go to North Korea to see just how big of a moron you are.
Heeeeeey, that’s not nice.
I am pretty sure the term is jingoism or something like that. Im not sure, because I'm American and I think schools dont teach this term on Purpose. I learned it from WWE with an Indian wrestler (Jinder Mahal) who called us this (he is supposed to be a. Bad guy) after I looked it up I was like, damn. He's right.
And the fact that they have usa flags everywhere, specially in their homes
Having their flags displayed in their homes is something I'll never understand.
The opening scene from The Newsroom comes to mind.
That scene is dumb as shit and has been debunked hundreds of times
It's not about the content as much as the message. People from the US spend so much time showing and trying to prove that they love their country and that their country is the best that they don't stop to think that it's not (or that there's no way to determine what being the "best" country would even mean).
[deleted]
Thats the greatest part the middle and upperclass is amazing
And these people absolutely HATE half of the people in their country. So not even sure what America means to them. A flag? The land? Okay, those are both inanimate objects. The Constitution? Most have never read it. It's really nothing more than a back slapping, self congratulatory circle jerk. The people who praise the flag the most thinks it represents THEM. They are praising and pledging allegiance to themselves.
U.S.A! U.S.A!
Omg I hate it. I’m American. All the culty jingoistic paraphernalia and don’t disrespect X, Y, and Z. Creepy af.
Why would patriotism make you uncomfortable?
Not patriotism, but the somewhat excessive way many Americans expresses it in. A good deal of Europe has somewhat bad memories of facism, and all the flag waving and parading and chanting can sometimes get a bit too familiar. Not saying that it is the same, but it is more similar then many Europeans are comfortable with.
That and it just seems a bit strange, like they are trying to prove something with it.
I don’t know how taking pride in your country can be a bad thing. You take better care of things you’re prideful of.
A European above mentioned how elections are something they don’t care as much about anymore, and they just want to know the results. That is terrifying to me, and it’s the worst thing that could happen. The easiest way for that to happen is people no longer taking pride in their country; what do they care?
If I buy a Porsche, and I love that Porsche, I’m going to vacuum it every week and polish it from time to time. And I’m going to research what mechanic has his hands under my hood. But if I take no pride in my 1991 Civic, let whatever mechanic has a few credentials fix it.
People expressing pride by waving flags shows me people still care about who is running the nation and what’s being done to it. Nothing scares me more than people losing pride, and the first sign of that is nobody waving flags and chanting “USA, USA.”
The US has a pretty terrible Voter Turnout compared to many European nations. Along with that, I have never seen the people around me be so politically active, as they have in the last couple of years due to the events of the last couple of years, and here I am talking about both people who lean right and those who lean left.
Let me come with a comparison. Imagine that a guy walks in wearing a T-Shirt with the words "I Have the Best Kids in the World". "Alright" you think, thats a bit strange, but nothing wrong with loving your kids, you love your kids. Then he starts talking loudly about how great his kids are, and not just how great they are, but how much greater they are then your kids. This is somewhat annoying, as you don´t really feel the need for constantly shouting how great your kids are to everyone, and you do happen to know that, while his kids are generally nice kids, they do have some problems with math and maybe a bit of an anger issue, but everytime this is brought up it is silenced by him talking about how great his kids are. This is a bit how many Europeans see Americas way of expressing patriotism.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/
Yes, voter turnout has been bad, and at the same time fewer and fewer people are showing pride in their nation. Hell, we just had 8 years of a president that suggested repeatedly we should be ashamed. Perhaps that itself shows that being prideful leads to voter turnout.
As for your parent-child analogy, a couple points:
First, yes, that is obnoxious and narcissistic behavior. It’s also unproductive and not conducive to improvement. However, there’s a difference between chanting “USA, USA” and telling people of other countries that we are better. The media can cover whatever they choose, but international coverage of a bunch of Americans showing pride is not necessarily an attempt to rub it in anyone’s face. Now certainly there are instances of that, which like I said before, does little good.
Second, and I think this makes a difference, I don’t know if the original commenter was saying she herself would be uncomfortable doing this for her nation, or that the Americans doing it makes her uncomfortable.
Either way, yes, there are those rubbing it in to others and I’m not on board with that. But the vast, vast majority of people showing pride do so because they’re proud, and there are only good things that come from that. Obviously we are a deeply flawed nation in some respects, but prideful people are how that’s corrected.
Sorry if appropriately-aimed patriotism makes people uncomfortable. My guess is it wouldn’t make anyone uncomfortable if the media decided to cover a bunch of Canadians pridefully chanting. My cynical side would bet this has something to do with the fact that the USA might actually be the greatest country, so the pridefulness is seen as boasting. Who knows, but I’m certainly not sorry for being proud and expressing it.
I am the original poster. What I am saying is that great shows of patrioism seems strange to many Europeans, due to many different reasons. Like the fact that many nations have already had that stage a couple of hundred years ago, or how it reminds us of the mess that led to two world wars, or just because we are unused to such displays, they are not part of our culture.
People form Europe express patriotism and pride in other ways, often more quietly then that of the US. Its not that Europeans are not proud of their nations, they just feel like its something they should go about talking about in everyday life. I would be uncomfortable if the normal way of showing pride in Canada was like how it was shown in the US. But the times I have seen Canadians act like this it is in connection to sporting events, where all countries start acting like that. For the US it seems as if it is the default mode.
I am not saying that the way the US expresses pride is worse than the way Europeans does it, but I am trying to explain why it makes me, and most other people that I know, a tad uncomfortable.
That makes a lot of sense - different, whether right or wrong, causes discomfort. I do think there is a bit of an unfair caricature depicting Americans running around all day screaming “USA!”, and there is both unjust generalizations and exaggerations.
Example: my girlfriend and I were walking around Green Lake in Seattle, Washington last week and I said to her, “Amazing how few people have American flags outside their house.” We walked the three miles around the lake and saw one flag flying for every 15 houses or so. By contrast, I live 20 miles south of Seattle on a block where 5 of 6 homes have a flag outside.
Point being, there are different parts of the country where overt patriotism ranges from very nearly nothing (mostly the big, coastal, left-leaning cities) to very prevalent; it’s far (and unfortunately getting farther) from unanimous.
It might be a bit of a caricature, and I do think that most of the USAUSA chants are done somewhat in jest, but I have seen it done rather sincerely, outside of sporting events, or other events like that.
I also think there is a difference in how the flag is viewed. In most Scandinavia countries flying the flag is not really seen as a symbol of national pride (Through there are exceptions), but is mostly seen as a sign of coziness. We fly it when grilling on warm summer days, or put it on birthday cakes and Christmas trees. Hanging it on walls or flying it as a sign of national pride is seen as a somewhat unusual and maybe bit extreme thing to do, unless there is some special occasion for it, such as a holiday or something related to sports. I know Germans who are uncomfortable with this, as Germany has a somewhat unfortunate history when it comes to flag flying and overt expressions of pride. This does not make me think Germans are less proud of their country, I know several who are quite proud of it, they just show it by trying to better it and drinking a lot of beer.
The flag waving, USA, USA chanting, and insistence that the US is the most unique and greatest country in the world
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, and for a long time, the US was the best place in the world. That's why literally millions of people wanted to move and live there.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but the way Americans shows it, excessive use of flags, randomly breaking into chants, pledge of allegiance etc, etc, can be somewhat uncomfortable for Europeans, that are more used to just being quietly patriotic. This is also not about the quality of the US, but more about how some people completely ignores a lot of the things wrong with the country, and keep insisting that it is the greatest country in the world.
Think about it this way. You see all the division and all the back and forth and hate that goes on? Imagine that without all the overall idea of the "United States" and the patriotism and the "US vs. the World" concept.
but the way Americans shows it, excessive use of flags, randomly breaking into chants, pledge of allegiance etc, etc, can be somewhat uncomfortable for Europeans, that are more used to just being quietly patriotic
And having the police called out because having the Union Jack flying outside my house during the World Cup is "racist" confuses Americans I'm sure.
World Cups are pretty much one of the only time I see Europeans being openly patriotic, so that is something that confuses me as well.
World Cups are pretty much one of the only time I see Europeans being openly patriotic
But don't you like it that Americans are like this all year? I sure do.
Lets agree to disagree.
You wouldn't have the Union Flag out for the world cup. You'd have the St George Cross, the Flag of Wales or the Flag of Scotland depending on where you're from.
The police wouldn't be round either.
Lads, I actually live in England, and I remember what happened, so thanks for getting involved.
Well it is the greatest in the world. And why not be proud of something you love?
America is definitely the greatest country in the world, just not one I'd like to live in.
America, fuck yeah!
I don't know about unique but it is the greatest country in the world
"All the children that had a role in this year's school play were great! But MY kid was the best"
If that kid is the US of A
Net Neutrality Fight
Yeah, I live here, and the fact that something that would be good for everyone, and is supported by like 80% of people is even up for a fight does seem messed up.
It's not up for a fight, we already lost :\
Congress can still overturn the decision to get rid of it. The Senate has already passed, now it's just the House of Representatives.
[deleted]
Well the House will crush it because it's not an issue that will flip any voters, only donors.
And even then, Trump will most likely reject the motion.
Yeah, now you only have to hope for the Republican majority House to vote against telecommunication companies.
Not everybody! PNW FTW on this one.
The issue is that it’s not a law, just an FCC regulation. We need to enshrine it in law, and maybe make a law that forces the executive branch to enforce laws.
The large companies lost. The free market won.
...to which large companies are you referring?
Any company that wants it to be more expensive for a start-up company to enter the market to compete with them.
Yeah, that's why the major telecommunication companies were the ones funding the takedown of net neutrality.
Because if Comcast and AT&T were all for Net Neutrality as proposed, they already had a plan to screw over American consumers for more money once it passed.
Government regulation is never good for everyone. In this case, it stifles competition, and makes internet service less available to people who are not in major markets. The regulatory burden alone keeps new companies out of the market.
Rural Americans aren't able to get on the internet.......?
Rural internet sucks, by and large. Major companies have no incentive to improve service to them, since they can make more profit improving major markets.
Small players in the market will take smaller profits in smaller markets when they can't compete in major markets, where they make no money at all.
Major companies have no incentive to improve services to them because there isn't enough money to make. There is no room for a "little guy" in getting fast internet to the boonies - not because of some regulatory red tape or a vindictive major telecom company, but because there's only X amount of people over a large area and the major cost of infrastructure won't net the telecoms enough to make it worth the trouble to them.
One way to get faster internet out to rural areas is for states to pool money from residents and put the infrastructure in themselves, and just run it like any other utility. But something tells me you wouldn't like that idea. ;)
It's a PR thing. If you call it "Net Neutrality" it sounds good. If you call it "Government Control & Regulation of the Internet", it suddenly sounds bad.
"Government Control & Regulation of the Internet"
Oooh, ooh, I want to play too - "Federal Consumer Protections for an Open Internet"
While I do think many regulations can, and should, go away, let's not lose sight of the fact that many federal regulations are in place because business could not / would not regulate themselves.
True, but was the internet "broken" in 2015? No. Why the sudden push to regulate when it wasn't necessary, other than a desire by some members of the government / federal bureaucracy to control anything they didn't already control.
That was the first "push" to make the Internet a utility rather than a service.
Protections for the internet have been in place since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Net neutrality had spotty continuity (due to Republican attempts to dismantle it), but it was mostly intact throughout. The FCC's jurisidiction didn't start in 2015, that's just when the internet was classed as a Title II common carrier (previously it had received common carrier-like protections without the classification, and that was apparently a problem). So no, the internet prior to 2015 wasn't broken, precisely because NN was already in place.
And besides, that's a crap argument. A protectory regulation shouldn't require catastrophe in order to be justified, it should be decided on based on the concepts and principles behind it. For example, a seatbelt isn't stupid just because you've never been in a crash before, and putting filters on cigarettes isn't pointless just because you don't have cancer yet.
I'll reverse that question. What exactly about requiring ISPs to give all subscribers equal access to all sites has been so burdensome for the last 22 years? Why is access to the entire internet such a bad thing, and what apparent horrors have we been unknowingly suffering for most of the internet's life?
That's a bad comparison. Nobody is going to die if their ISP puts an extra traffic surcharge on Netflix for using 60% of their bandwidth on any given day, resulting in Netflix increasing their monthly fees by $2 to cover those charges.
That's hardly the same as requiring seatbelts to prevent people from dying in a car crash. (Although I'd argue that it's not the government's place to require seatbelts either since the dumbass not wearing it is only potentially hurting himself, not anyone else.)
The stakes are different, but the principle is the same. The regulation exists to prevent a bad thing from happening. in the case of seatbelts, physical injury. In the case of net neutrality, we want to prevent ISPs (which are already monopolies in many areas) from further exploiting and limiting their subscribers. You fantasize about ISPs benevolently using their power to extract small additional fees, when they have the power to do significantly more. Bandwidth throttling, site blocking, site slowing, private deals to make certain networks load faster (via making everything else slower), tiered service access, outright censorship, etc. Title II protections prevent these things from happening, and they were just recently removed.
The best case scenario is that everything online only gets a little bit worse instead of a lot worse. There is no good reason to invite these problems.
Demanding an open and fair market with no special treatment for big players =/= government control.
And if you insist it does, it's still a very capitalist form of regulation, which is why it seems so bizarre that the right opposes it.
Fuck me, even my place India made it absolutely clear a while ago that there will be no preferential treatment for internet content by any ISP.
Facebook's attempt at subverting this, called "free basics" was told to shut up shop the moment it launched
Aren't they banning memes and imposing a tax for links in Europe as well?
[The comment you are trying to view has been banned by the EU copyright law] 🇪🇺
Jokes aside, they are. Us Canadians aren't really impacted though.
Kind of want to troll my European friends and try send them a meme and see that it's blocked.
[Their face] (https://i.imgflip.com/28fj3w.jpg)
They are prepairing law about copyright - that would in theory affect memes too, but nothing will ever change.
AFAIK it's just about the copyrighted material in memes, photographs and such. Stupid shit nonetheless.
The thing you've got to understand about Europe is they say a lot of stuff but nothing ever gets done.
It's like they were trying to ban third party cookies, and all it really turned into was every website having a little banner on the top telling you that use cookies, that was it. Nothing changed.
GDPR though
Lobbyists try their shit here just as much as in the US. To date, we've been pretty lucky that the politicians don't get seduced. But the majority of them are just as clueless about how this stuff actually works as yours are so we still have to cross our fingers.
We have article 13 coming up.. So we are not that different.
part of it has to do with many congressmen and women being told by telecom lobbyists (lobbying is a whole other issue) that NN stifles growth and innovation, and the congressmen and women dont have any other information to base the lobbyists words on. Also doesnt help that the Federal Communications Commission chairman is a former Verizon lawyer.
Ummm check the news bud the war has spread to the whole damn EU
Which we lost
80% of the US population supports NN. That is an insane majority in a partisan country like the US. What you're seeing there is certain elements of the government realizing that they can do whatever it wants and that there are literally no consequences. The GOP has figured out that the trick to staying in power is convincing their constituents that the other side is literally Satan, and that there is no choice but to accept their rule.
Are you surprised that America cares about net neutrality or that they're having to fight for it? Most countries actually don't have laws mandating net neutrality like what Americans are fighting for.
Elections for some officials, especially sheriffs and judges. I understand where it comes from, but I think it's the worst idea ever!
'Sheriffs' are elected in England & Wales, but are known as 'Police and Crime Commissioners'.
The term 'Sheriff' was even used when the idea was first floated about.
And what a great success it is too, election turnouts of 8-20%, and one is the subject of an ongoing investigation into fiddling election expenses (or the reporting thereof) at the previous general election.
Now I'm certainly not fully in favour of them, but that's not quite true - turn out was ridiculously low in 2012, in part because they weren't well publicized, and happened at an unusual time of the year. In 2016, people were more familiar with PCCs and the elections happened in May. So the turnout wasn't as bad at that, but still very low - 17% at the lowest, but averaging 25% with a few above 30% in England, and then a fair bit higher in Wales due to coinciding with the Assembly election.
and one is the subject of an ongoing investigation into fiddling election expenses (or the reporting thereof) at the previous general election.
This happens at every level of UK politics.
Retention votes on Judges is a good idea, IMHO, but doesn't end up working.
Locally, there's usually a section on the ballot with "Shall Judge so-and-so be retained to the whatever court".
In theory, this leaves appointing judges to politicians, rather than a popularity contest, but givens the populace a way to get rid of an out-of-control judge.
Unfortunately, a judge can be in the media for months for ignoring the law and showing favoritism to a former judge buddy try to screw over his neighbor, and still have >50% "retain" vote.
Most people who vote just vote "retain" with zero effort to research them.
Coroners are elected roles, too!
I never heared of that...so every dickhead can become a judge if he gets elected?
You have to be admitted to the bar I think.
Supreme Court is different, you dont need to be a lawyer.
Supreme Court is different, you dont need to be a lawyer.
WHAT? That's like the most important thing for a judge...
I don't disagree, it's just not required in the Constitution. In practice, every scotus member in history has had law training one way or another.
You have to be admitted to the bar I think.
This is not true in a lot of places.
You wouldn’t ever get on the Supreme Court without being a lawyer at this point.
Their high empathy for domesticated animals and yet extreme apathy for other human beings
Animals can't talk back
They also don't judge me. I think my cat does, but at least I can't be sure about it.
I am American and this just kills me. It's so true and disgusting and I'm so glad other people have noticed this!! And to another extreme how people just don't give a shit about all the homeless in this country and kids in foster care and who Maybe get to eat one meal a day if they are lucky... "Oh look a stray dog how cute I wanna take it home" to "Omg a homeless person thats fucking gross.. Damn hobo is in the park again ruining the view" ... Like are you fucking kidding me? Sorry it just really bothers me.
lol I’ve been to Europe several times and I honestly think that most Northern Europeans are much more private and can’t really stand constant contact with strangers much more than the average American.
To be fair a lot of people don't want the help.
Whereas most stray dogs will gladly take up on your offer for help.
Is this really only an American thing? I absolutely agree with you.
I mean human beings are the cancer of the earth and dogs are living angels. Pretty self explanatory
E D G Y
D
G
Y
This isn’t really an edgy opinion in America IMO.
y’all heard of sarcasm?
Can't be sure in a thread like this.
Here's how I think of it, especially when people complain when animals die in anything. Animals are pure, they don't do anything wrong. Where as humans doing a lot of stuff wrong and so we judge them and mistreat them
When has a domesticated animal been responsible for other domesticated animals and then abused them or neglected something that didn't have anywhere to turn to?
Pets and children I have sympathy for unconditionally. They can't fend for themselves.
With adult humans, it's conditional. I pity them if they're really good people in trouble, but if they're abusive assholes, good, let them suffer in the cold.
Cause people are pieces of shit that’s why
I don't get this one either and I'm American.
Because trained animals don't cause harm like some people do and when they do it is usually the trainer fault
I also think you are overblown it more then it really is
To be fair many people suck and the more you're kind to them the more they'll take advantage. No one has this problem with their pet dog or cat.
As a misanthrope, that seems entirely appropriate to me.
Oh piss off
Truth hurts, huh?
[deleted]
I'm not saying that animal lives aren't important, just that we should be valuing human lives at least the same.
Replacing swear words with made up words that sound similar. YOU AREN'T CHANGING ANYTHING! YOU ARE JUST APPLYING THE SAME MEANING TO A NEW WORD.
puck off motherbucker.
Uh, like what?
Frickin, darn, shoot, firetruck
Holy motherforking shirt balls.
That’s what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!
What the French toast?!
The food portions are waaay out of proportion. I have a good appetite but your typical fast food order sounds like what I would eat over afew days
A burger and fries can last you 9 meals +?
And fast food is so cheap too. I once heard an american on a podcast say "I could eat 10 dollars worth of taco bell on my own" as if that's a huge amount. Here 10 euros worth of local fast food would be a meal , sure but definitely not that much.
Also goes for pizza. A large pizza is 20 euros or more.
i would say fast food isnt cheap , you might get quite a few tacos with 10 bucks , but they have frekin half a spoon of meat and are actually small , a lot of places 6-8 dollars is only 1 burger maybe a drink, fair amount of people actually lose quite a bit of money because they eat fast food
I just equivocate all my purchases to McChickens.
$10 = 10 McChickens
I call it the McChicken index, or MCI. Taco Bell dollar menu generally has an MCI of >1, Wendy's is darn near 0.35
Haha this is great!
I've been told that US McChickens = Canadian Jr Chicken and they don't have our McChickens down south.
Can anyone frequent border crossers confirm?
Accurate, it was quite a surprise when I went to the great white north and the McChicken was different.
McChickens as in the ones which use a thick piece of meat in a Big Mac size bun instead of the small Hamburger size one? If so then that's surprisingly cheap.
No, not the Canadian McChicken, the American McChicken, which is the smaller sandwich. Still a deal for a dollar though.
Seriously. You can go pick up a whole bag of tortillas, a pound of ground beef, and a bag of shredded cheese for $8. That’s enough for like 12 tacos and you’ll have half the bag of cheese left over.
yep, its a lot more efficient to buy from the grocery store , most of the time
I could go to Jack in the Box and get 20 tacos for $10 plus tax. Shitty, but somehow still tasty, tacos. Plenty of cheap fast food options out there. I rarely eat fast food myself, but when I do, I usually just go with the cheap options because it's all garbage anyways. I'd rather spend $2-$3 on a garbage meal instead of $7. Fries and drinks I usually skip, that's just filler.
Most people who eat fastfood don't do this though, and they just pick a combo and pay $6-$8.
Eh no.. They just make the foods that are more desirable more expensive. All the major fast food places have a value meal menu which you can get a significant amount of food for cheap. Just everyone wants the $5+ dollar burger.
A regular pizza place will probably charge you $15-20 for a large, but big chain pizza places are dirt cheap. You can get two medium 2 toppings for like $12 with an online coupon that they provide on their site so there is no reason not to use it. I figure a slice is probably somewhere between 350-500 calories so if you just eat one of those that is more than enough food for a person and you could pace that as lunch for several days. You could freeze some and defrost it later. By the end of that cycle you have had 16 meals off of 12 dollars. Obviously it's not the healthiest idea, but it is pretty frugal.
Not to mention Little Caesars. $5 for a large pizza. Hard to beat that.
Eh, I'd rather spend a bit more money to get pizza that tastes better. :/ The dough they use always tastes weird to me.
Ya it's certainly not the highest quality but damn it is cheap!
True dat!
[deleted]
Oh I wasn't aware I assumed it would be more. I suppose there is probably a bit variation depending on sauce and topping choice. Like that garlic parmesan white sauce is probably worse for you than the regular tomato.
I eat a whole medium pizza though, by myself....do I have a problem?
I've definitely done that before too. How often do you eat pizza? It's definitely not a thing people should do regularly.
I figure a slice is probably somewhere between 350-500 calories so if you just eat one of those that is more than enough food for a person and you could pace that as lunch for several days.
If you believe Domino's, one slice of a medium pepperoni and jalapeno pizza (just picked 2 random toppings) is 210 calories. So you could have two slices and that would be (at least IMO) a relatively small lunch.
The 210 calories things seems weirdly low.
Taco Bell is much cheaper than other fast food places. You can get a pretty big meal (a taco, burrito, chalupa, side, and drink) for only $5.
Taco Bell is exceptionally cheap compared to most fast food, because its mostly just beans and meat stretched out with soy or...something..
Where is it cheap? $10 WOULD get you about 7 tacos and a drink, but any other fast food place the meal almost comes to $10. Six McNuggets and a medium fry with no drink is nearly $7. Same at Wendy's if you get a small chili, some nuggets, and a small soda. A burrito bowl with a regular soda at Chipotle is just around $10. I'm not fat and when I've ordered these around other people they can't believe how I'm not getting more food, but that's because it's not cheap anymore.
Six McNuggets and a medium fry with no drink is nearly $7
Yeah, when you order things that aren't on whatever the current iteration of the "dollar menu" is. You used to be able to get 8 nuggets for $2 and a medium fry for another dollar.
Nowdays I grab a McChicken, a cheeseburger, and a drink, and walk out the door for $3.18
Same with Taco Bell, you could order a quesadilla and a drink for like $10, or you can get 10 pounds of bean burrito for the same amount.
Taco Bell literally has a box of 12 tacos for $10.
Ah ok so taco bell is just an outlier then in terms of price?
Taco Bell is next level cheap - https://www.tacobell.com/food/deals-and-combos/chalupa-cravings-box
Though lots of other places, like Hardees & Cookout, have similarly insane amounts for $5
Totally. You can get like 8 items for $10 at Taco Bell. Anywhere else is $10 for burger, side and a drink.
Anywhere else is $10 for burger, side and a drink.
Maybe in a big city or something. Where I live, I can go to any fast food burger place and get a burger, fries, and drink for $7. In fact, the only places I’ve seen it cost more are NYC and LA.
Yes, it is. When I was struggling financially, this became an easy treat to eat there.
€20 for a large pizza would be a lot. A large pizza is $8-$14 at the store in my town.
$10 at Taco Bell is definitely enough to feed two people. They have these $5 boxed meals that seem to be pretty popular (and calorie dense). And if you just want tacos or burritos, those go for around a dollar each. Calorie-wise those 10 tacos or burritos would give you between a full day worth of calories or two full days worth.
Norway doesn't count when it comes to food prices, nowhere else will you buy a 20 euro pizza unless it's the most expensive pizza on the menu.
I'll remember that when I go to norway
I only bought mini (child) pizzas when I was there and still had to pay like 10 euro.
10 dollars worth of taco bell is really not that much food. You would still be hungry. Fast food prices here are not as good as they were years ago. Its been on a steady rise for a while. Maybe if it was 4 or 5 years ago you could have got full of 10 dollars at taco bell. But taco bell isn't to make you full any way. Compared to other places you really do spend like 10-20 there just trying to get full
Maybe I’m in another part of the country but $10 at tbell gets you a large combo plus an extra burrito. It’s a fuck ton of food.
At my local one all you could get with 10 is one of those boxes that used to be 5 dollars. And those are kinda disappointing around here since they are 2 tacos and a cinnamon twists
Regional variations in prices can be crazy. I live in relatively expensive city so the Denny's in my neighborhood and the Denny's in the small town where my parents live have like a $5-7 difference on every menu item. Also the one in their town has the 2/4/6/8 menu which is nonexistent in the any Denny's locations in my city. It really changes the experience because over there it's a cheap casual thing you can get fed on a Hamilton or less and here it's just like a huge rip off like I am dropping $15 for some okay pancakes?
Huh. We still have $1 items here (small burritos, tavos, etc.)
Ok well the anecdote im talking about was from years ago so that makes sense
ya it would seen a average taco bell taco only actually takes 2 bites to finish , theres not a lot to them , unless you order the pricier burritos that have more , but man does taco bell taste bad
In Canada you can get a pizza and Italian cheese bread (basically cheese bread sticks ) for $7 or a little over.
Yeah but to be fair, Little Caesar's hardly constitutes food
WHAT? BLASPHEMY
I love that shit.
I'm in NY. 8 dollars gets me a 12 inch pizza that's edible.
is this because the pizza they make isn't paper thin?
I hear that complaint all the time but I personally believe anyone who can eat thin pizza is secretly a satanist.
Are you thinking of Chicago pizza?
Best value in food anywhere. Feed a small family for $5. Pretty damn cheap.
a normal person gets a (american) small burger, a side of fries and a drink.
Then we have the gluttons who order 4 burgers, 3 fries, 2 chicken nuggets and a large diet soda and find it normal.
this is also coming from a 5'9", 140lb girl. I eat small american portions when I eat out. I eat more at home knowing I cook healthy and therefore it is still less calories.
I heard of a guy who got two number 9s, a number 9 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda.
He didn’t live long after that, but oddly enough, he didn’t die of anything food-related.
Edit: misspelled soda.
No, it was a number 6 with extra dip, the extra number 9 was a number 9 large.
Two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda. Here's a useful song to help you remember
I love that you have a video ready on the fly to help anyone out who can’t remember the exact wording of a fast food order that became a meme.
Who the fook orders 4 burgers? Jesus Christ.
The same people who ride their little electric carts to the drive thru window
I hate going in to a dine in restaurant, and having so much food, I either have to force myself to finish or take some home where I will never feel like finishing it.
Those leftovers are always the first thing I want to eat because they taste so much better than anything else I keep in the house lol
I keep not eating it cause its not as good when it was fresh
I will always try to take half of my meal home. There is no reason anyone needs that much food. American's eat so much.
I also eat about 5 small meals a day.
As a guy, if you didn't finish the whole burger (Not talking about a small McDonald's burger) and fries, if you're eating out with friends, they'll probably crack some jokes about it and shit. Still I usually end up taking some home. I went to Olive Garden due to a gift card, and the pasta was enough to feed 2-3 people. So yeah I took some of that home.
But even one is huuuge! In my country I almost always take home half of my food, I accept I don’t eat that much. But when I visit the US you could easily divide it in at least three VERY generous portions.
A US small is the equivalent of our large here lol
They have increased drink sizes in the US for some reason. What would've been a large in the 90s is a medium now. I remember when they did it in the 2000s. It seemed awesome then, but I don't ever finish a medium soda now.
Small what? Fries? Drink? Milkshake?
Hopefully not coffee. I'd die if a large coffee only gave me 5 oz.
Pretty much everything. A small fries is like barely a handful here
I worked at a Wendy's back in the day, and two people came through the drive through and ordered 4 Triple Cheeseburgers and 4 large fries. We literally had to use all of our restaurant's resources and employees to cook all that meat and fries
What kind of shitty Wendy's can't 4 triple cheeseburgers at once wtf
A smaller location that was also understaffed (we only had 3-4 people working that shift)
a normal person gets a (american) small burger, a side of fries and a drink
Exactly. Why would you need all 3? Doesn't one do it for a single day?
A burger and fries is a normal meal. Most people tend to have a side with all their meals.
A burger and fries is a normal meal.
...............
You gonna make a meal out of fries?
It's not that normal to get an entire large big mac meal and eat the whole thing. That's generally viewed as gluttonous.
Wait, what? Who doesn't finish a basic combo meal?
That's like an 1100 calorie meal dude
Depends on the combo meal. And then of course it shouldn't be a combo for lunch and dinner. Moderation!
More than that. I think a decent amount of fries is 750 calories on their own, any burger that isn't from the dollar menu is another 600 minimum, and then 200-400 calories of soda. Plus dessert! Can't leave without a frosty or something, so another 300-1000 calories there.
A large fry is 510 and a big Mac is 560
That's a solid appetizer.
That's half your food for the day (and almost all your carbs and salt) without a drink for most people lol
Don't get me wrong, I'll eat that much food. It's just not super common.
I'm well aware, but I'm not kidding about the portions.
I haven't been to a McDonald's in... months, at least. When we went as a family when I was younger, it was normal for us to all get the XL-sized everything, and usually a 20-piece McNugget to share. And a McFlurry. It's a miracle that I don't weigh five times what I do.
A large fry is 510 and a big Mac is 560
l'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda.
I prefer the 512oz child size.
You could fit a two year old child in one of those things
Liquified! https://youtu.be/Ish8NBunrQU
unless you are a teenager or a taller person (like 6'4" 250, which I am)
that's not simply tall that's fat
No, it isnt. The person on the right of this photo is 6'4" 250, with about my musculature and body type
https://imgur.com/nx55L0Q
Not fat. That is on the larger side of healthy weight
and before you bring up BMI, BMI doesnt really work well with people over 6'. At 6'4", it is pretty majorly off.
still looks fat to me on the right. guy clearly has some extra baggage on his midsection, look at those "love handles"
definitely would consider that a body that needs to lose some weight
No, that is wearing tight pants. Because you can see a six pack, the guy has fuck all for body fat
maybe we have different standards, i'm 175 cm 62 kg and currently working on losing weight
Humans are not designed to not have any fat on them. There is an acceptable amount of visceral fat
lol that's cute. I'll usually get a combo meal plus another burger off the dollar menu if I'm getting fast food. Wendy's is the best for that. Love those junior bacon cheeseburgers.
When you say large big mac, are you talking about what we Canadians call the double big mac with 4 slices of patties?
Our regular "big mac" is two slices of patties
What does that constitute? Here in the UK I think that’s just a burger and fries and a drink which people can definitely finish
Eh, I do that in airports since everything else is usually ridiculously overpriced. I'm a pretty tall guy though.
You eat more than 1000 calories over 3 days... you eat more than that in a day, stop bullshitting.
You'd eat a hamburger and fries over several days?
As an American familiar with the Full English, I always take a tiny bit of umbrage when we get shit for our portion sizes. It's not just us!
[deleted]
This is especially true for Germany. Holy fuck their portions are huge.
you mean we arent supposed to feel like we cant move after we eat?! lol
I think it's because it's cheap, fast, and what your body craves. Literally everything at a fast food place has sugar, salt, and fat. Which is like a speedball for your internal reward system. So you think that if you consume more of it, then you'll get more of that reward in your brain.
i think you are confusing quantity and Size, fast food sizes are usually small , 3 burgers lets say might sound a lot but turn out to be smaller than a normal burger, but then again are filled with fake junk and might fill someone faster. just want to point that out since it sounds like you havent actually in person eaten/seen "our" portions
No, American portions are just genuinely huge compared to what I'm used to here in the UK. Considering even just normal restaurants (not fast food), the quantity of food they put on your plate is ridiculous.
Because the food isn't all meant to be eaten in that one sitting. It's pretty much assumed half the plate will be taken home and reheated for another meal.
you are going to have to elaborate, did you visit U.S and if so where did you eat because that really depends , the "portions" of anywhere ive eaten are average in sense of anywhere globally , nothing large or abnormal or "ridiculous", but certain smaller businesses or private owned may give you larger portions simply because they can
Yes, I've eaten in Boston and San Francisco. Pretty much every restaurant we went to gave us more food than restaurants at home serve, from diners to Chinese restaurants and everything in between.
Fast food portions aren't the problem imo, it's the sit down restaurants. My wife and I usually split a meal and are both filled afterwards. They just give you way too much food, in most cases.
A lot of us do eat it over the course of a few days. Especially smaller people and/or women. Most of the time I eat half my meal for dinner and use the other half for lunch the next day. However there are plenty of people who wolf down the whole thing in one sitting.
Idk, they were the same here as when I visited Portugal, Italy, and Turkey....
I have a good appetite
A typical fast food meal is like 700-1100 calories. That's high, but it's not gonna last you even one day for an average person eating normally.
But if you do it every day three times, you'll probably get fat, yeah.
The fast food menus are rigged in that we would pay nearly the same for half the food and we usually go for the greater value for our money.
Are you sure we’re talking about the same fast food? A burger and fries really isn’t a lot of food.
[deleted]
Alright I’m sick of this thread. Just because we have unhealthy options doesn’t mean we all or even the majority of us subscribe to them. I eat fast food maybe once a week. A single burger, small fries, and a water or lemonade if I’m feeling crazy. The rest I eat home cooking or am careful of my intake. In the past 10 years people have become much more aware of what they are eating. Soda intake is WAY down and the younger generation isn’t drinking nearly as much soda as their elders. Americans are always stereotyped as fat idiots but when people like yourself run with that stereotype I find it rather annoying. We have unhealthy options but that doesn’t mean we are buying them whenever we see them. They’re treats for the vast majority of people. Thanks.
If anything, I think we're an example of how public awareness campaigns have positively shifted attitudes at every level. During the mid-2000s when Super Size Me spearheaded awareness of the obesity epidemic, all the big fast food brands shifted towards a healthier image and now they are shit scared of being perceived as more than a little unhealthy. We're at the point where cities have considered taxes on sodas and other sugary drinks.
Heck, at least where I live (Austin, Texas), we now have a bunch of new eateries that are about the same service level of the fast food chains and serve similar menus, but are instead doing things along the lines of the locavore movement and the general attitude of freshness and health that we have going now
You realize you don’t have to buy everything in the store, right? They also sell fruits, vegetables, and fresh meat.
I've never seen a single dairy product come with a growth hormone warning.
Sounds like you're confusing gas station snack aisles with actual grocery stores.
no your portions are just tiny. also, bigger portions are nice and far better than the other way around. you can take it home if you dont finish it. way better than ordering an entree and still being hungry afterwards
Small fountain drinks are typically 20-24 ounces.
It's nuts. Otherwise you can eat pretty lean. A double cheese burger- 1/5th pound of beef- is about 400 calories and a small fry is another 230 calories or so.
The problem is framing. You would think that a small is what you order for a kid. So you order a medium. And double cheese burgers might be reasonable but they look kinda dopey. A big mac or a quarter pounder is where it's at. Psychologically you're primed to ask for the medium or the large.
Agree
That's because when you're trying to pay all your bills you only get to eat once or twice a week over here.
it's a long con.
make larger portions a better deal and get kids use to it young. eventually you're just use to getting a large fry and drink along with your double burger.
once you start calorie tracking you realize the difference and once you get used to eating "smalls" the large size just seems ridiculous for daily consumption.
The typical fast food order is normally 600 or so calories. You get a McDouble and a medium soda, or something to that regard. it is larger than what you get in the UK, but still quite possible to fit into a healthy diet
As someone who is finally starting the diet put off years ago, you find really quick just how nutty our portions are here.
Honestly, portion control alone has been the hardest part. I can have a cola with a meal if I like, but when I ask for a small they hand me a 32 oz one ("it's the same price, enjoy!"). We love food.
correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure in America having a clean plate means you should be served more. AFAIK.
I travel to work and am currently in Paris, I typically don't finish my meal while the clients im working with eat all of theirs.
I went to America a few years ago and goddamn, the amount of food I got served. Not generally in fast food, actually, but more in restaurants and diners. Who eats that much? I can barely eat a full plate in a British restaurant where the servings are far smaller.
And the cost on the menu was far less than the equivalent in pounds, although most of the difference is made up by American tipping culture (which is another thing I don't get - yes, it's nice to get a tip, and I would generally give a tip, but you shouldn't have to rely on them. In the UK it's illegal for your employer to expect your wages to be made up by tips, they're an extra. In the US, it's almost like they're necessary for the servers).
It's an unspoken thing in the US that you don't actually eat all the food on your plate, but take half of it home to reheat later.
..I do that here
Maybe you just eat like a bird m8. I've been all over Europe (mostly Eastern though) and the portions don't really seem different to those in the US.
And as a big guy (tall, not fat) I think it's pretty nice to get my money's worth in both quality and quantity.
I've not been that far east, the furthest east I've been is Berlin and that seemed like regular portions for me. The portion size in the US was a regular topic of conversation on that holiday though, and several other British people agreed with us when we got back home.
However I do remember my history teacher (on the aforementioned Berlin trip, actually) making fun of me for how little pizza I ate at this restaurant where we just got a whole bunch of pizzas to share on the table. So yeah, maybe it is me.
As an American, our food portions are too goddamn big. It's almost impossible to buy a properly proportioned meal. I've taken to getting kids meals, because they're about the right size and have better options for sides and drinks like fruit and milk. I almost always have leftovers any time I eat out at a restaurant. And I'm a 230 lb male that works out regularly.
There's no such thing as too big. There is absolutely no downside to getting more food for less money.
The downside is you can't get a reasonably small single serving meal for a low price. I don't need a 2700 calorie meal for $8, I need a healthy 800 calorie meal for $4. I don't care that I can get 4 times as much food for 2 times the cost, it's just 4 dollars wasted if I'm not going to eat it. Taking home leftovers is a pain in the ass, and the vast majority of fast food tastes terrible when reheated.
so get the big meal and split it in two. (and for the record I've never been to a place where you can't get a smaller meal for cheaper).
Especially the concept of sides for everything, like fries or chicken wings with a pizza
I've never been to a restaurant or fast food where you can't order just the main course.
TOTALLY. What the fuck, what they consider one meal is like x3 here.
Meanwhile in France they have 7 course meals... Ours are 1.25x bigger at best and that really depends on where you go to eat.
Living with parents when you are an adult = shame.
In Russia it's a totally normal thing. It makes looking after little kids and later caring for your old parents much easier.
Americans tend to be very independent. Leaving home when you’re 18 is kind of a right of passage.
For us it's getting a job after school/Uni. No need to leave home for this.
To me Americans seem lonely people. Teens living apart from their families, old parents abandoned by their kids... So sad.
Arabs the same
in the 1960's the drug culture changed America..
people have no respect for their families anymore
over 50% of marriages end in Divorce
Abortion is used as birth control instead of a serious medical procedure
people buy expensive things on credit instead of cash because they want to act like they are a millionaire
I look at my neighborhood I never see adult children visiting their parents .. maybe 3-4 times a year .. no one cares for their parents..
I care for my parents but it means I don't get to go on luxury vacations .. it is not a big deal because they took care of me while I was growing up.
I'm glad you do care for your parents. They raised you well :)
idk if it was the drug culture but something definitely happened in the 60s. Lots of books have been written about it. That's also when crime started to go back up.
I think there was a shift in the moral zeitgeist during that generation, and people's values became different. The things you mentioned are the side effects of that
My dad has passed. My husband and I just bring my mother on some of our trips, it's a win win. We are on one of those trips now. With that said mom is easy to travel with and quite compact, she's ready to drag along :-)
you have to love your mom.. if not you are worthless :o)
not all moms are loveable, it doesnt make somebody worthless.
My cousin was weirded out by all the American Flags everywhere when she visited. She only sees flags in Schools and Courthouses, but in the States every other lawn in my town has them
A friend recently told me that in Denmark, on your birthday, you decorate your house with Danish flags. Apparently, even their wrapping paper is covered with Danish flags.
It’s ok! They signify freedom.
The was a marked increase of this after 9/11.
Think about it this way. You see all the division and all the back and forth and hate that goes on? Imagine that without all the overall idea of the "United States" and the patriotism and the "US vs. the World" concept.
The fascination with weapons. Not in a “its a hobby of mine” but “oh fuck that gun makes me hard” sense.
Our family had a rifle. Dad used it maybe once a year to hunt with his brothers. Its a tool.
A Canadian.
American gunnie here. Guns don't make me hard but I love them like a car enthusiast loves cars, techies love new tech, and musicians love their instruments
I'm Canadian. I frequent the gun subs here and have shot a few. But until I get my own home I don't think I'll purchase any. They are interesting, there's so much to learn about them.
I have 4 semi auto AR and AK rifles of various length configurations and thousands of rounds of ammo. I've never shot any of them. I have no idea why I bought them.
An American.
I'll be happy to take them off your hands and give them a loving home.
The guys who "get hard" off of guns also happen to have the least experience with them
A gun is like a second dick that can kill people
People politicizing everything...
E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G
Heartwarming story about a guy who survived cancer? IT'S THE REPUBLICANS FAULT FOR OUR HEALTH CARE
New movie where the lead is a woman/someone from a minority? THE DEMS AND THEIR PC CULTURE
Chill out a little bit guys
[deleted]
For the most part, people aren’t like perfect fits in each political party. There are many things I’m conservative about and many things I’m liberal about. But the people who are fully on one side or the other are extremely vocal about it and it makes that seems like the majority of people. Most of us can have meaningful debates about politics but if you watch MSNBC or Fox News it’s just constant bickering and bullshit
the people you see who comment online are close to the dregs of society. either that or theyre not actually a real person commenting. Most people dont comment unless they have a strong opinion, and nice people dont really have relevant strong opinions. However people like those you mention have no personality other than their “political” beliefs.
Honestly, I don't see this as a bad thing. If you want to get shit done, there needs to be outrage. Nothing is going to change if nobody says anything.
But there doesn't need to be outrage about every little thing.
When everything's an issue, nothing is.
I'm from Finland and here's a few I can think of.
Lack of empathy for strangers. Social security issues, noone is willing to pay even 1% more taxes if it is going to help others. They just say sucks to be you, you should work harder. You are on your own and if something happens you are fucked. They just dont care.
Healthcare. Suffering at home rather than going to a doctor because you cant afford it. We have universal healthcare in Finland so everyone can afford it.
Homeless people. We have social security here that allows everyone have the basic things they need. Home, food, clothes, internet etc. Only people who decide to live homeless lives do so or people who are avoiding law.
Patriotism. Constant need to try to convince yourself and others that your country is number one. We all know that is not the case.
Nudity & Sexuality in general. Killing someone is fine, but just one small nipple slip and its the end of the world. Teaching teenagers about their bodies and how to be safe is somehow a badthing in USA.
Religion Most people I know are atheists and only part of the church out of tradition. In nordic countries people who are truly religious are usualy tought to be a bit just a little bit slow in the head.
Corporate worship & anti-regulationism Thinking that large corporations give a shit about you or the world. They would 100% stripmine and rape every last bit of this planet without regulations.
Shoes inside We take our shoes off when we come home or visit someone because we arent barbarians.
Fake activism. Getting offended for every little thing. Acting like some words are worse than murder and getting offended in behalf of others about random things. Specialy when those other people dont give a shit about it or actualy like the thing.
Diehard political party loyalty. The fights they have between republicans and democrats is just crazy. Even going as far as disowning family members if they support the wrong party.
Writing on mobile so sorry for typos etc.
Sounds like I belong in Finland.
I would say any Nordic country would do. We are not so different from each other when it comes to these basic values.
Diehard political party loyalty. The fights they have between republicans and democrats is just crazy. Even going as far as disowning family members if they support the wrong party.
The downside of northern Europe is the weather though. It can drive you crazy.
That's when you start a black metal band.
Nah, just needs some getting used to
We have no problems with the weather it's the lack of sunlight in the winter that's the issue. The weather is usually pretty great.
You got that right my dude
Except for Saunas. Finland has the biggest hard on for saunas in the world. I love saunas.
Please come, our country is shrinking and we could use people who want to live here! Especially if you can stand living in a country which is cold and dark for half of the year, but the sun doesn’t set so you can’t sleep for three months, and the language is always impossible to learn and the people are all socially awkward. So please, welcome!
But can't they just learn Swedish and live in Finland?
Having been to Finland, here are the things preventing me from wanting to move there:
Mandatory military - spoke to an ex Air Force pilot who seemed very excited that the Russian mob is still trying to get into Finland. He described motor cycle gangs using rocket launchers and the police being ok with it because fuck Russia.
Huge drinking culture - had two Finnish people buy me drinks after I told them I don’t drink and they were offended that I wouldn’t accept their “gift.”
Cold weather - no thanks.
Awkward people - I’m awkward enough by myself. More of me is not the answer.
Hard to make friends - I’ve heard most people are just friends with the same people as when they were kids. They don’t like making new friends. Why move to a new country if you’re just going to be isolated?
99% of the people have the same background - this seems really stale. I like having lots of cultures and ideas around me. Coming from California, all white people would be really strange.
Boring architecture - maybe I’m just spoiled but Helsinki was just full of similar concrete buildings.
Small town feel - Helsinki is only 500k people I think.
Denmark is my dream location. All the good stuff listed, and they speak English too
Aside from being completely flat it’s a really nice country with lovely people who all talk with potatoes in their mouths.
Kamelåså
Always kamelåså!
Aside from being completely flat it’s a really nice country
Are you saying flat countries aren't very nice?
As a Dutchman, I feel offended, along wit our buddies the Danish.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
The Dutch, much like the Danes, are some of the best people on some of the shittiest patches of land.
Windmills, cows and flat land artificially kept from being flooded.
Granted I'm saying all of this as a Norwegian sitting on top of a mountain.
At least our flat, previously sea, land is very fertile and useful, unlike your stupid mountains.
Who needs fertile land and good food when you have skis and fjords.
People who make the best cheese in the world, for example.
But then why would you post pictures of wood shavings instead of cheese?
Oh touché
English in all the Nordic countries, you'll have to work hard to find a language barrier in your way.
Mine is Montreal, but my second and third are Denmark and Norway.
[deleted]
I've read otherwise, but thanks for the perspective
I have a Dutch friend who went to study there for a year and he got on just fine in that regard. Probably not a solid 9, but still had a Danish girlfriend.
What... Danish people are some of the nicest, kindest and warmest people in the world and I'm Swedish!
3 years of lessons but still cant speak danish properly Potet språk
My best friend moved there 2 years ago with his gf to have their baby boy. I visited, and it truly is gorgeous. We spent our time split between Helsinki and the Aland Islands. This was for midsummer and the weather was fantastic, the sun barely dipping below horizon. But then you have to consider the opposite in winter. The months of dark and cold. I'm from Scotland, have lived 6 years in France and 7 in Spain. Not a chance in hell I could move to Finland, as much as I'd like to, the climate and darkness are just sure to drive me insane. I'm heading back south to the sun!
A ton of people in America do not fit that description though. It's just that a lot of people also happen to fit that description. If cities like San Francisco or Seattle were independent countries, they'd have very similar views to Finland.
If Finland was in USA, it would be the 21st most populated state. 95% of Finland's population is ethnically Nordic/Scandinavian. When you look at small homogeneous countries, it's easy for them to enact policies similar to a progressive city in the US.
Yeah I think I need to go cry for a bit...
Quickly, someone tell me what the catch is!
You have to learn Finnish.
You and me both. We could be flat mates.
Hi, welcome.
We have crappy weather but cold and short summers!
My issue was never the weather, but the darkness. Fy fan!
The darkness is the best part.
How do you feel about log cabins?
Me too
like some words are worse than murder and getting offended in behalf of others about random things. Specia
They are the happiest people in the world according to some statistics :) I´d like to go there as well at some point...
[deleted]
Just an FYI, Finland isn't actually a part of Scandinavia.
Finland demonstrated enormous resiliency against the Soviets during WW2 - they also made the first awesome phones (Nokia). This gives them lots of street credit and they can be Scandinavians if they want to. Even though I don't understand what the hell they are saying.
Source: Am Danish.
Yeah, we're too cool to be associated with you guys.
Too bad. :(
Have fun with Estonia.
If you change your mind, we're the first in line.
Don't listen to him, no one can resist danish pölse when walking home drunk from a bar!
Oh fuck and remoulade that shit is the best.
Oh. I had no idea. I think I’m better than the average American at geography but I’m still dreadful at world geography.
You sure about that?
The Personal Income Tax Rate in Finland stands at 51.60 percent. Personal Income Tax Rate in Finland averaged 52.96 percent from 1995 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 62.20 percent in 1995 and a record low of 49.00 percent in 2010.
A lot of people want the benefits of the European way of doing things, until they see what the actual cost would be.
EDIT: apparently this comment makes a lot of people mad. I'm merely pointing out that there are not such things as "free" healthcare or "free" education. Those things have to be paid for in some way, and that's typically through higher taxation.
I currently spend 18% of my paycheck for health insurance. With the deductibles I spend another 12% and then I pay federal taxes, state taxes, social security taxes, property taxes, and sales tax so I don't feel as though we are far off from 50 while also not getting the benefits.
Well, I don't know how it works in the US but here it's progressive. I earn something like 32k a year and pay 10% of personal income tax rate. It goes up pretty sharply, I agree. But I would still pay it bc I got the no money out of the pocket education and nearly no money out of the pocket healthcare. Plus my children will have that.
You need to realize that this 'Personal income tax rate' is not just taxes, but health insurance, retirement, unemployment insurance (If you lose your job, you get paid a certain amount of your last wages for a certain amoutn of time), etc.
Unemployment insurance is a thing in the United States as well.
Looking at tax percentages or disposable income is a narrow-minded exercise. You need to compare the lives of various demographics to make a reasonable comparison. E.g.:
What is it like to be a student in country a vs country b?
What is it like to be a retired bus driver in country a vs country b?
What is it like to be a business owner ...
What is it like to be a cancer patient ...
For instance, I am an wellpaid software developer in Denmark, but if I were to grow up in the American system, my risk aversion personality would probably prevent me from enrolling in college/university to study computer science. I could have ended up in retail or something and contribute much less to the economy.
So yeah, in Denmark I pay a 56% tax on my top bracket income. In the USA, I would never have made the income to begin with, because the system is rigged against me.
So for someone like me, rural living, high income, loves risks, tons of hobbies, very healthy. The USA system is probably the best?
So for someone like me, rural living, high income, loves risks, tons of hobbies, very healthy. The USA system is probably the best?
But this is the exact type of thinking that leads to the US system. Yes, for you personally that's probably the best system financially. What about your friend who gets injured and financially bankrupted in hospital? What about your family member who decides to move to the city?
A small(er) amount of pain for every person means a massive decrease in pain for those in need.
I think you should stick to Essos. America is not that cool with slaughtering random people, unless these people are black and you are a cop.
Fun fact of the day, roughly the same amount of unarmed black people are shot by cops as are struck by lightning each year in the States. 2016 was 16, 2015 was 36 according to Washington Post. That includes shootings that were justified and not justified.
Obviously everyone would be happy if the number was 0, but it's not quite the epidemic some news outlets would have us believe.
You kidding? Include Health Insurance and student loans with the taxes I already pay and it's already around there... And that's with shitty insurance that barely covers anything.
It can vary so much in the states. I'm young and healthy with no student loans. Have a cheap high deductible healthcare plan and have tons of hobbies, love the lower taxes.
The U.S. system does not disadvantage everyone. Some people, like your example, come out ahead by choosing not to spend on certain types of healthcare. This gets diluted because the demographic of Reddit is typically on the younger end of things, where people are still burdened with student loan debt. Or the extreme examples of crushing debt from medical incidents.
Still cheaper.
For #8, Everyone I know takes their shoes off inside.
In Wisconsin, where I grew up, it was shoes off. In Florida, where I live now, it's shoes on.
Only different I can think of is snow/mud/dirt vs sand.
Don’t forget the massive Florida cockroaches.
I also once had a frog in my kitchen.
Yeah I think this just comes from TV because actors don't want to walk around barefoot on set for 8 hours.
Depends on region I'm from the midwest and everyone I know takes their shoes off when entering someone's home but I have an uncle from the East coast who thinks it is weird to take your shoes off all the time.
Arizona here....we wear flip flops or soled house slippers or something all the time because of bark scorpions. You can get away with making a nighttime trip to the bathroom barefoot in the winter because the scorpions hibernate, but I won’t do it from April-November.
And yes, we spray and seal around the house and that helps, but they FREAK me out so I ain’t playin! (I’m not native AZ, so am not typical in my phobia, but most people do advise not to walk around at night in the summer barefoot or you’re asking for it).
Born and raised in Arizona—I have house shoes that I wear inside at all times
What do people do if they have pets? I'm imagining a scorpion crawling on my dog that's asleep on the floor...
Well that's terrifying..
Californian here, shoes on inside is normal here because we so rarely get rain, so there's nothing we really track in.
I'm from the east coast, Western NY, and nobody I've met here has their shoes on in the house. Actually if you try to walk with shoes on in someone's house here they will usually yell at you and tell you to take your damn shoes off. We always thought it was a westerner thing growing up.
My ex is from Ohio, and she and her entire family wear shoes in the house. I don't get it. My only explanation is...Ohio.
That's only way you can explain Ohio.
Can confirm, am from Ohio
Midwest also, and we're "shoes on" in the house. I think for me it only took one time of stepping in a puddle from a puppy that was still being housetrained to convince me that shoes (or slippers) in the house were a good thing.
I have slides I wear around the house initially as a remedy for cold tile floors, but I only wear them inside the house, never the shoes I walk around outside. I think it's a logical middle ground.
Generally here in Minnesota people I know take off shoes inside, but that's more a function of it being horrible out half of the year and not wanting people dragging winter weather all over your house.
I think this has gotta be regional. So many Redditors claim Americans never take off their shoes, and everyone I know takes their shoes off...but, I live in the Northeast where there’s a lot more snow and mud and such. Maybe people in warmer parts of the country are the offenders?
offenders
I don't get why this is seen as offending to people. I find shoes in front of a house really offensive, no one needs to see nasty ass shoes outside a house.
I'm having a hard time grasping what you mean. We take off our shoes in the hallway before we go stomping off inside the house. We have a shoe rack in the same place we take off our jackets and outerwear. No one leaves their shoes outside, that still does not mean we wear shoes inside at all times.
why would anyone leave their shoes on the street
We have a hallway for that, and even if I wore my shoes inside the house there would still be shoes there as I have more than one pair.
I don’t get the shoes thing either! I rarely wear shoes inside (only if I forgot something and ran in real quick) and one time I did it and my roommate said something about how her family is Taiwanese and never does that. Literally every family I know takes their shoes off indoors, why would you want to track dirt all around your house? Don’t your feet get hot?
We have vacuum cleaners and brooms. We don’t track dirt inside purposely. If your shoes are clean why take them off to go inside? If they are full of mud or wet with snow then obviously you take them off at the front door.
If your shoes are clean why take them off to go inside?
Because it's nice to let your feet breath every now and then.
And you can't just hop into bed anytime you want. I also can't stand sitting with my feet on the ground and it would be uncomfortable to have shoes on while chilling on the couch. My feet go up in the chair whenever I sit down. I just honestly think there's precisely zero upsides to wearing shoes in the house. It makes absolutely no sense.
How would your shoes be clean if you've been walking around outside all day? No visible dirt /= clean.
We have modern sidewalks not dirt roads.
Lol, okay. There's no bacteria or other gross things on those sidewalks I presume.
There may be. I don’t purposely step in dog crap and track it inside my home. There’s bacteria everywhere even on the most “clean” surfaces.
I don't think anyone purposely steps in dog crap. However, if a dog poops on the sidewalk and the owner scoops it up, there's still trace amounts of the crap on the sidewalk, which you then step on, and then track into your home (in trace amounts you can't see), and maybe say you have a baby who then is crawling around on the floor and now it's on them, or your pets, etc. Maybe the sidewalks where you live are super clean but in most cities they aren't and it's adding unnecessary amounts of crap in to your living space. Anyways, agree to disagree, what's the answer, no one knows ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, you’re still going to track in dirt no matter what.
It’s ok. I can clean it. I suppose you wrap your furniture in plastic too?
Man, you’re really offended by the idea of taking off your shoes indoors if you think not wanting to track dirt around is being a neat freak lol
I think this varies from household to household. Growing up we had to take our shoes off as soon as we entered the house. I always had to ask/remind my friends to remove their shoes when they came over. Now if I go to a friend's house, especially for a party, then I rarely take my shoes off. They only come off if I'm curling up on their couch to watch a movie or something. I am still in the habit of taking my shoes off in my own home, but it's usually not immediate.
definitely not true in california, especially out in suburbia with mega-mansions. My last gf grew up in an affluent community in the OC and she thought it was so absurd & irritating that we had to take off our shoes near the entrance to our apartment. She said that would be a huge waste of time in her family's 5000 sq foot home where there's a long walk just from the driveway to the kitchen.
Yeah, shoes off. Why make your house dirtier than necessary?
Why be less comfortable than necessary? I'm much more comfortable in my shoes, I'll take that over my floor's cleanliness any day.
Do you also have your shoes on when you sleep? To make it extra comfortable I mean.
IDK I find just wearing socks to be ridiculously comfortable.
I also like not having dirt and pebbles on my floor.
Well if I'm barefoot cooking, things can fall on my feet, I can step on food crumbs, etc. Also if I forget something and I'm already in my car, I don't want to take my shoes off to enter the house to grab something and then have to put them back on. Seems like a waste of time. I can just sweep every so often like I will do anyways.
Most of those problems could be solved by wearing a pair of slippers, which is what people in Europe usually wear inside. Way more comfy than shoes, you only wear them inside so you don't bring in dirt, and they're pretty cheap.
I'm with you on this one. My dogs drag in way more dirt and grime than my shoes that only see dry pavement or workplace carpets ever do.
Yeah, the only house I ever have shoes on in my own. And that's only if I'm going in an out of the house doing yardwork or something.
I don't and it's fantastic. But I have really, really bad cold feet (like physically cold, not the other thing)
I wear shoes inside, mostly my Birkenstocks or flip flops. It's because I have dogs and no matter how often I clean I always get hair and stuff stuck to my feet which grosses me out no end. I'm very phobic of foot fungus and stuff.
Ironically, the one time I didn't use flip-flops in the shower was at my aunt's house for two days, and I got plantar warts.
Yeah, it's super weird to be told that apparently I never take my shoes off indoors. They never make it more than 4 steps past my front door.
Do you hang out with mostly Asians? It's definitely not the norm among people I know. Most people don't give a shit if you wear your shoes inside or not.
I travel a lot as part of my job.
You’d be yelled out of most homes outside of the U.S if you wore shoes inside someone’s home. It’s not an Asian thing, it’s an everywhere thing.
[deleted]
I would say that its more that people in Nordic countries can be a tad uncomfortable with people who "flaunts" their religion (But not with people being religious or mentioning it now and then).
I for one appreciate the clarification on this. That one point did kind of smell of personal bias. Of course nobody is going to publicly identify as religious if society judges all religious people as being stupid. Lol.
From Finland too, and I would say it like this: It is seen as a bit crazy to try to feed your religious believes to others, and even talking about religion is not really socially accepted. We see it as a private thing, and you should go and speak about it with likeminded people instead of pushing it to other people. So, people who are VERY openly religious are seen a bit...uncomfortable to have around. Everyone wishes they would understand to shut up. And when they don't...well, that is why the original poster said they are "slow in the head". But being fanatic about religion is not seen as a very healthy thing here.
That holds true in many places in the US, unless you are in one of the truly religiously homogeneous places like much of the South. Towns up to large counties are one religion, so speaking on religion in public is normal, as everyone is assumed to be likeminded.
Can confirm, i live in Ostrobothnia. That is like our bible belt, there are entire communities who had their first "non believers" in the 90s..
Swede here. I concur with that religious people are concidered a bit naive. We still love them and support their right to beleive in whatever flying spaghetti monster they like though.
I feel like that's unnecessarily degrading. Thinking less of someone because of their beliefs stinks of straight meanness.
I don’t think less of them at all, but I think the belief in gods is naive. Like I said; still love ’em.
Spend 30 seconds extrapolating your own statement and you'll find out why it's nonsense.
Well they can still be naive, that’s the truth and not just being mean. Kind of like how people see those who like New Agey or alternative medicine - not fully educated.
I don't quite agree with your views on religion.
And here you have another difference. Upon encountering different opinions we talk more and shoot less.
Well as a Finn too i can honestly say almost every one is a atheist here, atleast that i know of. And if you are a religious ,people think you are weirdo and probably someway retarded.
I have to say, that those that are known from their religious views, are really dumb. (mostly politicians etc.)
Idk why you are a downvoted. Religious politicians etc. are mostly idiots and even the media makes fun of them.
Lack of empathy for strangers. Social security issues, noone is willing to pay even 1% more taxes if it is going to help others. They just say sucks to be you, you should work harder. You are on your own and if something happens you are fucked. They just dont care.
people here will demonize you for not tipping a waiter 25% for shitty service but god forbid you give a bit extra so we all dont die from disease
Lack of empathy for strangers. Social security issues, noone is willing to pay even 1% more taxes if it is going to help others. They just say sucks to be you, you should work harder. You are on your own and if something happens you are fucked. They just dont care.
It's more the idea that people demand perfect, abuse-proof systems. Even if it's a minority of people who are breaking the laws, someone will always be that asshole who says that because one deadbeat is hawking his food stamps for beer money that the whole system needs to go.
Healthcare. Suffering at home rather than going to a doctor because you cant afford it. We have universal healthcare in Finland so everyone can afford it.
Collectivized healthcare makes economic sense- you make way more money off people who have serious conditions but thanks to meds are able to work than you do by having a large and growing population of people who are now functionally disabled without it- but the problem in the US is that between doctors, pharmacy companies and insurance companies, they wield a crazy amount of power in government and would never, ever allow anything through that hazards their bottom line.
Homeless people. We have social security here that allows everyone have the basic things they need. Home, food, clothes, internet etc. Only people who decide to live homeless lives do so or people who are avoiding law.
Honestly this has more to do with the cost of living in urban areas. The homeless population in the US would be dramatically lower if you could plausibly live in an urban sector and not have to work north of 60 hours a week in shitty near-minimum wage jobs. But once you're at that point many people make the logical choice of taking control of their lives, even if it means they live on the street and make their money holding a sign on a street corner.
Corporate worship & anti-regulationism Thinking that large corporations give a shit about you or the world. They would 100% stripmine and rape every last bit of this planet without regulations.
Don't talk shit about Costco. But the real issue is that it's a half-right issue, we really do have some problems with overwrought regulations designed to keep people out of the economy. There are some legit bullshit regulations- needing a fucking license to fill shipping boxes? Are you shitting me? Or to become a hair dresser? You need a certification to cut hair?- and because of that corporations pretend as though the government is twisting their arm behind their backs over completely unrelated issues.
A detail about homelessness above 60 lat: You die.
It is small detail but you have to have some shelter anywhere in Finland or you will die in the winter. That limits the possibilities of living outside quite a bit. In Helsinki, you have some camps but elsewhere it is very rare. Quite often it is on/off kind of thing, they end up in jails quite a lot and just have periods where no one can house them.
There's that too.
Being good and truly homeless is not an option in a part of the world where it snows for nearly half the year, and it doesn't average a high temperature above 50 (F) for more than half the year.
One of the big reasons behind why we have such a significant homeless population on the west coast of the US is the simple fact that people are generous, and I-5 runs bus services from Canada all the way down to Mexico. So you stay somewhere pleasant- LA and San Francisco are great, if crowded, Portland and Seattle are less so, but there's at least three months a year where it's just balls- until the honeymoon wears off, pack your essentials up, and see what you can do about either haggling a bus ticket or finding one of those vagabond communities that live out of a bus.
[deleted]
Lately I've largely attributed it to something about Protestantism's attitude towards wealth. That it is a material manifestation of how much God favours you or something like that. So if you're poor, it means you're probably sinful and deserve to be punished.
On the bright side, you get a whole lot of people really busting their asses off for prosperity but at the same time are very selfish when it comes to what they own.
Please don't lump all protestants together on this. That is called the prosperity gospel and a majority of protestants believe it is heresy.
The general split is between what an individual SHOULD do and what the government forces you to do.
But it is a core idea of Calvinism, right? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm just asking because I only know about Christianity from history classes.)
No, not at all. Calvinism (which includes the Reformed movement, which I'm most familiar with) is one of the largest groups against this idea.
Calvinism promotes the idea of predestination, which is the idea that God chooses those for salvation out of his own desire, not based on anything or attribute that a person has. The idea that God would give people material rewards on Earth based on their faith, or spare them trials, is in direct contrast to this.
Calvin and Luther both believed that a person could read and interpret the scriptures on their own; that they didn't need a priest to tell them what was true. Christ plainly states that Christians will experience suffering in life.
Calvinism is not the only protestant religion and it's rules don't apply to the other religions. All Nordics are protestantic lutheran and don't have that belief system.
Yeah, I know.
But the pilgrim fathers were mostly Calvinists, right?
[deleted]
Well, lutheran to be exact, where material excess - or excess overall - is kinda frowned upon.
Fellow members of Club "We've Got Ours" I'd like to introduce you to our host
He's got his, and I've got mine
Meet the decline
More like I'd rather contribute my own money to social programs than have the govt force me to do it. That on top of overtaxing the middle & lower bracket s while top brackets (rich elites) get hell of a lot of tax breaks.
What? How does that not make sense? Maybe if it was someone on welfare saying it while simultaneously asking for the welfare to be revoked for others...but if it's some dude that pays for his healthcare privately, has a job, and doesn't ask for services that he doesn't take from, I don't see a problem. It's more like "fuck you I got mine and I expect you to do the same".
You can't choose who you're gonna be or how rich your parents will be before you're born.
I think it's basic empathy, man. Some people are lucky, some aren't.
Your post is great, i agree with everything though i’d add gun control too. Well done! From the UK.
I’m pretty proud of my country (Canada) because I believe we’re doing a lot right, but I’ve always admired the Nordic countries. #3 on your list struck home with me. Here in Vancouver we have a real homeless problem, and any time the government tries to put up temporary housing for them there are always groups protesting (“yes help them, but not HERE! Not by MY house!” We call them NIMBYs (not in my backyard)).
Sounds like we have a lot to learn from Finland for tackling our homeless problem.
there are always groups protesting (“yes help them, but not HERE! Not by MY house!” We call them NIMBYs (not in my backyard)).
I don't know about up there, but down here in the Bay Area they're proposing a few shelters as well. Yet the politicians and project advocators proposing these altruistic projects never seem to suggest the shelters be built where they or their voting bases live. They narrowed the 100s of potential locations down to three, which "coincidentally" happen to be areas where there is a majority of non-white population (East Asians, Indians, Hispanics). One locations is literally a branched out piece of jurisdiction that the politicians don't live anywhere near, but have control over.
The protestors from these communities are then labelled NIMBY by project advocaters and social media.
I'm not saying that nimbyism is all good, but it's rather hypocritical to be critical of people protesting the fact that they're the ones bearing the most risk and loss, unless those criticizing already have homeless shelters built in their neighborhoods.
They are building quite a lot of them all around Vancouver. Granted not in the most affluent areas that the politicians are likely to be living in, but certainly in middle-class residential neighbourhoods that are important constituencies. And these are the ones that typically cause the most uproar. Nobody complains about new shelters in the poorer neighbourhoods.
To their credit, the city has mostly been able to quell the uproar and get the projects done anyway, it hasn't turned into a boondoggle anywhere as far as I know.
I'm not saying that nimbyism is all good, but it's rather hypocritical to be critical of people protesting the fact that they're the ones bearing the most risk and loss, unless those criticizing already have homeless shelters built in their neighborhoods.
IMO this is the problematic mindset in a nutshell. If you look at it like a 'risk' and a 'loss' then you're going to protest it if it's in your neighbourhood regardless of whether the politicians care about that area or not; you are one of the NIMBY types.
IMO this is the problematic mindset in a nutshell. If you look at it like a 'risk' and a 'loss' then you're going to protest it if it's in your neighbourhood regardless of whether the politicians care about that area or not; you are one of the NIMBY types.
You can't honestly say with a straightface that homeless shelters, despite their altruistic intentions, don't bring certain negative side effects along with them. People often picture all homeless folks as people who are just temporarily down on their luck, look like this, and are easy to sympathize with. They forget that the communities that host homeless shelters also have to deal with ones like this man whose mental health and drug issues, while not necessarily their own faults and should be addressed, still bring an increase in risks to the local community. And "nobody complains" when they're in poorer communities? That statement is so wrong. The people living in the poorer communities without a large existing homeless populations are the ones complaining, but don't necessarily have the disposable time to effectively voice for their community. Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean they aren't affected.
And to those not using the shelters, there are no positives to those negatives. And that isn't even taking into question the drop in property values which, while I admit is less important than human lives, is still a negative to those affected. You're literally asking people to take on negatives for free, and demonize them for protesting, while siding with politicians and advocates who have nothing to lose.
If the community where the shelters are being planned already have a high homeless population (like some of the aforementioned poorer communities), your stance would actually have some validity to it, since that's solving an existing problem. But in neightborhoods with a low homeless rate like the one where I live, plopping a shelter there is nothing but a bid to move the high number of homeless folks away from the downtown areas...where the politicians and their project advocaters work and perhaps live. They love exploiting and opening up other people's communities to solve problems in their own.
Build the homeless shelters where they can best help those who need it whilst having the least possible negative side-effects on those who don't. If having that stance is what you define "nimbyism", I'm okay with that.
You can't honestly say with a straightface that homeless shelters, despite their altruistic intentions, don't bring certain negative side effects along with them.
Of course they do, as do many other elements of society. The problem is that the mindset is look at the risk and the loss, not look at the benefit to society and the fact that they need to go somewhere, so why not in your backyard. I'm also talking about housing here, where the thread started, not shelters that it seemed to diverge to.
And "nobody complains" when they're in poorer communities? That statement is so wrong. The people living in the poorer communities without a large existing homeless populations are the ones complaining, but don't necessarily have the disposable time to effectively voice for their community. Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean they aren't affected.
I'm speaking specifically about housing projects in Vancouver here, where there is very little opposition in the poor communities. If anything they are supportive and want more of it. I'm sure people are opposed, but there are not newspaper articles about the town halls being overrun with NIMBYs complaining like there are when a housing project is proposed in a middle-class residential area.
And to those not using the shelters, there are no positives to those negatives.
I'm talking about housing here, not shelters, but even so, yes there are positives. Do people like homeless camps in their neighbourhood parks, or under their overpasses? Squatters living in abandoned buildings starting fires to keep warm and burning shit down? People dying and overdosing on their streets?
And that isn't even taking into question the drop in property values which, while I admit is less important than human lives, is still a negative to those affected. You're literally asking people to take on negatives for free, and demonize them for protesting, while siding with politicians and advocates who have nothing to lose.
I'm asking people to take on negatives that need to be borne by society, because they need to be borne by society, and those people are part of it. If you have a good reason not to put services in your neighbourhood that doesn't revolve around impacts that will happen no matter where those services are placed, then sure, that should be considered, but that's not what NIMBYs complain about. They complain about the impacts that exist regardless of the location of the services. That's what makes them NIMBYs. They don't care where the services go, as long as it's not where they are, any arguments about why it's a good location be damned. I want everyone to be happy and healthy, above and beyond someone's goddamn property values, and I do absolutely judge people for their 'fuck you I got mine' attitude.
If the community where the shelters are being planned already have a high homeless population (like some of the aforementioned poorer communities), your stance would actually have some validity to it, since that's solving an existing problem. But in neightborhoods with a low homeless rate like the one where I live, plopping a shelter there is nothing but a bid to move the high number of homeless folks away from the downtown areas...where the politicians and their project advocaters work and perhaps live. They love exploiting and opening up other people's communities to solve problems in their own.
Again, I'm not talking about shelters here, but semi-permanent housing. Ghettos are not a good solution; these folks need to be integrated into the rest of the community. That means putting housing across town in existing residential neighbourhoods like yours. Shelters are an emergency service, and should be targeted at an existing need, but to some extent the need does follow where the services are as well, so it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue. I am generally in agreement with you that a shelter out in an affluent residential area with a low existing homeless population doesn't make sense.
People should first have a homeless shelter opened in their own backyard and communities before having the right to counter-protest the "NIMBY types".
The NIMBYs might not be pleasant and are also kind of selfish, but at least they're not hypocritically pretending to be good people, and actively shaming people for not footing a societal responsibility that they themselves aren't holding-up first.
Housing is not the same thing as a shelter. In any case, I have both in my neighbourhood.
has Vancouver ever tried to build shelters/camps way far out where NIMBY-ism isn't an issue? I know one urban economist who suggested it to alleviate the homeless crisis in California, but it's very problematic since far-away camps invoke the memory of "internment" prison camps which the government setup across the West during WW2 to separate & incarcerate ppl of Japanese ancestry without charges or trials.
Consensus seems to be that low income individuals need to be integrated with the rest of the community. Otherwise you end up with ghettos, and in many cases aren't helping the people much anyway, since now they're far away from the services they need, from jobs, etc.
I also don't really think there is anywhere that NIMBYism isn't a problem.
The first point I think is a bit more complicated actually. One of the major reasons people aren't willing to pay even 1% more in taxes is NOT because Americans don't care about their neighbor, but because many have no confidence that the government is going to do something useful with the money. Money is so heavily intertwined with politics in America that it leads to distrust of experience in government - one of the reasons we regrettably have Trump in the White House. On an individual level many (can't say that its most) believe that government is a greater cause of problems than a solution to them, this also ties into distrust of government regulation.
I do take issue with the idea that Americans don't care about their neighbor - all you have to do is look at how the citizens respond after a major disaster (9/11, Hurricane Katrina etc) to see that the citizens do go above and beyond to help, whether the government does is another story. That said, whether Americans make decisions that collectively benefit their neighbor is definitely a separate issue and tied into that distrust of government.
Otherwise I agree with most of your points and particularly about how the tribalism with political parties is seriously detrimental to the country.
Yeah Americans give more to charity than any other country by a wide margin, only a couple of countries give half as much. This might be skewed by religious donations, but at the least, we are at least as generous as other countries. The distrust of government is much stronger here though.
I'd really like to see some median per-capita statistics on that. Becuase americans have tax deductible charitable donations thst other countries don't, which incentivizes rich people to donate for tax planning purposes. The real question would be - do working or middle class people in the US really donate more than in other countries? As in, those who have the least or less and no incentive other than empathy.
I give Americans a fair amount of shit about the demonization of taxes. That being said, I hadn't considered how I'd feel if my tax money was being put to a grossly over-equipped military or crooks or whathaveyou
I think there is a pretty solid split here, I live in rural Utah and most people here say that people who need assistance are just lazy and don’t deserve it. Even a lady I knew who was receiving government aid thought she was the only exception to the rule and nobody but her deserved it. They all think I’m an idiot for believing that the primary role of government should be the well being of its citizens and I think they are monsters for not caring about other people’s suffering.
I’m not saying that you’re not correct by the way, hell im one of the people who think our government is corrupt and wasteful, I just wanted to put it out there that in my state the people I know are spiteful and think suffering is always the fault of the victim (unless it’s them).
I think you and I have a very similar viewpoint. I think the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a shockingly naive and white worldview - I mean I went to the hospital once for a workplace injury, nothing too serious, but 4 stitches on my finger - if I had to pay for that myself because I did it at home the costs would have more than wiped-out any savings I had - that's insane.
That said, I understand that some people are REALLY lazy, so the idea of people mooching off the government is distasteful too, but I think the pendulum swings too far towards the bootstraps view.
One thing most Americans do agree on is that Congress sucks - 75% DISapproval rating for 8 years running(ref)! That's 3 out of 4 Americans polled consistently saying they are NOT happy with the job Congress is doing! That's remarkably bad! Why would Americans want to see their taxes raised if its going to a general fund to spend however the people presently in power decide they need to - more military spending?!?
Yet the system continues to reelect the same people; electing Trump is a reaction to breaking that status quo, unfortunately that means the US is headed by Trump now... who is a cancer for reasoned discourse, but he certainly didn't introduce the disease to the American populace, facts have been hard to find for quite some time. Happily, his level of insanity has encouraged more people in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math) community to directly run for office themselves. Hopefully, with less lawyers running things, attempts at actual progress will be somewhat based on the real world instead of special interests.
That didn't sound disillusioned did it? /s
Yeah there are certainly lazy people out there and it’s frustrating as hell but to me it’s just a matter of principal. Maybe I do not like someone or the way they choose to live but that doesn’t mean I want them to suffer either. There’s a group of people that think you have to “deserve” help or earn certain rights and maybe I just watch to many super hero movies but I think everyone deserves medical care, education, food, housing etc regardless of anyone’s (or everyone’s) personal opinion about them. For politics, get all money out of politics, make them live in government housing, drive government cars, eat government food. No special treatment and no lavish bs, absolutely 0 money in donations and 0 gifts. No more campaigns, no advertising and no debates. Each candidate received the exact same opportunity to present their platform to the nation and then that information made easily available to everyone in the country and every eligible adult votes, voting takes place over 2-3 days with multiple locations that are easily accessible and every voting area has a section where people can review candidates/issues before voting. Eliminate the electoral college, popular vote wins, and finally no more Election Day race bs in the news. The news can present every candidates platform but has to present each one and then after all votes are counted they report who won, none of the “with 2% of districts reporting” nonsense.
There’s probably a ton of issues with that but I literally made it up as I wrote it so forgive me if there is anything blatantly stupid haha.
[deleted]
Wow
You are actually awful.
Well said here. This is why I don't want my taxes raised. To hear that over a billion dollars was given to Haiti for relief after a natural disaster and a couple houses was built with it and nothing else done is exactly why I don't believe my money goes to the right places
I'm Norwegian and I approve this message
Following on number 7, it amazes me how often I hear Americans act like every corporation will make these really pro-consumer decisions because to do otherwise "would lose them customers." Like companies don't do stupid shit? Everyone hates Comcast but they made good business decisions, so they're still rich as fuck despite being just shy of actually becoming hostile to their customers. Or EA repeatedly fucking up with the Star Wars licence, wich is one of the most valuable licences a video game company could possibly get their hands on. But so many Americans seem to believe, without any doubt, that corporations always make correct business decisions that benefit the consumer while the government regulations somehow ruin everything.
I think this is based on the idea that with competition, people will go to the companies that don't screw them. Problem is, it's becoming relatively common for entire industries to be consolidated into just a few companies, so this doesn't work, but a lot of people either haven't realized it or are in total denial that it's a problem.
being American, seeing how our nations see us like this makes me really sad.
Positives: Your country is quite capable of making these changes and even improving on all aspects.
Negatives: you won't until imo two things happen. 1) Your babyboomer generation dies off. 2) You impliment sweeping electoral reform.
Basically the US is a rebellious teenager who needs to grow up.
Hillbillies breed new generations of hillbillies. The red vote will be perpetual
I mean, this is one guy, don't let it ruin your day or anything.
Plus the 1089 upvotes
Fake activism. Getting offended for every little thing. Acting like some words are worse than murder and getting offended in behalf of others about random things. Specialy when those other people dont give a shit about it or actualy like the thing.
I like that you listed this. Truly in America we have pure idiocy on both extremes.
You really believe anyone wants to sleep on the streets voluntarily in a finnish winter?
By an 2012 estimate there were a bit under 8000 homeless in Finland (out of roughly 5,5M population). Many of those are people who slip through the social security network due to prolonged mental health issues and / or substance abuse and who are in no condition to seek help or apply for social services by themselves. In many cases it's simply because they aren't able to afford an apartment even from the municipal housing. As if homeless were some funny hermits who just chose to get off the grid and live in a bush by an highway ramp since it's so whimsical.
The issue isn't even on the same scale as it is in many other countries, but it certainly is there.
They could afford, because our wellfare system makes sure you have a roof over your head. The thing is, there are always people who are in no condition to live in a society, and they don't much want it either. When they get an apartment, they destroy it, or cause so much trouble in any way they can that they are kicked out. I've seen how long these people can be tolerated, the whole apartment can be in shambles. The OP was totally right. You don't have to live in a street here, never. It is a choice when people do so.
Leaving an apartment in shambles may also come down to mental issues, pretending that everyone living on the street is simply not wanting a home is naive.
Of course this does not apply to Finland but in Germany where you are "guaranteed" a roof over your head as well, I ended up homeless because my mom kicked me out at 18 and instead of providing me with a living situation the responsible government organization referred to a law that dictates that a parent needs to provide for their kid until they turn 25, if the kid can't do it themselves. Some people just slip through social security because of some weird bureaucratic hiccup.
If I were in your position, I'd tell the responsible government organisation that they will either be finding me somewhere to live immediately, or they'll be finding a new job which isn't a pile of ash. Either way I'd end up with a roof over my head.
Sure in retrospect that would have been the correct thing to do, I ended up suing them and got reimbursed for what I lost. But 18 year old me who got told off by several case workers did not have the knowledge or balls to do that directly.
Yeah that's the trouble... I don't think 18yo me would have had any idea what to do.
Our welfare system is supposed to do that, but it isn't 100% proof. Claiming otherwise is nothing but closing eyes from the fact. The behaviour you describe is a symptom of the issues I mentioned above. What you're essentially saying is that those people chose to be sick and / or addicted and leave their condition untreated.
[deleted]
Your last paragraph is exactly what I tried to say against the argument that all homeless people in Finland choose willingly to be so. Even so, alcoholism is a disease and in situations like that it's often coupled with severe and untreated depression amongst other health problems. Those people don't choose to drink their life and home away voluntarily, they just can't help it.
[deleted]
I take a guess that you haven't had, or don't know anyone who has ever had to deal with depression or addiction before? As if people weren't willing to get help, sometimes it's just not so easy for them as it would be if they were healthy and stable.
[deleted]
Sorry to hear, hope you're getting better! I see your point, but the original post made it sound as if the only way to become homeless in Finland is by willing choice. There are plenty of factors at play when that happens, but I'm pretty sure a desire to live on the street isn't one of them.
As a Dutchy, this post feels completely right
Dutchy
Cloggy, surely?
I'm with you in 9, like for real, I think some Americans find everything offensive, and it's okay, it's their culture but when you're talking about other parts of the world and thinking that they work like America (and that they have to), you know, you have a problem.
I think all this is strongly associated with how they link any aspect of socialism to communism (which they've been made to hate with the help of anti-communist propaganda) so they're ultra capitalists. So that's where their "to each their own - fight or perish, won't help others" mindset comes from.
Great post.
I always said I'd move to Finland if I had the money and the werewithal to learn another language as a grown-ass man. Here are some of the many reasons why.
You don't need or even want to learn Finnish. Our language is considered very hard by foreigners and every Finn goes through mandatory English lessons.
Combine that with most of the Internet speaking English and I'd wager my balls that most Finns speak better English than Swedish(swedish, being the second official language, but unpopular for various reasons)
You can move and live in some cities here while you don't need to speak Finnish, just Swedish will do. Give it a try (:
I'm American. I can't learn Swedish!
Ya'll got anymore of them visas?
I've been arguing with someone for hours today because of #1. In my city, there is a social program that provides lunches to parks in the summer so kids in that neighborhood can get free lunches.
People are in a huffy that those kids' parents are horrible/irresponsible for living beyond their means for not being able to feed their kid.
I hate my town sometimes.
I'm hereby tagging you as "Wise person from Finland".
All levels of government in the US are corrupt. So, many folks don't want to be taxed more because they know that 1% will likely not go toward what they are being told it is. Money is lost, stolen or wasted all the time by government institutions and they will propose some new idea a few years later to get just 1% more again. Rinse and repeat and you're being taxed to death an no one is benefiting except the government officials.
The only other point I'd like to push back against is the shoes inside. I've got a neuro-muscular condition and it hurts pretty bad to walk on hard floors without shoes.
Other than that, I don't have much of a complaint about anything you said. Except our government screwing us all is a huge fear for a lot of people because of a long, long track record of doing just that That is the genesis for a lot of our issues. Government not giving a damn.
I'd like to get out of here, but not sure where to go, a lack of funds and two young children make it a hard thing to realistically work toward.
[deleted]
I'm not sure if it's a regional thing, but in California at least 90% of people I have met leave their shoes on in doors. It isn't considered rude, and the houses aren't filthy or open. It's just the norm that the only thing you might take off when going into someone else's home is your jacket — nothing else.
Yeah, I can't imagine having people over and asking them to remove their shoes. In fact, the only time you'll find shoes on my feet inside my own home is if I have company. Not family-like company, but "spruce up the house before they come" company. Unless you're staying at the person's house for a substantial amount of time, it seems the norm here in the US is to keep your shoes on unless asked otherwise. I'd be afraid I was getting too familiar by taking off my shoes in someone else's home.
I can't imagine having people over and asking people to take their shoes off either because that's just what you do. I also don't expect to ask them not to smoke indoors or ask them to piss in the toilet instead of the sink.
I'm from Canada and completely agree with everything you said
Religion Most people I know are atheists and only part of the church out of tradition. In nordic countries people who are truly religious are usualy tought to be a bit just a little bit slow in the head.
Fucking hilarious.
It would be political suicide to say you are fundamentalist or very, very religious. Even the Christian Democratic Party (who are religious but.. moderately so...) stays away from the subject..
Unfortunately, I think some of your observations are extremely skewed by the media (news, movies, tv shows). For most americans going about their daily lives, most of this stuff doesn't really come up.
I do however agree with you on a couple of things:
strangers/homeless -- Too many people for too long have utterly abused welfare, social security, charity, and government programs, to the point where many people are fed up with the scammers. Yes, there are some seriously messed up people who NEED help, and we all wish the systems in place could help those people -- but every time the conversation comes up, the only suggestion is to throw more money at the problem, which simply means more scammers will take advantage, and the people who truly need help will get nothing.
Patriotism -- Many immigrants and minorities are proud of their culture (mexican, nordic, whatever). If you are like me (white, diverse background), you have no specific 'culture' to identify with other than american. I love my country -- specifically I love the constitution and bill of rights, but I generally hate my government and they do not represent me on most things.
Nudity -- Hypocritical media and politicians. Nobody gives a shit about language or nudity.
Religeon -- There has been a very weird 'war on Christianity' in the last 2 decades. There are lots of very religious people here, but nobody ever talks about it or makes a deal about it -- UNTIL there is a concerted effort against it. Christmas has always been huge in america (in a very consumerist way). Around 2000, many companies removed all references to christmas, and their employees were no longer allowed to say 'merry christmas', they had to say 'happy holidays', all in the name of 'not offending anyone'. Well, they offended every christian in a VERY big way, hence the backlash.
Corporations -- Huh? who worships giant corporations?
Activism -- Media, politicians only. There are actually PAID activists (ANTIFA) who exist to fuck shit up (and get on the news).
Party Loyalty -- I think most people are in the middle on most things. The die-hard fringes are terrifying.
In regards to #1 youre mostly right about indivuals walkig down the street and ignoring a homeless person.
However i will argue that, though we do not enjoy state-sponsored charity, we do freely give our money to charity at one of the largest if not the largest rates in the world. The Chicago Tribune recently reported that Americans gave over $410,000,000,000 in charitable donations in 2017 - a record breaking amount. Many of those donations go to foundations that in turn help the poor, the homeless, and the needy.
So while it is a sad truth that many peoples’ first thoughts when seeing a homeless beggar is “they probably just want drug money”, many Americans are still eager to give back in some way.
I mean... America is the most populated rich nation in the world. Norway wins this, too. Quote from here:
Another way that generosity can be calculated is by looking at the percentage of GDP that each country gives. This is lead by Northern Europe. Sweden gives the most as a percentage of GDP, at 1.12% following by Norway (1.06%), Luxembourg (1.01%), Denmark (0.88%), and the Netherlands (0.82%). In fact, all of the top nine are in Northern Europe, with all the Scandinavian countries, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The top non-European country in this list is Canada, which is only placed fourteenth, and donates less than one-third of a percent of their GPP (0.30%). Although the United States gives the most in the monetary amount, they only give 0.20% of their GDP and are 19th on the list.
I ALWAYS take my shoes off inside, especially in someone else's home. But none of my roommates do. Im starting to realize all the things my mother drilled into my brain like take shoes off, close the freaking toilet lid, close the shower curtain when youre done, take pans out of the oven when youre done, etc. are apparently not universal habits. I literally had fo write "CLOSE ME, DAMMIT" on the inside of the toilet lid. I dont want pee sprinkles on my toothbrush!!
Shoes inside is NOT. A. THING. I’ve seen this so many freaking times, and I honestly have no idea where it comes from.
We wore our shoes inside growing up, at least downstairs. I honestly didn't know it wasn't what everyone did til I got older. Now that I'm married with my own place we do not wear shoes inside, and I always feel a little bad asking my parents to take theirs off when they come over, but... they're not the ones stuck cleaning the rug.
Growing up in California, it was about 50/50 with me. Some friends had no-shoes-inside houses, some didn't matter at all. My childhood home only had carpet upstairs, so nobody in my family cared about the status of one's shoes as long as they were on the ground floor.
Like, obviously you shouldn't track a ton of mud in everywhere, but considering it's generally dry as a bone here it's rarely a problem.
Yeah, I would say it's more of a regional thing. Washington state? No one wears shoes inside, unless you feel like coating your friend's place in mud. In Texas where it's a lot drier, it's normal to leave your shoes on.
I was a student in the UK, and no one there takes off their shoes, ever.
Every house I've been to in UK, I've taken my shoes off as it was polite to do so and others do that too. Maybe you just had weird housemates.
Maybe it was just Sheffield. It bugged the hell out of me to be honest.
That's utter bollocks.
Source: currently sat in my living room without my shoes on.
Yeah, my mum's a Brit and was APPALLED when she came to Canada and guests would take their shoes off as though they were children. She always said that only hicks would take their shoes off because they'd waded through a mudfield or something.
You do in my house, m8
I never take my shoes of at the door, unless its snowing outside. I don't get it. The constant on/off thing is such a fucking hassle.
Looks like I'm moving to Finland when America finally collapses. How's the immigration policies?
I can just show up at the boarder, right? /S
I disagree with a few of these.
noone is willing to pay even 1% more taxes if it is going to help others
Yet our taxes in the US are sometimes higher than in Europe. Our politicians don't like to talk about that, though. They continue to cry about how much worse it is anywhere but the US, but ignore the facts. In reality, the extra money goes to luxuries for some of our politicians, ridiculous defense spending, and everything the government buys being expensive due to corruption in government contracts. I don't know if it's true, but there have been rumors of $50 hammers, and $400 toilet seats.
I don't know if it's true, but there have been rumors of $50 hammers, and $400 toilet seats.
Things that are "military grade" are priced higher even when they are the same stuff that is sold to you.
but..
By far and large, those $400 toilet seats is a myth or at least misunderstood. You can find items on a list but that toilet seat can be a toilet seat in a sub. It is going to happen that some items end up being ridiculously priced but those are exceptions. Everything costs just a bit more when there is a HUGE cake to be shared but it still has to be pragmatic and by sheer co-incidence there are a LOT OF PATRIOTS in the military who actually do want to their jobs efficiently..
The real money goes to stuff like Bradley Fighting Vehicle (if you don't know that story, it is hilarious..) or F-35 or all the made-up and real conflicts... Politicians are the ones who make trillion dollar mistakes.
They continue to cry about how much worse it is anywhere but the US
Incidentally, the line that North Korea takes to explain away their famines and crushing dictatorship.
With regards to point 8:
I think this is more common on television than in reality.
I’m living in France right now and my landlord always wears his shoes inside.
regarding 8. People who wear shoes inside are looked at as the weird ones...
I think I'm moving to Finland
It's June. Day temps hover around 15C(59F). You are welcome.
It was unusually hot in May this year though and even this week it'll be around 20 C° even in the evening.
- Shoes inside We take our shoes off when we come home or visit someone because we arent barbarians.
What happens when you have several pairs of shoes and several people in a house? Lets say there's four adults with four pairs of shoes each. Will you have 16 pairs of shoes at the door?
Usually the shoes are in a shoerack near the door or in cabinet close by. Shoes that are not used for longer perioids of time are stored elsewhere. Like winter shoes during summer, or sandals during winter.
Yes. As opposed to 12 pairs if they all leave one pair on.
I like #9 lol.......
They should teach this in schools
I've always heard the stereotype that Americans don't take off shoes inside, but I don't think I've ever seen that myself. Everyone I know at least always takes their shoes off inside, it's just common etiquette I thought?
Finland sounds a lot like Canada. We end up with some bad habits that is stereotypically prevalent in North America (like messed up levels of obesity and student loan debt). However I simply cannot grasp how obsessed American politicians are over Christianity and the fact that you can end up financially ruined by healthcare costs in the USA. People from the US even try to buy prescription drugs here because they are so much cheaper, despite being made by the same companies.
I think the progressive states in the US should separate and join Canada so we can all just smoke weed together and laugh at the ultra right wingers living in the stone age. The US can keep their crazy anti-vaxxers though.
These are all things that the rational Americans and us also think are crazy. So many of us have had such low quality education that we've become easily brainwashed. It's all corruption, marketing, and politics getting into people's minds. Our people are in mental slavery and it's not getting better.
Lack of empathy for strangers. Social security issues, noone is willing to pay even 1% more taxes if it is going to help others. They just say sucks to be you, you should work harder. You are on your own and if something happens you are fucked. They just dont care.
some people see taxes as a form of theft when discussing healthcare. its very strange.
Wow, the homeless thing is amazing. We have a huge homeless problem here in the UK, which is awful because we’re one of the richest countries in the world.
I'm American and I don't understand these things either
As an American, I totally agree with your observations. Capitalism has really fucked a lot of people’s priorities and values. It’s all about what you can do for you and to hell with everyone else. Now we have corporations running our political systems and people starving in the streets. I should move to Finland...
Healthcare is not just a poor people problem. It's a problem unless you're wealthy. I have expensive insurance, but it's mostly just for emergencies. I'm terrified of going to the doctor then finding out that they ran some insane tests without my permission and that I now owe thousands that my insurance won't cover.
I went to the hospital two years ago with mono and am still paying off the $10k bill that they slapped me with, and which my insurance gave the finger to. There is no recourse if insurance just decides not to pay, and unless you declare bankruptcy, you have to pay 100% of whatever they don't.
You literally just summed up everything wrong with the US. I haven't been able to put my finger on some of those things and you've done it. Bravo.
We are always paying new taxes for EVERYTHING and it seems that the people that need it arent getting it and the rich people are pocketing all the money from tax payers. This is why we vote no on everything because nobody is held accountable.
I feel like 1 through 3 are some of the primary factors for the culture of gun violence that others have mentioned here. And #10 is the reason very little can be done to solve it.
Guess I just found where I want to live. These are all the points that make me sad to be a US citizen. (Now I get to wait for the comments telling me to just "leave" since I dont like it here.)
A lot of these sound like the American Republican (Conservative) platform rather than America as a whole. At least the social welfare issues you raise. And the sex education. And anti-regulation.
Homeless people. We have social security here that allows everyone have the basic things they need. Home, food, clothes, internet etc. Only people who decide to live homeless lives do so or people who are avoiding law.
I've been homeless. I put myself there, and I was the only person who can get myself out of it. I did not live on the street, the street is not my living room, and the people who use that street were not at fault for my situation. I cannot speak for everyone in this situation, however I can tell you that many of the other homeless people I came across were not "falling on hard times." Many of them were people who could be helped, if only they accepted help. There are people in my city who I have talked to who get $200 a day, sometimes people buy them liquor or drugs. That's more than I earn in a day.
It's not that we don't have organizations to help the homeless. We do. They are paid for by tax dollars. But people, many of them who have good intentions and want to help them, simply do not acknowledge that there is a right way and a wrong way to help the homeless. The street is not the place. It is actually illegal to feed a homeless person on the street where I live, and actually, I agree with this law, because it does not benefit anyone. To have them become dependant on strangers, instead of the coalition paid by taxpayers that could help them by feeding them, housing them, finding them a job and a stable place to live..... sure it may seem beneficial to feed a homeless person in the street, but it really isn't. And many of these people on the street, you don't know who they are, you don't know how they will respond to you. I've been attacked on a few separate occasions by people who were homeless, who I really thought were nice people and they snapped at the smallest thing. I'm not a healthcare professional, I won't deal with them. These people have services available to them, in most major cities, and those are the people they need to be dependent on. A violent person who depends on strangers to feed them, this is not good, and everyone loses in that situation.
What we need is more support, from the public, towards homeless coalitions. Most people aren't even aware of them, and I think that's the real problem.
Religion Most people I know are atheists and only part of the church out of tradition. In nordic countries people who are truly religious are usualy tought to be a bit just a little bit slow in the head.
I don't know many religious people, to be honest
Fake activism. Getting offended for every little thing. Acting like some words are worse than murder and getting offended in behalf of others about random things. Specialy when those other people dont give a shit about it or actualy like the thing.
Yeah, I really hate that shit. People get so hung up on things like labels, they think they are more "woke" than others and they get all pissy when others aren't as good as them. I think people like this live in a bubble and have no idea how the world works. I think that people who get offended over stupid things like not being politically correct enough, these people are just the result of being so privileged that you don't know what's actually worth being angry about.
Killing someone is fine, but just one small nipple slip and its the end of the world
I'm not really sure what this is in reference to.
These are some massively broad generalizations. Is Reddit your only interaction with Americans?
The myth of the rugged individual in American mythology is a good starting point as any for why we have that. People point to frontiersmen, to captains of industry, etc as though it was Daniel boon alone with his musket and a thong against ten grizzlies, that captains of industry didn’t have any luck involved etc. then there’s racism and classicism disguising racism. My mother once literally told me a socialized medical system was a bad idea because “lazy people “ wouldn’t work and you’d be stuck paying for them.
With response to number one, we lack empathy because no one has ever shown us it when we needed it. We paid social security but get denied food stamps/cards when we hit rough times. The people that ask for the most are people that don't need it, like beggars by the train asking for money when they've got a smartphone behind that cardboard sign. We grow dejected and quit caring because no one would ever return the favor for us if we were in that position. 1% increase would be that last little bit that makes my take home 30% less than my pay rate. In my 60+ hour weeks that's no less than 18 hours each week I worked for nothing substantial. We used to care, but then we got older.
Items 2 and beyond, I and most other Americans feel the same. Unfortunately, we're not the ones in power. We just work here.
As a red-blooded American, the tax rates in Finland and Denmark are totally horrifying to me.
Is it still scary if you know that you and all your kids get free education and affordable healthcare? And knowing that even if you get sick for a long time and cant work or find a job your basic needs will be taken care off and you dont have to take loans to survive?
(I'm Canadian, and these are the things that we do (or at least what I know of, or what I do))
We have universal healthcare, so if somebody needs to be operated on, it doesn't cost thousands of dollars.
I really wish we have what you have but ur government, or local organizations do quite a lot for the homeless.
(Not sure about 4 or 5)
Nobody cares who you worship (in a good way, we don't diss people for what they believe in) I, personally am an atheist but we don't really bring up religion much.
I know, right?
Personally, anyone in my family or anyone who comes over to our house, will take their shoes off, I like it because it's cleaner, and I don't have to worry, if I stepped in dog shit, about stepping in some gross stuff that's on the floor, that's not supposed to be there, or if it wouldn't be there if you took your shoes off.
Some people I know get really offended, but I don't really care.
I personally don't care who voted for whom. I will ask, but I won't judge on who you voted for.
(Also typing on mobile)
Killing people is certainly not fine
I meant it in movies and entertainment. Not in real life. Should have specified it better. My bad.
Living in the U.S., #1 confuses me the most. Somewhere along the line we went from worshiping self-reliance to worshiping self-centeredness. So many people genuinely refuse to help others if it costs them anything at all. I wish empathy and understanding would make a comeback.
yes except the shoe thing. if you don't ask me i'm not taking of the shoes, i like them and they make me taller because being 6'1 is not impressive in the slightest here in holland.
I recall reading a thread on Reddit where they were discussing how to super-glue your wounds shut to avoid going to the hospital and paying for stitches. It's mind blowing that anyone thinks that's better than paying slightly more taxes (which would actually cost less than private insurance). America is a really weird place.
The sororities and fraternities. I still don't get what exactly those are about?
Social clubs with honored traditions and opportunities for networking, philanthropy, friendship,and leadership
Its straight up paying for friends in college
Not an issue as such but you all sing the praises of Hershey’s but it’s just so fucking awful. It barely uses any cocoa so it’s hardly chocolate at all, but it all just tastes so fake and there’s something off about it. One of the people in my apartment building is a friend of ours from the states and after getting her to try proper chocolate here we ended up just pigging out on share bags of all kinds of chocolate just so she could actually see the various forms of what chocolate is supposed to be. I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with Hershey’s but it has no right to call itself chocolate. Or edible.
Nobody sings the praises of Hershey's, I have no idea why Reddit thinks this. It's popular because it's cheap.
i like it!
That's not true at all, it's a mainstay of most holidays, shit like hershey kisses are everywhere around valentines day. Hershey's is like the Coca-Cola of candy. I'm not trying to argue that it's better than real chocolate, but saying people in the US don't love it and buy it by the pound is incorrect. Also, if you live in PA, Hershey Park is the shit.
That's not true at all, it's a mainstay of most holidays, shit like hershey kisses are everywhere around valentines day. Hershey's is like the Coca-Cola of candy. I'm not trying to argue that it's better than real chocolate, but saying people in the US don't love it and buy it by the pound is incorrect. Also, if you live in PA, Hershey Park is the shit.
...because its cheap
Do people say Hershey’s is great though? Feel like it’s the fast food of candy bars in the US.
Once a friend brought some Hershey's for me to try from the US. I tried it and immediately assumed it had gone bad, though checking the sell-by date, it should have been fine. Maybe it was the flight conditions, maybe it froze in the luggage compartment, I thought. It's hard to describe the taste - like mould/vomit/chemicals - but for sure it didn't taste fit for human consumption. The texture was also very crumbly and brittle, not creamy.
Years later, I found out that it's supposed to taste that way. Who eats this stuff?
Yeah, baby sick. I thought my chocolate was off so bought some when i visited america and yup it’s just awful chocolate. Even tescos own chocolate is better than hersheys.
I’ll tell you what mate, supermarkets have upped their chocolate game. The Co-op £1 chocolate bar is really rather good, the salted caramel version is fucking fantastic....
I’m on a diet and haven’t had chocolate for months, now I’m sad :(
It's cheap. It's supposed to be cheap. That's why it's popular. And that's why it's low quality. I really don't get how people don't understand this. It's the same with American cheese. It's literally nobody's favorite, but people will eat it because it's dirt cheap.
Cadbury's is cheap as well but not shit.
Maybe it is an acquired taste like alcohol. I like Hershey chocolate and it tastes fairly good to me. Not as good as fancy chocolate generally but still pretty good and is inexpensive compared to other chocolate.
Is choclate that expensive for you? I can buy okaisch choclate for less than a buck and really good one for under 4.
That is inexpensive as fuck for something you should be getting only every now and then.
It isn't, but I don't care for the higher expensive chocolate as much.
I mean I understand cheap food - cheap bread, cheap cheese - it's stuff you have to eat even if you're poor in order to not die. But chocolate is not something you eat to stay alive, but because it tastes good and makes you feel good. Now if it can't even be enjoyed, there is no point!
I'm sure the folks that buy it would appreciate being told what they should enjoy.
That's enjoyable for everyone.
In America, even our homeless can be obese. What’s more, one of the side effects of crack cocaine is a sweet tooth. I used to work at a 7/11 next to a methadone clinic and I can’t tell you how many customers used their EBT/food stamps on things like pork rinds, pixie sticks and ice cream at all times of the day and night.
Chocolate can be a necessity for some populations. It is high in calories and can be used to help malnourished people gain weight rapidly.
But it also has medicinal uses as studies have repeatedly shown it can serve as a mood booster and fights depression.
All one has to do is look to its frequent prescription after exposure to dementors to see its healing properties.
Pile 'em, sell' em cheap.
That's why European brands are "the good stuff" American cheap chocolate is mediocre at best, but some mid priced European based brands, i.e. lindt, ghiridelli, etc are an amazing splurge
honestly, we rarely eat it as is. Its mostly for s'mores or baking
YES! It tastes like a vomit! Finallu found someone who agrees on that.
The taste you describe is paraffin wax. They put it in pretty much all chocolate here.
[deleted]
If you continue reading this thread you will find a few.
There are products Hershey's makes that you probably don't even know they make. You probably like some of them.
Source: I work for them.
Can you tell me if Hershey's used to make these caramel chews with chocolatey liquid in them.
I used to eat them a lot about 20 years ago. I no longer see them and it seems like all traces of it have been erased because I cannot even find records of them having ever existed in this age of internet.
I haven't the slightest clue, I've only been here 3 years.
I can go ask some of the oldtimers though.
Hershey cookies and cream in Ireland is nice but the US has really disgusting milk, I can't eat anything with US milk in it, I don't know why it tastes so weird.
You’re probably either averse to it being pasteurized or been getting milk with reduced fat content(skim milk is absolute trash). Otherwise I don’t know maybe it’s just that it’s shipped for a while and is old.
Truth!
I'm an American and I think Hershey chocolate is garbage. Here! Here!
I agree that it’s garbage but i still love it
It's comfort food. Nobody's going to argue that McDonalds makes the best burger around, but they sell a shitload of burgers.
Is there any American chocolate that even compares to European chocolate? Cause if not I'm going to have to try to find some good chocolate in a European store. I like Hershey's but that's because I have really low standards, I want to at least raise them a little bit
Dagoba?
Wanna blow your mind? Go look up who owns Dagoba.
Oh shoot. I haven't had any in a few years, did someone buy them? I can't live to see another Tolblerone!
Hershey's has owned them since 2006. If you've had any in the past 12 years, you've had Hershey's-owned Dagoba.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Stop reminding me of my fat ass, damnit!
Yeah most aren't even addressing the question right. It's not things we talk about that confuse foreigners, it's "here's why we're better than America."
Hershey’s is oversweetened trash, but I don’t really enjoy any candy bars. I love sugar, but our candy bars literally hurt my teeth from how sweet they are..it’s not good. I pretty much only eat dark chocolate anyway so when I get a craving I typically buy some quality non-American stuff. Or dark chocolate with chili in it, spicy chocolate is awesome.
I tried Hershey's on a trip to NYC a few years back. It's honestly the most disgusting chocolate I've ever eaten. Only one i could stomach was the cookies and cream one which was still so below average
Lol Europeans always rag on Hershey's like it's supposed to be some fancy chocolate. Nobody takes chocolate that seriously in America so chill out. Hershey's is just the cheapest
I'm all about the European chocolate. I've never been much of a fan of what we have here.
I still eat it because it makes buying good European chocolate a real treat. Wouldn’t want to spoil myself
Americans do not understand chocolate, beer or cheese, and it's mainly because they have such awful quality stuff at home. Then they'll go on about "craft" beers or cheeses, unaware that what's special and "craft" to them is just normal (and not even that great) to us.
Okay that's just completely false about beer and cheese. Maybe chocolate, but beer and cheese are basically life in certain parts of the country.
I disagree with this comment. Lots of people have tried good beer and cheese in the USand even chocolate. Hershey’s isn’t the only chocolate in the US
rofl - the imported ones
You don't know a god damn thing about what you are talking about.
Hurr durr Americans beer hurpadurp. We don't export our locally made craft beers or our artisanal cheese. While I'd like to see more hard cheeses and aged ones coming out of the us, local dairies are doing some very good things these days with younger cheeses and particular goat cheese. Also craft beer has literally exploded all over America and no one drinks the pisswater beers unless they're just trying to get wasted or are unable to afford anything better.
Your post epitomises the attitude he was talking about. Americans always go on about their craft beers as if its something special, meanwhile in Europe they've been making the same thing for centuries and just called it 'beer'.
My point, which you completely missed, was that he made the assertion that we know nothing about beer, etc, which may have been true in the past but isn't true any longer, so it's time to find something new to bitch at us about.
The bill for when you pass out drunk from your craft beers?
Yeah and you're getting left behind because of it. European beer is stuck in the 16th century.
You're working with outdated information with our beer. The big companies don't have monopolies anymore. I can get craft beer at any decent sized grocery store that regularly beats European beers in International competitions.
I'm looking at Germany in particular. The purity laws served them well for a long time. Now it's just holding them back. American brewers are doing things with special grains and different brewing processes that leave Europe in the dust.
Add coffee to your list. The only decent coffee I could find in America was made by someone who had lived in Melbourne, Australia for several years.
I don't really know anyone who sings the praises of Hershey's. It's just low quality generic emergency chocolate you only eat if you absolutely have to have some chocolate and you're stuck in the middle of nowhere at a gas station. But, 3 of my grandparents were from other countries so that probably affects my views on acceptable food.
I (American) have an Austrian friend and she completely refuses to eat American chocolate because she thinks it's disgusting.
From the U.S. I HATE HERSHYS. Once I started spending the extra money on more expensive chocolate I realized how I had been robbed my whole life of proper chocolate. It just tastes so fake to me now.
I love Hershey’s chocolate, even though it tastes so little like real chocolate. It’s disgusting but also good at the same time.
It tastes like salt, fat and sugar. And puke. It doesn't even taste of cocoa.
I don’t mind Hershey’s, it’s cheap. When I want the good stuff I get dove, lindt or geradaheli (I know that is spelled wrong I’m on mobile, too lazy to look it up lol).
I don't know anyone that thinks that Hershey's is good chocolate, most know it's trash.
I heard somewhere, probably Reddit TIL, that Hershey's chocolate was developed to taste bad, meant for service men, who ended up liking it.
In the US, chocolate has to be made with cocoa butter, in the EU, it’s not required as the legal definition of chocolate.
Milk chocolate in the US is like 10% cocoa. Europe have laws on choclate content and milk chocolate needs to be a minimum of 25% cocoa I think.
Dark chocolate isn't a thing, legally in the US, it's called bittersweet chocolate and has a minimum content of around 25% cocoa.
Dark chocolate still exist and good milk chocolate also exists because there are good chocolate producers in the US that do not use Butyric acid in production. I got some wonderful chocolate from Michigan that was 90% fairtrade 66% cocoa, called "Birmingham Chocolate".
I had butyric acid spilled on me during a chemistry lab and now I can't eat Hershey's chocolate without smelling vomit
They use slightly spoiled skim milk and butyric acid to make Hershey's. Butyric acid is what gives vomit its singular taste, so... Yeah. I'm American and I hate the stuff.
Edit: got the wrong acid, was corrected
It's Butyric acid in Hershey's chocolate and vomit. Uric acid is in urine.
Ah, thanks for the correction.
absolutely , hersheys tastes so bad and fake i dont know why people buy it
A lot of people have already mentioned guns, but to be more specific:
A lot of people have mentioned non free healthcare but I'll go one step further:
Basically, when these issues are brought up, it's the amount of people that are PROUD of these issues and arguing against change and improvement
Edit: Okay I've received about 500 messages about free* healthcare along the lines of 'it's not actually free'. Obviously free means free-at-the-point-of-contact-no-payment-upfront healthcare. We realise this gets paid though taxes. We realise that thousands of hospitals, hundreds of thousands of medical staff and huge amounts of resources actually has to be paid for somehow. We know it can't LITERALLY be free. We understand taxes. Thank you and good day.
Got into a semi heated debate with an American at a party when he mentioned how everyone in the UK must abuse the healthcare system because “why wouldn’t you?!!”
In his mind, there were no negatives deliberately making yourself sick thru a life of excess, cos someone else is going to pay for you (via taxes / NHS)
The fact he thought this is how a society functions blew my mind; he couldn’t understand that one day he might not be able to afford insurance and may need healthcare.
I have never met anyone who didn’t think healthcare was a right, except Americans (not all, of course, but I’ve met way too many for it to not be a ‘thing’ I notice about Americans).
he mentioned how everyone in the UK must abuse the healthcare system because “why wouldn’t you?!!”
As with so many who would make such arguments, this screams to me that HE would exploit it thusly -- and by extension, if he would do it, so would anybody else (after all, he's the model to which others aspire, right? >_> )
To be fair Americans are 5% of the worlds population and we consume 75% of the worlds pharmaceuticals. I’d love to see universal healthcare for that reason alone. We’re a nation of junkies that would find out just how many unnecessary prescriptions we’re on.
Ask your doctor if Americol is right for you!
This same argument can be applied to just about anything. That's human nature of how we view the world.
Canadian here.... don't get me wrong, we do sometimes roll our eyes at people who are smoking outside of the hospital while hooked up to God only knows what to keep their lungs working, but outside of munchausens disease, people don't get sick for the fun of it just because health care is free.
It cracks me up when anti-universal healthcare Americans cite long waitlists for doctors in Canada as a reason to not go our route. I'd much rather wait a couple hours in a hospital than having to decide if having an amputated finger sewn back on is worth ten grand of debt.
If it weren't for taxpayer backed healthcare I would be missing at least a few fingers. Straight up had no way of paying for treatment when 'the incident' happened.
The weirdest thing about this argument is the idea that you can "abuse" the health system. Unless you're a masochist who likes to go to the doctor for no reason, how would that even work?
Old people calling the ambulance because "there's tiredness in my legs" or people calling because they cut their finger. It happens a lot unfortunately.
I'm going to have a surgery and a painful recovery just because it's free said nobody ever
He is just spouting the fundamentals of capitalism. Take advantage of everyone and everything and always look out for #1. That whole system is forced upon us and is why we are unwilling to pay a little more tax to help out our entire population, and why we have low empathy for the homeless. This is why people try and fight to end womens health clinics or government food assistance programs. Because we assume the worst in people and a lot of the affected think all women just have sex nonstop and get abortions willynilly, and anyone on food assistance is a poor lazy drug addict mooching off taxpayers. Our country's fundamental ideology was about freedom, but now it's just about capitalism and the personal freedom to suppress the freedom of others if their ways don't match your ways.
As an American with several chronic health problems, I can assure you that this is the common response of healthy people who think they will never get sick. They usually have an insurance policy from their employer, and since they've never had a major health problem live under the illusion that they're covered. Then when they get older, have to go to the hospital for something, and end up with thousands of dollars of medical debt EVEN WITH INSURANCE then you see that position change overnight.
In the meantime, people such as myself are left wondering if we'll die a slow and painful death when we finally lose our job. Because unless you are in a union, you can be fired for missing work for doctor's appointments. And if you have chronic health problems that can't be fixed with an ER visit, there is no guaranteed support whatsoever in this country once you lose health insurance.
After the economic collapse in 2009, there were type one diabetics in the US that committed crimes just to get arrested so they could get insulin. Because as a prisoner you can get life saving medications, but as an uninsured citizen not so much.
he mentioned how everyone in the UK must abuse the healthcare system because “why wouldn’t you?!!”
A ton of old people abuse the healthcare system, though. They book appointments in advance to see their GP, then cancel them last minute if nothing is actually wrong at that time or they don't need to see them, and they just repeat it.
My local surgery is really amazing though, so I can get seen within a couple hours if I really need to see the doctor, due to all the missed appointments. It's great.
Well, I don't want to waste my time going to the doctors all the bloody time.
That’s because your conception of a right is probably positive, while most Americans’ conception of a right is negative.
Healthcare cannot be a right to someone who believes all rights are general and negative. To be honest, I don’t believe healthcare is a right. It might be a service for which the government could (and probably should) attempt to provide to all citizens in service of their general welfare, but it will never be a right in the same way, say the right to a fair trial or freedom of speech are rights.
To me, it's like this: If some random guy you've never met starts a GoFundMe to pay for his cancer treatment, should all people be compelled by law to contribute?
Government-funded healthcare is functionally the same. When people need healthcare, it will be paid on their behalf by the public at large - and if the public doesn't like it, they will be jailed for tax evasion.
I don't think we should compel, under threat of violence, people to reimburse other people for healthcare.
That's not an apt comparison. You are not directly paying for that one guy's treatment, you're paying for the entire system which looks after EVERYONE, including you. AND you would pay less than you currently do. The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK, as do its citizens, and yet we have the NHS and you do not.
Oh I know the current US system sucks. It was designed to give insurance companies maximum profits, while screwing over patients.
An "NHS style" healthcare system would be better than the current one. I won't pretend that's not true, even if I don't like the idea of it. In fact, I support universal coverage for emergency medicine, because the market is both inelastic and uninformed, which violates free market constraints.
But for healthcare that the patient has time to shop around for, I think enabling the individual to have actual decision making power is the way to go. Currently, your insurance company tells you exactly what treatments you can get, from which doctors, and how often. I think insurance companies shouldn't talk to doctors at all; when you need a procedure, this should be the process:
1) Shop around and see which doctors offer the best service for the best value
2) Visit the doctor you want to, and pay them with your money
3) Send the receipt to insurance, and they will reimburse you according to your policy (which you should know, and keep in mind when shopping)
I mean, here in the UK you are fully free to do that with private care, and you can still have paid health insurance. But really there is no need to do that. Healthcare doesn't really function like a market in that way. The treatments available in one place are unlikely to be different from those available elsewhere, at least within the same country. Private healthcare here is mainly for those that want a faster or more personalised treatment, rather than a specific type of procedure. And honestly, I'd be much more comfortable with doctors deciding what treatments you need rather than being able to shop around yourself. They're the ones with a medical degree.
But really there is no need to do that
That other guy is a complete idiot, but you're a bit wrong here. Sometimes, you need to go to a private hospital since the wait times in the NHS hospitals is far too long. I got sent from 1 department to the next, and then eventually they forgot to refer me on, and so it became necessary to go to a private hospital. The NHS is amazing with emergencies (urgent care, pediatrics, oncology, A&E, really time constrained stuff), but if you have a minor issue that still needs to be fixed, you're waiting up to a year.
That's fair, I more meant in deciding specific treatments for the same issue, rather than a treatment for an issue that the NHS won't prioritise.
There are excellent hospitals, world class doctors, and specialized hospitals in the UK, yes? The same is true in the US. Not every doctor might recommend the same treatment for instance. There are different ways to treat breast cancer. A study just came out that suggested that women might not need chemo. However, a woman might opt for it regardless because of her family history or something. Doctors might have medical education but it is the patient's body (or their families' bodies) and they need to take ownership of it.
This is really what confuses me about the UK attitudes toward healthcare. People seem to just decide the "doctor knows best" rather than taking an active approach to their health and advocating for themselves. I read an article a few years ago about UK ex-pats in the US and these very educated people were confused with the whole concept of finding a doctor and making an appointment or calling up an urgent care center. That just really blew my mind.
But you are really not qualified to make those calls. There aren’t different ways of treating breast cancer that you will figure out yourself through your history of family illness.
You give that information to your experienced specialist doctor and let her make educated decisions.
The right treatment will make you better. Not your active approach.
You actually are qualified to make the call. It is your body! You should take ownership of it rather than ceding that to a professional who may not always be right. Doctors in the US generally give people a range of treatment options and the patient and their family chooses what is best for them. People constantly get second and third opinions. For instance, when my grandma was diagnosed with brain cancer (same thing McCain has), we took her to a specialist in Chicago and got a second opinion. She was the one who decided on treatment options ultimately; they weren't forced on her by a doctor. This deference toward doctors that British people seem to have is just really weird to me. Doctors aren't gods; they are fallible. I've switched doctors because I've just found some to be incompetent or to have a bad bedside manner.
You actually are qualified to make the call. It is your body! You should take ownership of it rather than ceding that to a professional who may not always be right.
So why can't I choose not to wear a seat belt, if that is my wish?
Do you think that people should be compelled to follow the treatment plan of a doctor against their wishes by a court?
Not sure where that came from, but no. I don't think anyone should be compelled to do anything that affects one's own body, unless it would have a demonstrable adverse effect on others. (e.g. quarantine for infectious disease or potentially violent mental health issues)
I am speaking about someone choosing to get a second opinion on cancer treatment, not quarantining Ebola victims. So we agree that doctors might not always be correct and patients should be their own advocates.
Because your broken corpse flying through your windshield may injure someone else.
Because I respect my body and my life I don’t tell myself long tales of my instinctual superiority when it comes to my medical treatment. It’s a simple equation; I am well read in medecine. I still think I know barely 5% of a medical professional. My gut instinct has a lower probability of success than my physician. I get that you use the luxury of picking a different doctor that gives you better SERVICE, but you shouldn’t be making calls on your medical treatment.
Or picking the doctor whose treatment options I agree with. There are different options for diseases that have different side effects. Patients must understand these options and choose what is best for them. They shouldn't just defer to the "expert" like they are some mindless lemming. This is a great story about getting a second opinion. It is fairly routine in the US. I cannot believe that it is something that isn't regularly done outside the US. https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2014/07/23/a-patients-guide-to-second-opinions
Okay this is really odd to me. Is getting a second opinion really upsetting to some people?
The way you initially presented it didn't really come across as "I'm going to get a second opinion" (which is totally a thing that you can do in the UK).
It came across more as "Hah, your ten years of education/training and however much more experience means nothing compared to my gut feeling and this daily mail article on naturopathy!"
A doctor's training doesn't mean that they must be deferred to as gods. Brits paternalistic, uncritical worship of their health care system is just weird.
No, but they probably know a damned sight more than me on pretty much any medical topic apart from maybe one or two things due to academic and professional research.
You wouldn't go to a mechanic and argue that toothpaste makes a better coolant because you've driven fords all your life.
Why you feel the need to make ridiculous analogies is beyond me.
A much better one would be that mechanics should never be argued with in general. I have argued with mechanics to keep them from ripping me off with unnecessary repairs.
But I said that second opinions are very much a thing that are done.
I also said, in response to your question as to why you were getting pushback, that your original comment was poorly phrased, and made you sound like you're using the same dodgy reasoning as an antivaxxer.
Actually, it doesn't seem like the NHS respects the wishes of patients or families at all. They strike me as quite paternalistic and nanny-state-ish especially when it comes to children.
They do, when they make sense. Want a second opinion? Go for it! Explore private options? Power to ya! Want to use bullshit to heal yourself? The NHS website has a section to tell you that it's a dumb idea, and you should get actual medicine, but links you to get more info.
Try and use the bullshit to treat someone else, like a dependant, though? Aw hell no. Doctor has a duty of care, and if they can tell that it'll harm someone, they swore a literal oath to prevent it.
Where did you "learn" all this about the NHS and the UK, by the way? Or is it another gut feeling that is better than evidence and experience?
There have been cases where the NHS has prevented parents from seeking other options abroad that were legit. I wonder how the NHS would react to something like the Odones and Lorenzo's Oil, not very well given what I've read about other cases recently.
Moreover, this whole story strikes me as goofy. I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that Brits seem incapable of making simple decisions like choosing a doctor or health plan. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/12/us-healthcare-system-leaves-brits-baffled-enraged
If there is a new evidence based cure that gets peer reviewed, guess what? It gets added to the NICE advisement of proper medical treatments!
I'm not familiar with ALD or Lorenzo's oil, but from a quick Google, the oil doesn't seem to have much clinical effectiveness.
Now, I wonder, who might be qualified to give me some more information if ALD ever becomes relevant to me (helix forbid)? The chap/ette who spent a quarter of his life studying, and ten years practicing medicine, or my lower intestine?
Hmmmm
Here is the story. There was a movie in the US about it in the 1990s that was the US medical establishment vs. the patients. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto,_Michaela,_and_Lorenzo_Odone
Based on my reading of the situation in the UK, the NHS would have probably gone to court and gotten the Odones arrested for child abuse and then taken Lorenzo off life support.
I mean, untested,unsanctioned experimental treatment on a child, that ultimately didn't work, even according to the man who helped develop it? That sounds pretty reckless, and if it had gone wrong they would be remembered as monsters.
Hugo Moser played a prominent role in both the treatment of Lorenzo Odone and the scientific evaluation of Lorenzo's oil. In 2005, Moser published a controlled study concluding that Lorenzo's oil does not alter the course of the illness in symptomatic patients, but asymptomatic patients had a reduced risk of developing ALD while on the dietary therapy.[11] Moser appraised Lorenzo's oil again in a 2007 report.[12]
Moser's findings, that Lorenzo's oil did not help symptomatic ALD patients, are consistent with prior studies published in 2003[13] and 1999.[10][14]
A study by Poulos published in 1994 found that Lorenzo's oil is of limited value in correcting the accumulation of saturated VLCFAs in the brain of patients with ALD.[15]Comparative autopsies showed that treatment enriched erucic acid in plasma and tissues, but not in the brain.[16]
And no, life support would not have been pulled, since the guy showed signs of cognitive activity /sapience. Where are you even getting your information on the NHS? Still your gut? Or somewhere somewhat lower down?
That sounds pretty reckless, and if it had gone wrong they would be remembered as monsters.
In the US, it is celebrated as the parents sticking it to a medical establishment that didn't seem keen on helping them out. Again, as I said in my initial remarks, Brits are way too deferential to medical "experts," which is just weird to me. Doctors aren't gods and treating them as gods rather than what they are in the UK - gov't bureaucrats only gives people a sense of entitlement and leads to abuses.
And no, life support would not have been pulled, since the guy showed signs of cognitive activity /sapience. Where are you even getting your information on the NHS? Still your gut? Or somewhere somewhat lower down?
That seems to be what the NHS does.
Sticking it to them! ...by developing a brand new snake oil that didn't help, and required that they remained on life support and care (by those eeeeevil mainstream doctors) for another 20 years.
That seems to be what the NHS does.
I see now why you appreciate unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of knowledge, evidence, and experience.
Most parents would move heaven and earth for their kids, so it isn't sticking to the doctors. It is finding other ways to help their children when they feel the medical establishment is unresponsive, overly bureaucratic, and uninterested in their children as individuals. Many current treatments have come about because patients, their loved ones, or sometimes doctors have refused to take "no" for an answer. I'd add advances in AIDS medications as well as cancer therapies.
And some families are fine with caring for severely disabled children. Who is to devalue that?
You know what. You win. Congrats. I'm going to go die in an NHS hospital where they pull my plug because I have a cold. I only wish I could pay 200 grand for the privilege.
I hope you have a wonderful day.
And you know nothing about the US health system either. I don't care who pays for what in your country (although I wouldn't want that system in the US). I just find it odd that Brits are so weirdly deferential to the NHS and willing to "kneel" before them like they are gods. Just because the government is paying for your health care doesn't mean that people shouldn't be advocates for their own health and that of their families. In fact, it should make you more skeptical. I've never known a large bureaucracy - public, private, or non-profit- to care about individual people.
The US system was not a design, but a response to government regulations. Wage caps during WWII created a system where benefits were the only way companies had to attract and retain talent. Over time, those benefits became an expected part of an employment compensation package. Once the genie was out of the bottle, there was no stuffing it back in.
Edit: And then once the service was separated from the price, guess what happened?
That's a straight up lie. I pay $14/week for insurance. And have a max annual out of pocket of $2000. I would be taxed far more than $3000 in the UK. Probably closer to $10k/year.
Are you trying to tell me, someone that lives in the UK, that you know more about how our tax system works than I do?
Nope. I'm saying I know I would be taxed a far greater amount than I pay for health insurance in the US.
That’s completely untrue. The average worker in the UK puts just over £1k per year towards the NHS.
I don't think I've put 2K towards our version of the NHS in my 22 years on this planet.
As a US citizen who is forced to subsidize the advancements in medicine that you get for such a discounted rate: You're welcome.
I pay $14/week for insurance.
On the open market? Or through your employer?
Through my employer.
Is $14/wk really the total cost of the plan, or do they cover some of it? Employer sponsored plans are usually that - sponsored.
The fact that a it is group of people conspiring to rob everybody as opposed to an individual robbing another individual does not make it ethical to force one person to pay for the needs of another.
Taxation isn't theft you lunatic it's what allows you to live in a society.
Taxation is theft when the tax money is given to other individuals.
The only way a person should be given tax money is if he provides goods or services to the government.
That's... not what healthcare is?
Different wording: Taxation is theft when the money is given, directly or indirectly, to a person for personal use or to pay for personal expenses, when that person is not directly providing goods or services to the government.
Examples of legitimate tax expenditure to an individual:
A person sells a product or service that the government uses for legitimate purposes of government (e.g. food or lodging to a government official on government business)
A person serves in the military or other government agency
A person is injured during military service and has medical expenses related to that service covered
Edit: A person performing a service for the government in a personal vehicle claiming mileage or other expenses
Edit: I would argue that pregnancy should not be covered by the government, but rather by paid insurance, since it cannot be a result of any legitimate service to the government. If the government offers such insurance to its employees, then fine. But it should not be paid by tax dollars, as a war injury should. Any injury or illness that is not a direct result of such service would fall into the same category as pregnancy; I use pregnancy as the example because it is obvious that it cannot be a result of legitimate government service.
Do you understand what insurance is? Because this implies not. Government funded healthcare, social care, is essentially a form of government controlled insurance. The only difference is that the government sets the prices and terms rather than some private company, and personally I'd rather the company controlling my healthcare didn't have its own profit as its primary motive.
I'd prefer people who stand to lose money if they make a wrong decision to people who are making decisions based on what will get them re-elected... Or worse: People who are not elected , and stand to lose nothing when they make bad choices.
The last one describes private companies. Health care is a natural monopoly, and in any case huge private companies won't be hurt at all from failing even large numbers of people. If that was the case then Comcast wouldn't exist.
It’s more like you have to pay to his and he has to pay to yours. One dollar to him and others means not having to pay for your own.
This is a dumb take. There's so many things we're "compelled, under threat of violence" to pay for. I don't like dumb never ending wars, ICE, and our unneeded billion military bases paid for with my tax money. I don't see how it's controversial that your taxes going toward people not having to suffer and die unnecessary is worse than those.
Not really the same thing at all. If you could do the same and force everyone to pay, and everyone else could too, then yeah maybe it’s similar. I think that a lot of people don’t think anyone deserves cancer, and therefore deserves help when they get it. What if you suddenly fell ill? And if you evade enough taxes to go to jail for it, then you have evaded a lot of fucking taxes, way more than what is needed for healthcare.
I think that a lot of people don’t think anyone deserves cancer, and therefore deserves help when they get it.
I think this is the difference in our worldviews. I also don't think anyone deserves cancer, BUT that doesn't mean it's the government's job to fix it. Bad things happen to good people, and that's just the way life is. It's not fair.
By your argument, we should have a government fund for victims of theft, so that they can have their assets replaced. Nobody deserves to have their house robbed, do they deserve help when it happens? Do we have a right to compel people to provide that help?
It's not the government's job to fix it though, they are just acting as the facilitator with the greatest purchasing power so that the cost per person is much much lower and there isn't the drive for profit as the priority. But I would assume anything that remotely sniffs of socialism will be ignored even if it is actually a good idea that helps the most people.
Don't victims of theft have something called the police who deal with crime? Who pays for the police force?
And trying to use crime as an analogy is flawed, who chooses to get cancer? With theft this is the conscious act of an individual.
And trying to use crime as an analogy is flawed, who chooses to get cancer? With theft this is the conscious act of an individual.
Who chooses to be robbed? My point was, getting cancer and being robbed are both something that just happens to you. You don't ask for it, the universe just feels like being mean today and it happens to you.
Don't victims of theft have something called the police who deal with crime?
Not really. The police solve crimes, and stop them from happening if they can, but they won't fix your life. In England, you get cancer and the government spends money on you until your life is back to the way it was. You get robbed, and sure the police might arrest the guy, but all of your stuff is still gone. Your life is worse off, and nobody is going to fix it. It just sucks for you.
You can do things to reduces the chances of theft. With certain illnesses there is nothing you can do to reduce your chances.
The problem with the US is that it is built on the American Dream of selfishness which combined with a fear of anything remotely socialist and extreme capitalism leads to a selfish and greedy society that assumes everyone is out to screw the individual.
I am sure there are good people in any nation but the views that are projected to the world from the news outlets and politicians don't do anything to convince us otherwise.
You can do things to reduces the chances of theft. With certain illnesses there is nothing you can do to reduce your chances.
I think with most illnesses, including cancer, there are some steps you can take to prevent them. Healthy diet, healthy weight, exercise, and proper hydration can essentially eliminate your risk of heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the USA.
In the same way, you can lock your doors at night and buy a gun for home defense. But robbery or sickness can also happen to anyone, no matter how much care you put into preventing it. That's why I feel it's an apt comparison.
You are being attacked in the street by an aggressor. There are one of two ways this plays out;
You paid tax. There are police officers that deescalate the situation and arrest the man.
You paid nothing. The attacker beats you to death. There was a security guard around, but you hadn’t paid him so he stood idly by. In fact you couldn’t have paid him even if you had thought of it, because you are poor. Sucks to be you!
Obviously I'd pick option 1. But I think there should be a third option:
3) You paid nothing. You used the money you saved to buy a handgun, which you use to shoot the aggressor
It's not that paying for healthcare with other peoples' money is bad, but giving people the freedom to handle the situation in the way that suits them best is better.
The third option is anarchy, which of course is the ultimate liberalism. It’s where we all began and we moved away from it because it hinders our evolution. We have to do things together in our tribes. We have to pool together to build highways or go to space. Healthcare or law enforcement is no different; we have to put what we can into the pot so that we can thrive together. The question is just if we respect all equally or if we cull out the weak.
I don't know why I never thought about this but it just occurred to me. I know anarchy is bad for society, it's dangerous and counterproductive to healthy society.
But if there was a country that had anarchy, I would probably go. I just want to live my life and not have other people tell me what I have to do. Even if that means dirt roads. I think that makes me an outlier...
I definitely respect that. But do you realize that you would very likely end up at the tail end of that deal. Think of the crime syndicate controlled prisons like Penas Ciudad Barrios in El Salvador, where there is always someone stronger than you that will cut out your spleen if it can make them a buck. Cool in a movie for sure, but life in a real anarchy would definitely scare me.
With this mindset nothing is ever going to change is it?
I don't know about change - my view of a perfect government is one that maximizes personal freedom, while minimizing the freedoms that I have to give up to live under it. Every dollar you pay in tax that doesn't go toward securing individual freedoms is a dollar I think you should be allowed to spend on whatever you want - after all, you're the one who earned it in the first place
So you wouldn't prefer to spend less money and get even more if it meant the government instead of some corporation was in control?
Well, if corporations are able to violate my rights, I think the government needs to do a better job, and I would be ok with paying more taxes to protect my rights.
It may be a simplistic ideal, but I find it applies to a wide berth of government programs. Like the EPA - I think we all have the right to share in the environment, and when corporations harm the environment, this violates our rights. So I am a big fan of the EPA, Fish & Wildlife, park rangers, and the like.
Also, when corporations are allowed to lobby in the way they are today, they gain more influence over the government than an average constituent. I think this also violates your rights, because the government is of, by, and for the people. Not some people, the people.
So because the current system is corrupt you don't want things to change?
Actually, I want a lot of things to change. I don't want corporations to be able to lobby, and I don't want any political campaign to receive private funding.
Today, both parties are complicit in auctioning off the freedoms of Americans to the lowest bidder. Politicians should represent the interests of their constituents, all of their constituents, and that is it. Stop letting corporations run the show behind the curtain
[deleted]
If you could change the past so the govt had paid for your healthcare and covered the costs by cutting spending elsewhere, like chipping off a little bit of the insane military budget, and then you pocketed all the money you had spent on premiums and co-pays and whatever your insurance didn't cover, wouldn't you be objectively better off?
Yes, but I would rather the government just chip of the military budget and be done with it, letting the people keep the difference. Then the people are free to choose how they want to spend it - including on healthcare, if they want
[deleted]
With the current political parties we have? Zero. They're both bought and paid for by corporations, who will always want more government spending in their sector. Ban corporate lobbying and ban private funding of political campaigns, then we might have a government we can begin to trust
[deleted]
It could be done in a day, but we need honest politicians to make it happen. I honestly don't know how we get people to see the corruption that exists in the government, and vote for candidates that aren't complicit in it. I mean, 2/3 of people don't even vote at all! We need to solve that before we can elect a government that actually cares about anything except corporations
[deleted]
So what, we work with the current corrupt system and somehow create a non-corrupt system? You can't make a Michelin star dinner out of rotten meat, and you can't create a healthcare system that benefits anyone but the insurance industry and Big Pharma as long as the politicians they bribe (which is all of them) are in power.
[deleted]
To be fair, I could support both doing something now and also fixing the system to do something tomorrow. I support universal emergency medicine - I would be ok with implementing this, and studying how it goes and using the information to make a real solution
I'd love it of the US stop paying for a huge military to protect Europe and leave Western Europe to stave off Russia all by itself. But that won't happen and I'm stuck subsidizing Europe's healthcare costs.
You do not have a right to another person's labor. In its best, you're using the wrong word. At its worst, you're philosophically bankrupt.
This is such a tenuous bullshit connection. The doctors work for money. No-one is forcing them to do it. They chose to go into that career and do it voluntarily. You are not abusing a "right to their labour" when you go to a hospital, any more than you're abusing the right to the labour of a gun manufacturer when you buy a gun, or abusing the right to the labour of the army/police when you express your freedom of speech. This is such a thinly-veiled psuedo-"philosophical" excuse to act like a dickhead towards your fellow man.
This is not a philosophical argument. This is a partisan political argument with no merit or value.
Do you have a right to food, shelter, clothing, etc as well? Or do you have a right to the freedom to purchase these things without violence preventing you from obtaining these things?
ಠ_ಠ
good point....
I wasn't making a point, just looking at you funny.
Excellent. Enjoy your day.
You too! It's not even 10am here, ugh, hurry up.
It is absolutely a philosophical argument. Specifically, the philosophy of Libertarianism. We're all well-aware of it and most of us have examined it and found it wanting.
Why?
Being AGAINST free healthcare
I generally support socialized healthcare, but I try very hard to understand the perspective of people who don’t.
My sense is that no one in the world is against free healthcare; one would have to be insane to take that view. But government-funded healthcare is not free. It is paid for through taxes and by rationing consumption of health services.
I personally believe that for healthcare, government funding is likely a better solution than what we have today, but one could plausibly argue the opposite.
I'm french and married an american citizen. I need pills that cost 4€ and are fully reimbursed in my country, so no problem getting healed, right?
In the US, the very same pills in the very same box cost $800, not covered by any insurance I may have access to.
In France, I pay 32€/month in taxes for universal healthcare. In the US, my husband pays over $200/month for shitty insurance that doesn't even cover the medicine for my illness.
Americans fighting against universal healthcare are idiots who just believe the propaganda pretending that their taxes would skyrocket. In fact, they'd save SO MUCH by dropping their insurance plans and not having to pay for everything their insurance doesn't cover, and their taxes would grow so little they wouldn't even notice it.
It isnt propaganda. You are talking to an american that has access to a government provided healthcare program (the VA). The quality of care there is so shitty that I never use it, and instead still willingly choose to spend that much for private healthcare.
France has free healthcare. France also has the highest quality of care in the world. The US has one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world. The US also has a very low quality of care, between Iran and Bangladesh in the WHO ranking iirc
That is false. Our quality of care is the highest of any nation in the world, when you pay for it.
Our quality of care is the highest of any nation in the world, when you pay for it.
That is true in many third world countries too. When you pay for private healthcare you get the latest and best care that money can buy, it is not limited to the US.
Except the US has the equipment to be able to reliably do this
You should look at countries like South-Africa, that has a booming medical tourism industry providing first class treatment to Americans.
They also have the equipment and ability to do this in every major city.
US healthcare is not better than other countries if you only look at private care.
Edit: and it is a lot worse when looking only at public healthcare that doesn’t require expensive insurance or bankruptcy.
Why do you think that, besides blind patriotism? Because your assertion goes directly against proof https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiG-NjSvNLbAhUHKVAKHftTBfMQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0g5NYTFueYMYfe_fcYtVsW - Check page 18 for a rankung of countries by quality of care.
Actually, the US is just between Costa Rica and Slovenia in terms of quality, which is the lower end of what you can get in the first world. It's in terms of fairness of access that the US ranks among third world countries, between Bangladesh and Iraq.
If you want the highest quality of care in the world, France is where it's at. It is also 100% free, and ranking #1 in terms of fairness of access to healthcare.
If you have a source disputing that, feel free to share it. But you don't, because every time I brought that point up americans flipped out and tried to prove me wrong, but the best sources they could find were "I always heard the US was the greatest so it has to be true" and buzzfeed type "10 reasons why the US has the best healthcare in the world- number 7 will BLOW YOUR MIND" articles.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
Sure, services are provided based on the most cost effective treatments first before moving on to more expensive treatments for example, but private healthcare is also an option and you can choose to go down that route if you have the money
A poor person who got hit by a car could have $50,000 worth of medical care and walk out of hospital without ever seeing anything resembling a bill
There isn't much point trying to understand people's point of view when the statistics speak clearly for themselves.
The most fucked up thing about people being against social healthcare is that people are against it because they don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare, even when it would mean that they PAY LESS anyway. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is true of a lot of things in the US. Proper sex education and easily accessible contraceptives lead to fewer teen pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Helping addicts to get off drugs instead of punishing them leads to fewer overdoses. Housing the homeless costs less than putting them out on the streets. Not to mention things like free school lunch programs, guaranteed parental leave and vacation time, needle exchange programs, criminal justice reform, etc.
For some reason, though, Americans want to waste tax dollars shaping policy around a magic perfect world that everyone should just be expected to live up to, or suffer the consequences. "Just don't have sex outside marriage!"; "Just don't do drugs!"; "Just work harder!"; "Just don't commit crimes!"; "Just pick yourself up by your bootstraps!"; "Just trust in the free market!"
I know, I think a lot of those opinions stem from a superiority complex. "I'M more hard working than someone in a low-wage job. I'LL never be homeless or do drugs. I look after myself so I won't get ill. Getting ill is for lazy people. Why should I pay for someone else's stuff, even thought it would save me money."
I don't see anyone complaining about how school is free. Imagine if everyone up to the age of 18 had to pay cash upfront to go to school? Imagine if anyone wanting to drive on the road had to pay cash at a toll booth on every road? Imagine if everyone had to pay cash to gain entry to public spaces maintained by taxpayer money.
That's why the 'you do know that universal healthcare isn't actually free' argument annoys me. Yes....we realised that our healthcare systems weren't magic-ed out of thin air. We literally understand fairly well how money and taxes work.
I don't see anyone complaining about how school is free
Oh, there definitely are people who resent the concept of public schools. One of them is currently the Secretary of Education.
Great job, America.
*slow claps*
Well, she was appointed and not voted in...
And the person who appointed her just sprang out of the ground, I suppose.
"I don't have kids why should I pay taxes for schools?"
I dunno, to not live in a world run by idiots when you're old and frail and need younger people to take care of you?
But I live in a world run by idiots now!
There is that lol
America is obsessed with the idea of the undeserving poor.
Yes, they firmly believe that if you are poor, then you did that to yourself and you deserve it; all you have to do is just get a job and work, and you can not be poor again.
Why should I pay for someone else's stuff, even thought it would save me money.
That's really the crux of the issue there.
"I'M more hard working than someone in a low-wage job. I'LL never be homeless or do drugs. I look after myself so I won't get ill. Getting ill is for lazy people. Why should I pay for someone else's stuff, even thought it would save me money."
And they call liberals 'elitist'
Actually, this is the mentality of the conservatives, not the liberals. Liberals are more likely to put their own money up towards programs to help the homeless, the drug addicts, the ill, etc.
That's what they were saying
I stand corrected. I read it so fast, I read it as "and they call them Liberal 'elitist'". I apologize.
Lots of people here in the US here thinks they're fucking the system and only they and a few wise people like them are in on it. Everyone else is gullible fuckers. In reality, most of the people who think this are the most gullible fuckers getting fucked most of the time. The real wise people are just trying not get played too much by the game. The rest of us just aspire to hit that level of the game not playing us too much.
Also whenever they don’t live up to it they think they’re the exception. “Sure I got knocked up outside of marriage, but I’m not a slut like everyone else” instead of accepting that shit happens and instead of assuming everyone is perfect and judging them for any failings we can instead show some fucking empathy because everyone does stupid shit sometimes and those that don’t see the abnormal ones
The key realization that really changed how I view politics in the US was realizing that these things are massively detrimental to the average citizen, but make the rich richer. When i realized that so many of these self destructive ideas are specifically funded and promoted by those who profit off of the system. Realizing that politics frankly isn't as complicated as people make it out to be: it's a system for promoting the interests of your socio-economic class and in America the rich are winning
Another Major issue but at same time is something I love about being an american is almost everyone thinks the things that effect the super rich will affect on them in the future. "I'm not rich but when I am in the future, I don't want this to negatively affect me cause I worked hard to get there." I love how positive we are as a whole even thought its extremely unlikely that you will be so rich that you would have to worry about those, but you, we believe we will get there one day.
I mean you have religion to thank for that in the south.
Think of it from their point of view. Premarital sex is evil and a sin. You are suggesting education and mitigation to help them do evil.
I’m Canadian and keep in mind this is not my view at all. But imagine people were robbing people and getting hurt doing it. You want to provide bullet proof vests and free medical care for those poor muggers so they could reduce the consequences of their actions. It sounds insane and no one would do it. That’s how it is for them for premarital sex.
“You want to raise my taxes so we can provide those whores better care when they are out being evil? No way!”
It’s all a crazy mindset but if you stretch your brain a bit it is an understandable one albeit in my mind not a rational one.
"Just trust in the free market!"
That’s the root issue; the free market has become a religion, rather than what it is: a tool that’s very effective in certain contexts and very much not so in others.
Proper sex education and easily accessible contraceptives
I hear this a lot, and I suppose it varies from region to region, but I was in HS in the early to mid 90's, and we had sex ed classes every year and could buy condoms at any drugstore/pharmacy/grocery/etc... for fairly cheap (I could get them with lawn mowing money). Where are these things unaffordable or inaccessible?
It isn't that expensive, but some super poor people still can't afford it. I kinda don't make sense, heck walmart has a months worth of birth control for 9 dollars. The argument that poor people can't afford birth control is BS, because unless somebody is truly dirt poor, they can afford it.
https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar-presscriptions/1078664
"Just don't commit crimes!";
Doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
Just pick yourself up by your bootstraps!
Sadly, this is the mentality of most of the politically conservative members of American society. The reason they believe this is because their thought is that you only get out of life what you put it; if you work hard, you have morally earned the rewards of that hard work. If someone reaps the same rewards but didn't work "as hard" as you did, they're a freeloader. Some also have this belief that they shouldn't pay into a system that they themselves would not utilize. For example, young folks who are relatively healthy would not want their tax money to go into a "free" healthcare that everyone benefits from, if, they themselves, do not go to the hospital/doctor frequently enough to benefit from it. I think someone said it before, but these conservatives believe that if EVERYONE just followed their moral guidelines, then everything will be fine. What they don't understand is that the morality of one can also be construed as the immorality of another, and they typically refuse to bend.
That was a very interesting post. Are you American?
A lot of times, people's advice boils down to "Don't have a deficit in areas where you have a deficit." It's most obvious with ADHD in my opinion (Just focus harder!), but maybe that's where I see it more often.
I even hear echoes of the sentiment when the particularly condescending Europeans tell us what we're doing wrong. Like, dude...if it were as simple as you're making it out to be, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"Just don't have sex outside marriage!";
And let's not forget "Abortion! BZZT Illegal, You can't do that!" ... Followed shortly by a complete refusal to aid the now-forced mother in any way after the birth. ("Adoption?!?" or "You can't expect MY tax dollars to help you pay for that child!") x_x
I like the idea that whenever someone tries to commit a crime, a loud buzzer sound plays.
If you do something stupid, like have a child you can't afford, get hooked on drugs, don't work hard, or commit a crime, it is not my responsibility or anyone else's to help you deal with the consequences.
Also lobbying. When people who were against Obama-care were asked if they were for an Affordable Care Act (basically, they just took out the word Obama), they said they would be for it. So it shows that a lot of Americans are actually for a similar health system. But companies aren't on board.
We have to re-work a lot of infrastructure for this to work out. The reason it works so well in other countries is because they have smaller populations to work with over smaller areas by one or a few insurance distributors. This can keep it easier to have everyone to buy into, and reduce premiums for everyone.
For America, we're huge and our population is scattered and we have thousands of different insurance providers. Single-payer systems help mega-cities the most, but under our current infrastructure, it screws over smaller towns. This is mostly due to our decentralized insurance system. These smaller towns have less people buying into their insurance jacking up their premiums to rates they can't afford.
So we would first have to consolidate all of our insurance providers or provide some form of network where they can work together, which is a huge operational overhead. But why would an insurance provider in a mega-city want to carry the burden that insurance companies in smaller towns have? That cuts their profits, they'll lobby against it.
Also have you gone through some of the things you're charged for in medical bills? Insurance companies give hospitals incentives to charge you for random overhead stuff that you probably don't need. Free bonuses and services for the hospital, and it costs the hospital nothing because insurance will cover for that, and those insurance fee's go back to you or your premiums. Both the hospital and the insurance companies profit from this cycle.
This is what is making your hospital visits expensive (outside of the jacked up drug prices which is already a monolith of an issue itself). We can fix this by having more regulations on what hospitals can charge you and close some of these loopholes. But wait, that means profits are cut from hospitals and insurance companies, so they'll lobby against that too.
Makes me think "Just" is a really good way to describe the US in one word. Most US citizens will associate it with being right and justice, but public perception in the rest of the world is "Just a little bit more", "Just helping keep everyone democratic", "Just married/divorced", "Just two sides", "Just try harder and you're a millionaire".
It's because the problem that the anti sex ed crowd have isn't that people are getting pregnant per second but that they're having sex. So things like birth control of sex ed don't solve the problem because they allow people to continue to have sex without the consequences of unwanted pregnancies or stds.
They could literally cut their military budget by 5% and be able to provide universal health care to the whole country. If I was American, I would be pissed about the useless military spending, but having the "greatest military in the world" must really be worth it. /s
Considering how often we use that military to "police" the world it really is worth it. I just don't see those in power giving up the job of head of world policing so we need that budget to reduce how many young men and women we get killed.
That is 100% false. The US budget is about 700-750 Billion, so 5% of that is about 37-38 billion dollars, no where near enough to fund "Universal healthcare". Once somebody told me cutting the us military budget by 1% could fund free college for every citizen, but that is even more not true.
I just through that number out of my ass, I have no idea what the actual statistics are. But universal health care is way better than having the best military on the planet.
Bernie's medicare for all healthcare costs 1.4 Trillion a year. Nowhere even close is cutting the military budget going to do cover it.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html
For some reason, though, Americans want to waste tax dollars shaping policy around a magic perfect world that everyone should just be expected to live up to, or suffer the consequences. "Just don't have sex outside marriage!"; "Just don't do drugs!"; "Just work harder!"; "Just don't commit crimes!"; "Just pick yourself up by your bootstraps!"; "Just trust in the free market!"
Nobody actually believes that besides Facebook blowhards and our nutcase politicians.
Now this I think of it that's just as bad.
This post makes me proud to have the NHS, it's flawed but I love it so much.
Agreed, I cut my index finger and had glass embedded in it. Went to minor injuries who xrayed and they referred me to Hospital for surgery the next day. The hospital staff were superb and the surgeon and theatre staff were outstanding and incredibly caring. I don't have a bad word to say about the NHS as they have only ever been caring and professional every time I have been unfortunate enough to require their expertise. I and my disabled wife rely on benefits and if I was in the US I could see why an injury like mine would go untreated and probably cause further serious problems.
I certainly would use health care less in the US (tbh that's perhaps a problem with the NHS, that it gets taken advantage of). I had a general feeling of illness that just felt wrong so went to my GP and it turns out I was full of blood clots. Would have just taken a paracetamol and slept it off (aka died) if I had to pay the high US costs.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Poor Americans don't get any preventative care since it costs too much, which hurts us long term
Yep nope, that situation is definitely a couple swigs of whiskey, a wooden spoon to bite down on, a pair of tweezers, and some electrical tape for me.
Do people in the US really still do that just to avoid the medical bill?
Honestly this is absolutely something that I do.
My father hadn't seen a doctor in fourteen years, until last month to attend to his malfunctioning pooper. Colon cancer treatment has ensured he won't be going a day without doctors for a few more months. I don't want to see that price tag once insurance has had a half-hearted go at it.
It really is a desperately sad situation and makes me truly thankful for the service the NHS provides. Best wishes to your dad.
Very much appreciated! But hey, just because any system is better than nothing, doesn't mean it can't be improved (;
Yeah, I would quite literally be dead without it. I do wish our government would stop running it into the ground, though.
I know 😪 I'm sitting idly by at the moment while the Tories fuck up Brexit but as soon as they abolish the NHS I'm grabbing my placard and marching on London. My worry is that they're doing it by stealth and we won't notice until suddenly Richard Branson is stood at the door of the hospital asking for your credit card.
I definitely think that the next 5-10 years in particular are going to be pretty telling. (Oh my GOD, why downvote this?! The NHS funding cuts are going to come into effect in the next 5 years! It's a fact!)
they're doing it by stealth
I hate to say this but that's exactly what they're doing
They are - they're currently at the 'running it down by refusing it resources' stage (CF basically everything they've ever privatized before) - largely money, also May and her rabid insistence on getting the immigration rates down by refusing visas to doctors, but also selling off bits and pieces behind the scenes. Jeremy Chunt's reorganisation strategy is also working as intended, and you may have noticed your GP practice joining a commissioning group or some similar acrynom - which can then easily be picked up by the private healthcare group of your choice to run a NHS contract.
It'll get worse with Brexit too. One of the main negotiating points for a US trade deal is opening our healthcare system to their system.
opening our healthcare system to their system.
Thanks for that, I know what my nightmares will be about tonight.
Remember, Brexit is for the people!
I can't comprehend going in for treatment then having the stress of a massive bill I have to plead to reduce in cost plopping through the door.
If we had the NHS with lawyers it still wouldn't be as expensive and stressful as the US. I don't understand how they can say it's cheaper to get people like your boss, healthcare salesmen, drugs salesmen etc etc involved is a good use of resources.
The biggest problem with the NHS is that its socialised.
I mean its brilliant, but because it socialised we don't invest in it in any way the amount that it deserves.
In America its privatised and they pay through the nose, in Europe its a collectivised insurance scheme but again the insurance services can then to be paid more.
We rely on the tax payer to judge how much we should be funding the NHS.
When we lose the NHS, it won't be the NHS' fault it will be our fault for not realising how great it is and not being willing to fund it.
The most fucked up thing about people being against social healthcare is that people are against it because they don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare, even when it would mean that they PAY LESS anyway. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The irony is that paying insurance for healthcare is exactly doing that, your money is paying right now other's people treatments, its not "being saved up" for you, if it ever gets to the point of you needing it, whenever that happens, someone else's money will help cover whatever your treatment cost. The insurance company then has to do the juggling between the cost of paying for people's treatments and the money they are getting from your fare. Thats why there is so much small letter reading and the constant haggling with hospitals about the price of treatment, because the more they spend on treatments, the smaller the profit.
Its fucked up that you are bettting your life onto someone who's only objetive is not your well being, but rather, how profitable covering your treatment happens to be.
Then they just argue that insurance is voluntary. That socialized healthcare isn't voluntary and therefore infringes on some freedom of their's or something.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
Specifically on this point, US lawsuits are largely the cause for this. Well, that and the cost of education. Get a M.D.s educational costs down, and he won't have to charge as much. Gotta pay that 1/4 million dollar debt somehow. But more importantly, we allow people to win millions over stupid things. So malpractice insurance is through the roof. Again, someone has to pay for it.
Also - I figured I would just add: I do not worry about healthcare costs. I have carried insurance since I could work. Never had a medical bill I couldn't afford.
I had a friend who passed away suddenly. She looked ill the day leading up to her death, but opted not to go to the hospital as not to incur more bills. She passed away in her sleep that night. It's a fucking travesty that this is possible in a relatively advanced society.
Even though the most cost effective methods are put before expensive ones, the BEST most lifesaving treatment will generally be given to you first. Out doctors aren't paid by drug companies. They don't have many personal incentives to give advice to the contrary.
I’m a med student in the U.K. - even though we’re given guidelines on what is most cost effective etc., doctors always just prescribe what they think the patient needs. It’s up to management to work out budget issues, I find it crazy that in the US healthcare professionals are asked to make judgements based on cost and insurance coverage. You could be a homeless serial-rapist, but if you’re sick you’ll get the same medical care as the billionaire in the cubicle next door.
It’s hard enough giving someone bad news. It would kill me to have to turn away people who can’t afford life-saving treatment
It's never been a debate about data, I've found. It's about ideology. That and the fact that tax money is fungible makes it hard to convince conservatives that government will use the money properly once it's collected, if you even get that far in the discussion.
Sure, services are provided based on the most cost effective treatments first before moving on to more expensive treatments for example, but private healthcare is also an option and you can choose to go down that route if you have the money
This is an important one that people don't seem to get sometimes. Someone might point to faults in the NHS (it is on its arse, but still great) as if you can't get 'better' care. You can get private medical insurance, you can pay through the nose to go and see a private doctor even if you don't have insurance. As you're saying, if we have the money, of course we can get private medical treatment and all the 'choice' that entails in the UK.
It just so happens that if you don't have insurance or the money to pay, you won't go bankrupt or die from lack of treatment. You just won't get your own room in hospital and the food will probably be a bit shit. You'll still get your triple bypass or plaster cast or chemo or HIV medicine.
I think I love you.
Health insurance premiums DO pay for other people's healthcare. Change the name to tax, and the recipient from an insurer to the state/fed and some lose their shit.
The argument is "if I don't want health insurance the government shouldn't force it on me."
Fine, if you want to check that opt-out box then you can feel the weight of negotiating a bill one-on-one instead of as a collective backed by the Fed.
There isn't much point trying to understand people's point of view when the statistics speak clearly for themselves.
There is if you ever hope to persuade them. The importance of empathy shouldn't be underestimated.
I don't hope to persuade Americans that socialized healthcare that would likely cost much less per capita is a good idea because if they can't believe that if the face of statistics, there is no hope for them
Why would I waste my time? I already have free healthcare! I don't need to persuade others that it's awesome not to have to pay 20,000 if I break my leg, know what I mean?
I just wanted to point out some reasons why socialized healthcare is good - I know the people have already made up their 'minds' long ago
P.S. Yes for the billionth time, we know that there is no such thing as 'free' healthcare people, JESUS CHRIST!
Why would I waste my time?
You took enough time to respond. How much more time would empathy cost you?
I just wanted to point out some reasons why socialized healthcare is good - I know the people have already made up their 'minds' long ago
I get that; I might even agree that healthcare is public good and that government ought to provide it. But the situation is far more complex than you give it credit for. The US has four times the population of the most populated European country (Germany) and is the third most populated country in the world. There's no reason to believe that socialized medicine will scale to that properly. And your analysis ignores all the places socialized medicine either hasn't worked, or failed to produce superior results to the American system.
As an aside, please stop using quotes like that. It's condescending as hell. People aren't stupid for disagreeing with you.
how would paying for everyone to have healthcare = paying less? for instance, i have health insurance through my employer which i pay $0 for. if we had paid healthcare for all via taxes our taxes would be as high as countries that have that which would mean i'd be out another quarter of my salary or so in taxes. that sounds like paying way more
Because your insurance is part of your salary package, if it was taken out then you would rightly expect your employer to reimburse that part of your package through other means.
I live in a country with a really good socialised health care system, but I also have private insurance (subsidised by my employer) for extra shit. I'm just about to change jobs and my new employer doesn't have a health care plan, so in salary negotiations I worked out the value and adjusted my salary expectations accordingly.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
Yes, but literally half that money is already spent by the government through various healthcare programs - e.g. medicare, medicaid. So our government actually spends at least as much per capita on health care as most European countries. Putting everyone on the same system wouldn't actually solve the issue, which is cost disease. Things cost 10x more than they used to for reasons which are unclear.
Excellent recap here. In a sense, the U.S. DOES have socialized medicine, and the system works pretty well if you're rich, old, poor, or have a good job. It really sucks for who work but don't make a lot.
Free healthcare means less dead people. That means more alive people. How do you solve this problem?
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
One advantage that European countries have is their population density (US is 92 per mile^2 , while, say, Belgium is 225 per mile^2 ). For a hospital to be effective, it needs to be accessible. So we need a lot more hospitals per capita than a lot of European countries.
I'm not against socialized medicine, but there's a lot to overcome cost-wise compared to European countries that are out of our control.
We never have to think twice about calling for an ambulance, ever. Heart attack or panic attack? Guess we will find out when it's too late!
Sometimes a little known fact. Some/most? areas(I know it's true where I live) is you can call the ambulance, and they can treat you in your home to see if it's a heart attack or panic attack, or light medical attention free of charge. The meter doesn't start until they load you on to take you to the hospital.
It's not much, and I forget what the actual requirements are, IIRC its the community/township ambulance and fire districts that offer the service.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
Perhaps one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive in the US, outside of regulations, is because other wealthy nations don't foot enough of the bill? The bulk of profits from every pharma company producing non-generic or over the counter drugs comes from the US. Drug discovery is an important element to improving healthcare. What happens to global drug discovery if you remove the US profit engine? It probably ends. US has a lot of structural changes that could be made to lower the cost of providing healthcare, but you can't really get around the fact that drug discovery costs money and the US can't force Europe to share in the cost.
Ironically they're still paying for other people's healthcare anyway even with insurance.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
But that would mean that "undeserving" people would get free health care, paid for with MY money!
Sure, services are provided based on the most cost effective treatments first before moving on to more expensive treatments
This is true in the U.S. too, except it is the insurance companies mandating it. My wife had a doctor once prescribe something and tell her "This won't work, but I have to try it and show it doesn't work before your insurance company will pay for this more expensive drug that works."
First off, let me say that I agree completely with you. That said let me try to show what the general feeling is with those that don't:
This is a country where corporations seem to matter more than people. Do you think the insurance, medical, and all the other for-profit companies will go quietly?
Our system of government is fucked to the point that if there's not a monetary contribution from one side of an issue, then lawmakers may not even know people oppose it. It's easier for corporations to donate than it is to start a grassroots movement to oppose them.
As you mentioned, Doctors here get a cut from big pharma, why would they decrease their salary?
As to why the people here oppose the reform.
Conservatives tend to want less government, to the point of insanity sometimes. doesn't matter where or what, something needs to get cut if a Republican is in office.
Most people, even if they agree that universal healthcare would be better, do not think our government could pull it off. Too much corruption and party politics; anything that gets passed would end up costing the average american even more in taxes, not cover as much as it should, and probably be repealed by the next administration. (look what happened to obamacare, they were trying to repeal that with nothing to replace it)
I am not strictly against socialized healthcare. I am skeptical of it.
"Americans pay twice per capita comparted to many European countries."
Fair point. But what is to say that if America created a socialized healthcare system, we would not end up paying 3 or 4 times as much?
Also, a per-capita basis doesnt speak to my situation specifically. I pay approximately 1 percent of my annual gross income for excellent medical insurance. My company also deposits $1k a year into a health savings account which has never failed to cover my personal out of pocket expenses in a given year.
If one could demonstrate to me that a public healthcare system would only increase my taxes by 1 percent or less, i would be a strong supporter of such a system.
Ah yes the it works for me so screw everyone else that's worse off than me. Mah money.
Classic American ideas right there
Completely missing the point.
"Please accept this policy for the benefit of others, even at your own detriment."
If a different thing entirely from
"This policy is good for everyone, and anyone who disagrees or doesnt understand that isba brainwashed idiot."
Dont you think?
Annnnnd this made me cry.
I mean, I already knew this from speaking with friends and traveling to other countries, and their reaction when I explain the issues with how my chronic illness affects my employment (mostly with having to take time off for surgeries/medical appointments) but I can't get treatment without very specific kind of job (or going into debt) is always priceless.
If I could get on a plane tomorrow and live in a place with socialized medicine I would.
Re: cutting off your nose to spite your face, there's a very ugly part of humanity that our current ruling class effectively tapped into. (I'd say that it's the same part that would allow slavery to exist for just a "tad" too long and then deliberately sit around hatching plots for how to fuck over former slaves and their descendants for the rest of time, but I'd just be speculating. I truly cannot understand.)
I've heard "if it's your time to go, it's your time to go" in response to unarmed men being shot in cold blood.
I've heard "play stupid games get stupid prizes" in response to a story about a homeowner who rushed home to kill a teenage invader who was stealing from the empty home instead of calling the police. (Granted... over here the police may have just done the deed themselves.)
I've heard "they shouldn't be able to buy vegetables or healthy food, only beans and rice" in relation to families who need food stamps.
I've heard "too bad for them, their parents broke the law, they need to leave." In reference to Dreamers (people brought here illegal by their parents as small children).
I could go on. But my point is: people are fucking psychotic.
We have a weird castse system that we love to pretend doesn't exist, our education system is fucked to all hell so we've got a bunch of people who literally do not understand how to think (critically) being willingly brainwashed by anyone with a microphone and a Bible. Or anyone who promises to confirm to them that even though they're miserable, they're better than somebody... anybody else.
Sorry for the diatribe. Particularly cynical lately.
Americans already pay for others healthcare. Since healthcare is so expensive a lot of poorer people end up never paying it. So to make up for that hospitals overcharge insurances people (since for some reason they aren’t legally allowed to negotiate apparently). So then the insurance people jack up the insurance costs.
In Canada we have universal health care, but an ambulance ride will cost you $500 for some reason.
The statistics are one sided because the United States has a monopolized medical field that started in the early 1900s with government support of pharmaceuticals. It is easy to say "when the statistics speak clear for themselves." when the United States has never had the proper health care system that would of been beneficial to the country as a whole, excluding a social healthcare system. The United States was to thrive off of a free market, but when that is stripped away and monopolization sets in, then you have the increased medical cost of today. Not to mention the ACA increasing overall coverage 10x.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries
And I'd hazard a guess that's just from the point of view of the premiums paid by the policy holder in the US and not considering employer contribution in the case of employer sponsored coverage. Last year my middle of the road plan for my wife and I costed almost $30k dollars between us and my employer! If that wasn't bad enough they wont even cover my monthly medication and about half the time don't cover the bloodwork I have to get every few months. So not only is that $30k down the drain but I don't even get any kind of actual benefit out of it other than a hopefully hard stop at something like $6700 if I have a catastrophic health problem. It really is insane!
The only reason I do not want America to have free healthcare, is because it will be government run. We already spend an absurd amount of money on our system, and look at where its gotten us. I dont trust that Congress will allocate the additional tax money we will most likely need to just the healthcare system. Our infrastructure is already suffering because states took more taxes from the people in the name of fixing bridges and used it to line their/allies pockets.
Between California and Massachusetts, all they have done to majorly change the system, is implement more taxes, without seriously changing the system to be more efficient with our already high tax rates.
America wont change the system, theyll just throw more money at it to "fix" a system that doesnt need any more money.
There would need to be MASSIVE revisions to several different areas of federal law to be able to afford it without taking 75%+ of everyones income, who also need to be able to pay for outrageously high rent in cities.
You're talking changing the entire way the country is run right now to be able to make it work without issue.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
Yes, on average. However, each individual person has their own costs. I, for example, pay next to nothing for health care. The taxes to pay for single payer would cost me many times more what I currently pay.
Sure, services are provided based on the most cost effective treatments first before moving on to more expensive treatments for example, but private healthcare is also an option and you can choose to go down that route if you have the money
Many people prefer to just cut to the chase and go for the private care.
A poor person who got hit by a car could have $50,000 worth of medical care and walk out of hospital without ever seeing anything resembling a bill
Right, because it's paid for by all the non-poor people who weren't hit by cars.
We don't have to worry about whether the insurance we have already paid for will cover what we should get by rights
I don't worry about this either.
We never have to think twice about calling for an ambulance, ever. Heart attack or panic attack? Guess we will find out when it's too late! We never have to decide whether we can afford to buy those anti-psycotic meds or whether we can afford to give birth or get that lump checked out.
Most of us don't have to worry about this, either.
Even though the most cost effective methods are put before expensive ones, the BEST most lifesaving treatment will generally be given to you first. Out doctors aren't paid by drug companies. They don't have many personal incentives to give advice to the contrary. My experience of health care in countries where healthcare isn't free is: 'how can I trust these doctors when they are in the pockets of big pharma companies?
Health care isn't just about lifesaving treatments. Elective procedures that are typically the type to be delayed in european health care systems (or canadian or whatever point of comparison you want to use) are things that aren't life or death, but contribute greatly to quality of life. In America, you can get your lifesaving emergency treatment on-demand, but you can also get a knee replacement done a lot quicker than other places.
But none of those things really cut the meat of the argument against government-administered health care, at least for me. Americans are extremely resistant to ceding more power to the government. Honestly, I'd rather pay 2 dollars for something from a private enterprise and have a choice of which enterprise I patronize or whether I buy the thing at all... than pay 1 more dollar in taxes and not have a choice to abstain. If we implemented a single payer system, taxes would immediately go up to pay for it. However, it is not guaranteed that costs would go down. The US congress has certainly found ingenious ways to fuck things up before. The problem, of course (as shown by the Obamacare mandate) is that once it's a tax and a bureaucracy has grown up around the new legislation, you can't opt out. At least with private insurance, if the cost of the premiums gets too high, you can tell Aetna or Blue Cross to go fuck themselves and take the risk of being uninsured. If government health care taxes are too burdensome, tough. Of course, this is coming from a higher-income individual... pretty much every health care scheme with actual numbers attached (taxes, fees, etc) would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in taxes, well above the amount my family currently pays. I simply don't trust my government to do it in a way that satisfies me, nor do I want to pay that much more. And the fact that once it's law, it's pretty much there forever, I'd simply rather not.
Yes, on average. However, each individual person has their own costs. I, for example, pay next to nothing for health care. The taxes to pay for single payer would cost me many times more what I currently pay.
I'll ignore the selfish nature of your reasoning here skip past it.. How much do you currently pay? I'm willing to bet I pay less for more in New Zealand. And remember, if your employer pays it, you are paying it. That is a benefit of the job, an addition to your salary and if you moved to another job without it you would negotiate the value of that or be cutting yourself short.
Many people prefer to just cut to the chase and go for the private care.
Private care is generally for things not covered by the social system. Sure, some people have full on insurance to pay for private rooms with fancy beds and waiters and shit, but that is definitely not what most people do. Infact, a lot of the time the public system is better than the private one here. My wife and I have both and she went the public system last time for her cyvex something or other thing. Was faster and in a very nice hospital with no insurance paperwork required.
Right, because it's paid for by all the non-poor people who weren't hit by cars.
Ok I won't skip it this time. Stop being such a prick and imagining patriotism is something other than looking after your countryman. Military bullshit and soft cock syndrome is not patriotism.
I don't worry about this either.
Well, you don't while you have insurance, a job and your not getting fucked by a myriad of insurance company counting assessors.. If one of those things fails you though, then you worry. Me, I don't worry regardless of anything, even if I'm homeless I'm still getting seen to.
Most of us don't have to worry about this, either.
See above. And just out of curiosity, how much is your out of pocket for calling an Ambo?
Health care isn't just about lifesaving treatments. Elective procedures that are typically the type to be delayed in european health care systems (or canadian or whatever point of comparison you want to use) are things that aren't life or death, but contribute greatly to quality of life. In America, you can get your lifesaving emergency treatment on-demand, but you can also get a knee replacement done a lot quicker than other places.
We get those things too via private insurance. I pay $16 a month (50% employer subsidised) for my private insurance with Southern Cross Health Society in New Zealand. 4 years ago I had a pulmonary cyst on my throat that was benign, didn't cause me any issues just freaked me out. Had the option of getting it out in the public system which would take about 6-8 months to be removed or going private with my insurance in 2 weeks. I went the two week option.
But none of those things really cut the meat of the argument against government-administered health care, at least for me. Americans are extremely resistant to ceding more power to the government.
Yeah, getting a socialised health care system isn't seen as ceding power to the government where we come from. It's not in the same vein as giving up privacy powers to police, or losing freedoms to the state. It's not disempowering to pay for a healthcare system via an increase in taxes, it is exactly the opposite of all those things, and frankly our DHB is never seen as part of the government anyway, it sits quite separate.
Honestly, I'd rather pay 2 dollars for something from a private enterprise and have a choice of which enterprise I patronize or whether I buy the thing at all... than pay 1 more dollar in taxes and not have a choice to abstain.
You still have a choice and infact get an extra choice, public or private.
If we implemented a single payer system, taxes would immediately go up to pay for it. However, it is not guaranteed that costs would go down. The US congress has certainly found ingenious ways to fuck things up before.
If you can't sort your shit out we can't help you. But as evidenced in many places elsewhere in the world, if you do sort your shit out then it does work and costs are brought down across the board (private and public).
The problem, of course (as shown by the Obamacare mandate) is that once it's a tax and a bureaucracy has grown up around the new legislation, you can't opt out. At least with private insurance, if the cost of the premiums gets too high, you can tell Aetna or Blue Cross to go fuck themselves and take the risk of being uninsured.
It's not like the heath costs go up massively for us each year or anything, infact we had tax cuts last budget and I think more are coming in the next year or two, I could be wrong though, tax isn't a big deal here.
If government health care taxes are too burdensome, tough. Of course, this is coming from a higher-income individual... pretty much every health care scheme with actual numbers attached (taxes, fees, etc) would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in taxes, well above the amount my family currently pays.
Rubbish. Absolute utter rubbish. Give me your numbers and prove it.
I simply don't trust my government
Mate, no one trusts your government.
to do it in a way that satisfies me, nor do I want to pay that much more. And the fact that once it's law, it's pretty much there forever, I'd simply rather not.
You are worryingly shortsighted and extremely misinformed man.
I'll ignore the selfish nature of your reasoning here skip past it.. How much do you currently pay? I'm willing to bet I pay less for more in New Zealand. And remember, if your employer pays it, you are paying it. That is a benefit of the job, an addition to your salary and if you moved to another job without it you would negotiate the value of that or be cutting yourself short.
So far this year, I've paid 720 dollars for health care.
Private care is generally for things not covered by the social system. Sure, some people have full on insurance to pay for private rooms with fancy beds and waiters and shit, but that is definitely not what most people do. Infact, a lot of the time the public system is better than the private one here. My wife and I have both and she went the public system last time for her cyvex something or other thing. Was faster and in a very nice hospital with no insurance paperwork required.
That's fine for you. I don't see the appeal.
Ok I won't skip it this time. Stop being such a prick and imagining patriotism is something other than looking after your countryman. Military bullshit and soft cock syndrome is not patriotism.
I think Americans tend to not be as affectionate toward their countrymen as other people are.
Well, you don't while you have insurance, a job and your not getting fucked by a myriad of insurance company counting assessors.. If one of those things fails you though, then you worry. Me, I don't worry regardless of anything, even if I'm homeless I'm still getting seen to.
Or... you can handle things yourself. Buy insurance if you want or self-insure.
See above. And just out of curiosity, how much is your out of pocket for calling an Ambo?
I don't know. I figure an ambulance ride from my house to the nearest hospital would probably run me about 1800 bucks. It's not outrageous, but because I live in a very rural area, it would almost certainly be faster to just drive myself to the hospital because it would take at least a half hour for them to get here and another half hour to get me back into town.
We get those things too via private insurance. I pay $16 a month (50% employer subsidised) for my private insurance with Southern Cross Health Society in New Zealand. 4 years ago I had a pulmonary cyst on my throat that was benign, didn't cause me any issues just freaked me out. Had the option of getting it out in the public system which would take about 6-8 months to be removed or going private with my insurance in 2 weeks. I went the two week option.
Ok? Our entire system is the "faster, better" version you chose for yourself.
Yeah, getting a socialised health care system isn't seen as ceding power to the government where we come from. It's not in the same vein as giving up privacy powers to police, or losing freedoms to the state. It's not disempowering to pay for a healthcare system via an increase in taxes, it is exactly the opposite of all those things, and frankly our DHB is never seen as part of the government anyway, it sits quite separate.
That's how you see it. We see it differently.
You still have a choice and infact get an extra choice, public or private.
No, you don't have a choice. You pay for your public system whether you want to or not. With our system, if the insurance does not represent a worthwhile value to me, I can opt to not have it. If you are a healthy person who doesn't go to the doctor, you can save tons of money by just having cash set aside for accidents or emergencies.
If you can't sort your shit out we can't help you. But as evidenced in many places elsewhere in the world, if you do sort your shit out then it does work and costs are brought down across the board (private and public).
Remember, half our population and our legislators will actively work to make sure a public system fails.
It's not like the heath costs go up massively for us each year or anything, infact we had tax cuts last budget and I think more are coming in the next year or two, I could be wrong though, tax isn't a big deal here.
That's great, but if cost DID go up, you'd have no choice but to pay it.
Rubbish. Absolute utter rubbish. Give me your numbers and prove it.
Sure. What percentage of your income do you pay for health care taxes? I used a tax calculator online to compare what my tax burden would be if I lived in Ontario (canada) rather than here and my taxes would be over 30k more. Obviously, that was an entirely different tax scheme, but I certainly wasn't saving any money by going to Canada.
Mate, no one trusts your government.
Good, we're in agreement on something.
You are worryingly shortsighted and extremely misinformed man.
Shortsighted, maybe... or perhaps my view is longer-term than yours in that I won't cede an inch to the government today because of what that means generations down the road. Misinformed? Not a chance. I have too much skin in the game to not know how different policies will affect me.
Reading through your reply, quite honestly your just plain dumb. But hey, have fun in your dumbass country dumbass.
That’s a persuasive argument
Are you the person from New Zealand? I just used https://www.paye.net.nz/calculator.html to calculate my tax burden in NZ vs the US and I’d be paying 30,000 dollars more over there than I do here. No, thanks.
None of this addresses that health care provided by the government isn’t free.
People pay twice as much for healthcare per capita in the US than a lot of European countries with excellent free-at-the-point-of-contact (yes, we know we pay for it through taxes) healthcare
That is why virtually all medical developments in recent years comes from the US.
Sure, services are provided based on the most cost effective treatments first before moving on to more expensive treatments for example, but private healthcare is also an option and you can choose to go down that route if you have the money
But I dont have the choice to stop paying taxes for your healthcare
A poor person who got hit by a car could have $50,000 worth of medical care and walk out of hospital without ever seeing anything resembling a bill
They do that in the US too.
We don't have to worry about whether the insurance we have already paid for will cover what we should get by rights
You dont have a right to anything that another person has to provide for you
We never have to think twice about calling for an ambulance, ever. Heart attack or panic attack? Guess we will find out when it's too late! We never have to decide whether we can afford to buy those anti-psycotic meds or whether we can afford to give birth or get that lump checked out.
Waste of money
Even though the most cost effective methods are put before expensive ones, the BEST most lifesaving treatment will generally be given to you first. Out doctors aren't paid by drug companies. They don't have many personal incentives to give advice to the contrary. My experience of health care in countries where healthcare isn't free is: 'how can I trust these doctors when they are in the pockets of big pharma companies?'
That isnt the case in the US
Ration isn't the correct term, triage is a better term.
You don't get 20 units of health care from the government, and then that's it, it's over. The worst-off people get treated first, but everyone gets treated in time, to the full amount that is needed.
Yes, exactly this. Granted it's annoying if you have a minor ailment and have to wait a few weeks/months to get it treated - but damn it's worth it when you have a serious accident and get whisked off to be treated, front of the queue, for free
For at least some people against it, triage is rationing. They want to be able to pay to go to the front of the line with the highest level of care. So it doesn't help to call it something else.
But they can --- private healthcare still exists if you want to pay for it. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
I agree, but they don't know the nuances of existing national healthcare (I mean, there's still talk about death panels).
Although, this just made me think: insurance plans in America are often part of benefits packages for employment. I imagine in a system of national healthcare, employees would expect compensation in other ways(?) If an employer offers a 10K insurance plan that is no longer needed, I wonder if employees would demand that in cash.
I agree, but they don't know the nuances of existing national healthcare (I mean, there's still talk about death panels).
As somebody who lives in a country with universal healthcare, this argument never made sense to me. Regardless of the system (universal health care vs private healthcare) healthcare services are a finite resource and the demand is allways going to be higher than the supply so somebody has to decide what amount of services to provide you. So I don't understand why people feel more confortable having private companies whose goal is to turn as much profit as possible make these kind of decisions rather than the government whose goal is to ensure the wellbeing of its citizens and who has a interest in achieving as high life expectancy as possible (because the longer people live, the more taxes they pay and the higher contribution they have to the GDP).
To be clear I am not against the idea of privatized healthcare and universal healthcare. Both systems have their advantages which is why it would be best to have both - universal healthcare would be ideal to provide the basic services which should be standard across the entire population (like for example regular prophylactic exams, tretment for common diseases, vaxinations, etc) while privatized healthcare could provide the extra coverage which would be good to have but not crucial (for example a rare disease that however is both dangerous and very expensive to cure looks like a risk that would be suitable to insure against).
For people that can afford to pay out of pocket for medical care or can pay for Cadillac insurance plans, there is no such things as finite medical care. To them, national healthcare takes away that privilege (even though it wouldn't really, since a for-profit option would most likely be available).
Well, I am talking on a society level, not an individual level. And this is another point I don't understand - why do people always think of the 2 systems as one vs another whereas in all countries where there is universal healthcare, private healthcare also exists and both systems supplement each other. In my country if I want to pay out of pocket for medical services and not use my health coverage, nobody is going to decline my money. And if I want insurance I can also buy one, though the majority of people don't buy insurance because they don't think they need it.
[deleted]
I pay 1 percent of my annual income for really really good medical insurance. I also get $1k cash from my employer each year in an account to cover the small out of pocket expenses.
If we shifted the full burden of all healthcare for all Americans to the government, my taxes would have to go up by more than 1 percent.
This would cost me money.
LOOK EVEYRONE!!! THIS GUY HAS A GOOD HEALTH PLAN!! we shouldnt change anything because he is good.
The statement was "there is no logical argument against socialized healthcare."
Is "it would negatively impact me" not a logical reason for me to not want something?
I think they're saying that yes, some people would pay more (most of whom can afford it), but the vast majority would not -- and it's for the good of the country as a whole. Just one possibility.
Right. A Universal Healthcare policy would be good for tons of people.
I am not one of them at the moment.
Which means i have logical reasons to be lukewarm at best towards such a policy.
Love thy neighbor
So your argument is that i should support such a policy out of the goodness of my heart.
Thats a different thing than "there is only one logical position".
I wasn't the one who said "only logical opinion", I was adding my own idea to the mix for you. Sorry for the confusion.
Personally, I see it as a way to have healthier neighbors, which in turn can make you healthier in a very roundabout way.
That's the same thing with public education. Nobody wants to be surrounded by people who don't have reading skills beyond the 5th grade. I know, I know, "But my neighbors are already idiots, I already deal with that". Do we really think they would be the same if they hadn't completed a minimum high school diploma?
Now, if you live in a well off area, make good money, and your neighbors do too, you wont have to worry about that, and I get that. For you, the lose of public schools wouldn't affect you since you and the people around you will be able pay for the education.
Healthcare I think is similar but different. I'll explain the issues I can see that would affect me negatively and can be fixed if other people had access to medical assistance:
I don't want a coworker coming in thinking they don't have a serious condition, when it is a serious illness and affecting others in the office. Or worse, myself. Now, your job sounds nice and most people will have health insurance. Wife? What about her coworkers?
or
I don't want a family member to die of a curable disease because they couldn't afford the medication and were too prideful to ask for help. I know in my family, my parents are fairly well off, but my dad's siblings can't say the same. They are some seriously prideful Portuguese immigrants though.
The lowest hanging fruit though, so low it's on the ground:
When I have kids I don't want one of them coming home with pneumonia because their classmates parents didn't bring them to the doctor.
I see many ways where "love thy neighbor" could improve my life. Which allows my "best for me" attitude to justify the need for public healthcare. But, ultimately, yes. Goodness of your heart.
[deleted]
You are not understanding me.
Such a system would be cheaper for some people, and more expensive than others.
Would a family of 4 with a household income of $60k who currently pays $3k a year for healthcare immediately benefit from such a system? Yes. Would it be cheaper for them? Yes.
Would a single person making $100k a year currently paying $1k a year for healthcare immediately benefit from such a system? No. Would it be cheaper for them? No.
Thats my point. With any policy, there are winners and losers. There are plently of people who would be worse off under a Universal Healthcare system, at least in the short term.
I believe i am one of those people.
If it saves money in the long run, would it not be expected that you would see a larger return on your taxes at the end of the year?
No they wouldn't.
What?
We currently spend over $3 trillion on healthcare.
Say Universal healthcare cuts this cost to $2 T.
122 million Americans pay taxes.
Shifting the entire $2 T cost to the American taxpayer would cost $16k per taxpayer.
That $16k would not apply to each person equally (but by tax bracket).
But i highly suspect my share would be more than the $1k/yr i currently pay for health insurance.
The US spends twice the GDP per capita on healthcare than other developed nations that use a single payer/socialised model.
Switching to such a model in the US would be logistically difficult but it would save a vast amount of money.
The healthcare costs in socialised systems also make use of employer contributions, just like the US system.
These are numbers that have been out for a long time - developed nations with universal healthcare pay a lot less than the US does currently per capita, and for better overall care for everyone.
Edit: interesting down vote with subsequent silence. Weird.
You are an extreme outlier and a minority in this case. 10s of millions of people do not have adequate healthcare in america, and its not okay. Would some people be worse off? Yes, some outliers like yourself would pay more. But the trade off is millions more getting access to healthcare they wouldn't have otherwise.
Also how in gods green earth do you spend 1% of your income for excellent healthcare? Can i work where you work? Are you a millionaire?
Not a millionaire. My bi-weekly cost for my insurance is $41.09. The plan used to be better before certain Obamacare rules went into effect.
I know i am an outlier. But im fucking sick and tired of people telling me "you will be better off! It will be cheaper for everyone! Why are you voting against your own self interest, you idiot!?"
If someone came to me instead and said "This policy would actually harm you a little bit, but it wont be a life-shattering hardship. We recognize that it will be bad for you but it will help millions of people. Would you please support this policy anyway? Who knows, you might benefit from it when you retire or if god forbid you become disabled."
If someone said to me i might be more amenable to such a policy. But literally nobody ever says that. Im just told that i am a brainwashed idiot if i dont agree that Universal Healthcare would be good for me.
You aren't wrong. People do come off as rude when talking about this. But that's because nearly half of the voting population does actually belief that universal healthcare will make their lives worse. They are ignorant of the facts of the matter. Its easier from a conversation stand point to assume that someone doesn't know they stand to benefit, and its easier to assume that most people will benefit. Will universal healthcare help everyone equally? No. But it has never been about that. Its about a better system that overall costs less money, benefits more people, and is easier to use for everyone.
Maybe you really will see some negative effects if the US were to adopt universal healthcare, and i can understand that that is annoying. You were fine before.
But if your problem is really with messaging, or being talked down too, then people who support these policies need to do a better job of that.
I pay nearly 9% of my combined household income for some pretty terrible insurance. It's the second-best plan available. The deductible is still 5k each.
Yeah, Universal Healthcare would probably be an immediate benefit you. It would make sense for you to support such a policy.
But my situation is different. Such a policy would be an immediate negative impact on me.
But according to reddit, i am a brainwashed idiot who doesnt understand whats best for me.
Sure, it wouldn't be best for you in the immediate short term, just like paying the school levies to rebuild the elementry school last year wasn't the best in the immediate short term for me. But universal health care would benefit you in that it benefits the society you live in. For example: access to safe and free rehab lowers the rates of overdose and drug related crime, which lowers the costs to the court system and hospitals, allowing more funds to be spent on projects that improve the quality of life in your jurisdiction. It may provide more benefit to other people than you, but that doesn't mean you won't benefit.
All very reasonable.
In general the argument I hear most against government funded anything usually boils down to something like, "why should I pay for someone else's X?"
I don't agree with it, but to some people who don't end up using those services themselves and who may not be financially well off, paying for something they'll never see can feel silly.
Another (similar) argument I hear from my father is that they don't feel like they reap the benefits as equally as others. He says he is okay with his taxes going to government to provide financial assistance for going to post-secondary education. However, he feels that lower class people get too much financial assistance and it should be dialled back a bit to help middle class people or alternatively that he should pay less for it.
It does seem individualistic but it makes sense. People will look out for themselves more often than others.
Maybe you can explain to him that if life ends shitting on him, as does pretty frequently happen due to some unexpected medical emergency, it's an insurance system that'll makes sure he and his subsequent generations aren't stuck in an unending cycle of poverty.
I don't agree with it either, but I did hear a convincing argument (from a Canadian, no less).
Smoking tobacco is associated with significantly higher lifetime healthcare costs. Is it fair to require non-smokers to subsidize that poor life choice? What about obesity? Genetics often play a part, but generally the biggest factor is poor diet. Socialized healthcare, for all the benefits it provides, does shift the financial burden for these poor decisions from the person making them to society as a whole.
Personally, I think the benefits of universal healthcare far outweigh that downside. But I can completely understand why people feel that way.
It sounds similar to one argument I have heard regarding welfare. Some people abuse welfare, but does that mean we should stop providing it?
If there are 10 people who are receiving welfare and 9 actually need it while the 1 abuses it, should we stop providing it and not help those 9 who legitimately need help?
If there are 10 people using socialized healthcare and 9 live good lives using it as necessary for emergencies while 1 is drawing more resources with their poor decisions, should we stop providing it and make it a burden on those 9 when the time comes?
I totally agree that some people make absolutely horrid decisions with their own bodies and well-being, but there are a ton of people who make lots of efforts with their health and still require healthcare from time to time. I am confident there are tons of people like my grandmother who despite her daily exercise and diet control, she still needs regular healthcare and checkups, likely due to her old age.
An important aspect I've always felt was missing from the American discussion of "free" health care is the aspect of human dignity. It is the number 1 reason we (in this case: Germany) as a society have decided that it is desirable for everyone here to have unconditional access to necessary health care, no matter their income.
In barely ever see that aspect brought up in the US. Over there the discussion seems to be on a completely different level, where the question whether someone deserves health care seems to be the most relevant.
A lot of the response against it from my circles comes down to people having always taken care of themselves and their own family. They don't want to be paying for other people's healthcare and they aren't interested in having others help pay for theirs if they need it.
Americans have a strong sense of individualism. Its been the driving force behind some of the best and worst parts of our history.
It's a bit ridiculous how some people get so paranoid and resentful at even the idea that someone, somewhere, might be getting something they didn't "earn."
Funnily enough, no one is campaigning for the abolition of inheritance. Now that's true meritocracy if you believe in it.
[deleted]
The individualism, is closely linked with family though.
Think of it from the perspective of the one giving the inheritance.
"It's my money and I worked hard for it; I should have the right to give it to whomever I damn well please."
Inheritance has already been taxed, tho. Inheritance is mean't to pass down lost income, not capital gains. And if you take the ability to pass down all of the earned wealth to heirs, you are going to see an exodus of the rich as soon as they make it in fear of losing it all. That won't be good for anyone.
Abolition, not yet. Insane tax rates, sure. Never mind that that money was already taxed when it was first earned, let's tax it again! Ooh, your grandpa left you his house? Better sell that motherfucker right quick and pay up, or else the tax man is gonna be angry.
[deleted]
Reddit has a tendency to only view an issue from one perspective, sadly.
Yes. Because for a country that is so patriotic, Americans should want to help their fellow Americans, and be happy at the thought that children who aren't as well off have the same opportunities in life as their own children. How can your country have such an "us vs them" mentality when it comes to the rest of the world, when there is no "us"? it's hypocritical and kind of disgusting. A culture that promotes "every man for himself, and the people who happen to be related to him" is a bad culture.
You're imagining yourself as the parent. But what about imagining yourself as the kid? (Only some of us are parents, but everybody starts life as a kid.)
I'm a moderate, not a radical socialist. I would not support a total ban on inheritance. However, there is a very real sense in which inheriting money or property is quite literally not earning it on your own merits or through your own labor!
We all start life as children and we have absolutely no control over who our parents are. Being born into this world is like just waking up in a random place with economic circumstances that we didn't choose at all.
I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a culture promoting the idea that people should choose to provide for their children. But we can't tell people that they should choose to be born to parents who provided for them.
Being born into a wealthy family, or even an upper-middle class or middle-middle class family, is an example of something that's just the luck of where and when you happen to be born, and it's a good example of people receiving something not because of their own hard work or their own merits.
From a moderate conservative, I think the inheritance tax is fine where it is.
If you have worked, paid your taxes, and accumulated wealth in order to provide a better life for your children than you were born into -- then you should be able to pass that wealth down so that the cycle can continue. There are social safety nets for the bottom %, a small inheritance tax on the top %, but let the individual chose how their property will be gifted to their children, and make sure the government keeps their wasteful hands off.
I don't especially disagree with you there, but do you see my point: the parents might have earned something, but the children didn't. The children are getting something that they didn't earn themselves, which in a certain sense is opposed to the idea that people should achieve financial success through their own efforts and merits.
Yes, I see your point that there are some children getting something that they did not directly earn themselves. In the same sense, so is social welfare for the children living in poverty. The question is, when does the "American Dream" of independence start to hand out some cash to the needy and when does it stop taking money from the wealthy? There has to be moderation in the idea of Independence, in the same way we limit basic human freedoms in some circumstances.
I guess I view humanitys natural state as poverty and that privilege is something that should be aspired for so that you can provide better to your kids and their grandkids and so forth.
Losing the lottery is unfair and stinks but life is unfair, and at times, stinks.
Idk I think it's cool that America is unique in that way. There really isn't another Westernized country with such a "go out west and build" type mentality
If you want to build a fortune to pass onto your kids, more power to you.
The individualism, is closely linked with family though.
The individualism of america encompasses families as a part of the 'individual,' so inheritance is just another form of keeping your own money.
I see this attitude a lot, in everything Americans do. Especially in traffic. Instead of merging, using the zipper method, looking out for others trying to switch lanes, etc...instead, drivers actively keep other cars from entering their lane because they were here first and earned the right to get to the red light .2 seconds sooner. It's sad.
It's not really that, it's more like "I know how hard I had to work to get all this for my family, now they want me to work harder to get it for other people's families too?" For someone already overworked, this is not just a daunting prospect, but infuriating that someone else didn't put in the same amount of sweat equity.
They are eating their cake too so speak. Medicaid is s voluntary program for states to take on. They don't have to offer it all and some states like Tennessee barely do while a 3rd of all Mississippians rely on it. But they do still offer it because it saves the state money.
Consider that 60% of all hospital births are paid for with Medicaid. Basically we already have socialized medicine so people aren't driven to want to expand it.
This is then irony of our entire healthcare system. The largest and most ruthlessly defended providers are state/federally operated (medicaid and medicare).
The beautiful irony is how this attitude goes hand in hand with Christianity in the USA.
"Love thy neighbour, unless he's got cancer. In that case, he can get in the fucking sea"
Its more about literal neighbors out there. You don't know Maria in Boston and never will. But rural communities tend to come together when one of their own needs it.
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
A good Christian would be happy to subsidise Maria in Boston's treatment, even if they never meet her.
The problem is, this is literally how every insurance plan already works.
Yes! Exactly. The premium you're paying every month is paying for other people's healthcare. So why not just pay that amount or less in taxes?
Yup! Instead of healthcare being taken out of your paycheck separately, that cost is taken out as a tax instead. It. Is. The. Same. Thing. How people can be against this idea is ridiculously mind boggling.
On top of that, unlike insurance companies, they can’t deny your claims. It also isn’t tied to your employer.
The ridiculous thing about this is that paying for other people's healthcare is exactly how insurance actually works.
The people in your circles are basically douchebags, and your life will improve by removing the amount of time you spend with them.
[deleted]
I don't think it necessarily comes across that way. These are people who don't believe they can or should count on the government for aid. When the emergency services are hours away and their only direct interactions with anything government related are when an auditor/surveyor comes buy to adjust the taxes on their homes once every several years. Why should they pay extra into something for others when they may need every penny of that money, especially considering that (in their minds) they'll likely never see any benefits from it because, again, the 'government can't be counted on' to help them if they ever needed it.
It may not be a 'correct' way of thinking, but even with just a little ability to view multiple sides of an issue it isn't hard to understand where they're coming from and why they believe what they do.
[deleted]
It is currently, but are you willing to gamble your healthcare and retirement on that? A lot in the USA aren't. Very deep seated mistrust.
It's a funny thing considering that I don't trust my insurance providers to not screw me nor that my 401k will actually be there when I retire.
Your 401k is an individual investment account. You can leave it in a money market account (please don't) or invest in whatever you'd like. If you don't trust that it'll be there then that's on you. Unless you think that the entire economy will collapse or something, at which point I don't think you would be worrying about your 401k.
If you don't trust your insurance, find a different insurance. Or pay out of pocket (I know, not typically feasible). But you have options.
And if you don't trust the government you should move to another country with a government you do trust. It's that simple, right?
It is far, far easier to change insurance companies or self insure than move countries.
Still pretty pointless advice.
You don't ration shit. You get triaged and put on a list.
government-funded healthcare is not free. It is paid for through taxes
This is true, but we're CURRENTLY paying for the healthcare of those who can't afford it, just indirectly.
Think about it this way: If a poor person walks into an ER with a railroad spike through their chest, the doctors aren't going to let him die. They will treat him and nobody will pay.
So the doctor doesn't get paid? Well no. The hospital still pays the doctor, but often-times they accept that they're never getting that money from ol' Spikey. So they charge other patients more to cover the costs of Spikes.
The problem here is that Spikey gets discharged two days later and is told to go to the pharmacy for some antibiotics and other meds to make sure he stays healthy. Well Spikey doesn't have money so when he goes to the pharmacy they tell him to fuck off.
So he goes back to his life, not taking the medication the doctors prescribed, until he's got another infection or septic shock or something else and shows back up in the ER.
It would have been FAR more cost effective for you, the other patient / the taxpayer to pay the $3 for Spikey to receive his meds, but instead he's back in the ER getting surgery to remove an infection costing the hospital thousands of dollars they're passing on to you.
Even worse, maybe ol' spikes ends up needing dialysis or something as a result of the infection and proceeding surgeries. Now, not only has the hospital had to deal with his broke ass, he's broke perpetually for the rest of his life, his quality of life is fucked, and you're still stuck footing the much-higher-than-it-had-to-be bill.
Multiply this by 1 million and the difference between the $3 meds and the $10,000 surgery bill become billions of dollars the "healthy" or "insured" public is still covering because doctors aren't going to let people die.
Great point
They could only plausibly argue the opposite by ignoring all comparisons between US and foreign healthcare systems.
I think a lot of people take issue with "paying for someone else's healthcare." The funny part is they somehow don't get that that's exactly what health insurance is except we are also paying the insurance companies on top of that.
I'd rather pay a little bit more in taxes, than go bankrupt because I broke my arm.
Yes, but the thing is, should you fall ill you are going to be spending that money anyway.. and probably a lot more on top.
So what that basically equates to is gambling, you weigh the risk of not paying yearly taxes for a healthcare system against the costs should you fall seriously ill.
I can pretty much guarantee the second cost will be waaaay higher.
People are convinced that free means worse, and that they'll suffer reduced quality of care as a result.
TBF, if you are looking at getting a non-urgent operation and have the money for it, the wait times are insanely shorter in the US compared to Canada. Some procedures you have to wait 6-12 months, but you could go to the US and get it done next week if you wanted to.
I'd rather wait a few months and get it done for free than get it next week and be making back payments for years after.
It is paid for through taxes and by rationing consumption of health services.
I never understand the "rationing" argument. The US already subsidises a certain amount of emergency healthcare for those who cannot pay- rationed to the limits of what is considered "emergency". In the NHS, the "rations" apportioned are much, much greater (essentially, any evidence-based treatment that significantly improves quality or quantity of life for less than £20,000-30,000 per year is available on the NHS). And for those who can and want to pay, they are at liberty to do so. It's not as if the rationing means that you're not allowed to go elsewhere- if you want private insurance as well as NHS cover, that's fine. If you want to pay out of pocket for some insanely expensive experimental treatment, that's also fine.
In what way is "rationing" an argument against the NHS?
We don't think of it as socialised healthcare, it seems a weird term. There's lots of things paid for by taxes that everyone benefits from, such as fire and emergency services, roads, parks and so on, it just seems odd to pick out healthcare and make it about "socialism".
Overall, the benefits go across the whole population. Untreated health issues costs communities dearly, productivity losses can be substantial which seems like something that should be avoided.
It's also about care. Here in Australia, for those that can remember that far back, there was outrage when Howard removed a Commonwealth (Federal) Dental program for the elderly. Over 65s generally have more dental issues than younger people and when suddenly they were responsible for their own medical bills or subjected to months or even year long waits before they could get effective dentures or significant dental treatment they started get other health issues. Their diets suffered, their self esteem took a hit and many ended up with mental health issues, minor conditions left due to lack of access became major life complicating illnesses and they needed more and more care which increased the burden on other parts of the public system. It was a shitstorm.
Is this how we want to treat our elderly?
From an economic sense, public healthcare makes a lot of sense.
Edit: I had meant to include if there is a socialism element to it, it is that a public system recognises that people aren't born equally and with the same opportunities. In Australia generally you get treated at a public hospital the same whether you're parents are both unemployed in public housing or if you're parents are both employed with savings.
While I can't speak for every American, the root of reasoning for everyone I personally know who is against free healthcare pretty much boils down to McCarthyism.
Basically, they believe if we get free healthcare, we're going to suddenly become communists and suffer all the bad things that come along with it.
my brother is a self proclaimed libertarian "health-care is not a right" type, while I'm liberal as all get out. he's flat out said if you don't or can't work, are too poor to get health insurance or pay for the care, you should just be left to die. I'm paraphrasing but he most definitely said they should be left to die. this was during a little Facebook debate about children's healthcare funding being slashed. yes, he included the children in that statement as well. I've tried many, many times to see it from his side and I literally cannot. I cannot fathom leaving anyone for dead, especially children. he is not alone in that opinion either.
It’s a Lack of education to sum it up.
part of the issue , (and this is simplified AF) is how insurance companys and big pharmaceutical companys are in bed with our healthcare and the very messed up Patent system the lack of proper regulation stopping those. no one mentions that though, or else our (american) system wouldnt be so bad, but its in a mess right now
There are 2 problems with government funded healthcare. 1.like it's been said already, in order for everyone to have healthcare for "free" money has to forcibly be taken from everyone. That's theft. 2. The government is absolutely fucking HORRIBLE at everything they do (in the usa atleast) everything the government touches turns to shit, it's been proven time and time again, and I can give you tons of examples of you'd ljke, if a private company takes on the same task as the government, the private company does it better ever single time. I'm a libertarian. I believe that if there is no victim there is no crime, and I believe that I should be able to do almost anything j want as long as j dont violate anyone rights. The beautiful thing about America is you have the chance to make it from being homeless, to making 6 figures a year or more. America punishes the lazy, and they reward the hard working. I agree healthcare is expensive and medical bills are I say expensive but again that's because the government has regulated healthcare to death, if the free market could handle healthcare it would be much much cheaper. If you go into the doctor today with a broken arm and no insurance, you're fucked because the doctor can not give you his own price, he has to talk to your insurance company directly. If you go into a doctor for laser eye surgery, its extremely cheap, 2-4 thousand dollars, this is because that field of medicine isnt regulated by the government so doctors are competing to give the best surgery for less. The solution isnt "healthcare is to expensive we need to involve to government" the solution is "the government is causing healthcare to be super expensive let's privatize it"
I don’t think our current system is bad in terms of quality of care we receive, but I will agree that it is costly and needs to be more affordable.
Aside from all those bills I have to pay and still paying, I’m usually satisfied with the care.
[deleted]
You'll only be bankrupted in the US if you already have terrible financial practices and choose to not follow the law. Under current US law you are required to have health insurance. Health insurers are required to have a maximum out of pocket of $6700 for a single person. Which means you are only bankrupt if you don't have insurance and don't have any savings. If $6700 is something you can't handle as an adult, then you have much bigger problems than a lack of someone else paying your medical bills.
I consider it basically free if a health complication that would bankrupt me for life in the states is paid for by my taxes
My thoughts are that the government can never do anything right. Its just not possible. Also, the more authority you give any govt, the more leverage they have over the people when they threaten to take the program(s) away.
The US govt cant even get Social Security to work, i have no faith they could get any viable healthcare program to work.
Have you seen how VA hospitals are run? I still continue to pay for healthcare instead of using my VA benefits
Ain’t nothin in life free. You either pay for it up front or pay for it on the back end.
But government-funded healthcare is not free.
You have to stop parroting this catchphrase. No one actually think that healthcare is free like a free sample at costco or a charity event.
The argument is that healthcare is the right thing to do morally (human right) and economically (bulk bargain).
It is paid for through taxes and by rationing consumption of health services.
This is true of private health care, too. You pay into it, and you have to wait and that's if it's approved in the first place.
but one could plausibly argue the opposite.
There's no perfect system that will please every single person in the country, but there are many different national systems in place, lots of evidence, and I don't agree that a "plausible argument" can be made for what we have now. Maybe plausible "sounding" arguments but they can't withstand even a bit of informed scrutiny and applied statistics.
Universal healthcare isn't free because taxes
Yeah well neither are public roads, for the same reason, but do you agonize over your taxes going towards basic services like roads? Is that taxation (that portion which goes towards roads) a huge inconvenience to you?
This is how universal healthcare could and should be viewed, but we've been collectively brainwashed.
I personally believe that for healthcare, government funding is likely a better solution than what we have today, but one could plausibly argue the opposite.
Actually you really can't. In europe (at least in germeny) its only government funded if you are unemployed. If you are employed you and your employer pay the health insurance. Our health system is just your ordinary insurance from a normal insurance company you can choose. It's just mandatory.
So to the opposite argument. If somebody get sick and has to be hospitalized and treated somebody has to pay the bill. If he is insured - no problem. If not and this somebody cannot pay who pays for it ?
The same people that pay for everything in every country. The taxpayers. So everybody arguing against socialized healthcare simply does not understand the fact that health care is socialized anyhow. Everytime somebody goes bancrupt the losses are socialized one way or another.
My sense is that no one in the world is against free healthcare; one would have to be insane to take that view.
it's quite common among the right, actually. i'd say that's one of their primary oppositions.
I dont want government funded healthcare. You point me to a single project undertaken by the government that wasn't over budget or over schedule. The freaking government spends money like its not their money cause its not so they dont give a freak they throw money around like its dirt. Yes our healthcare needs to change, no I dont see the government as the answer.
My sense is that no one in the world is against free healthcare; one would have to be insane to take that view. But government-funded healthcare is not free. It is paid for through taxes and by rationing consumption of health services.
This is what a lot of people don't understand.
All I'll say is this is one of the negative effects of socialized healthcare
America was built on low taxes and freedom. I have seen first-hand how bad "free" healthcare is. Medicare/Medicaid has $70 TRILLION in IOU'S to doctors and hospitals. My mother's doctor's office is owed $500,000 by them. It almost made her go bankrupt. So basically, the people who don't have government insurance have to pay higher prices to make up for what the government doesn't pay. This plus frivelous lawsuits drive the cost.
California tried to have Medicare for all but they did a study to find the cost and decided it cost too much
On a side note, the recent murders by the NHS of sick children is another big turn off.
I had exactly this on my mind when reading the question, nothing to add.
I think the whole being against free healthcare thing is due to the fact that Americans don't really know how much healthcare costs. Every hospital/doctors bill is so priced-up for profit when the actual cost of these things are so much less. People may struggle with their taxes already and if medical bills are super high they don't want their taxes to go up even higher by a huge amount when in reality they probably wouldn't notice the increase that much (if the free healthcare wasn't being charged at the same price Americans pay now)
edit - there/their im stupid af
I am English. An American I met on holiday in Mexico was genuinely:
Angry that I support universal healthcare.
Bamboozled beyond belief that the police in the UK dont have guns.
His anger and bamboozlement was insane.
He isnt pay jack shit for anyone who isnt him, even if it is to the benefit of the nation.
He kept asking what happens when criminals pull guns on the police, and didnt belive me when I said how rare that actually is.
It's sad when people lack the perspective to understand that different societies and cultures are different.
UK police don't carry guns. As an American I find that interesting, and I'm frequently curious about what else is different about police work in the UK. I don't think that would work here, at least not now. But I'm intellectually curious about what makes that work.
The first step is to have enforced rules about who can or should own a gun, equally and everywhere in the country. I agree that cops without guns would end badly in the US right now, it’s a long process from where you are to where you should be, but you guys are still arguing over if you even want to be there.
Hell a lot of people are very a be against free education yet most people I graduated will be in crippling debt for decades.
Which is weird, because the Founding Fathers thought the idea of public schools was pretty nifty:
As Adams wrote, “[E]ducation of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” Benjamin Franklin put it more succinctly: “An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.”
“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it,” wrote Adams. “There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”
Jefferson, witness to the Revolution, drafter of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of the nation’s first public university, rightfully believed that it was the government and citizenry’s duty to invest tax dollars in public education: “[T]he tax which will be paid for this purpose [education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
“[T]he tax which will be paid for this purpose [education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
Ouch, that last part must sting for modern day muhricans.
[T]he tax which will be paid for this purpose [education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
A lot of the healthcare seems to be the common thread of only supporting their immediate social group. Generally that's the family. Studies have shown that conservative Americans are just as generous as liberals, but only within their close group. This carries into a lot of aspects, including healthcare. People are completely willing and even eager to pay more for their own family's care if it means nobody else will benefit from their money. It's a very individualistic, not just "take care of me first" but "take care of me ONLY" attitude.
[deleted]
I dont get why people like you argue semantics like this. It’s called free because when you break a leg and need to get it fixed you walk away after no questions asks. Of course it isn’t actually free.
I read somewhere that 10 ( I think) years of paying medical taxes in Canada would still cost less than breaking your leg in America
It’s not semantics, it's the key issue of the debate. People aren't opposed to free healthcare, they don't want to pay the taxes that will be associated with it. They feel that they would be better off paying their own way than paying through taxes.
It absolutely is semantics.
Social healthcare works in so many other countries, but you focus on the distinction of free vs tax funded.
You’re actively paying twice as much as other countries for insurance than the additional taxes being paid, but you’re arguing it isn’t free.
You’re right, congratulations.
You go and ask 100 people in America if the want universal health care and you’d get a mixed response. Ask those that said no if they’d change their mind if it was 100% free and they’d likely all say yes.
No one is against free healthcare, they’re against universal healthcare.
To be clear I'm not personally arguing against socialized healthcare. I just think it's unfair to say Americans dont like the idea of free healthcare.
It’s like arguin with someone who calls facial tissue Kleenex, like you’re technically right in that all facial tissue isn’t Kleenex but it’s what people call it and it’s utterly pointless to argue it.
People who argue with “free healthcare” are contrarians.
Again, I don't think that's fair. There are obviously going to be at least some downsides for some people in a socialized medicine system.
Gun LAWS and not seeing any relation between stricter gun control and a reduced death rate from guns
That's not seriously anyone's stance. Sure, if you remove guns, there will be fewer gun deaths. The same can be said of knives, cars, and literally everything else. What some people argue is that there's no correlation between tighter gun control and larger picture statistics such as violent crime and homicide, which means guns are just a scapegoat for larger issues.
And to add to that there are good examples like Chicago, which has very strict gun laws.
Duhr, Chicago!!!! While they have strict gun laws, they have easy guns right next door, and a massive crime problem that precedes the strict gun laws.
Try another example for a change that doesn’t have obvious reasons for gun their violence.
Exactly the crime is the problem not guns, and it's not like they go out of town and bug them legally, no like 95% of guns used in crimes are illegal,
What about the number of guns used for suicide or killing family members? Which far outweighs the number of guns used in crimes against strangers. How many if those are illegal?
But illegal guns originate somewhere, each illegal gun was a legal gun at some stage of its existence. And for Chicago specifically, a gun legally purchased in Illinois or Indiana is often considered illegal in Chicago, because it was transported across state lines without proper paperwork.
Crime and guns are two separate problems. You’re forming a false equivalency when you claim that guns not being a cause of crime means that guns are not a problem.
You can't blame guns for suicide, that's a whole other issue. And I would like to know what makes you think most of family killings is by legal guns.
What makes you think it is not? Family killings are most often due to two reasons: depression/mental health issues leading to murder/suicide or crimes of passion.
Neither option has a large focus on what happens to the offender. They don’t care if the gun can be traced to them, they just want to kill people and be done with it.
Here is one example. Abused women are five times more likely to be murdered if their abuser owns a gun: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/domestic-violence-firearms/
Exactly this. There is a fundamental misunderstanding. Europeans think that we don’t understand that zero guns means zero gun deaths. Yes we can see this basic shit.
They don’t understand that there are half a billion guns in private American hands. They also don’t understand that if something gun related that I own gets banned that I will not comply.
They also don’t understand that if something gun related that I own gets banned that I will not comply.
Which means you’re part of the problem. But obviously you won’t see it that way.
No. I agree. For people that want me to turn in my guns, the fact that I won’t roll over and turn them in is a huge problem. In fact, it’s why they haven’t ban them yet. Look at every other gun restriction in America. 99% of them have said “if you already have one of these things, it’s okay. But no more”. Cause they know the people that already have them wont turn them in. In fact they’d probably get together and open carry them on capitol steps of capitol cities just as a big “fuck you try and take them”
Something I really don’t understand. Why do you have to jump from a discussion on sensible gun laws to a total gun ban, every single time?
I read a lot of stuff on the US gun issue and only an extremely small fringe group is calling for a gun ban. The vast majority simply want to raise the age where you can buy a gun, be a bit more strict about who can buy a gun and maybe throw in some useless stuff like limiting magazine sizes.
But you guys always jump straight to gun bans.
It makes no sense, all I see is obstruction for the sake of obstruction.
What gets a lot of people, at least that I've talked to, going is the lack of thought and logic behind these things, by actual experts on the subject. The majority of the proposed/passed legislation does nothing but annoy or inconvenience otherwise safe, legal gun owners and cause them to fear accidentally committing crimes.
Once you've had to worry about, or live under that long enough, you tend to adopt on a stance of fuck you, I won't put up with any more of this shit.
But you guys have the most lax gun laws of any first world country. People all over the world live with these annoying laws because it is for the greater good.
Making you wait six months for a gun license isn’t annoying, it is a deterrent against buying a gun to kill a specific person. By the time six months pass a significant number of people won’t buy the gun, meaning one less gun out there, and one less gun that can be stolen and become part of the illegal gun trade.
Many rules like that are annoying for a reason, they make legal gun owners’ lives more difficult, meaning less guns will be purchased.
I agree that there are bullshit rules out there. I’m in Canada, we can’t own a magazine with a capacity higher than 5 rounds, and it is easy to modify them to hold 30 rounds. But you guys have mags with >100 round capacity. Why is giving that up such a big deal?
Anyway, I just don’t understand why you’re against systematic changes that will actually save lives in the long run and end up making your children and their children safer.
The majority of the things you've listed are not what's being proposed, at least not in most of the recent bills that have popped up.
Wait periods have been tried in some locations and seem like a potentially good idea, however I haven't heard all that many proposals for them as of late. I also dislike the age restrictions proposed because it seems ridiculous that we trust 18 year olds to act like adults, vote, fight our bullshit wars, and then deny them a beer and the right to own firearms despite having just trusted those same people to use them in the name of our country. I'm not even affected by these proposed rules and yet I'm still against them being implemented like this. Make it all 21, or all 18, not this halfway shit.
I disagree that the goal is to reduce the overall number, however the more we can do to encourage safe and legal use of guns the better.
As for mag limitations 30rd mags are much more common, and that's where you would see the greatest change if you could ban them. However, you're also severely reducing people's chances against whatever threat they're facing. Guns are not limited to protection against humans with bad intentions, they're also useful for protecting oneself and ones property against wildlife. I dunno about you but I'd much rather have too much ammo vs not enough if confronted with angry hogs or anything else that could harm me or my loved ones.
I agree that there are probably changes that could and should be made, but the realities of the US are that there's an incredible variety in living conditions and needs. Life in the sticks and life in our cities are almost entirely dissimilar and it's extremely difficult to make legislation that fairly and reasonably addresses both.
Because one major party routinely introduces legislation that would ban almost all modern semi-automatic firearms?
I think most Americans recognize that all firearms likely wouldn't be banned but the desired outcome is likely something that resembles gun control in the UK where the vast majority of American firearms wouldn't be able to owned
Because one major party routinely introduces legislation that would ban almost all modern semi-automatic firearms?
How about you show me some sources on that? Introduced legislation from the democrats target mag sizes, detachable magazines and other items aimed to make guns less lethal in mass shootings (I’m not claiming it would be effective). Existing weapons and attachments would be grandfathered.
I’ve looked and I can’t find anything that isn’t a complete bullshit interpretation from gun enthusiasts or legitimate, but from some fringe group that would never gain enough votes to count.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text
Would ban most semi-automatic firearms. "Assault weapons" bans are also already common in states ran by Democrats and until the landmark Heller decision affirmed a right to self-defense with a firearm in 2008 pistols bans were in place in a number of municipalities as well.
There's usually several similar bans introduced every year
And did you take the time to actually read all of that?
The terminology is very specific. As I mentioned, a typical semiautomatic rifle would not be considered an assault weapon. Your AR-15 would be safe, assuming you don’t modify it. On top of that, it explicitly excludes existing firearms.
The specific bans it introduces: Rifles that can accept a detachable magazine would be banned from having a pistol grip, a forward grip, a threaded barrel, a barrel shroud, a grenade or rocket launcher, or a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
Pistols would not be allowed to have a fixed magazine with more than 10 rounds. They would also be banned from having a threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, a barrel shroud, and the ability to load a magazine at some location other than the grip.
Shotguns would be banned from having a detachable magazine and a fixed magazine would not be allowed to have more than five rounds. The same features banned for pistols and rifles would also be banned on shotguns.
I’m copying and pasting from another source (PolitiFact). Feel free to find the specific wording that contradicts this.
I actually read it and agree with their synopsis.
I can tell you didn't read it since you didn't get to the section that banned all AR type rifles and lists a bunch of models by name
“(ii) All AR types, including the following:
“(I) AR–10.
“(II) AR–15.
“(III) Alexander Arms Overmatch Plus 16.
“(IV) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
“(V) Armalite M15–T.
“(VI) Barrett REC7.
“(VII) Beretta AR–70.
“(VIII) Black Rain Ordnance Recon Scout.
“(IX) Bushmaster ACR.
“(X) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
“(XI) Bushmaster MOE series.
“(XII) Bushmaster XM15.
“(XIII) Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles.
“(XIV) Colt Match Target rifles.
“(XV) CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 rifles.
“(XVI) Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles.
“(XVII) Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles.
“(XVIII) Diamondback DB15 rifles.
“(XIX) DoubleStar AR rifles.
“(XX) DPMS Tactical rifles.
“(XXI) DSA Inc. ZM–4 Carbine.
“(XXII) Heckler & Koch MR556.
“(XXIII) High Standard HSA–15 rifles.
“(XXIV) Jesse James Nomad AR–15 rifle.
“(XXV) Knight’s Armament SR–15.
“(XXVI) Lancer L15 rifles.
“(XXVII) MGI Hydra Series rifles.
“(XXVIII) Mossberg MMR Tactical rifles.
“(XXIX) Noreen Firearms BN 36 rifle.
“(XXX) Olympic Arms.
“(XXXI) POF USA P415.
“(XXXII) Precision Firearms AR rifles.
“(XXXIII) Remington R–15 rifles.
“(XXXIV) Rhino Arms AR rifles.
“(XXXV) Rock River Arms LAR–15.
“(XXXVI) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles and MCX rifles.
“(XXXVII) SKS with a detachable magazine.
“(XXXVIII) Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifles.
“(XXXIX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
“(XL) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 and AR–556 rifles.
“(XLI) Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 rifles.
“(XLII) Windham Weaponry AR rifles.
“(XLIII) WMD Guns Big Beast.
“(XLIV) Yankee Hill Machine Company, Inc. YHM–15 rifles.
That's of course in addition to the various states that already ban these weapons, and the various pistol bans that were struck down less than ten years ago. Vice had a short video on one of these states you can watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Q3x2Pza6o
I admit that I skimmed over some parts, which of course would be that part. You are right that the AR-15 in its current form would be banned.
That gives you a win on one part of the bigger conversation.
I still believe that the gist of my argument stands, it does not ban semi-automatic weapons wholesale.
But I concede that you have a point in that it bans AR types, which is a very large component of the semi-automatic market.
Oh nice! You are one of the people not calling for outright banning things. okay let’s talk about the little things that WONT do anything.
We’ve been getting laws like this for over 100 god damn years. It’s been CONSTANT pressure for these laws and every decade or two something actually passes. Nothing happens except shootings continue. The only thing that happens is that you continue to restrict my rights yet the call for more restrictions gets louder and louder.
So, after 100 years of restrictions, I say fuck that shit. For a good analogy, read this god damn comic
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
Maybe if you guys work together you will actually achieve something rather than passing laws that are half implemented and not enforced. Only when you take it seriously will any laws have a positive outcome.
The rest of the world does this quite well, maybe you should take some hints from outside.
The rest of the world never had a fraction of the guns we have. Half the guns on earth are in 100 million private American hands. You don’t get it. There is no comparison to other countries
WW2 has a couple of problems with that statement.
You guys think you’re so different and that nothing will ever work. So you just continue to play into the hands of the gun companies and politicians who are exploiting you as the suckers you are.
But don’t worry, nothing will ever work, so you don’t need to take any real action.
I play to my interests. Moms demand action and other anti gun groups are literally bankrolled by Bloomberg and Soros. Miss me with that bullshit.
I would love free Healthcare. The reason I don't want it to be government-funded is because the pro-social services that are already government-funded (medicare, vet services, labor and industries) are AWFUL. It's not for a lack of money, bit very poor money management. I don't trust our government to execute a national Healthcare system without it being terrible.
Got into an argument with a family member recently about this. I'm Canadian. We have socialized medicine, its not prefect but is better then what our friends to the south deal with. His whole thing was not wanting to have to "pay" for other peoples health care. That we would be better off with an insurance/privatized system like the Americans have. That if that were the case and you want better health care just get a better job. Blew my mind. He does complain about taxes constantly. This is a blue collar factory worker who has been very lucky to not have his job moved to somewhere like Mexico like others in the area, but still has this kind of attitude.
An example: We have the City of Chicago, it has some of the most strict gun control laws in the nation, and some of the highest gun crime rates. The laws do nothing to combat gun violence perpetrated by criminals. The laws only restrict lawful gun owners. Long into short it works like this:
Strict gun control laws are passed.
Lawful citizens comply, criminals do not.
Criminals victimize lawful citizens and eachother.
Lawful citizens can't defend themselves and are told it is ok because the police will be there in 20 minutes or sometime tomorrow.
Gun control supporters say "See this is very fine, works well, while the rest of us scratch our heads while thinking "I am not going out like that".
We then divide into groups and yell at each other. Thusly accomplishing nothing.
You guys and your NRA talking points are a joke.
Chicago is a poor example. They have easy access to guns right next door, and have other issues leading to gun violence that predates their gun control effort.
Next you will mention Venezuala.
How about mentioning the other places where strict gun control actually works, and vastly overshadows the few places where it doesn’t?
Tell me what is wrong with gun control in NYC, the UK, and Australia.
If someone wants to buy a gun in NYC its not a long trip to a less restrictive state where it's fairly easy, same basic logic as Chicago
Yet NYC doesn’t have the same crime problems as Chicago. Almost like a gun ban does not result in a crime problem.
Nor does living next to a non-restrictive state lead to gun violence
The reality is Gun violence in the United States is very localized and for the vast majority of Americans (especially Asian Americans and White Americans that make up some 80-85% of the population) the homicide rate isn't drastically different from Western Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/09/special-report-fixing-gun-violence-in-america
So why are you against gun laws that will protect the most vulnerable people among you?
Women in abusive relationships are 5 times more likely to be murdered if their abuser owns a gun.
Guns are the most lethal weapon to use for suicide.
Teenagers decide that they had enough and go on a rampage.
If your guns aren’t keeping you safe, why are you against having to prove that you’re going to be a responsible gun owner?
I'm actually okay with a brief waiting period for first time firearm buyers because of suicide now, and if we didn't have a constitutional right I'd be okay with some basic safety training similar to Canada but it is a right. I have actually had firearms protect myself and my property twice in my lifetime
I think the NRA is nothing but a money racket, I don't follow them, nor would I know what their talking points are. I don't know a damn thing about Venezuela aside from that dickbag Hugo Chavez was in charge. In the UK they banned firearms but now have a knife problem. I'm not really familiar with NYC but I image it is similar to Chicago. I have talked to 2 Austrailians that aren't fans of their gun control laws. Chicago is a perfect example, if the guns are available right next door the laws in Chicago don't do anything but look good on paper.
So to clarify, because you completely missed my point when you jumped up on your soap box: Nothing gets done because neither side will compromise at all. Both sides take an all or nothing stance. We divide into groups and yell at each other and accomplish nothing.
NYC has completely turned around their crime problem since the 90s, and has some of the strictest gun laws in America. NYC is nothing like Chicago.
The UK’s ‘knife problem’ isn’t much of a problem at all. Bring on the statistics to prove me wrong, you won’t find it. A total of 46 people have been fatally stabbed in London so far this year, and they are complaining that it’s a lot. If you call that a serious problem, I don’t know how to react.
I live in Canada, I’m not a fan of our gun laws. But I will take it any day over the shitfest that is US gun law.
So to clarify, because you completely missed my point when you jumped up on your soap box: Nothing gets done because neither side will compromise at all. Both sides take an all or nothing stance. We divide into groups and yell at each other and accomplish nothing.
I completely agree, there is no need to talk about banning guns or ‘take my guns over my dead body’. You guys need to take sensible action that will systematically reduce the number of guns in circulation and make it harder for angry teenagers or jilted lovers to get guns.
Just enforcing your existing gun laws equally in all states will already make a huge impact.
We should. We make pretty laws and policies, but don't enforce or follow them. Guns, immigration, healthcare, whatever. It all works out the same.
Exactly people will get around laws I'd they are already criminals
A large majority of people support at least some gun laws (65%), most aspects of the affordable care act (80%), and legal abortions in most cases (57%). Enough of them just seem to be willing to vote for politicians who don't agree with them. This seems like more of a problem with a political system that ends up with leaders who do not represent the views of their constituents.
Ding ding ding! Winner winner!
The healthcare bit is wild. I remember during the presidential election, when congressmen were going around talking to their constituents about issues, and constituents would literally get up and yell “My (friend, partner, child, me) will die without ObamaCare. DO NOT VOTE AGAINST IT” or people saying “I was against socialized healthcare but I am now alive because of it”, people begging their congressmen to not repeal it. So many videos if this with so many people. And the congressmen would shut them down right there and tell the people they were getting rid of the healthcare. There were screaming riots and the events had to get closed early. And then they voted to repeal it. Literally not doing their job to represent the people.
Being AGAINST free healthcare
Not ALL reasons but the most common I see.
Profiting from not having it
Scared of "socialism"
Scared of tax hikes (even if they're small or end up going up elsewhere).
My uncle's argument against free stuff like healthcare is that "women who cant be bothered to use a condom will pop out kids just to take advantage of the system and I aint payin extra taxes to support their lazy asses"
... my uncle is an asshole
You have to look at the gun issue from within the context our culture and from our current perspective. Our history and founding was an armed uprising against a tyrannical crown. It’s who we are as a nation when you boil it down. The offspring of dissenters. Our right to bear arms exists should we need to do that again.
As for current perspectives, the US government has proven time and time again to be inept at going about this type of thing objectively or even fairly. Gun laws will have the same effect as drug laws. Only some will be caught and those people probably weren’t a threat to anyone. It would be a whole, stupid blanket system that puts legal gun owners on the chopping block while illicit owners are basically unaffected. And if you’re like me, every time a gun controller opens their upper lip I can smell the stink of an underhanded disarming of an entire population as a control move.
Put one and two together and we’re back at why and how the country was founded.
If gun laws had the same effect as drug laws, rich white people would get away with it and poor people of color would pay the price.
That's what gun control has always been about.
Conceptually though, preventative laws, ie. prohibition simply doesn’t stop criminals. Hell, anytime I leave Colorado I don’t quit smoking pot. I just accept that I’m going to break laws for a bit.
That’s not the same as people of color being targeted more than white people for a crime.
No it’s not. And racial biases in arrests are a different issue than prohibition being ineffective. They can exist together and do. There wasn’t a racial component in the first temperance movement and resulting alcohol prohibition.
There wasn’t a racial component in the first temperance movement and resulting alcohol prohibition.
Probably because slavery was still effective or had recently ended.
Racial biases are part of prohibition laws being ineffective. The hammer falls heavier on those who are not white.
Yes it does, but like I said, the two issues aren’t mutually exclusive. The police are racists and prohibition is ineffective. This is not hard dude.
That is...literally what I’ve been saying. Dude.
Uhhh...I think you just proved the other guy’s point.
American idiot
Was not my favorite green day album
Ah yes the old "it has always been done this way" arguement. Better stop taking modern medicine and driving that fancy car, it's back to the 1800's for you
The government of today has no right to tell us how to live our lives, because the government of 200 years ago already did!
"Gentlemen of the Continental Congress of the United States. We are all under agreement, that if our great Nation should advance technologically, that this entire document that comprises the framework of our Government and Civil Liberties, shall be null and void"
I’m not sure if you’re for or against improving the > 100 year old document based on currently accepted truth.
I mean, since the US constitution (and almost all amendments) came into being we figured out how to fly. We also figured out how to heal people when they get an infection, and child birth is no longer a serious risk. We accept that women should be allowed to vote and that keeping slaves are bad. Race is no longer an indication of a person’s worth.
I could go on, but you get my point.
Make new amendments to suit the modern world. Do it democratically.
Have a civil war, because 10% of your population are like this guy...
Edit: here is the guy: https://reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8qrh78/_/e0mg2bw/?context=1
Haven’t been to a doctor in years. I treat ailments with moonshine wisky and cannabis. Currently looking for a plot of land so I can homestead. Be happy to make that transition faster if you want to give me some money.
Your culture - killing most of the native residents? Yes, I can better understand how you like guns.
It's just hard to have sympathy when all those school kids die. It's more like - what did you expect?
Yes your drug laws are inept but that hardly put an end to 'the war on drugs', did it? US prisons are full of small time drug offenders and it's a waste of time, money and lives.
The US as a nation of dissenters against a tyrannical crown? Nice idea, but there are far too many Trump supporters and capitalists who believe in the 'American Dream' for that ever to happen. It's a laughable idea.
The idea that gunowners are pro-gun because they are ready for the next French Revolution is the most hilarious concept of all time
Your culture - killing most of the native residents? Yes, I can better understand how you like guns.
I can see why you might think this, but how is this a uniquely American thing? Would you consider this a part of Spanish culture? French? British? Just because we're the ones who ended up here, Europe gets to dump that shit on America like they had no part in it.
Your culture - killing most of the native residents? Yes, I can better understand how you like guns.
Hmmm. Wonder where we got our penchant for imperialism... maybe Europe?
It’s just hard to have sympathy when all those school kids die. It's more like - what did you expect?
My guns didn’t kill those kids.
Yes your drug laws are inept but that hardly put an end to 'the war on drugs', did it? US prisons are full of small time drug offenders and it's a waste of time, money and lives.
Yep. As all prohibition attempts go.
The US as a nation of dissenters against a tyrannical crown? Nice idea, but there are far too many Trump supporters and capitalists who believe in the 'American Dream' for that ever to happen. It's a laughable idea.
They don’t represent the whole population.
The idea that gunowners are pro-gun because they are ready for the next French Revolution is the most hilarious concept of all time
Yeah okay let me go ahead and give my guns up to slob the government’s knob anytime they ask /S
Fuck that. Imma at least try to defend my liberties when they finally turn. Rather be blown off the map than be a salve to the government.
Edit: my girlfriend is 100% Navajo btw, grew up on a reservation and everything. I should probably tell her about my culture eventually huh?
Are you familiar with demicide? It's the controlled killing of citizens by a government. This has happened within the last 100 years. The citizens didn't have a chance to fight back because their defensive tools were deemed illegal. Also, the 10th amendment is solidifying the fact that the government works for the citizens, not the other way around. We as people choose to follow the laws set in place.
I find it equally bass ackwards that you would fight to have your right to self preservation taken away. If I ever have a daughter, I'm going to have her get a ccw so she can defend herself against a rapist.
Edit: To add on the the first point you made, would you allow the native Americans to have guns in that period? Or would you take them away?
I would take away guns for every single person. This would be to avoid allowing citizens to kill each other so much.
Good luck with that. You think people wouldn't fight back?
Then they'll use knives and clubs. Getting rid of guns decrease gun deaths sure. But violent crime will rise, because no one can defend themselves. Just as it has in Australia and the uk. The uk is planning on banning knives, like kitchen knives.
The cdc released a report a few years ago saying that defensive use of firearms has saved between 500k-3 Million lives.
This is the funniest thing I have ever read
And no, the UK does not want to ban kitchen knives, there was talk of having a voluntary system where you can take your kitchen knives to have the pointed, stabby, non-chopping end smoothed down
I did read somewhere that kitchen knives have saved one billion lives though, Santa Claus said so
here's the link to an article talking about it
And here is the pdf of the report too, download it if you'd like
Or ignore the facts, what do I care if you want to live in willful ignorance.
Oh and this report was requested during the Obama administration.
The CDC stated that:that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year
Those statistics are the amount of times people used guns defensively, NOT the amount of lives saved by guns.
All that those statistics say is that a lot of people use guns, criminally or otherwise
Ok, so half a million to 3 millions time where someone wasn't raped robbed or murdered. Even with my wording being off admittedly, there have still been that many times where the gun was in the right hands. Where a human being was able to defend themselves.
If not, then let's just go rhetorical, for kicks . If you had to rob a house, Would you rob the house of a gun owner, or someone who left their doors unlocked?
Also, self reported! There is no context to what is meant by "defensively" and if it would, under review, be considered self defense. They also lumped defense of property and self and a loved one all together. So shooting a raccoon in your garbage would be counted the same as defending oneself from an armed intruder.
There are studies that show that people vastly overreport "self defense", and that many incidents of self reported self defense would not legally fall under even a very generous definition of self defense.
So you genuinely think we should only be looking at self defense cases? The other, AT MINIMUM, 500k uses for guns means nothing within the context? If someone was threatening me, and I motioned to or flashed a gun, that doesn't count because neither of us went to the police to report the incident and no shots were actually fired?
So you genuinely think we should only be looking at self defense cases? The other, AT MINIMUM, 500k uses for guns means nothing within the context?
Well, a question on a CDC survey is being used to defend current gun laws because of so-called self defense, so yeah, I think context matters. That 500k number was extrapolated, poorly, from a self reported telephone survey. There are LOTS of valid uses for guns. Shooting a raccoon can be a valid use of a gun. Doesn't make it self defense. Self defense as a term has a specific legal context, and when used to describe incidents outside that context, it is being deliberately disingenuous in order to futher an agenda.
So reduce it down to 50k, 100k, fact is the context still matters. Using the legal definition of self defense is WAY too narrow to gain greater insight as to how guns preemptively solve conflict many of the times, likely most of the times they're used. Also, nobody ever said "used in self defense" or you'd be correct, the wording was "defensive gun use", while you may not have known the distinction, plenty of others do, and nobody was trying to be disingenuous. There are more valid uses for guns IN A DEFENSIVE MANNER outside of a specific legal context in which something is reported to the police.
The cdc released a report a few years ago saying that defensive use of firearms
His specific wording...nobody brought up specifically "self defense" but you...
Again. I never said there aren't valid uses for a gun outside self defense. What I am saying, is that people are conflating defensive gun use with self defense ON PURPOSE to push a particular agenda. That includes overinflating the results of that particular cdc study. So yeah, numbers matter. 500 thousand incidents is a lot less than 2.5 million, and in a population of 325 million "2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use" sounds a lot more exciting than "1% ish of the adult population reports an incident of defensive gun use in the last 12 months".
You didn't even address the meat of my comment here...nobody was pushing any agenda, in fact, if anything, that's YOU by acting like anyone was conflating the two, nobody brought up "self defense" but you. Numbers DO matter, which is why I said, by all means reduce that number to something far lower than even the lowest estimate, it will still paint a better picture than not considering it at all.
Come and get it kid.
The American government is easily capable of demicide currently. Gun laws do not matter in this scenario, because the government has the money, the resources, and the research. It has trained operatives and is organized. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but it probably has a plan in place in case of citizen uprising against it.
It's just hard to have sympathy when all those school kids die. It's more like - what did you expect?
A school shooting in the US isn't a tragedy anymore, it's just a Tuesday.
I don't see what semi and full automatic assault riffles in the hands of civilians has to do with a 300 year old revolution. Half of Europe wen't through the same kinds of revolt against their monarchies. Disarming will never happen, clearly, but what reasonable argument justifies the amount of control the gun lobby have over the electoral.
I don't see what semi and full automatic assault riffles
First, fully automatic weapons are almost entirely banned. You can only buy ones produced almost 25 years ago, and they cost at least $15,000.
Second, pretty much all other guns are semi-automatic. The only guns that aren't include bolt-action or lever-action rifles, pump shotguns, and break-action guns. How can we protect ourselves effectively with single-shot weapons?
Well other countries seem to manage to protect themselves just fine.
No, they don't.
There's massive problems in europe with people not having the ability to properly protect themselves. A problem that is compounded by the fact that you can't expect police to actually show the fuck up.
There really, really isn't. Source: Am European, lived in Europe my entire life.
So am I, which is why I know that you're wrong.
I'm curious what problem's you're referring to then?
Sure I'll list 4.
1-You're not guaranteed to even get an answer when you call the police.
I got no fucking sleep the night before my ethics exam because when I was trying to sleep some fuckface decided to assault some poor girl outside my window. I called the emergency number and they did not pick up the phone. So I had to run outside in my fucking pajamas and try to deal with it on my own. I was rather unhappy about every part of that.
This was in Norway (where I'm from).
2-Even if you get an answer, they might not show up. The police in europe has places they won't go (sweden alone has several dozen places where you can just forget about the police coming to help you, especially at night).
3-Even if you do get help, the police's primary concern is keeping you from reporting and making sure your report is not taken seriously. A friend of mine, along with myself, got drugged, robbed, and darned close to assaulted in Spain. We were missing for hours. My buddy was found ODing in a ditch, covered in vomit and shit. I was found wandering the town in a daze, most of my memory gone.
I was found by 2 police officers who spent the time I was in their "care" laughing at me.
Further, the police in spain won't let you file a police report in english, and they have no translators (even in tourist heavy areas), so you need to find a translator on your own and pay them to come help you file a police report. The police will spend every second of that report trying to undermine what you're telling them to make it your fault.
We found out later that the place we were drugged at has their employees do it all the time, and have a history of drugging, robbing, and assaulting people who go there.
Tourist economy, instead of making sure the tourists are safe they are keeping them from filing reports, no police report = no crime, at least as far as the police is concerned.
The police in the rest of europe has a history of downplaying crimes in order to make sure the paperwork looks the way they feel it should rather than some unsightly statistic that's close to reality, so fuck 'em, they're useless.
4-Even if you can get the police to actually answer you call, and then convince them to actually come to help you, you still have the fundamental problem of law enforcement. When you need help now, the police is 15 minutes away! (or 3 hours if you're in the middle of fucking nowhere, like the town I'm originally from).
Yeah that's nice, they can come collect my body after I've been stabbed to death. Very fucking useful.
2-Even if you get an answer, they might not show up. The police in europe has places they won't go (sweden alone has several dozen places where you can just forget about the police coming to help you, especially at night).
While it is true cops might not show up if there's a worse situation elsewhere, of course they will show up anywhere in Sweden. In some really bad areas they will frequently need to bring backup, however, because of some groups among the locals.
It's bad, but at least it's not Baltimore or Chicago-bad yet.
Other countries don't have the same geographic problems as the US. Growing up, my house was 40 minutes away from the nearest police station. When someone tried to steal our car at 3:00AM, we called the police and they told us they would be there in a half hour. So Dad went out and fired a couple shots at the ground, and the would-be thief ran off.
Many Americans just simply don't have police protection. The only other option is to provide it for ourselves
Yeah, but those aren't the types of guns that are being used in the school shootings or 99% of crime. Partly because the current laws make them so hard to obtain. The sheer cost, background checks, and paperwork needed to obtain a gun that can be full auto is a nightmare. Your average person will have a hard time obtaining it unless you really want to put the time in. You are now on a list to be watched. A common criminal cannot afford it.
A lot of the laws that anti gun advocates are advocating for are actually already on the books. Law abiding citizens follow them. I was surprised because I was a hardened anti-gun, take them all away, democrat until I really looked into the issue. I've now softened and become more middle ground.
Assault rifles are a nice term, but have no real definition. The problem is some guns look scary because the owner put on a few grand worth of additions on it, but ultimately it is still the same base caliber and can cause the same amount of destruction.
The reason the lobby has power is because people give them their money willingly because they are pro gun and want a voice to protect it.
Unlike most europeans I feel I have a certain amount of respect and understanding of the 2nd amendment and its significans to american dna. Historically.
I guess what most of us is wondering about, is how these people who donate to NRA (+5mill americans) justify kids getting shot up in schools ever.single.week in order to protect their own rights.
It's moral corruption and selfish. Sorta the opposite of the picture I think we all had growing up.
I guess what most of us is wondering about, is how these people who donate to NRA (+5mill americans) justify kids getting shot up in schools ever.single.week in order to protect their own rights.
It's unfortunate, but so are the tens of thousands of people who die every year in car accidents. But as long as I'm not shooting a bunch of kids, I have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not giving up a useful and effective tool (for various things, not just self-defense) because someone else's kid shot a bunch of other kids.
I'm glad you can respect and understand the amendment. I am a gun owner and I understand and respect to a degree, but I personally want it changed.
The problem is the NRA, originally, was awesome. They held classes for kids, meet ups for like minded individuals, and overall were just a good organization for shooters to come together. And honestly, from what I hear since I choose not to be an NRA member, the local chapters are awesome.
Unfortunately they use their national branch to throw their weight around. They want to protect the 2nd amendment for all of their members for whatever reason they might have it. self defense, sport, or just because guns are cool as shit. The problem is a lot of their members are racist and so when a black man was legally carrying and shot by cops, they shut right the fuck up and didn't say much.
They don't justify the shootings. They say it is an unfortunate instance of guns being used negatively. There have been 3 school mass shootings this year. Definitely too many. All have been people who were troubled with mental problems and a history of SSRI use. They were all let down in some way by the system and got access to guns.
The numbers touted by the media outlets include multiple suicides on school grounds (one of which was just at a closed school), multiple accidental discharges by resource officers or cops, and others involved no one harmed, but some included crimes on university campuses.
Don't get me wrong, we have a problem. We are glorifying this situation too much, we glorify guns too much, we have a healthcare problem in this country. We should be put in time out and have our toys taken away until we show we can use them responsibly as a whole, but we can't do that... and more importantly people won't be punished for something they didn't do.
The NRA kinda sucks and uses their money for good and bad, but the people involved include a lot of people that they are able to mobilize and get into the polls. If the anti-gun people were as willing to vote, this would be a non issue since only 24% of people own guns?
I'm not going to say I wouldn't be the owner aswell if I was a US resident. My most liberal cali friends all have at least a rifle and a gun.
But considering the lobby is able to buy congressmen and senators and fund these anonymous superpacks, thereby forcing candidates to promote their agenda if they want to get in office, it's basically rigged to begin with and have very little to do with democracy imo. Big business have way too much influence on american politicians, but I guess thats a very easy standpoint living in a tiny ass country like mine(denmark) where a personal donation to a political campagin from anyone with ties to big business will immediately instigate a corruption investigation.
But considering the lobby is able to buy congressmen and senators and fund these anonymous superpacks
That's the anti-gun lobby you're thinking of, here. They're the ones who throw cash around.
The NRA's power comes from the fact that it's the 2nd largest interest group (2nd to AARP) and the membership are very reliable voters. Congress-critters listen to them not because they flash cash but because the can and will kick them out of office if they don't.
Rigged to begin with? Sounds like a problem stemming from a corrupted system. All the more reason I’ll hold on to my guns.
Ugh don't get me started. Elections are weird here. We passed a law that said money is free speech and as you may know free speech is everything to us.
I wish our elections were better regulated without being exclusionary. Shorter campaigns and limited funds would be great. Especially for presidential elections. Unfortunately with so much ground to cover you need a lot of time. Well you did. These days not as much. The problem is a shorter election would mean just those states with the most electoral votes would be visited. Still 2 years of campaigning is basically what we get now.
The congressman aren't necessarily happy with or fully paid off though. They are just afraid what will happen if the voters are mobilized against them.
I guess what most of us is wondering about, is how these people who donate to NRA (+5mill americans) justify kids getting shot up in schools ever.single.week in order to protect their own rights.
Because when you step back and look at the actual statistics you realize that the numbers are so small it's not worth literally throwing away a human right.
Want to save children's lives? Ban alcohol or mandate that all cell phones disable themselves when they detect movement above 10mph. You'll save a whole lot more lives that way than by banning the most popular rifle in the US.
whataboutism - another great american invention <3
whataboutism
Ah, the hallmark of someone who's not interested in actual debate. I'll stop wasting my time, then. Sorry for thinking your question was asked in good faith.
Isn’t it great? I actually got pretty far in a control debate with a buddy until I brought up the fact that guns will be 3D printable within a few years. He said he doesn’t do what if’s lol.
The justification is self defense against a tyrannical government, which is far worse than occasional school shootings. Obviously, nobody is cool with it. But the 2nd amendment is just that important.
I agree that lobbying as a whole is a bad thing. But what do gun control lobbyists have to do with my semi-auto? I didn’t buy it from the NRA. I went through the standard process of buying one. I’m not even a member. Plus It’s already illegal to own a full auto here without quite extensive permissions. Disarming May never fully happen, but if they try the only people getting disarmed are the law abiding people.
No amount of banning high capacity magazines or bump stocks or whatever is going to make a difference. I’m all for bumping the age to 21 and better mental health checks. But that’s going to require a modern look at psychology and mental health, not dated psychoanalytic models.
You don't think NRA has had any say on the current gun policies in america and the fact that a thing like bump stocks gets to go 'unnoticed' for the legislative for so long?
If I take $5mill+ in campagin contributions from one organization, I'm certainly not gonna work actively against their best interest.
I get it, they don't stand a chance getting elected if you don't have money for campaigning, but denying there is a connection between campaign contributions and legaslation is making me depressed.
Next year is the 20th year Anniversary for Columbine and youre just now getting around to +21 and mental checks.
Yeah well I was 8 when columbine happened. Don’t act like I had shit to do with legislation between then and now. Also I never said their contributions do t away politics. They do. Just like pharmaceutical companies and a plethora of others that contribute to their own political gains. I’m not a politician, I’m just a working man.
[deleted]
The very collective nature of your statement is a big part of the cultural differences.
The government’s of Norway and Australia, and others who cite their own examples aren’t corrupt like ours is. I don’t trust them.
Being AGAINST free healthcare
It's part of their ME ME ME ME culture, as long as YOU have money, YOU have housing, YOU are healthy the rest can go fuck themselves, that's just they way they are and I'll take a huge cultural swift for that to change
Being AGAINST free healthcare
As an American, this doesn't make any sense to me either. I grew up as a military dependent overseas and I had access to healthcare services because the military provided it. Despite people stateside being overly patriotic and supportive of the military, many people gloss over the fact that we've already been providing a form of socialized healthcare for a very large group of people.
Old people hate change, man
The US isn't that far removed from the wild west and lawlessness. Even now the US is still very rural with little local law enforcement, and the law enforcement that does exist can be extremely political. There is a fundamental difference between someone that lives in a city and someone that lives in a rural area when it comes to gun ownership as well. It was extremely common where I grew up to have a gun in your truck to shoot deer and other game while on the farm, and (and this is the important part I feel) even people that don't go to farms still revere that lifestyle and defend it. There are a lot of city republicans that wear cowboy hats and boots that like to pretend they're still in the wild west and see gun ownership as being instrumental to upholding the illusion.
Gun ownership is an important part of our rights. because of the 2nd amendment we can have the others and because of the others we can have the 2nd, they are all connected and if you remove or damage one the system can become weak.
Gun LAWS and not seeing any relation between stricter gun control and a reduced death rate from guns
Yeah, because banning drugs did an amazing job stopping people from taking them, am I right?
Being AGAINST free healthcare
That's because it's not "free" at all. Why do you think taxes are so brutally high in countries that have it?
Why is healthcare more expensive in the US then?
Because people don't consider the huge increase to everyone's taxes to fund the socialized healthcare service.
Because most of our hospitals make up for a massive amount of people who don’t pay by charging more to those who can. If you have a COPD exacerbation, even without insurance, you can come to the hospital and we will treat you, whether or not you are insured. The bill can come to $1,000,000, but they will still treat you until you’re stabilized. The aforementioned example is very very common among the uninsured - i.e. not going to the doctor then using the ER when your chronic health condition has turned into an acute emergency. And because medical device, pharmaceutical, and equipment companies have monopolies in several regards and can charge pretty much whatever they want for anything. Same concept as the US Air Force paying $50,000 for a toilet seat in a B1 bomber. Why does the company charge that? Because they can, and because the Air Force will pay that.
The high cost of healthcare is way way way more complicated than “stubborn Americans who don’t want more out of their paycheck.”
Why are all those prices lower in other countries then? Medical device, pharmaceutical and equipment companies are all multinationals nowadays.
The answer: the US has companies unable to negotiate prices.
Our taxes aren't brutally high. That's a lie you have been fed to make you vote against your own interests.
They could have universal healthcare many times over if they reduced their military spending by a fraction. They seem to want to give up soft power overseas anyway, that should go hand in hand with a reduction in military power since it would just be either wasted or less efficiently used.
Uh, how do you reckon? The US spends more on healthcare than defense. Like, quite a bit more, from what I recall. You may wanna look it up because your claim isn’t true.
Just because you downvote doesn’t make it untrue. Look at the numbers... they’re pretty easy to google. The US spends more on healthcare than defense... if you took a “fraction” of the defense budget as mentioned above and put it in healthcare, it would be an even less “fraction” of a percent compared to the overall amount in the budget dedicated to healthcare.
Yeah, because banning drugs did an amazing job stopping people from taking them, am I right?
In pretty much every single developed country in the world that has stricter gun laws than the US, they also have significantly less gun violence. Why compare guns to drugs when you can compare them to guns?
[deleted]
They also have extremely strict laws regarding those guns, and mandatory training for said guns.
That's the point, it's comparing apples to oranges
American here. "Being against free healhcare". Isn't it the most preposterous thing you have ever heard? Who doesn't want free healthcare for themselves or for all of humanity?
I’ll try to explain the anti-free healthcare position:
If free healthcare was really free everybody would be for it. What it is is rich people paying for poor people’s healthcare through graduated taxation. It’s simply not fair. Pay for your own healthcare and I’ll pay for mine.
Hateful much? Alternative facts are not reality. Your opinion would have more weight if there wasn't so much distaste behind your overtly biased opinion. That's the kind of America we live in now. I used to be a proud American.
[deleted]
My bad man. I wanted to post this publicly because it was not my intention to cause discourse among my fellow redditors. I was wrong and jumped on your comment too soon. I thought you were speaking from an anti- free healthcare pov when you were merely trying to explain the other sides position.
No problem dude. I am anti-free healthcare, by the way. I’d be happy to debate you on it if you want. But my only intention with my first comment was to explain the anti-free healthcare rationale, because you wanted to know how anyone could be against free healthcare.
Is that really how you feel about it though? Ouch. I respect your opinion regardless. I do think that we could make America better by being a little more considerate and caring towards each other and not being so worried about what we have and what we don't want to do for others in our country. That's all.
Right? Just shake the healthcare tree harder til more free stuff falls out!
So ignorant.
I am Canadian. Free health care does not exist. You pay it with your taxes. It is still a much better system then the private one in the States IMO. But it aint free.
Really, you mean people actually pay for it somehow? Wow, you learn something new everyday. Mind. Blown. I thought it grew on trees.
Gun Laws are because good people do not want to become victims. Criminals will get guns/weapons and gun laws level the playing field. But most of this is just people watching too many movies fantasizing about what a gun fight really is.
Healthcare is people already getting healthcare through work, and they are comfortable with the current system, they know and understand it. They do not want to give that up for something that could be worse for them and their family. Look at schools, we pay teachers such a little salary, even though they have one of the most important jobs in the country. So it is kind of like we don’t want the government to fuck up what we got
Healthcare is people already getting healthcare through work, and they are comfortable with the current system, they know and understand it. They do not want to give that up for something that could be worse for them and their family.
I just need to point out that they wouldn't need to give that up. In the UK, you can still pay for private healthcare if you want, and many jobs do actually still give you private healthcare. It's not a case of one or the other.
Hmm, I didn't know that. Why would 1 pay for private over public?
Also, I think that it is the mixed information everyone gets. I am all for public healthcare, but I also make enough money that I can afford a tax increase and still be comfortable, and feel good that my money is going to taking care of people that cannot do it themselves. I think many other people aren't in that situation.
Because you'll be seen sooner for minor issues. I actually had a friend write a paper on if it's worth it to pay for private care, and while I don't remember the specifics, the conclusion was that it probably wasn't. However, that was through the eyes of a student, with no money. Maybe to someone richer, it's worth having (and it means they don't need to wait with the "common-folk", which I'm sure is a reason why some have it).
I don't know how tax works in the US, but here we don't get taxed on the first £10000 (this exact value may be wrong/outdated) we earn per year, so poor people aren't paying for it anyway (so yes, it truly is free healthcare for those that need it to be free).
Gun Laws are because good people do not want to become victims. Criminals will get guns/weapons and gun laws level the playing field.
How can "good people" become victims if they don't do anything bad in the first place (e.g. robbing, shooting people), regardless if there are laws or not? How do gun laws level the playing field? "Good people" now need to abide by strict regulations as to not incriminate themselves, even when they normally would not do anything bad, as to where criminals will still obtain and use firearms illegally or for bad purposes (e.g. home invasions, robbing, etc), because that's why they're criminals, they don't give a shit (for the most part) about societal norms or laws.
Here's a good example: California residents must convert AR-15 styled rifles to "featureless" guns by changing out parts for things less ergonomic or add a fixed mag retention system (mag lok I think its called). This "good" person is now impeded by these regulations because they must conform or risk their livelihood with either fines and/or jail time (not a lawyer), when they have no intention of doing bad things (as previously mentioned) or committing crimes.
So the "good person" is now subject to restrictions on owning certain guns, may even have to add more "safety" features to conform to regulations, perhaps certain ammunition/amounts of it, etc for their hobby or interest. Wherein the criminals don't give a shit etc, etc.
Some people like to say "Well, do you REALLY need more than 10 rounds in a magazine?" or "Do you really need to own a machine gun (insert other hard to legally obtain items here)?" And I say "Well are the legal restrictions really necessary since non of us would be committing crimes?"
I REALLY think our focus should be more on mental health studies and implementation to help prevent gun suicides (leading number of gun deaths), and (I don't have the answer) but we need some way to better improve impoverished communities and better reach disenfranchised youth to help decrease crime in the long run instead of just waiting for people to commit crimes and locking them up.
Nothing irks me more when people think tighter gun regs are better or ok, cause at the end of the day it isn't gonna be you or me who just up and shoots someone, yet our hobby suffers due to individuals/politicians with the mindset of "Criminals will totally follow gun restriction laws and go through a background check and waiting period like everyone else". And for the small % of (non suicide) shootings like with schools, yeah some go through a background check, which is why we need better mental health idk checks or whatever to catch the last little bit of unstable people and help em. Not even to mention FBI not pursing tips...
How can "good people" become victims if they don't do anything bad in the first place (e.g. robbing, shooting people)
Ummm by someone else trying to rob or shoot them?
We are agreeing on the issue. People should be able to protect themselves. Gun laws are good though, as they outlaw a lot of types of guns. I do not agree with all the laws, but I do agree with some, and think additional, common sense one should be created. Like training, and strict licenses that are harder to get than a motorcycle license, or truck driver.
The reality is, people want guns for protection are 99.999% never going to use them. They want them because they like guns, which is fine. As long as there are more safeguards in place to make sure good people are buying them. Now I can go buy a bunch of guns and just sell them off to criminals easy. That shit needs to stop
Ummm by someone else trying to rob or shoot them?
But your statement says "Gun Laws are because good people do not want to become victims." Perhaps we're misinterpreting each other, but I read this as in somehow more gun laws (more restrictions for the "good people) will just magically protect people. Perhaps you meant laws regarding to violence in relation to guns (e.g. someone is a victim to home invasion, more stricter law/penalty to the home invader)?
Gun laws are good though, as they outlaw a lot of types of guns.
While you are allowed to your opinion, I totally disagree. There is literally no downside if a LAW ABIDING, "good person" owned these "outlawed" guns (assuming they became legal to do so), because LAW ABIDING "good people" have livelihoods to risk and would face penalties (jail/prison, fines, possible death penalty) IF they (hypothetically) then broke a law. I guess I'm really curious as to why you're against or have a problem with law abiding people owning certain firearms, when again, they are not the people to do wrong with them, and criminals would neglect the law and obtain what they want whenever.
Like training, and strict licenses that are harder to get than a motorcycle license, or truck driver.
Somewhat agree with ya here. Personally I think that there should be some sort of (1 time? every 10 years?) mandatory class before purchasing a firearm (in the same vein as a drivers test) to ensure safety (as in accidental discharges, etc). But strict licenses? There are way more automobile accidents and fatalities than with firearms, yet no one is clamoring for stricter tests...
The reality is, people want guns for protection are 99.999% never going to use them. They want them because they like guns, which is fine. As long as there are more safeguards in place to make sure good people are buying them.
Totally agree. Things to better detect mentally unstable people attempting to purchase firearms is fine with me (though the exact definition of mentally unstable would have to be defined, etc). And as before, it wouldn't stop criminals though, because they would obtain them illegally.
Now I can go buy a bunch of guns and just sell them off to criminals easy. That shit needs to stop
You would then be a criminal. A LAW ABIDING or person of good moral standing would not pursue or even think of doing a thing like that, knowing what the criminal would obviously use it for. If you mean for like at gun shows (as far as I know, the only way to legally sell firearms without a background check required), I personally think there should be either a mandatory check or something simple/good in place that could possibly prevent an exchange of a firearm to a criminal. But once again, how likely is it that a criminal would go to a gun show (some you need to pay to enter) possibly risk getting recorded by cameras and/or carded for license upon entering (not all do/have these)? I would think they would just go about getting them however they normally get them (e.g. not primarily from gunshows otherwise it would likely be noticed, yeah?)
I think we agree for the most part.
But no one knows who is a criminal, or who is a potential criminal until they after they have a record. You cannot look at someone that walks into a store and know if they would resell the gun illegally. And you can pay off people in bad debt with no record to buy you guns. This is where strict licensing helps. If you make long waiting periods, and certifications for amount and types of guns, only hunters and gun advocates would follow through. Yes, it would be annoying, but it will help weed out a lot of potentially bad customers.
So, I definitely see what you're getting at, but at the end of the day criminals will continue to obtain/use firearms illegally and will do so the most convenient way to them. Say your idea of more strict licensing went through -- The criminal (I anticipate) would not use the straw purchase method (have someone else purchase for you) as it would take to long. So they would use a different way to illegally obtain firearms leaving the law abiding people/advocates stuck with waiting times/certification, that's what I'm getting at. So to really stop the criminals different action would need to be taken (again see my opinion from the first comment).
Let me throw this example at ya (or for someone else since we're kinda on the same page):
We all have to pay federal taxes every year (minus the tax evaders and scammers e.g. criminals). Suppose the federal government makes a new law to combat the criminals. All fed taxes are now due Feb 5th. We are now inconvenienced by this law due to less time to prepare taxes (similarly lawful gun owners restricted on what they can own), yet obliged to follow this new tax law since our livelihoods are at stake and we don't want to be penalized (similarly lawful gun owners having to convert rifles, cant own certain guns, wait times, etc), all the meanwhile we were doing fine before, and yet now the criminals will still continue to tax evade and scam when we're stuck with this new restriction. Then imagine meeting people who say something along the lines of: "This new tax restriction is good for the people so we don't commit any crimes." As I facepalm, since we weren't before...
That doesn't really correlate.
It is more like driving. To combat the accidents kids get into in their first year driving, they get a 1 year learners permit. They are allowed to drive, but only with an adult. Then, their first 6 months able to drive alone, they have a law that doesn't let them drive late at night.
Are you solving for all teenage car accidents, no. Are you gradually allowing them to learn and get the muscle memory under the best of circumstances before allowing them total freedom, yes. Are drastically reducing deaths, yes. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/graduated-drivers-licensing-programs-reduce-fatal-teen-crashes
Same with gun safety. Will you eliminate more accidents, yes. Will you thwart off more strawmen buying yes. Will you piss off lawful gun carriers, yes, but it is for the greater good.
Most people are extremely strict with their gun safety, but it only takes few idiots to ruin the party.
Same with gun safety.
I think I've said somewhere above that I personally believe people should take a safety class before owning. No question from me there. Its the waiting periods that won't do much imo.
Most people are extremely strict with their gun safety, but it only takes few idiots to ruin the party.
I honestly feel like this just sums everything up. Replace gun safety with literally anything else and its true. That doesn't necessarily mean other people (everyone else) should be subject to restrictions (i.e. featureless rifles, only can purchase certain firearms) because of a few (yet here we are). It would make sense if new/revised penalties were introduced and applied to said idiots (or maybe better prevention in the first place or rehabilitation...), but to restrict the people who do nothing wrong isn't the right approach.
I agree with you on that. And I don't mean to restrict, I mean to certify.
I wouldn't mind any of the gun owners I know owning even fully automatic weapons. I just want to make it harder to get.
Like a license, you can get a car license, but to drive a motorcycle, you need to do more hours and a new tests. Then to be a truck driver, even more certificiations. Same principle. Guns are made to kill, plain and simple. I think everyone should have the ability to get them, and the process should weed out more of the idiots.
Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how many more idiots need to be weeded out?
See pretty much everything here that represents that things are actually all right... https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/83wax3/redditor_provides_detailed_analysis_of_multiple/dvlkxil/
I follow that and agree to 1 point. Where did the criminals get the guns they weren’t allowed to have? By a lawful gun purchaser, who is considered legal, who then resells the guns illegally. It’s not like they make there own.
Guns are made to kill, it is the sole function.
This argument reads to me like, 99.9999% of the population would not use c4 for bad intent, therefore we can make explosives easy to buy?
Where did the criminals get the guns they weren’t allowed to have? By a lawful gun purchaser, who is considered legal, who then resells the guns illegally.
Got a source for that? And as the guy/sources pointed out:
So yes 99.999065% of Legal gun never murder someone. Only .000045% of them become murders.
This small percentage doesn't mean ALL of the .000045% become murderers (as it was an example to show the math, per what he said), a part could be illegal gun sales. The fact (per sources) is that it is so low. Simple as that.
Guns are made to kill, it is the sole function.
Contrary to all the law abiding citizens who use them for sporting purposes (e.g. target shooting)? There are not many hunters in the country (relative to all the gun owners).
This argument reads to me like, 99.9999% of the population would not use c4 for bad intent, therefore we can make explosives easy to buy?
It's not an argument, the guy makes a claim and is supported by many varying sources. It is fact. As for the c4, if it was legal (or not as hard to get, not familiar with its legal status), We would have to collect data and evaluate in a similar way. The fact that "99.9999%" of people don't have bad intentions with firearms doesn't mean it would just automatically apply to c4 (possibly other explosives). I personally would like to believe, there would be similar statistics, but it is a different item.
Look, what this guy is doing is just spinning numbers to prove his point. You like guns, so you get his points, but he really isn't making a solid argument.
If explosives were as easy to get as guns, would that make you feel unsafe? Of course. Then someone says, I never broke a law, why are you stopping me from having fun and legally blowing stuff up on my property? Because it sounds insane. That exactly what people hear who do not like guns and pro-gun people make their argument. The only truce is to make getting a gun painful. So true advocates can get their guns, and weed out the rest.
This guys rant is a statistical bias, with an objective in mind and numbers to prove the point. That is 1 lazy, and 2 easy to do a counter argument. There is literally nothing to learn, besides the window he wants you to look through.
The argument is not and never was about the huge number of lawful gun owners, its about the very few idiots. It's about the school shooters, its about preventing the first crime, its about taking guns from impressionable youths. Not about catching people after good people are already dead.
You can easily compare gun deaths, or murder from the US to any first world country that outlaws guns. The US is almost 5x more homicides per capita than UK or France. Can you explain that with those stats?
Again, I do not think so many people should go without guns. But if we put harder requirement, there would be less guns in the country, and harder to get and harder for criminals to obtain.
They're not against free health care as much as government-sponsored abortions/birth control
Also the apparently serious conviction that if the government were to review the 2nd Amendment (making ownership of certain firearms illegal in certain circumstances, as some other countries have done successfully), individual gun owners would go full Rambo and fight Uncle Sam to the death, or at least until they ran out of ammo.
Gun LAWS and not seeing any relation between stricter gun control and a reduced death rate from guns
That's because America is massive population center sitting on an even bigger arsenal. 325 million people and at least 400+ million guns. Even if every every known gun was seized, there would still be millions of unaccounted for guns still being smuggled around and being illegally sold to criminals. There are at least a thousand different gangs in America and many gangsters are armed to the teeth. Did they walk into a gun store and buy them, no. They simply bought one illegally.
I am 100% positive that I can make a few phone calls to some slightly shady friends of mine living in the big city who will then set me up with their even shadier and criminal friends and connections and have an illegal gun sitting on my desk in a few hours that I bought for $200 from a city with one of the toughest gun control laws in America. It's that easy to get a gun in America. even when they're banned or your record prevents you from buying from a gun store. Take guns away from the law abiding citizens who are just trying to protect themselves and now millions of criminals are free to confidently run rampart with their illegal guns, knowing that their victims can't shoot back at them.
Gun control laws are only effective in countries that had a small supply of guns to start with, which is not the case here where guns still outnumber the 3rd most populated country.
Which is why you don’t try to ban them outright.
Start small, make it harder to own guns. That reduces the number of legally purchased guns over time, leading to a reduction in the number of illegal guns available for purchase on the black market.
The US is a net exporter of illegal guns. Think about that for a second. A large portion of illegal firearms sold/confiscated in Mexico was originally from the US.
Now that you have reduced the number of guns in circulation, you need to take it another step up. Make it even more expensive to own a gun. Thereby restricting the number of guns in circulation further.
It’s not something you fix overnight, but these arguments and NRA talking points means that nothing changes and you make no progress.
Reducing gun ownership over time to reduce the illegal gun supply is gonna take as long as it will take for the guns to corrode into uselessness. There are 200+ year old guns that are still operable. With proper care against rust and fatigue, we can expect modern firearms already in existence to last even longer. By then, we're gonna either wipe ourselves to extinction, be enslaved by the Yeerks or have developed energy weapons much more advanced and deadly than guns.
The only other way to reduce the supply is to be even more aggressive with police raids to seize large supplies of illegal guns which are going to be not surprisingly well defended by the criminal gangs and inevitably lead to shootouts. As per the law of supply and demand, the more guns the police seize, the more valuable the remaining illegal guns will be, and thus, the criminal resistance will stiffen, as more criminals will get involved in war against gun seizures, tempted by the increasing value of guns.
I disagree with your position in almost every point you make.
The most important part is this. Guns used in crimes are often disposed of, leading to a natural decline in the availability of illegal guns.
Typical illegal gun users don’t store their weapons in the best conditions. They will degrade much faster than you stated. I’d be surprised if more than 20% of illegal guns in circulation today makes it another 50 years.
But anyway, I’m done. Cheers
Guns used in crimes are often disposed of
Often by selling or giving it to someone else with no connection to the crime. Yes some criminals will quickly abandon it in a sewer/dumpster/lake if they have very little time to do so, but the weapon still has value and and is still useful and are treated as an asset.
For the guns: Stricter gun control really won't change anything here, because guns are already in such high circulation. Meaning that we could literally make guns illegal and it wouldn't matter. The guns are already out there. Criminals will always have them because, well, they're criminals. They specifically don't give a shit about laws.
Stricter gun control only works in a system where you don't already have guns in circulation.
Guns were in circulation everywhere before control. That problem was overcome in every country with successful gun control.
No, in most other countries it's virtually impossible to get a gun, through either legal or illegal means. It's so easy to get guns illegally in the US that gun control laws don't even matter. The only thing gun control laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. It doesn't make it any harder for criminals to get guns.
It was easy to get guns in all those other countries before gun control came in, and it didn't arrive immediately. There were guns on the streets of Victorian England.
There were guns on the streets of Victorian England.
Ah yes, let me go commit mass shootings with my black powder musket!
That was the era of the revolver.
....because anyone that is slightly educated understands healthcare is not and cannot be free. There are costs that have to be born by someone.
No shit. That's why you distribute the cost of everyone's care across society as a whole through the magic of taxes. They are not this big, scary, evil thing but instead a collective resource that can be used to improve the living conditions within a society for all members of that society. What a concept.
I guess that's my answer for this thread:
I cannot wrap my head around how anti-social-service/taxation American society is.
Not everyone can provide everything for themselves at every single point in time during their lives...how else is anything supposed to get done? Do you really want to have to pay for every road you use out of your own pocket at the time you need to use it? Do you want to have (more) emergency and military services send you an invoice every time you have need of them? Why would you be against pooling resources collectively to distribute and lower the costs of services that nearly everyone in society is going to need at some point or another?
Are you seriously claiming that the value delivered by the goods purchased by taxed money minus the "administrative fees" taken out to in order to pay the government officials doing the taxing is not only greater than the value of that money itself, but even when measured on an individual basis?
How can you possibly believe that? You must not believe in arithmetic.
If I take $10,000 in taxes from a group of people, pay myself $1,000 of that money as a "public servant salary", then spend the rest on goods and services that are distributed back to those people as I see fit, they only received $9,000 worth of value as a collective. And if I tax them progressively but distribute the goods and services equally, some of those people will benefit while others will lose a lot.
Yes, because your example is shit. If you're taking 10k in tax revenue to distribute 9k in services to the contributors, at face value that is a loss. But there is absolutely no way that all of the contributors will require 100% accessibility to all of those services at the exact same time, 100% of the time.
You're making an argument against the fundamental notion of cooperation and resource-sharing.
Fucking hell, insurance works on this principal - insurance is just a form of privatized taxation. Everyone is pooling their resources to ensure that there is a surplus of resources available to be redistributed to the contributors on an as-needed basis. The difference is that when this is left up to for-profit corporations they tend to, you know, be more interested in making a profit than benefiting their contributors, so it just winds up costing everyone more. When the government is responsible for ensuring everyone has equal access to healthcare, they're the sole negotiator/access to the market that goods and services providers have to go through to get to their customers...which helps prevent, say, drug companies from running roughshod over their customers.
This is another one of those things that, you know...works out pretty much everywhere but for some reason it couldn't possibly work in America because...reasons, I guess.
Yes, because your example is shit. If you're taking 10k in tax revenue to distribute 9k in services to the contributors, at face value that is a loss. But there is absolutely no way that all of the contributors will require 100% accessibility to all of those services at the exact same time, 100% of the time.
That's not relevant. The same math applies to government taxation. They take money from the citizens, keep a cut of it for themselves, use a cut of it to pay for past debts, use another cut of it to bomb foreigners, then spend the rest on the citizens, divided up as they see fit. The amount spent on us is strictly less than the amount they took in. Even if they didn't take out all these cuts, the amount spent on the citizens couldn't possibly be more than what they took in.
You're making an argument against the fundamental notion of cooperation and resource-sharing.
No, I'm saying that something isn't "cooperation and resource-sharing" at all if it is happening against the will of the involved parties. Those things have to be voluntary.
Everyone is pooling their resources to ensure that there is a surplus of resources available to be redistributed to the contributors on an as-needed basis.
Yes and each payer is both voluntarily engaged and understands that if he never collects the payout, he has lost money.
The difference is that when this is left up to for-profit corporations they tend to, you know, be more interested in making a profit than benefiting their contributors
You have clearly never run a business, since you don't even know where profits come from.
This is another one of those things that, you know...works out pretty much everywhere but for some reason it couldn't possibly work in America because...reasons, I guess.
It doesn't work everywhere. Socialized healthcare systems have all sorts of problems that you have chosen to bury your head in the sand in order to ignore. When you don't count the socialized healthcare in the US known as Medicare, the US vastly outperforms every other healthcare system in the world. But again, you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore this for some reason.
Yes and each payer is both voluntarily engaged and understands that if he never collects the payout, he has lost money.
...Yes. And if someone doesn't want to pay taxes, they can pack up and go live off the grid in the boonies somewhere completely removed from civilization. Should be super fun.
The "voluntary engagement" with taxation comes from, you know, being engaged with your government, holding them accountable, questioning decisions, etc. It's a pretty big part of modern representative governments. You don't think your government should be spending money on X? Engage your representative on the subject.
It doesn't work everywhere.
Yes it does. Problems existing within a system aren't necessarily a wholesale indictment against that entire system.
The American healthcare system only benefits the rich. Guess what? Rich people in other countries can buy their way to faster/better/more personalized healthcare, too. The difference is that people who aren't rich actually have access to healthcare at the same time without having to go bankrupt to obtain it (or forgo it entirely because it's not affordable in the first place).
And if someone doesn't want to pay taxes, they can pack up and go live off the grid in the boonies somewhere completely removed from civilization. Should be super fun.
That's not what "voluntary" means. Try again.
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. Ballooning costs are forcing places like the UK and Canada to cut back on services and implement regressive laws that attack things like sugar consumption.
The American healthcare system only benefits the rich.
And the average American citizen is insanely rich by global standards, so yes, the American healthcare system only benefits "the rich," which just happens to include the vast majority of American citizens. But actually it also benefits poor Americans, since most hospitals happily work with people who can't afford to pay as charity work.
That's not what "voluntary" means. Try again.
How is it not? You don't want to contribute to public works, services, etc.? Fine - you don't get access to them. Opt out of the society.
No, it doesn't. Ballooning costs are forcing places like the UK and Canada to cut back on services and implement regressive laws that attack things like sugar consumption.
It's almost like no system is perfect and there are always adjustments to be made.
How is the example of a sugar tax "regressive"? Sugar consumption is currently putting a massive strain on healthcare - targeting the source of that strain as a source of income to help alleviate its impact on the system seems like a pretty straightforward strategy.
And the average American citizen is insanely rich by global standards.
Fat lot of good that does the minimum wage worker or someone stuck on unemployment when they get cancer. I guess they should just die.
How is it not? You don't want to contribute to public works, services, etc.? Fine - you don't get access to them. Opt out of the society.
"You don't want to pay Don Vito's protection money? Fine - you don't get protected. Leave the neighborhood or deal with the consequences."
Is this an example of "voluntariness" in your mind?
It's almost like no system is perfect and there are always adjustments to be made.
No, what it's like is that government-run healthcare has no way to evaluate costs and benefits and has no incentive to reign in costs since doing so would cost them election losses - but eventually they will run out of money and be forced to do so anyway.
How is the example of a sugar tax "regressive"?
Because it disproportionally affects the poor. That's what "regressive" means when applied to taxes.
Fat lot of good that does the minimum wage worker or someone stuck on unemployment when they get cancer. I guess they should just die.
3% of workers make minimum wage, and the majority of those receive employer provided heath insurance. What they should actually do is get better skills so that they can get a better job that pays more. You know, like the 97% of the rest of us did.
"You don't want to pay Don Vito's protection money? Fine - you don't get protected. Leave the neighborhood or deal with the consequences."
What a laughably bad example. The mafia don's offer of 'protection' comes with coercion through a threat of violence.
Wanting to benefit from social programs such as emergency services, infrastructure, defense, etc. without making a contribution when you have taxable income is more like going into a burger joint and expecting a sandwich for free just because they want one.
No, what it's like is that government-run healthcare has no way to evaluate costs and benefits and has no incentive to reign in costs since doing so would cost them election losses - but eventually they will run out of money and be forced to do so.
Ah, as opposed to the American system which costs more per capita and provides less services to fewer people. Got it.
Because it disproportionally affects the poor. That's what "regressive" means when applied to taxes.
...Again, as opposed to the American system...where the poor are disproportionately affected by, you know...healthcare being largely inaccessible to them?
3% of workers make minimum wage, and the majority of those receive employer provided heath insurance. What they should actually do is get better skills so that they can get a better job that pays more. You know, like the 97% of the rest of us did.
Firstly, I'd contest those numbers - but it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it's 3% or 50%. The circumstances of your employment should not have any bearing on whether you are able to get treatment for injury or illness. That's a fucking monstrous notion.
Nice to see that "bootstraps" mentality alive and well though. Never gets old.
What a laughably bad example. The mafia don's offer of 'protection' comes with coercion through a threat of violence.
So does taxation. Or is a group of armed men hauling me off to a prison somehow not violent?
Wanting to benefit from social programs such as emergency services, infrastructure, defense, etc. without making a contribution when you have taxable income is more like going into a burger joint and expecting a sandwich for free just because they want one.
No, it's more like the burger joint taking my money and then handing me a burger, when what I really wanted was tacos, or maybe a burger made with a different kind of cheese, or maybe a vegetarian meal. The government doesn't just set up a store and wait for customers to come in. It takes your money first, then offers you services that you might not have even wanted at all, or had wanted the ability to shop around for yourself. It's much more like what the mafia does than what McDonald's does.
Ah, as opposed to the American system which costs more per capita and provides less services to fewer people. Got it.
See there you go sneaking the Medicare data back in. I told you to look at the numbers without Medicare, since Medicare is exactly what you claim to want - government provided healthcare.
where the poor are disproportionately affected by, you know...healthcare being largely inaccessible to them?
But they aren't. This is just a straight up lie. Nobody in America lacks access to healthcare. In fact, it would be illegal for an emergency room to turn somebody away because they were unable to pay.
Firstly, I'd contest those numbers
Go ahead and contest. You're wrong.
It doesn't matter whether it's 3% or 50%.
It very much does matter. If 3% of the jobs out there - jobs which by the way are designed to be entry level points into the job market - don't enable one to pay for healthcare out of pocket, then it's a non-problem.
The circumstances of your employment should not have any bearing on whether you are able to get treatment for injury or illness.
And they don't, because as I already pointed out, most of those employees also have employer-provided health insurance, they can also get free service and a multitude of clinics, and they cannot legally be turned away by an emergency room. Hell most of them are teenagers who are covered by their parents, so why on earth would they need to pay for their own healthcare anyway? Are you even an American? Or are you one of those Euros with a chip on your shoulder about a system you actually know nothing about?
So does taxation. Or is a group of armed men hauling me off to a prison somehow not violent?
Oh FFS. I give up - there's no arguing with you "taxation is theft" idiots.
So the government doesn't use the threat of violence in order to collect taxes?
In America we tend to get hung up on this old school concept of Individual Liberty. A subset of the concept of liberty is the right to private ownership of property, including salary or wages. Every dollar that is spent by the government has to be seized from someone who earned that dollar. So every dollar of government spending, every new social program is a trade-off between (supposed) societal benefits one hand, and the right to private property on the other.
You’ll better understand the American attitude of taxes if you observe the active source of the behavior (Liberty is good) as opposed to only observing an isolated consequence (taxes, which are mandatory and chip away at the right to property, should be used sparingly).
Also, the cost benefits of pooling resources through government programs is questionable. The only situations where social programs replace private solutions and result in cost savings are areas where huge levels of regulation are ham-stringing private sector innovation (see health insurance in the US). Meanwhile governments find ways to spend insane amounts of money with nothing to show for it (2008 stimulus) or worse (the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan). Only a government could spend billions and trillions of dollars without achieving anything. Better to leave that money in people’s pockets in the first place.
I'm aware of the "liberty good" facet of American culture and society - it's a childish over-simplification. Anything taken to its logical extreme is very likely not good. Perfect liberty would be anarchy...which only nets liberty for all until the very moment anyone has even one iota of power or influence over anyone else. Then that power and influence begets more power and influence until, what do you know, you've got a king/warlord/dictator/despot etc.
It's perfectly reasonable and legitimate to question and scrutinize government spending and resource allocation. That's all part of keeping a government transparent and accountable.
However...
The more extreme version of this endemic to American society...the kind fueling the rhetoric of libertarians and sovereign citizens borders on the unhinged and fanatical.
Yes, taxes are mandatory and "chip away at the right to property"...because if someone has made a taxable income they have already reaped the benefits of being part of society, through its infrastructure, social services, economy, etc. If someone doesn't want to chip in their share, they're perfectly welcome to leave. They can have fun running off into the wilderness and setting up their own society without access to any of the benefits or advantages modern society would otherwise confer them, including any wealth accrued from within that society. I'm sure they'll have a great time rubbing sticks together to stay warm and figuring out how to deal with infections all on their lonesome and having to build all of their tools and infrastructure themselves.
Your argument would make a lot more sense if it wasn’t for all of this pesky reality. Yes, the US is different from most western nations because we value the rights of the individual over the comfort of the collective. And instead of experiencing anything like your weird dystopian vision, the US is at the forefront of science, technology, military, and cultural influence... while only constituting 5% of the global population.
Literally zero nations have fallen apart from being too deferential to the rights of the individual. If you want to see what happens when societies veer too far the other way—societies that trample individual rights in favor of the collective—there are plenty of mass graves that would drive home the point nicely.
we value the rights of the individual over the comfort of the collective.
Ah yes, the "comfort" of not dying/going bankrupt over access to medical treatment.
Yeah, that part of American society can get fucked. I'm perfectly happy living in a society that actually operates, you know, like a society that gives a shit about the people in it (and not just those with power/influence).
I never mentioned anything about a "dystopia", but I hope you are aware that the US is really low on a large number of quality of life indexes compared to all of the other developed countries that, in theory, it should be able to stomp because of its disproportionate wealth, yes? Not that I expect that to mean anything to you for some reason or other; it never does in these conversations. If nothing else, at least, they always serve as a useful reminder as to why I would never want to live in America.
I mean, plenty of European countries have free healthcare.... who's educated now? Do you realise Americans spend twice as much per capita on healthcare than people in countries with free healthcare? It would be much cheaper to implement universal healthcare instead of lining the pockets of insurance companies.
Working people in Europe pay a form of insurance that gives EVERYONE healthcare at much less cost to themselves than a US person paying for insurance would pay.
That's what I mean - why do you feel the need to defend your terrible laws at all costs? Go and have your revolution for free healthcare already! You could make it happen!
I don’t think you know what free means.
We mean free-at-the-point-of-contact, paid for through National Insurance or the equivalent system. That's what we mean when we talk about free healthcare. We do realise that we pay for our healthcare systems through the taxes on our paychecks. Like, how else would governments pay for stuff?
Can anyone tell me how high American taxes are? If there's not much difference to European ones then I would argue it's as close to free as you can get.
For reference, basic tax rate up to roughly £40k is 20% of everything over baseline plus national insurance. The two together take about 21% out of my total wages. I know I get at least £1000 a year back from NHS services (vs private healthcare costs) and that would probably be higher if an insurance company was inflating the costs.
When we talk about free, we mean "free at the point of use". We all pay for it out of our taxes, just like you all pay for it out of your health insurance payments. However, those who cannot afford good coverage, or any coverage at all for whatever reason, don't find themselves presented with a 6-figure bill because of an emergency that happened to come about at the wrong time, or because it was a pre-existing condition, or the cost happened to run above the maximum amount allowed by your insurance.
I pay my taxes, which pays for my healthcare. When I had emergency surgery last year, I went in, had the op, recovered for a week, and went home. No bill, no co-pay, no deductable, that was it.
The issue is that they don’t view it as “free” the same way you are viewing it as “free.” I am making an assumption right now, but where you or I may see taxes as a given and almost a civic duty, they do not. So it is NOT free in their minds because it costs money. Which is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct really. So the first thing they do, which they are really good at, is set the debate in those terms. You can forget abstract and nuanced arguments because at the end of the day their logic is that they are paying for somebody else’s health care and that is all they care about in the debate.
Once you throw in their distrust for anything government what you are left with is a program that takes their money and puts it in government hands, this government agency then decides who gets the money and thus healthcare, and by that token who gets to live and die. Usually they view anybody getting anything from the government as lazy, undeserving, and parasitic. So when viewed this way why would anybody vote for that?
Having said all that, it is a stupid way to look at it. But this is precisely why the US does not have universal healthcare.
Well it's not so much being against free healthcare as it is being pro single payer. We have forms of socialized medicine, the problem comes down to the fact that America is much bigger then other nations with true, 100% socialized medicine, and instead of being done on a state level, it would be done federally, which would be a clusterfuck, because the US federal government is a byzantine, bloated, fucking mess. America's healthcare system is fucked, but single payer is the least horrible option for the majority. What we need is a reform of medical laws.
The latter, as an American, boggles my mind as well, though I think the argument goes something like "I'm not paying for other people to get [insert preventable disease here]".
As for the former, it's a little more complicated than that, I think.
Well it is obvious that if you ban guns or impose gun laws that overall gun related violence will decrease. The thing is that overall there is no change in the crime rate for these laws, which is what people against gun control are saying. Secondly, in the United States gun related deaths also include suicides, which make up a large portion of deaths.
Being AGAINST free healthcare
bu... but muh taxes! /s
From an outside view, it seems to me that it all comes down to the deeply ingrained culture of individualism.
The guns are because people should have the power to defend their rights by themselves, and the argument against free healthcare is that people should be able to provide for themselves, and that their work should never be used for someone else.
It is both egoistic and extremely shortsighted, but science shows that people have a hard time believing bad things will happen to them. They understand it's a possibility, but deep down they feel like it's something that happens to other people.
If we can't afford health care individually, then how does it make sense to believe that we can afford health care for everyone plus the government bureaucracy to administer it?
Because it's not free healthcare. There is no such thing as free in this world. You pay for it through taxes, and you also pay for others through taxes. Some people aren't a fan of that, and I think that's perfectly understandable.
Well it’s not free healthcare so that’s why people are against it. I’m not arguing that it shouldn’t be government funded, but it sure isn’t free.
Gun LAWS and not seeing any relation between stricter gun control and a reduced death rate from guns
We see that correlation. It is just meaningless. If you want to reduce gun death rates, legalize stabbing people to death and have physician assissted suicide for all. No reason for any intentional gun deaths then.
And there is no such thing as free healthcare. The government pays for it, and that comes out of my tax dollars. And if the service is going to be as crappy as the service provided by the VA (government provided healthcare), I would much rather stick with a solely private healthcare system
Gun LAWS and not seeing any relation between stricter gun control and a reduced death rate from guns
Of course stricter gun control would reduce death rate from guns that is like banning dog ownership and seeing a reduction in baby deaths from pet dogs. It doesn't change the amount a violence just moves the tool being used. Look at Britain now they want to ban Knifes. What we should work for is a reduction a violence from its root cause: Poverty, fatherless homes, War on Drugs, etc.
oh is your country offering to pay for our free health care? that's the only way it would be free.
Oh yeah, we all know how free of shootings the streets of Baltimore and Chicago are thanks to strict gun control...
Are guns illegal there? How is that possible when they are legal everywhere else?
The people using them didn't buy them legally, so the guns legality other places then is a non issue
I think the issue in Chicago is the fact that Indiana has very lax gun laws and it's like a 10 minute drive from the South Side to Indiana.
[deleted]
You know, not every pro-gun person is a GOP hypocrite.
[deleted]
There is nothing wrong with the NRA. Unless you believe the propaganda.
Have you ever seen NRA TV?
The NRA is the propaganda.
I only watch Colion Noir, which few anti-gunners would even know about since the media pretends he doesn't exist. Everything i have seen as been educational and matched reality so I would hardly call it propaganda.
Really? You wouldn't call it propaganda?
Now?
If not, then please tell me: what would NRA propaganda look like? Because that sure as shit looks like it to me.
Is it false or disingenuous? Since it isn't, it isn't propaganda.
Yes, and yes. Are you kidding me? 'Oh, the media is trying to warp your mindset and turn you away from what it means to be a good, patriotic American! And the only thing that will stop that is guns!' That's not false or disingenuous?
You can be pro-gun or you can be anti-gun, but that is insane. If you don't think that falls under the category of 'information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view', you're out of your damn mind -- or you're so far down your paranoid, pro-gun rabbithole that you truly believe everyone's out to get you.
Yes, and yes. Are you kidding me?
No its not, and don't switch to your alts just to downvote me more.
'Oh, the media is trying to warp your mindset and turn you away from what it means to be a good, patriotic American! And the only thing that will stop that is guns!' That's not false or disingenuous?
Where do they say that? This is literally just a fictitious perception you just made up out of your own disingenuous ideas around guns.
You can be pro-gun or you can be anti-gun, but that is insane. If you don't think that falls under the category of 'information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view', you're out of your damn mind -- or you're so far down your paranoid, pro-gun rabbithole that you truly believe everyone's out to get you.
What you said is crazy, it is also not actually said by any actual NRA person either. So if you think up a bunch of crazy stuff and then claim your enemies said it, I guess you would be the propagandist then.
No its not, and don't switch to your alts just to downvote me more.
There's that paranoia again. Everyone's out to get you. It's all fake news, and everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of the thing you're being accused of. Give me a fuckin' break.
But sure, you say it's a fictitious perception. Let's look at just the first of those ads. Here's a full transcript.
They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse “the resistance.”
All to make them march. Make them protest. Make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.
And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.
I’m the National Rifle Association of America. And I’m freedom’s safest place.
So, the media is trying to warp your mindset: it's assassinating 'real news'. They're using schools to teach children that their President is another Hitler: turning them away from being a good, patriotic American. The 'only' thing that will stop that is Dana Loesch and the NRA -- Freedom's safest place. Because everywhere else is out to get you.
How blind do you have to be to view it as a misrepresentation? She hits all three beats in a one minute ad!
I get that you're big on guns, but come the fuck on. There are ways of being pro-gun without signing up for this blatant propaganda bullshit.
There's that paranoia again. Everyone's out to get you. It's all fake news, and everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of the thing you're being accused of. Give me a fuckin' break.
There is no paranoia, its just suspicious that a day old post with a deep hidden thread would get 2 downvotes that fast.
But sure, you say it's a fictitious perception. Let's look at just the first of those ads. Here's a full transcript.
Literally nothing in that blurb matched anything that you mentioned earlier. You are creating a bogey man that just isn't there. Talk about paranoia.
The 'only' thing that will stop that is Dana Loesch and the NRA -- Freedom's safest place. Because everywhere else is out to get you.
No, the only people who seem to get that from this ad are projection artists like you.
How blind do you have to be to view it as a misrepresentation? She hits all three beats in a one minute ad!
No, you perceive that she does.
I get that you're big on guns, but come the fuck on. There are ways of being pro-gun without signing up for this blatant propaganda bullshit.
Its not blatant propaganda, people like you just twist it into that to suite your pathetic and paranoid world view.
Ah, so you're taking the 'Lalala, I'm not listening' line. Marvellous.
The only thing I perceive is that this is a complete waste of time. I'm done with your particular brand of nonsense. Have a swell day.
Ah, so you're taking the 'Lalala, I'm not listening' line. Marvellous.
No, you just don't know how to any introspection and analyze your own beliefs ion the face of someone who doesn't automatically hold your view point.
The only thing I perceive is that this is a complete waste of time. I'm done with your particular brand of nonsense. Have a swell day.
Says the person who makes things up and acts like everyone else is crazy.
propaganda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGOQFf9VCE
Is she wrong? The media has been basically a propaganda outlet since the last presidential election, and her points hit the mark of the extreme left quite well. If you were offended by that video, you are probably part of the problem with the discourse in this country.
[deleted]
Your politicians can't even talk about gun control ... even after mass shootings. That's how scared they are of the NRA.
First off stop. They have been talking gun control all year. They don't fear the NRA, they fear voters who agree with the NRA, as they should.
Also I don't care what a foreign propagandist who does disingenuous edited videos says about it.
As a blanket answer to all of the things non-Americans don't understand about America: We don't understand it either.
I don't get this whole military thing... seemingly everyone glorifies soldiers and veterans and such, but why? War is the worst thing mankind came up with. It is not a good thing. So why?
(Disclaimer: am german, the stories the elders tell about the war are horrifying... We as mankind should overcome this whole arms race bullshit)
American wars are fought overseas in far away lands so, Americans have never had to experience war first hand.
We respect them for the sacrifices they make. Imagine getting shot at regularly and being thousands of miles away from your family. Not to mention, what would have happened if we didn't stop the Nazis from slaughtering tens of millions more people.
War is a necessary evil
Why is a necessary evil glorified and celebrated, then?
Not disagreeing that it's over-glorified, personally it doesn't sit right with me. Just saying war can be necessary, and thus better than doing nothing
[deleted]
Other side of the coin, we get called out for doing nothing quite frequently. WE do something and get called "world police" or do nothing and people say why doesn't the US do anything about this?!?!
gotta feed the war machine, baby! $$$$$
Have you forgotten history? You would all be speaking German if it were not for the U.S. “telling you what to do”.
[deleted]
The lessons are important. I guarantee you if the US unilaterally disarmed half its military Russia would be happily marching through all of Eastern Europe as we speak.
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if the US stopped being the “world police”
I wouldn’t want to live to see it honestly.
I wouldn’t want to live to see it honestly.
Possibly but you should also consider that Russia is not in anyway the power they once were. Their economy is the same size as the Netherlands.
Economy does not equal military strength
Russia's defence budget is less than the UK's alone. The top 6 biggest spenders in the EU spend more than 5 times that of Russia. The population of the EU is 5 times that of Russia.
The only advantage Russia possesses is nuclear warheads and while they massively outnumber the EU, it is irrelevant unless Putin's aim is a a nuclear holocaust.
The EU is an economic entity, not military. Just because the combined militaries of UK, France, Italy, and Germany could defeat Russia does not mean that they will get involved if Russia openly attacks Ukraine and Poland for example.
Well Poland is a NATO member so there is Article 5 and all that.
That's the real test. Europe in general seems to be much less combative than the U.S.. Would Europe risk a nuclear war just to defend Poland? I'm not sure of the answer.
Western Europe did dick-all last time a hostile, bellicose power started carving bits out of Eastern Europe.
Stupid conspiracy theories, like the whole reptilian thing, Anti-Vaxxers, flat earthers.
[deleted]
Actually I love playing Stellaris as an authoritarian reptile race and infiltrate primitive civilizations using genetic engineering.
So you got me
Actually the guy famous for the Reptilian conspiracy theory is English.
Is this really just American? Seems to be more of an internet thing to me.
I mean the illuminati/reptile thing seems to be more of an internet thing, but anti-vaxxers and flat earthers don't seem like an actual thing outside the US.
I've seen a lot of spanish people fall into the flat earth thing though
Okay yeah, at can at least vouch the anti vax thing because unfortunately you do hear about that a lot here. I don't hear about flat earth stuff personally, but I know its a real thing.
Tbf most of them might just be trolls
Yeah it gets really old living with that shit.
Please don't believe that a lot of people buy into that. Our media exaggerates things to generate views.
I mean it's obviously a very, very low percentage.
Still, here in Chile people hear about the anti-vaccine movement (I like to call them pro-disease) and say "Wait, so vaccines cause autism?", then the authorities say "no" and they're like "oh ok".
In the US there's a rather large group that believes vaccines cause autism still, wich is kind of baffling.
Oh hun, why don't you join the rest of us sahm's and make some REAL money so your husband can retire by 30 and snort this EO my upline told me made her daughter shit gold bricks?! (anti -vaxxers/mlm huns)
David Ike started all that Reptilian business....don't pin that on Americans.
We have nutters in Europe too though
Moon truthers..
Referring to medicine or most products by brand name instead of a generic name.
Its just weird, really goes to show how much powers private interests have over the country.
This. It is not just about medicine. Like iPad, instead tablet, or post-it, or klenex, etc.
Communities that are heavily Christian. Everyone I know is atheist/agnostic.
Most young people in America don't care for religion nowadays
I live in the US and pretty much everyone I know is atheist or agnostic as well. Much of America is becoming less religious.
[deleted]
I literally can not even imagine someone inviting me for prayer. Most people think religious people are just weirdos.
After church lunches? Like no one even goes to churches here.
You live in a paradise... If I get asked "which church I go to" one more time I'm going to have a fucking aneurism.
Where I'm omw lol. Kentucky resident here. I feel like among younger people (30 or younger) religion is 50/50 shit between Christian or agnostic, but above that age every single person is nuts religious and its maddening.
Also vegan?
Nah. Only know one other unfortunately.
There's literally dozens of us!
[deleted]
Most of this occurred centuries before the US came into existence.
[deleted]
He just said that he can't relate to it. The importance of religion and how public people are about it is much different to the majority of Western Europe.
Yeah exactly. I didn't say it to be mean, it's just something that seems like a big cultural difference.
Atheists spend more time talking about religion than Christians do.
Yeah but we're not heavily religious now. It seems like religion has a much wider bearing on american culture. Look at politics for example - it's seen as pretty weird if a politician here has a strong religious motivation. Being vocally religious in America seems to give politicians more credit. It's a marked cultural difference.
Has a Christian tried to throw you off a building for being gay? Or tried to chop your head off? You’ll be all right.
You seem awfully triggered by that seemingly non offensive statement.
Are you a Christian?
Such a fucked up political system. And that's coming from an Australian, we've had 6 prime ministers in the past 11 years
Ya i was in a hostel that was raided on orders by tony abbott. We were lined up like criminals and had to show our passports and stuff. I wasn't surprised it was one of the reasons he got the boot.
Edit: Besides that i loved you guys and your country!
What. The. >!Fuck!<. What happened?
They were looking for illegal immigrants. That's it. Came in with force and demanded we show them our passports and visas.
Remember when K Rudd came back for a coupe of months? Me neither.
Yeah, a parliamentary system looks weird from someone living in the U.S., too.
we've had 6 prime ministers in the past 11 years
Good. Don't let em sit comfy.
Our political system is so fucked up mostly because of the Australian man that moved here to run a propaganda empire.
Why do you think we got rid of him?
I mean that says you guys can at least tell when your leaders are shit. We’re saturated with so much propaganda, figuring out what’s real anymore has become quite problematic.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The people don't actually elect the prime minister. It's the elected party that does so.
Which is why when a sitting PM falls out of favour with his party, he/she can be replaced.
We have not had a PM finish their term since John Howard in the 2007.
Our parliament is a bit of a joke at the moment. If you want a good laugh look up Barnaby Joyce. Until recently he was the deputy Prime Minister.
I miss Julia Gillard. And I'm an American.
Me too, it's an unpopular opinion here, but she was my favourite PM
It's not fucked up tho. We're the oldest democracy (the others have failed or are newer), and we have the oldest working constitution....Our media makes money from creating crisis, it's hard enough for Americans to decipher so I can't imagine an Australians view.
We're the oldest democracy (the others have failed or are newer)
Yeah no you're not. There are literally democratic countries that existed for hundreds of years before North America was even discovered let alone the USA being founded.
Does it make a difference who did what when centuries ago? No. What should matter is preserving this freedom NOW and in the future.
[deleted]
Right so I show you why we're the oldest democracy, and you're still denying it. Have fun in that cave bud. 'Merica
How about you use an iota of intelligence instead of just chanting USA WE IS BEST
But it isn't a nation and it hasn’t always been independent, coming under the authority of others.
Except San Marino is a nation, it even has a fucking seat on the UN.
You know your country has such a small ego, that it has to lie that countries aren't real so that it can be the best.
And how long has it been recognized as a nation? Even better, how long has it been independent? For fucks sake you may as well say there was a house in Germany that started a democracy in 1234....nevermind it was never recognized as it's own nation or that it was completely controlled by other governments...
You hear how silly that sounds? That's you.
1600
But cool keep on wanking over how great America is. I'll enjoy my life of good free healthcare, parental leave, not getting gunned down, an actual democracy, and good cheap education.
From 1923 to 1943, San Marino was under the rule of the Sammarinese Fascist Party (PFS).
Ohh my, how about that failure?
Find me one that is still around, without failing?
There isn't one.
The problem with having the oldest democracy is that you also have the prototype democracy. Many other nations have formed their own democracies, including the successful aspects and excluding the failures. It is a testament to americans that you haven't failed, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't reform
We don't need to reform. Our constitution is a living constitution. It is a living and breathing document that we can and have changed over time. It is also set up to be very difficult to change, and also keep the separation of powers and checks and balances in place.
There are 325 million of us. Finding legislation that is suitable for all of us is difficult.
No other nation our size is as diverse as ours, or as free as ours. What works in your country may not work here. You're viewing us from the outside and comparing us to your country which I can 100% say is either small than our or more homogenous than ours....or both.
No, the Dutch republic was created before you guys. Your constitution was based on ours
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bob-goodlatte/goodlatte-says-us-has-oldest-working-national-cons/
Wanna try again there boss?
How's our political system fucked? Stability in Government is a good thing.
You think our government is stable?
Stable as in not a constant switching between leaders and parties in charge. That's the problem with a lot of multi party systems, the party in charge is constantly changing.
A ruling party that changes often is good, people get to see alternatives
In the short term, which doesn't really do anything.
Different parties reflect the changing nature of the population as well.
It also enables normal people to start their own parties, with similar ideologies.
In the US it's two parties, pretty much opposing each other every step of the way.
Where's the happy middle? Who represents the population whose views don't reflect the two main parties?
A few months ago I heard that in the US some people still think, the earth was created a few thousand years ago! Please please please tell me that this isn't true.
Definitely a minority of fundamentalist Christians
38% of Americans believe in creationism as of last year.
I know someone who I shit you not thinks the earth is no older than 10 thousand years old and that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same exact time
I'll do you one better. My uncle doesn't even believe that dinosaurs existed.
Ive heard of people like that as well
Dinosaurs were planted by Jews back in the 20’s to tear our faith! /s
Far too many.
Not as many as you think.
I see them every day. I suppose it depends on where you live.
How is Mississippi nowadays
Sadly, I wouldn't know.
Kentuckian here. Our teachers had a strike recently because they had to cut teachers pensions (along with a lot of other stuff) to give a tax break to build a Noah's Ark theme park. There's also a "Creation Museum" which is like a museum but devoted entirely to Christian creationism (god made the world in 10 days, evolution is a hoax, etc)[look it up, both are a real thing]. Fortunately evolution is at least mentioned in public schools, but teachers always have to present it tentatively as a "theory".
Most youth I know are fortunate enough to see past that nonsense even if they do identify as Christian, but many, many older people are that nuts. People harass the school board about removing evolution from the curriculum to this day.
Seriously, I've only recently started reading the old testament and it even talks about giants. Now, in ancient jewish or ancient greek, it could mean something else, but there is so much room in the bible to be interpreted either way. I saw a phrase that absolutely means evolution "the animals of the sea came out of the sea and filled the earth and became flying animals..." in Genesis. Most people (including me) don't read it and just hear the sermon/go to Sunday school. I believe it is the biggest reason why people who grew up religious become atheists. Because they don't study any religion to know what it says or even see if you could actually agree with it.
I hear of them, but I don't think I've seen anyone say that in person before
Oh they're here, along with the people who think the Earth is flat. I don't want to live on this disc anymore. -_-
Oh, its true...
I used to be one. Luckily I had great physics professors and brilliant/kind atheist friends in college that disabused me of that nonsense.
This is what my SIL believes (she is married to my husband's brother).
She truly thinks the earth is only 6000 years old. I asked her about carbon dating-she said its false as the scientists were all secular. What about dinosaur bones? They were placed in the earth by satan to try to turn us towards the dark. Shes fucking looney.
Its a small minority, but not as small as it should be.
In the US you'll find people who believe just about anything.
The way racism works. We have it here, too, of course, but American racism is its own weird shitshow that makes no sense.
Kneeling (as if that were a sign of disrespect, which it is not) during a national anthem is a big thing and is political. That's weird. That people talk about this on the news is weird. Dude's raising awareness.
The twitter freak out when Elon Musk asks "who do you think runs news corporations?" when someone mentioned that the news would keep the rich corporations in check. Everyone was like "I think he might be talking about Jewish people!" and got excited. To most people on earth that jump is fucking insane.
And the whole "immigrants will take our jobs" thing, so the solution is to go after immigrants rather than the people hiring them. I mean, this seems like a supply and demand thing. Either immigrants are going for jobs that are there, or the whole idea is made up, and neither of those is really their fault.
People are really touchy about cultural appropriation in America too, to the extent that they will basically enforce a sort of cultural segregation, as if that were somehow better than intermingling of cultures. It's weird stuff.
Having a elected leader that once hosted a reality tv show.
A lot of people seem to hate the idea of free healthcare, but love the idea of cutting baby dicks because "it's easier to clean that way." Well, yeah, and you wouldn't get dirt under your fingernails if you cut your arms off, but I don't see you doing that in the name of hygiene.
I mean, I do trim my fingernails to avoid this problem...
I was shocked to find out the percentage of American babies who get their genitals mutilated at birth. Circumcision for religious reasons is one thing - I still personally don't think it's an excuse but that's my opinion.
But to do it for no reason at all? Yikes.
I was so surprised to find out that even Christian and atheist Americans do it! Where I live it's only practiced by Muslims and Jews.
I’ve talked to my mom about this. I’m not a male, but I have two brothers who were circumcised at birth. When my mom agreed to it, it was because her doctor recommended it and told her that it would cause no pain, it would only help the baby. She agreed to it because she thought following a doctor’s recommendation was in the best interest of her children.
She says she would have made a different choice if she knew then what she knows now.
Christians definitely do it. Here's a funny story from a church I used to attend.
My dad used to be a deacon at this church. They were doing the usual switching up, which means he would be taken off the active deacon board, while someone else takes his spot. This go round someone said "should we allow a man to be a deacon if he's uncircumcised?"
I believe my dad said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter if he is or isn't. It's not like I want to know"
It's funny considering that the Bible explicitly states that there is no reason for Christians to be circumcized.
What I've always thought was interesting was the prevalence/normality of another completely unnecessary (and generally agreed to be harmful by the rest of the world) surgery: declawing cats. I volunteer at a shelter and it's amazing the amount of people who think that when you get a cat, you just declaw them along with all the other actually responsible things like neuter and shots. It's insane, these otherwise normal casual cat owners think that declawing is normal or even actually the responsible thing to do when a lot of the rest of the developed world has banned the surgery for non-medical reasons because it's just so horrifically cruel to the animal.
Oh my god! Is this an American thing?
Edit: Obviously, yes it is. Seems like cutting off body parts for convenience is a thing over there
[deleted]
I will punch someone who declaws their cat. I don't care if she's 80, Mildred's gonna catch these hands.
Bitch gotta learn.
very few vets that still do this
I'm guessing you're on the coast somewhere. Where I'm at, the shelter I volunteer for definitely does the same regarding trying to educate and blacklisting people who refuse to be educated, but we still get at least 5 cats returned to us every year missing their claws because they "suddenly developed behavioral problems", "won't use the litterbox", or "keep biting my nephew", etc ~_~ Unfortunately there's more than enough old af vets around here that have no issues mutilating people's pets on demand
keep biting my nephew
And so they preferred to declaw the cat, rather than telling the nephew to stop pulling the cat's tail?
The declawing typically comes before the tendency to bite. A normal cat that feels mildly threatened will wave an unsheathed paw at an annoying nephew. A declawed cat only has his teeth left, and feels much more vulnerable as a result, so any threat is met with a quick chomp.
Maybe it's a regional thing, but every apartment I've ever lived in has required cats to be declawed. If vets stop doing it, people are going to be forced to give their pets away..
My apartment required declawed cats. We ended up adopting a 6 year old cat that was already declawed because we weren't willing to do it but we still wanted a pet. I think most places have laws against that requirement, but then you have to fight it and it's a pain in the ass and expensive.
Have 3 clawed cats(don't judge me). I have 2 scratching post and a cat tree. Claw problem solved.
There are very few vets that still do this and is becoming more stigmatized.
Judging by your user name you seem to live in Columbus (I may be wrong). This is absolutely not true. The very few part any way.
[removed]
wtf
You feed people stray cats?
Aren't there health problems associated with consuming obligate carnivores? I seem to recall hearing that somewhere, but it has been a while.
You do what mate?
It's banned in many states.
Someone I know once mentioned his declawed cat, and I basically said "Please don't take this the wrong way because you probably didn't know when you had it done but next time please don't and here's why..." and he got super, super defensive about it and basically didn't listen - and admitted his furniture was more important to him than his pet's welfare as a justification.
Unfortunately many people don't know that declawing is a horrible misnomer, it's actually amputating a large part of the paw. Cats being digitigrades often end up with lifelong pain because the parts they walk on have been mutilated in this procedure. Any vet who does it should be deeply ashamed - a vet at least should know better.
I've met a few cats that have had this done to them (I used to live in Texas), and most of them were constantly grumpy and very quick to bite. No surprise really after what their owners had done to them.
[deleted]
Cats are not humans. Spaying/neutering in cats doesn't lead to a lifetime of complications nor does it require medication (in fact, spayed/neutered cats live longer healthier lives and are less susceptible to certain cancers).
However, in cats, amputating half the paw frequently (but not always) lead to a lifetime of pain and complications. At best declawing a cat does not improve its long term health, and all too frequently leaves the cat with a lifetime of pain.
This is all well-established and not at all controversial. If your cats are not in pain, they got lucky. Please don't do it to your next ones, it's completely unnecessary and many countries and US states ban this practise for very good reasons.
[deleted]
I'm thinking you probably left out the sources for a reason...
dog != cat. We were talking about the relative merits of spaying/neutering cats versus amputating the front part of a cat's paw.
There's always a risk with any procedure. However, spaying/neutering in cats generally has long term health benefits, is low risk, and generally the positives outweigh the negatives with the vast majority of cats suffering no health problems from spaying/neutering (e.g. unwanted kittens being put down, overpopulation of feral cats, prevention of certain types of cancer) and indeed benefitting from longer healthier life. Declawing on the other hand has no benefits whatsoever. "Other people spay/neuter" is not a justification either for amputating the front part of a cat's paws, and if you think it is or if you think it's equivalent, there's really no point continuing this conversation.
do you see a difference in a vasectomy versus cutting off all your fingers? can you guess which is an extremely common elective surgery and which is shockingly stupid and horrifying?
Big part of cats life is being able to climb stuff and hunt rodents and stuff and they cant to that anymore, also sometimes they can hardly walk. Cats are people too!
[deleted]
Granted, my experience is only with one declawed cat, but this is what I saw:
By the age of 2: refused to use the litter box, because it got stuck in her wounds and irritated the scar tissue. (Sawdust, newspaper, etc were tried, no luck). Used heavy punches and biting when playing, since she couldn't claw. Constant licking/chewing at paws. By 4: stopped playing and jumping, no-one could touch her paws By 7: started getting arthritis By 9: drastic decrease in wanting to go up/downstairs By 12: significant limping began, stayed mostly on one floor of the house By 14: stopped even climbing onto furniture.
She passed away a few years ago at 17, but I would never allow any of my cats to be declawed. If we adopt one that happens to be, that's ok, but we'd never elect for that.
Seems like you are trying to justify your belief that cats are just fine mutiliated. Projecting much?
[deleted]
I was refering to the part of your comment where you're talikng about me "beliving what I want to belive" if that makes it clearer for you
[deleted]
But its not the same. Neutering a cat is not same as declawing. On oftjose things just makes it not able to reproduce, and second thing makes it actually not able to berform basic cat things.
For crying out loud, I'm anti-declawing, but the guy you're replying to is at least commenting in good faith. If you don't have a counter-argument, just don't respond -- it only hurts the anti-declawing movement to have crap comments like this on our "side".
I'm sorry, but how is me pointing out that declawing has serious impact on cats life non argument?
Because he specifically said he was talking about indoor cats, and your only argument (hunting rodents etc) only applies to outdoor cats, and then you went straight into ad hominem.
Except it doesn't though. I know plenty of indoor cats and they constantly climb shit around the house or apartment. Or playfight you or other cats. It is very important for a cat to have claws in any environment.
Disclaimer: am from europe and am shocked this is actually real in the us
It is in heavy decline, states are beginning to outlaw the practice altogether.
It is not common to declaw cats in the us. Pretty stigmatized
The US is a big place. I'm in eastern PA and every apartment I've lived in has required cats to be declawed.
The fuck? Wow. I'm in Seattle and have rented lots of places and have never heard that
We often but off body parts for convenience, inlusing our noses.... To spite our politically-opposing face...
Some parts of the US actually eat cats. They call it "Chicken of the street".
Not true. I live in the part of the country that would do that, it doesn't happen (squirrels, yes).
The first time I heard about it, I thought they were talking about trimming the claws because the actual process sounded so stupid
That's what I thought it was, that and tail docking are terrible practices.
I don’t know anyone who has declawed their cat.
Wait - there is no fucking way that it is actually normal to declaw your cats in the US is it??
It's getting less normal, but that being said my husband and I adopted two kitties from our local shelter who were both declawed from their previous home. It's not unheard of. Sidenote: we keep the boys indoors, before anyone asks.
Ughhh. I had never even heard of declawing until I watched some episodes of My Cat From Hell and heard Jackson Galaxy talk about it. Then I looked it up and was so relieved to find that my country has made it illegal. Then I went to cuddle my cat.
Declawing cats has fallen out of favor these days. A lot of vets won't do it anymore.
Not sure where you live but in my state it’s near impossible to find a vet who will declaw a cat. That’s actually one of the questions I ask before I’ll go to a new vet because I refuse to support people who declaw cats and I don’t even like cats.
I understand that it’s a bad thing to declaw a cat, but other than the fact that they have no way to defend themselves if they get into a fight, what’s bad about it? (I’m not trying to trivialize how bad it is, it’s just that the only downside I’m aware of is their inability to fight.)
Imagine someone cutting off the tips of your fingers at the last knuckle. That's how debilitating declawing is to a cat.
Cannot use the litter tray, the litter material gets into the wound and irritates the scar tissue.
Changes the way they walk, since everything down to the knuckle is removed and it used to take significant weight.
Declawing cats is illegal in many States. It's inhumane.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You know how else you avoid that? Properly caring for your cat, it's not hard.
Seriously. I don't have the lifestyle or interest to properly take care of a cat and prevent it from tearing shit up, so you know what I do?
I don't have a fucking cat. Problem solved, no cats harmed. People need to realize that pets aren't toys, and you have to put some serious thought into how it will change the way you live before getting one.
So to play devils advocate.
You realize there are loads of unwanted cats that are put to death daily due to there not being enough people that want them and having a high population. Wouldn’t you rather a cat go to a loving home and have its nails removed vs die and be tossed in the trash?
I love my cats dearly and both are mixed breed mutts picked up from the shelter, they were destructive so I had them laser declawed which while not ideal is far less destructive than scalpel. They have the same carefree attitude they had before and are very well fed and cared for. I wish I could have gotten them to change their behavior without surgery but they didn’t care about spread bottles, being told no, scratch posts etc. They just wanted to destroy.
[deleted]
because it essentially removes the cat's "finger tip" bones, and your cat might be ok now but later in life will very likely start to experience pain in it's paws, and possible deformation.
Not only is the initial surgery painful but it has NO health benefits. If you can't handle a cat scratching your shit, don't get a fucking cat, it's really that simple. But no, cutting it's fingertips off is an option so, why the fuck not, right?
Spaying and neutering is a necessary evil. If we didn't do it, the overpopulation problems we already have would be disastrous, not only to cats but to local ecosystems. Especially males, because while you might think "well, i don't have to worry about kittens so why bother neutering?" if you're letting your cat go out, he'll knock up stray females, meaning you are directly responsible for those kittens, whether you know they exist or not. You contribute to the overpopulation issue if you don't neuter your male. It's also important to spay females for obvious reasons. Even if your cat is a house cat, they might escape. The only people who should own cats that aren't spayed are registered breeders.
There is nothing necessary about declawing. It's is barbaric and just because your cat seems fine, doesn't mean they are, and doesn't mean they always will be. it's not like it can tell you.
[deleted]
No because cats self domesticated and would have hung around humans anyway. If anything, is owning and spaying/neutering is the best thing for cats, otherwise they’d be seen as pests, and would likely be subject to culling or hunting. If you care about cats, being pets is the best thing for them.
That doesn’t mean you should be let off with mutilating them for convenience. It’s no better than docking dog ears and tails for aesthetic reasons.
Again, if you can’t handle your cat scratching, don’t get a cat.
That’s like if I got my dogs vocal cords cut because I didn’t like barking. It’s disgusting and you’re a shitty person and owner if you had your cat declawed.
In my part of the US, we stopped declawing entirely. We just implemented a new order called "Chicken of the Street". We feed cats in animal shelters to homeless in homeless shelters. A win win situation. It's quicker to skin and cook whole cat entirely than just some claws.
US resident here. I dated a man a few years back whose stepfather made him get circumcised at the age of 9. Fucked up shit.
Age 9? How is that even legal?
They could have said it was for religious reasons, but I'm really not sure.
That is why they reccomend it at birth, when it won't hurt/won't be remembered and has less complications.
Then how about don’t bother doing it at all at any age, unless it’s for serious health reasons
“I have a shitty inferior dick, therefore, you must have one too.
Can’t have a dick that’s better than mine in MY house!”
Jesus I hate the “circumcision vs mutilation” threads
They always read like those relationship advice threads where everyone in the comment section is trying to convince them to break up with their boyfriend/girlfriend even though they're happy with them.
"I'm circumcised and I've never had any issues with it. Also, my girlfriend prefers circumcised penises."
"YOU SHOULD HATE YOUR PARENTS FOR MUTILATING YOU, AND YOUR GIRLFRIEND IS A SICK FUCK!"
Other people care way more about the status of my dick than I do, which is....nice, I guess?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) hi strangers
Yeah the Europeans get real uppity about that one. I mean, I see their point, but boy are they relentless about how terrible and awful we are. When, in fact, it's really not an issue one way or another.
I think most people are upset about the babies not having a choice. I think the majority would be fine with it happening if it was a grown man making the choice. Not a baby being forced to go through the procedure.
Yeah like I said, I understand the issue. But they get virulent about it.
It mostly just reads like Europeans angry on our behalf for some reason. Most Americans don't really care
I think a good comparison would be if you got your appendix removed at birth. Not saying foreskin and the appendix are equivalent. That's just how Americans view it.
Idk as an American without a foreskin I don’t feel like I’ve been mutilated. My peener is fine and your mom can attest that my stroke is just fine (jk). I also think that calling circumcision mutilation trivializes the truly barbaric things done to women’s genitals in backwards societies.
I mean by definition of the word yes, you were mutilated.
Hey, if you don't mind me asking, don't you ever wish you hadn't been circumsized?
I was circumsized when I was a kid (presumably for medical reasons, or something, I didn't really get it and honestly I don't want to know. My parents are not really religious) and a lot of people think it's weird and mutilated and some of the more annoying friends try to make me feel like a hideous abomination for having my foreskin removed. I feel really horrible about it sometimes - one friend saw it in a changing room when we went swimming years ago and told others, if not for that, nobody would know.
In my mind I really don’t care either way. Studies have shown that women really don’t have a preference. Here in the US because most people are circumcised we don’t bat an eye when someone is and the few that aren’t treat it like a gimmick like if you have piercings. It seems alien to imagine foreskin being the basis for bullying. We have a culture especially as youth to respond to people telling others details about our junk with stuff like “your mom liked it last night”. Don’t worry about your penis man just go have fun with it
Thanks for the reply, man!
I'm a bit self-conscious about it, partly because circumcision is really rare in my country.
My peener is fine
You say this, but you'll never know what it is like to have a foreskin by comparison. So really, you could be much worse off and just not know it.
[deleted]
Well you know what who cares because I don’t have one and honestly I don’t feel like I’ve been wronged beyond not being asked if I wanted it
By definition it is. Bear in mind there are many forms of FGM, some of which are comparable with male circumcision. I don't think it trivialises it to group them all together. It is more to make people realise how bizarre it is to still carry out as a routine thing, for non medical reasons.
But it is normalised, they still work, and people can get very defensive about it when challenged. But there is nothing "wrong" with your penis. Just leave your own kids' dicks alone...
The reason is so old that people forgot the reason and just kept doing it cause it's what we've always done. It all started cause John Kellogg (yes, the cereal guy) thought masturbation was a public health risk. So he used his newfound fortune to raise an awareness campaign to convince parents to get their boys circumcised to keep them from masturbating.
Didn't he actually create cornflakes originally because he thought they would prevent people from masturbating?
That's the man, as well as the yoghurt enemas.
Most people who get it is for religious reasons.
Am I in the minority when I say I'm glad I was circumsized as a baby? They didn't chop off/mutilate my dick, they just got rid of the flappy skin. But I guess I can see people wanting to make that decision themselves... Though, no way in hell I'd be circumsized if I had to make that decision myself as an adult (because of the knife to the pecker thing, not because of the result)
For real, I have a phobia of sharp things near the ol' ding dong. Even looking at scissors for too long makes me shudder...
Not sure why there is pride in it, it is just something that happened. Similarly there is little reason for someone to be outraged they had it done, after all they know no different and their dick still (presumably) works. They'd be as confused if an extra bit appeared overnight as if someone uncircumcised had a part chopped off.
It is more than just a bit of skin, it is a protective part of the penis btw. It leaves scarring and the head exposed. Need to leave it up to the child really than the parents imposing it on them these days I think. There is no medical reason for it, and it does come with risks.
When I say "glad it happened as a child", I do not infer pride... I just meant I would not have it done as an adult, and I'm happy with how it's turned out.. Lol
when i was born i was circumcised. it fucking sucks ass knowing that i cant get the same pleasure as some people bc a bio dad that dissappeared and a mom on drugs decided that i should not get a little joy until i got adopted
To get federal school aid in the US requires you to join the selective service, which is the inactive US military draft. IIRC the military mandates circumcision.
I thought it was because America has a large Jewish population. Then I found out non-Jewish Americans do it as well...
[deleted]
I have to doubt that; I mean, even Kellogg knew things heal eventually, right? And doing it to babies, well, they aren't going to remember later.
I had one due to my skin growing inward and potentially clogging my dick.
Hurt like a motherfucker.
10/10 gonna let my kid get one. Cleaner, better looking, helps with sex. Im glad i got it done
'Let' is the correct word
Yours was a choice - great! It's not a choice for babies to have parts of their dicks cut off against their consent.
Well this is a topic for a huge discussion. So many things we let our kids do or dont do is because we know the benefits or danger of it. Imo this is just one of those things where i would say its better for them in a long run therefore not a huge deal if i let my kid get it without his consent
Well this is a topic for a huge discussion.
No it's not a topic for discussion. Your child is not your toy, you just don't cut their dicks off without asking them first.
i would say its better for them in a long run
No it's fucking not.
I don't believe in purposeless genital mutilation.
Why on Earth would it be better for them in the long run? Do you have any evidence that it is? This is not a context to be compared to 'we shouldn't vaccinate our children because we don't know the benefits' etc (we do know the benefits)
Stop cutting off your children's dicks! Letting your kid get circumcised WITHOUT his consent is forced genital mutilation. That's a fact, since you ARE causing him to get his genitals mutilated.
Well, im not mad that i had it and im glad i did. So. Good enough reason for me.
You had legitimate medical reasons to have it done.
Some people have a medical reason to have arms or legs amputated and it saves their life. Should we just do that to everyone? It has similar advantages like easier to clean.
We talking about removing skin, not the entire dick or did i miss something? That comparison doesnt even make partial sense
Fine then remove the skin of your hands. Same idea.
You’re an idiot.
Constructive. I like it
Cleaner
Why do people still insist that it's cleaner? I assume you weren't very good at washing yourself pre-cut if you think it's cleaner now
Why do people still insist that it's cleaner?
To make them feel better about being mutilated.
Considering i was 6....
[deleted]
Lel. The comparisons... Amazing
That is an almost exact comparison. There is a form of FGM which involved removing the labia, no debate over how sick that is. Women choose to have labiaplasty for cosmetic reasons, but they need to be adults to consent.
If cleanliness is a concern, removing the labia actually makes more sense than a foreskin in theory.
I am currently in a hospital for a problem that occurres in 0.4% of people who have an abdominal surgery.
How would you feel if your son lost his dick because you chose that he needs a unnecessary surgery?
Unless it's got problems (which is a small percentage of people) then it makes no difference to sex. If anything it probably helps more to have it.
How so? You get used to the high sensitive feeling on a daily basis instead just during sex.
Then again i never had sex with the skin attached so my knowledge is hearsay
Cleanliness is neither here nor there. If you had a genuine medical reason then that is absolutely fine, people have an issue when it is imposed on children - especially if one of the reasons is looks!
Cleaner, better looking, helps with sex. Im glad i got it done
You might want to watch this before subjecting your children to a completely unnecessary medical procedure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgoTRMKrJo4
Cleaner (not necessarily at all)
better looking, (depends who you ask)
helps with sex. (how, exactly?)
Those last 2 are incredibly subjective.
Not no reason. American women get used to circumsized guys and think uncorcumsized ones are off-putting. It's just another form of protectionism.
But to do it for no reason at all?
Um... There are reasons.
Health Reasons...
All of the uncut dudes make it seem like it’s such a giant deal. I’ve never once been inconvenienced by it.
I’ve never once been inconvenienced by it.
completly irrelevant.
How so? I would imagine it would be completely relevant?
I’m not arguing for or against it, I’m just saying it has never once negatively affected me. Everyone who is uncut seems to think that you literally die when you get this tiny bit of skin on the edge of your penis cut off.
The fact that it doesn't affect you has no bearing on wether the procedure is barbaric or not. I could find you people not affected by their FGM, it's still a disgusting practice.
Sure, but stop acting like it’s the worst injustice you can do in the world
Did I? Infant circumcision is an unnecessary cosmetic practice that has absolutely no reason to exist in the USA. You saying "I'm alright with it" when you actually had no choice anyway doesn't change that fact. It's also not a personnal attack, I don't care about your dick, I care about the practice.
It's not relevant how you feel about it NOW.
Your parents had an irreversible procedure you didn't need done to you as a baby regarding your genitals for no reason other than "it's normal" (and that's really only on this side of the Atlantic). Now you've normalized and accepted it. "Well it never hurt me so it's okay". But it's not. Imagine you're born with 2 ears. Your parents get one cut off. Why? Who knows, they just did. Now you spend the next 20 years living around other 1 earred men. Then one day you go to Europe and see all the men have two ears! Wtf? Why do they get two ears? And now you find out not only did they not get one ear permanently removed, but they can actually hear BETTER with both ears and you'll never experience that because your parents decided to remove one. For Normalcy.
You wouldn't have an infant get a nose job if they had a big nose and it wasn't life threatening. So why would you do stuff to its penis?
I'm circumcised for the record and used to think the same way you do.
Not inconvenienced, but your dick could’ve felt and performed a lot better if you were never circumcised. You don’t have a frame of reference for it, because you’ve only ever had a mutilated dick. It’s a big deal because people like you use their lack of “inconvenience” as an excuse to circumcise future generations and generations of kids.
Also, many people who’ve gotten circumcised didn’t get stitched right and have bad scars or etc and do see it as an inconvenience.
You know they don't cut the baby's dicks of right? A circumcision isn't very analogous to cutting your arm off
It's still super unnecessary and has ONLY downsides.
Damn, you went straight from the G7, to Kim, to me? I'm honoured, Mr. President.
To be fair, there have been a couple studies rib over whether being circumcised affects STD transmission, particularly HIV, and they've been stopped early each time as the transmission rates were so dramatically different that each time they recommended circumcision if a person was going to live a "high-risk" sexual lifestyle.
So it seems like it could protect a child down the road, but then that's probably a choice that the child should make on their own?
Source? Are these the studies done in sub-saharian countries with drastically poorer hygiene standards and access to contraceptive?
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
I wonder if that photo in your link could be a clue as to where the WHO recommends circumcision...
WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
I really wonder where that is...
Also, you should read this : http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news/gdg-male-circumcision/en/
Good to have a link that things are going to change even though it doesn't yet say how (specifically) they'll change. :)
I'm circumcised (never asked my parents why), and I'm glad I am. It's not like the person ever remembers the pain as a baby.
Well you're biased now and you can't change your position easily so it's ok to be glad. It's not okay to worry about something you can't control.
but there is no downside to being snipped...
It's not like the person ever remembers the pain as a baby.
Hear that guys? It's okay to do fucked up things to kids genitals as long as they don't remember.
You must be an anti-vaxxer as well, huh?
Nope. Just a person that thinks it's weird to take a blade to kids penises. Maybe you should think critically about the thing you're advocating instead of just assuming anybody with a differing opinion is "crazy"
On the plus side, we don't have that wind sock thing going on. I'm not upset with what I've got going on. Glad it happened before I was old enough to rationally decide wether or not to do it.
not like the person ever remembers the pain as a baby
They used to not give anaesthetics to babies for that exact reason. Turns it, it can really fuck you up on the long run. Who knew?
[deleted]
This comparison actually makes no sense. 1. I said I like it. 2. I said I don't remember the pain. It's definitely more comparable to either snipping your dog, or declawing your cat, not fucking hitting them over the head with a damn kettle bell you sick fuck.
[deleted]
I probably wouldn't because it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The fact of the matter is, I don't know what I'd do because I'm not in that position. I do agree with snipping and declawing. Yes, I know there is a huge argument against declawing and what it does to a cat. To be fair, declawing a cat is worse for the cat than cutting some foreskin off a man.
[deleted]
because they have authority over you until you're 18
It's a thing that has just been done so long that people don't know it's wrong. "Do you want him circumcised?" "Well, his should look like mine, right." Lol, it's even so bad that my mom asked the vetrinarian if we needed to get our dog circumcised. She was surprised the reply was that it would not be "cleaner" and in fact would be a terrible idea.
It doesn't help that there is literally no awareness about it. Like we all know smoking is bad cause we learn that shit from age 3, but I'll bet there are a good portion of Americans that don't even know they were supposed to have a foreskin. Hell, I didn't know till 5th grade during the good old father son sex talk when it was just mentioned that some other dudes have foreskin.
American here from a non religious background. I always assumed that I was uncut... until I had a very awkward conversation with a girl I was into back in high school. I wish that smartphones had been a thing back then so I could have avoided that.
(US) I am unsnipped, and was never told about it, made me a confused kid when I found out my dick looked different from everyone else
Right? I had a friend who wasn't cut, and I'm pretty sure that's why he didn't shower with the rest of the team after practice in highschool. Knowing our team though, I bet it would have been brought up and become well known by everyone. Highschool's weird yo.
This is the worst analogy for circumcision I’ve ever read. Circumcision isn’t cutting of an entire penis at the base like lopping of an arm would be. However it is taking the skin around the top of the penis off, more closely related to clipping fingernails. If you clip those you won’t get dirt under your nails.
I mean I get what you’re trying to convey but your analogy is bad.
more closely related to clipping fingernails
To me it's more like ripping them off altogether. Nails grow back. Foreskin doesn't.
This is the right answer
who needs finger nails anyway? its like the headphone jack of the human body
Good luck taking stickers off of your new purchases.
It's not really like clipping your fingernails though, as they grow back and aren't the most sexually sensitive areas of your genitals. There's no excuse other than medical - not cultural, not religious, and certainly not cosmetic - for fucking around with your kid's genitals that can't wait until they're an adult and can give informed consent.
It’s more like clipping fingernails than taking off your whole arm though.
Oh yeah, well it's kind of neither.
But still not a fair comparison.
It was intended to be ludicrous. The argument for circumcision "to keep it clean" is also ludicrous, and wouldn't be applied to any other body part. YOU CAN JUST WASH YOUR DICK! We don't live in the deserts of Bronze Age Palestine, when this rule actually made some sense.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but in the Bronze age, it would have been Canaan, not Palestine.
Do you consider gums to be part of your body? If you do then I present some of the work that Periodontists perform.
It was intended to be ludicrous.
this is called hyperbole
more closely related to clipping fingernails.
Holy fuck no. fingernails don't have nerves
Circumcision was introduced into the US by the same guy who tried to introduce FGM into the US. It was not for hygiene, it was to desensitize penises.
Guess all those Jews just waited until America existed.
America wasn't founded by Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
That was kind of my point, m'dude
Eating out all the time, and the very vocal and tribal opinions on thins like in n out etc
If I eat out it's me being extremely lazy twice a year or it's a special occasion and I'm going somewhere nicer than a fast food place
its because lots of people dont want to cook. before i was 16 i went out to eat 2 times. i cooked for me and my drugged out mom, it sucked spending 8$ on food for just me when i can steal a chicken and eat the same food for 2 days
I eat out all the time (not fast food) because it usually tastes better than what I am cooking, I live alone, and living alone with no kids means I have a lot of disposable income.
I do like 40% at home and 60% eating out.
same. I'm a good cook, but by no means great. Plus, Even though I can cook a lot of things, I can't cook different cuisines like Thai or Indian.
On top of that, because I live alone, I will take any opportunity to not be at home all day.
Cooking for one is a bit tricky. You end up throwing lots of stuff out if you’re not super careful.
I hate it. I just want to buy half a loaf of bread or like 3 bagels. I hate how much I end up wasting.
You know you can freeze bread (or bagels), then thaw it in the microwave or toaster.
Ya, but I dont like how it tastes or feels after defrosting.
Fair enough.
I with local bakeries and butcher shops existed here. Those are made for people like me :(
You could try making your own bread dough (in a breadmaker) and freezing individual sized balls of dough and then thawing and baking them as needed? Not sure how well that would work but currently I make buns with my breadmaker and freeze them. They still taste really good out of the microwave, cause home made bread is just so much tastier anyway
It’s a difference in perspective, that’s all.
Eating out is a treat for my wife and I. We go to a nice restaurant. Have a bottle of wine with dinner. And act like we’re dating again. We’ll do it once a week, typically.
37 happily married years so far.
Eating out is a treat for my wife and I
Eating out definitely has a different meaning to me. It is always a treat for the missus though.
Wow congrats
Thanks! I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life, but I was lucky enough to find a great woman to share my life with.
I don't know if this would be considered an issue though. It's just a cultural difference.
But how much time to you spend at home. When you work 9 hours a day on top of a 45min. commute to and from work 5 days a week, there isn't that much time to be out shopping and then preparing nice meals in the kitchen especially if you have children that need tending to or want to partake in any other kind of hobby.
Eating out all the time
This is hardly the norm. Certain demographics in certain areas may do this, but it's not a universal cultural occurrence. I think you'd be stunned at the number of and size of grocery stores we have.
tribal opinions on thins like in n out
That's mostly just code for "my region is cooler than yours." America is a massive country.
If I eat out it's me being extremely lazy twice a year or it's a special occasion and I'm going somewhere nicer than a fast food place
Is that typical where you live? I'm an American and I eat out about once a week - sometimes for work (I travel a good bit) and sometimes with the girlfriend for an occasion or a date.
Eating out once a week is probably what OP means. Americans eat out a lot more often than Europeans do.
I’ll eat out like 6-10 times a week. I work out of town most of the time and sandwiches just get so fucking boring. It’s expensive but fuck it right?
Also the fact that going to a McDonals is considered to be a restaurant.
No one considers going to a McDonalds a restaurant. We know exactly what it is, cheap poison that's there anytime of night or day with consistent quality.
Your obsession with the founding fathers and the constitution.
I mean, I get it, you've had some great mens and they pretty much built your country. I'm french, we had a revolution too, with equaly great men leading the charge, but we're not revering them like saints and holding up what they did as some sort of divinely inspired act.
Take the constitution, for a lot of people it seems like it would be absolute heresy to change it in any way, while my country is on it's fifth one (whithout counting the momentary monarchies and empires).
You can't amend the amendments! Heresy!
Except that one time.
non-Americans don't understand this, but there's a historical reason some Amendments are held above others.
The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are commonly known as the Bill of Rights. Together they represent limits to the power of the government that were originally supposed to be part of the Constitution, but the Constitution as a whole could not pass ratification with them (due to spats between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists), so they were omitted from the main body. They were added later through the Amendment process, which is slightly more forgiving.
Amendment 21 laughs in the face of that logic!
Take the constitution, for a lot of people it seems like it would be absolute heresy to change it in any way
I don't think that's fair. It's been changed 27 times.
You mean amended. The American constitution is still mainly made of your first one.
Amendments are literally changes to the constitution. Amendments are defined as "a change or addition to a legal or statutory document."
It is still the "same" constitution, you didn't introduce a new constitution, you amended it so everything you didn't change from the first one is still the same as it was when it was first written.
You're being purposefully obtuse. The constitution was changed. Full stop. A new constitution was not created, you are correct, but creating a new version of something is not "changing" it, it is creating an entirely new version.
I thought of it in relation to the french one, which had 5 new ones in it's history (Btw the left in France wants to create a new 6th one). And I took changed as in changed to a new one, error from my side. :)
No worries :)
Take the constitution, for a lot of people it seems like it would be absolute heresy to change it in any way, while my country is on it's fifth one (whithout counting the momentary monarchies and empires).
You say that like stability is a bad thing. It isn't heresy to change the constitution but I believe that making it difficult helps to insulate it from the whims of the moment. Look at Prohibition. That was a disaster and if the constitution were easy to change we'd be seeing a lot more stupid shit like that.
Stability isn't a bad thing, but your government has to be able to adapt to change. A lot of the things that applied 200 years ago don't apply now.
Though I guess the difficulty of changing anything in your constitution nowadays comes more from the two party system you have than anything else. It seems to be fucking you up at every chance.
Ironically, the founding fathers warned against the two party system.
A lot of the things that applied 200 years ago don't apply now.
It sounds like you have something specific in mind. Quartering troops should be allowed by the government? Some people don't deserve to associate with one another?
It comes more from the fact that we don't want to change.
Yes, the two party system is fucked up. I'm beginning to think that our political system is unfixably broken and that we should give something else a try. I don't know what though, as I see lots of problems with parliamentary democracy. Canada seems to do it well, but it seems pretty chaotic in a lot of other countries.
First you need to get rid of this first past the post bullshit voting system. After that I don't really know but anything that would give you more political choices would be good. Your politics are far too polarizing at the moment.
If we moved to ranked voting (which is going on in Maine right now), minor parties should naturally start seeing some success.
This is always my go-to complaint/fix. If we could change the voting system, it would eliminate the two party problem. Eliminate the two party problem and a lot of the polarization we have no would go with it.
The bill of rights has aged like fine wine if you ask me
[deleted]
That was a single person (Thomas Jefferson) who had very little input on the writing of the Constitution. James Madison, aka "The Father of the Constitution" and writer of the Bill of Rights, would have a very different opinion.
Gotcha. I know I heard something about it, but it was just in passing. Thanks for clearing it up.
Counterpoint: We make amendments all the time in Switzerland and so far nothing really fatal has happened, despite you know, actually being democractic.
Maybe Switzerland has fewer politicians who feel they need to pander to their constituencies.
That's in part because your revolution arguably failed. The founding fathers built what became one of the longest lasting governments in the world and the oldest current democracy. The French Revolution lead to a Republic, a dictstorship, a restored monarchy, another republic, another monarchy, and then finally a succession of Republics. The political project of the founding fathers was immensely more successful than that of the French revolutionaries.
oldest current democracy
Are you sure about that?
Yes.
Depending on your definitions there’s a few countries that would disagree. Iceland and New Zealand to name a couple.
Hell to me the UK parliament has existed as a representative democracy without any real intervention from the royal family since before your declaration was even conceived
Was New Zealand as a political entity even around when the American Revolution ended?
No but it was the first to allow women the vote, again just depends how you define democracy.
You're really reaching.
> Hell to me the UK parliament has existed as a representative democracy without any real intervention from the royal family since before your declaration was even conceived
Well, representative except of those who were taxed but not represented and decided they wouldn't be having that any longer.
Any representative democracy that still answers to a monarch is not a true democracy.
Which is why the Declaration of Independence was addressed to King George III and not Parliament.
Well you could say a representative democracy that only allows a small fraction of its population (i.e not women, Native Americans, black people...) to vote isn’t a true democracy either, meaning the US didn’t become a true democracy until the 20th century.
In theory yes, not a true democracy but then representative democracy isn’t really a true democracy when you look at the origins of the word.
In reality, I see it as basically a fail safe against extremists parties taking power by force. An extremely passive higher authority is a very small price to pay for political stability
How is any higher authority going to stop taking by force? That's no longer a political problem, it's an insurrection.
Perhaps we should /r/AskHistorians ?
I've never heard it any differently.
From a quick google search it looks Iceland has the oldest one (From 930 AD, but it wasn't continuously in use, even if it is now) and the oldest continuous one is the Isle of Man since 979 AD (It decided all stuff on the Isle, but it needed to be approved by the Lord of the Isle, currently Elizabeth II). But they are many ways in how a country is a democracy (is it one if women are not allowed to vote). The Guardian has a nice article about it. Don't know how reliable the people writing the stuff are.
I think the proud nation of San Marino would like a word with you.
Take the constitution, for a lot of people it seems like it would be absolute heresy to change it in any way
I might be in the minority, but gridlock is an American **achievement**. One person, or one party, cannot simply snap their fingers and change the law of the land, it has to be debated, slowly and deliberately, by elected representatives of the people.
It slow and dirty, yes - but that's democracy.
well, we have changed the constitution. 27 times, in fact. It’s just intentionally really really difficult to do so. First, both the House of Representatives AND the Senate must have a 2/3’s majority vote in favor of adopting the ammendment, then 3/4’s of the states must approve of the ammendment. 27 ammendments have been ratified, while many more have not
We’re on our 18th constitution and counting. Thailand.
The USA wouldn't exist without those specific men and women and the documents the men wrote. It's part of our basic identity.
France would still (maybe) be a monarchy, and very different from what it is today whithout our revolutionnaries too. The revolution is one of the most prevalent part of our identity but de don't revere it like americans do theirs.
It's just that it seems a little cultish from outside.
That's because your revolution technically failed, while ours is still going strong. I'm pretty sure most countries revere their founding.
I dunno, Australia had a pretty fucked up founding.
>I'm pretty sure most countries revere their founding
Not at the level present in the US (except maybe for theocracies and stuff like that). You have to admit that the USA have pretty strong nationalistic tendencies compared to most other countries.
Well you see why right? You see this entire thread? It's Europeans acting like they know anything about America because that's all they see in the news. The world is flooded by American exceptionalism and it's why no one ever rags on any other country so much, because they're never talked about. When everyone talks about you, it's hard not to get a big head about it.
Yeah, you're right about that, the big problem with that is that it seems like not much is done to curb this tendency. If an someone try to bring attention to that they are completely dragged through the mud by your media and politicians. From the outside this seems to be causing more and more instability and since the US have so much influence it's becoming pretty scarry.
I can see it, and even admit it. The real difference is that furnace had a very specific national identity before Bastille Day, Germany before Weimar, Italy before unification, etc. Drastic changes in society leave people till living in the same country afterwards, a dn again when they change back. The USA is not really like that.
You can't exactly say that about germany though (France you can I guess, Italy I don't really know). Before Weimar they had just (1871) gone from a collection of principalities and kingdoms relatively loosely related culturaly to the biggest land power in europe. A change on par with the american revolution.
Though I guess we had two world to curb nationalism in europe. Since the US wasn't reduced to rubble it didn't impact you in the same way.
The country would still likely exist, though. If it weren’t for people like George Washington the US could have easily gone the way of Gran Colombia.
[removed]
Not really since Napoleon created a lot of the institutions we have today. He's a pretty important figure (probably on par with our revolutionnaries) but only old reactionnaries revere him.
>the fact that you have failed in every contest of arms since.
Could you stop with that? WW1 we gave back as good as we got (even if we didn't begin on the rigth foot) and won. Franco-prussia we lost, WW2 we surendered, Algeria wasn't a military loss so much that it was a diplomatic and political loss.
In defense of WW2 France (as an American...seems like we do that frequently in fact..j./k) I honestly believe that if America had been geographical neighbors to Germany after WWI we also would have been steam rolled too.
The maginot line was simply backwards thinking to assume fixed point defenses (like a giant wall) would deter invasion.
if a mobile mechanized force ever plunged deep into the lower 48 states we'd have congress rolling over and exposing their tummies too.
The maginot line was not that stupid, as it covered every possible way of invasion.
The german invasion was succesful because it relied in unimaginable (for the time period) technological prowess. Nobody believed tanks could cross the Alpes.
It didn't cover un-powered airborne troop transportation landing behind the line. Just pointing out your usage of absolutes, and that my point was the construction was backward thinking, forward thinking however is only correct some of the time, and even if the French had applied forward thinking they might have forward thought something completely different than tanks crossing the alps and still been hosed.
The Maginot Line worked as intended. It was designed to force the germans to go around the large french border and attack through Belgium.
They didn't build it through the Ardennes because they saw that forest as basically a mountain and impassable for enemy tanks. And the germans did attack belgium as well and ran into the british and french troops near there as intended.
It was just the Ardennes that caught them off guard.
Also the germans invested very little into their paratroopers and any attempt to land behind the lines would be met with anti-aircraft fire from the Maginot and the reserve forces behind the front
Our country is very young so we treat our founders highly to cement them as our mythology. There were great french leaders before your revolution but the people who signed our constitution will have to be our legends and myths. As our country goes through hardships and even does things that we will regret we will always have the founding fathers to look up to and to strive to be like.
If you talk about your country being young as in the U.S. ,many other countries are quite younger than yours. Germany, Poland, nearly the whole Balkan, the middle east, Africa and others are all younger than yours by quite a bit.
Yes but there was culture there already. In the US Native American history unfortunately is ignored so our full story started in 1600s
Yeah, and that is quite sad. There are so many stories about the native Americans, even during the existence of the colonies/U.S. that are nearly ignored today.
These countries states and constitution may bei young, but their culture and history ist very old.
The Idea of "German" didn't even really come to light before 1800 and you had old culture and history, but you choose to nearly eradicate the former. And you still have culture, but it was brought there from other countries.
True. I don't think a single person in my country respects our "founders" since they were just dicks. Or our president, who is also a massive dick. This thing of respecting something just because and basically gloryfying it is ridiculous.
All countries in America are young and the USA it's the only one with that obsession over their founding fathers
I can't speak for the country as a whole, but I've met multiple Cubans that were just as fanatical as Americans in their support of Che and Castro.
What the hell are you talking about. My family in Argentina has just as much reverence and respect for Belgrano, San Martin, etc. And don’t even get me started on people’s admiration for Perón and Evita.
Mexicans have as much a hard on for Dolores and the other 'founding fathers and mothers,' yes we had females as key to our independence movement from Spain. We celebrate them every year on the same day in every single government entity from municipal, to state to federal level in Mexico and Mexicans abroad celebrate them in cities with a lot of Mexicans in an event called 'Cry of Dolores'.
It's not the same level of reverence than Americans have for their founding fathers, of course we have respect for the people that made us independent countries, but it's not the same level of reverence they have in the United States
You can change the constitution. You just need a majority.
To be fair, you cut the heads off of most of those great men.
They're not saints, but rather were brilliant wealthy landowners who tried to make their best attempt at a government during the Enlightenment. Read Washington's farewell address where he warned against the dangers of party politics. He was eerily prescient.
America's founding fathers had flaws but they did pretty well, all things considered. Once you get to Andrew Jackson the brilliance goes away, and except for Abraham Lincoln the US presidential history is pretty piss-poor until Theodore Roosevelt. We got lucky with land ownership in the 1800s though. .
It seems that the louder someone screams about The Constitution, the less that person actually knows and/or understands it.
That constitution worship is utterly bizarre to me as well. I only became aware Australia had one when people in the media casually began discussing whether it was worth re writing the preamble to acknowledge people were already here when Europeans decided to settle.
And why is the idea of changing it in any way so bad? Times change and what was once appropriate can easily be no longer appropriate.
It is absolutely ridiculous that changing the constitution is so taboo you couldn't even delete the prohibition amendment, just add another saying that amendment no longer stands.
It is absolutely ridiculous that changing the constitution is so taboo you couldn't even delete the prohibition amendment, just add another saying that amendment no longer stands.
How could we go about just deleting it? The only way to legally change the constitution is to amend it. When foreigners say stuff like this it really sounds like they think the government should just ignore the law when it’s convenient.
If you were to look into the mechanism for a constitutional change its actually pretty surprsing that by opening the door for one amendment requires hearing on pretty much any crap ass idea that can be brought to the chamber. I for one do not want to open that door anywhere near this political climate.
The natural balance and lost beauty of the founders was that the judiciary has control over interpreting the constitution and ruling on its text and amendments. The executive appoints the judiciary, the legislative approves the appointments, and the legislative writes laws that can be vetoed by the executive, but then can be overridden by the legislative, enacting a law that can be challenged by anyone as being unconstitutional.
Outside the cult of public opinion no one branch can get too crazy without the others reigning them in or being conspirators.
my liberties are very safe (though not immune to attack) no matter what leftist/rightist kook sits atop the iron throne because of the founders.
And why is the idea of changing it in any way so bad? Times change and what was once appropriate can easily be no longer appropriate.
Because I don't fucking trust the assholes running the country to improve things rather than making things worse.
Do you understand that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that it can only be changed by Amendment. So we cannot delete part of it, only amend it and supersede a previous part.
Congress cannot pass a law that would so this either since congressional laws CANNOT violate the constitution. They would need to pass an amendment.
I'm french, we had a revolution too, with equaly great men leading the charge, but we're not revering them like saints and holding up what they did as some sort of divinely inspired act.
Because your revolutionaries fucked up and started chopping off heads left, right, and center. Venerating murderous monsters is generally considered a faux pas.
Our Founding Fathers managed to avoid doing that and established a system of government which still works over 200 years later. Plus George Washington is basically considered to be perhaps the greatest man who ever lived.
The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”
“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”
Didn't most of those great men get beheaded for being traitors to the revolution?
The Constitution is held high because it represents the rule of law, and in comparison to other Constitutions, actually only encodes the bare minimum for government. Changing it should only be for cases where the American people all feel strongly about one thing in the same way.
Also one thing to consider is that the US uses the British system of common law, which means judicial decisions have implications on how the law is interpreted in the future. Our society rests on these decisions so changing the underlying Constitution they're based on is a big deal
The Founding Fathers thing is likely just propaganda to that end. But the logic is sound.
Not necessarily brought up on Reddit, but plenty elsewhere: "What did the "Founding Fathers" think of this or that?"
WTF? Those people lived ages ago, and were just human beings, not gods. As a Dutch person, I never consider a political or humanistic question by asking "Hmmm... now what would William of Orange have thought of this?"
James Madison would be very dissapointed in what you just said.
In America, conservatives typically want laws to be interpreted as they were written (aka how the 'Founding Fathers' would have intended them) while liberals typically want laws interpreted through a modern lens.
Edit: Downvote all you want, but what I said is factual. Google originalism vs. activism.
Not the laws. The constitution. That’s a big difference.
My comment applies far more to the constitution than it does non-constitutional law
You’re not understanding my point. Interpreting the constitution is not equal to interpreting the law.
You don’t bring up the founders intent when interpreting a statute. You only bring up the founders intent when you are interpreting the constitution.
But even the constitution is not a holy document. It was written a long time ago and might not reflect todays society and might even be flawed.
Im not saying the constitution is a holy document. And the document itself has mechanisms by which you can change the substance of the document. So even the founders contemplated it could have changes.
What was being said here is different. Poster was talking about theories of constitutional interpretation.
But then I'm still confused why people keep talking about the founding fathers.
I mean I don’t know in what context it’s confusing you. When it comes to constitutional interpretation or just general chatting about the founding fathers?
For the latter it could be historical. Like another poster said every country talks about its foundation in a glorified view.
When it comes to the former it’s just a debate that justices and legal scholars have about the ‘proper way’ to interpret the constitution according to their particular line of reasoning. To give you an example, what does a “cruel and unusual punishment” mean in the context of the eight amendment? A textualist would argue that the death penalty for example would not be cruel and unusual because it was commonly practiced in the time of the founding fathers. But someone arguing via moral reasoning might state, for example, that the terms used in the fifth amendment (life, liberty and property) means that the constitution contemplates a greater respect for life and reading the whole text in concert would mean that the death penalty is cruel and unusual.
This debate is one that is constantly ongoing, in the end the constitution means whatever a majority of justices says it means. But the debates on how they reach their decisions are always interesting.
This isn’t really intended as an insult, but the American Founding Fathers continue to be relevant political philosophers. William of Orange led a revolution against the Spanish but he wasn’t exactly a political thinker with important ideas to talk about. That being said, I wouldn’t mind a Dutch person venerating their national heroes, as long as they stand for something good. I think national heroes are a good way to bring people together around common values, like a love of liberty. For example in Poland people like Lech Walesa are good for the average person to know that their country has a history of fighting against tyranny for liberty.
Maybe William of Orange is not a good comparison, but we do have our own declaration of independence - Het Plakkaat van Verlatinghe - and parts of the U.S. Declaration are a near literal translation of the Plakaat. Considering that, I would say it is a little bit rude to say that our ' founding fathers' have no relevant political thoughts to bring to the table anymore. Still not wondering what the writers of the Plakaat thought about current things though....
I actually went back and read the Act of Abjuration (sorry I’m not fluent enough to spell those words yet, maybe some day) and it does contain some very similar ideas, especially about the right of the people to find a new prince, but it is not quite the same. Perhaps they did draw some inspiration from it, that is a question for historians to answer not me.
I was actually not aware of that piece of Dutch history, and I apologize. However if those authors aren’t well known in the Netherlands I don’t see why they shouldn’t be revered.
I don’t think most Americans stop, look at a policy, and think about what Washington or Jefferson or Madison thought about it (they had their disagreements too). But for more broad strokes we see it as important. Like what would they have thought about how powerful the president is without Congress being able to stop him? Or the power of the courts? Like to see how we’ve strayed from the original intent of the country. Unlike most countries that have some predetermined ethnic or cultural unity, US national identity was built up since the 1700s and really only becoming apparent in the 1800s, so given how central the founding of the country is to our identity we look to it a lot.
Being anti-education. I've never seen anywhere else where educated people are derided and experts are disregarded to such an extent.
Could you elaborate?
[deleted]
Let's not forget people who don't believe in evolution.
These are all vocal minorities. There isn’t a huge percent of the population that believes that crap. I find these groups to be utterly ridiculous. The fact that people follow C list celebrities’ advice over trained physicians is insane. I feel like Flat earthers have gotta be trolling, right?
My school district put stickers in all of our bio textbooks that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact".
My cousin was a bio teacher, who also believes that Jesus lived at the same time as dinosaurs. This isn't some fringe thing from just listening to the uneducated.
Thats really unfortunate. I have heard a big portion of the south has completely different text books than the rest of the country. My wording was incorrect.
[deleted]
Exactly. It's way more widespread that people think. Everyone often forgets that the US is HUGE and much of it rural. Sometimes people's sole point of reference/contact with the outside world is Facebook or whatever, so once they go down the anti-vaxxx rabbit hole, let's say, the algorithms in Facebook give them more like minded content that reinforces those types of world views. I've watched intelligent, college educated, people, both rural and in cities convince themselves that their education and science is fake and that essential oils are the key to health and vaccines are the biggest hoax in human history. Not to mention flat earthing, Hillary conspiracies, misconceptions about immigrants. It is very common unfortunately. In states like where I'm from in Michigan, the education system is so awfully warped by the School of Choice laws and the laws that allow private schools to obtain state funding it is scary. These private schools wrangle state funds and then provide good educations, but they aren't regulated, so the kids may be great at math or whatever, but they are also learning about creationism or revisionist history that downplays the horrors of slavery. It's alarming.
You're government are climate change deniers. It's hardly that small of a minority.
I was more referring to the two examples I commented on. I also think most people don't deny climate change and its very unfortunate that the government denies proven science.
I was talking to some friends the other day when it came up that they don't believe in climate change. These are people I considered to be pretty smart too and it was kind of a scary moment that they bought in to that
I'm not sure. There's a decently popular line of thought in right win circles that view colleges and universities as propaganda machines.
College does seem to have changed since I went from 03-07. With that said I think the majority of college is probably the same. There just seems to be more outspoken professors and students now.
The folks who generally deride the “coastal elite” are quite widespread.
Anti-intellectualism is killing America.
Google "anti intellectualism america" for more if you're interested.
I know places in the rust belt are fairly anti education.
It's become part of the political polarization of the country, just like everything else.
Wow - that's a crazy read.
Australia is a bit like that.
It's very much a blue collar culture, where tradesmen are glorified beyond belief.
I think that Americans distrusting the concept of experts knowing better can be good and bad. Sometimes, for technical issues like medicine, science, etc. we need to trust experts. However, there comes a point where experts think they are capable of making important economic decisions for individuals based on statistics that never perfectly reflect individual reality. Here that mistrust is pretty helpful.
yeah, sadly that is the same in my country, so it is very relatable.
It's not brought up frequently, but sometimes I wonder how the death penalty can still be a thing in a civilised western country like the USA. I really don't get it.
[deleted]
Honestly, I don't think anyone is really for it because they think it's a deterrent. They vote for it to address the impulse of "That guy's a monster. He should be shot!" Or fried, etc.
Oh it's not a deterrent. Someone that rapes and kills other people isn't going to stop for the death penalty. They should be killed though, in my opinion.
“They should be killed” generalizes these people in a way that is dehumanizing. If you see them as people and learn the story of how they got to be on death row youll probably wont want to kill them all i guess. Some are victims themselves, some are innocent. Some are mentally handycapped. Some are so sick and sorry about their own deeds that letting them live might be more punishing than death. Having an opinion on people you dont know is a tricky thing.
The entire American prison system is built around dehumanizing prisoners of all kinds and treating them as something less than those not in prison. It's pretty terrible.
There are certain acts, that through doing, you have established yourself as sub-human. There is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing someone for what they are.
Exactly why we kill monsters. I cannot believe that the Norwegian shooter will get out of jail.
What if someone executed your entire family? I think it's fair to the victims. An eye for an eye.
That is not what people are generally executed for. This is real life not some fantasy novel. Most people there killed other prisoners or where involved in drugs disputes. Just messed up people in a harsh situation doing stupid things.
There are innocent people on death row. Dying for this strange belief in revenge.
Source : https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
I know. I'm just saying for extreme circumstances, I'm for the death penalty. School shootings, terrorist attacks, serial killers, etc.
You have to understand that the judicial system is not perfect. Around 1 in 25 death row inmates are estimated to be wrongful convicted. You have to know that if you support the right for the state to kill, you are personally admitting that it is more important to kill culprits than to save innocents.
And this is without even starting to talk about if we should execute the actual culprits.
Yes.
Not to mention its more expensive to give the death penalty than it is to imprison for life.
I'm not for death pentalties but I just gotta say if you're going to kill someone wouldn't it be possible to make that pretty cheap?
When putting someone to death they have to go through a series of appeals that can take decades. So not only are we putting them up for a long period of time, all of those appeals are taxing on the legal system
It should be. A huge shot of fentanyl would do the job painlessly. Instead there's an expensive three drug cocktail for god knows what reason.
This is not the only reason it's more expensive. Court fees are insane, a poor dude facing death does not pay for the court fees himself. This is why so many plea deals are offered just to get death off the table since it saves a ton of money.
Why deal with drugs in a country completely filled to the brim (yes of course this is an exaggeration) with firearms? A .45 or 9mm to the back of the head is likely to be cheaper than forcing a drug overdose... Put 3 bullets in if needed to be 100% sure you did not only maim him and it's still WAY cheaper than drugs.
"Hey John how was the weekend? Billy have that birthday party you've been talking about? Anyway I wanted to say congrats on your raise, $16.50 an hour now is some big cheese! Make sure you check out extra ammo before you head out to shift, we've got 9 prisoners for you to shoot in the back of the head today. Oh hey say hi to Mary for me!"
Could you expand on this more? I always thought feeding and housing a prisoner for life would be more expensive.
There's a large amount of appeals that cal last 10+ years which are payed for by the state + the cost of keeping the guy in prison all that time
It costs $90,000 more per year to house a death row inmate than a regularly incarcerated person in the United States.
If someone is sentenced to death, they have nothing to lose so they have to be kept separate and under more intense supervision or they're liable to kill a guard or another prisoner.
This is what I don’t like. American prison culture is about punishment, not rehabilitation, so death penalty makes sense. Can’t we, though, at least streamline it to be the efficient least cost to tax payers method? Until then, just life the poor sap. (I, for one, would happily take a painless cocktail over life imprisonment)
I'm 100% with you there
I'd like to see a source on that. I can't imagine the electric chair is that expensive to run.
The electric chair isn't in use anymore. Normally execution is performed by lethal injection. The primary issue with the cost of executions is the series of mandatory appeals before you can finally execute a convict.
The electric chair isn't in use anymore.
Not completely true. Old Sparky is still around in Florida, and still an optional means of execution. The last time it was used was in 2016.
Yeah but the damn electric rates in Florida...
I didn't know Florida used hydro-electric power, I thought they were nuclear and coal.
Some guy actually requested it recently, so it might see some use soon.
I'm at work but I'll snag a source in a few hours, but the tl;dr is the cost of court appeals and other legal processes
Don't regular inmates also go through appeals though? I don't think it's limited to only death row.
Appeals of death sentences are automatic, unless the condemned waives the appeals after a certain level of scrutiny.
For instance, Timothy McVeigh could have avoided execution for another decade or so for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but he waived his appeals at a certain point and was executed in 2001.
Yeah but the processes are so much lengthier when the death penalty is involved. When you're legally ending a life, you wanna make sure you're positive you're killing the right person.
[deleted]
They also broadly generalize other countries.
It is more of a life for a life.
You are correct.
It's not about murder rates. It's about disposing of them so we don't have to pay to feed and house a killer for life.
They do if you dont look at Crime rates but have a different reason.
If someone murdered a lot og people and were not sorry (Think breivik) you could argue it's better from an economic viewpoint to just execute him. Or you don't want him to corrupt others. Or he just doesn't deserve to live after he killed a ton of kids.
I am not saying it's better or worse, just that there can be "good" reasons to do it other than lowering crime.
It’s more expensive to kill people than give them life in jail usually. Leads to a ton of expensive appeals.
Not really - I don't want my state to kill people because tbh, we as a culture should hold ourselves to rather better standards than those held by mass murderers - particularly when miscarriages of justice are known to happen. It's cheaper to lock them up and throw away the key than go through the rigmarole of execution, and making a martyr out of a nutjob like Brevik will influence far, far more people than he can under supervision in prison.
PA still has the death penalty but we haven't executed anyone since 1999, and only three people were executed from 1976-1999. But we still put people on death row.
Americans get a huge revenge boner when they see a criminal die.
The human trash heap of a governor in my state is trying to bring it back after it was stopped here due to a massive amount of wrongful convictions being uncovered. It's mostly an election year tactic (his core constituents care more about fetal cells than actual live humans) but it's still worrisome.
On the other side of the coin, though... I can look up via inmate search the son of a bitch who murdered my friend and see him fat and happy and smiling in his recently updated mugshot, clearly not too unhappy with his life sentence; the un-evolved part of me wouldn't bat an eye to see him executed, but that's more of an emotional reaction than a logical one.
but that's more of an emotional reaction than a logical one.
It's nice to see that your rational thinking is you primary source of thinking despite the emotionals suffering you have to endure due to your friend beeing killed by this piece of shit. I understand how and why people support the death penalty, but it's almost always an irrational way of seeing things. Thank you for your comment.
clearly not too unhappy with his life sentence
If it is any consolation, he's probably a lot more unhappy than that picture indicates. He was just smiling for the camera.
As an aside, one consequence of receiving a death sentence is the inmate not being allowed to be part of general population in prison. A death sentence automatically means a higher security classification, and that often means solitary confinement, sometimes for decades. And it means not having access to the various programs (work, education, hobbies) that are an outlet for general population prisoners. I’m sure there are varying opinions on whether those aspects of a death sentence are a feature or a bug.
The logic behind most is that paying to keep guilty men alive for the rest of their lives at the cost of the taxpayer is immoral. Especially with how expensive it gets, not to mention the profits with the prison industrial complex.
It would be cheaper to kill them all. Unless you cite the studies where we take the most expensive approaches possible, such as lethal injections and so on.
Whereas a bullet is a few cents.
with the appeals process and how long everything takes, it is often more expensive to keep someone on death row for a decade than to have a life sentence if i’m not mistaken
Which just means death row shouldn't take that long. You get one appeal. If it fails? Guess who's going to be target practice tomorrow?
sounds like a great way to wrongly kill a lot of innocent people. Even with the appeals process we have it happens far too often
I do understand the cold logic there but at the same time, does cost effectiveness outweigh the moral quandary of (1) resorting to what can be considered state-sponsored murder, and (2) the potential of executing a wrongfully convicted person?
For my money, I think I'd rather pay my taxes and support the room and board of a guilty person than be a participant, however slightly, in the wrongful death of an innocent one.
1) Yes. No problem. If you're guilty it's justified.
2) That's the tricky part. But I'd risk it. At least the ones proven without a reasonable doubt.
The ones where their cases may still be open should be appealed, and perhaps postponed.
France was still using the guillotine until 1981. What do you propose to do with a 20 year old who has been convicted of multiple murders or other heinous crimes? You cant rehabilitate that person and housing and feeding someone for 60 years costs millions of dollars.
Well even the stubborn french got rid of it.
I'm not an expert or anything, but to me it seems that the thousands of inmates who were cought with a small ammount of drugs flooding the US prison system are more expensive that the few percent of murderers. If you can or cannot rehabilitate a murderer is not the question here. You can put them to work for the rest of their lifes to somewhat equalize the cost of their incarceration.
Anyway...I don't want to start a debate on the US prison system. My point is that IMO the death penalty is just babaric, has no positive effect whatsoever and shouldn't be part of western culture.
You can put them to work for the rest of their lifes to somewhat equalize the cost of their incarceration
Thats slavery, which our Constitution unfortunately allows
Actually the death penalty is more expensive that giving some one life in prison. I'd lok up a link for you but I'm at work.
Edit: still at work but yes it's true, because of the legal processes behind a death penalty trial. Believe it or not, but the legal process behind ending a life is more expensive than the cost of an electric chair.
That's a misleading statistic. The appeals process is what costs so much. Not the death penalty itself.
Thats what I had (evidently poorly) implied with my post. I added an edit in.
Depends on the procedure. For some reason we love to make it as expensive and inefficient as possible, such as with lethal injections and so on.
Whereas a bullet costs a quarter.
for some reason
Pretty sure it's to make sure you don't kill the wrong person cos, you know, you can't take that back. Appeals cost millions, then you still have a horrible rate of wrongful convictions.
But there are cases where they shouldn't be granted appeals cause its dam right obvious it was them who did it. Like Dylan Roof its obvious he done it, and if I recall even his lawyers didn't argue that he didn't commit the act.
Oh I don't mean the appeals. That's a worthy and necessary expense. Due process is a key part of this republic.
I mean the execution method itself.
Yep I don't disagree with you there. I know it's to avoid "cruel and unusual punishment", but if you've already decided to just kill the person then is a bullet any more cruel than the injections?
Not really. It's actually probably more efficient.
Lethal injections go horribly wrong sometimes.
Also, I feel it should be more objective. To our founding fathers it was normal to hang someone. If thats okay, a bullet should be too.
Otherwise the definition of "cruel and unusual" is always going to be changing. Hell, we now live in a society when even spanking your kid for discipline is considered cruel and abusive.
It can't just always be changing with the times.
The Constitution's a living document though. I think there's a strong argument to be made that you shouldn't slavishly follow something written a couple centuries ago because, as you say, society moves on. If we have the technology to kill someone painlessly, then that should be used. Hanging was probably the most humane way to do it back then (at least hanging with a drop was).
The main cost are the appeals not the execution itself
My post wasnt clear but I meant the cost of the legal processes, not the actual execution.
Can't possibly be true. Life in prison could be 60 years or it could be 5.
I would think it would be obvious if u include the court process. I was just talking about prison costs. I would hazard a guess that almost every single death penalty case goes to trial and appeals process. How many times do you think criminals are offered life in prison if they plead guilty or death penalty of they go to trial?
Apologies, my implications were the cost of the legal processes, not the execution.
I think it's the appeals process costs millions that makes it costly.
Why are you assuming they can't be rehabilitated?
Can you rehabilitate someone who rapes and murders children? I've not seen any evidence of that.
So by your logic, a lack of evidence = impossibility?
So ancient civilizations were correct in saying that the earth is the center of the universe, simply because they lacked the ability to gather the evidence to prove otherwise?
No, I mean there is more evidence supporting that they cannot be helped than that they can.
For example:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured%3famp
You sound just like a priest from 500 years ago.
"The earth isn't the center of the universe? Well, I've not seen any evidence of that."
There isn't evidence of anything until we first try.
Some acts ate too heinous. Are you suggesting there is a situation in which a convixted serial killer/rapist could be reintroduced into society?
Why do you think there isn't?
Someone who laughs in court over murdering two police officers probably can't be rehabilitated, happened in California recently.
Ad why do you think so? Have you at all studied anthropology, sociology or psychology to determine if there is evidence for such a radical opinion? Are you qualified to have an opinion that has such far-reaching consequences for society?
Probably not.
do people in other countries really think any crime can forgiven?
People in other countries have enough education to not assume. Instead, we keep trying. Like most great humans have thought, from Galileo to Einstein, a lack of evidence does not predict impossibility.
So your solution is to spend even more money?
The death penalty barely cost anything at all.
Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population.
Source: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
"case level costs". These are court costs. Not death penalty costs. It's a misleading stat. I am talking about the death penalty. Not the court costs.
Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population.
And then when you inevitably kill an innocent person you have that, too.
Also, the actual process of killing them is expensive due to chemical regulations.
Again. They only stay in prison so long because of the back log of the appeals process. All the costs you think are caused by the death penalty are actually caused by the expensive and inefficient court system. Not the death penalty.
Your whole arguement is based arounf inefficiency of the system.
There is nothing preventing the system from being optimized.
Civilised.....laughs in western
It's a very deeply vindictive country.
Lots of countries including western ones have majorities where the death penalty is supported, the americans arent really unique in that sense.
People who molest and torture kids don't deserve life. How is that uncivilized?
Don't you know? Killing is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the crimes. I scoff at the Nuremburg trails. They were people too.
I've posted this below, but ignoring issues of morality, legal execution is a terrible mismanagement of finances.
The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures.
The death penalty, public sex offender registry, and etc are just there to keep stupid people calm/ happy, simple as that.
Yeah sorry nope I support the death penalty. I dont think someone who laughs in court over murdering two police officers deserves to live, not only do they pose a continued threat to all other inmates in the prison they pose a threat to prison staff people just trying to make a living and support their families. Sorry the idiot drug smuggler shouldn't have to bunk with someone who has no respect for human life.
Some fuckers need to die.
We even have states that have the death penalty but don't even use it because it's 50/50. California is one of them. I read Washington state has been trying to get rid of theirs.
Also with capital punishment, you get more restricted things in prison and limited access to things behind bars so the jurors may vote for capital punishment so you get less privileges even if they don't believe in the death penalty. So that is why it's also 50/50.
It's not the death as most people think. It's the waiting 2 to 3 years knowing that you are going to die at a certain point.
Think about that.
If I were a known clairvoyant, how much money could I extort from you to not tell you the exact time and date of your death?
The public favors the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. Being a democracy... we execute people for those crimes.
For some people I think it is justified
I think part of it comes from the notion that it is cheaper to execute someone than to jail them for life, which might be relevant if it weren't totally false.
One of the reasons Bernie Sanders had my support was his desire to eliminate the death penalty while Clinton was still supporting it, despite numerous wrongly convicted people serving time.
So a politician in my state is running a platform to enact the death penality for an illegal immigrant who commits murder and claims justice is white and black
What's wrong with the death penalty? Pedophiles with no hope of recovery should just be put out of their misery. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to keep someone in a maximum security facility. I think it is is actually MORE humane to end the criminals life rather than keep them in solitary confinement / high security their whole lives.
Some people have no fix :(
I'm for the death penalty for mass shooters or killers who are 100 percent guilty/confess.
Because some people just need to be wiped off the planet. People like murderers and sexual offenders need to be executed when evidence is properly found against them.
how the death penalty can still be a thing in a civilised western country like the USA. I really don't get it.
It's the balance between taking a criminal who might be sentenced for 5 life sentences, and therefore will never be released, and looking after him (food, bed, board) for 30 years, or simply removing him from the system. I am actually for the death penalty in specific situations.
Our entire criminal justice system is so messed up. They have predicted something like 3k people are sitting in prisons that were WRONGFULLY convicted. We treat our criminals as if they are not human beings and then wonder why prison seems to be a revolving door for people. Solitary confinement has been proven to do MUCH MORE DAMAGE than anything else, yet they continue to use it. (Humans are not meant to be left alone in a tiny room without contact with other humans.)
[deleted]
The ethos should be niether or those.
When we discussed capital punishment in school we were asked if we think that dying is really more of a punishment than a life in a cell. Class got pretty quiet, pretty fast.
It's not about punishment, it's really about getting rid of the burden and danger from society.
You can lock him up in jail where he won't hurt anybody else, but will cost millions.
Or you can fire a 25 cent bullet at him and neutralize the criminal and save taxpayer money.
Or you can fire a 25 cent bullet at the wrong person and do damage beyond financial repair. Can't put a prize on an innocent mans life, can you?
Dylan Roof isn't innocent its extremely clear he is not innocent. He should have been executed already.
TBF, he wouldn't have much of a life after years in prison anyways, innocent or not.
I am a burger, and I support the death penalty. The prison industry is INSANE in the US, and I prefer that murderers die instead of make evil people wealthier. Slave labor is alive and well in the US.
The fact that prisons are seen as an industry is insane. Privatized prisons have absolutely zero incentive to rehabilitate the inmates as they want them back.
I'm always really curious about this American ability to be all about independence and freedom from tyranny / overreaching government, but then also support allowing the state to literally murder US citizens if it wants to.
This isn't aimed at you at all, as I have no idea how patriotic a burger you are, but isn't that weird?
"I am a burger"
Like huh a hamburger?
child of god emperor trump's holy land
I mean, they make people rich either way. If the death penalty was quicker, it would be better. Last time I checked, you spend an average of 15 years on death row.
Make the death penalty harder to get handed down, but when it does, shoot the person out back.
So much wrong with everything you just said.
And in the case of a mistrial? Incorrect evidence? Falsification? Corruption?
You can't bring people back from the dead. If that was your sister, or mother, how would you feel?
I like that logic!
Afaik max security inmates on death row don't work at all. More like the little guys who got busted for posession are the ones doing the slave labor. Not sure how accurate my information is tho.
So you have a problem with the privatization of prisons? I don't see how that's related to the death penalty.
Some southern lawmakers even use the # of people executed in their state as somewhat of a bragging point. Previous Presidential candidates have boasted about how many prisoners their state executes.
Lots of western countries have majorities who support the death penalty, like the uk or canada, its just that the legal systems are designed differently to take public viewpoints more into account.
There are evil people who are serial rapists and killers who deserve to die. Do you honestly think the Las Vegas shooter or Orlando shooter should live and potentially be set free?
"civilised"
Curious, why shouldn't it be? You think it's better for law abiding citizens to pay to keep serial killers alive? Why?
Don't forget they use it to kill mentally challenged people too
what I think is almost as crazy, is the fact that it costs more to sentence someone to death than it does to send someone to jail for life.
Because we like to punish people who murder. Bloodlust.
The US prison system doesn't know what rehabilitation is. So at that point, people don't want criminals to stay criminals, nor do they want to keep paying for criminals to stay criminals - this is how you get the death penalty.
"Civilised"
Theres only a really small handful of states that do that still, and its usually only for horrific murderers that have no chance at ever seeing the light of day again and only spending 60 years using up tax funds.
Mostly exercised in a few states
Not just the death penalty, but also schools that still beat children physically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment_in_the_United_States
trump is fixing that paradoxon
There are really evil people who don't deserve to live?
The death penalty is fine if the system is good enough for innocent people not to get placed on death row, and if a serial killer, rapist, or pedophile is on death row because they killed or raped someone, why should they deserve to be around and cause problems
Ehh...I support the death penalty for pedophiles (even if the recidivism rate is low) and serial/mass murderers. They shouldn't be allowed to live and there is no real benefit to keeping them around. Drug crimes and robberies and such should not have the death penalty attached. In fact, I really think we should change our prison system because it doesn't do anything for the prisoners to help them. We need a system that shifts the focus from 'punishment' to 'rehabilitation'.
It seems that everyone there is allergic to peanuts
I don't actually know anyone who is allergic to peanuts. Many school systems have enacted strict rules because they are afraid of lawsuits from the parents of the few children who are allergic.
Haha--right? The first time I heard about a nut-free school, I was gob-smacked. But it's pretty common now in Canada too. Maybe the NA peanuts are GMO'd into something weird?
Police brutality & excessive force
De-escalation techniques seem to be either unknown or just ignored by US police.
Meh, you’ll hardly, if ever, run into that here. The times where it does happen are in areas of the city that most people actively avoid due to high crime rates anyway.
I might be wrong but I'm guessing it could be related to the fact that so many people who worked in the army later turn into cops and carry with them that military training that is not fit with dealing with local populace.
Thanks happens way more everywhere else than it does here.
I never heard about police brutality in Scandinavia and even in Germany it is quite rare (only when there are VERY big protests like G20 or sometimes in Bavaria, but nearly never outside of that). And excessive force, the German police shot in 2011 only 85 shots against people and most of them were warning shots, meanwhile a SWAT team can shoot thrice the ammunition in one mission.
Those are small parts of Europe and if we look at small parts of America it will look like that too. But Eastern Europe, Spain, France, Italy have all had far worse police brutality issues than compared to the US.
Bullshit
Eastern Europe is notrious fo police brutality. Spain has the whole Catalonia thing going on with the police straight up abusing the protestors.
[deleted]
True. Any person on the street can be armed and have the intent to kill you at any given time. You just won't know it until it's too late, unfortunately.
That's exactly the issue you get with decades of building up an entire culture around guns. I saw the video of the officer shooting multiple times at this dude he had pulled over, because the guy reached for something. The officer sinply had no way to tell if he was in danger, and afterwards he got shit from everyone, they said "
-Front page today had a post about a woman having to give birth to her rapist' child because she couldn't afford an abortion.
-Religion is at best frowned upon in most of Europe.
-Paying out of pockets for an education. Everything is 'free' here. Granted we pay like 50% taxes but our minimum wage is very high and few complain. I'll happily pay 15% more taxes then the average american since it pays for pre-school, elementary, high-school and college + infinite free healthcare.
I don't know but regarding to someone as inferior/stupid while having respect for them sounds quite unlikely.
Just because you think people are silly doesnt mean you don't treat them with respect like any other person.
Hence the difference, you treat them with respect but don't realky have resoect for them, or how?
In my personal experience people in Finland are but curious about why would someone be religious... there are of course douchebags who call stupid to anything and anybody, but for the most part people are indifferent
In Scandinavia we have respect for religious people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid
If that's the general view in your social circles then remind me to avoid them. As a nordic person I've never seen someone who regards religious people as inferior who wasn't also an asshole in general. The worst I've gotten from a decent human being is indifference, as in "Live and let live" attitude.
"who wasn't also an asshole in general" I feel this explains a lot of people.
I think it is just more of an mindset, you just would never say that about a person because of politeness.
Sir, I logged in to upvote.
I'm not even a brother of faith.
Parts of the UK (Northern Ireland) still have abortion laws like in your first point. I live in the UK (Wales) and I cannot relate to it. It's barbaric.
[deleted]
Thanks for the link! My local MP is pretty good about that kind of thing, so I'll send her an email.
Please do! Mine is generally supportive too, but he doesn't always bother to turn up and vote on abortion issues. They need to know it's important to voters.
We're backward as fuck here. Gay marriage is still illegal like.
Our politicians are stupid as fuck and we only vote for protestant or Catholic depending on your community background. Like I'm an atheist yet I'm still a protestant.
Fuckin backwards I tell ye
"Is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants that ye don't believe in?"
Worst thing about it all is, that it's the same god lol
I completely forgot that you guys didn't have same sex marriage yet!
[deleted]
OP meant Northern Ireland
Gay marriage was ruled a right in all 50 states in Obergefell vs Hodges. What do you mean?
Northern Ireland is....complicated. Fuck the church.
Northern Ireland is....complicated
There's an understatement if ever I saw one!
Oh, absolutely. I only hope that the recent progress in the Republic of Ireland gives some sort of push to the powers that be in Northern Ireland, but with the whole issue of the DUP and Brexit, I have a sad feeling it won't.
Edit: there is... literally no need to downvote this. It's true; the Conservatives are relying on the DUP for backup with Brexit, because the last general election weakened the Conservatives' position so much, and so they won't push the DUP for abortion reform. That is my point. It is fact.
The DUP position is such a double standard. It's insisting the North is treated the same as the rest of the UK in Brexit, yet it wants a different regime just for them over the abortion issue. They are revelling themselves as the religious fanatics you see from the U.S. They can't have it both ways.
Yeah, but Ireland (the whole island) is weird as fuck politically. Hell, there are far-right organisations there that fly Israeli flags and Swastikas alongside each other without the faintest hint of irony.
Oh man, really? That's... that's a weird one.
Yeah. What happened was that the Communists came out in support of Palestine, so the Neo-Nazis decided that if the Communists were on one side of an issue, then they must be on the opposite side, so they declared their support for Israel.
I just. What.
Neo-Nazi logic is weird.
I live in Ireland, and I've never seen this. What organizations are you talking about?
It was a while ago (at least the last time it made enough news for me to see it), and it was the really batshit hard-right neo-nazi fringe that nobody pays any attention to anyway.
Has that not been repealed yet, or is it in motion? I know their referendum voted in favour of removing that law.
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are completely different. The republic voted on the referendum recently and around 66% of people voted to give women a choice to do what they wanted with their bodies. As the laws, legalities and politics surrounding all of this are still fucked, this will take a while to actually take effect. And there is a legal challenge from some cunt of a woman now to try and stop this from happening as she doesn't agree with allowing a woman to make their own decisions so that will delay things even further.
Anyway, ROI will soon allow unrestricted abortions up to 12 weeks, and NI are stuck in the dark ages about it, completely separate from the UK who have their own set of abortion laws and rules, and it’s not helping that the politicians of NI and the UK don’t really want anything to do with each other.
Ahh my mistake. I knew it was something going on in Ireland but didn't realise it was the RoI.
They are looking to use it as an example though and follow suit, or even take on the UK laws surrounding it all but Politicians and Religion screw everything up so thats not going to happen any time soon.
Yeah, I'm from England but I still get really confused by how our countries work. I'm shocked that NI can block people from getting abortions in England if they're from NI. Just gotta keep hoping for equality one day.
In Scandinavia we have respect for religious people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid
Uh....?
"Look at that majestic, dumb bastard go. He's really truckin' along, isn't he? Dummy."
I think he meant that they respect your right to practice your religion, but that they find the whole thing really dumb
its a condition
In Scandinavia we have respect for religious people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid
You should reread this statement.
"we have respect for religious people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid "
You regard religious people as stupid? Well gee that's civilized of you.
Abortion law in America is more liberal than most European countries.
In Scandinavia we have respect for religious people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid
First off, you can’t respect someone being religious, and then think they’re inferior because they’re religious. You have to pick one.
Second, thinking certain people in a group are inferior/stupid is the same logic racists and sexists use to justify their views.
Beliefs are a choice though, unlike one's sex or race.
First off, you can’t respect someone being religious, and then think they’re inferior because they’re religious. You have to pick one.
It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, you can respect someone's life choices but still think it's not a good choice. Unless you're treating them poorly or any differently solely because of their religion, you're still respecting their religion.
They are treating them poorly, by calling them inferior and stupid
This is a stark contrast on religion. In the deep south in the US, growing up as a non-religious person is extremely difficult. Everyone tries to convert you and "save" you. I had classmates cry when they found out I was atheist because they "wanted for me to go to heaven with them."
Keep in mind that the US, as a country, spends considerably MORE on healthcare (as a percentage of GDP) than almost any other nation (possibly all; uncertain), despite the overall quality and accessibility being less than many.
The "child of one's rapist" thing gets even worse. It's my understanding that, in at least one such case, the rapist sued for joint custody/visitation rights ... and he won.
You realize ofc the reason for that spending is the completely ridiculous prices US drug companies charge because of ‘liberal legalization.
Depends where, UK education is now like £9-10k per year for the course I took. I know USA has that price per semester, but it's still a big investment for a family to dump in just a few years. (not counting living expenses)
problem is the people who control our tax dollars are horribly corrupt and blow that money like its their weekly allowance leaving nothing for the important things.
The amount of tax dollars this administration was WASTED is so infuriating. Yeah lets build a multi-billion dollar WALL instead of using that money for litterally ANYTHING else.
We pay enough in taxes to get the nice things europeans have. We dont need to pay more taxes. The corrupt just need to stop abusing that money with private flights and weekly golf trips.
i hate it.
I agree on the education thing to a degree. Lots of good public schools aren't super expensive - and we have community colleges for a reason. however, the US hosts some very large universities, private and public. You don't hear about the smaller cheaper ones, because they're not as good. Since the US has better colleges, on average, than all other countries, you just see news stories about large private/public expensive colleges.
Religion is still a big deal in a lot of Europe. I lived in Poland for a time and Catholicism is still rife there, and it still permeates their culture to the extent that most shops outside of shopping centres were closed on Saturday afternoons and all day Sunday. I found that to be quite backwards.
Religion frowned upon? Where do you live?
If you think religion is frowned upon in most of Europe, I’m guessing you haven’t traveled much outside of Western Europe.
Religion is at best frowned upon in most of Europe
I see you don't live in central or eastern europe, or in Northern Ireland.. Sadly this is not yet the case everywhere.
-Religion is at best frowned upon in most of Europe.
It's really not that bad. I've been atheistic/agnostic until I was 20 years old and now, as a christian, I don't feel that many people have a negative opinion on me just for being religious. There are also plenty of people with interest in spirituality and faith, even if they don't subscribe to hardcore religious dogma. To be fair, Europeans are far more private about their beliefs. I really don't feel the need to go around asking people if they've accepted Jesus Christ as their personal lord and saviour...
I know you aren't the only person to mention healthcare, but I wanted to ask how the quality of that healthcare is. Honest question, not loaded at all. I'm American, and I hear about free healthcare and my first instinct is to question if that healthcare is any good.
For what it's worth, I think that's the biggest concern of most Americans who don't want free healthcare. I'd rather pay more for the level of care that I feel I need, than pay a blanket fee for everyone to get the same level of care.
Canadian here, so I guess I'll comment a bit.
From my experience, the care I receive is fine. My health issues have always been sorted out eventually.
However, almost every time I have had to wait, which in hindsight I find more than reasonable. They treat people on a priority basis, the worse your condition the higher you are on the queue. Worst wait I've had was maybe 2 or 3 hours but I just had a really bad stomach flu (puked a few times on my way there and in the parking lot) but it was because shortly after I walked in, there were 2 or 3 people from what I presume was a really bad car accident or something being wheeled in. So obviously they got attention first.
To my understanding a lot of doctors end up going to the US because of greater pay, which I imagine doesn't help.
I am perfectly content with healthcare here despite only having gone to a hospital maybe 3 times in my 20-ish years of life.
The irony is that we have pretty much the same wait times, even with our current system. Unless you make an appointment, be ready to sit in a waiting room for a bit while they prioritize people who need immediate treatment.
Thanks for your input, I appreciate it.
I imagine that the quality of care depends a lot on your region (and its wealth), in both the US and the EU. E.g., in Seattle or Stockholm I wouldn't worry, while some rural area in Tennessee or Italy might be (comparatively) sketchy. I'd also guess that the "range" in the US is greater, at both the top and the bottom end.
Disclaimer: I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about.
I have heard stories of longer and worse wait times, but I grew up in a smaller town (~25k people) with one of the larger hospitals for our region, so that might have been a factor. Only recently moved to a larger city (Toronto) and have yet to go to an emergency room for anything, so I can't comment on what it is like here.
I used to live on Cape Breton island in NS, and understaffing was a massive problem in the health system. Wait times for the community of roughly 50,000 (metro Sydney) at CB Regional hospital ER was anywhere between 12 to 24 hours. Two people died there last month, one being a dementia patient who escaped to the outside in the freezing cold (nurses were charged with forging medical records). Ive watched people with broken limbs linger in triage for 14+ hours. One guy i saw was covered in blood, they didnt even get him a cloth so he bled all over the seat and floor. A friend of mine had really bad anxiety and panic disorder and was actively suicidal. They sent her home 12 hours later saying she'd be contacted within 1 to 2 years.
Even if you have an appointment you can face long wait times.
That's a legitimate concern, but:
According to the World Health Organisation most of Europe has a top level healthcare system and it's mostly free (meaning paid by everyone with taxes, of course);
Private healthcare is still a thing in Europe, it is optional, but you can have an insurance if you want and if you have the money and you can go to private clinics if you don't want to wait for the most non-urgent things (mostly exams).
Personally I think it's great, though as well quality does depend on politics - e.g. at the moment funding is pretty bad for the NHS. I'm sure to someone who comes from the gold-plated, customer-focused private service that you guys seem to have, the NHS will seem a little threadbare.
However a lot of being British is accepting what's reasonable instead of demanding the best. Yes, going to A&E can sometimes result in a 4 hour wait unless your head is bleeding profusely, but hey - some people are in direst need. You'll probably be OK for a little bit. Oh hey, you have to wait a few months to see a specialist for a non-serious issue? Annoying, but again I'm sure there are plenty of people with more serious things who need to be seen first.
When my Grandma was at end of life we paid for her to go private - in an NHS hospital mind - just so she'd have her own room, dedicated nurses etc. It's totally possible to do that, kind of as a bolt-on, but of course that doesn't disqualify you from taking advantage of the standard experience if you want.
But really, what I think is always very hard to explain to Americans about the NHS is the attitude that it engenders. Cost is something that has literally never crossed my mind when my health is at stake. If I'm a bit iffy about a mole, or think my hearing seems a bit off lately I'll go see my GP. They'll check it out, refer me if necessary, and then it's all wrapped up and done. Public health announcements encourage you to go to the doctor if you think there's anything even slightly wrong, because ultimately prevention is cheaper on the NHS than cure. I've been countless times to minor injuries centres, had hospital stays, almost died when I was a kid. No bills, no fuss, no horrible choices about eating that night vs. getting treatment. I can't express how alien it feels when I read about other humans having to make those choices, or being unable to get treatment because of money. It's barbaric.
There's a good chance that me, or people in my family, will get cancer when they're older. And 99% of the available treatments will be there for us to take advantage of, free at the point of use. And honestly, that's priceless.
I can definitely understand the attitude change. I was raised poor, so it was ingrained in me pretty early that you have to "get hard or die." Not necessarily that dramatic, but that's the idea. Even now as an adult, I have good healthcare and I don't go to a doctor unless I think I'm dying.
I also just hate the idea of wasting time to go to a doctor for nothing, but that's on me.
I'm from the UK. The quality you get is entirely dependent on the people working at the time. Few examples.
When I was 8ish I was jumping on my parents bed, bounced off and impaled my ass cheek on a radiator spike. Went to the doctor who called an ambulance and got taken to A&E (the ER). I was seen within an hour and an unlucky but lovely nurse glued my ass back together.
When I was 15 I had a huge abscess in my ear which popped. I went to the doctor who sent me to an ENT. I saw him within a few hours, he sorted it out, went back a few times for a checkup. Easy, no complaints.
My mum fell down the stairs and broke her ankle. Ambulance showed up within 15 minutes. Took her to hospital where she had a bed straight away. Operation the next day. Nurses were beyond amazing.
Now for the bad. My gran had severe dementia before she died, was living in a care home and in and out of hospital constantly and she was around a 90 minute drive from us. There were numerous times where she'd be sat in A&E for hours, one time in particular was around 8 hours as they'd forgotten about her. She also managed to fall out of one of the beds once and suffered a skull fracture. Pretty much everytime she went in there was some issue. It got to a point where my mum told the care home to only send her to hospital if it was absolutely necessary because she'd been leaving in a worse state than entering.
Our theories are they didn't give a shit because she was on her way out already, or they are just a shit hospital. Neither are problems with the NHS, they are problems with a hospital and members of staff. The hospital me and my mum went to is in a rough area and has been nothing but amazing everytime we've had to be there.
However, we still have private health care and we pay significantly less for it than you'd probably think. For people who do want a 'higher level of care', the option is available.
Edit. I just checked because I was curious. Private health insurance for me, single 30s woman, is £40 a month with £0 excess.
Whilst undoubtedly not a perfect methodology, the Commonwealth Fund has assessed global healthcare systems twice in the past 7 years and the NHS has ranked #1 in both of those assessments, followed (in 2017) by Australia, and the Netherlands. The report notes that:
'the U.S. ranked last on performance overall, and ranked last or near last on the Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes domains'.
I used to work in Health policy in the UK and the general consensus is that US healthcare is arguably the highest quality in the world for those that can afford to see the best specialists in the best hospitals and whilst countries with universal healthcare can't always match this, they're generally very good in terms of treatment of serious/chronic/life-threatening conditions. It's generally elective surgery that suffers in universal healthcare systems (waiting times for knee/hip replacements etc. can be many months in the NHS), but considering the US spends twice the OECD average per capita on its current healthcare system, universal systems are indisputably more equitable and effective.
Cant speak for every country but Norwegian healthcare is top notch. Had to get my apendix removed in a hurry in grade 6, 40minute ambulance, 7 days in the hospital with surgery at no cost, or like 100 dollars at most.
Wow. My wife had hers removed, and I don't remember the exact amount but I know it was in the thousands. Similar care, very different costs. That's crazy.
Yeah its really nice.. in Norway its so trivial to go to the doctor to get checked out, you start taking it for granted till you see the contrast to for example USA
Statistics say: Pretty damn good. We get comparable or better treatment for far less, because of basic economics - economies of scale, particularly on the scale of a national economy, get you a lot of efficiencies. Remember, we're not paying for billing departments, marketing teams, salespeople, departments to negotiate with/for hospitals, accounting departments trying to guess what percentage of the ticket price will actually get paid and how to balance that with the cost line..... Each individual business isn't having to spend however much negotiating with healthcare providers to get the best deal they can, we're not losing man-hours to sitting on the phone for ages working out what the insurance company will cover, or worrying about whether a specific hospital is 'in network'....
Besides, we have private insurance too. I had it with my last job, and paid an extra £50 a month, in order to go to a hospital that had slightly fancier robes for a non-urgent procedure. I could have just waited another week. The consultants there all also have NHS contracts - I'd seen my anesthetist the year before in an NHS hospital for a different procedure.
UK. Depends what's wrong with you. During the last few years, my SO has had heart surgery and my Dad has had cancer treatment on the NHS. Both had excellent experiences. My SO got surgery from one of the leading surgeons in the world for the particular procedure he had.
On the other hand, I've had some pretty shitty experiences with mental healthcare, been completely dismissed after an IBS diagnosis, and getting a doctor/dentist appointment often involves a long wait.
Basically, if you urgently need care to stop you dying, the NHS will pull out all the stops to save you and it won't cost you a penny. If you have an ongoing condition, care is hit and miss.
There is a private healthcare system available if you can afford to pay for it. I've used it for counseling and to get prescriptions when my GP surgery is too busy to get an appointment, and it's not that expensive, although if you want surgery or something it probably costs a lot.
Yeah mental health care in the NHS is dreadful, it's hardly funded at all and there's still a huge culture of thinking that mental health problems are caused by personal weakness rather than a disorder of the brain. Waiting lists for therapy are months and sometimes years long.
There is definitely a point to be made about quality and perhaps the speed of which treatment starts in some cases.
If I were American I'm sure I would have the same aproach, the problem is that I'm white and priviliged.
I have no doubt that American healthcare is better in a lot of cases, but it also allows for people to fall between the cracks, especially minorities, i.e. the young woman who can't afford abortion or the couple who'll spend the rest of their lives paying of debts because they gave birth to premature twins etc.
That being said, I only had to pay $500 bucks as a tourist for a complete physical and MRI when I had to admit myself in San Diego during twitchcon last year with chest pains. I had travel insurance but I didn't even bother getting a refund.
I do find it interesting tho, that US is the only western country where certain parts (midwest) are actually expected to have a shorter life expectancy now then 30 years ago. I'm sure those stats are refering to texas or similar, but still food (and big gulps) for thought.
priviliged.
Check your privilege.
^^^BEEP ^^^BOOP ^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot. ^^^PM ^^^me ^^^to ^^^contact ^^^my ^^^author.
LOL
(midwest)
Texas
Look, I know you're not American, so I'll go easy on you. For your own sake, don't come to Texas and call it the Midwest. These people will eat you alive.
As someone who grew up in the Midwest (Wisconsin), and now lives in Texas, I actually think Texas is a lot healthier. It's a very limited opinion, based solely on my immediate environment, but it kind of makes sense. People in the Midwest tend to eat heavier, and subconsciously I think they (and I, at the time) bulk up for the long winter. People in the south don't have that problem. Instead, we're trying to trim the fat so we don't roast in the sun.
More importantly, I agree with you that our current health care system outright ignores some people who need it more than others. I would really like to see a healthcare system that covers all the basic necessities, and if you want elective surgeries or whatever you take care of that yourself.
I knew I was pushing it, mb :(
Nah you're good. No reason to expect a non-American to understand our insane regionality.
As someone who has lived in Texas and is from the deep south, Texas isn't part of the south either.
Texas is just Texas...
I didn't feel the need to get that complicated, but yes, Texas is Texas is Texas.
Fair enough. I get your point now.
I enjoyed my time in Texas, I didn't really want to leave when I did but life had other choices.
[deleted]
Yeah I guess unions never really became a thing in America. Such a shame how people are getting taken advantage of with no ability to organize.
In the UK if you earned that little (I'm assuming that you are responding to the 50% tax part of the comment and thus make around $1000/month or £800) then you would not pay income tax at all because you would earn under the minimum threshold. Due to minimum wage laws here, of course, it is unlikely that you would earn this little if you worked full time. You would still receive free health care and education up to 19yrs. There would also be assistance available to you for tertiary education (but honestly the assistance available in the USA to help low income students attend top colleges is better than it is in the UK). You would not end up with only $500/month, although if you did, it would likely stretch a lot further in the USA as the cost of living is much lower there than here in Europe.
-Religion is at best frowned upon in most of Europe. unless you are unlocky enough to live in bavaria
Nice ninja edit
Religion is at best frowned upon in most of Europe.
I'd say that in most of Europe, religion is more like a harmless sexual fetish: it's fine for people to have it, but it's really something we expect people to do in private.
Yea and guess what, in many US states that rapist could get parental visitation rights. Yep. It actually happens.
Front page today had a post about a woman having to give birth to her rapist' child because she couldn't afford an abortion.
Got a link?
I find that hard to believe that's the case.
Abortion is more illegal in most of Europe than in the US.
I'll happily pay 15% more taxes then the average american
Totally. I don't get it. We're already paying taxes. The craziest part is that people who hate paying taxes will also complain about that tax money being used to actually benefit people/help them. How the hell can you be against both?
Religion is frowned upon in Europe? I feel like most of the strongest Catholics I know are European. Also all schilling is usually free in North America up until college/university
I'll happily pay 15% more taxes then the average american since it pays for pre-school, elementary, high-school and college + infinite free healthcare.
Yeah. If they raised taxes here (UK) and could somehow guarantee it would be used for the benefit of society (health, education, transport), as a gainfully employed person I'd honestly say "yes, please take my money."
That's not even the point though really I suppose, but if a party's only manifesto pledge was to claw back all the avoided corporation tax they could, they could have pretty much any other policies and I'd still be tempted to vote for them.
Yea but I don't want to pay 50% taxes.
"But I don't want to pay your 40% tax in the UK so you can have the NHS"
"But you're paying more now on your health insurance, which comes with deductables, co-pays, and payout limits, than if you were paying the 40% tax? Plus you're 100% covered even if you lose your job"
"Yeah...... but I don't wanna pay 40% tax"
"Mate...."
I wouldn't say I pay more now.
For the UK, a good metric for how much the NHS costs someone is to see what their NI payments are. NI isn't for the NHS (it's for pensions and benefits) but the NI intake per year is about the same as the NHS budget, so it's a good metric to use.
The average salary in the UK is about £26,000 a year. On this amount, someone will pay £175 a month (£2,109 a year) in NI payments.
Are you really sure that a person on an average US salary pays less than $230 a month for absolutely full coverage, including zero co-pay, zero deductable, zero maximum payout limits and no additional costs for pre-existing conditions?
Additionally, someone working full time for minimum wage earns just over £16,280 a year. They'll pay just £78 a month in NI payments, and for that, they get the exact same level of cover as the above example would make. Do you think they'll be able to get decent insurance for just over $100 a month?
They make less and get the same service. So where is the difference coming from?
Economies of scale.
The collective pool of taxpayers. Everyone pays in, everyone benefits. That way, you're not forced into bankruptcy because you got ill when out of work, or because it was a pre-existing condition.
Plus, as covered above, doing so means that you pay less overall. I know for a fact that even though my contribution is just over £400 a month, there's no way I could ever get equivalent healthcare in a US-style system for that. And that doesn't even cover the wife, whose childhood cancer has left her with a number of what would be prohibitively expensive ailments that require different medication, that would be classed as "pre-existing".
You kind of pay for it anyway though IMO. Education is expensive as fuck and insurance is practically mandatory.
Not too bad if you go to a state/city college. Insurance I get through work and its not too bad either.
I'd rather keep my paycheck.
You're aware that the only reason they give you insurance through work is because historically there was a pay freeze? You get paid less because your employer offers you health insurance, and per capita Americans spend almost twice as much on healthcare than most other western countries, with similar outcomes.
Hell, you pay about a quarter of your federal spending just on Medicare and Medicaid. You pay more, and you get less.
Not too bad if you go to a state/city college.
Which is paid for by...? Taxes!
Locally sure. No reason the fed government should be involved in that. Also they aren't for profit so thus tend to have different goals.
[deleted]
Seems unfair to raise the taxes on the rest of us to pay off your student loans.
[deleted]
I don't really care about people having to wait for buying a house, having a family, or saving for their retirement. How you live your life is your problem.
As far as entrepreneurship, I doubt the people stuck in 100k student loans are the kind that would do good running a business anyway.
[deleted]
No one said all of those people need to get degrees. We have a lot of people with useless degree paying off huge loans on them when they would have likely been better served learning a trade.
[deleted]
You're assuming a sudden influx of 20 million right away. The current situation developed over time. Of people taking loans that they had no hope of paying off. Also not all people go to trade school to get a job. Some go through unions or apprenticeships or various other labor roles. Some get an education. My point is that if your chosen training/degree/whatever can't be paid off then its not worth having. Yea it could be a struggle that's fine, nothing comes free. No ones going to hand you a skill or a career.
[deleted]
Honestly I think the model that our parents grew up on that you must go to college is outdated. They beat it into your skull that if you don't have a degree you are a failure. We need better outreach and education on the high school level. Sure encourage those with legitimate interest in higher education particularly STEM fields. Provide support and education and a path to help students better identify where they want to go. Dumping 18 year olds that might not even have any interest in college on a campus and saddling them with debt for something that they don't really want is a major problem. We need to change how we prepare people for life before graduation.
[deleted]
Wasn't expecting this either tbh. I hear you on the taxes. Thing is we already spend on education (K - 12). I wouldn't mind spending more if needs be, but not before improving how it's spent and how we educate school children. I want efficiency and to reach the highest amount of people at the age where we can have the most overall effect, which I hope is the high school level.
I do think there is significant common ground here. Too bad we're not in the position to change anything and the people who are don't tend to listen to each other.
As far as entrepreneurship, I doubt the people stuck in 100k student loans are the kind that would do good running a business anyway.
You never know. They can't try since they can't take out loans if they are defaulting on their student loans to jump start their businesses if I'm right.
If they go to the grave with their student loans ... the US taxpayer ends up paying for it anyway.
My point is you should think 5 times before taking a huge loan like that. You better be sure that the career you'd gain as a result of this degree will make you the kind of salary that is worth the investment. If degree doesn't pay for itself then it was a bad investment. No interest in bailing people out on their Art History degrees.
They made a stupid mistake when they were in their teens so let's fucked them over for life?
They fucked themselves over for life. Choosing to take a huge loan is past the point of a stupid mistake in their teens. You have to be responsible for your own actions.
Not even if you made 50% more money?
Is the government going to require my boss to give me a 50% raise?
No but that would most likely be the equivalent if you did the same job here in western europe. For example our minimum wage is $18 an hour for unskilled labour. As it turns out, if you pay people enough to make a decent living everyone benefits. People spend more which in turn creates more jobs and more taxes. The result may be that you Don't end up with a national debt of +20 trillion dollars.
The median income in the US is higher than most Western European countries outside of Switzerland and somebody of the nordics. I have no idea where you got that 50% number from. You’re also not taking Into account the cost of living differences.
Not sure about that. I compared moving my job to London and somehow the pay rate there is lower then here in NYC. So I'm not too sure that moving to Europe would improve my lot so much versus the additional taxes incurred to provide services that I don't need or support.
UK economy is basically falling apart but London Is insanely expensive. I’m sure if you compare salaries in the financiel district in NY that it will be higher or equivalent to London, but tbh I was mainly referring to lower middle class and unskilled labour wages.
Dunno what your definition of lower middle class is. I'd consider myself barely middle class but somehow I sense what you say doesn't apply to me. I'm not an hourly worker for example.
We don't either?
My condolences.
we have respect for religious people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid
Do you guys have a different definition of "respect" over there or something?
USfag here, I don't pay 35% tax from my wages. I would kill myself if it ever got that high. It is simply normalized for many people to pay that much. "It's always been this way". No. I pay my state and local taxes and both of my old/poor people taxes. Every single transaction in my life incurs additional taxes. I like roads and emergency services, but I take and keep every single penny I can because our federal income tax does not benefit the united states whatsoever. I don't want to pay for the comfort of our Empire's world police force. Most developed countries give their tax payers a nice graph of how taxes are spent. It's a black hole in the US for federal income tax.
So what if less taxes were allocated to things like military and a greater proportion was allocated towards things for the citizens like infrastructure? Would you agree with taxes more then?
Yes.
-Religion is at best frowned upon in most of Europe. In Scandinavia we have respect for religious people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid
This is highly regional in the states. The nation is huge. In Massachusetts, the opinion of religion is pretty similar to yours.
i mean there’s definitely not the level of bible-thumping evangelism as in places like the south, but massachusetts still has a considerable catholic community that is pretty religious
Blacks are at best frowned upon in most of America. In America we have respect for black people but they are widely regarded as inferior/stupid
False equivalency. Religion is a choice, or is learned via indoctrination. Race is neither. Science and common sense pretty much disprove most, if not all religions, to a reasonable degree. You can't disprove black people. Nice try.
same situation with people from the middle east in europe, except the respect part :/
The tyrannical rule of the iron fist of the Home Owners Association.
I understand wanting to keep the neighbourhood nice. But my God!
I think Reddit just likes to exaggerate about HOA, sure some might be terrible but as a rule they aren't that bad.
Yeah, the 1% of people who chose to buy a million dollar home in a neighborhood with a HOA really have it hard.
Idk man, I certainly don't have a million dollar home, but I do have an HOA.
Where I live (Kansas City), most of the suburbs have HOAs. My current $150k house doesn't, but we are looking to upgrade and it's hard to find non-HOA houses even in the $200-275k range. Houses built in the 1970s and 1980s you can find some non-HOA. Anything newer is very likely to be in a HOA. New construction it's almost guaranteed.
[deleted]
Live here for a couple years and I will guarantee that you will be scared of and resent these people.
That's what's horrible.
Naw
I'm not American and I feel the exact opposite way. How gullible people can be, they seem to believe everything their government tells them. It's like they are extremely innocent, or perhaps we're too cynical
In the US we have a 250 year history of fighting the man and not trusting those in power.
Eh, it's blown up way out of proportion by the media. If you're not involved with criminal mischief, you usually have a pretty good sense of trust with the police/authority in general. The most you've ever had to interact with one on average is getting pulled over for speeding. Then as long as you're respectable, do as your told (stay in your car), give them the paperwork and everything checks out, it's a relatively quick and painless process. The most outspoken people against the police tend to be from poor and high crime areas who have a family member in state prison for a felony of some sort. It's understandable to be against a group of people who take a loved one away from you, so I get where the "hate police" movements are coming from, but a lot of it is coming from not thinking people should be responsible for breaking the law. Or thinking that your third time in possession of an illegal handgun isn't a 10 year sentence.
. If you're not involved with criminal mischief, you usually have a pretty good sense of trust with the police/authority in general. The most you've ever had to interact with one on average is getting pulled over for speeding
Unless you're black, of course.
or brown, or Asian, or Mexican...
Asians not really. Speaking as an Asian-American. Asians have a good rep in the states
Once again, blown out of proportion. The thing is, white people get shot and killed as well by police. But it doesn't turn into a media firestorm with every single news agency on the ground with marches and speakerphones. It's people who already hate police and one of their family members or friends gets shot and killed by police (usually there's a reason behind it) that do these marches. So it gets massive coverage and black football players raise their arm and kneel. It's become an issue because it's been blown way out of proportion.
That's a common sentiment, especially with fringe groups (both far left and far right), no matter where you are. Both extremes will generally assume that authorities favour the other extreme. I've lived in 4 European countries and found a "fuck the police" crowd everywhere.
The issue is that when a police officer does something wrong, they very rarely get any jail time for it.
It’s not the fear that they’ll harm you, really, it’s the feeling that if they did, you can’t fight back and they could shoot you and claim distress, which almost 100% of the time gets them off. There were 963 deaths by the hands of police last year in the US last I heard, and that’s a terrifying statistic.
I’ve heard stories of black men at my university being harassed by police for being drunk and disorderly (they were sober) and getting brought in overnight, and they were totally powerless to stop them applying handcuffs to them. This brings up the possibility of hiring a lawyer, and spending thousands and thousands of dollars on fighting it, or just accepting an overnight in jail and a misdemeanor.
99.9% of police are good people, but that .1% can be brutal, and you cannot fight back.
Also, it does beg to be mentioned that a portion of them are former military, and have various forms of PTSD. They are trained killers who are routinely put in dangerous situations, and the US doesn’t cover our healthcare, so they can’t afford therapy.
There is obviously much more to this, on many different angles, but that’s the general feeling here.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to current events in the US, nor studied much world history, or you would understand that very much of it is justified. Not questioning authority is how peoples tend to become oppressed.
Big Mac woes
Every time you buy a Big Mac you set one ingredient aside. Then, at the end of the week, you have a free Big Mac. And you love it even more because you made it with your own hands.
Its always been about the cookies, hasn't it?
For what it's worth, I'm from the USA and have never had a Big Mac.
Big macs are tiny. better off with a double quarter pounder with mac sauce and lettuce
I recommend the Mcgangbang, an entire McChicken in the middle of a McDouble, best sandwich they "have"
Mass murders especially at schools/universities oh and pretty much mainly free healthcare.
Mass murders especially at schools/universities oh and pretty much mainly free healthcare.
I feel like there is a relation between these two things.
Finally!!! I thought I was the only one here.
As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a case of a school shooting in my country, so far...
Which country ?!
Could be any country in europe, last school shooting in germany was 10-ish year ago iirc.
South Africa, and you?
Australia!
Awesome!
we have lots of mentally ill people so
I hope this was sarcasm
in america there are more people than ever with psycological issues back 8 years ago when i got adopted there was never any mentally unstable people out in the public. now there are. its more in children but those children become adults
Ok, but here's the thing, there are people with psychological issues all over the world. The difference is in many other countries these people don't have the possibility to go and buy a gun to shoot people with when they get unstable.
The difference is also that in most countries this mentality ill people recieve proper treatment.
But it's unnecessary to argue and I don't know why I started this so It's better to just leave it.
I don't have data on that, but even if they received really shitty care they wouldn't be able to go buy a gun and shoot people as easily as they can in the US. Maybe they'd go and punch people at bars or something, but they'd have a much harder time killing people.
if they have been put in a mental hospital for mental issues then they are not allowed to own a gun. same goes for convicted felons. but if they either buy a gun from a friend that doesnt know about this law or from a gun show where i sincerely wish they would have background checks. then they can get a gun
So you saying all your school shooters and mass murderers are perfectly sane? I mean if they wouldn't be, they couldn't get a gun according to you.
The guy who killed 60+ people in vegas few months ago bought all his guns legally. Would you call this person sane?
But if guns weren't so easily accessible they wouldn't be able to do that. In other countries friends cant just go buy a gun for you / have guns they can sell you just laying around. I'm not saying it would be impossible but definitely a whole lot harder.
if you go buy a gun from a friend and commit a crime with said gun the friend will get legal punsihment too
Crime still happened though, it most likely wouldn't have if those people didn't have easily accessible guns. They might try plotting the crime but the difficulty of actually getting the guns most probably would've not been worth the hassle. I don't really know why I started this, maybe it's just better to call it a day.
yeah cya bro maybe we will talk later
[deleted]
No tornadoes? Lucky. That shit's terrifying.
In europe they are really rare. I am 23 and have only seen 2 IRL, and both of them were far into the sea.
I believe those are technically called “waterspouts”. I’ve seen one before too, off the coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico.
I recently moved to the midwest of the US from the east coast, and while there were a few tornadoes on the east cost, the amount we have in the midwest is unreal. There is at least one person killed in my area every year from a tornado, and dozens of people sustain property damage. The tornado siren sounds probably once a month during the summer, which means you have to quickly seek shelter. It makes you feel really hopeless when it happens.
It should sound every Saturday at noon to test it, too.
First Tuesday of every month around here (Illinois).
Depends on where you live. We've got a lot of flat land, mountains on the West end, and so the winds build up pretty heavily. Every summer in the Midwest there'll be at least half a dozen storms strong enough to form tornadoes. They usually follow a fairly consistent path, though, so if your home hasn't been hit by/near a tornado in a decade or two, it usually won't.
Hurricanes are one of the most terrifying things humans can experience.
I slept through my first but it had winds of 74mph it ever so barely qualified. The thunderstorm we're having right now is actually worse but I was 40 miles inland when that hurricane hit.
Yep. Had a tornado warning last night.
Trumps pretty easy to understand. He was seen as an outsider. A lot of Americans are sick and tired of these elite DC politicians who serve in government for decades on end. My aunt and uncle always voted Democrat until they voted for Trump simply because they saw him as an outsider not a career politician like everyone else who was running for president. Thats the main reason he was elected in my opinion.
I don't like him but I still have a feeling he's what the US political system needed in a strange way, like a wakeup call to the democratic party and career politicians in general that a sizeable chunk of people were tired of their shit etc.
And a wakeup call to the people who despise him and his every move, that a politician you don't like in power isn't necessarily the end of the world, and likewise to his fanatics that he isn't the magical solution to every problem in the country either.
So I hope for the good of everyone that he has some successes (NK thing seems to be going quite well which is great!) and elsewhere the damage of his less good ideas is limited or rectified by the next president, who if the parties have any sense at all will be moderate and reasonable.
Not american btw, these are just my thoughts as an armchair redditor.
As an American I agree.
The Trump presidency is a disaster, but the Trump election was a pretty good wakeup call.
The hurricanes have been actual hell on earth recently
Your community is indeed likely dealing with gun issues but unlike U.S. citizens, you're also having to deal with defense issues or better put... lack-of-gun-issues.
[deleted]
The illegality of owning guns just means that the good guys can't defend themselves. Anyone that would murder someone with a gun is automatically not going to care about being outside the law with regard to owning one.
[deleted]
"extremely difficult to obtain here"
Legally yes... how about illegally?
"Also the fact that the US has them leads to thousands of unnecessary deaths every year."
Actually the fact that US has them has lead to EXPONENTIALLY more lives saved every year.
"There are less deaths per head of population here caused by police and while knife crime is a problem, it's easier to outrun a knife than a bullet."
I'm curious if your country kept statistics relating to lives saved or violent attacks prevented by way of a gun before the gun ban relative to murders and attacks today. In the United States, the ratio is massively in favor of having guns.
[deleted]
People here really hate taxes and distrust the government.
[deleted]
They dont have to pay more taxes, cut your damn overblown warmachine down a notch. Trump recently increased the military budget by 50 billion. Without raising taxes.
Aren't Americans paying more than other countries? My impression was that their healthcare system was expensive and inefficent.
Money. They realized they can put people who have not yet worked their lives away an initial debt that will pay out for years to come. Your 22 and owe 200k? Dude in NYC will be getting checks + interest for years to come.
Medical care is the best in the world. We know we don't have the infrastructure to support everyone though. So we make it so that the poor can't afford it, the middle class can be milked by it, and the upper class can use it normally.
Because of conservatives who think that not looking out for the well-being of people entering the workforce is a good idea.
Oh, and lobbyists from the College Board.
It makes the bankers that own this country richer.
people go to colleges they can't afford and stupidly take out student loans that they may or may not be able to pay back. medical expenses are really not bad unless you don't have insurance. if your employer doesn't provide insurance you're pretty screwed though if you're not making big bucks.
1) Having to take a drug test as part of the hiring process.
2) Not going to the doctor because it's too expensive
Tax insentives for a drug free workplace. They also drug test after accidents or whenever a workmans compensation claim is made, because if you came to work high and got hurt they should not be responsible for medical and lost wages (in cases of states with legal medical and recreational marijuana this can be a grey area, they are working on adapting state laws)
For a lot of large companies, their locations in states where medical and recreational marijuana is legal tend to follow federal law to "keep things simple".
Your lack of maternity leave is really really shocking and disturbing
Most jobs have 12 weeks
I'm totally baffled by the way you treat soldiers. Here it's just another profession. People won't give up their seats in public transport for you, won't give up first class airline seats to you, won't cross the street to thank you for your service. You will be treated like a normal, ordinary human being.
Your obsession with the military. It seems like every sporting event (eg NHL) some military person is honoured or sings the anthem or some respect is paid. In Australia the only time I ever really see military is on public holidays like Remembrance Day.
You guys have ANZAC day as well don't you? We don't have that in the UK, we just roll it into Nov 11th.
Yeah that’s our bigger military holiday - just wasn’t sure if Americans would have heard of it.
I live in sweden, people being afraid of getting hurt/sick and getting a big hospital bill baffles me
I'm not form Sweden so apologizing to a child rapist baffles me.
When you troll a libtard epic style, it’s not like that dude, just in some extreme cases shitty people get away with things, happens everywhere.
Former healthcare CFO here. Not really common everyone here has insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.
Oh ok, just my general observation as a non-yankee. That some people can’t afford it and have to pay those fines is kinda absurd to me.
They don't have to pay fines anymore now that Obama has left.
Oh wow, i really don’t have a clue what’s going on in the world do i.
12% of Americans, as of the end of 2017, have no health insurance. http://news.gallup.com/poll/225383/uninsured-rate-steady-fourth-quarter-2017.aspx
Almost all of the rest of use have co-pays and/or deductibles such that getting sick and going to the doctor costs us money. A serious illness or surgery could cost us thousands of dollars.
If they all have insurance, what were the fines for?
People who are young don't generally need a lot of medical care (or insurance) and subsidize those who do. This was basically paying for the massive increase in Medicaid mandated by the Obamacare stuff.
But you said "...everyone here has insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid."
But if that were true (which it isn't), no one would be paying the fine.
So what if you have no need of health insurance because you're fucking 19 years old? You wouldn't be a patient.
Yes, because 19 year-olds never get sick and they are paragons of wisdom that never have accidents or injuries and always practice safe-sex, which is why the teen pregnancy rate is zero in the U.S., where there are no abortions. /s
No one needs insurance until they have a medical bill. Having insurance means paying a small premium now to guard against a large bill later. That's how insurance works. You can't wait until you are sick or injured and then decide to buy insurance.
I'm not 19. I don't know how they think. Probably not that logically.
So you were never 19? You don't remember what it was like? I'm 53. I remember how foolish I was at that age.
No I was in college in a committed relationship.
So was I. I still did foolish, reckless, stereotypical teenager things.
I set off firecrackers in my dorm and my stoned PHD candidate RA went fucking ballistic. I felt a little ashamed.
It depends on the state. My new governor in NJ reinstated the fine. He didn’t offer anything affordable or a single-pay system - just the fine. He’s such a fucking crook.
Mass. is probably as crooked as NJ. No Repubs just a fake repub governor who goes to Dem fundraisers.
lol wtf. this is false.
Sample only includes patients. Not the general population.
Lol insurance
Yeah health insurance plans are getting shittier and shittier. Like why do I need "insurance" that kicks in only after I spend a $2,000 deductible. I get it.
Freedom. I fell more free with free education, free medicaid, unemployment benefit and so on. I don't see Americans as a very free people, compared to Denmark.
A colleague has family in USA and I spoke with her about our high taxes compared to the US. Though you have lower taxes, there is other expenses making them higher than what we pay in taxes here in Denmark. Really surprised me.
Our two biggest problems right there, education and health care. Everyone wants it to get better, and every promise for it has been broken. A lot of people don't want a free system, just one that doesn't send you into debt for years to afford. This applies to both.
YOURE TELLING ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE? WHAT HAVE OTHER PEOPLE EVER DONE FOR ME!?!?!
A thousand upvotes for a plate of a sushi
don't you dare.
Circumcision, or girls saying they prefer cut to uncut. From the way they talk about it it sounds as though far more people in the U.S. are cut than uncut, which I just cannot get my head around as I think its completely the opposite in the UK.
It’s dumb as hell. It started in the mid-20th Century by Catholics, so it’d be harder for boys to masturbate when they’re older. Now it’s a norm people do to infants regardless of religion or culture. Ever heard of people relying on lotion to jerk off? This is why. Such a waste of dicks.
Some people even circumcise their kids, so they don’t get made fun of by others for having a natural dick.
With generations upon generations of males with mutilated dicks, many don’t have a reference for what a natural dick feels and looks like, so they have their infants mutilated for aesthetic or hygiene reasons.
The fact that they think getting cut is cleaner shows most of these people don’t have very good genital or anal hygiene standards, even if they’re cut.
That is insane, I never knew that was how it started! Honestly the fact that this still happens at all is crazy to me, and how anyone can think that a naked dick exposed to the elements all day and sticking to the inside of your underwear could be more hygienic than a natural dick is even more crazy.
It is the norm for most blacks and whites. For Hispanics and Latinos born here, it is not nearly as common (in fact, most are uncut).
It is truly baffling to me why this mutilation is still practiced here. Probably because of {insert dumb reason} or there's a doctor or hospital who can make money off of it.
I never knew that! Yeah honestly I don't see how people can view it any differently than FGM just because it's done in a hospital. And how can anyone honestly think being cut is cleaner?
I think a lot of dads just want their son's dicks to look like theirs
That too. And probably the ignorance to the fact that it's actually not the norm to be cut.
The cost of medical bills. First time I saw someone talk about how they got lucky because the only had to pay so many thousands of dollars for the hospital I thought they was taking the piss, but no they genuinely thought it was a great deal. On a similar note adverts for drugs and health insurance because apart from heart burn tablets or paracetamol they don't really exist here.
[deleted]
Sorry to hear about the medical bill situation you have and also thank you for your service. I also hate the new culture of all the crybabies that get offended at every little thing people say. A lot of people in the country need to stop being so sensitive and stop crying. Then these "peaceful protesters" throw rocks at cops, burn down buildings, and destroy cars just because their feelings are hurt. It makes me sick.
Almost all the race stuff that comes up all the time. Black woman this. White man that. Afro american girl this. Your whole country seems obsessed with race.
oh, its a reddit-nationality at it again.
The US’s fetish with speaking as if they are the only country. There has been many times where I’ve seen posts in this subreddit regarding personal experience/ or asking basic advice, And you will always see an American start with “...well it depends what state you’re in” as if redditors cant be from anywhere else.
Yeah but first of all, this is an American website. It's actually the third of fourth largest in the country. So yeah we're a majority here. Second, everybody knows the United States is made of lots of States yes?
I know it’s made up of a lot of states but I honestly couldn’t tell the difference between states and just major cities there. :p it’s just natural to think the things you grew up learning are common knowledge. Here’s a map of reddit popularity by country. A lot of people use it all over the world. It was just an observation, not an attack :p https://i.imgur.com/5imantT.jpg
Sure I gotcha. My comment was also an observation, sorry if it sounded combative.
Edit: Here's a helpful song for all 50 states. ;)
https://youtu.be/Z0-0rJKtbVQ
omg hahaha :P i love the song ! and yeah, tone is pretty unreadable online. ;)
Odds are that the poster is from the US though.
^ I found the American of the post :p
I'll never understand why Europeans come to an American website, made by Americans, hosted in America, with a majority American userbase, writing in American English, and complain about Americans conversing with each other about America.
I'm from the UK and automatically assume everyone on here is from the us unless someone says they aren't
It’s the OP post question :p , also, I’m not European.
"Foreighners come here to take our jobs and when they don't come, they take our websites!"
It is the third largest country in the world and largest English speaking country.
By “largest” countries in the world logic Canada would be first, since we also speak mainly english, and is the second largest country.
ok
It is the third largest country in the world and largest English speaking country.
and has roughly 4% of the world's population.
[deleted]
guns bro, literally getting a gun in my country is like a two year process
Where do you live? I want to know more about this.
Well this was South Africa. Took us almost two years to get a hunting rifle and a handgun (we lived on a farm)
Isn't South Africa considering taking land from people based on race?
Because that worked amazingly in Zimbabwe.
Yeah
I bet if more people could defend themselves the goverment would be less tyrannical
This argument is stupid as shit to me. Your 9mm pistol isn't gonna stop drones or bunker busters. If the government wants you dead there isn't much you can do about it. Besides it's 2018 and if the government turns tyrannical there are peaceful protests and impeachment.
[deleted]
They died by hundreds of thousands (if not more) and maybe with the exception of the Vietnamese they were all defeated.
So a small, poor, ill-equiped populace put up a fight against the most powerful army in the history of the globe...
These countries you mention are in complete shambles. The enourmous amount of guns make forming a stable gouvernment nearly impossibe as they are ruled by warlords. The vietnamiese were supported by the soviet union and where more like a regular army.
Yeah, Vietnam is such an unsafe disaster /s
And your argument is stupid as shit to me. No sane govt would ever use those weapons on its own land unless it wanted to rule over a desolate crater. Govts would use people to fight and control people.
Tell that to Vietnamese farmers, I think they missed the memo about not being able to defeat the United States with Guerilla warfare.
At what point are we allowed to accept the fact that Peaceful Protest isn't a magic bullet, and working outside the system can become a necessity?
[removed]
So it took place in a location similar to florida, and their fighters were propped up by the same government who would support US rebels?
[removed]
The security guarding our politicians would skin them alive in the streets if they carpetbombed their family members without cause.
I am not being metaphorical. They would publican strip their skin from their bodies and make sure they suffered a painful and slow death
They had a terrain advantage, sure, Which also exists in areas of the United States as well.
I think that gives the Viet Cong alot less credit than they deserve, sure some of their weapons came from the Russian government, but that jungle warfare? That was all them. Air-cover, Tanks, none of that does any good in the Bush.
Even so, what makes you think some sort of foreign aid wouldn't be levied to our supposed guerillas as well?
[removed]
Because it takes time for those things to be disseminated, if you had an entirely unarmed population, the Gov would be able to lock down key areas and civilians without a fight, making it harder to smuggle weapons in. You need more guns than you have soldiers, for replacements etc, so at least until those supply drops make it to a Fantasy Guerillas, they need weapons.
You dont know how well armed some people are
Tell that to Vietnamese farmers, I think they missed the memo about not being able to defeat the United States with Guerilla warfare.
If the United States wanted to kill all vietnamese farmers they could have done it. In fact it if they had decided to outright kill everyone it would have probably been easier for them than the kind of war they fought.
Guns only help if the government you're facing is not willing to exterminate the people. For example evenif all people in North Korea somehow magically got guns I don't think it would change things because their regime has proven that they are more than willing to kill their people indiscriminately.
That being said I do think that guns help simply becyase massive gun ownership and a population that is willing to use its guns means that the goverments have to escalte and many governments are not willing to do. But I still think that the effect is not as big as people think.
And the US would exterminate its populace? what point are you trying to make?
The only way they would have been able to do it would have been to basically Napalm the whole country, and Governments have other reasons not to do that besides morality. Especially in the context of our imaginary Civil War, any and all infrastructure the Government destroyed would only hurt themselves if they won by doing so, they would be less willing to just Carpet bomb the USA than they were Vietnam, because if you win the war, but have absolutely no Industry or infrastructure, especially in the United States, your royally fucked.
Long story short, they'd be forced to a decent level of on-the-ground engagement.
They're using drones and bunker busters against farmers in south Africa?
There's an old saying... Freedom is defended by 3 boxes.
4 boxes. The soap box is the first one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
The Frederick Douglass quote was the one I'd heard before, he only used 3.
True. Look at how insurgent groups in the Middle East have always been easily beaten
[deleted]
If the government doesn't have ultimate control to abuse the citizens it won't do that. People being able to defend themselves protects them
And yet the rest of the world is doing fine without guns all over the place and trigger-happy cops
Really? Is the army really going to drop a bunker buster on your house? Or will they just show up with a couple of guys with automatic weapons? Peaceful protests don’t stop shit. Impeachment? LOL. Stop listening to liberal pipe dreams.
peaceful protests and impeachment.
Sounds nice but when a government turns tyranical, state institutions stop working, impeachment is not possible and peaceful protests are met with deadly force.
Do you genuinely think that's remotely possible in 2018?
See Venezuela
So you think Venezuela and the US are comparable in 2018?
America has assloads of guns and a corrupt as fuck government, yet I don't see anyone doing anything about that. You're acting like all 330 million people would pick up a firearm and lay down their lives. I bet not even 10 million people could be a coördinated army. And with the amount of weaponry the US has at their disposal vs a bunch of measly civillians with handguns, they could blow you and your entire city to the moon if that's what they wanted
Why would the government want to blow away its own cities?
Why would the government want to blow away its own cities?
Uh, no, we're not? Land expropriation sucks ass but it involves all land coming under custody of the state, not just white people's land.
It's far more complicated than that. Black South Africans make up 80% of the population but own just 13% of the land. This is not because of lack of hard work or effort but laws which up until a couple of decades ago made it illegal for them to own property outside a few "reserves".
So now there is an extremely difficult situation of trying to raise the majority of the country out of extreme poverty while also balancing this against not punishing white South Africans for the sins of their fathers.
Yes but the government also owns about a quarter of the land itself including up to half of the land in some providences. They should start by giving away that land rather then taking other people's land. The difference however is that land is undeveloped and is worth far less then the farms.
True but that is not nearly enough.
So buy the land. Don't steal it
Are you suggesting the government buy it?
If they want to redistribute it then they should buy it first. Or give away land they already own
While I agree that landowners need to be compensated in some way, paying face value would result in an already poor nation being saddled with an astronomical level of debt.
You already said that a lot of the land that they own is not suitable.
I didn't say it wasn't suitable. Its not valuable because it isn't developed. They could develop it but thats not going to be profitable
It would still leave an enormous amount of the land in the possession of very few.
I don't think racism is a good solution for that issue
The issue is a result of racism.
And it's time to end racism
How can you in any way move on from racism without addressing the insane levels of inequality that is the direct result of racism? Would you be content to live in a shanty town while up the road a family is hugely wealthy because of their persecution of your race? It's not possible.
So the government should be selling or giving away the land it owns or purchasing land it wishes to redistribute. It could also empower people by working to bring in well paying jobs and developing the nations industrial base or even working with the land owners to lease or sell land in a way that benefits all. The government could also help the poor with low interest loans to develop business opportunities
How would any of that work? It is already an extremely underdeveloped nation with so many issues. A government can't just bring in well paying jobs, they can't just decide one day to develop the industrial base and they can't afford to buy or sell land from the white land owners that was effectively stolen.
I don't mean to be rude but they are such overly simple suggestions to an extremely complex issue. If it was easy as you make it sound, why doesn't every poverty stricken nation do it?
They can sell or give away the land they own. If the land was stolen from people who legally owned it then those people who stole it should have to compensate the original owners but people shouldn't be punished when they did nothing wrong.
I don't think making it known that the government is corrupt and will steal privately owned business assets will help with investment and as Zimbabwe showed taking successful farms and giving them to people who don't know how to run them doesn't help make the country prosperous
I mean, it has a pretty lengthy history of doing exactly that, such as when the white people took the land off the black people.
Edit: lmao why downvote this, it... literally happened.
Yeah but America kind of did that for a little over 200 years and there was this institution called slavery so that is the pot calling the kettle black there
Justifying bad racist behavior because a different country no longer does it doesn't really work
You’re right two wrongs definitely don’t make a right. Didn’t South Africa end apartheid 27-28 years ago? I didn’t know that was still a huge issue
It is. They are considering taking farmland without compensation from minorities.
24, and yeah, we've come a long way but there's still a lot of tension. The problem is, I feel like most of society is ready to heal, but politicians play on the tensions and identity politics to score votes and slander each other.
Well the last part of your comment definitely points out that American politics and South African politics have something very much in common haha
No lies, there are times when I have SA news open in one tab and US news in another, and looking at the headlines I really can't decide whose politics are more fucked, yours or ours. I think it varies week by week.
Hmm, and what is the violent crime rate in South Africa? Isn't the homicide rate about 8x that of the US?
I think it's mostly stabbings though.
Bruh, we've got stabbings, shootings, beatings, you name it. I love my country but we're definitely not in any position to lecture people about violent crime.
pretty sure I'd rather be shot than stabbed.
The problem is that one dude with a gun can shoot way more people than one guy with a knife can stab
Most homicides are single homicides.
Irrelevant. The gun is a tool, nothing more. It's the murderous asshole doing the killing that's to blame. If he can't get a gun, he'll get a box truck and run people down on the street.
You forgot the burning alive of white farmers..
Oh, that's ok then. :)
Well I just mean that gun laws aren't going to do much to deal with stabbings.
You could argue that access to guns would decrease the amount of people stabbed, but that would be offset by the increased numbers of people shot.
Nah, it was more a point about how gun control doesn't stop people intent on killing.
The rate of gun related homicide in South Africa per 100k is about twice that of the U.S.
The homicide rate is about 34.1 murders per 100,000 in South Africa. In the US, it is 5.2.
I was talking about just guns.
Dead is dead. Murder is murder. The victim doesn't really care how he died. Because he is dead.
Yeah I don't disagree but the argument was about gun policy. I think it is relevant that a country where it takes two years to acquire a gun still has a homicide by firearm rate twice that of the U.S. It speaks to the efficacy of gun control or the lack thereof.
I see. You are focussed on how people are killed. We, on the other hand, are focussed on reducing the number of people killed.
It's like we are a completely different country.
Everybody is interested in fewer homicides. My only point is that gun control is not the panacea so many people make it out to be.
I apologise. I completely misunderstood your point.
I can be somewhat dense.
You are comparing South Africa with the US here... Do you realize that?
Why not?
One has very strict gun control, and the other has relatively loose gun control. As I am repeatedly told by Europeans that more guns leads to more murders, I find it interesting that the tight gun control country has about 7x the homicide rate.
[deleted]
People act like the murder rate is skyrocketing in the US, instead of dramatically falling. Even though black-on-black homicide spiked under Obama, we are still less than half of what the rate was in the 1990's.
[deleted]
Why Europe?
Why not our neighbors? Why not our region? Why should we compare with Europe?
Because its the only western region comparable to the us? What you wanna be compared with? The war infested Syria? The drug cartel controlled mexico? Brazil, basically a third world country? Mafia controlled Columbia? Venezuela?
I would not say Europe is comparable to the US. In fact, the US was founded as an alternative to Europe. Hell, within about 7 years, descendants of Europeans will be in the minority in the US.
We are a large immigrant country. Compare us to other immigrant countries, not small homogenous populations. Are we more like Canada, or Mexico? Why?
Europeans have a very Euro-centric view of the world. Coupled with this need to tell other people what to do, it does lead to very humorous ends.
A gun is a tool, America just has a gun culture so it has a higher proportion of its crime done with guns.
Did your farm get taken from you by the government?
You do know that guns are made by people, right?
What? Im confused as to why you would say that
Not sure how long it takes here.. But the most Dangerous animal we have outside of a zoo is a badger.. So we are ok.
Same here. It's a pain in the ass to legally acquire a gun, and while that doesn't stop criminals of buying guns on the black market, it does stop mass shootings.
What country?
It's because of the history of the country. It's just something that never got updated to modern standards.
literally getting a gun in my country is like a two year process
And why do you think that is a good thing? Switzerland doesn't have to do that and they have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
That's stupid, it's a human right!
Tipping.
Pay your employees jesus christ. As an employer that's your job not mine.
I think it actually came from the Great Depression. Restaurant owners couldn't afford to pay their workers and as a result they asked their customers to do it for them.
It's just a bad practice that was carried over from one of the worst financial crises of American history.
I’m a delivery driver and I have to say I still make enough in base pay to where Id work there if I wasn’t tipped, BUT tipping can easily bring me in an extra 3-400 a week if it’s busy. Most people where I live (Minnesota) tip on how good the interaction was with the place you are. I’ve messed up real bad and have gotten nothing, and I’ve gone an extra mile and gotten $15+ for a relatively easy order, and everything in between. I think tipping is more of a “I appreciate what you did so here’s something to show that.”
...that doesn't make any sense. If the expectation is on the customer to pay a tip to the waiter anyway, why wouldn't they just add the waiter's portion on to the bill?
The pledge of allegiance. You do you, but I'd feel silly saluting and addressing a flag.
Seems over excessive to me too
I’m from the UK and it’s always shocking for me to see the police videos from over in America. They literally kill people for sport! 😣
I think that ties in with the lack of gun control. Over in the UK since most citizens don't carry guns when the police pull them over or confront them they do not have to be on an overly alert state and possibly in constant fear for their lives. Thus they can be more relaxed.
I'm absolutely astonished that whether punching a nazi is a good thing or not is up for debate.
Because while they are impolite, its still assault. The Nazi has to swing first.
It's because us Americans have to define who is and isn't a Nazi because fascists and center republicans are all in the same party for the most part or sympathize with at least some overlapping ideas.
Just hit all of them then lol
i like how you think
Because the phrase "Nazi" (and "alt-right", which used to mean the same thing minus explicit Hitler support) has been bastardized to include anyone who supports any form of right-leaning politics, even if they do not include racist views.
No, it’s been changed to “anyone who doesn’t support a particular brand of far-left Neo-Marxist thought” (or whatever the putatively “anti-fascist” person calling them a Nazi wants to punch them for) even the center left is punchable, if they don’t give proper obeisance.
I would argue that right leaning politics has been bastardized by it's being associated with these people.
To quote John Oliver,
Nazis are like cats, if they like you, you are probably feeding them.
First amendment: Freedom of speech and expression...
Poptarts- i tried one and thought i was going to get diabetes
I had friends from Australia who would request they be shipped PopTarts, they loved them so much.
Australian, tried one of these. Never again. Tasted like I was eating pure sugar.
I tasted one when I was in the US. Don’t know what the fuss is about, tastes awful.
That must be all the real All-American FREEDOM entering your body for the first time! /s
that's the point
You have to get the boring one - in frosted brown sugar and cinnamon. It’s the best.
They're awful, how such a thin layer of artificial filling could be so sweet is some kind of chemical wizardry. I remember them being better when I was young, I swear they were, the red flavors all tasted different and like the fruit they were supposed to be.
[deleted]
Thank you. I'm glad it's not just me. I still haven't found anything listed here that doesn't make me sad.
all these lawsuits! "When I was at Starbucks and the barista handed over the coffee to me, I broke my fingernail. Do I have a case?"
The McDonalds hot coffee case which I think you were referring to is widely misrepresented. She originally just wanted them to help pay for her medical bills, she had third degree burns, and her vagina was melted shut. The jury found McDonald's to be so negligent that they ordered McDonald's to pay 2 days profits to the lady, but was eventually reduced with court costs and everything.
I've heared about the McDonalds case but it's not what I was referring to. It was just an example of my observation/perception that there is a tendency to actively look out for opportunities to sue. Maybe the example wasn't a good one.
This is heavily exaggerated in American media and news. Lawyers are expensive, so you either hand them a bulletproof lawsuit and 1/3 of the likely compensation (damages or settlement), or you pay out the ass for a case that may not pan out.
Right but the McDonald’s case was a big instigator for the chambers of commerce and big business to start a media anti plaintiff campaign. The case was twisted in a real horrible way because instinctually everyone could believe that it’s dumb to sue someone for serving hot coffee too hot.
Excellent documentary on the matter is: “Hot Coffee” I was really shocked when I watched it and highly recommend.
Also this case has nothing to do with GTA San Andreas
It's more like, "I broke my fingernail, I deserve the coffee for free!"
This is just some bullshit that people talk about on the internet. People in the US may be quicker to sue than other countries but I literally don't know a single person that has ever sued anyone or been sued.
What are you doing outside of /r/baseball?
Our courts are slow and over complicated but for the most part thorough and fair. I honestly wouldn’t want to see them any other way.
But their also extremly experience. Something like 90% of cases get settled out of court, largely because people just can't afford it.
I'm not talking about the courts, I'm talking about looking for a chance to file a lawsuite, wherever possible. At least that I my impression to which I can't relate.
Oh well the over filing of lawsuits is what slows down our courts
True. And if they keep allowing ppl to sue for huge amounts of money, people will keep trying to make cases in order to potentially get huge amounts of money... Where I live it's really hard to file for compensation or etc. and if you win a case the amounts are SIGNIFICANTLY lower compared to the US. Sometimes ridiculously low. However, because of that, it doesn't happen a lot. (I'm not saying that I prefer one system to the other, just stating that I can't relate to it ;-))
[deleted]
This is exactly what I mean! Where I live nobody would ever even consider to sue - or be afraid of it in this case.
Not on here, but a lot of my American FB friends bitch about high gas prices at like $2.50-$3.00 per gallon. Here in BC Canada it's between like $1.35-$1.60 per LITRE. So.. times that by 3.78... roughly $5-$6 a gallon. And I'd imagine even more expensive in other countries. But I'd kill for $3 a gallon.
After 10 days in Ireland with a rental car I'm grateful for my $2.69 gas.
It always sounds so bad, but I have nzero concept of how much a gallon is. Aussie fuel prices are approx $1.50/L AUD as well.
Large "donations" to political parties. Hell how are corporations people in the US?
If I'm remembering correctly (its been a few years since i had to research that specifically) but they kinda got that through on a technicality saying that the corporation being ran by people means that the corporation itself is basically no more than a group of people willing to support their candidate.
Pretty dumb in my opinion because usually the donations are restricted to no more that 10K at a time last time I checked but I forget how that gets bypassed.
No brought up so much on Reddit but common in some parts in the US. Creationism. People not accepting evolution.
I’ve really taken clean tap water for granted living in Luxembourg all my life. This isn’t so much just a USA problem but the USA seems like one of the places where people are complaining about dirty tap water.
It’s getting that way in urban Australia. I’ve been using filters on my drinking water for years. Not out of paranoia, out of necessity. I became quite sick at one stage and found it was the dodgy water. Filters installed, problem went away.
Gofundmes for people, who are very sick and do not have insurance to pay for Hospital bills. This is just so absurd to me.
Commercials for prescription medicine on Ameriacn TV. This is not allowed in my country.
Commercials for lawyers.
Social conservatism in politics 4.b. Only having to valid political parties
Racism being a big deal and the whole separation thing you have. Like you have r/blackpeopletwitter / r/whitepeopletwitter, r/blackpeoplegifs / r/whitepeoplegifs etc. Seems like you separate yourself intentionally, but still fight for unity. That's something I don't understand living in eastern europe, where 98% people are the same skin color.
Surprised no one raised it though.
It's a tough deal tbh. When you have many different cultures from different backgrounds living together, there's bound to be friction and cultural misunderstanding. Since our country has had a long history of violence and oppression of minorities mistrust is still common, although it seems to be very slowly improving. The younger generation are getting much better at fighting for unity. But sometimes it just feels like you relate better to your own culture (unintentionally) because of a fellow camaraderie when you have issues only your culture will understand, hence the separate groups at times.
I think a good example is of your Western European neighbors. The UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium (those countries) are starting to accept more and more minorities into their culture and unfortunately there's been quite a bit of clashing in cases (riots, terrorist attacks, ghettos). If a lot of people suddenly came to your country and they had completely alien customs that didn't really fit into your society, there would be a lot of problems at first too.
That's an amazing answer, thank you.
America is very segregated, although I feel that this is starting to change a little bit now. When I grew up in the 90’s there were still white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods. Not because of any official government rules but the separation still existed because of society enforcing it.
It’s still the case that every Sunday, white people go to white church and black people go to black church. Hispanics and Asians have their own churches too. No one here really talks about this as if it’s unusual. I don’t think most Americans even realize it’s like this.
Wow, you really blew my mind with the fact about churches, I didn't know that! Even though I'm not religious, I would expect church to be the first place to unite all sorts of people with one worship. I understand how this could happend in the past, but why do you think it's happening now? I mean, they have the same beliefs, the same Bible, same God, but different churches..
i’m sorry to say, but school shootings are the hugest problem i can’t relate to.
i’m australian, and there’s no school shootings.
It's seriously getting out of hand here.
it is
Paying for health care.
[removed]
But even if I go to the hospital once in my life or 1000 times, it costs me the same. Drugs don't work like that unfortunately, mandatory not a doctor, but I doubt cat medicine will work for a human.
You’d be surprised how much crossover there is! I work at a veterinary practice, and some of our drugs we just get from the (human) pharmacy next door. Off the top of my head, there’s ketamine, gabapentin, and fluoxetine (Prozac) in our dangerous drugs cabinet; they just have to be divided into doses based on the particular animal.
Aren't some pills created at the pharmacy? So is it possible they are created with specific ratios for pets?
I know very little about how pharmacies work, outside of them being criminally understaffed every time I go.
Edit: nope, doesn’t happen. Ignore me.
Aren't some pills created at the pharmacy?
That doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about pharmacies to dispute it.
I could be 100% making that up, but I thought that was how it worked with some of the more common medications.
Nothing is created at a pharmacy.
Thanks! TIL
For the most part cat medicine will work in humans. Adjusting for dose/body weight.
There's paying for healthcare and there's the completely fucked system America has where prices are bat shit crazy... because everyone keeps defaulting on medical debt... because the prices are bat shit crazy...
But we don't pay thousands of dollars year neither a hospital will kick someone out unattended for not having money to pay.
No such thing as free healthcare.
As I understand it though, people in the US actually pay more in taxes towards healthcare than many European countries and still have to pay for insurance.
Edit: Source: http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-spends-more-public-money-on-healthcare-than-sweden-or-canada-2017-4?r=US&IR=T
And then our insurance sticks us with a $150 bill for tests on top of that
Yep :)
Yes the United States is very socialist when it comes to taxes, there's millions of people who are paying into social security to take care of the elderly and are likely to never see social security themselves.
I won't ever see the money that gets taken from my taxes, so although it's not 'free' I'm not spending any extra for my health care
True. Im just mean its misleading to call UHC free. Its not free, everyone pays for it.
When people say "free", they mean "free at the point of use".
I understand what you mean with that, but I wouldn't have ever seen the money anyway so it certainly feels free!
Call it 'tax-paid single provider' healthcare then. You've got the benefits of bulk buying, no money spent on billing/accounting, no shareholders, no insurance company involved..
Being afraid of big government. I once talked to a guy who defended the right to bear arms just in case the government decided to turn on its citizens and take over America by force?! Forreal brah?
I asked an Iraq War Vet (the 2003 one) what he thought the chances of a citizen army with (illegal) automatic AR-15 assault rifles would have against the U.S. Military.
He laughed his ass off. "Um," he looked almost embarrassed at the thought, "none."
The U.S. military is estimated to be 15 years more technologically advanced than any other nation's military on planet, and a bunch of NRA yahoos think their precious assault rifles will keep them free. It's hilariously stupid.
US government , federal, states, cities, military are enormous.
I’m in the US military. Reading everything about other countries having better benefits is saddening. Mostly health insurance, employer benefits and education benefits. All of this is provided in the military. How can it not be provided for the rest of the US? The health care isn’t perfect but it’s really not too bad.
edit: I think now that it just might be my bad impression of US. Thank you /u/MatanKatan for letting me now that it is considered weird in America too, it's very good to know that it is not common there as I thought.
Fathers crazy about their daughters' virginity. I know there are some dads in Poland that sadly act like these, but Americans take it to a whole new level. A cliché of a dad forbidding his daughter to meet with boys "till his dead" or "jokingly" threatening young boys with guns always seemed very toxic to me but in a lot of american tv shows or movies it is shown as something normal, a funny trope and just something that "fathers do".
tbh if my dad started acting like that I wouldn't even be mad, just really sad that he completely doesn't trust me.
but in a lot of american tv shows or movies it is shown as something normal,
You're basing this off watching fictional TV shows and movies?
I'm basing it off watching TV but also what I read in internet written by people from the US. Maybe that's not that big of an issue and I'm just reading wrong comments but it always seemed to me that it's something much more common and acceptable in US than here. Maybe it is just wrong impression (I hope).
I imagine it's happened, but no, that would be weird in the US.
Well, then that had to be just my wrong impression. Thank you for correcting me, I will edit my comment!
My pleasure. Come visit sometime.
This thread seems to be more about Hollywood than America.
I'd say most of the thread is accurate...just not that comment.
This thread is depressing me. I love my country (USA) so much but right now we are in a dark place. And even before this age of hatred and greed, the things you guys are talking about-plenty of vacation, affordable education, etc.-were so far out of reach.
Okay. I'm deciding that moping time is over. Time to call some politicians.
Yeah see, all of the above problems that people have been listing here about America are absolutely true... and over the years have made me stop loving this place. There is just too much greed, stupidity, and zealousness in America for my tastes.
And to the people who will inevitably tell me that I should just move somewhere else: I wish it were that easy. There are financial and logistical barriers to doing so. So I guess I am stuck in this insane circus of a country.
I've seen alot about politicians in the us taking money from corporations to change their stance on different political views. Is this true and if it is isn't that a bribe and therefore corruption?
Yes to all of that. But that's our system right now and participation still has an effect. We do what we can.
Religion. Cops being dicks fairly often. Politicians being massive dicks very often. Net neutrality. Absolutely fucking insane internet bills. Fucked up healthcare system.
I wonder why everyone wants to come here if it’s so bad?
All of those things become insignificant if you make a lot of money.
Australian here. We’ve had issues with our cops. Growing up in a small country town in what our state called “The Joh years”, cops were corrupt and generally untrustworthy. Even now in some areas they have t got the best reputation.
Farenheit
Putting your parents/grandparents in a senior home. In my culture, not letting your parents eventually move in with you when they retire is seen as extremely disrespectful. Then again, we are on the opposite end of the spectrum and parents tend to see kids as financial investments who "owe" them and should constantly give back a share of their salary.
Jesus christ. I'd slit my wrists if I had to have my parents live with me. It was bad enough for those first twenty years.
I'm not sure if it relates to every European country, but I read so many comments about stuff that public figures, companies, the government does that shouldn't be legal. Or schools just being really fucking bad
Bail system
Going bankrupt because of cancer/heart attack/ accident, whatever.
Being willing to make anyone have to choose between necessary medical care and losing everything just seems barbaric. No money shouldn't be a death sentence.
Student debt. Here in Estonia education is free. You want to study? Study. I can't imagine living like that- always in debt. Also i hear a lot of americans complaining about the gaps in bathroom doors. Like what? Is it so much more work to make the door cm bigger? I haven't ever in my life been in a bathroom where provacy was a problem.
From what I've read on here Estonia seems a good country
Serious question, what is an average pre tax income? What is a high income? How much are your income taxes?
Oh wow, okay. I'm pretty sure our average pre tax income is bit more than 1000€. Depressing, i know. And tbh that is considered a ~high income. Not like high-high, but it is a living you are satisfied with. Just to paint a bit clearer picture- teacher make about 700-800, cashiers ~650 and our president makes 5000€- that is what we consider a VERY high salary. Out income taxes, if I'm not mistaken, are 20%.
Most people only shit in public in an emergency
Redundancy/layoffs.
We had a mass layoff at my company recently. More than half the company, 2/3rds of the software engineering team. It hit both us and the US team.
In Britain, mass redundancy has a legal process that must be followed that involves clear communication with the employees, statutory redundancy pay, a consultation period that lasts at least 30 days for which we are paid a regular salary and benefits and, after that, the notice period in full. It's even possible to be given "garden leave" so you're still employed but not required to come into work (but must technically be available to do so if needed). Like a holiday you can get paid for and go for interviews for other jobs while your salary keeps rolling in from the previous job, until the notice period is over. It's even called garden leave because people usually spend it relaxing in their gardens or doing gardening. It can last for the entire consultation period. And after that, you can have Payment in Lieu of Notice, where your notice period is cancelled and you're just given the entire period's wages in one go, up front, letting you concentrate on looking for a new job knowing you're secured for that month financially.
The US team came into work, were told they didn't have jobs anymore, and police escorted them out of the building. And that was it.
That's really really of your company.
Identity politics. Recognizing everything and everyone by one of their social attributes like race religion ethnicity colour, rather than just as normal human beings viewed equally. Everyone in USA identifies as someone never as a regular person lol.
The metapshysical concept of not feeling shame.
What i see frequently around here (Texas) is not the outright lack of shame, but the astonishing ability to convert that feeling into the need to shame others. For any number of reasons, our culture teaches us that its better to find fault in someone else instead of working on ourselves. Its not a pleasant thing to be around for sure.
This is fascinating to me too, as I'm the child of immigrants whose culture highly values shame. It made for a very confusing upbringing.
I agree with the others that it's not a lack of feeling shame, it's that it's ingrained in our history and culture to deflect that shame at all costs--even the needless suffering of others. Hell, even your own needless suffering is worth it to some. We can feel shame, but we're obsessed with pride. You'd think that having once been wrong about something is worse than being dead. Seeming right is better than being right, and false confidence is highly rewarded. It's not very efficient.
Conversely, I always used to say that my parents' culture was obsessed with shame. That you'd think that having once emarassed your family is worse than being dead.
Then... there's that to be ashamed of something, you have to know it's naughty. You have to know what nakedness is to want that fig leaf, and when it comes to many of the shameful aspects of our culture, people either don't recognize those things for what they are or they don't have enough context to understand just how fucked up it is.
Oh trust me, if there's anything many Americans have learned over the last year, it is shame
Shooting the kiddos
See, I'm in the UK, and we unfortunately had some evil guy go into a school and shoot the kiddos. And in response, we tightened our gun control laws. Not had a single school shooting since. Every time we've had a mass shooting over the past few decades - I can remember 3 off the top of my head since the '80s - we've restricted our gun laws further, and in each case, the perpetrator legally owned their gun (hence the further restrictions each time).
I think that 3 mass shootings in 3 decades is pretty good going. Still 3 too many, but in terms of our population, it's a low figure. Kind of makes the whole US argument of 'but the bad guys will just buy an illegal gun and shoot up schools anyway!' kind of moot. OK, we don't have 0 gun crime, but it's a hell of a lot lower than the US.
And in response, we tightened our gun control laws. Not had a single school shooting since.
In all fairness, we hadn't really had one before so it's not like it was a demonstrable causal relationship. Plus, the only reason Hamilton still had his guns was because the police massively fucked up and didn't do their jobs. The IPCC inquiry afterwards made it perfectly clear that the law wasn't at fault here and there was no need to restrict them further, meaning the banning of handguns wasn't a safety move, rather a political one.
Don't forget, Switzerland and the Czech Republic have gun laws that are somewhat comparible to several US states (concealed carry, the surprising ease of buying them without much in the way of checks and paperwork, you can buy and own guns that even in the US are either outlawed or heavily restricted etc) and they don't have regular mass shootings or school shootings.
So, my high school chum lives in Switzerland, and according to her, one of the big differences between there and the US is the gun culture. The majority of people she knows in Switzerland are trained to handle their firearms, and they don't have gun rallies or gun lobbyists. According to her, the number of guns and the laws on them is about 60% of the problem. Attitudes around them is the remaining 40%. I don't live there so can't really corroborate her viewpoint, but that's her perspective!
(Edit: typo... firearms is one word, oops)
one of the big differences between there and the US is the gun culture.
I've heard similar things. Guns to Americans is a symbol of freedom. An tons of Americans hold on to this idea that having guns will allow them to overthrow the government in event of corruption (which I feel is BS because our government has been corrupt for decades and they've sat on their asses).
Throw in our war on drugs, our lackluster healthcare system (including mental), our disregard for poverty, and a few other factors and we have the recipe for disaster when it comes to guns/shootings..
Oh sure, the culture in the two countries is night-and-day. I much prefer the Swiss gun culture to the US gun culture, but that's just me.
My point was that there isn't a direct correlation between strict gun laws and rates of mass shootings. The rates of mass shootings in the US doesn't go down when gun laws are tightened and the other way around.
I think I would say that there is a broad correlation between gun regulation and the rate of mass shootings, but that it's not the only factor.
But where are we seeing that broad correlation? The only examples anyone's been able to show are where there was an extremely rare occurance, which in no way shows correlation.
None of those examples back up the claim. In fact, many of them clearly show zero correlation, and one shows the opposite of that.
I mean, they all show that restricting gun laws reduced gun crime.
I'm not arguing about this. I honestly can't be bothered. All the evidence is there. It's exhausting watching the one country in the world where school shootings happen on a regular basis just throw their hands up and say "well, can't do shit about it." It's just bizarre. I don't get it.
I mean, they all show that restricting gun laws reduced gun crime.
But they don't though. The one for the UK showed zero initial change after the '97 handgun ban, with gun crime rising in the years afterwards. Plus if you compare overall crime statistics before and after the ban, there's no change as a result.
Same with the Australian example: There's a blip that is the Port Arthur shootings, but if you remove that outlier, there's no change in the rate of decrease in gun crime from before compared to after. It had no real effect.
And finally, even the ranking of countries by gun crime doesn't reflect the claim you're trying to make. If it were the case, you'd see countries like the Czech Republic and Switzerland not too far off the US, but we don't. There's no real relationship between rates of gun ownership and mass shootings, or even overall gun crime.
It's exhausting watching the one country in the world where school shootings happen on a regular basis just throw their hands up and say "well, can't do shit about it." It's just bizarre. I don't get it.
Nobody's saying that. What they find frustrating (and I say "they" as I'm not an American) is when people say "just ban guns or make them extremely hard to get hold of, that'll fix the lot, just look at [insert country]" when the evidence is absolutely not backing that claim up. It's like the "assault weapon" argument in the US: America had a decade of an assault weapon ban, and when the ban expired in 2004 it was demonstrably clear that it had absolutely zero effect on gun crime, yet here we are 14 years later with people shouting "let's do the same thing again and that'll fix the problem" when it very clearly won't fix the problem.
I think part of the problem is seeing firearms as a right rather than a responsibility. Many Swiss own guns because they form a trained militia that can be called upon to depend the country in an invasion, not because they think they must carry them in order to feel safe or as a symbol of masculinity.
Those that do genuinely just want guns for sport or collecting or hunting, etc., are the ones that really get screwed over I guess. In a sane world gun laws wouldn't seek to prevent that, but it seems like (as ever) it's the tyranny of an insane minority that messes things up.
I think part of the problem is seeing firearms as a right rather than a responsibility.
That's such a great way of putting it!
They don't have gun rallies or lobbyists because they don't have anti-gunners constantly trying to legislate various infringements on gun rights.
/r/NOWTTYG
the banning of handguns wasn't a safety move, rather a political one.
This was before my time, but as I understand it wasn't even because politicians wanted it, but because a public campaign got momentum and MPs then voted to go with it.
[deleted]
Wait, what were you supposed to do? Just take the locks off, leave the doors open and admit defeat?
That comparison seems rather weak. The effort of a lock installation is minimal and it doesn't violate anyone's rights.
[deleted]
Bad people will do bad things, so why bother.
No, that is what you boil it down to. What it is actually is that you already have numerous deterrents some of which already infringe on our rights, and when those inevitably fail you want more restrictions despite the fact these additional deterrents have no additional benefits. Trafficking, assault weapons bans, background checks, etc. How is changing the capacity from 15 to 10 supposed to change anything?
Basically to use your lock argument. You have already installed a lock, then installed a backscatter scanner that invades privacy, then implemented a cavity search. Then after there is a high profile break in you want to add more even though there is already diminishing returns and ever increasing violations of rights. Basically you are the TSA.
Kind of makes the whole US argument of 'but the bad guys will just buy an illegal gun and shoot up schools anyway!' kind of moot.
I once had that discussion with an american online. I pointed out the, then pretty recent, Las Vegas massacre where the guy shot people up with legally bought guns. I was told I was being intellectually dishonest, and promptly downvoted. You can't just talk about this stuff objectively with these people.
No, you really can't. There's just a complete refusal there to even contemplate that restricting - not even necessarily banning! - guns would be in any way helpful. Even when you bring up things like Australia and Port Arthur, and how that was their first and last mass shooting before they tightened gun laws, they just turn around and start talking about how there is still gun crime in Australia, paying no attention to the cultural causes of mass shootings (i.e. the idea that everyone should have a gun and guns are super cool being really pervasive). Obviously not all gun owners are like that, but the particularly pro-gun people tend to be, in my experience.
[deleted]
You're polite, aren't you?
I know that Australia has gun crime still. The definition of mass shooting isn't concrete, so I think we may be working to different definitions. You're a real treasure.
[deleted]
Mass Shooting Tracker, which is openly Anti-Gun and often cited & referred to by most mainstream journalists in America, define mass shooting as when 4 or more people get shot in one incident. The FBI also clarifies that the 4 or more people killed in their definition must be done so without a "cooling off period" in between. Like the guy in Australia in Port Arthur who drove from place to place shooting people. It all counts as one shooting. Believe it or not, there are a lot of triple shootings & triple homicides the world over. Even in countries associated with low homicide & shooting rates. Once you start researching it, you'll see why the FBI and MST put the threshold at 4 and most organizations followed suit. It's significantly rarer and also much more likely to be part of a "Rampage" or "Mass shooting" in the sense we think of.
These are the 21 mass shootings in Australia as defined by Mass Shooting Tracker or 9 defined by the U.S. Congress or 5 by FBI standards I've found since Australia enacted their 1996 National Firearms Agreement
Chippendale Blackmarket Nightclub Shooting, 1997
3 Dead & 1 wounded by firearm
Mackay Bikie shootout, 1997
6 wounded by firearm
Wollongong Keira Street Slayings, 1999
1 Dead & 9 wounded by firearm
Wright St Bikie Murders, 1999
3 Dead & 2 wounded by firearm
Rod Ansell Rampage, 1999
2 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Kangaroo Flat siege, 1999
1 dead & 4 wounded by firearm
Cabramatta Vietnamese Wedding Shooting, 2002
7 wounded by firearm
Monash University Shooting, 2002
2 Dead & 5 wounded by firearm
Fairfield Babylon Café Shooting, 2005
1 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Oakhampton Heights triple-murder suicide, 2005
4 Dead by firearm
Adelaide Tonic Nightclub Bikie Shooting, 2007
4 Wounded by firearm
Gypsy Jokers Shootout, 2009
4 Wounded by firearm
Roxburgh Park Osborne murders, 2010
4 Dead by firearm
Hectorville Siege, 2011
3 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Sydney Smithfield Shooting, 2013
4 Wounded by firearm
Hunt family murders, 2014
5 Dead by firearm
Sydney Siege, 2014
3 Dead & 4 wounded by firearm
Biddeston Murders, 2015
4 Dead by Firearm
Ingleburn Wayne Williams Shootings, 2016
2 dead & 2 wounded by firearm
Brighton Siege, 2017
2 dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Margaret River Murder Suicide, 2018
7 Dead by firearm
Edit: Mixed up U.S. Congress & FBI
Bud, I wasn't lying. I'm not American. I don't use the same definition of 'mass shooting' as you do. The term 'mass shooting' in the UK tends to refer to a spree shooting; we use the terms fairly interchangeably. That's not lying; America isn't actually the standard anywhere except America. In places where we don't have as many (lol) mass shootings, we don't have such firm definitions. If I were lying, I wouldn't now agree with you that yes, by your American definition, Australia has had mass shootings since Port Arthur, if we're using your American definition of the term.
I am fairly sure that they haven't had a spree shooting since, or that they've only had ones with comparatively minor death tolls, whereas the US still has frequent spree shootings with tolls in the double digits. That was the point I was making, before you picked up on semantics and basically accused me of being a liar or an idiot.
Don't accuse someone of lying just because you view your cultural standard as the global arbiter of an issue. It is not. Our respective reference points are different. You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty; I'd accuse you of the same for assuming that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant or lying. That's a little thing called confirmation bias. Oops!
And hey, maybe be less of an arsehole next time. Apologies in advance for the British term; I know you prefer the American.
Bud, I wasn't lying. I'm not American.
So it's profound ignorance then. Probably shouldn't speak on a subject if you can't be arsed to research it.
I don't use the same definition of 'mass shooting' as you do
Doesn't matter. You want to compare to the two countries you better use the more rigorous definition.
That's not lying
It is either ignorance or selectively choosing definitions to benefit your particular narrative.
America isn't actually the standard anywhere except America.
America is the country you are making the comparison to. America has a strict definition that makes up their mass shooting stats. You don't want to use that stat, then don't go making comparisons to it.
I am fairly sure that they haven't had a spree shooting since
In direct contradiction to your original comment they did in fact have some mass shootings. I provided a link on the list of massacres they had which includes the ones committed by firearm.
Don't accuse someone of lying
You were lying or profoundly ignorant. Because they did in fact have a mass shooting. And trying to move the goal posts to "spree shootings" isn't going to change that you were incorrect in your claim.
Our respective reference points are different.
In order to benefit your position, not to be an honest assessment. You want to use the weaker definition to pretend that Australia is a success story even though they had mass killings by firearm.
I'd accuse you of the same for assuming that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant or lying.
Nope. That is literally what it has to be since you could have googled it. You switched tack once it was revealed that in fact Australia did have mass shootings.
And hey, maybe be less of an arsehole next time.
No, not when there are people who going around either intentionally repeating misinformation or doing so blindly. Australia had mass shootings. Multiple killed in single incidents with firearms. Mass shooting.
It doesn't make sense. It's like saying you shouldn't bother locking your doors because a thief will just break the windows anyway.
[deleted]
Not trying to be a dick
You're not being a dick, you just don't agree with me, and that's fine, as long as you're actually engaging with my point and not dismissing them or sidestepping them entirely, which usually happens in this debate.
but if the guy was going to do it regardless,
How would he kill people standing in the street while looking over them from the window of his hotel room regardless of whether he had a gun? Sure, you can kill people with knives and trucks as well, but guns are just better at it in every way. I doubt the old man would have been able to stab eighty people to death.
I'm not sure how tighter laws are going to help. They're still going to get a gun and shoot people.
They help in other countries. The USA is the only western country with such lax gun laws, and also the only western country with such high per capita mass shootings. Why would what works everywhere in the western world not work for the US?
And what laws would Americans change? Stricter background check? They guy passed a background check.
That's a question I won't pretend to know the answer to. I'm just saying, the guns are the problem here. I don't know what the solution is, but it's evident to me and every western country on earth what the problem is. Only some Americans who are coincidentally into the hobby themselves don't see the guns as the problem.
Gun ban? Will never happen. People won't give up their guns.
Maybe this is also part of the problem. I'm sure people didn't want to stop beating their wives or owning slaves (not comparing either of these things to owning a gun, just using these as examples of things that seemed impossible to make illegal because of how accepted they were), but yet both of these things are illegal now.
I honestly don't know what people want the government to do. Again, not trying to be a dick.
What every other government did to solve that same problem. You Americans seem to have a bit of a problem with exceptionalism.
How would he kill people standing in the street while looking over them from the window of his hotel room regardless of whether he had a gun? Sure, you can kill people with knives and trucks as well, but guns are just better at it in every way. I doubt the old man would have been able to stab eighty people to death.
A pressure cooker bomb or are we to fast to forget the Boston marathon bombing?
They help in other countries. The USA is the only western country with such lax gun laws, and also the only western country with such high per capita mass shootings. Why would what works everywhere in the western world not work for the US?
Yes but if you look at the statistics of country population and murder the US is low in the chart. We may have more shootings but we do not have the largest killings.
And what laws would Americans change? Stricter background check? They guy passed a background check.
That's a question I won't pretend to know the answer to. I'm just saying, the guns are the problem here. I don't know what the solution is, but it's evident to me and every western country on earth what the problem is. Only some Americans who are coincidentally into the hobby themselves don't see the guns as the problem.
People are the problem. If only guns were the problem then Paris wouldn't be doing a knife ban... or is the news wrong on that. If only guns were the problem people wouldn't be killed by some guy in a truck.
Maybe this is also part of the problem. I'm sure people didn't want to stop beating their wives or owning slaves (not comparing either of these things to owning a gun, just using these as examples of things that seemed impossible to make illegal because of how accepted they were), but yet both of these things are illegal now.
Your right but people did not give that up easily.. We have a little problem called the Civil War and making slavery illegal in the south was one of the causes to that.
What every other government did to solve that same problem. You Americans seem to have a bit of a problem with exceptionalism.
Unlike other governments we have a Bill of Rights and in the Bill of Rights it states we have the right to bare arms.
It would take more then a act of Congress to ratify the 2nd amendment.
And to add onto that the Boston marathon bombing was poorly executed. Had the bombs been raised up a few feet or even worse been above head level you would have seen at a minimum twice as many deaths. (Likely closer to five times with it being at chest level and ten times at head level.)
Fortunately people don't have many examples of how to do a bombing... Possibly because guns are thought to be more effective. (They aren't unless you are going after individuals.)
People are the problem.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Guns don't magically kill people on their own. People kill people. No amount of regulations or laws will change this. Take away X, and they will escalate to Y. Someone makes a Homemade gun. Gee guess then that we should outlaw welding tools or machine tools, because it's too easy for someone to make some crude form of a gun. Rent a truck and mow people down. Gee, guess we should outlaw cars. Banning or outlawing something because someone uses it to kill other people is the stupidest solution possible, and it does absolutely nothing to address the real problem
Please, people outside the USA, don't assume that guns are the problem. Our people are the problem. We have poor resources with mental health, and a huge stigma that goes with it.
People inside the USA, please quit trying to "ban" or "outlaw" the 2nd Amendment. Not only is it ignorant to claim this is what allows people to commit mass shootings/murders, but it's also ignorant because it was written to PREVENT us from being disarmed.
TL;DR - Even if you "Thanos snap" every gun out of existence, people will still kill people. Let's put the focus where it belongs, on the people.
As many other people are saying guns are by far the most efficient weapons people can use to kill people.
Thus laws restricting guns lead to fewer killings.
The second amendment and the large amount of guns is absolutely what allows people to commit mass shootings in the US with such relative ease.
Related to another point in this thread, non-Americans also don’t understand the quasi-religious reverence for the second Amendment. It was written over 200 years ago, in a very different world in which the musket was the hight of weapons technology. It was (maybe depending on the interpretation) written to “prevent you from being disarmed”. So what? If its a stupid law today its a stupid law.
TLDR - if all guns in America were magically vanished FAR FEWER people would kill people as they would find it significantly more difficult.
Also “people will people, no amount of laws will prevent this” - so you are in favour of free ownership of rocket launchers, high explosives, fully automatic weapons, ballistic missiles etc? Should we give up on making murder illegal because “people will just kill people anyway regardless of laws” ?
Nope you should always have murder be illegal, and there should be harsher punishment laws for the use of weapons to commit mass shootings. Just because some people can't be stopped from shooting others doesn't mean that my right or freedom to enjoy firearms should be impacted. I've never used a weapon, be it gun or knife, in anger against anyone. So it's not a matter of anyone stealing my weapons and using them, nor am I a risk to anyone's safety. My gun isn't a threat to anyone until they threaten me.
The 2nd Amendment is not open for discussion, and if you aren't a citizen, you don't understand why it's something you don't want taken away from you. It's not religious zealtiosm, because I am not very religious. My safety and peace of mind come from owning the weapons to protect myself and my family from nearly any threat, not a book of good wishes.
In case you aren't aware, the British Monarch who is responsible for birthing America, tried to take away guns when the colonies grew unruly. Our founding fathers didn't want to ever have to fight at a disadvantage, thus their deciding that it's citizens needed to be able to fight on equal footing, because for all they knew in 200 years some of their descendants might be fighting for their freedom all over again.
It wasn't something that was written in as a measure to give every man, woman, and child 8 guns each cuz beer and 'merica.
But I'm so thankful that despite your assertion that if we just took guns away then there would be less crime doesn't impact my right to the freedom of owning awesome guns. Cheers :)
As many other people are saying guns are by far the most efficient weapons people can use to kill people.
Not true most efficient weapon to harm the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time if the people were crowed together would be an explosive.
The second amendment and the large amount of guns is absolutely what allows people to commit mass shootings in the US with such relative ease.
People with mental disorders is what makes them commit mass murder. Find the root of the problem you solve the problem by banning guns you are just cutting branches off the tree.
Related to another point in this thread, non-Americans also don’t understand the quasi-religious reverence for the second Amendment. It was written over 200 years ago, in a very different world in which the musket was the hight of weapons technology. It was (maybe depending on the interpretation) written to “prevent you from being disarmed”. So what? If its a stupid law today its a stupid law.
I bet the Jews during WWII wishes they had a 2nd amendment. People that are armed are a lot harder to get into a gas chamber. Just saying!
I don't think it is stupid, and by the way it is an amendment not a law. Laws are easily changed amendments.... not so much!
If you want to roll over and have your government dictate everything for you fine... that is not the American way! The government should be fearful of the people not the people fearful of the government.
TLDR - if all guns in America were magically vanished FAR FEWER people would kill people as they would find it significantly more difficult.
People would still kill people and there will be no way to efficiently defend yourself.
Also “people will people, no amount of laws will prevent this” - so you are in favour of free ownership of rocket launchers, high explosives, fully automatic weapons, ballistic missiles etc? Should we give up on making murder illegal because “people will just kill people anyway regardless of laws” ?
I am in favor of civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons but not for self protection more as a sport. They are very inefficient.
I really dislike the argument that if they can't get guns they wouldn't have accomplished their mass killing. Bombs and trucks seem to be doing the job just fine in places without a large gun presence. Second, banning guns is more like alcohol prohibition. It's too ingrained in the culture to be able to ban. Any discussion that brings up banning guns is outright ignoring reality. It'll take an overhaul of mental healthcare, media coverage, and local community changes to see mass shootings stop.
How would he kill people standing in the street while looking over them from the window of his hotel room regardless of whether he had a gun?
You realize there are probably ~500 million firearms in this country? How are you going to get rid of those?
A huge magnet, obviously.
Well, I'd hope you could understand that a few vocal gun enthiusiasts on the internet do not make up the entire population of America.
I own guns, have shot guns all my life, am very familiar with them and comfortable around them. I enjoy them. It's a way for my family to bond. We have a gathering every year near thanksgiving where we all go to my uncle's range and eat food, socialize, and shoot guns for an afternoon. It's completely safe for what it is, we make sure of that.
For the majority of gun owners, the guns are for fun or sport. Shooting competitions, family gatherings, etc. It's just the rotten apples in our culture, that I personally believe is more linked to mental health issues in our country than the access to firearms. I'm not saying our system is perfect though. It's not.
For example, you posted about the Las Vegas massacre. The perpetrator was using a bump stock, which uses the recoil of the gun to allow the user to pull the trigger at a near full-auto rate. I had never heard of these before, but now I've done some research on what exactly they do and am not a fan. They allow for relatively un-aimed mass spraying. I don't really see a use for that except to show off for friends.
But you are right in a way though. It is very difficult to find a person to objectively discuss gun control, or any facet of american politics with without it turning into a denial-fest.
For example, you posted about the Las Vegas massacre. The perpetrator was using a bump stock, which uses the recoil of the gun to allow the user to pull the trigger at a near full-auto rate. I had never heard of these before, but now I've done some research on what exactly they do and am not a fan. They allow for relatively un-aimed mass spraying. I don't really see a use for that except to show off for friends.
The use for the bump stock was to help the handicap shooters be able to shoot.
Really? How does it assist handicapped? Is there a certain specific disability it was designed for? From what I saw of it as long as you keep a good hold of it the rifle can become ‘full automatic’.
Well, I'd hope you could understand that a few vocal gun enthiusiasts on the internet do not make up the entire population of America.
Oh I'm aware of that. The "these people" in my previous posts doesn't mean all americans, or all gun owners, or all gun enthousiasts, it means "the people who are unable to discuss gun control rationally"
Now, that being said, even if you seem to be a safe gun owner who uses them for sport and as a hobby, the kind of person who's always responsible, keeps their gun and ammo in separate safes, etc, the simple fact that you own guns makes you and your family more susceptible to suicide.. That's just one more of the consequences of america's firearm culture that's not often discussed.
And i understand that. Suicide is easier if all you need to do is go grab the gun from the safe and pull the trigger. No time to think about it, grab and go. But I think that also harkens back to the problem in our country of mental health and it's related treatments and social stigma. Any indication of suicidal tendencies should trigger a moving or disposal of any firearms in the house so as to not make it as easy. And try and get help for whomever it is. that being said, it isn't always that easy. Alot of people keep their depression hidden, because to reveal a condition like that can often end in "Oh just get over it". The entire situation can not be chalked up to a single problem. Our society as a whole has to fix many, many things. It's kind of sad as it is that all of this even needs to be discussed. I wish it wasn't relevant.
But I think that also harkens back to the problem in our country of mental health and it's related treatments and social stigma.
Oh yeah definitely. I'm just saying, when people discuss banning guns in america the mass shootings always come up, when statistically the suicides are a much bigger problem.
The problem is suicide in America is taboo and nothings really done about it. Our mental healthcare system aint exactly something to brag about.
I live in the USA and hate guns. I don’t understand the fascination. I have these debates all the time. People say it’s for protection against the government. Well, you can’t have guns in dc. Not to mention if I shot up DC, I think I would get in a tinge bit of trouble. I hate the USA. I need to get out of here.
as an avid gun owner. i apologize on the account of some of the people that hold the same interests as i do.
Haha, don't apologize to me, go look into the responses to this one very post and talk some sense into them!
this is why i hate some of my fellow gun owners. they do stuff like this and turn people away from gun instead of showing their side of the story and debate like adults
What law do you propose that would have prevented the LV shooting?
Are you that desperate for competent lawmakers that you need to stoop so low as to ask someone living on another continent for advice on that? I think you have a whole chamber of elected officials whose job it is to come up with laws that could prevent mass shootings from happening.
All I'm saying is that the argument of "if you ban guns only criminals will have guns" completely ignores the very real issue of law abiding citizens getting their guns legally and then using them to commit crimes.
No, I'm having a conversation on reddit dude. Relax.
I've yet to hear of a law that would prevent that sort of shooting (or many of these shootings, really), so I've yet to hear of a gun control law I'd support
And downvoting my responses to you is really conductive to that conversation.
I'm not a legal expert, I'm obviously not going to crack the code that your lawmakers have failed to crack for decades, and it's unfair of you to ask me to do it, or otherwise not talk about it, as if there's no middle ground here.
I'm responding to the argument (that you haven't stated yourself, I've just read it again and again in these debates) that a ban on guns only affect law abiding citizens. I'm saying a law abiding citizen can guy a gun legally and then shoot people with it, and I'm providing an example. That's all I'm saying. Now feel free to dodge the one point I'm making here again.
I didn't downvote you dude.
I'm not dodging your point, I'm trying to engage it. What gun control law, that doesn't needlessly infringe upon millions of law abiding citizens' rights, would have stopped the LV shooter? I think these sorts of black swan events happen. You can't have laws to protect you against every single thing. Sometimes someone shoots a bunch of people because they're fucking nuts. Sometimes planes fly into buildings. Sometimes people drive trucks into crowds. Take your pick.
What gun control law, that doesn't needlessly infringe upon millions of law abiding citizens' rights, would have stopped the LV shooter?
I think our disagreement here is on the word needlessly. I don't think people need to be able to buy rifles chambered in the same caliber NATO troops use. You seem to disagree, and obviously some european on reddit isn't going to change your mind about that.
I think these sorts of black swan events happen.
Yeah, it's just that they only happen in the US.
Sometimes people drive trucks into crowds.
That argument would have a bit more merit if the numbers for mass shootings and the numbers for the truck attack in nice where a bit more comparable.
Sometimes someone shoots a bunch of people because they're fucking nuts. Sometimes planes fly into buildings. Sometimes people drive trucks into crowds.
Why should we as American's regulate, or more heavily regulate, our machines, designed with the sole purpose of killing as fast and efficiently as possible, because we have transportation vehicles that, in at least my state are more difficult to get\access, can cause a fraction of similar casualties? Is that really the question you are asking? I had a shotgun 2 years before I was even eligible to drive a vehicle. Btw, that's not "my parents bought one and said it was mine", that gun was REGISTERED TO AN 14 YEAR OLD CHILD. Of course the simplest response is "well don't allow your kids to have it then", but clearly, as a whole, we cannot be trusted with that responsibility.
I think these sorts of black swan events happen.
I think you are shutting your eyes and ears to the world around you, whispering that its only outliers, and that is being reinforced by the largest lobbyist in the country. You seem to be taking the blame off yourself, and as a fellow American, its on us. Every school, every theater, every music festival that gets shot up is on us at this point.
We know the cause, we know the fix. Get your head out of the sand and take responsibility for your country and laws.
I once had that discussion with an american online. I pointed out the, then pretty recent, Las Vegas massacre where the guy shot people up with legally bought guns.
How does that address the issue that people can still illegally obtain firearms? How is that intellectually honest when it isn't addressing that point?
Also gun rights advocates are keenly aware of the fact most of these mass shooters got their firearms legally, which means they know that common sense gun control laws that won't be for taking their guns away are BS. Because you can't effectively filter out people who might commit these outlier events without also denying the vast, vast majority of people who aren't an issue.
No gun laws would have stopped the vegas shooter
Yea americans are complete idiots when it comes to their guns. Fact is all those kids that shot up schools were absolute losers, the only reason they were able to shoot up those schools was because they had access to mommy and daddys guns. I can guarantee that if those same losers didn't have access and tried to buy weapons illegally they would've been killed because the sellers would just trip out.
I'm from Canada and we don't have school shootings up here at all. I can only remember one off the top of my head and that was in the early 90's. We still hold a remembrance for that school every year in other schools.
Americans like to claim "oh its in the amendment incase we have a government that is bad and trying to deprive the rights of the citizens" I'm fairly certain if any american actually tried to act on that amendment and tried to overthrow a government or stop them in any way using guns they'd be labelled terrorists or something similar.
" I can guarantee that if those same losers didn't have access and tried to buy weapons illegally they would've been killed because the sellers would just trip out." The Colombine shooters managed to acquire all their guns by convincing someone to make illegal "straw purchases" for them and buying one off someone else who knew they were underage so it was an illegal transaction .
"I'm from Canada and we don't have school shootings up here at all." Wikipedia says there have been 19 school shootings in the history of Canada. The most recent in 2016. 5 in the last ten years. and 9 in the last 20 years.
Watch a lot of Americans not understand how this works. You might as well be saying "And then we just gave all our guns to the gun fairy and never had any problems ever again."
Or "Fine, but what about stabbings? You get stabbed way more in the UK!"
... and then you have to explain that yes, we do have stabbings here, but it's a lot easier to mow down an entire room full of people from 20ft away with a gun than it is with a knife, and a lot easier to disarm someone who has a knife than has a gun.
[deleted]
That's a rad as heck movie poster right there.
youd be suprised how easy it is to stab people.
Source: have stabbed people
Oh, totally. Bit harder to stand in a hotel room and stab at people on the ground at a music concert, though. Stabbing is obviously dangerous, but in different ways to guns. Guns are distance weapons. Knives aren't.
i dont have the source im sorry. but if you get shot in the chest you have a 40ish% chance of dying if you get medical attention in the first few minutes. the chance of death from a stab wound is something like 66-75% chance to die if the same medical attention is given. and you are right guns have distance, but knifes are easily concealed and are silent to a extreme degree.
The point I'm making is that the LA attack, when a man shot at hundreds of people from a hotel window, would not be possible with a knife. To stab someone, you need to get close to them. Yes, once someone has been stabbed, the damage is pretty awful (as it is with a bulletwound!) but it requires much less logistical faffing to shoot someone from a distance.
This is borne up by murder rates in general, which tend to be higher in countries with a greater number of guns (including countries with strict gun laws but lots of guns, like Mexico).
This study also suggests the opposite to your point - 33% of gunshot victims died as opposed to 7% of stabbing victims. I do think that you'd need to compare multiple studies to get any real result, though.
different items are used differently. you wouldn't use a smartcar for hauling a trailer. and you wouldnt use a truck for its gas mileage. kinda like comparing apples to oranges. but i see your point.
No, but a gun and a knife are both designed to kill or cause harm. I'm aware that different items are used differently; that is, in fact, my point. When you restrict access to guns, you limit the number of people who can perpetrate attacks such as the one in LA which result in mass loss of life, because knives can't be used in the same way.
a kitchen knife is used to kill? ^/s guns arent just made to hunt. look at the olympics theres a competetion called trap its shotguns and clay targets being hurled into the air. most gun owners have only a couple guns for home defense. when you limit things people will still get them. in american history we had this thing in the 80s and 90s called "the war on drugs" those legal restrictions didnt do anything
I was referring to the kinds of knives that are specifically designed to be used as weapons, not kitchen knives. But sure, kitchen knives are designed to chop through stuff, including meat and flesh, so why not extend that to human tissue?
And sure, when you limit things people will still get them. But look at the rates of gun violence in the UK compared to the US. Hint: it's a fuckload lower, and it's just complete cognitive dissonance to pretend that the fact that it's harder to get a gun here is irrelevant. You're just ignoring what I'm actually saying at this point, which is that the kind of damage that can be done by guns is more extensive than what can be done by knives, if we're talking about one individual with a weapon in a public space.
Explain how that is relevant to the 99% of homicides that are not mass killings
Sure thing! See my other comments in the thread with links to data on mortality rates from gun v knife wounds.
that is irrelevant. You dont know what percent of cases were attempted murders, vs how many were just minor wounds in an attempt to cause fear
Did you read the link?
Edit: here
That analysis does not make that distinction
It makes it clear that gunshot wounds were more often fatal. Not sure what else you want. A survey of patients asking if the assailant intended to kill, harm or scare them?
It does not. If I chopped off a guys pinky finger, I didnt intend to kill them, but they would still be counted as a knife wound by that survey
It doesn't say that at all. That's an inference. By your logic, if someone shot off someone's little finger, it would also be counted. Not seeing the problem here.
if someone shot off someone's little finger, it would also be counted.
But people dont do that, they use a knife virtually always for these sorts of acts of intimidation
Do they? You're inferring a lot here.
Yes.
it is something that the study you are talking about ignores.
You're making a lot of assumptions to justify the data saying something you'd rather it not say.
A big part of our problem in America is that guns are already so ubiquitous. There are already so, so many guns here and many of them belong to criminals, gangs, unresponsible owners, and the mentally unstable. We could pass extremely strict gun laws tomorrow, and millions of law abiding gun owners could surrender their guns to the government / police / whatever. But that still leaves millions more who wouldn't care about the new laws that were passed (i.e. criminals and mentally unstable people etc). Which really only leaves the rest of the population less safe.
Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. Sane people who only use their guns for good purposes like hunting, recreational target shooting, or home/self defense and keep those guns locked up in safes while not in use aren't the problem. Those people aren't the ones going around murdering and shooting up public spaces.
Changing our gun laws isn't going to fix our cultural gun problem; that's why there's always so much backlash regarding gun control from responsible gun owners.
Except you don't even begin to take steps to make the problem better, not worse.
Criminals and nutjobs can still get guns too easily. Law enforcement still isn't allowed to do their jobs to track illegal guns properly. You still talk about giving people more guns to fight the guns.
You can't solve this problem quickly, but right now you're not even trying.
Previous methods like the assault weapons ban had success... but you can't even look objectively at measures like that because extreme views like three NRA have poisoned everything.
Absolutely nothing you said is true. It is illegal for criminals and nutjobs to get guns, law enforcement does their jobs to track illegal guns, we talk about giving people more guns to fight in any situation where there is a disparity of force (which exists even without guns), the assault weapons ban had no effect, and the NRA has done nothing stopping people from looking objectively at the numbers
Oh hi gun fairy! How's it going?
Would you seriously trust the American police force to protect you when it's been judged they don't have to? If the cops face dangers that require guns, then the victims of those criminals also have a similar requirement.
Hell with the amount of guns we fabricate here I imagine it would be a tad harder to keep them off the streets.
The overwhelming majority of mass shooters aren't supposed to have the guns they used, so it's an issue of incompetent enforcement, and new laws would just allow them to be selectively applied ( as usual). This selective enforcement historically singles our the poor and minorities.
So the issue is a little more nuanced than those tribal Americans refusing to give up gun totems.
Gun amnesties are a thing, and they often work quite well.
The problem is that there is like 3 guns for every person in America. If we even went as far as straight up banning guns we would still be armed to the teeth. Honestly it would be impossible to get every gun off our streets so regulating them minimally but effectively is the only feasible way to protect our people without hostile seizure of the guns. Considering that it’s written in or constitution that we have the right to fight our government if we all dislike them you can understand why trying to take people’s guns would go really badly
I agree with you. I don't personally think that banning guns is the way to go, just tightening existing gun laws. I think that, like you say, banning them would just cause so much resistance that it would be counter-productive. As much as I wish we could have some global gun free utopia, it's just not realistic. I wish I could say that I think banning them would work, but I just don't think it would. I think that laws mandating more stringent background checks and training for those who purchase firearms, as well as proficiency testing and laws around how the firearms are kept safe in the home, would be a better idea, and then perhaps, in the far off future, if the gun culture were more receptive to change, further restrictions could be viewed more favourably. It's about striking a balance, I think.
Honestly Americans are plagued by bad communication. Most anti gun people on want to make sure that mentally stable and responsible people can own but everyone with guns doesn’t listen and thinks that we’re coming to burn everyone’s arms. I am deeply liberal and want more regulation by I am also a responsible owner. Guns are fun and if we can all just own them safely and responsibly then why not?
A friend and i did a quick comparison and if I'm remembering correctly, the US has had more mass shootings in the last 10 years than the Uk has had mass KILLINGS IN THE LAST 25 YEARS (by any means, this is a list including shootings, bombings, arson, vehicle attacks etc.). That blows my mind, and we can still legally own most practical/useful guns such as shotguns, hunting rifles, and in some cases pistols
I think the main issue is that America has gotten too big, there are too many people, and each state has too many individual laws to ever implement real and good gun control.
The UK is about the same size as a small state in America, and not a huge amount of people had guns in the first place. It was therefore a lot easier to have people hand over their guns. Australia is a really sparsely populated country - those who need guns have guns, and those in the main townships and cities who have guns and dont need them were easy to remove.
America is... huge. Both in population size and land mass. The vast majority of people have guns, and even worse, it's put in the declaration of independence that they should have guns, and humanity is far better at choosing the best bits from history than looking at the worst bits in the future.
There are way too many guns in circulation. Too many gun sellers looking to overlook the law and sell guns. Too many loopholes that make it possible for people to get guns. Too many businesses that involve guns are also involved in politics. Too many people scared about their 'way of life' being threatened.
The thing is, the laws in America are already fairly stringent, but state by state, they're easily bypassed. And they're getting more powerful, more produced, and more used now than ever before.
The only way I, personally, as a non-American can see any semblance of gun control is taking business out of politics. Have it like in the UK - if you are found to be working in league with ANY company, you are liable to be removed from office. Only then are you going to even begin to release the stranglehold that guns have on America.
Tightening laws doesn't always lead to less shootings. There are a variety of other social factors at hand. Mexico and The Philippines have tighter gun laws then America but are more violent
Yep, it can't be ignored that Mexico is bordered by the US, which has a huge wealth of guns.
Don't forget the war on drugs, it's really helped Mexico curb its gun violence.
Oh yeah, such a peaceful policy!
To live is to risk it all. If the UK had proper vetting and background checks, they wouldn't of needed to essentially ban guns like they have. The British public seems to hate freedom, and yearns for authoritarianism, so it doesn't surprise me they banned most guns. Some people just don't have an innate drive for freedom like others do.
Just a tip for next time - phrases like 'an innate drive for freedom' make it really, really obvious that you're just baiting. The key to artful trolling is subtlety.
Having lived in the UK (and even being eligible for citizenship), I can confirm that the British really do love them some fascism. I've never met a Western people more fixated on having the government take care of them and telling them what to do.
99% of school shootings was done with a gun acquired illegally though. I don't understand how you think it's a moot point when it's true.
Do you have a source for that?
You don't need a source. The Florida shooting was the only one where the shooter was over 18. It's illegal for anyone under 18 to have a firearm. All those under 18 who committed a school shooting had their guns illegally.
Actually, I do need a source. If you're going to claim that 99% of school shootings are perpetrated by someone with a gun obtained illegally and then use that argument as a central point to your anti-gun control stance, you need to back it up. Otherwise, your point falls flat.
For example, I can prove to you that out of our 3 mass shootings in the UK, the first perpetrator owned his gun legally, as did the 2nd, and the 3rd owned one of his legally and had owned the second one legally until the laws changed.
All those under 18 who committed a shooting may well have not legally had access to those guns, but if their parents did legally have access to those guns and the children were able to access those guns, that still suggests that the fact that the guns were legally acquired and were then accessible to the child is part of the problem.
Here's your source then. You have to be 18 to purchase a firearm. The kids stole from their parents. Which is still illegally acquiring a gun. You're changing what you consider illegal to match your claim.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/
Please refer to my previous comment, which already counters this argument.
No you didn't. You're claiming that stealing a gun from someone doesn't count as acquiring a gun illegally. Stealing is illegal even if it's from your parents.
Nope, try again. I stated that the guns were acquired legally, which they were. I then stated that the fact that the guns were initially able to be acquired legally made them more available to the children who took them illegally; if the guns were not so widely available in the first place, there would be fewer instances of school shootings. Want a source for that? Sure! The fact that the UK hasn't had a single school shooting since we tightened our gun laws. Have a great Wednesday; I'm done here. There's nothing else to say on the matter.
So you admit that the guns were taken illegally and this somehow doesn't fit your definition of an illegal gun. That makes no sense.
Nope, try again. I stated that the guns were acquired legally, which they were. I then stated that the fact that the guns were initially able to be acquired legally made them more available to the children who took them illegally; if the guns were not so widely available in the first place, there would be fewer instances of school shootings. Want a source for that? Sure! The fact that the UK hasn't had a single school shooting since we tightened our gun laws. Have a great Wednesday; I'm done here. There's nothing else to say on the matter.
All I see is "children who took them illegally" and I'm still waiting on an explanation of how they didn't have illegal guns.
[...] I then stated that the fact that the guns were initially able to be acquired legally [...] The fact that the UK hasn't had a single school shooting since we tightened our gun laws.
So what's stopping anyone anywhere from stealing a gun acquired legally like these kids did?
[...] I then stated that the fact that the guns were initially able to be acquired legally made them more available to the children who took them illegally; if the guns were not so widely available in the first place, there would be fewer instances of school shootings. Want a source for that? Sure! The fact that the UK hasn't had a single school shooting since we tightened our gun laws.
Doesn't answer the question at all.
the guns were initially able to be acquired legally made them more available to the children who took them illegally
It's already illegal to steal guns here. Did you not know that?
the guns were initially able to be acquired legally made them more available
And stealing guns is illegal. How are you not understanding this?
[removed]
I'm going to sum this up for you super simply, and then, for the good of my brain, leave you to stew in your own cognitive dissonance.
If the guns had not been so widely available, because they are legal, then the children would not have had access to those guns. Children in the UK do not have the ability to open up their living room cupboards and find daddy's legal firearm and bring it to school. The fact that the guns were purchased legally and were widely available is a direct contributing factor to the number of school shootings in the US. The ability of those children to very readily access a gun, because guns are legal and therefore more readily available, and therefore more common, meant that they could go into school and shoot their classmates.
You: but they took their parents' guns, which is stealing! That's illegal!
Me: they wouldn't have been able to take their parents' guns if their parents didn't have guns, which they did, legally.
You: but the guns were illegal because the kids stole them!
Me: the guns were purchased legally, which enabled the children to take them. If there were no gun to take, they would not be able to take a gun to school.
You: but they weren't legal :( they were stolen :( not legal guns :(
Me: ... the guns were purchased legally, which meant that the children had access to the guns. Children in the UK don't have access to guns, because it's a lot harder to get hold of one.
You: they only got hold of one illegally :( theft :(
Me: ...
Dude, we don't have school shootings in the UK. The last one we had was over 20 years ago. You have dozens a year. We have very restricted access to firearms. Generally speaking, in the US (excepting certain states), you don't. Do you honestly not see the correlation? Because it's... pretty fucking clear to the rest of the world.
Now seriously, I have better stuff to do than repeat myself endlessly to a guy who wants to pretend that the fact that you can buy guns in his country doesn't have an impact on the number of people who have access to guns.
The only bad thing was gun crime , knife crime, violent crime and sexual crimes all went up overnight. But at least the kids are safe
Kind of makes the whole US argument of 'but the bad guys will just buy an illegal gun and shoot up schools anyway!' kind of moot.
How does it do that at all? The proliferation of illegal weapons is way worse in the US than here in the UK. Here, you have difficulty getting any sort of weapon at all. In many places in the US, if you can't get a legal gun you wouldn't struggle to get an illegal one at all if you knew the right people
Which I would imagine is somewhat linked to the vast number of legal guns.
I think the gun laws in the UK were already more restrictive. I think the problem we have right now is that even if we decide to tighten up our gun laws, there are already 101 guns per 100 residents (as far as we are able to calculate). To actual reduce the number of guns readily available would require a ton of participation from gun owners and that is not going to happen. I have cousins that won't move to a more lucrative job in another state (where they have family and social support) because they can't legally bring their assault rifles to the new state. And have said that if they ever did move, they would still keep the guns.
How did Australia manage the gun recall thing? I know they haven't had another mass shooting since they tightened their laws post Port Arthur, but I'm not sure how their overall gun crime has dropped. I think they offered financial remuneration for people returning their guns. Might that be one way of doing it? As I say, genuine question because I'm not sure how well it actually worked in Australia!
OK, we don't have 0 gun crime, but it's a hell of a lot lower than the US.
Yeah, and you have an insane amount of knife crime to the point where your government wants to restrict kitchen knives. Your police wear stab vests. London surpassed NYC in murder rate.
Read all the comments in this thread about stabbing, because I'm not going into it again. It's dull.
Edit: also our overall murder rate is multiple times lower than in the US.
But how dare the government take away unnecessary gun privileges from Americans, we need the biggest, most powerful, largest magazine guns possible to one day prevent our government from turning on the people.
The weirdest part is that active military personnel want guns to protect themselves from their own military
I love the idea that the government might one day turn on the people but not use nukes. It's 2018; if the government decides to turn on the people, the people won't stand a chance no matter how many guns they have! The government has nuclear weapons.
But why would they nuke their own cities Worst case scenario the government becomes a dictatorship and just wants full control and take away rights
New Zealand here, we had our only school shooting in 1921.
And as a nation with a lot of farming it's not like we don't use guns.
I’m Australian, recently went through the licensing process (for target shooting only) it took about 4 months. We have to do a safety course before we can apply for the license. The course was a joke, obvious money grab by the company tasked with it. Bad/wrong information everywhere. Also some of the weirdos in the course had me worried, the guy next to me was a bit twitchy. I’m hoping the licensing component took care of these people but I doubt it. Handguns are controlled far more than rifles, to the point where it just wasn’t worth the effort to go down that track.
That's interesting to hear. Gun licensing over here has traditionally been handled by the Police themselves but this year they've decided to roll out a practical component delivered by a private company, so it will be interesting to see how that pans out.
Do you guys have to have visits to your home by police as part of the licensing?
Handguns are harder here too.
That practical component sounds like our "safety certificate".. basically a 6 hour course that is SUPPOSED to be about legislation, safety, and handling. We got 5 hours of bullshit stories, no handling other than a quick "here's how to hold a rifle", and a multiple choice test that everyone passed. We then went to a practical where I got to use a u/o shotty, 22lr, and lever action (which broke) - all stuff I had grown up with because I grew up in a country town. I paid $100 for a cert that was fucking useless except for moving me on to the stage where I could apply for the license. Take into account I'm ex army reserve.. the whole day was like fingernails on a blackboard. There should have been a decent amount of current legislation, handling, cleaning and storage, and a day or at least half day of weapons handling. I'm confident enough with a weapon, but if I saw any of these people I did this course with on a range, I'd pack up and head home... especially if I saw the girl that dropped the glock 4 times and giggled about it... oh, forgot to add, this course was contracted out to a reasonably large and well known training company. Sorry forgot to mention yeah we have visits mainly for storage compliance, making sure everything is locked away properly.
Man that sucks. You've got me wondering what shenannigans people get up to here.
How hard is it to get citizenship? I am from Poland. I would love be to move there.
Dzien dobry! It is quite hard to become a citizen, unless you have a skill that is on our shortage list or else if you are a millionaire or something. Also you have to have no serious health issues.
I agree, obviously, but also I feel like the US might be a special case where it's just too late. Criminals already have a shitload of guns - the horse has already bolted.
This is why I'm so wary of UK police increasingly being given guns - because it just means that the criminals will now have to get them, and then ordinary people to protect themselves. And so on, and so on ad infinitum
That's a common idea, that we've got so many guns that criminals can just get them anyway, but I think it's wrong. I remember reading once that most gun crime is committed with guns bought within the last year. So it's not like they've got a lot of guns stored up just waiting to use. ANd there's a lot of things we can do to impede criminals from getting guns. For example, we should have a background check for every transfer of a gun and penalties for selling one without a background check. That could really impede criminals access to guns. We could also require registration of all firearms, which would make tracking transfers easier and confiscation of illegally sold guns easier. We also need to make it easier to put bad gun dealers out of business. IIRC, the large majority of illegal gun sales are some by just 1-2% of retailers. Most retailers are trying hard to keep from selling to criminals and it's just a few guys who don't give a shit that are selling most of these "crime guns". We need to make it easier to put these guys out of business permanently.
A school in Delft (the Netherlands) wanted to do a school shooting simulation to teach the kiddos how to act in such an event.
They got ridiculed and the event got canceled. This, because there literally have only been 2 shooting incidents in schools entirely. And they were both targeted, no mass shooting.
US is a really big place, and shootings happens in some places and not in others. Can't really blame the entire us.
Well, you can blame that on NRA lobbying and conservative crackback.
The only place where school shootings are a logical concern are in gang infested liberal cities.
Would you rather have them stabbed? Or perhaps blown up?
Yes that's exactly what I meant to say... Fucking hell, what a fucking retarded reply. Well done on writing the stupidest thing I'm likely to read today. FFS.
Gun violence in general. Some guy wields a knife in my country and it's all over the news.
Wields? Try getting stopped for a broken taillight and getting a conviction because you didn't have a reason to have a knife in the trunk =]
wait what.... please tell me that's a joke, how the fuck can you be convicted just for having a knife in your own private vehicle?
No joke. Having a knife with a blade longer than 7cm is a violation, and therefore illegal unless you have a proper reason to bring it with you.
It is here too. We are just a really big country and make a lot of violent movies and tv shows which make it seem like bodies are raining from the sky. The lead character in Sons of Anarchy kills 43 people in the span of a couple years. There are 370 deaths on the show. Season 7 alone has more killing than my state had in 2017.
My state of 5.5million people averages 1 murder every 3-4 days - total. Even Baltimore which has an extra high murder rate is still only 1 per day on average - mostly drug or gang related.
Gun violence is not a significant issue
This has probably been said already, but the fact there are legal, easy to buy weapons which causes the death of thousands of innocent adults and children every month or so, and people can't agree on what to do about it.
It's a tough conversation. There are over 300 million guns owned by the public here. Every time a mass casualty incident occurs the same conversation comes up, which centers around restricting the rights of 99% of legal gun owners. Cities like Chicago and Baltimore have the most strict gun laws on record, yet have the highest amount of gun violence in the country. It's really a unique problem. I don't think rounding up all the guns is realistic, and having redundant conversations over stricter gun laws is not proven to do anything so far. Most of the mass violence is perpetrated with an AR 15, which has a small round similar to a .22. Big difference is there is a huge amount of powder packed into each shell, and most AR's come stock with 30 round magazines. I have one, I shoot it at an outdoor range. I'm constantly reminded how deadly an AR is due to its huge capacity. It would be a start to ban these high capacity magazines while starting to look at increased security in all schools. Both political sides will likely hate my comment here though
Is it time for the weekly "Why America sucks" thread already?
Whilst the Germans, Mexicans and Brits are held in such high regard by the Reddit-sphere.
Wanna know who has it worse than the US? Italy. Just try to notice how much generalization about Italy and Italians you find here. It's insane
I think Russians or French actually have it worse.
The 'Why America rules' thread will be following shortly.
/r/MURICA
GUNS, GUNS, BIG MACS AND MODIFIED DIESEL TRUCKS
Is it time for the weekly "Why America sucks" thread already?
Is it time for the ~~weekly~~ daily "Why America sucks" thread already?
FTFY
Oh but haven't you heard? Other countries don't struggle with violence, bad political leaders, or obesity due to the presence of fast food.
Nobody said we don't struggle with it. But it is multiple times worse in the US.
The question said "can you absolutely not relate to." Also, I don't know how people are so sure that it's multiple times worse here. How do you know it isn't just the media hyping things up?
America is a great country but other people generally struggle with a few things such as no universal healthcare, university debts and your large food sizes (which i personally like!).
None of the things in this thread are really wrong. The issue is this thread gets constantly asked and is always filled with the same responses.
This is why I barely read these types of threads anymore. People ask the same damn questions over and over. Are people so slow in the brain that they cant think of anything outside of the box?
And look at that, most of the super anti-US comments come from very new accounts. Thinkingemoji.gif
I'm the first one to rail on America outside of Reddit but man it's just a constant "shit on America" theme in here, and about stuff that doesn't even matter (I'm not talking about health care, etc.).
[deleted]
Good thing most Americans aren't easily peer pressured sheep. The majority of us couldn't care less.
couldn't care less
Took the time to comment on the post though didn't ya.
Gets whipped up into a frenzy every time an election runs around, truly a country of independent thinkers.
Americans aren't sheep
Oh the sweet irony
[deleted]
Jesus, go away then.
Jesus, if only it were as simple as you blind patriots make it out to be
I'm picturing you waking up every day in a Uncle Sam outfit then staring dejectedly into your bathroom mirror
Leave. You're allowed to do that. We're not North Korea; which, coincidentally, you may be able to move to in this lifetime due to a president that is actually doing something.
If only it were that easy tomi
What's so hard? Pack your bags and buy a one way ticket.
You are revealing your ignorance
Lol - the cuck that says his life is so terrible for being born in a country that countless would give an arm and a leg to live in is calling me ignorant.
[deleted]
"I hate my country.....I'm not leaving" - grade fuckin F logic.
[deleted]
Have you started the paperwork to leave? If you tell me where you want to go, I'll give you the links for the immigration policy of that country.
I'm sorry.
Yes, reflection is painful
Yes.
there are a lot of Americans on reddit, so naturally America is discussed a lot.
Also you see far more “America is awesome, the rest of the world sucks! USA USA!!” threads on reddit than “America sucks” threads.
Indeed the reaction of the rest of the world is partly in response to the overly jingoistic/nationalistic “America is best” attitude.
I am 100% seriously asking you- Where are these "America is awesome" threads? Can you please give me a few examples of pro-America posts that have made the front page in the past few months?
Honestly? Nearly everything you see frequently on Reddit.
Education: Safety of children at school, weak geography, different traditions EDIT: College tuition and extreme debt (It's also awful in the UK but we don't repay it until earning a certain amount of money and if it's not paid back in full by 40^? years then it gets written off).
Healthcare and Medication: The absurd cost of either living or dying, medication advertising on TV, unbelievable prices for basic medication such as Epi-pens and some diabetes medication.
Mental Health Care: Complete lack of it in general, very underfunded and very taboo / stigmatised along with its effects on gun crime and quality of living.
Gun control: The fact that it's almost always a constant argument and guns are put before the lives of others. Also, the constitution and more specifically the 2nd Amendment that'd never stop a government or create an uprising.
Politics: Lack of professionalism, experienced people and politicians actually working for the benefit of their citizens rather than whoever pays them. Also, the fact that the system can be so easily manipulated (electoral college / popular vote).
Segregation between races and ideologies: Black on black/white crime, hate speech disguised under "freedom of speech", lack of care or sympathy for those of different cultures in places of power (government) and extreme police bias toward different racial groups as well as severe fear or disdain for different religions.
Idiotic people with a loud voice: Anti-vaccers, anti-gay marriage, removal of rights from different people, etc. This all seems to be a larger issue in the US than most other places. It's not difficult - everyone treated equally, gays can marry, people must vaccinate.
Religion: Obsession with God and Christianity as well as the influence He has on every day life or events. Some kid gets his life saved by a hardworking doctor? "Thank you God for saving this boys life and giving him another chance!" Going to court? "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?", Homophobia and out-of-date world views.
Corporations / Businesses / Companies: Their control over politics, media and general living as well as the power they can have when it comes to letting bills and proposals pass (Net Neutrality).
Advertising: Medication, scams, bootleg/rip-off shit, hundreds of different news stations each promoting their own agenda, political promotions and politician approved messages.
Corruption: Representatives, chairs of government bodies and people in power and their open corruption or accepting of money for voting on one-thing or the other (this happens everywhere but it's much more open and obvious in America e.g FCC, NRA and others).
Etc... It seems like every issue that has existed elsewhere on the planet at some point goes to America and becomes extremely exaggerated. I'm not saying that none of the above has never happened to any country outside of America because that'd be a complete lie. However, to ignore the fact that the US has it almost always worse is also dumb. Maybe that's because it's the centre of the western cultural world and maybe that's because more news reports on the US than other countries but I doubt it. As much as Reddit dislikes to be made aware of it, most countries pay a lot of attention to their internal affairs well before the US's and this includes people too. So, if it were particularly obvious and jointly bad elsewhere on the planet then we'd probably hear about it one way or the other.
EDIT: People arguing about the 2nd amendment: if your government or state wanted to fuck you over then they could. Guns wouldn't stop that. They've got armoured vehicles, tactics, aircraft, total control over electricity and communication as well as the Internet and general utilities. You'd be fucked unless the national guard or army suffered the same fate as you all and that would never happen because it'd be suicide. They'd always be promised a safe and relaxed life for themselves and their family for their loyalty and discipline.
In the extremely unlikely event that America, in the modern day, decided to do something that'd piss off 90% of the population then it'd already be too late to act on anything. Regardless of history, the 2nd amendment does nothing now. Muskets, flintlock pistols and thin metal reinforcements? Sure. Against modern day military vehicles, body armour and weaponry? Not a chance. But even then that requires that the entire country basically collapses. The reality would be that the government would only selectively piss off people gradually or by slowly passing something leading up to a more larger problem. That would easily squash any tiny rebellion or uprising as not everyone would be willing to react at once - exactly like the bystander effect.
Gun control: The fact that it's almost always a constant argument and guns are put before the lives of others.
Ask yourself how many lives the other civil liberties (and yes the Yankees do consider the right to bear arms an important liberty, for better or for worse) you value are worth. How many saved lives would you give up the right to a fair trial for? Or the right to freedom of speech and/or the press? Or the right to privacy? (I know we basically don't have that last one anymore, some people are still very angry about that.)
I can't say I would be able to answer that question. I'm curious if you are, though.
its a non-question because the whole point of the non-American viewpoint is that freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, right to privacy etc. are important civil liberties.
The “right to own guns” on the other hand is really not. Not even close.
Education- The US public education system is run on the state (Provincial(I think) for you) level. All of its finances, design, curriculum, history, and future planning is all run at the state level.
The federal government is only allowed to dictate basic rules and provides funding to them based on certain requirements.
College debt is mainly because those people decided to go to a privately owned colleges and universities. The people who go to public colleges and universities generally don't have that kind of debt and with all of the scholarships and grants available anyone can basically get a free college education if they get awarded them.
Healthcare is also mainly based on the state level and privately owned. Medicare (not sure if you know what that is) acts as a quick-patch public healthcare, but it is lacking in funding due to the current administration. The issue with not nationalizing it goes back to the idea that people don't want to pay for other people and are more willing to try and eat the costs themselves rather than possibly pay for someone else.
Mental Healthcare- It is actually there and is successful when used, the idea they are underfunded part is mainly because those facilities are mainly privately owned and they will eat the cost if you are an immediate risk or meet their recovery path. Otherwise your insurance, if you have it will cover it.
it is also far from taboo in the US. Depression is an issue many relate with and will help people and friends in need to make sure they get the care they need. The US Suicide hotline is manned by volunteers and many care workers in hospital emergency mental care wards are also volunteers. Not sure where you got that from.
The issue with mental care in the US are people can't stick to the recovery plan, or can't afford it, which goes back to the problem of nationalizing healthcare.
Gun Control- This is highly opinionated, but the long and short of it is that people do not have confidence in local police or the overall government.
Due to the current public image of the police, the general idea is that the police will not be there to save them, so they must save themselves, and to do that they need the great equalizer, the gun. Police response times can range from minutes to half an hour depending on how many calls are coming in and how many policemen there actually are in a city or town, because police are also handled at a local level.
People also less fear a tyrannical government takeover and more of a government collapse, where they will be cut off and alone and will have to fend for themselves. Notice how prevalent survivalist ideas are in the United States.
Also in the vein of tyrannical government, while a person with a gun may not stop them completely, the idea is to make life for the government to be as hard as possible to get them to come to the negotiating table, if it ever comes to that point. Notice around the world where uprisings take place like Ukraine and Eygpt, the military tends to stay out of choosing a side and its the police who have to fight the protesters. the police are about as well armed as the protesters in the US in that case, and that makes for a pretty level playing field.
Politics- Honestly the lack of professionalism is a rather recent thing, only coing into play with the current administration in the last two or so years. Before that, under Bush and Obama and all the ones who came before, and all the senators and representatives, they were all very professional individuals who did work in what they did believe was the best interest of the people who voted them into their positions.
Sure there were lobby groups who pushed their ideas, but many of those lobby groups were funded by public donations to them from people who backed those beliefs.
Also the voting system, while outlined by the federal government and they dole out the amount of electoral votes each state gets, is also administered at the State level, outside the control of the federal government. Its why it looks so bad, but that freedom also allows the states to do things like the national popular vote interstate compact (You should read up on this).
Segregation- Starting with the crime, this is mainly fueled by economics rather than race. You said yourself a black guy is just as ready to rob another black guy as he is a white guy, and vice versa. Race has little to due with whether someone wants to rob another person.
"Hate speech" (and I have to put that in quotations) has no real legal definition in the United States and is not outlawed.
Its because the US concept of Freedom of Speech is complete and total. As long as what you are saying does not put another person in immediate harms way, you are allowed to say it. Its because people are allowed to have a vocal dissenting opinion.
Speaking against segregation in the United States, against Slavery used to be seen as racist because you put other races before your own. But they allowed people to speak and hold these views because they also believed in complete and total Freedom of Speech. People know that they can end up on the other side of the curve at any time, so they maintain this freedom of speech in case they ever have to use it themselves.
Lack of care or sympathy just doesn't exist, even in government, because I guarantee you that those cultures have someone in the government at a high level. There's also the idea that the US government is not allowed to favor one culture or religion over another. Police Bias is also fueled by economics, and how the poor and generally more inclined to commit crimes. You'd see just as much bias between a black guy and a white guy if both were dressed like hobos.
Idiotic people with a loud voice- Go back to freedom of speech.
Religion- Your first mistake was to assume that everyone in the United States is Christian. Just because they are the loudest doesn't mean no one else is here and that we are not in great numbers. An american who isn't a Christian won't say "Thank you God for saving this boys life and giving him another chance!", and going to court, you are not really required to say "So help you God".
That's because we do not have laws regarding religion, any religion, of any kind for or against. Separation of Church and State is a thing here. Notice how abortion is legal, unlike Ireland up till recently, notice how we don't ban face-covering headwear for everyone because we want to stop a particular religion.
We find you more obsessed with religion because you pass laws addressing it, while we just let it be.
Corporations- The long and short of it is money, and that people do actually agree with them.
Advertising- There are problems yes, but there are actually strict advertising laws in the US and that what you see are them taking advantage of the little wiggle room they can get. All the political stuff also falls under free speech.
Corruption- As you say it happens everywhere, its just seems more prominent in the US because everyone watches the US with eyes of a hawk, more than any other country.
Many issue you see in the US are no different from elsewhere even in the extremes, but many problems you expect the US government to address, well they can't because they are not allowed to, that is up to the states.
Gun control: The fact that it's almost always a constant argument and guns are put before the lives of others. Also, the constitution and more specifically the 2nd Amendment that'd never stop a government or create an uprising.
You don't know what you're talking about. We've got enough guns in this country to make the government think long and hard before trying anything crazy. I speak as someone who spent several deployments in the middle east trying to put down an insurgency with far fewer guns than we have here.
Because soldiers = Billy Bob down the street who stuck his barrel in his daughters face then his guns barrel in her boyfriends.
Iraqi & Afghani insurgents were mostly Muhammad or Ali down the block, yes. I was there. I know who we were dealing with.
Without guns you don’t have a truly free state. We would all still be England’s bitch if it were not for citizens with guns.
That's why Canada is still owned by Engla oh wait.
It's pointless to have it as a law though. Because if you're oppressed by an evil government of course they are going to say "don't rise up against us or we kill you", they are not going to hand you the guns. And if the government isn't evil you don't need to rise up against it so you don't need the guns. Simply put the guns away and get them out when it's needed in the future.
As soon as the guns go away, your freedom erodes. Also, it’s not a law per say. It’s an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Comparing modern day with something that happened over 200 years ago is kind of retarded
As an English person I’ve grow up thinking that America and England are pretty similar mainly because of the language but our cultures are very different and as I’m still a teenager it constantly manages to surprise me
Exectoy the same here too. When I was a teenager I used to think America and Britain were pretty much the exact same then you pay attention to more things and you realise you are completely different in many ways
We’re a lot more similar to countries like Germany or France than you might think despite the language barrier
Two party system
And
Like the pledge of allegiance
The pledge of allegiance for kids at school.
I'm sure a lot of people aren't envious of our medical bills...
Losing an arm and a leg due to healthcosts. No pun intended. I pay 155 euro per month and whatever I need I get done with usually no extra costs.
losing an arm and a leg due to healthcosts
And also a brother, when the cost is really high
Taxes.. it takes me about 10 minutes to do here in Denmark.
thats because you just sign your paycheck to the government.. what are your taxes? 70% 80%
45% total, but free healthcare, schools, social security and cleaning of cities
Denmark
At 60.2%, Denmark last year had the highest top personal income tax rate among the 34 countries in the OECD, an organization of developed and emerging countries. And that 60.2% applied to income over roughly $55,000
The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Jan 20, 2016
In the USA you would pay
25% tax on an income of $32,550 – $78,850
but you also get deductions for things like child care
Also the tax rate has dropped this year so you will pay much less.
Thank you!
Prison rape, Americans seem perfectly OK with it.
someone has to do it
someone does do it
Their complaints about health care, in my country I never had a problem with anything
As Lithuanian I say, Black and White people relations, not saying we have it good here, but Americans turn it to 11.
Getting worried about how to deal with medical issues or the cost of medical treatments. It is for me so natural to consider that wathever happens to me or my family, most costs will be covered. Heck, I am even encouraged to get an annual free visit to the doctor and to the dentist. It's not really free, of course, I mean, I do pay for this through taxes and such, but boy is it worth it!
Advertising vital medicine on television. It preys on the most vulnerable group of people, and seems unethical..
Your medical cover. This is not normal and or right. You guys should be mass protesting in the streets about it but instead you just accept it. Blows my mind.
School shootings
This is probably already a huge one, but school shootings, I know I know, the whole gun debate blah blah blah but why schools? Just because the kids are more vulnerable? I’m at a loss why schools seem to be the target when in the UK and at least to me, my schools have always been the epitome of safety
Personally, I think media is to blame, and I don't know if it can be fixed. They started sensationalizing them on the news and social media, and it gave an easy idea to become infamous.
Not a far stretch from the Irish car bombings that were happening in the 90s that felt like happened monthly.
Lack of medical coverage. Sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.
Being unable to afford healthcare.
The whole "continuous mass school shootings and then not doing anything about gun regulation" perplexes me as an Englishman.
I grew up watching every month in school of an Irish car bombing. For years. What regulations did they impose to stop those?
You see any IRA car bombs these days?
Exactly my point. So what regulations did they impose to make them stop?
Anti-vaccine campaign....like why would you !!!!
Don't we have a British doctor to blame for that?
Edit: not saying you are British, just that the anti-vaccine thing isn't a purely American psychosis.
Health costs. College costs.
AND WHAT THE FYCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR SHITTY CHEESE.
Yeah im french.
Guns and trump
Having to register to vote. US political activists are always urging people to register to vote and about the deadlines for registering (which seem really arbitrary) etc. In Estonia all citizens can vote, and you don't have to jump through these extra hoops to do it.
Gun violence (it's not that it's non-existent here, but the US is on a whole other level (or dimension) when it comes to this.)
Illegal kinder-eggs, they're all over Canada so idk how or why they could be illegal.
I find hard to understand the obsession with weddings. The importance of the engagement ring, the posting in social media "We are engage" and what I find most weird is that It seems that if you are with your partner 3/4 years you are "entitle" to the proposal. When WE decided to get married we planned it together like a couple, I didn't have to wait for him to "pop" the question. Despite the fact that I don't understand that obsession, I'm obsess with wedding TV shows :)
Gun control issues. Here in New Zealand, the police don't even carry guns, they might have a gun in their patrol car occasionally but I think there's been 1 shooting in the countries history.
Drowning in student debt. Tertiary education really shouldn't be that hard to obtain, and it definitely shouldn't set you back in life!
The education is cheap/free. It's the proof that's expensive.
The insane patriotism. Chants of "USA! USA!" being the worst kind of display. The uproar over the national anthem kneeling ties into all this. Can't relate at all over here in Canada.
Or in the UK
How owning a gun is more of a human right than affordable healthcare for some.
[deleted]
The patriotism. It's so over the top.
Taxes not included in the presented price. If I am buying something in Korea for 3500 Won than by the time I actually pay, I am going to expect to pay 3500 Won not 3550 Won
School shootings
The concept of fake news. People here may draw different conclusions from the things that happened based on their political leanings and biases but if you would try to say that it didn't happen/was fabricated, you would be laughed out of the room or your sanity would be questioned. Meanwhile half of American redditors apparently have relatives or acquaintances who just flat out refuse to acknowledge an event that has happened. If my mom claimed our President was a secret Muslim or that our president didn't say something there is video evidence of him saying I would commit her to a freaking psychiatrist.
Yeah, my mom believed Obama was literally the Antichrist. It's great.
Fraternities. WTF?
Having to pay extravagant fees to go to the emergency room or hospital for life saving treatment. And the absolutely horrific price of medication. I just feel so sad when I read people saying things like they're in pain, so and so happened but can't afford the ER or even the doctor. Or parents won't take their children for urgent care, because they can't afford it. Or they can't afford basic medication.
I remember meeting someone (irl) at uni while they were on exchange, who had a fake eye. Their parents didn't take her to hospital or doctor as a child when she complained of eye pain, because they couldn't afford it, and it wasn't on their insurance. She eventually started going blind, they took her and it was too late. So she lost a freaking eye. And they got an even larger bill than they would have had. Financial concern got in the way of treatment and that honestly scares me.
To round up the weirdest ones:
College debt
Medical debt
People in a developed country working full time without being able to make ends meet
Poor employee rights (little vacation days/maternity leave)
Gun violence
Police violence
Fundamental Christians (to the point of fathers being so obsessed with their Teen daughters sexuality that they hold marriage-like ceremonies with them)
Excessive patriotism without daring to question your own government
An antiquated election system that makes it possible for an incompetent orange baboon with the attitude of an 8 year old to become president without even getting half of the votes.
The issue of what race gets to say what words.
Also racial identity issues in general. Can’t we all be just people?
Thinking that universal public healthcare is some kind of infringement on personal liberty. I just don't get it. There must be decades of incredibley ingrained propaganda at work for so many Americans to think public healthcare is a bad thing.
There is a phenomenon here where a very significant percentage of the population (who may or may not be supporters of Trump cough cough) are unwilling to contribute to a system from which they can benefit if it also benefits people who are not able to contribute as much (or at all).
So socialized medicine... let's say it costs your average gainfully employed American ("GEA")$100/month. It does not benefit GEA any LESS if an unemployed (and thus unable to contribute) person also gets healthcare from it. It also does not cost GEA more because his neighbor is out of work. But GEA and his friends are unwilling to contribute to a system that they feel will benefit people who, to put it bluntly, "don't deserve it."
I'm so proud.
It’s a multi-pronged attack. First, the federal government has positioned itself both as something we need AND an institution of incompetence. Because of this, most Americans don’t trust our government to run any successful programs. But, we still trust them to choose who will run those programs for us. It’s basically so they can push their ideas funded by public money. Which gets them re-elected and political capital(look what i did) and hefty kickbacks from the private companies who secured the contracts. Secondly, we are drilled into this mindset of if i want it and i can afford it, then i deserve it more than the next guy. I mean, I worked harder right? I shouldn’t have to wait at the doctors office for him to fix some poor guy who’s paying with Medicare’s cough, right? That’s the mindset you’re dealing with here. Oh and thirdly, we’re all special. We can do anything. The problem with that is when you believe you’re capable of anything, you also don’t think that of the guy next to you. If he can do what you can do, what makes you special?
1) Suing for personal injury 2) People getting greatly in debt from medical bills because there is no universal healthcare (I guess those 2 go hand in hand) 3) tipping!
LOL Yes, 1 and 2 could go hand in hand! There are times when you receive crappy care and people want to put caps on the amount for which doctors can be sued. Which is stupid if someone is totally messed up due to gross negligence. Like having the wrong leg removed. You'd want to sue the life out of someone!
Trump this, Trump that, our president sucks, our president is orange― I do not care about your fucking president, like, oh my dear God.
[deleted]
That's probably a good thing - imagine a country where society is like Reddit conversations.
I actively avoid mentioning Trump in person a) because I definitely don't want to know if you are a supporter and b) I definitely don't want to hear you whine about it if you are not a supporter.
I hear just as much complaining from other countries though. A lot of answers in this thread involve Trump.
You may not, but the rest of the world seems to. These threads always turn into people outside the US saying, "why do you guys like Trump so much? He's awful!" and we all agree.
I'm Canadian...and that's all we talk about too.
But we do it smugly.
His actions are affecting the entire world. You don't have to care about him but don't pretend like you won't face any consequences from his rule.
I actually won't. If Hillary had won, we would have gotten bombed again because guess who was the president of US when my country got bombed and when every single building in sight started to fall? Her husband. Trump even apologized for that, and even though an apology won't bring back people from the dead, it is still something. I actually do not care about his relationship with other leaders. I do not care if he is involved with Russia, or if he is now "at peace" with North Korea. I just care that he does not harm the country I live in or our allies in any way.
I do not care if he is "bad" for USA, and I hear so many complaints about him from my American friends that my head hurts. His actions so far did not harm our country. I do not really care if he is awful as a person, he is in my opinion, a solid politician. US did not fall apart yet, you see– meaning that he cannot be that bad.
US did not fall apart yet, you see– meaning that he cannot be that bad.
Welp solid logic can't argue with that touche
But even if I go to the hospital once in my life or 1000 times, it costs me the same. Drugs don't work like that unfortunately, mandatory not a doctor, but I doubt cat medicine will work for a human.
You should care, anything Trump does ends up affecting the world as a whole, summits, tariffs, pretectionism. USA has a big sway on global economy
It’s just the liberally slanted reddit. Normal people couldn’t give 2 shits about the president.
It's a plea for help. We don't know how he got elected and we don't know what to do! Please, somebody help!
TIL America sucks
Yes! It does. Don’t visit here or try to enter illegally.
They hate us cuz they ain't us
I think this thread proves once again that no one wants to be you
Tipping. Americans seem to get heated when discussing whether or not to tip and how much to tip.
the main difference comes from the wages they receive. In professions that often rely on tips, especially wait staff and bartenders, they are paid less than minimum wage before tips so they actually rely on them. In europe, tipping seems to be an extra thanks for good service, and if they’re bad you don’t need to tip them. In america if you don’t tip you are literally depriving them of their livelihood
I understand the system and try to tip well when I am in the US. I just disagree with the 15-20% paradigm when my bill is $100+.
Let's say I have a meal of $100. The expected tip is $15-20 dollars. If I were to be a "poor" tipper and left $10 instead, I feel that this still provides the server with a livable wage. You coudl argue that the service quality is typically better at more expensive restaurants, but my focus is the food and not the service. Am I wrong in this line of thinking? Honest question, very interested in others' thoughts.
the way i view it is that if you can afford to spend $100 on a meal, that extra $5-10 is going to mean a lot more to them than it will to you. In addition, whereas you only tip that much based on the food or other things, the server will take it as a sign that their service left something to be desired, even if that is not the case at all
That's a fair point. Thanks for explaining. Although I am not 100% on board, I can walk away understanding a new perspective.
I’ve never tipped in my entire life, wether I’m here in Europe or in the US I never tip. I see it as some form of charity that I will not take any part of.
It’s the restaurant owners resposibility to pay their employees a liveable wage. If they don’t, then said employee should go and find a job that actually pays a liveable wage, and thus not be reliant on other peoples charity.
that is a very entitled stand to take that has real consequences on peoples’ lives. obviously it would be better if they all got a livable wage, but that just isn’t the reality of the US job market.
You have the right to do that if you wish, of course, but at least in the us just about anyone who serves you will consider you an asshole
It’s honestly not that big of a deal. I rarely even think about it and just tip the standard 15-20%.
That's a lot of money though. And who do you tip? Do you tip a nurse who might make less than he bartender getting cash for every drink he serves on a busy evening?
Just food service people, because their wages explicitly rely on tips. In general if they don’t, we will only tip rarely for really good service etc.
I'd say that 10% is probably the average UK tip. 20% would be considered generous here. I find all the differences with this stuff super interesting!
I disagree with tipping 15-20%, especially for more expensive meals. For a $100 meal, my tip is closer to $10 than $20.
I find that some Americans are very quick to inform me that I am a bad person who cannot afford to eat out lol
I mean, you really should tip in the US. These workers only get a living wage when they get the expected amount of tips, it’s just how the system is set up and if you don’t do it you’re directly hurting these people. If you can afford a $100 meal I’m sure you can afford $10 more on your tip.
Honest question. If I have a $100 meal and tip $10, would this not provide the server with a livable wage? Why do I need to tip $20 just because I can afford to?
I think what helps is if you think about it in terms of percents, not dollars, and to remember that the food price doesn’t actually go to the waiter, just the tip. If 75% of their wage is tips (fairly typical #), if everyone tips half as much it’s like they are getting a ~35% pay cut. So even tho it seems like a small dollar amount, it actually has a big effect on their wage. Many waiters are making close to minimum wage with standard tips included, so being 35% under minimum wage would make it really hard them them to live.
It’s true that one person not tipping at the expected amount doesn’t mean that everyone won’t, but by not giving a tip you’re basically (1) unfairly getting your meal subsidized by every other diner who does tip fully, and (2) putting the cost of directly on the waiter instead of the restaurant. If you can afford to tip fully it’s better to do so instead of being a free rider.
Ok, yeah. I see your point. I'm not 100% on board, but this gives me more to consider next time I tip. Thanks!
Np!
In many states, the non-tipped wage for waiters is around $2.45/Hour BEFORE TAXES. It’s insanely disrespectful and problematic not to tip 20%. My boyfriend worked at a fancy restaurant for years as a waiter and literally basically only received his tips as his wage. And then had to pay taxes.
I'm fine with tipping. I just disagree with tipping 20%, especially when the bill is high.
Last month, I visited Las Vegas and had a $400 meal. If I tipped $40 (10%) instead of $80 (20%), is that not enough for the server to survive? I feel like i should be, but not sure. Is that really disrespectful in the US?
Yes it’s really considered disrespectful. I don’t know what to tell you except that’s the cultural standard. I’ve dated and been friends with people in the service industry, and I also have lived in 5 states in the US. That’s how we do it.
Ah, ok. Although I disagree, I'm glad to hear other people's thoughts on it without it turning into an argument. Thanks!
The system of imperial units....
The UK still uses a lot of them
Not from the UK. Though I am technically a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ;-)
That's true. When playing Dungeons and Dragons (which is made in the USA) with friends, we have to keep a unit converter in a separate window for those 'lbs' and feet and inches and miles. I don't know how many dinglehoppers fit in a kralkatorrik, or how any of those units work.
School shootings
This is too rare to be faced with legislature
Let’s stick a bunch of innocents into a building with absolutely no security every day. What could go wrong?
Across everywhere but US, nothing happens much in terms of mass killings.
The U.S. is a very large country. There are over 350 million guns in the hands of private citizens. If we were as violent as the leftists say we are, you would have a bloodbath on every street in America.
but muh 2nd amendment
but muh 2nd amendment
but muh.................. 2nd amendment
Going to college meaning a lifetime of debt is ridiculous and unthinkable.
Italy here.
Fear of communism, fear of having less weapons
[deleted]
"Greatest country in the world" is very subjective. There is no one greatest country, all nations have a mix of cultural values which make them great and make them shit at the same time. Maybe It's just living in the American bubble.
The self proclamation of "Greatest country in the world" which doesn't seem to be based off any factual information.
Are you quite young? There was a time in the past when America was the paragon of everything virtuous about the West. It's why literally millions of people emigrated there.
When on reddit, assume most people are 16-20, it is always just regurgitating what other people before them have said.
That's just propaganda
We’re the greatest in pride! Haha
American exceptionalism in the face of overwhelming and objective evidence to the contrary.
That the 'greatest country in the world' chooses to ignore basic human rights and that faith and belief is a substitute for education .
The idea that 'the American dream' is achievable for almost all US citizens.
“Leader of the free world”... fuck me I’m over hearing that shit. Even our news reporters (Australia) use that term. The only country that thinks it’s the leaders of the free world is the US.
[deleted]
Neo nazis and screaming SJW's are a very vocal minority in the USA. It'd be terrible if Americans were truly composed of the two extremes. Luckily, most of us are left or right moderate. We even have a term for it: "The Silent Majority."
I think your comment sums up how non-Americans' views of America are hilariously inaccurate if all their experience of the US is through sensationalist media and Internet crap.
The vast majority of Americans are nowhere near either of these extremes. The reason you find it strange is because it’s not the case.
That's not how America is at all, you're the one characterizing it that way. The majority of people dislike everything you mentioned.
These are typically just the loudest people who have no self esteem and need to project themselves in every aspect. There's plenty of people who just live their lives and respect their neighbors, you just don't hear about them, I imagine pretty much every country on earth is like this, few bad apples who make the rest look bad
The polarization of America runs deeper than politics, it seems. (Or does it really, since politics seem to run into everything there?)
Americentrism in AskReddit questions.
I'm not trying to be clever. Every day there are multiple posts here which could easily be related to the rest of the world, but Americans prefer to ask other Americans mundane questions.
I mean that will happen when the majority of people in this subreddit are Americans
And when the website is made in America.
Trump issues
What issues?
Right....time to hit the streets that guy is fucking shit up
I hate how he made the economy better. I use to be able to tell my parents there weren't any jobs and they have to let me live in the basement for free. Now there are jobs everywhere but none of them will let me work 10 hours a week for 400k a year even though I have a gender studies masters
The economy getting better is not his doing. Economic effects are slow in appearing so improvements/declines today can't be attributed to today's actions. The real effects of Trumps actions won't be fully apparent until part way through his second term.
So basically the tax cuts he signed into law and my massive tax refund isn’t his doing? LOL. Ok.
Your massive tax refund isn't his doing as the tax cut wasn't in affect in 2017.
You may be benefiting from the tax cut right now but that isn't because the economy is getting better. The government just isn't taking as much from you.
The tax cut added 2 trillion to the national debt. But that doesnt matter to you
I guess it doesn’t matter to you that your savior Obama added 7.9 trillion to it?
By signing a bill written by Republicans that gave the big banks the money that saved the economy. The bill should have given money to the people instead. "Savior" there you go lying again. I did vote for Obama but he was far more center/neo-liberal than I wanted. He was just the better of the 2 left standing. Doesnt mean I preferred someone else.
Trump's befecial trade deal, tax cuts and pro business attitude has helped the economy
You keep telling yourself that.
I will tell facts as will all the experts
[deleted]
I do know economics. Get a job. That can be your first step in learning about htem
It helped the economy but not the citizens, the issue facing the US is not the economy but the inequality.
Also what beneficial trade deal?
Every country that had tariffs has struck a good deal with the US or is working on one. The way you deal with inequality is by having well paying jobs
Well paying jobs won't come to average Joe tho. Unless you put laws in place that force employers to pay well, every employer will always pay as little as they can get away with for the job that needs to be filled.
How has it not occurred to you that trickle down economics has worsened the social inequality since Reagan?
If I want to help the little guy grow approaching it by helping out the rich is about as backwards as it gets.
People are paid based on their skills and importance.
So your answer to an increase in automation and an inevitable loss of jobs is to get more skilled/educated so you will not be the one who is expendable?
If I may say so, that strikes me as rather selfish.
I figured a liberal would find a reason to not support self improvement and competitive job markets
Believe what you want to believe, but just because I recognize my privilege for what it is and will have a fairly secure job for a long while does not solve the problem for everyone else.
Heh heh heh.
And in my opinion tipping takes away from the dining experience. I would be better for the pizza to cost 13 rather than wasting time deciding whether to pay the extra 3 or not when you could be enjoying your meal
Paper plates, plastic disposables and such things. It sometimes seems, that many Americans just don't care what is going to happen with the world.
This makes me so fucking anger. r/ZeroWaste
My niece has 3 kids and they only use paper plates and disposable flatware, I cringe, I understand that's a lot of dishes but damn it's got to be expensive to be so wasteful. I think they are a great convenience for picnics and such. I'm one of the few of my friends that uses real plates even when I have a large group for dinner. I have extra plates in a high cabinet for such occasions.
[removed]
Buying a house. WTF is escrow? In Canada, you put in an offer, it's accepted, you sign some documents, hand over a cheque, and get the keys.
On a side note, the whole idea of bidding for a house like in the UK is very interesting to me, instead of the back door deals we do in North America.
It's not so much bidding for a house, it's that you can accept a higher offer for your house even AFTER you've already accepted someone else's offer. It's called "gazumping" and it's not allowed in Scotland. In Scotland, once you accept an offer that's it. In England and Wales you can accept other offers right up to when you exchange. It's stupid.
TIL: Gazumping. Definitely adding that to my vocabulary!
Escrow is to protect the handing over a check part. They hold the deposit while all the paperwork is being processed and then send it to the seller. That way you’re not carrying thousands of dollars of bank check around.
They're starting to use the UK system a bit in hot markets in Canada. I sold a condo and my agent set a deadline for submitting offers. It was great because we got to choose the best offer.
Well, similar. That's more of a way to set up multiple offers.
What I saw was literally an auction on the street and all interested parties bid against each other. That way, if you really want the house you can bid higher and higher. It seems the most fair way to sell the house, for both the buyers and sellers.
Circumcision, like if it’s not for religion then wtf you do that. And don’t hit me with the hygiene excuse cause we live in the 21st century and showers are a thing guys.
From what I've read, "it stops masturbating as they remember the pain" is the original reason, the general current reason seems to be "he should look like his father".
Yeah that’s still fucked up tho like actually cutting skin of a baby’s dick just because he should look like his father. But thanks I actually didn’t know that reason
Net neutrality
Cardboard houses that fly away due to wind
Someone I know from the US just casually brought a Nutella jar and just started to eat it with a spoon. I couldn't relate in any way. You guys don't fear diabetes?
Paid healthcare. Here in the UK it's free (albeit often quite overworked!)
How they categorize school grades. We just have grades 1 - 12 and Kindergarten. No sweet clue how the American system works.
Letter grades on assignments are weird, too.
Its the same here....dont know what the hell you talking about
I think probably refering to terms like sophomore etc. I am Canadian and have no clue wht those terms mean. But we do have letter grades.
Schools don't really use letter grades it is usually a %
Guns. The whole ordeal of of the amount of knowledge people know of guns (size and other specifications) and how easily they talk about it and have used it, is just something I completely can’t relate at all.
The whole college system is confusing. With the majors and the minors and the seemingly completely unrelated classes you have to take. Here in Germany (and I think everywhere in Europe) you just choose what you are going to study and then you study that.
It is the concept of a liberal arts. It is supposed to make you more well rounded and help you learn about the world.
Eh I think it makes you more well rounded
Having a completely badshit crazy president
The absurd cost of healthcare
Exiting the education system with a debt that you likely won't pay off in your lifetime. The fuck??
anti vaxxers, flat earther, pro guns, marrying cousins, no paid leave, no free healthcare
So many things!! Student debt and ethnic tension are two of the main ones.
Racism towards black people.
Large proportion of the population being Fat.
obesity
[deleted]
That was common 30 years ago but nowadays many people stay at home well into their 20s.
Imperial measurements.
I always read about how much Americans hate the universal health care here in Canada. But every American I know says they wish and praise it.
[deleted]
As a young kid I climbed a tree. One of the branches broke and I fell and broken my arm in two places. I got a bunch of stuff down to make sure nothing else was injured. I walked out of the hospital later that day owing 20$. That was because I wanted a blue cast Instead of a white one.
My son was in the intensive care unit after being born and we stayed 3 days at the hospital. I never paid a cent for his birth or those days. I still to the day donate money to sick kids hospitals.
I can’t fathom having worry about money on top of the stress off these moments in my life. I feel for you guys.
For comparison:
Three summers ago, I rescued an old dog out of a flooding drainage ditch. He had fleas. I got bit and contracted rickettsia typhus. Had a fever, vomiting, sweats, blood in my urine, and a blinding headache for six days before deciding to go to the hospital.
When I did, I found out had I waited another day or two, and I would’ve died from organ failure. My stay in the hospital was 6 days.
At the time, I had health insurance through my work. It was good health insurance too. My bill for that stay? $389,900.
I still haven’t paid it off, have since lost that job, lost my health insurance, and had a vertebrae broken in a car accident. Now I live in my car.
Geez. I don’t understand the money grab when people need the most help.
Because ‘Merica. Makes me so proud that I served in this country’s military. /s
Yikes. And you served too.
I know I'm late to this but homeowners associations.
You buy your own house with your own money and yet theres still some dickhead who can rightfully moan at you if your grass is green enough? Like some kind of suburban mafia
The way you pronounce "Aluminium"
Fun fact, “aluminum” was the original spelling proposed by its British discoverer https://www.thoughtco.com/aluminum-or-aluminium-3980635
Wow, well I didn't know it was actually spelt different too. I thought Americans just made it silent like they do with the "H" in "herbs"
Paying for any healthcare issue or even just to see the doctor. I had an opthamalogist appointment today where they did diagnostic testing and an ultrasound. Simply showed my OHIP card and was in and out within 25 minutes. (I'm Canadian)
You have to pay when you’re not well... like visiting the hospital, something you can not control, costs money... wild
Accordingly, Americans experiencing symptoms don't see a doctor until it's too late to help them. Cancer for the win!
Cancer and high-grade capitalism, a tasty cocktail
having to pay for an ambulance or the whole health system in general
oh and why the fuck you build wooden houses while you got fucking tornado's and tsunami's
Imperial / US Customary units and Fahrenheit... the rest of the world uses Metric (Liberia and Myanmar were the last with USA. Liberia started already and Myanmar started moving toward metric in May 2018 ;) Go Myanmar!
I don't know if you've read this thread but conversion to metric is way at the bottom of the list of shit we need to fix.
I agree, but the estimated cost is almost $7B per year of non-metrication, a nice chunk of money that could be used to fixed any of the things that have a real impact on peoples' lives. I forgot the details, but it was measured in countries that did metrication, before/after metrication and percentage that was saved in material wasted, education cost, gained product export/import opportunities, etc.
Medical debt. I see Americans complaining about huge hospital bills, but here in the UK, we have the NHS, so all healthcare is completely free.
It's not. You're paying for it in other ways, you just don't see the direct amount from your monthly pay. If doctors and nurses and pharmacist get paid, you're paying for it.
This is untrue. The NHS is funded through general taxation.
General taxation of...
School shootings.
Vacation is employer-based, if and how much they are willing to offer. Market forces do play a role in setting a level (2-3 weeks) but is not mandated by law. The vacation time is not portable; start another job with a different employer and you may end up with a smaller vacation. In some European countries, vacation is mandatory, age-indexed and portable...
Education fees. So much debts by the age of 25!
Being shot
Gun crime. It's pretty rare in the UK in comparison.
Canadian here. Your medical bills.... Yikes
How much are your income and sales taxes? Seriously asking.
School shootings
Healthcare insurance problems, we just go to the doctors, yes we might have to wait for a bit but we get fixed and dont have to sacrifice our first born to pay for it (while subsequently having to sacrfice our second born to pay for the birth of our first born that we had to pay our healthcare costs in the first place and so on)
If I break my ankle on Friday night, I'd rather not have to wait until Monday morning to get it fixed. I'll pay for that.
You dont in those cases, you are straight in.
Trump as president.
School shooting
Net neutrality
And Americans' obsession with tv. I've seen televisions everywhere. Sometimes in gas pumps, wtf.
Guns. Fanatical nationalism. Idolising veterans. Having to pay for healthcare. Non-compulsory voting. Dressing like Seinfeld.
So much!
NFL, football, baseball, wrestling, broken education system, pathetic infrastructure, dirt and trash in all big cities, prescription drugs commercials, every body being loud, celebrities like Oprha, crazy people like Alex Jones, drinking age of 21, and like drinking is huge thing, big cars, one time use everything / fast foods, constant use of AC, cataclysmic events (shootings, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, gas explosions, you name it), police not messing around / violence, slow and expensive internet, windows, toilet design, lightweight wooden housing, 110V, imperial system of units, brainwashing by media, incarnation rate mostly due to drugs, private prissons with mandates quotas, political correctness and affirmative actions, fashion, big budget movies and games, local land / zoning laws (housing associations?), road culture, vastness and natural variety of the country, huge fridges and waste disposal in a sink with this blander thingy, super expensive health care system, so many people earning minimum wage in shitty service jobs (see education system), Florida (or in general super fundementalist Christian culture), corn, obesity, so many things...
The most: how little help mentally ill people get help from a system or community.
Now positive things: cheap food and land, gun access laws, openness, easy ways of making know people, communities, strongest navy, air Force and nuclear force in the world, technological companies and University research achievinements, space programs, ease of creating business, taking risks and failing,
Net Neutrality.
I live in NZ, where the lack of this isn't really a problem. Thanks to unbundling of the network here, you can choose pretty much whatever ISP you want.
There are no monopolies of service like you get in much of the US, so they actually have to compete.
Paying $1000~ a month for health insurance. That is insane.
Attorney/lawyer ads on billboards are bizarre too. They're forbidden in France.
Being laid off after years of service without compensation or proper reason.
an over reliance on private healthcare. Although that does not get me as much as what I believe to is the fact that those private policies can refuse to pay if you did not get treated at one of their specified medical centers.
Seriously what the fuck? You already paying money out of a tight budget due to the costs of fortifying your home against your government and the costs of your many guns that you need just in case the British invade again. You end up falling over and your taken to a hospital not on your private funds list and it's fuck you buddy you may have paid in for years but here's the bill.
Being scared to go to the doctor or hospital in fear of bankrupting yourself. How can you actually live comfortably in a society like that?
How can you actually live comfortably in a society like that?
Be rich.
Paying when going to the hospital
I'm always in shock when people say that can't "just go see a doctor" because I guess it's prohibitively expensive? Also people have mentioned hospital bills in the tens of thousands. Gives me anxiety just thinking about it.
I've got crps can't have a job with it currently and have THOUSANDs of medical dept. Love America! Applied for medical help over 7 months ago haven't heard a word.
Getting a DUI. Just don't drink and drive. It's not socially acceptable.
I don't care that your public transport is shit, that you get ticketed for being drunk in the sidewalk or that you all live really far apart.
Don't. Drink. And. Drive.
I live in the south and everything being over a 10 miles away plays a big part for duis in my opinion. Nothing is walking distance expect waffle house..
I see how this contributes to DUIs, but surely the answer is just not to drink? Or carpool. Or get an uber.
Drinking and driving is a real social taboo in the UK, particularly among under-40s.
Having to decide whether you can visit a doctor, because of the cost.
Coming from Australia, which has universal healthcare (and has had for nearly my whole life), the thought of not being able to visit a GP when you're sick is beyond comprehension.
The gun obsession.
The “cultural appropriation” whining.
The black/white divide: in Europe the differences between black culture and white culture are minimal, and are mostly driven by the American pop culture influence.
The gun obsession is a reaction to gun hatred. The more the hatred increases the more the obsession increases. The US has always had the 2nd Amendment. It hasn't always had people lobbying against it or for it.
The "cultural appropriation" thing is because people have too much time on their hands.
The black/white divide thing is weird as hell. I live in the southern part of the US. There is a higher population of black people in one city in the south than there is in the rest of the country(southeast/central US excluded). In all my life, living near the Mississippi River, I never saw any issues between black and white people yet they vote for two separate parties basically every time. Same values, same daily lives, same principles yet they vote very differently. It explains how we coexist but it just makes the voting differently part even more confusing. Personally, I think that it is because of issues that don't come up in everyday living. Maybe that is differences in opinion on how involved the government should be in our lives or maybe it is different on policing. All I know is that if it were racism it would affect every day living where I live but the simple fact is that it does not. If it were racism no one would be able to walk a block without getting into a fight or killed. So it must be something that doesn't factor into a normal day.
Are your university tuition prices REALLY $40k+ PER YEAR?
Not all. State universities average 20k, private schools will be higher. An increasingly common strategy is to go to a 2 year community college/junior college (Can be $5k-$12k+ per year), and then finish the undergraduate degree at a four year school.
Potentially, Most community colleges you can go to for about 3k~ a year. But Private institutions can be crazy. My gf is still paying off her 100k+ student loans and she's been out of school since 2011.
I feel like my girlfriend will be in the same boat. We're on the east coast of Canada and she's going to university in another province staying on residence (about 18k per year), then she wants to do vet school for 4-6 years.
At expensive schools, yes.
"According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2017–2018 school year was $34,740 at private colleges,$9,970 for state residents at public colleges, and $25,620 for out-of-state residents attending public universities." CollegeData.com
A Healthcare system so bad you can almost die in a hospital lobby because assurances are dicks
Wearing shoes in your houses. In (central) Europe it's perfectly normal to take them off as soon as you enter your house / flat.
Food fights, pranks involving messing with food, and generally playing around with food to the point where it is inedible. I know this is not an "issue", but whenever I see this on American TV shows, movies or YouTube videos I am slightly taken aback.
Your TV ads. There are too many of them for starters (which is a whole other thread), but the sequence tends to be:
Repeat 10 minutes later.
I mean it might be just me, but I see a pattern there. Cause and effect maybe.
Also, the news channels. Why do you have to look a certain way to read the news?
Electing a reality tv host as the fucking president!
The whole thing with social justice warriors and people getting triggered. I never see people getting triggered about it here in the Netherlands.
Not having a government that supports you.
Eg. not being able to go to university without either being well off or going into large amounts of debt....everyone deserves a right to an equal education. Not just the rich kids. Not having some sort of private healthcare system put in place that covered every single citizen. You shouldn’t have stress financially about getting required medical treatment. Makes no sense to me.
Daycare issues with newborns / young toddlers.
Worrying about a mass shooter at school.
School Shootings...
Net Neutrality. I'm pretty sick of seeing it everywhere. If websites like amazon, google and Youtube can realise I'm from outside the US and block me from seeing content that I want. Why can't other websites realise I'm from outside the US and stop pestering me to call my local senator and demand for net neutrality.
Anything to do with college debt.
Cultural appropiation issues and tracking whatever % of any races in your blood. The last thing should be probably impossible for me, since I'm mexican.
Your dick touching the toilet water.
I felt really self conscious when I heard about all you mega hung yanks, then I found out your toilets are different.
Three main things, but many more little ones.
Guns. I wonder why ordinary citizens want to own deadly force.
Healthcare. Boggles my mind that private companies profit off a system designed to oppress the poor. When this system is health... Why?
I can't believe there are people at the bottom end of the socio-economic ladder who support fiscally conservative parties. Hey poor people, you wouldn't be poor if you didn't keep voting for the arseholes whose goal is to line their own pockets and prop up the balance sheets of large companies.
The thing that really perplexes me the most, is how certain Americans are that their system or method or perspective is clearly and undeniably the best.
I cannot imagine a Canadian or Brit getting angry about suggesting a way to save money on health care or proven studies to reduce gun violence, but jeez the anger that kicks off if you point out key issues to some Americans:
healthcare spends more than any country on the planet, Is beaten by 40 other countries
have more gun deaths than any other country, wont even discuss 2nd amendment or the common sense ideas like checks
usa accounts for something like 80% of the worlds locked up people, but is only 4.5% of the worlds population
everyone raves about their freedom and democracy, but the political system especially around fundraising and lobby groups has weird outcomes and doesnt seem to
usa spends more on military than the next 16 biggest spenders (half are allies), so the debates about socialism seem odd where "there is no money" for basic things like meals on wheels but enough for another $50B on military. Fox news ranting about foodstamps, when that is a fraction of corporate welfare etc. Other countries balance things differently and it works well
nazis
Trump comments about nazis
young earth creationists
I am very pro USA but often disappointed with parts of the way the American dream is not being realised or corrupted. It saddens and perplexes me that there is anger or defensive responses to facts or respectful discussions.
That the world population is seemingly only two groups: Americans and Non-Americans. In addition, the latter usually includes most people living on both American continents.
Your freedom being decided not by an unbiased legal professional, but by a dozen ignorant, easily influenced rando's who don't want to be there.
Teachers getting ridiculously low salaries. In my country, teachers are being paid well (also during breaks). On the other hand, when I attended US high school for one year, I was amazed by the commited and motivated teachers you guys have. They have to be very idealistic.
Where do you live?
Germany.
ELECTING judges. This is the most fucked up aspect of the US justice System. Plus privatized prisons.
Are you suggesting that I just release those hobos I have locked in my basement? What good will that do anyone?
Curious how judges become judges where you are?
I live IN America and I constantly see reddit posts about “America things” that I have never witnessed, such as, deep fried everything, pickles in movie theaters, everything being branded as “‘Murican” and too many more
It's the lack of any sense of solidarity that shocks me. Most obvious in the attitude towards socialised health care.
Just about every other society on earth seems to have worked out how beneficial it is, but it's total box office poison in the US.
I guess it's related to the pioneer spirit of individualism and a traditional suspicion of federalism, but it seems to have descended into totally toxic cut throat competition.
It's interesting to wonder what effect this stress of being unsupported in terms of health care, job security and so on has on a society as a whole.
This goes with the caveat that I realise that the 'American dream' allows for extraordinary success for some but seems to result in a generally less happy population.
That's my two cents, anyhoo.
Your health system is scary AF.
It scares us too. They are trying to make it so that insurers can discriminate against us for having pre-existing conditions. Before we were protected from that insurance could refuse you or even drop you if you got cancer. Or even if you got pregnant.
Lawyer ads and drug as on TV. Then they list 100 side effects while people run through a field hand in hand. Same in magazines, back of the page full on small text. "Ask your Dr to prescribe Drug X". Just crazy.
Rubbish plumbing/toilets. I am in my 30's. I have visited the US a few times. Less than 6 months overall. I have never clogged a loo in Australia, have many times in the US. It turns out plungers are not just a thing from cartoons, they are real and have a use. I did not see a real plunger until I was in my 20's, and yes, it was in the US.
Ya'll have crazy work laws too. Fired for no reason at any time? Wow. Horrible vacation. I get 4 weeks a year, 2 weeks for sickness and 3 months every 10 years. That's the base level. We get another 2 weeks a year that doesn't stack up.
Only developed country without maternity leave. It's crazy, a whole lot of people (yes, I've seen it in multiple posts about this subject) on here argue that it's a good thing because your company can offer it as competitive advantage to encourage you to work there. WHAT THE FUCK? Screw everyone else that didn't get the job, amirite?
Public health care doesn't seem to work or exist at all, crazy huge medical bills. My wife had a cesarean, was in hospital about 5-6 days, had midwife/nurses visit us at home every 2-3 days for a fortnight. Only cost was having to buy food for myself while at the hospital. Had other issues, bunches of tests over months and a procedure or two, did not cost me a thing. 1 reason I'm happy to pay my taxes.
Yes it does suck that you can be fired for any or no reason at all and it just makes everything corrupt. For example there are managers who haven't got a clue but happen to be friends of whomever is in charge and you get terrible service and shitty attitudes from service industry staff, plus since everyone are friends there is a whole lot of illegal and unethical stuff going on behind the scenes but how to prove it when crooks cover up for criminals. That's not even mentioning what it's like to be the one fired for no reason and having to look for work and trying to explain why you left the last job, nobody wants to hire someone who has been fired, it's a terrible situation indeed
That women can't breastfeed in public. When it first came to my attention I found it soo strange. Why can't babies eat in public like others? Boobies have a function and shouldn't be explicitly sexualised in every context.
Women here breastfeed publicly and few people say anything.
Anything to do with paying for healthcare.
How expensive education is, how little high school teachers get paid, how it is cheaper to die than it is be treated in a hospital and how there are only two political parties.
As an afro-Italian the thought that if pulled over by the police, you have to behave like he is a skittish animal to avoid getting shot. And well just guns on general.
Kim Kardashian (of all people) meeting with President Trump to discuss prison reform.
I swear i was high or something when i thought i saw that on the news, but i really did.
How America seems to be run by 4 mafias
I could never understand how Americans can talk about "freedom" and "Liberty" as long as they are ruled by the above 4!
In general I don't get how Americans are so 'passionate' about not getting oppressed by the Government, but being so OK with getting fucked over by corporations.
Agree!! And in such an obvious ways! Comcast for example. A company like that wouldn't survive a year on India!
I can see 1 & 2, but I'm not sure how 3 & 4 apply. They would be way down the list to me. Unless you're just suggesting we like expensive cars?
Even then I don’t really see how they impede on our freedom. Financially they may take a lot from some of us but I wouldn’t say they’re keeping us from anything. Hell, buying my car allows me to do way more than I’d be able to without it, even with the payments. It’s brought me more freedom.
Americans have all but totally annihilated public transportation and footpaths in order to sell cars even where you don't need it.
And vehicle manufacturers and insurance companies and hand-in-hand in making it happen.
I was living in an apartment complex which literally shared the common wall with the strip mall when I could get everything I wanted. My office was not more than 7 mins walk and train station would be12 minutes walk, yet I cannot walk to these places. If I had my way, I could have lived without a car. But no!
Sadly Britain is also falling into that trap now!
Your issues with your president. Trust me, you haven't seen a bad president yet.
We did. He did the whole trail of tears thing. Not a very bright spot on our history
He's pretty fucking bad but I guarantee we will see worse. Anyone half as bad but twice as competent can do a lot more damage.
Yeah, totally dodged a bullet with Hillary.
I’m so curious where you’re from? Like, in terms of damage and shittiness vs America’s normal presidents, I feel like there’s a bigger difference than so many places. Maybe Philippines or S Africa?
E: or Malaysia before this year I guess. Ok actually now that I think about it, a lot of places.
Yep, South Africa
Ok yeah, that’s definitely worse. Incredible how much damage he’s doing to the ability of S Africa to fund its government just to evade taxes.
It stretched so far beyond tax evasion. He had 700+ charges of corruption against him before even becoming president, and that corruption just made the government even more corrupt as loyal supporters got given positions of power and those that spoke up got replaced with yes-men. Various state-owned enterprises under management by his appointed ministers run at constant losses and need to be bailed out time and again with 0 accountability (in fact, constant raises and "performance bonuses" for management positions).
Honestly you can read up on it for hours and still not know all of it, it's a complete shit-show
Zimbabwe 2.0. What a shame
Give him time.
We have. A year and a half. Nothing bad has happened
We had a couple bad ones. One suspended habeus corpus and had a man hung for burning a flag. One committed genocide. One sent 50000 american citizens to concentration camps and stacked the supreme court so that this would be ruled to be constitutional. One relatively recent one was unbelievably corrupt. One nearly started nuclear war and just wasted a fuck ton of tax dollars in a dick measuring contest. But unfortunately, these presidents are all loved in history (they are respectively Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, FDR, Reagan, and JFK)
America - "Wait a minute, hold my beer".
I don't understand how it is possible that an American city hasn't had drinkable tapwater for over 4 years now. Why doesn't the government step in? If this would have happened here in Belgium this would have been fixed asap.
The US government is limited in what it can do as the states wanted to retain massive power when the constitution and articles of confederation etc were written - thus the Federal government likely has no powers in this area.
So...what does the federal govt actually do then? It seems they have no power so what is their purpose?
Regulation and stepping in to make sure everything aligns constitutionally. Federal govt programs also have additional sway on certain programs that are co-operated by state and fed because they hold the sway of witholding funding if states sway too far from the federal standard (i.e., roadways and education). They also regulate interstate commerce.
We have 50 states that are very diverse (economically , geographically, demographically), and they each need some power because circumstances are not the same in each state (i.e , a state tax that is fine in California could devastate wealth in Mississippi), having state differentials within reason can help to keep these different regions functioning
Ah ok that makes sense.
on top of what /u/coolerchameleon said, the Federal government is also responsible for international relations, defence, international trade etc.
There are other places (in the US) with worse water than flint, unfortunately.
The US is much bigger than Belgium
Guns, we Indians don't think owning guns should be oir birthright. Climate change deniers are nonexistent in India because our subcontinent is too sensitive to climate changes and we are experiencing its effects (our precise seasons are behaving weirdly for some year).
When did you guys discover condoms?
Off topic; I’d love to live in India for a year (Australian). :)
[removed]
the fact that you can refill your soda cup for free in your fastfood
This is the reason we declared independence from your backwards barbarian society
Diabetes ain't gonna take over your body by itself, gotta force that shit on
The cost of bulk soda is very low. Many businesses pay more for the cups than the drink.
That prostitution is illegal instead of just regulated.
I heard from someone he was worried about his kids, becaus in this new school the kids don't have a flag in the room. like to what are they supposed to pledge each morning? It sounds like they would get indoctrinated in that new school...
The focus on form over function.
Not respecting the national anthem is apparently worse than people getting shot cause of their skin colour.
An outdated document with dodgy wording is more important than the lives of children.
And if you dare to swear for emphasis that immediately negates the entire content of whatever statement you just made.
ITT people who don't understand property rights
The entire "my culture is not a costume" shit. No one in the rest of the world gives a fuck. It's fun to dress up like a different culture. Imagine how fucking sad St Patricks day would be if the Irish got pissed that the rest of us dressed in green and had a few pints? Imagine the Germans getting upset if you wear lederhosen for Octoberfest but you're not German. WTF?? After all imitation is the highest form of flattery. If you dress up like my forefathers (even if it is stereotypically horrible) I will still love that you actually knew about us.
I take your point and I agree that is bullshit.
However....us Irish do get pissed at the whole "st pattys day" misspelling and naming your drinks "Irish car bomb".
Would you like it if we had drinks named "9/11" of "twin towers"?
But yeah, I get your point still
"Culture Appropriation" is an issue that is only discussed by the fringe left. No one really cares
The American prison system and law.
It is insane to think that putting people behind bars is a profitable BUSINESS.
There should never EVER be an incentive to try and get as many people locked up as you can, and that's most likely why the laws too are insane.
Getting ridiculous sentences for virtually nothing, and then having to go through the hell that is American prison, and most likely becoming an actual criminal inside just to survive.
The circle goes on and on.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the "being popular" or not at school, like it is presented on movies. I think that if you tried something like that at my school noone would take you seriously.
[deleted]
a nice smile really brightens up the whole face
White teeth is a sign of care and hygiene. Cliques in schools are actually pretty over-sensationalized in media and pretty much don't exist unless in the most basic idea that you have a particular group of friends.
Antivaxxers. I mean, one lousy assed paper that was retracted coz it couldn't pass peer review AND whose author was found having financial conflicts of interest.... vs the rest of the medical community?
I mean I get not liking the possibility of dud or dangerous (like, samples not weak enough) vaccines, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby oit with the bathwater!
My country's waged war against polio in the past few decades through vaccination and is trying to get ahead of TB in a similar way. We would kill for a medical system where you have at least the basics in place in all areas.
Aand you go do this shitte? I mean that's like those folk who get killed at motorcycle rallies where they protest against compulsory helmets.
Tell you what, make it so that public school has a minimum vaccination requirement. You have the right to endanger your kid, not others'.
Having a gorilla for a president.
He's not president anymore.
Seriously dude?!?
Are you really feigning outrage after introducing the term? Are you some kind of fake outrage racist or something?
I wasn't expecting this to turn out this way. Bending the humor I intended into something terrible and totally unacceptable. Maybe I should have thought about it before.
So it's ok to call the white guy a gorilla but not the black guy......yeah ok buddy...
I give up. I see no solution to this.
If “here” means on Reddit, then gun control. I’m Canadian, and if you support people being able to access guns so easily, you’re part of a VERY small minority. The idea of being able to even just leave your guns lying around is nuts, as the law says we have to have them in a safe, with the ammo out of the gun, and if we want them displayed, they have to be missing the firing pin. It baffles me how it’s a debate of whether or not people should have easy access to (semi)automatic firearms that are frequently being used to gun down children.
Adding tax at the till. Why the price can't be the price is just madness to me.
It's different city by city and town by town, it'd take too much time to math it all out before hand (that's the excuse)
City by city? Damn. I thought it was state by state. Do the tax rates change that often?
Yea different states have different taxes, so do counties, cities and towns lol. Usually surrounding places have similar taxes but just depends, usually nicer areas have higher taxes on things, but also have higher paying jobs there. Also taxes on pay can be weird if you live in a different place than you work (like two different towns or cities)
Yep. Stand by my original statement. Makes no sense lol
Calling yourself World Champions when the team wins national finals :/
I feel US is missing out by not playing world sports. I get that NFL, NBA, MLB generates more revenue. But playing against different countries in a world sports more frequently is more fun than playing once in 4 years (FIFA, Olympics )
Well... playing international sports means losing to other countries. At least every once in a while (even in sports where the US dominates... like basketball). And that is unacceptable. Maybe once in 4 years or so but any more than that will just not be American.
\#1: Gun culture, school shootings, etc.
\#2: People dying from lack of universal healthcare.
It staggers me that there are so many Americans who think that either of those things are in any way acceptable.
I am an American and i don't get these either. Its appalling and i'm embarrassed that both of these happen here.
[deleted]
Our government is broken.
I mean all this have different results in 50 states with different people so...
Im assuming that you are not American. Each state has its own gun laws and can have it's own healthcare laws. In CA, we have a ban on assult weapons. I'm not going to say we are safer because illegal weapons make their way in, but they are not as common and they are harder to come by. "Assault weapons. Since 1989, it is illegal to sell a firearm that the state has defined as an assault weapon and that has been listed in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) roster of prohibited firearms. This includes many military look-alike semi-automatic rifles and .50 caliber BMG rifles."
Would buying a weapon that shoots 100 rounds per second be questionable to use?
Personally, I think it's more than questionable. It's completely unnecessary and immoral imho.
California law prohibits high capacity magazines and anything that is like a bump stock (a) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device. (b) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.
I really dont wanna say this but here we go. School shootings. Im Australian and was only 6 when all the laws here changed in 1996. But i can't relate to them cause of the fact guns are so regulated here. You can down vote me to absolute hell now
Not drinking carbonated water
No mate, it's disgusting whatever country you come from.
Bad for your bones apparently
Racism.
In my country, nobody cares what your skin colour is. We hate everyone equally.
I feel like a lot of countries who say this just don’t have any minorities.
Or will say this, but then shit talk the Roma in a way that would make most proud Klansmen uncomfortable.
That reminds me about a tangent I went on about how Abraham Lincoln was more racist than the average Klansman is today...
We hate everyone equally.
France?
no no, thats the country every other country hates equally
they’ve got some pretty solid racial/ethnic tensions themselves.
Scotland or Finland I guess.
No, you just dont have minorities to discriminate against
Food stamps. We're in the 21st century and America is not a poor country. Why does a segment of the population need to have food stamps just to survive?? Blows my mind.
[deleted]
Hey man, I'm not disparaging people for availing of the stamps, sorry if it came across that way, we're all down and out at some point in our lives.
But what you said actually interests me even further. I'd assumed that food stamps were for those on welfare, but you're telling me that you had a full time job yet still needed stamps to survive.
It just amazes me that the system in America, a first world, developed country is such that even though a person can be working full time, they can still find themselves in a position where they still need food stamps - and that this is considered part of the norm.
It's honestly bullshit. A lot of food stamp recipients are victims of a perpetual cycle of poverty in the United States. Many Americans grow up poor in run down towns with no value on education, and then they live in a place with no real economic opportunity. And with no government intervention or funding in their early years, they end up working low wage jobs and rely on food stamps; and eventually they have children which only continues the cycle.
Food stamps exist because the minimum wage isn't enough to live on. You couldn't have a proper diet and pay the rent. Usually you have to bolster this with donations from public food pantries.
That's more or less what I'm getting at. Minimum wage is not enough to live on. As a non-American, that is not what I consider to be normal.
Having to spend money on health care...must be horrible to sometimes almost go bankrupt to afford surgery or treatment
Hey buddy it's shelter or healthcare, not both. Don't take profits away from multinational conglomerates. They're people too.
Not getting the right water temperature in the shower. Thermostatic showers been around for decades now.
Never heard of that, I'll Google it.
Student debt
Net Neutrality
School shootings.
Gun violence
getting shot at in schools.
literally never happened to me.
Having to commute for hours to get to work. My biggest commute has been maybe 30 minutes and I was always thinking how I wasn't getting paid for those 5 hours per week...
"Fuck Comcast"
Thank fuck we have some more choice over here
How expensive medical care is. I mean, it’s expensive here, because it’s a professional service. But in the US it’s crazy-stupid-expensive.
Also, I don’t really understand what is so important about 2nd Amendment Rights when it’s clear to all that there is a huge issue with gun violence. And you aren’t protecting your small holding from marauding militia, which was where that came from, right?
And that situation the US has goin g on with its President basically making enemies with allies and being buddy-buddy to quite questionable characters.
The fascination bordering on fetishism with guns and the ability to have as many of whichever kind that you want. I mean, sure, guns are cool to an extent, but when they present so much of an obvious problem I don't quite get why people love them so much.
The prison system.
The way Americans speak about employment is really foreign to me. The complete acceptance of the horrible way they are treated by employers, sometimes defending layoffs, crazy hours and abusive behaviour. I think it is terrible the way you are treated and allso really counterproductive in a macro economic sense as it makes productivity really low.
School shootings
School shootings.
Student loans.
The whole issue with net neutrality
Gun violence.
Guns.
Giant containers of food in grocer’s shops. I mean, 1 gallon of milk? C’mon
Oh, and measurement units, of course.
Just the simple fact that there are nearly 0 ensurances for the population of people that is earning on casual level... that shocked me.
Ajit Pai
SJW
The sports team like mentality of political parties
Having only one national language. I still sometimes wrongly refer to Spanish as the US's second national language. I'm Canadian so the concept of not having everything delivered in 2 languages seems so odd to me.
The reverse is true for my American fiancee when he visits me. He said he didnt realize just how much of an influence French has in Canada (so much so that all our ads and services are always delivered in both English and French). I can't wait to take him to Montreal and see how confused he gets. Haha.
Technically the United States doesn't have an official national language.
Ohh that's interesting. I guess I just assumed.
Tipping
I've heard americans tell me that it's annoying you always have to be nice even if you don't like someone. Here in Germany if we don't like somebody we just act like it.
School shootings. Also food courts shootings. Also street shootings. Also any other kind of shooting done by a cevilan on a public place, apart from rare occasions. Also we have gun control. Also I live in Israel, so you can't say my country is a particularly safe one.
Health Care System
School Shootings. Also, walking into a store and buying a gun off the shelf and walking out with it. Where I am from the time from paying for the gun till you have it in your hands can be months.
Student debt.
Health insurance and student loans. I mean what the fuck America
Tipping. How about instead of that whole system, increase minimum wage, pay by the hour and if someone is shit at their job and provides bad service to customers, fire them?
Here in Australia, minimum wage is $18 per hour. There is no tipping. You pay for what you want and good service is expected. If you receive a shitty product, you are entitled to a refund. It's a solid system ;)
To be fair the Australian dollar is worth less than the american dollar
To be fairer still, when you have a job and work a set amount of hours, you can rely on getting paid a set amount. You don't have to dig pennies out of a jar and hope to get enough to pay your monthly rent. Fuuuuck that
It would be 13.64
Their insane fascination with guns. :(
As a Canadian, I just can't fathom how stressful it must be to know that one illness or injury could push you out of house and home... That is fucked.
Comcast
Hahaha
Freedom of speech... America is the only country in the World where there are No limitations to your speech, and seeing people trying to implement hate-speech laws, severely aggrovates me...
Lawsuits. It’s very rarely a money making machine and most of the time the people who’ve studied law end up working at a state/county administration office, never seeing a courtroom again.
How long the toilet seats are
We're fat need a big seat for dat big ass.
Gas prices. We pay twice what you pay, but don't complain much.
Medical bills. I once saw a video of a guy skateboarding and bail hard, he was screaming for an ambulance because he thought he had torn his balls. One of the other people in the video commented that they could not afford an ambulance. Fuck living anywhere you need to worry about money when your ball sack has been ripped open.
Health care that bankrupts people
Grade point averages, I hear them always getting referred to in films and never know if it means the person is smart or dumb.
“A”. (Highest mark possible) = 4.0 “B”: (Still very good)= 3.0 “C”: “Average =2.0 “D”: Lowest still barely passing for credit, but really barely know concepts =1.0 “F”: Lowest grade = Failure
There can be + or - to indicate high or low letter grade modifier.
4.0 = A+ All “A” grades or 100% 2.0 = “C” Average. A,C,F,C would equal a 2.0.
“Honor roll” is usually 3.5 GPA or above. 3.9-4.? is usually “high honors”.
You can get better than a 4.0 for extra weighted courses and classes. Usually an “A” in those counts as a 4.1. “B” 3.1, etc.
This varies from school to school and is cumulative for averages from grades 9-12 (US high school).
Thank you for the replies!
The higher the gpa number, the better the grades. It goes anywhere from 0 to 5, depending on where in the US you are. My school went from 0 to 4 with a 4 point gpa meaning you passed all your classes with flying colors.
Neither. It means they memorize and regurgitate on command very well.
Considering that monkeys, dogs, and rats can also do this, it's not a reflection of intelligence.
Fundraising to help pay for critical medical treatment.
How some americans are almost brainwashed when it comes to being patriots and always respecting the flag like it is a holy object and stuff like that. And I find it wierd that while completly worshiping the american values they have the obsession with guns and the right to defend themselves from their own government like its not a contradition. Idk I love most americans I really do but some things confuse me.
Source: European that went to High school in the U.S
not really an issue but the crazy amount of patriotism. If someone overhere talked like that youd think of them as insane.
Probably already been mentioned, but paying for healthcare. I can’t relate to the idea that if someone gets sick, they likely can’t get proper care if they can’t afford it. Or the common “this little kid needs $50,000 for an operation or he/she will die”. Like what in the fuck is that? “Can’t afford it? Too bad, you’re dead”. If I’m wrong, please educate me.
PS - America is awesome, I just don’t understand its health care
Flags everywhere, especially on people’s houses. The only country I’ve seen come close is Australia, and that’s just one flag every now and then. In fact, the first country flag I’d ever seen on a house in Australia was yet another American flag. It’s like you people can’t keep it in your pants or something, even in other countries.
paying for healthcare, apparently its expensive but I wouldn't have to know.
Cost of medical expenses and making doctors appointments. If you're sick or hurt here you're given treatment and care. Also, that getting into a college is difficult, college 'funds' and high school is a make and break time.
I got into university with a piece of paper assuring the university I was a good student written by the principal BEFORE I got my marks back. I also got paid to attend university. I'm under the impression these things don't happen too often in the USA but it is a big country with many states so it might be the case in several.
Cheerleading. That is not a thing here.
Having people around you armed with guns not being themselves professionals (police or military). That’s crazy to imagine to me.
Not an issue, but schools that are one huge, enclosed building are strange to me. In Australia basically everything that isn't a classroom is outside.
Fear of going to the doctor or hospital because you will end up in debit for life.
Your Medical System. Srsly, how can people think its actually good?
healthcare
Getting shot at a school
everything house-related being made out of cardboard.
why is the house made out of cardboard
why is the door made out of cardboard
The 3 sea shells
How education works, mainly College. Like, do you choose whatever subjects you want? And what the heck is a minor/major, sophomore and all those terms. I really don't get it at all.
You choose a degree plan that dictates which classes you need to complete it. You usually have a few options per subject.
A major is what your degree will be in. Like say, English. A minor is sometimes a second smaller part of classes that add to your degree. People sometimes do English/Journalism duos. Gives them a edge in more fields, etc etc.
Freshman - new classmates on campus
Sophmore - second year students
Junior - third year students
Senior - final year students
Can you specify more on "You usually have a few options per subject"?
When I did my degree for history, I had science classes I had to do for the program. I had options between Astronomy, Anthropology, Biology etc etc.
Same with English. American Lit, British Lit etc etc
So you can be an English major with a concentration in education or creative writing or editing or being a librarian. Or an Engineer major but concetration on electrical, mechanical, petroleum, civil, etc
Now I got it. Thank you.
The way you people talk about prescription medicines like anti-depressants and things like that is BIZARRE and yet FASCINATING to me. Americans talk about being on things like Adderall, Xanax, Prozac, Ritalin, Ambien etc like it’s the most normal and regular thing in the world. I’m not even sure what all of those do or what the difference is between them, but Americans all seem to be experts, and I swear you’re all on at least one drug at any one time.
In the UK at least, to get prescribed something like antidepressants, something has to be pretty wrong with you (never been on them myself, but have friends who have/are). I’m pretty sure you don’t get to just keep taking them forever either, unless a doctor says you should. But from what I can gather in America you guys just pretty much get a free run at Uncle Sam’s medicine cabinet right? If I’m wrong, please correct me, that’s just what I’ve observed.
American gun culture. Your kids are killing each other.
I'm an American and have a hard time with this part of our culture
Net neutrality
Unless you live in Australia
Healthcare being a do or die monetary issue (Canadian)
Banging on about race all the time. Seriously, stop it.
I totally agree with this
Having to pay for college
Getting murdered at school
Or dying because you just can't afford health care.
If it is t already obvious enough, the constant shootings. Can’t relate.
Getting profiled by the police, getting asked for ID.
Aussie here, can't believe that if I go to a hospital to get treated, ill rack up a massive bill. Sounds like ppl would rather die
Tens of thousands of people do every year here.
Most people don't have a choice, which is the really scary part.
I'm Canadian and I love having my Healthcare paid for. It's terrifying to think there are places where that's not the case
Having to pay for healthcare lol
As an Australian, needing tips to make up most of your income as a waiter/waitress/pizza deliverer etc. The way you guys get paid is baffling to me and how low minimum wage is.
I worked as a pizza driver for a year and you sometimes get tips from kind people but it is not a necessity by any means.
Edit: Oh and the tax not being applied before purchasing items. Like what?
American Football, you call it football but you don't kick it that often. Handball sounds great!
Medical commercials for drugs. Wow. They don't have those in Australia. The first one I saw was for an antidepressant. First half of the ad I'm thinking hey this is different, then the second half of the ad they list all the potential side affects; including suicidal thoughts. Would struggle to be confident about any medication after those ads.
School shootings
All the financial madness. Mainly how everybody seems to live with debt while in most countries it's a rare thing to owe money.
This related to the absurd costs of medical and educational services. Sucks to hear that even when every citizen gives a lot to their country it won't even cover a bone fracture or give them the right to free education.
Having to pay for doctors, medicine, university
[deleted]
A lot of people go so they can point at that to prove they are good Christians while they refuse to feed kids whose mom doesn't deserve it.
The seemingly constant gun related violence... I don't understand it.
The vast majority of it is gang violence. They fight over land to be able to sell their drugs. And for the past 30 years there has been a constant cycle of fatherless homes in those communities so for the foreseeable future it will continue.
We don't either.
Gun violence, mass shootings, expensive health care
Boy scouts / girl scouts. In my country is only “scouts”
the hard-hitting issue
lol. America is such shit and here are all the reasons why.
How the duck do you pay 3800€ for a kidney stone?
Lack of adequate, affordable healthcare.
Bankruptcy for injury. 1 year of maternity leave.
Who gets one year of maternity leave?
Canadians. Can split 50/50 paternity maternity too
Wow that's awesome.
That's the side of taxation that is worth it. We still live a pretty comfortable life.
Seeing how some of these people view America is somewhat infuriating.
Example?
They’re all true but only to a very certain extent. Like someone said our commercials on the radio suck but it was most likely a local radio station with low funding. And then some people think if you have any health complications you go broke for a little bit which just isn’t true at all. People saying that we can’t pay for college which just isn’t true, especially because of fasfa and other student loans. It’s just some people think of America as a grandiose country with lots of money but tons of poor people. We have a lower poverty rate than the UK. I just find that when anyone (American or not) speaks about the US it’s almost always in an exaggerated fashion.
With all due respect, I am American and all of those things that you say are not true I have seen with my own eyes. It sounds like you must live in a very good part of the country, or are in a good socioeconomic status. I am happy for you, but that is not everyone's experience
Yes so generalizing that as all of America is wrong isn’t it? That’s what I’m saying. I live in WA state.
Every single one of my ancestors came to this country for a better life and this post makes me think I need to go to literally any of the countries they left to find a better life.
American here and this whole thread made me extremely depressed.
And we will learn nothing.
Being grounded 🙃... from the balkans here.. lol
What a depressing read. This is basically a compilation of reminders of all the things wrong with all of our systems.
Paying for medical care
Having a lot of credit cards to “build credit”.
You only need one to do that.
Building credit in general.
Here in Brazil it works the other way around: you can lose credit by not paying, but not “build” it.
Well, if you get a card and don't pay for what you've charged you lose credit. To build you have to pay for your stuff.
The insane price of going to the hospital
Whitewashing in Hollywood movies. Im Japanese and live here, and no one gives a shit if the characters are portrayed by whites.
We even made attack on Titans with Asian casts when they are supposed to white. All that matters is if the movie is good or not.
It's not an issue for you because Japan's population is something like 98% ethnic Japanese, and most of the rest is also Asian. There's not exactly a lot of white Japanese people around to protest about being underrepresented in your media.
American here. Reading all of these comments has had me cringing. All of these things I know are either crazy/weird/fucked up but it’s interesting and a little disconcerting to see other countries pointing them out. Really makes you think...
obnoxious internet prices.
I pay about $23 for 6gb of data with an additional 1.1gb from random bonuses and 100min of talk time. WhatsApp calls are free for 10k minutes too.
also pay $30 for 500mbps (both up and down) for internet.
edit: other than the price, the reliability too.
I cant relate to the silly PC culture.
It is also difficult to people who speak only one language, not because the never learned another language, but because they somehow expect everyone SHOULD know their language.
Other than that, it is an OK country :P
The unnecessary pharmaceuticals with a ridiculously long list of side effects promoted on TV. I'm sure Canadians use these, but with free health care we don't meds to be promoted to us, they're just perscribed and we either agree to take them or not. In most cases.
Mostly money, i remember seeing a post about a server watching $4/5 a hour to go up to $7 and how to ask her boss, I did the checking and thats LESS then 18 year old gets paid and we are tying to remove that so everyone gets paid the same £7.83 as people over 25 do, I'm shocked the US pays worker's so little, while I was working at McDonald's I was getting minimum equal to $10 per hours and in nights thywlikd be 11-12 per hour, you're living costs seem so much higher with thing like health insurance yet most workers seems to be horribly underpaid.
Not from me, but my British friend thought it was crazy that we'd rather suffer than go to the doctor and pay for our injuries
It isn't a matter of whether we would rather suffer. It is usually the case that we just don't have the money necessary for the doctor
yea thats what I meant
Tipping. People in the service industry should have a higher base salary, derived from a fixed service charge.
That football is soccer while handegg is football.
All the "we hate Trump" stuff i mean, whatever m8, im bored of all the moaning now.
I'm fairly sure that hating Trump isn't specific to America!
Edit: It's just true - Trump isn't exactly popular in Britain, either. My point is just that it's weird to say that non-Americans can't relate to people hating Trump, when it's not as though the only people who dislike him are Americans. He's universally a controversial figure, whether you like him or not. That is my - entirely factual and accurate - point.
Look, our PM might be doing a crappy job but i don't despise her, the people who voted for her, her daughter (if she has one), and anybody that likes her..i mean,, its all a bit ott and i don't relate
Oh, same. I do think it's a different culture of leadership, in a way. I would probably say that Trump is sort of new territory in that regard, because he was so famous before he became President and I feel like he courts controversy more than Theresa May does, for example - you don't see Theresa May attacking people on Twitter, or responding to attacks made on her. I think his attitude kind of whips people into a frenzy. Not justifying it, because anyone who hates Trump and then uses that hatred to attack his wife or his (not politically active) children is being unfair imo, but I think it's difficult to directly compare Trump to a lot of other world leaders in terms of public image.
I wonder who they would say they hated more, Trump, Putin or Kim Jong Un?
I should add, i do see where you are coming from and would have more understanding but... When Obama was in the other side did the same to him! villified, accused derided, etc its the height of hypocrisy for the left to swap places and do the same in such a blatant fashion.
I genuinely think that if you were to ask them who they hated more as a person, they would say Trump, purely because he's kind of easy to hate, in a way - by that I mean that he actively courts those who dislike him and a large part of his public image is saying offensive things, arguing with people etc. As a man, he's very abrasive, so I think people kind of immediately either love his 'honesty' or hate his 'offensiveness'. He has a real cult of personality both ways.
If you were to ask them who they thought was most dangerous, they would probably say either Putin or Kim Jong Un.
(Edit: that's not necessarily my own opinion btw, just that I think that Trump is such a controversial figure right now and so that's probably the answer you'd get if you asked a broad sample of people)
A lot of people are going to give you all sorts of political reasons that they feel justified in hating Trump, and you are right to think that is bullshit.
But one thing I will say is that vitriol surrounding Trump is as much of his own doing as the opposition.
Trump relentlessly provokes and insults those who don't agree with him. Look, people hated Bush. Hated him. But I've never seen anything like this. A tone was set. It's Trump.
(It's all cool maybe that's why you like him, I'm not here to judge. But I for one am not surprised with how people are reacting)
Just to clarify, i dont "like" Trump, i find him abrasive and arrogant same as most people, i do also find him highly amusing, mostly his weird mannerisms like the drinking from a bottle of water episode, that had me in tears, and all the crazy faces he pulls, i also think its funny that he doesn't give a single shit.
Bear in mind that in Europe we have also had our share of weirdos and knob heads in power Remember Slobodan Milosevic, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, these guys were real baddies, they make Trump just liik like a slightly comical rubbery faced orange bloke.
I think the vitriol is better saved for others more deserving
Is your PM actively dismantling your government, regulations that protect citizens, long stand alliances and relationships with other nations and pushing the world toward nuclear war?
pfff, he just made peace with NK, get a grip. Once he is out you can fix everything cant you?
It's a bit premature to say he's made peace with NK at the moment - would be great if that's the way it turns out, but I'd be wary of celebrating too early at the moment.
Um, no he hasn't. It remains to be seen if this meeting leads to actual peace.
Well i say lets be optimistic and grab whatever peace seems to be on offer but maybe this is indicative, i just don't relate.
Peace would be good, but if Trump's abrasive, bellicose confrontational style is what it takes to achieve peace then this isn't a world I want to live in.
When did Obama meet with North Korea? I’ll wait here for an answer.
What does Obama have to do with it?
Well what did Obama do for world peace? Or American peace? All we saw during his term was the rise of Isis, terror attacks every other day across Europe and the U.S., mass demonstrations, cop killings. Etc. and now what do we have? Isis is a footnote, terror attacks have diminished significantly, and people have for the most part stopped their assault on police. Not to mention we on on the path to world peace thanks to President Trump extending an olive branch to North Korea.
Obama had his share of shortcomings, but they have no bearing on what I was saying. All I was saying is that it remains to be seen if Trump's action lead to peace. I try to keep my mind open to the possibility that they could. But if this is a world where Trump's abrasive, insulting confrontation style is what it takes to get things done, then it is a world I don't want to live in.
Me too, and I'm American. I wish everyone would shut the hell up about it. It's all I hear 24/7.
You take him, then.
Welcome to the sniveling land of American liberalism. We hate them just as much as you do.
Debt.
Credit cards are unheard of here (we use debit), and so are student loans. I had one debt my entire life, and that was my mortgage. I paid it off ASAP because I didn't want that hanging over me.
The idea of debt is unpleasant to me (and most people I know). Sometimes it's necessary, but to literally go into debt on a daily basis? Fuck that.
Debt is not a uniquely American issue. All businesses all over the world leverage debt as an effective tool. Why pay off your mortgage if the interest rate on it is 4% if you can get 6% invested elsewhere? Debit cards in America probably aren't afforded the same amount of protection and benefits and they are in other countries. Credit cards allow for credit protection as it removes the direct line to your bank account and some cards provide great incentives and benefits.
Consumer debt is an issue here though.
some cards provide great incentives and benefits.
The reason they provide incentives and benefits is not because banks are super nice and want you to have nice things. They do so because banks know that this will convince people to rack up more debt than they can afford, and they can make money off the interest when you don't pay it back in full every month.
The fact that they keep doing this is proof it works (if they didn't make money off it, they wouldn't keep doing it), and people spend more than they can afford when they are given credit cards. You can say "well, just don't do that", but it is clear that the purpose of credit card incentives is to get Americans comfortable with the idea of debt, and the purpose of that is to get them to rack up debt they can't afford. And it is working.
Of course, banks are not non-profits. Way to focus on one particular line of my reply by the way. But for people that can afford to pay it back, it's better than a debit card.
This brings us to another thing that's really weird about Americans, which is that you've been conditioned to blame people for being manipulated. If someone racks up more debt than they can afford, that's their fault, right? They should just not do that.
This despite the fact that there are literally teams of professionals whose job it is to convince people to do just that (through incentives and advertisements and "keeping up with the Joneses"). And they're very good at it. Humans are not creatures of pure logic, and there are lots of ways to manipulate us. This is why the entire field of marketing exists.
But no, you guys believe being manipulated is solely the fault of the victim. "Fuck them, they suck. It'll never happen to me! I have immunity to the entire field of marketing."
And you all think this, it's really incredible to me. I can certainly see how corporations find this state of mind useful.
How did you get a mortgage without having a credit card? Do you guys not have credit scores?
We do not.
Wait, you get a mortgage by using a credit card? Like, you buy a house with a card? That blows my mind.
In my country most people would need to get a bank loan. You must sign a lot of paperwork with lots of technical stuff (i believe it must be more complex than in the US because of our awful economic swings). When they approve your credit, you go out and find a suitable place. Finally you tell the bank to directly transfer the funds for that purchase. You don't get to see the money in your bank account. Here credit cards have nothing to do with the process of buying a house.
No you don't get a mortgage using a credit card. To get a mortgage you must have a decent credit score, to build your credit score you must show that you can properly handle credit, and it's basically impossible to build your credit score without a credit card.
The police in America.
I mean trust me, as a scouser, I'm not at all the police's biggest fan, but fuck me are the American police force absolutely fucking nuts, from the looks of things.
Shit like, don't get out of your car or you'll be shot just completely baffles me.
I do get that it's probably to do with the fact that ANY RANDOM FUCKER could just shoot you at any time, so the police are scared shitless constantly, but that's a whole different argument.
Piss someone off in Liverpool, you might be sent to the hospital - piss someone off in America and you might be sent to the morgue...
Not too long ago, the police in Richmond, Virginia shot a man to death who ended up on the interstate (which they ended up closing) rolling around naked after he appeared "threatening" and wouldn't listen to them.
He was butt ass naked, were they expecting him to be cornholin a pistol or something?!
The entire rage about Trump.
As a Swiss, I am a strong believer in democracy. However, democracy is not a buffet a discretion: You can't just pick the bits you like.
Therefore, for me, it's a simple thing: Like it or not, apparently the majority (or whatever is necessary in the US) gave him their votes, so he IS your president until his term ends.
Don't like it? Stop whining and prepare for the next election.
I don't want to offend anyone. Quiet, pragmatic democracy is just so culturally ingrained for me. Yes, I know, some politicians and people in Switzerland behave like kids too, but they receive the same amount of disbelief.
Full disclosure: I was neither keen on Trump, Hillary or Sanders. If my opinion would have been worth anything, I would have preferred Marco Rubio.
Not an american, but what you're saying is true as long as the democratic process is perceived as legitimate.
However, in this case there is growing evidence of attempts to influence the result of the elections. So the question of Trump's legitimacy is, well, legitimate.
Thanks for the info!
I'm afraid I can not say much to that, I'm not privy to enough information.
However, I agree with your basic concept: Yes, if democracy looses its perceived legitimacy, elections become sketchy.
Maybe I am biased by living in a country where I trust our electoral process 100%.
Thank you, friend, for this reminder!
Tbf he didn't get the majority vote but got the necessary number of delegate votes our weird electoral system uses. Clinton got a significantly higher number of overall votes.
Thanks for the info!
I'm not a fan of edit, so I'll leave my post unchanged. However, I'm always grateful if people correct my mistakes.
Thanks, my friend!
ITT: People that have never set foot in the US talking shit about the US.
Did... you read the question?
Gun addiction
The pledge of allegiance you force kids to do at school and the constant anthem singing etc. The patriotism in general, that I find very performative. If you love your country, you'd think that some changes are necessary to make it better, and to protect/give a better life to its citizens. But it feels like the flag is more important than the people.
I'm French; the anthem is sung... before International competitions only? I don't hear it often. And the stuff in school is unthinkable here. Pledge to the flag? Looks like a dictatorship practice
Kids aren't forced to say the pledge. There was a Supreme Court case about this. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/west-virginia-v.-barnette-the-freedom-to-not-pledge-allegiance
Problems that have been solved by other nations that Americans say are "impossible" to solve - Healthcare, gun deaths, education, drug addiction, high-speed rail etc. Almost every problem America has has been fixed by another country - You just have to replicate what they've done.
...but there's a peculiar unwillingness to accept the ideas from others, or to dismiss them outright.
Credit score.
Baseball (I get the very basics, like maybe 10% of the rules lol).
Taking credits for a lot of things. I have zero debt, I feel awful if I'm life 500€ out. Besides, if I wanna apply for a credit, even to a loan shark with 20% interest rate (lol insanity) I have to have a "long term employement contract", proof of revenue for the past 3 to 6 months, and my annual taxes figure for the past year. Without it, bankster just spits on you.
6 figures income like if it was no fucking big deal.
The people my age (mid 20s) I know that are the most paid are pulling around 50k€ a year and it's already a pretty big fucking deal. Most are in the 25k to 30k range, some between 30k and 40k.
And we all have master's degrees living the slave life to the max. lol
I'm not even talking about low skilled workers like cleaning ladies, burger flippers at Mc D etc... who are paid like 15k€ a year.
Getting in SO. MUCH. TROUBLE with the police for the pettiest things. Like if I lit a joint in the street here and cops show up, they gonna smash it, feel me to see if I carry some more, destroy it right there and then, lecture me a little, maybe a small fine and bye.
Wtf is going on with people having su much judiciary trouble for small things, that fucking seem to suck.
Putting the $ sign BEFORE the actual cost. Like $20. I don't get it. In your head, when you read it, your inner voice goes "dollar twenty" instead of "twenty dollars" then you have to revert it back to say "twenty dollar".
Why not just fucking use logic and write 20$ so your inner voice goes "twenty dollars" and your mouth just follows with "twenty dollars".
Non metric system, screw you with that shit lol.
Still being such a religious nation. This is sooooo third world shit right there.
Having your inner cities being "gangstery" in lots of places. Down here it's the other way around, people enjoy themselves in the historical buildings / neighborhood and we just push the "undesirable" outside the city. So THEY have to struggle to commute for EVERYTHING and not you.
No mandatory training for driving. It makes me so mad seing all these bike videos obviously from the U.S with riders doing ultimate beginners mistakes. Sure, in a way that's nice to be able to be "free" to do stuff. But god, cars and bikes are coffins with wheels, just push a little so people have to get basic training before going on the public roads are be dangers to everyone including themselves.
Driving at 16. Somewhat linked to the previous point. You're still a damn kid at 16. You are sooooo stupid and irresponsible most of the time. I wouldn't let a child bear the responsibility of properly using a 1,5 tons heavy 120 mp/h going metal case with wheels with people around him kinda codependant for their mutual safety.
I'm really not sure I wanna drive in the U.S. when I come, you seem a nation of pretty poor road drivers :/
I'm confused, we do have mandatory training for driving. Where did you make that assumption from?
In each and every state ? I thought in many places you just paid a few bucks and they gave you your license ?
Seriously? Every state. Many you cannot drive until 17, most is 16. In the Midwest here , in the Midwest it's as low as 14 because often you need to drive farm equipment.
In all cases though,you start with a restricted permit where you are only allowed to drive with licensed driver in company. In all cases you must first pass a written and physical driving test.
At the end, you must pass tests and have X amount of hours of accompanied driving, and a percentage of it has to be driving at night. I think it is around 100 hours.
Every state
Edit - drivers education course is taken in the summer by every high school student, and is usually the beginning of getting a license. It is a 2-3 month course, includes written and physical
14-16 year olds are restricted to driving to and from home,work, and school. It becomes unrestricted at 16-18 depending on the state. Ages have changed a bit since I got my license
Well, I got schooled. Thanks for this in depth answer man ! I'm less stupid today.
Where I live you have to take 30 hours in training and you can’t get your actual license until a year after your permit. Stop pulling shit out of your ass
Everywhere in the U.S ?
Everywhere requires you to take a class and tests, the time restrictions aren’t exactly the same in all states. But you certainly need training
High School and College sports and their academic and social status it comes with. I'm from Luxembourg (right in between Germany, Belgium and France) and in High School we have once or twice a week some collectif sports class but it is only to keep kids moving and exercising which is mandatory to participate in. And if you want to take it more serious, you chose your type of sports and club yourself which is organised apart from school.
Schools are underfunded and sports are the easiest way to get additional funding.
If I am not mistaken our schools arent even allowed to accept private funding, it's too easy to get bribed or something
Brazilian here. Hospital bills and college debt.
I'm 22 and never had a healthcare plan, always using public hospitals in times of need. And I attend at a federal university, which is completely free.
Free college and universal health care aren't communism, guys. Chill out and try it.
Calling earning a mandatory minimum wage communist. The notion everyone not on the top earnings scale is just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire (work harder you bum), even if you work 3 jobs and STILL can't afford to live a somewhat normal life. The "but Hillary did..." no serious guys, dafuq is wrong with you. Calling Berny Sanders a communist (this one makes me laugh every time I hear it, he would be on the right side of the political spectrum in Europe). The discussion I have with friends, "so you work 2 jobs, make 60 hours" You see your family you say you work for much? And think it's silly to have point 1.
[deleted]
Having to travel half the day to get to work could well be because of Americas large size in comparison to smaller European countries. I live in Australia and we have the same problem.
Selecting stupid celebrity as a president. Also legal bribes aka lobby.
-Football
That's not football and you aren't world champs. WTF?
The obsessive, totally blinding, and woefully misplaced sense of patriotism and fetishising of a flag.
Yeah Europeans never wave flags at soccer games or concerts. Oh wait.
We certainly don't have one in every classroom at school or in court rooms. And we only wave them in international tournaments, when we're playing another country. Not when one team from our country plays another team from our country.
To be fair, though, Brits fetishise their Union Jack quite a bit as well. But frankly, you could spend months in say Sweden or Portugal without seeing their flag once.
As an American this post makes me sad, can I leave now??!
[deleted]
Oh yeah?! Well who's going to build it......shit.
I hate when people threaten to leave. The US political system and its freedoms are wonderful. If you don't agree with policy, work to change the policy here. Don't just say "the US sucks." Make it better. The system here allows for political discourse that should move the country forward.
Look at all the leftist celebrities who threatened to leave if Trump were elected. I literally don’t think one person who said that actually left.
I looked into it for shits and giggles...it's not fucking easy at all but if anyone can do it it's a celebrity with a fuck tonne of money.
Stay and make it better. We have to voice our opinions and legitimately vote. These are dark times to be born an American, but the last thing I wanna do is be labeled as an American refugee. I'd rather partake in a moment of change and fight the bad stereotype we have.
Yes, bye.
Its just guns and healthcare. The guns one i can 100 percent get behind. And while our healthcare system sucks, reddit has put it in everyones mind that going to the doctor = bankruptcy and eventual depression driven suicide. Most people have health insurance, most people have affordable healthcare. The problem is the 20 percent or so of the population who doesnt.
Im part of the 20% i work my ass off to take care of my family but im still barely scraping by at best even with my husbands income included, it feels like you work so when you die your kids can afford to bury you
Right, and we need UHC of some kind. The amount of people who cant afford healthcare is disgraceful.
Which is why we have Single payer for poor people, and subsidised for less poor people.
The US public healthcare system is larger than the UK's NHS.
Larger in that it treats a larger percent of the population, ie the outcome which actually matters? Absolutely not.
No, larger in that it treats a larger number of people. Actually a smaller percentage of the population. The total number treated is more relevant than the percentage.
But the US is like 5x larger than the UK, so most of our absolute numbers of anything are way larger. The percentage seems way more relevant, because it means that a lot of US citizens are going untreated while UK citizens aren’t.
I think you are having a completely different conversation. You are aware that health insurance is mandatory in the US, right?
I am not one to criticise the domestic issues of another country, but there are aspects of the NHS that wouldn't be acceptable to Americans.
Mandatory =\= people have it or can access healthcare. I’m saying that like 10% of Americans are still uninsured even with Obamacare (and who knows how long that will last or be enforced), and thus couldn’t afford to go to a hospital, while people in the UK could. The # which have inadequate insurance is higher than that, and it’s all insanely expensive. Those are issues the UK doesn’t really have to anywhere near the same degree, even tho the NHS brings in other problems. There’s a reason medical care is one of the most common causes of US bankruptcy and doesn’t even show up in the UK.
This might shock you, but there are health systems other than the UK. The US is most likley to end up with something like the German system, in that we have mandatory health insurance, with government neogotiated basic policies and subsidies.
Hm, I don’t think we are actually disagreeing about anything. I agree that it’s unlikely the US ends up w/ something like the UK system, some middle ground like german or Swiss seems way more likely. Or an unfortunate regression back to where we were in 2008.
I'm an American and I just had the healthcare yearly meeting yesterday.
I looked at all of my options and realized that if I were in any serious medical situation that my only option would be bankruptcy. Even with the best plan I can get, I pay $200/month (my employer pays another $200), and if I were to say fall down a flight of stairs and break a bunch of shit, I'd be out about $7500 of my own money. I simply couldn't afford that in any situation.
You don't get to look at me and tell me that this isn't broken. That bankruptcy is an acceptable form of healthcare.
I didnt say it isnt a problem. I said its not as bad as many would have you believe. That doesn't mean i agree with how our healthcare system is run or dont hope for change, im just stating my perspective. I always get downvoted, and thats fine. But even in your scenario, as you said... you have an out of pocket max. You also have a terrible plan, probably on the lower end of what most full time employers offer. But regardless, if you require hundreds of thousanda of dollars, or even millions in medical care, the most you will ever pay is 7500 per year + premiums. Almost every hospital will negotiate an interest free payment plan for you based on your income (in the event you need to go to the hospital). That isnt that bad, and if 100 or 150 dollar a month payment plan is enough to ruin you, you probably have issues beyond your medical ones.
Yes. But you pay more per GDP then rest of the industrialized world and you still have worse outcomes....
If the results or the costs were lower you could argue somewhat that it's a trade-off but it just seems worse on almost any metric.
Yea, im not saying we have a great system, im saying its not as bad as reddit would have you believe. And when you say outcomes, what do you mean. Outcomes is insanely broad. Do you mean life expectancy or do you mean if two patients enter a facility for the same procedure it is statistically likely to be done worse in the US than in other first world nations. My understanding is we have arguably the best and most advanced medical care, but access and equal distribution is obviously worse.
As an example, America has the highest rate of deaths in childbirth of all industrialised countries. More than three times higher than Canada, for comparison. Source: https://qz.com/1108193/whats-killing-americas-new-mothers/
Ive seen the statistics like this and the life expectancy, and neonate death rates and all that. But, do we arrive at these numbers because such a large percentage of the population is without insurance and may forgo preventative care or OB care or fear medical bills? Or are the doctors/hospitals worse? Lets say i have solid insurance, see my doctor regularly and am not afraid to go to the hospital when somethings wrong. Am i still more likely to die younger or die during childbirth. My understanding is, the answer to that question is no.
If you have enough money, you'll get excellent healthcare anywhere in the world.
Well, still more likely to die because of our lifestyle and violent crime. But yea, our hospitals and doctors are good if you can afford them.
Its just guns and healthcare.
It's not JUST guns and healthcare. It's also education, capital punishment, murder rate, the fact that corruption is legalized, weird army fetish everybody seems to have, etc...
I meant moreso in this particular thread, those two topics seem to be most prevalent. The US has plenty of other issues.
Education -> Not really all that bad Capital Punishment -> This is not an “American Issue” this is a state based issue Murder Rate -> At its lowest Corruption is legalized -> 🤔🤔 Weird Army Fetish -> Well, it is one of the largest employers in the US, and it doesn’t really do wonders for morale if we demonize it, but this point at least has some merit.
You provided an answer but literally answered nothing
I'm pretty sure the 20% you refer to are the ones that make too much for government help, but aren't rich enough to afford good private insurance. Those people get screwed by our health system.
I personally know people (plural) who have committed depression driven suicide as a result of not being able to afford care.
I know many many more people who have been financially ruined as a result of medical debt/clearing out savings to pay premiums.
Even if the number really is 20%, that's way too many people who are basically fucked. Your attempt at hyperbole is just... reality. Clearly not for you, but for many others.
Please do
ITT: everything people hate about America.
Anybody have anything good to say? This thread is a salt mine.
What did you honestly expect lol. This is reddit after all. People on this site love a good anti-American circle jerk.
Especially the Americans.
The internet has taught me that some of the biggest anti-Americans are people who where born and lived in America their entire lives and have never been anywhere else.
It's edgy to bite the hand that feeds you...that's why they do it; it's a cool trend among liberals.
I mean I think it’s a good thing to realize America’s flaws and wrongs and want to be a part of a solution, but there is a point where too much anger and hatred is just counter productive.
You guys all seem really friendly, for the most part. That's good I think.
The post asked for issues in the country what else would people mention other than negative things?
The word issue is not exclusively related to negative things.
Well they ask about issues brought up here by Americans and all the issues we bring up that get the most attention are negative things. And America has an aggressive foreign policy too so non-Americans are going to be influenced by that.
the only good thing I can think of about america is... it's a productive country - like, it has a big economy.
How about freedom of speech? How about diversity? How about innovation? How about democracy?
Just a few off the top of my head that many 1st world countries do not have.
my country has diversity, and innovation, and democracy. freedom of speech is a no, but I don't care about that.
Being so brainwashed you think guns are a solution to guns.
What do you want?
So how are you going to remove the guns from the bad guys? Are you going to ask them nicely? Pretty please? Or will a guy with a gun do it?
My favorite thing about this comment is that you cite the latter like it's something any recent administration has considered doing.
I’ll tell you what isn’t a solution, uneducated Muslim “refugees”
[deleted]
I love the Fahrenheit point. It is one of the few original points in this thread.
Gun control does not work
The Electoral College messed me up for a long time, I was very proud to be able to explain it at school or with friends. Also, the fact that there’s not a real separation between Government and Religion.
Mental Christianity , like in the uk , you would get sectioned in a mental hospital with some of the weird nonsense we see. Also the thought of a universal health system . Something seriously wrong when your such a cunt that your not willing to help others less fortunate than yourself. We all pay for it via taxation ,so a millionaire has the same access and care as someone who’s been ill and on benefits all their life. Imagine dying because you can’t afford medicine ... America is so advanced in many ways but it’s a really backward country in other ways. Guns is funny as when we see you losing your shit about your right to bear arms . Wonder how the rest of the globe manage it ! But I am Scottish and we have our own shit like our racist government . Love America and Americans I’ve met , not American bashing but more WHY ?
There are literally churches in my state where people dance around with venomous snakes and drink turpentine.
Best thing I’ve ever read ...
Mental Christianity is allowed because of our unwavering belief in freedom. We are like a moody teen who does things just because our parents don’t let us. We felt too controlled by Britain so back in 1777 we told them to fuck off and made our own country with freedom and rights out of the wazoo. The overall sentiment of “I can do what ever I want because this is America!” has stuck and that’s why we allow people to be overly fanatic, destroy their lives with their vices and privately own enough weapons to arm a small nation. Idk it’s flawed but I love the freedom. I own and fire an assault rifle in my back yard while people in the UK have to blunt their kitchen knives because they can be used as weapons.
But somehow a black dude kneeling is controversial. Trans people cant even us the toilet without causing a political shitstorm. Women have no freedom over their own body even. Unwavering believe of freedom my ass. Only when its convenient. And only when you are white and straight.
Yeah America is fucked and we only apply our own morals when it’s convenient. I’m not trying to say we’re not crazy but the crazy is explainable
You do not have an "unwavering belief in freedom". You have an absolutely absurd level of incarceration. The vast majority of which is for non violent crime.. You know.. the kind of "crime" that exists on the books to limit your individual freedom.
Being "free" can also be seen in a subjective sense. I do not consider Americans who live in at-will states, who can have their livelihood stripped from them for any reason whatsoever, to be free. You become a slave to your situation and have to put yourself in a place of heavy potential risk in order to improve your working conditions. Not to mention the fact that you are reliant on work provided health insurance to avoid an illness sending you to the poor house.
Americans are only free in the sense that you are free to fuck over your fellow citizens.
[deleted]
I've never seen a pharmacist give anyone a hard time over any medication. They fill the prescription that the doctor writes, and maybe go over the instructions if it's a new prescription (which they should, that's part of their job.)
This only happens in the shittiest places in America. If you’ve ever seen this or heard someone complain about it your just unlucky because that is very very rare. All jobs in medicine (minus nurses which sucks) are treated with high respect and are done with great professionalism because our system allows them to be very wealthy from overcharging us.
[deleted]
I think some people pass judgment because some believe that it is being over diagnosed. I have ADD and I originally reseated my diagnosis as my parents just trying to skip helping me improve my focus rather than helping me reach my full potential
I don't think this is a thing, if it is its something only an extremely small number of pharmacists do. Anyways you can go to multiple pharmacists, I think anyone who did that would probably be out of the job soon.
I’ve never, ever seen this in the US tbh.
If pharmacists were actually giving people a hard time about pain pills we’d probably have a smaller opioid crisis.
Issues pertaining to New York.
I mean, that’s the same as saying “issues pertaining to America”. The point is, what are those issues?
An unrealistic cost of living, gentrification, terrible public service infrastructure, police brutality, just to name a few.
Those are problems in Chicago and L.A. as well, not just NYC.
Most Americans feel this way too, btw.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Out of curiosity, what country are you from? Is that generally a shared view among your peers and in government?
I'm from Poland. And Poland is considered the Bible Belt of the EU. You can guess the rest. :P
I agree. War is always terrible tragedy and it should be viewed as the absolute last option.
1 yes I agree with the first thing I don’t always agree with where our military is going
2 we are not being forced to do the pledge of allegiance
Edit: I don’t like seeing war especially if it is unnecessary
awful, mindless poem every morning. Truly disturbing.
Growing up reciting this awful disgusting poem, you want to know how I and most children ended up?
Sometime in middle school they just get annoyed they have to stand up early in the morning and say some dumb mantra.
It's amazing that you think we're being brainwashed by this mantra when literally no child is changed by it, it's just something they do and they couldn't care less about the meaning behind it.
Chill out bud.
Actually a lot of people get brainwashed by it. I've seen it.
I can't help thinking it is a key component of why so many Americans think their country is uniquely superior, and how normal and even desirable it is to be nationalistic about it.
Oh is that really true? Tell me exactly, what you've "seen"
I'm really curious as to the "brainwashed" people you've seen, and clearly as a non-american you're more knowledgeable about it?
But go on, tell me what you've seen.
They might live in in a very remote area where the next town is an hour away. I can imagine being possible but neither this person nor myself seems to have sufficient evidence to prove that. Some people are either pushing an agenda or have poor debate skills :/
Everyone around me worshiping a flag and beliving our military is good and not a bunch of murderers. It warps their reality.
That's so insanely vague it makes me thing that you really haven't seen these "brainwashed people"
what do you mean by "everyone around you"??
what do you mean by that they believe they're good and not murderers? What else do you propose the soldiers on the front lines do?
Do you have any idea what that flag symbolizes?
Literally everyone around me worships the flag. They honor murders who choose to go murder people by joining the military. The flag symbolizes the country but I don't believe in the concept of countries so it means nothing to me.
literally everyone around me
who.
who are these people around you? Why do you equate the soldiers to murderers? How the fuck do you think war is played out? Without killing?
But actually never mind, clearly you're not worth the time with these kinds of remarks:
I don't believe in the concept of counties
Everyone around me. Literally everyone. Can you not read? All war and anyone involved in it is a murderer. We should not engage in war at all.
Even against Nazi Germany?
Yes all war is bad. War is why we had nazis in the first place.
But we went to war to stop them.
Would you rather that Jews, Democrats, gay men, Roma, the disabled, Orthodox Christians, Greeks, Russians, Serbians, Belarusians, Tatars, and Ukrainians just not exist anymore?
would you rather we just let the Nazis do their thing?
We shouldn't have been going to war before that so the nazis would never come into power.
You didn't answer my question. Was or was not the war against Nazi Germany justified?
No. All war is wrong. What really needs to happen is humanity needs to stop breeding and allow itself to peacefully go extinct.
[deleted]
"American"
[deleted]
Oh no I'm just making fun of you for calling yourself and American but saying people are brainwashed by the pledge of allegiance. Youre obviously a commie bastard.
American here and it is totally disgusting.
In case of any downvotes, I entirely agree, and thank you for your service.
Yep. The near fetishism levels of admiration for military is super weird to me. The general consensus where I am on people who enlist is that their either knuckleheads who didn't get any other worthwhile career prospects or losers who play too much Call of Duty.
Disagree, war in necessary and were due for a big one. It's human nature.
Necessary for what?
Continuation of the species, helps with overpopulation, military innovations lead to better technology in the civilian sector, and war creates jobs.
Do you think the innovations might be due to the obscene amount of money the US provides for its military? (Also applies to war creates jobs)
Also if overpopulation is such a pressing issue why would the US get to decide who has to die?
Why wouldn't we? We are the world leaders after all, and have the best moral compass.
I wasn't sure before but now I fully believe you trolled me. I fell for the bait, GG
War brings evolution in technology
So does nearly everything else if you pump enough money into it.
War, UGH, what is it good for?
Increasing domestic manufacturing
Idiot
Holy self-fulfilling prophecy Batman.
Again, lies lies and damned lies.
ITT: a massive amount of over-generalization.
Not everyone here has a gun. It's actually a very small percentage of the total population. People that do have guns tend to have more than one which skews the average.
Not everyone here is grossly overweight. There are fat people everywhere.
A lot of stupid people? Really? That isn't unique to America.
Religious fanatics? Do you really think that is unique to America? See east, middle.
I also get a kick out of the Indian guy who doesn't understand the personal hygiene habits of Americans. Pot meet kettle.
'Small percentage' *cough 1 in 3 cough.
Comparing yourself to the middle east..
Gun control. There's about six people in my country who'd argue against it.
We strengthened our legislation against them after a horrific school shooting in 1996 and there hasn't been such an event ever since. In America you can refer to the school shooting and people will ask which one you mean or check the news for a new one, in the UK they'll know you're referring to an event that happened 22 years ago, or if they're in the younger generation then they might not actually be aware we've ever had one.
The arguments in favour of mass gun ownership seem to boil down to two main categories as far as I can tell.
1: Self defence. This makes very little sense to me. If you've got a gun then everyone else does too, and a shot to the back of the head isn't any easier to defend against when you're armed.
Then there's home invasions (which are rare as fuck anyway). 'Responsible gun ownership' seems to involve keeping it secured in a safe. I'm unclear as to how people expect a weapon locked away in a safe to be of much use. And this is ignoring that home invaders are generally just after stuff to pinch. I'd rather lose my (insured!) TV than get in a firefight and either die or have to live with killing someone over stuff. It just raises the stakes to a ridiculous degree.
2: To use against the government if it falls into tyranny. My response to this is basically just 'lol'. An untrained populace is not going to win against a highly trained and better equipped military fighting on their home turf. The counter to this is generally 'but the military would be on our side'. That's debatable, but if they were then civilians wouldn't need to be fighting anyway, right?
It's all just a bit bewildering.
Especially the bit where guns are fine, but bullet proof vests aren't? Like WTF, how is armour more dangerous than a weapon?
School shootings are declining. Most shooters obtained their guns illegally so gun control doesn't have an effect.
Our criminals can't get guns for the most part.
When you say 'obtained their guns illegally' you're mostly saying 'stole guns that were legally owned'. It's not like drugs, you can't grow a weapon in a bathtub or cook it up from household ingredients. If it was so easy to get a gun then we'd still have school shootings. It isn't like the UK is lacking in people suffering from mental health issues and/or bullying.
You certainly can manufacture guns. They do in prison.
They don't here much.
Without guns you are just sheep. With guns at least you have a fighting chance.
Shooting in school
Gun safety, mostly because i've never heard of a school shooting in my country during my entire lifetime. Mostly because child-to-child related murder here is mostly done with knives and outside school.
Suing everyone right, left and center. Slipped on your doorway cuz of my own clumsiness? Let's sue you instead for (insert any imaginary reason). At the same token, the people who deserve justice the most don't seem to get it.
Retaining the freedom to have a gun and also then carry it anywhere I want.
The possibility of being shot literally anywhere I go would terrify me. It's always in the back of my mind when I'm out there. Constantly thinking, "Who around me is armed? Is anyone going shoot up this cinema/restaurant/shopping mall?" would keep me house bound.
Lol yeah thats not how it works here. Most states your not allowed to carry a gun in public. In the states where you can legally carry if you have all kinds of restrictions of places you cant take them.
I know there's a lot of places you're not allowed to carry in the US and that you need to have a concealed carry licence in the ones that do allow you to. I just don't trust that the people who want a firearm with them at all times will actually leave it at home, even when they're not allowed to carry one, you know, what with how many people are shot every day in America.
Most people that are shot are shot by criminals in high crime areas. Legal gun owners rarely shoot people. If you avoid high crime areas your chances of getting shot randomly are incredibly low.
Like schools, churches and nightclubs? It's really about ANYONE carrying guns. Legally or illegally.
When all these mass shootings happen constantly and no one thinks to themselves, "Maybe we shouldn't have guns being sold everywhere", or "Do we really need a gun if no one else has access to them either?", it really makes you think where people's priorities are placed.
Yes, some criminals will always gain access to guns. That happens in all countries. Look here in UK. Criminals still somehow find gunsbut it is incredibly rare.
Do you really need guns in the USA? I mean do you actually NEED to have a gun? They seem to be causing you all more issues than they actually solve, just because no one wants to amend an amendment.
Lots of things we dont need, doesnt mean we should have to give them up. Also I dont understand of taking away people's right to buy guns if you admit criminals will buy them anyway.
They are not issues but things that I have noticed.
First the utter disrespect for the flag masqueraded as patriotism. I would not call myself patriotic, I would never give my life for my country or my flag but I hope to never see the flag on a swim suit.
The self clasification, I dont get the need to say or state im 1/4 native american, 1/4 dutch, 1/8 british 1/16 greek. We are people and not a recipie and you telling me that you are half this and a quarter that means nothing to me.
And the guns, I understand people kill people but guns only make it easier.
Considering a mean tweet "violence". You folks have lost all reference of real violence to draw this kind of comparison.
TIL; America is a shit hole... what happened? Serious.
We were wondering about that also.
Censorship of swear words and the prudery regarding sex. All the while violence seems to be fine.
ITT: The second comment of every reply is an American agreeing as hard as they can in an attempt to show they're not, "one of them/us". This is how we ended up with major league soccer.
Ha! Nailed it in one. Should be a r/bestof.
[deleted]
I've seen a few answers in this thread talking about religion not being taken seriously or being looked down upon. May I ask where and why?
[deleted]
This is spot on.
There is a federal minimum wage and most states have a higher minimum than the federal. K-12 education is taxpayer funded and there are tons of taxpayer funded health care programs, but they contribute more to the overall increased cost due to not covering everyone and the bureaucracies that are needed to manage them. The rest of your post is ok though 👍
There is a federal minimum wage.
We bankrupt outselves to go to school in Canada as well.
Meanwhile, my friends in Germany and Holland go to school for free.
[deleted]
I don’t think it’s inherently racist, but I’m extremely skeptical of anything that makes it harder for people to vote. It also bothers me that the GOP is fairly open about doing this because the people who would be most affected tend to vote Democrat. I think it’s a really shitty thing and a terrible bar to set to try to take away voters not by convincing them that you’re right, or by addressing their problems, but by trying to limit their voting power altogether.
I don’t think it’ll end up having a huge effect, but I think it’s a bad standard to have.
When Alabama passed a voter ID law they closed DMVs in minority neighborhoods making it more difficult for them to get the IDs. When North Carolina was writing their voter ID law they did a study on who was most likely to have what kinds of IDs, and they intentionally wrote the law to make IDs white people are more likely to have valid for voting and the IDs minorities more likely to have invalid for voting. Stuff like this is why people are reflexively against voter ID laws.
Yea as someone else said it's more So the fact it's usually paired with dmv closures in poor and minority areas also the fact that id's cost money and there are a lot of poor people that would rather spend the 60 some bucks elsewhere.
The reasoning is because NYC, LA, cities that are huge, are filled with blacks and hispanics. They don’t have driver’s licenses because they can just walk everywhere, so they can’t provide identification through a drivers license
A government-issued ID costs money, and they don’t usually have money either.
Thats how the race factor was explained to me
Honestly I find this super insane and belittling. You need ID either way. In NY I know a shitload of people without drivers licenses but everyone has state ID. Like somehow me and my family are somehow too stupid to find a DMV and so poor we cant a afford the $15 it cost. Its so insulting and infinitizing. Is this really how the only party that genuinly represents me views me?
[deleted]
I understand the thought process of it all but its a class issue the low expectations of my race is extremely off putting. Fuck, white people in Appalachia problably have a harder time securing ID than minorities but they frame it as us not able to figure out public transportation. Maybe the cause would be better off evaluating the message or pushing for free ID instead of giving the opposition more ammunition on voter fraud conspiracies.
"Being super fucked over by employers because there's a very low federal minimum wage"
Most states have higher minimum wages then the federal and your employer is required by law to pay you the minimum wage which is higher. In my state we actually have a state minimum wage and then some of our cities set their own minimum wage as well, so we have federal state and city where I live and again you're paid which ever is higher.
Americans manage to shove race into everything.
The primaries are a closed party election to decide who runs for the party. Makes sense you have to be in the party to vote.
Mexican here,
Even though ownership is protected I'ts very hard to get a gun.
[deleted]
It depends on what the locals want
It depends on what ~~the locals want~~ best serves corporate interests
FTFY
[deleted]
Its not a two party system. The other parties just really suck
It's a de facto two-party system, then.
The 2nd Amendment exists because at the time the Constitution was written, the US did not have a standing army and actually needed militia groups around to engage as needed for civil defense. It's far less applicable to the modern day (moving from powder-loading muskets to the sort of weapons available now) but it's clung to as a protection by the type of people who think they need to have a home arsenal in their bedroom closet.
[deleted]
Have you, like, ever taken a US history class?
have you?
Being that it was my minor in college, yes, a fair few.
Then you would realize that the supreme court never acknowledged what you just spouted
SCOTUS doesn't have to when the amendment begins "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", and historical context proves that there WAS no standing army.
That is why it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and that right "shall not be infringed". It doesnt allow for government control armament bearing
[deleted]
I don't get people's fear of guns. I carry everyday, sometimes openly on my hip or in a shoulder holster or concealed in my wasteband. Alot of people here carry, I actually have only met a handful of people who don't at least keep a gun in the car. I've had to shoot charging moose and 2 bear before, all at my cabin, and at my house I've had to pop shots towards trespassers. In some places you just need guns the same way you need a power drill, as an effective tool to tackle specific problems.
This probably has a lot to do with it. The biggest wild animals in the UK are badgers and foxes. Both are shy as fuck.
If i lived in a country with bears,or lions,or tigers. I might want a gun too.
I probably wouldnt need an assault rifle tho. But thats a different argument.
I probably wouldnt need an assault rifle tho. But thats a different argument.
If one were a rancher, the AR-15 is awesome for putting down coyote packs harassing livestock such as sheep, lambs and cattle.
Man i really forget sometimes how many fucking predators there are in the US compared to the UK. The most traumatic experience i've had lately was seagulls.
Compared to coyote's, bears, snakes, racoons,...do you have big cats? I wanna say cougars probably, sharks & wolves... Its nuts.
Ya I like in Alaska, everything here will kill you if you're careless, even the giant herbivores.
Ya I like in Alaska, everything here will kill you if you're careless, even the giant herbivores.
Like you said, firearms are a tool to be used against a situation.
Defending against predators, four- and two-legged, is the smallest part of it, at least to me.
Growing up, hunted game was always used to supplement food stock. Raised chickens, beef and pig, along with clamming, crabbing, and fishing (fresh and salt).
But deer, elk, bear, squirrel, and I'm sure quite a few other creatures, found their way to the dinner table.
I think it's just a matter of how folks are raised and situations that they acclimate to. Personally, I was raised in an open carry state and around farmers, ranchers, and hunters. Guns and gun safety where as large a part of my development as learning to read was.
We have some assole cats. Bobcats, Lynx, Pumas. And I remember reading some where that jaguars are moving into Arizona.
How many people do you know that carry a power drill on them every day 'just in case'? That logic is insane. Large animals in dangerous areas I can understand, but just shooting towards random tresspassers? Wow. Your gun culture is batshit crazy.
I have 115 acres, with no trespassing signs ringing my property every 50 feet so I know nobody can miss it. By the time they reach where I can see them they are at least 10 acres deep into my property. What business do you think they have to be there? If I lived I a city it would be one thing, but considering where I live I will shoot. I don't aim to kill in this situation obviously, it's just a powerful warning to not come back. We have alot of tweakers in my area that like to steal everyone's shit, and I refuse to be a victim.
See in Straya a random walking on to your property is about a million times more likely to be seeking assistance than to be up to no good. My first thought would be they've had a car accident or broken down, not that they were a threat.
I wish it could be like that here. Nobody helps each other anymore, at least around here.
I dont understand your blind fear of an inanimate object
I hate it when there's an international match or something and all the police stroll around the train stations and airports with those huge guns. So intimidating. Can't imagine seeing guns all the dang time.
Lol dude, I think you have a strange idea of what people having guns entails.
I see more "huge guns" in Europe for exactly the reason you say, because I travel quite a bit, than I do in the US. In the US, you either see no guns besides the police (in strict states), hunting rifles almost exclusively (in moderate states), or some people carrying a handgun openly (in loose states). Everything else is pretty much kept at home and you only see it at stores that sell guns. It's about as rare to see a citizen walking around with a rifle as it is to see one in Europe (when you see the police at an airport or something). US police rarely carry those kinds of weapons in normal situations, for whatever reason.
There are a mind-boggling number of guns in the US but it's not something you notice in daily life. The vast majority are kept at home or concealed (legally or illegally).
[deleted]
Being in a country famous for something and likelihood to actually encounter that thing are totally different.
We're the worst modernized, stable, western country for mass shootings, but it's still incredibly unlikely to witness anyone shoot anyone else in that context. The vast majority of gun violence and deaths occur in domestic accidents or disputes, away from the public.
Oh, I'm sure. It doesn't make it any easier for us to comprehend, though. For me, it's less the fact that you see 400 guns every day (because, flippant comments aside, I'm sure you don't) and more the idea that I could be in, for example, a supermarket, and I wouldn't know if the guy behind me had a gun or not. It's less about what you'd physically see and more about the fact that there are guns around, visible or out of sight. It's just something that, as someone who lives in a country where guns are very restricted, I find difficult to comprehend.
For most Americans, that isn't really a big concern. That's a thought I would have in the south, especially Texas, or maybe in the Midwest (depends on the area), but not really anywhere else. Just my perception, though.
For what it's worth, the majority of gun owners I know or knew growing up think a lot of the police shootings and mass shootings are preventable. A lot of them (especially those with military experience) also feel that police pointing loaded weapons at people who aren't an immediate threat is way too common, probably because of poor or outdated training.
That's what I mean, in a way - you guys are used to it, whereas we're not, so for us it's hard to comprehend when we visit. For you, it's normal. For us, it's completely alien.
I don't know if I would say we're used to it. A lot of people really dislike the idea of guns around, don't let people bring their guns with them when visiting, don't let their children go over to visit someone if there are unsecured guns in the house, etc. I don't feel that comfortable seeing someone open-carry and I've been around it my whole life.
If you go to Texas, yeah that's a culture shock, but if you go to California or NYC or even the Midwest (just because we keep to ourselves for the most part) you probably won't see a civilian with a gun. It might be a once a month thing, or less.
Live in the US, outside of some swat situation on tv, never have I once seen a person carrying a 'huge gun'. There are a few cranks who do 'open carry' which is just extremists...but even those people wear a holster with a handgun, nothing you would call a 'huge gun'.
I feel like the UK definition of a 'huge gun' is different because we don't see guns all the time.
I lived in a village surrounded by farms and actually got used to the sounds of gunshots of farmers shooting rabbits. Lots of the farming folk in the UK do have guns. I moved to a city which had the occasional shooting and was worried when I heard fireworks or other bangs, but realised that when I lived in the village how much I had become used to gunshots.
Drugs.
I live in the UK and I simply cannot wrap my head around the US and their drugs. To give you some context I have never even smoked a joint, I do not know a single person in the UK who does, and the last time I saw one in person was last year when I was at the Stones show. To be perfectly honest I find them quite intimidating to look at because in the UK if you see someone with a joint on their lip and they're not an actor (yes, not even all our actors do drugs) then chances are there may be a problem.
Whoop there it is. Opinions on guns vary dramatically from American to American honestly. I'm terrified of guns. One time I was in a taco joint trying to get tacos and some sort of special officer walked in strapped with at least 3 guns on his body. I bugged out, to say the least.
Because no one's ever been shot in Europe. This post should be renamed to "Europeans wax poetic about topics they're woefully uninformed about".
What's the permit process like over there for owning a butter knife?
Enjoy your CCTV's everywhere.
None! And we still have lower knife crime per capita than the US. I will enjoy knowing that terrorists are being watched om CCTV and monitored.
You just called yourself a terrorist, teehee.
No I didn't?
Oooh, I see. The CCTV's only watch terrorists. Is that what you think? Because I can so prove otherwise.
No. But I understand that it is in place to watch and catch criminals. I don't mind losing a small aspect of my privacy in order for my and the general publics safety.
I hope I never live to see myself become one of you.
Men who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
It's not loss of liberty. Having Donald Trump refuse to accept workers rights is loss of liberty.
Agreed. And Dueterte is a tyrant. Any other completely irrelevant ways you can think of to derail conversation?
No permit, you go to the shops and buy one. The US also has an enormous amount of CCTV.
Besides traffic cams?
https://ipvm.com/reports/america-cctv-recording
You are pretty much proof of the concept that people are scared of what they don't know. If you had guns in your country, and it wasn't taboo to have them, you probably wouldn't be scared of them. The fact is that gun related homicides are actually pretty insignificant in comparison to the population. They do happen, but so do knife related murders, car related deaths, etc. statistically, more people are saved every year by guns than are killed.
more people are saved every year by guns than are killed
Citation needed.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#4b542146299a
That doesn't actually prove the original statement. There could be much higher demand for defensive weaponry as a result of the significantly increased danger that firearms pose as offensive weapons.
There could be much higher demand for defensive weaponry as a result of the significantly increased danger that firearms pose as offensive weapons.
Source?
Keyword was could. This is hard to prove either way but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that criminals having access to firearms instigates a race to the bottom.
It's from the CDC. I'll get the exact numbers for you tomorrow if you would like or you can look them up yourself. Until then, goodnight!
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
That's a link to the CDC study that Barack Obama had them do. The CDC, who typically lean towards the side of gun control, found that the number of times guns are used defensively is at least equal to the number of gun related deaths and more than likely is much higher. Also worth noting that the gun related death statistic includes suicides, which if you take out of the equation, means that guns are more likely to save your life than they are to be used by someone to take your life
Firstly, there's no reason to take suicides out of that statistic; a lot of people who commit suicide by firearm wouldn't have gone through with it without such an easy, instant get-out tool.
Secondly, that doesn't accommodate for a potential rise in the need for defensive weaponry as a result of the presence of firearms in the first place.
Citations needed
For suicides: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
For the other it's just speculation as I said.
[deleted]
Dude your constitution is over 200 years old. The world has moved on since then, you don't need guns any more like you used to, the British aren't going to invade you, stop living in the past.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If guns don't kill people and people kill people, can I appropriate that phrase to suggest that maybe empires are built by people and that gun ownership has nothing to do with any of this?
No. That is a completely political phrase. There is no question that modern society would be vastly different than it is today without guns. For the better? I am not a wizard harry.
But didn't we agree many years ago that empires are awful for their lack of human rights?
This thread is a bit like “let’s shit on the US”.
Here’s one positive I can’t relate to - having a multiethnic community. I live in rural Australia and it’s whiter than an infomercial hosts teeth.
As someone living in the south east suburbs of Melbourne, I feel like the odd one out being white.
[removed]
Yeh it’s awesome man. So isolated and rugged. I live on the south west coast, a bit like Southern California but with more rain.
The dude you're replying to is a racist, saying it's more beautiful because it lacks nonwhites
ITT - I believe everything that sensational ad-driven fanfiction media sells me.
[deleted]
Yes it is. Our empire's actor CEO is making billions for media, just as intended.
I am from India and here is what I think:
People carrying guns. Damn they are guns, how can people casually have guns! Obviously gives rise to mass shootings above any other country.
Extremely expensive medical facilities and so people not visit doctor much and choose to suffer and improvise using 'internet health experts'. Medical treatments are expensive everywhere but they are very high in USA.
Wearing footwear in house. Don't people have issues walking in own home wearing the shoes that have dirt from the outdoors and roads?
Weird spending habits...maybe? I don't know if this is true for a big fraction of population but I think that many Americans have bad financial planning and spending habits. People seem to choose comforts and luxury over necessities. And from finance, I recall the heavy education debts in front of graduates which is result of expensive education.
This is biggest one. Concepts like flat earth, anti-vax, being vegan, gender/sexuality surrounded craziness and the strong opinions and protests by people regarding that. There is no need for people to be yelling their irrational opinions everywhere and being delusional. Anti-vax and flat earth are total BS. Even kids know that. If one want to be vegan so badly, go forward but there is no need to drag others into it and making silly protests. Gender/sexuality issues are hyped unnecessary. And it is sad that due to USA having influence on social media, these beliefs are spreading into other parts of world. And most ironical thing is that, these irrationality comes from USA, the country having best universities in the world. Why does this happen? Do people not take higher education? I am quite jealous of Americans that they have such excellent universities and they can get into them with lesser studying and with ease, whereas in India, even the best university is not among worlds top 150 and the competitions and difficulties of entrance examinations are literally brutal.
Police brutality and deadly force on innocent civilians
Keep importing millions of third world invaders and you'll soon learn what causes police to become militarized.
Non military having guns on them in public.
As an American who has lived in Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida, I have never seen a civilian carrying a weapon on them in public. Most I've seen in public as far as guns is a holstered handgun on a police officer.
I'd be completely weirded out seeing military personnel carrying guns in public, to be honest.
Surprisingly our criminals are armed. Who knew?
Not sure what you are referring to. In my home country of NZ it's illegal to carry a firearm in public, and you barely any standard cops every carry firearms.
We have cops shot and killed a lot. Good thing they're armed to the teeth. With an LTC you can carry a firearm, but nobody just carries one on their hip like out west. People would freak. Long guns are o.k.
You realize that this is the case in every nation besides north korea?
Ok... not "issues" but whenever people start going off about TV Shows in America, and I have to scroll down cos I know I won't understand any of it
automatic dryers, dryer sheets, magnetic stripe credit/debit cards, medical aid related problems only US citizens have, settlers' culinary items, like beef jerky, cast iron pans etc
We have almost entirely transitioned to chip and pin at this point. It is/was a really big project. You don’t just have to get cards with chips to everyone, you also have to get machines to read the chip in as many stores as possible. It’s not an insignificant process.
I know, it's hard to progress if you're early adopter
Exactly!
So, now I have to ask. Is beef jerky seriously considered an American thing? I don’t think I even really processed that was on your list the first time. Like, inattentional blindness but for written words.
Have you ever had it?
Cast iron pans are the shit if you take care of them. Give them a try you’ll probably like them :)
This. And checks. They still use checks.
No, not really. We use debit or credit 90% of the time, cash for rare occasions, and checks only when gifting money or you are a 90 year old grandma at the grocery store. Nobody. Uses. Checks.
HOA
Medical bills.
Most of them.
Actually all of them.
The death of malls.
My country is small, and people still like going out and walking around. Online retail options aren't as robust as it is in the US, but are decent.
The prices are competitive but not absurd, so shopping online isn't a no-brainer as far as frugality is concerned.
Our malls are still vibrant, with more popping up every few years. Though perhaps the nature of mall experiences has shifted from just going there to hangout, to going there for specific purposes (new year shopping, movies, restaurants etc)
paying more than 100 bucks for a health-related issue
Choosing what to wear/who to bring to prom
How to decorate your graduation hat
Paying hospital bills
Weird one : every time I stumble upon post , video or article like “I wasn’t wearing a bra for a week for empowerment” , I just get sad . Seriously who cares , if you do or don’t wear it ? But American media make it seem like vague outline of a nipple under a sweater is something completely socially unacceptable .
Actually, you're correct. The vague outline of a nipple under a sweater is something completely socially unacceptable here in the States. It might be distracting to males and cause them to harass the woman who's nipple is vaguely outlined.
"They don't even have dental" I've never understood this, do US companies offer free dentistry to employees?
Not free, but low cost.
Parents kicking their children out of home at whatever age. Man, how can anyone do that? How?
People being divided in left and right. I only understood the concept of it about a year ago, it seems pretty bizarre.
Not including tax on price tags and having to do an extra calcuration to work out what you are actually going to pay.
Hoa is it?
I just can't relate to people being fined for having the wrong type of flower or the wrong color door.
I can understand that they want you to upkeep your garden and house but, what flowers you have is a bit far man.
Sex with coconuts
It is a form of protest started by a completely unoppressed black man who was raised by an affluent white family.
Student loans and expensive Healthcare Non mandatory vaccination Easy access to hard drugs Being able to control the temperature of your house Ease access to guns
Being able to control the temperature
Wait... The US has not shared the invention of the thermostat?
I can't control the temperature of my home and I've never seen a house with termostat
That you can just change your major in college. I had to choose one before going to university and when I decided it wasn't for me I had to apply again and start all over. I envy you, it's hard to know what you want to study before you go to college
Expecting to place their parents in nursing homes when they are older.
Healthcare.... We actually have a system for that... and it works. So fk Trump.
I wouldn't say this is a problem, but the fact that in America "Squash" the drink that you need to add water to, doesn't exist, I was talking to an American friend a while back and I asked about squash as it's the only thing I drink here in the UK, and they said that it just doesn't exist in america, it blew my mind. They did mention that they have "kool aid" which is like squash but like a fizzy drink equivalent. It is really weird to think that a drink that I consider essential just doesn't exist in america.
it also doesnt exists anywhere else but the UK.
I'm from Italy, ive been around europe a lot, but the "squash" you have in the UK always surprised me. actually a couple times i was fooled wnd thought it was just plain fruit juice. took a sip and nearly blew up from the amount of sugar in it. my scottish friends didnt say a thing and just laughed their asses off.
Wearing Kevlar to school.
Legally selling guns to children.
i think it's crazy that seemingly everybody has been to jail/prison or at least was arrested over there. i know nobody here that ever saw a jail or prison or even so much as rode in a cop car. always felt strange to me..
Atheism they make one hell of big fuss about that one as if choosing not to believe in any deity some how makes them suddenly enlightened and smarter than those that do. I also would say how they treat cats like dogs and walk them on leads but I actually bumped into a couple of cat walkers the other night. So that craziness is spreading.
School shootings
That sunday is the start of every week. I didn't even know about that. also the measure units like Fahrenheit, mile or pound...
also the measure units like Fahrenheit, mile or pound...
I mean, it's not like Celsius, kilometer, or kilogram are inherently better than Fahrenheit, mile, and pound.
Highly addictive prescription meds like amphetamines, opioids, benzos being prescribed relatively freely. It seems like everyone is on Adderall, Xanax, Oxicodone or something similar.
You'd find it hard to find someone willing to medicate adult ADHD outside of the US. And to get anything opioid-based, you essentially need to be dying.
You know what I got prescribed in terms of pain meds after I had all 4 wisdom teeth taken out at once?
Fucking paracetamol (acetaminophen for you yanks).
Benzos, you can get them for acute panic. I have a massive fear of practically all medical procedures, so I've managed to get prescribed valium.
To be clear, that's a valium. A single dose for a specified purpose. I've never knows anyone who was prescribed benzos for long (or even mid-) term anxiety management.
Sometimes, I envy you guys. I want to try Adderall so, so badly. But then, I'm reasonably sure that I'd be a addict if I lived in the US (and had health insurance).
Seems like almost everyone is diagnosed with depression, anxiety or more severe mental health issues.
Views on sexuality and nudity, and the innocence of children. Like a couple kissing in the presence of children, or a woman topless at the beach, will somehow traumatize them.
Calculating taxes. All done for me through Pay As You Earn.
It seems very strange to me that the US government basically trusts the population to give them their main source of revenue every year.
They collect it from most through out the year, and you are penalized heavily if you don't give at least 90% of what you owe.
And a lot of people get refunds, which means they actually have collected more than they should have from many people through out the year.
(I do my best to keep my bill to a refund of less than $100/or owing of about $50 so that I have that money available all year round.)
It seems very strange to me that the US government basically trusts the population to give them their main source of revenue every year.
It's a political maneuver. Actually looking at the bill instead of having it pay out automatically makes you more reticent to increasing the tax rate.
root beer
we don't have root beer flavored medicine so it doesn't taste like dogshit to us
Oh boy here we go:
Theres the obvious ones and i HATE to be a cliche but: gun crimes/controls/ect, hating both candidates in the two party system, medical fees, the north/south divide, all those medical ads, not including the tax on the in store price like seriously? nationalism and good old fashioned police brutality.
That said one thing really stuck with me in new york. A phrase i have literally never heard anywhere else on earth that i heard repeatedly while i was there. It was always some variation on "im a friendly black guy" "im one of the nice black guys" "were not all bad i dont bite". Now lemme tell ya first time i heard someone say he was a "friendly black guy" i was gobsmacked. Like seriosuly how paranoid, untrusting and generally racist do people in general ever have to be for black guys to keep feeling the need to say this? To have one of the first things you say to someone basically be "dont worry im not a criminal im one of the good ones". Now dont get me wrong racism is alive and well over here too unfortunately. But its not so bad that every black guy on the street feels the need to try and validate themself any time they try and talk to you. Now i like to think i was raised right and that means not judging people on things like race and religion i cant imagine ever beibg scared of someone based on the colour of their skin but clearly there must be a LOT of people straight up scared of or untrusting of black people in general for this to even be a thing. First time i heard it my gut reaction mentally was "you cant say that!" Because its such a racially charged devisive statement like your almost giving weight to the very same prejudices and suspicions your trying to assuage. In the same way he felt compelled to say it i felt compelled to talk to him and shake his hand to proove im not a racist. Of course not being american means ifs a bit different for me because the moment he realised i wasnt he instantly relaxed you could almost see the relief like "oh good hes not gonna be eyeing me the whole time" i just find the fact that i heard that phrase dropped so often and so casually to be appauling. I cant imagine that ever being comonplace back home for people to feel the need to even say that speaks volumes. That phrase that CONCEPT doesnt exist over here.
Not really an issue but the way you talk about Xanax? Like what it that I don’t care to look it up. But you talk about it as casually as we mention paracetamol/ pain killers from the uk btw
Medical bills
all the rah rah USA ! The national anthem at schools... the reflexive patriotism... it all comes over a bit starship troopers crossed with team america and idiocracy thrown in as well.., and all those twangy guitar songs at the end of films..
I am glad i got that off my chest...
Guns. Shootings all the time. I am canadian and have never felt unsafe at school the way american kids have to feel. We hear a big noise and always just assume it was a car backfiring or fire crackers. Never have i felt scared it might be a gun.
Guns
Healthcare
Education
Media
Public transport
Electoral college voting system
Ultra low minimum wages
All are trash and scams.
Why are all of these things run in the worst way humanly possible?
These are not minor points here... These are big, big things that your country gets severely wrong, and lives are ruined as a result.
We are talking about ruined lives here... It's really, really sick.
I wouldn't even consider living in a country that can't fix these things.
Why are you so scared of socialism. .. I live in a country that has free health care
Chairman Mao
Joseph Stalin
Hugo Chávez
Fidel Castro
Yeah that's dictatorship . not socialist idealism Again why are you so frightened. Is the question
socialist idealism
here is a list of Socialist Countries pick a few that are not as great to live in as America is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
get back to me
......................
what you consider to be socialist is not really socialism
like Sweden is a Constitutional Monarchy .. not a Socialist State
medical and educational policies. I dont understand how can a goverment call themselves civilized or just while putting their citizens under shit ton of dept for their most two basic needs.
What is the point of living a collective social life while you cant even provide such a simple thing. I dont think there is a bigger place ruled by money and not the by people
The whole gun violence issue. Violence is prevalent in my country as well, but sorry, America is just absolutely whack on this one. It's obviously different in many ways from war-torn countries. I can generally understand why there are people who support gun laws in certain states, but I was working on a publicly released dataset on gun violence in the US recently, and the sheer amount of reported incidents in the past few years is just crazy. It's actually quite baffling. Everyone I know agrees that if there was one place they wouldn't want to work in, it's America, partly due to this. And this sucks for me because I do want to work in America/Silicon Valley someday.
Can someone explain to me why this is an issue that is so hard to resolve in the US?
Because we Americans are under the stranglehold of an unjust voting system that results in giving the most power to the dumbest, most religious, most racist, and most easily brainwashed segments of society. I mean seriously, there are certain “red states” where I’m genuinely concerned over the mental capacity of most of the citizens. And horrifyingly, they wield the most power in national elections. They are dumb as actual shit, love Jesus, guns, and anyone with an R beside their name, and they’re destroying the country. (And the liberals, by the way, are too petty, sensitive, and cowardly to do anything.)
School Shootings
American elections are wierd... just two parties, electoral college, camapaining Starts very early and a "the winner Takes it all system". How does this Even work?
there are more than 2 parties it is just that no one cares about the other parties
and yes in the USA people win and people lose
Twinkies.... I tried one and they are horrible. Just a chemical taste with sugar. Those guys need to have a Swiss roll, Chocolate or Jam.
The Twinkies of today are not the same as Twinkies of years ago. The new owners changed how and with what the original Twinkies were made.
For those wondering about our Healthcare system, this video does a great job explaining how it all got out of hand:
Needing guns to feel safe.
School shootings.
Long travel times and long lines when voting. I'm from Canada, and in every federal / provincial election I've voted in the polling station was a max. 10 minute walk from my home, and I've never had to wait more than a few minutes in line.
Line ups at the DMV as well. Getting my license renewed here is actually a very pleasant experience.
Trump
It drives me a bit nuts when Americans of a certain type talk about Ireland, "diddly dee" and that we all live off potatoes and whiskey. I mean, I love potatoes and whiskey but don't stereotype me for it. Also that any oirish-american seems to know fuck all about our history and culture but loves to waffle out shite. Sorry, this seems aggressive but when you're a red head who worked in the tourist industry here it does get annoying after a while.
Bills over $200 for regular medical checkups + medications. Ppl in the US are getting scammed by their health system.
DMV queues. In the UK it mostly done online or through the post, and anything requiring you to talk to someone is done at the post office.
Student loans :)
School shootings
Everything relating gun violence. If a gun is discharged in public it's on the national news. There's about 30 times more of you then us but still. We just don't have gun violence.
SARCASM.
An American here but have a lot of foreign friends from different countries where english is their second language and I asked this question once over drinks at a university "bull session". They just have a hard time grasping it. Well except those from the UK. I think they invented it.
Tipping. Why do I need to pay the employees for doing their job?
because the employer doesn't. the federally mandated minimum wage for tipped employees is $2.13 per hour yet they pay taxes as if they had made the untipped minimum of $7.25. the assumption being that the shortfall is made up by tips
Employer is obligated to make up the difference if they don't make min wage.
Source: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
"If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the Federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference."
The price of broadband. I often hear of Americans paying $100+ a month for internet, in Britain I don't think any packages exist that are more than £80 a month.
Those American's are getting ripped off.
My internet which is more than sufficiently fast costs $50, with some people i know getting deals for $40.
If they are paying that much they are getting scammed. We pay $50/m for over half a gig
Paid healthcare
Canada here, I can't relate to people saying how warm it is or how much Football matters. Also guns.
Pink eye, it seems to be mentioned in every tv/film that I’ve seen, I have never ever heard of anyone having it here
Widespread and riot-like racism from both sides - here in Britain we don’t really have that sort of political antagonisation.
Both of my sisters live there and i still don’t get the college thing, like you have to have tons of extra curricular classes and stuff, it seems cool but hard. College debt / medical debt, i pay $300 usd per year to my university and that’s it
The 401k.
Postal service
Everything related to Trump. And that’s a bad thing because it’s absolutely everywhere, jokingly or seriously.
Paying to see a doctor.
Health Care. College
Healthcare not being free
Guns. Anything related to guns. The US's obsession with guns is so weird.
School shooting
Paying for health care.
the ass-kissing you have to do in customer service. and the mere amount of comped food. it‘s mind boggling for me.
Healthcare, or the absence thereof...
Seriously, while I knew beforehand that the system was bad , it took some desperate posts on some subreddits to understand how actually monstruous it is.
People facing bankruptcy for chemo, or having to go without mental health meds... it just boggles the mind...
Same with cutting funding for abortions...
Any time I read the word "co-pay" you poor, poor bastards.
People walking round football stadiums throwing food to you so you don't have to get up!
School shootings
People getting shot at school. I live in Canada it just doesn't happen here.
Sirens and car horns in radio ads. Never heard them before.
Abortion and gun control are the internationally reported ones.
Living in the UK (England), outside of the current drive for wider access to abortion in N.Ireland I can't relate at all.
In regards to gun control, I understand the origin of guns and why, frankly, it'd be impossible to remove all firearms from civilian possession, hailing back to frontier times and civil conflict. I absolutely think that gun sport should be legalized but I have no solution, so I have no opinion to voice.
I actually find the health care, housing associations, obsession and overuse of the National Anthem and the schools 'pledge of allegiance'. They all strike me as terribly odd.
Probably half the answers here will be the same, but it's always amazing to see Americans talking about their medical bills, or not going to the doctor because they can't afford it, or women not being able to get easy access to birth control or abortions if they need one. Even the thought of having to stop before leaving my doctor's office to pay a bill as if I was just shopping at Walmart baffles me. It seems so strange.
Makes me so grateful I live in Canada. I could go to the hospital for a cough if I wanted and wouldn't be charged a cent.
Everything that's gun related..
Getting shot at school
Medical costs
Politics
HOA
Gun crime and gun control. The Onion headline is right.
Racism
Sense of entitlement and having to be the best because they're American.
The general use of quality of quantity, and using it to grade things and be better than something else, thread counts in bed sheets just seems ridiculous, square footage for properties, GPAs...
No mandatory paid holiday or maternity leave.
Weird cinema ratings, especially being so prude towards female body and female pleasure and especially with the objectification of women in media. Deadpool was not age restricted but included a joke about anal sex and countless violence but blue valentine got an age restriction from one 30 second scene.
That science and facts are debatable and correlate with political affiliation, climate change, addition, vaccinations.
Religion.
Fake healthcare (drink a food cleanser or get acupuncture to cure cancer)
Multi level marketing schemes.
That you pay yourself into debt for healthcare and Collage. Here in Europe Healthcare is almost for free and collage is (atleast in Austria) just 20€ per semester
shootings :\
not using metric .... come on ,it's 2018
Everything to do with being obliged to give tips to compensate for low wage work. E.g. in restaurants. There's a time and place for tips, but the level of obligation in the USA isn't something I can relate to
every 2nd redditor seems to be a (self diagnosed...?) ADHD and/or biploar. i mean seriously?
In America we have commercials for medications on ALL. THE. TIME. Instead of the doctor telling you what's wrong, commercials ask you if you "have any symptoms..." and if so, to go ask for this medication.
We are trained to self-diagnose from an early age.
Regarding ADHD, people (maybe not just Americans?) think getting bored and not being interested in something is ADHD. The same way people who want a clean and orderly house say they have OCD. They don't, it's just the most well-known condition that deals with being orderly.
*Getting fucked over by a car dealer to pay on rates
*Getting shot by police
*Getting easily paid a 6 digit figure
*Having to travel over 1000 miles to visit some relatives
*Constantly getting fucked by some company
*Getting fired because i called sick for a longer period of time and having to use up my vacation for giving birth
In conclusion getting fucked by everyone and everything.
Edit : I have no idea how to format a list in reddit sync.
They dont have ID cards and the whole kerfuffle about needing an ID card to vote. Wherr i am from we all have ID cards. Its free, the police give it to you and its mandatory in order to vote
Yea, id's can be 60 plus bucks here, and id laws usually get paired with dmv (where you get the id) closures in poor and minority neighborhoods.
Αmericas stupid policy about IDs made the social security number your ID which is way, way ,way worse
To sue someone or something over petty little issues like slipping in a mall!
Elon Musk & Tesla brand on Reddit, Reddit is infested with posts about these two brands. In the meanwhile some other carmanufacturers could well produce more electric driven kilometers per year or another measurable metric. We europeans also like Tesla cars do not get me wrong, but think Elon Musk and tesla are seriously overhyped on reddit atm. I even thought about blocking both subjects on reddit all together because they are both poluting my reddit-fp every day (which says something). It is nothing personal, I just do not get the level of hype around these two brands (musk & tesla).
Open coffin funerals.
I couldn’t afford to go to the hospital
Massive medical bills.
Voting. We only get to vote for class president or student union president. After graduation we don't vote at all for anything.
Fat people on scooters in shops.
And the response to anyone who mentions the army - ‘thank you for your service’ blurting out like an uncontrollable sneeze
Driving around in an SUV with a huge V8 on a straight highway at maybe 110kmph.
Should we be going faster? As an American I don't get kilometers.
Sorry about that. 110 km/h roughly translates to 70 mph. I recall that being (roughly) the speed of traffic on some of the highways in MA when I visited last year.
I guess what I meant is that the engines are way too big, and at the same time, traffic doesn’t move all that fast. Seems like a colossal waste to me (or maybe I’m just jealous I can’t afford a V8 here in Europe).
In the Czech Republic where I live, the speed limit is a little higher (80 mph on highways, but people will frequently drive at 90-95 mph) and the engines involved way smaller (the staple here is a Skoda Octavia running an in-line-four generating roughly 100 horses). Neighboring Germany has better cars and no speed limits posted on the autobahn (although they recommend about 80 mph).
EDIT: I should add: I am from India. I don’t even want to talk about our roads, cars and motorcycles. “Driving in India” is one of the most unpleasant things I have experienced on a regular basis.
"World series" or "college football"
School shooting, not kidding. It doesn't happen here. Students beat each other with their fists and rarely stab each other. Usually those Crimea are committed against one victim, instead of an entire school.
School debt
Having to choose between bankruptcy or death
Adultery. Not that it is “widely accepted” here, but America's tolerance of adultery is in the negatives. Even discussing reasons that lead to it seems to be discouraged.
In Europe, it is a shitty thing to do that can end your marriage, but it isn't this big quasi-religious taboo; it is viewed as a shitty part of life; something that some people do.
This one applies for pretty much all North America: TV spots during the presidential election campaign. You got freakin' ADS commissioned by politicians openly insulting the other political party(ies). I moved from France to Canada during the 2016 Prime Minister Election, these ads really surprised me, stuff like that is forbidden in France. I can't help finding that pretty dystopian.
Not being able to afford health or dental care
Paid health care, school shootings.
Sorry but someone had to say it.
Whenever somebody park a car in an American TV show or film, it wobbles as they get out suggesting Americans never use the handbrake.
Freshman, Junior, Senior, Sophomore, Varsity, Fraternities... What. The. Fuck?
Taking an Uber to the hospital because an ambulance ride is to expensive.
I mean, it makes sense if you just got the flu or some other minor thing, but not if it's a freaking emergency like if you're about to give birth.
If you have flu or a minor thing then you shouldn't be going to the ER anyway.
True. But people also go to the hospital for checkups and stuff.
But that's not what it is for here in America. The ER in America is suppose to be for life threatening illness. Not because your ear hurts, because you got a scrape on your knee, not for a pregnancy test.
I wrote "to the hospital" not to the ER
War is in the middle of everything. It seems normal in US culture that war is the main way of functioning of the country.
Flags floating everywhere, the patriotism, the mainstream Hollywood movies that are sometimes really feeling like propaganda to recruit the American youth in the US army.
How is the 2nd amendment not in the top comments??? The rest of us love our gun free culture right?
The fact you can have so many mass shootings and generally a large number of crimes involving guns and yet you just do nothing about it. I'm not even talking about why haven't you banned them or anything that extreme but it appears as though you litterally don't do anything, regardless of what your politics or oppinions on thematter are, surely you could just try something, anything, to help
The US was born in a revolution, and even Thomas Jefferson suggested that we might need a revolution every few generations.
Many Americans keep guns to protect themselves against the Government and an increasingly militarized and arrogant police force.
And, with the way American Democracy has been traduced by the super-wealthy, including voter suppression, one of Jefferson's revolutions may not be far off.
It's also why many Americans like military-style weapons - because that's what their expected antagonists will have.
The US gov't spends many time more on weapons and military forces than the rest of the world combined. But there is no foreign war going on. Who can they be planning to use all those weapons on?
well that has almost nothing to do with what i posted. As i said, even if you don't want guns banned/think that would never work the fact that Americans just do nothing to try and stop or lower all the shootings is crazy.
My comment has everything to do with what you posted!
In spite of the terrible shootings, Americans will not give up their guns, because they believe they need them to fight a possible oppressive gov't.
That is the main gut reason they won't support gun control, and why they want Military style weapons.
I'm always shocked when you guys don't know basic stuff about other parts of the world. Not just facts and figures, like capitals or where things are, but having a huge lack of knowledge about other cultures too.
Now I'm not hating on you guys for this, your media obviously focuses on local stuff and I've had a few American friends tell me how flawed the education system is. Plus the average American Redditor seems fairly learned. It's just that I find it hard to relate to being that insular. With some people it's like nothing exists outside of US borders.
Celebrity cult.
Pictures of random guy standing next to some asshat who happens to be semi-famous get tens of thousands of upvotes.
Or if you meet an American he would explain that he’s from this or that town and then he would inform you about all the actors who were born there or passed through there once.
That's nothing compared to the British insanity over the Royal Family of Dunces.
i think you'll find that Americans actually seem to care far more about our Royal family than the vast majority of us do. American news coverage seems to be just as bad if not worse than ours is anytime they do anything and the only people i know who ever seem to care here are generally the elderly, very few people under 60 give a shit about them.
Hating the culture in which they flourish
Just the fakeness of their news. The hosts are superficial and speak in weird tones, it's like it's all just made for entertainment. I feel like that's a good sum up of the American society.
Talking about a healthcare system where you have to pay. Bonus points if someone defends that system.
Getting shot at in your school
Medical costs.
Saying Hi , Hello , How are you, Have a nice day, You too in every f*cking conversation. I can not relate with that, I agree that it is polite and nice but why do you have to have that chunk of sentences in every conversation.
USA is REALLY big, it's almost like it's made up of smaller countries, the law is so diverse depending on where you are, why can you go around with guns in one state and not in another? Why is the death penalty allowed in one state and not in another? Like, if I got caught with a serious crime in one state I'm assured death while in another state I get to keep my life, seems so weird that a country could have such variety when it comes to the law.
They really are separate countries, similar to the UK.
Because it WAS made up of smaller countries, 13 to begin with. They came together voluntarily but didn't want to give up all their sovereignty. The Constitution spells out those powers given to the Federal govt., and all the others are retained by the States.
It's more like the EU than like France which was united by conquest.
You have a bit of the same thing in the UK, right? Like with Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, etc.
Or Switzerland, with its semi-independent cantons.
This is due to federalism. States are allowed wide leeway in lots of things and control their own domestic policy. Most crimes are charged at the state, not the federal level. States control education policy, internal roads and transportation, things like business and licensing, marriages, etc. The Federal government controls foreign policy, defense, interstate commerce, etc. And overarching all of this is the Constitution which guarantees certain rights. One recent example is gay marriage. The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution said that the States couldn't discriminate against gay people and that they were allowed to marry. Before whether or not a gay person could marry differed from state to state.
The whole big deal about home owners associations and how you aren’t allowed stupid things like your grass to be over 2cm for example. There’s nothing like that in the UK and it seems bizarre that there is genuinely serious people out there that enforce restrictions on how you keep your house.
To be fair we do have something similar. Maybe 10-20% of what SOP (sub op?) is saying. Such as buy a house but can't build a garage, wall around front of property, have to keep house in good repair etc. But generally no weird shit.
Paying for healthcare.
Used to it being free at the point of use. Except for spending about £8 for prescription every so often.
£8.80!
Thats it.
Not having universal healthcare, obsession with guns.
Making the "H" silent in "Herbs"
Actually, a really interesting phenomena I've observed:
In person, Americans have an incredible aversion to discussing personal ideology, whether it is religion or politics. Just in general, the whole 'conflict-aversion' thing.
However, that seems to break down when they are online, at least to some extent.
I mean, that's true for all people - the anonymity dehumanizes everyone. But the change is particularly startling when I compare my American friends to European friends.
Hm... what else?
Oh yeah, on a related note: gun control and taxes. Complete nonsense - just a complete lack of personal responsibility and accountability.
Same stupid complaints every time this question is posed. There are trade offs for living in every country.
Sales tax for different states!! All our states have same tax. Its basically a National Tax..... Go Figure
You know the whole religious fanatics trying to force their view into public school teaching (looking at you, anti evolution theory people) or the anti abortion people? Or the whole police shooting people thing? Or them rednecks blowing up shit in their backyard? Or the huge wilderness where people get lost and don't find civilization for days? Or giant parking spaces at school and kids driving their cars to school? Those big yellow school buses? Or just take a look at politics: only 2 parties and you got a president. Or the huge culture about veterans and the military?
I'm not judging or criticising, but we simply don't have those things here in Switzerland.
(Here it's mandatory conscription for males and we don't do war, so military is just something everyone knows and did, we all had some fun, messed around and had to endure it so we don't view it as special. To go to school we just use public transport. Guns are common, however almost never seen in public and nobody is carrying, so the police has no reason to shoot us. We only get very very small buses, almost cars, and only for really remote areas where public transport is too unreliable. And yeah, Switzerland is small, so we don't have space for redneck stuff or getting lost.)
Not really an issue but a concept
Bonfires... When I first came to the US at 18 years old, my new friends invited me at this thing called a « bonfire » which basically was... sitting around a fire and drink root beer (sometimes actual beer) and that was the mainstream social event, yay!
Im from Belgium, I had been drinking actual beer since I was 14 and whenever we would socialise we would hit the bar (we’ll probably past 16 haha)
Well still fun I guess.
Or the « grinding » dance style, how vulgar !
[deleted]
My US state has curbside recycling once a week with a legal requirement for cities about how much waste they must divert from landfills. In some other states, you'd have difficulty finding a recycling perceptible of any kind anywhere because recycling isn't something people do.
Tagging an image on reddit of a not even nude statue (!!) as NSFW,
You can see the vague outline of nips though. Americans, well, Christians, well, Uber fucking Christians, get offended at that type of shit.
I get offended when people are that retarded and think then can impose their idiocy on others.
Don’t come to America then, because that’s what Christians do. Their fairy tale book says they can’t do something, so they want EVERYONE to not do that thing.
I seem to notice alot of people around 18 years over at r/personafinance who say their parents threw them out. I don't know, but I have never heard of anyone in my area being thrown out by their parents.
Net neutrality.
Not having mandatory severance pay. I mean, my country has crappy labor laws, but we still get mandatory severance pay if we are fired unless we've had gross misconduct.
Healthcare being expensive and complicated.
School shooting
Gun violence.
Don't know if it counts but net neutrality
People get thrown out of class for wearing shoulder showing tops. Seems so bizzare to me when I can go to school with crop top and shorts.
That doesn't happen in the US, unless you might go to a strict Private or religious school with a dress code.
Health care system, organized and legalized corruption(political "funding") and the root cause of it all(in my opinion), the absolutely horrid education system.
We don't have a horrid education system?
From what I've heard, unless you can pay for private schools you are sent to a horribly underfunded public school system. In addition, higher education(universities) are mostly private and require a really high tuition, effectively locking it away from people without rich parents. I might be misinformed, but that is the picture painted by (mostly US) media over here. Also, Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, widespread radical religiousness and the clown president, are you telling me these aren't signs of an absolute failure in the education system?
Public schools are not underfunded at all, Teacher's Unions say they are to get more raises, I came out of High school only four years ago, they are fine. Private schools are 'better,' but I don't know anyone who cares about which you have gone to.
Most Colleges and Universities are public, and private schools are judged pretty hard if they aren't the 'best' ones. Its the big schools that charge much higher for schooling. The community college I go to and will get my 2-year degree from cost about ~$500 per class, over three years, My father and I spent about $8000 for my education.
Then my cousins will be raking up debt to get the same first two years of education by going to universities and paying thousands a class. There is a number of reason why our university have exploded in price, this is many due to that students get loans and don't pay by working, allowing pubic and private institutions to jack up prices and increase salaries with it only being call out now.
College isn't locked out to anyone, no one in the US can not go to college, the government will give finical aid ANYONE to go to school. That's also the prices have gone up.
We really need less people going into debt in the US by going to Art Schools and unneeded fields and instead going into trades. Along with my background, I just got an -A- In Construction Method and Materials and a -C- in Construction Plan Reading (I studied too much for the former, and not the latter.....) and was running electrical wiring today.
I've rarely run into people who believe in conspiracy theories, I only know two people who have believe in anything like that, and never ever, a flat earthers. Anti-vaxxers are just like the flat earthers, there are some, but no one I know. I live outside of Washington DC and know plenty of people in the country of many back grounds, Millionaires to a guy I know and saw begging on the street a week ago because he is lazy and ignorant.
Their are religious people, but you won't find people waving you don't to praise Jesus, and while I go to church -although not recently due to other responsibilities- no one is pushy.
If you go to Colleges, Universities and High Schools, you will get screamed at if you advertises that you like Trump, as much as you might have thought otherwise, the people who like Trump are much nicer than people who don't support him.
I'm fine with Trump, as a person in the US, Obama was a dumpster fire, and Hillary was trash, I voted Libertarian, not for Trump.
But the economy and situation has gotten a lot better for most people, Trump was talking in support decriminalizing weed, and he has begone pardoning different people unlike most modern presidents who waited until the end of their terms.
People dining on the sofa in front of a TV screen
Flags. American flags everywhere
high school educations.
"I didnt study calculus in high school" then why the hell were you able to apply for engineering???
Gender reveal parties.
paying for health care
Paying for medical attention. I don't think I've thought about paying my doctor once in my life. I don't have to worry about the expenses if I have an accident. I am extremely privileged in that sense
NRA (and the fact they run ads on TV)
School shootings.
Honestly, this isn't even am edgy joke. I am currently in secondary school in the UK (just about to go to sixth form). I can't even fathom the fear that people must have when going to school.
“I have to pay for healthcare”
Paying for healthcare
gun control and school shootings
Trump lol
Trump speaking like he's doing his best for us, and not some maniac that only cares about making him and his rich friends, richer
Paying for medical expenses upfront, or not being able to and then getting very injured/ill because you can’t go to the hospital for an otherwise easily treated problem.
It’s abhorrent.
How can no one mention shootings, and the ideology of shootings? M
The weird visceral need to make EVERYTHING IN THE FUCKING PLANET about America.
Like, I don't make the European Union's shit about Canada, or Brexit about Canada so... what the hell?
Fast food chains
School shootings.
Medical debt, school debt, guns first come to my mind, and I'm glad I can't relate to them.
Saw something about Mr Rogers yesterday. He seems like such a massive part of so many people's childhoods - and we (outside the US) have no idea who he is...
Oh but you should. You have the Youtube, yes?
Yes but I'm lazy...and I feel as though it's more of a nostalgic childhood memory thing for everyone.
That's some of it I'm sure, but it's everyone's memory for a reason. Start with his testimony in front of Congress in the 70s that allowed it to go national. That will inform why everyone loves him. Then, if/ when you have kids, watch it with them.
The taste of American beer. I don't get how that canä be called beer at all.
The creditcard loans on anything
Good post, OP.
Needing guns to protect yourself from other people with guns.
School shootings ?
Gun crime. I live in the UK, but this could be literally any other country. Sort it out lads.
gun control problem
Credit score...
Most countries have a credit score I’m pretty sure. I.e. in Germany it’s Schufa. Where are you from?
Schufa is mostly a yes/no deal. We also don't groom it like the 5 different credit scores that exist in the USA with credit cards and paying them off in time.
It's funny tho, Schufa is now struggling with GDPR and trying to prevent anyone making news about it. Due to GDPR you can basically get all your Schufa info for free now (it costs money usually).
Most people consider Schufa a shitstain. Credit institutes any phone carriers will ask Schufa, but mostly for entries like you having huge unpaid debt or defaulting. If you havent defaulted on anything, you're usually safe.
What the hell is a GPA?
Guns.
Trump...
There are... Non-Americans on here...????
Get the guns!
Mass shootings.
Mass shootings. There have been three in british history and after each one gun control has gotten stricter.
Medical insurance companies charging you thousands of dollars for lifesaving but routine procedures.
I'll take the NHS, cheers.
High School shootings or guns in general
I don't know about frequently brought up, but whenever I watch an American on youtube, they'll either be wearing shoes indoors, or be barefeet. Why don't you just wear socks instead?!
Biscuits and gravy. So many questions
it's never pretty, and it'll clog up your arteries better than anything, but goddamn is it delicious. actually that applies to southern food in general
I'd definitely try it but I have agree on it not being pretty, but sometimes the foods that look the least appealing are the most delicious.. Because they're usually full of fat.
The tricky part is the gravy. Cook the pork sausage crumbles separately from the white gravy. The gravy is best using the pork fat, water, and flour Pepper the gravy on the strong side. When you have the gravy to consistency, then mix in the sausage. Serve over the biscuits, preferably right out of the oven.
Did you mean, how do we eat that? With gusto, and not very often.
Well, my main confusion is that being a Brit, our 'biscuit' is your 'cookie', and our gravy is usually a delicious bi-product of some joint of meat that has been roasted as part of a main meal, so my primary questions I guess were; how do you have just a gravy? Without having roasted something first- how did you make just a gravy? This question you pretty well answered and with a recipe that I most definitely will be trying (sounds fantastic and very fattening..) my second most pressing question circles back to the aforementioned biscuit/cookie conundrum. The 'biscuit' in question looks a little like what I would consider to be a scone. What is it? Also- what kind of event calls for this food? Is it a midweek meal? Something you cook on a Sunday like we do our roast? Dinner party? Buffet? So. Many. Questions. Also, does the colour bother you? When I've made the sort of gravy I'm used to I use gravy browning if it isn't dark enough. As far as I know it doesn't do much for the taste it just seems to be brown food colouring, because apparently Brits are scared of pale gravy..
Oh! It's only for breakfast served by itself.
So I mean buttermilk biscuits, which is like a soft, fluffy bread coated with butter for browned edges. Works with toast as well. Southern style, as it's known, usually keeps bacon fat for use in other recipes, and is common in our kitchens. But honestly, many use a premade white gravy packet as a shortcut. It's a lot easier than getting the ratio correct. I've known cooks to make their own gravy, but I'm not one of them. Recipes vary, but it's a white gravy. The ground sausage, like Jimmy Dean's, is very popular.
Edit so I'm looking up recipes, and the gravy is listed as milk, flour, and pepper, which doesn't sound right to me without some bacon fat, but maybe that's my family recipe.
Enforced patriotism. I just don't get it.
Anything that involves taking religion seriously... America just seems so backward to western non Americans in that regard.
Absolutely this. I am floored at how religious Americans seem in comparison to other first world countries who all seem to be very secular.
Comcast
[deleted]
Because most places suck compared to United States.
Your overall ignorance
Is it a myth or fact that you keep your shoes on inside?
This one depends on the household, and honestly it's about 50/50. I go to my best friend's house and it's shoes off at the door. I visit my mom's and it's keep your shoes on if you want.
In general I feel like US people have so much going on all the time that they post all kinds of "this little duckling cheered me up aww" stuff online. Like their whole life is just a big battle to not be homeless and keep up some image.
I'm like strolling in the park licking my ice cream bought with unemployment benefits seeing little duckling all the time! (generalized, I do work, a little)
Being the centre of the universe
College sports. Not a thing here in France.
The worship of veterans and serving military personnel, so much so that people dress up and pretend to be military to pick up chicks or get discounts. My Dad has been in the British Army for three decades and has been around the world on tours. To my family and everyone else though it’s just another job, and he’s never been given any special treatment outside the perks of his own job.
Trump😂😂😂
Texting and driving.
Try to text and drive while driving a manual car in a heavy traffic. You are shifting up and down, and you need both hands.
Most of your problem that is connected to "Texting and driving" is because 80-90% percent of you are driving 4wheeled scooters.
Sharing dorm rooms at college/Uni-level...
Anti-vaxxers...
Most Americans can't relate to most things brought up on Reddit because most Redditors live in a online reality. Sorry, the truth hurts sometimes, but it's good to live in reality and know where you live most of your life. Reddit is a social media for those stating it is not...
Not necessarily on reddit, but American issues I don't relate to at all: College debts. Health coverage costs. The use of the words "race" or "ethnicity". Guns. State Religion.
State Religion? We don't have a State Religion.
I mean religion being everywhere (in god we trust + politics always saying god bless America)
School shootings.
Never-ending race quarrels. It has actually affected my political opinions and now I believe ethnostates are the best possible option for nations.
Bringing up topics like religion and politics and blatently asking one's views. I'm British goddamit and we are taught to never bring thos topics up unless you are discussing with close friends.
Feels bad, looks like the only good thing Americans have is garbage disposals.
Healthcare costs.
The idea that it goes without saying that a private health insurance system - with co-pays, coinsurance, deductibles, per-provider billing, and so on and so on - is superior to a *gasp* socialist single-payer healthcare system.
You could probably expand that to the routine belief that anything socialist is terrible and evil, which is just weird given how socialist the U.S. already is and has been since, well, forever.
Identity politics.
School Shootings. Sorry it has to be sid.
Not using the metric system
Americans and their insistance they need to carry guns for protection. Protection from what or who?!? I can't imagine feeling so unsafe that I would need one at any time ever. I have never been in a circumstance that made me think "jeez I sure do wish I had a gun because that would make everything better".
The whole "This next few seconds of airtime is brought to you by Snacky Schmlops Deodorant Suppositories" or whatever. Just seems utterly pointless and this type of marketing couldn't make me want a product any less
My biggest gripe is when you guys say something like... oh... I only make 9 or 10 dollars an hour !
Mate I make 5 euros an hour and its above average. And its a pricey country too.
First thing that comes to mind; mortgages and student loans.
I noticed healthcare mentioned a lot. I want foreigners to also realize that not only are hospital bills insanely high, but we pay more on private/work insurance than any other country in the world, and we also pay government medicare/medicaid more than any other country in the world. So despite actually putting in money to government healthcare more than any other country, not only do we not get universal healthcare, we also have to pay absurd amounts for our own private or work provided insurance! And yet when the idea of universal healthcare is brought up in the country, people cry communism or that they don't want to pay for it, but we already do in a way through medicare/medicaid!
Slow internet
Not being able to afford healthcare
Gun violence in schools
Health care. Your system is just plain corrupt.
Anything to do with racism. It's like they live on a different planet.
Besides the obvious gun related things and ultra patriotism, high school prom.
Whitecastle changed recipe
Hamburger helper. Saw it mentioned on a few threads but never heard of it in the UK. Wikipedia explanation sounds a bit weird, is it nice?
Ground beef, pasta, cheese. Good times
It's literally just easy mode cooking with ground beef for people who are to lazy or stupid to make something from scratch. They're not terribly bad.
Thanks! The name hamburger confused me as we don't call ground beef that unless it's in a burger shape. Instead we'd call it mince
Yeah, it’s not very complicated. It’s just a box of dry pasta and a seasoning packet that you mix with ground beef.
It's amazing and easy to make.
Where I live, you get paid monthly and, for that reason, when people talk about their salaries, they are usually talking about how much they make in a month. When I first started seeing Americans talking about their salaries I just assumed everyone was rich as fuck over there.
Not having proper healthcare?
The hysterical media. The way news is brought to the people absolutely baffles me.
Baby boomers - milenialls conflict especially on economic ground. I'm from Poland and my generation (milenialls) has way better situation than our parents and granparents after fall of communist puppet government.
Completely off topic, but I think this is the first thread I've ever seen that has more responses than up votes!
Health care costs
Net neutrality? What’s that all about?
"You can't ever touch a child, not even with a slap on the wrist"
Screw that. Kids are assholes sometimes, and they need boundaries. Of course I'm not advocating for people to beat the crap out of kids, but a slap on the butt never killed anybody.
Being fired from your job without a just cause. In the UK you can't be fired unless you have broken your contract or the company is having to downsize it's staff.
And minimum wage applies to everyone, it's a structured scale depending on age but wait staff/servers get paid it too.
Guns
Student loans
Net Neutrality. I honestly don't understand it despite Googling it several times to wrap my head around it. I also don't quite know if it will affect me in the future.
I'll try to explain it really simple: If the internet is neutral: All traffic is treated equal. It doesn't matter if the site you are loading belong to Amazon, piratebay or Pornhub, the routers that make up the internet try to get you the data as fast as they can.
If the internet isn't neutral: The guys who own the internet infrastructure is allowed to make some traffic go faster than other traffic, depending on where it's from. Say that Amazon pays the guys who own the router you are connected to and Pornhub doesn't. You'll be able to shop your brains out without any delay, but the porn will load forever.
These guys aren't competing, but say that Netflix suddenly gets competition form a new up and coming site called Netvids. Netvids are small, but have a great idea and make really user friendly apps that play non-geolocked video. If Netflix pays to get full speed, but Netvids can't afford it, Netflix is smooth 4k resolution while Netvids struggles to keep a 1080 stream going. You would choose Netflix, even though Netvids were objectively better, due to the fact that Netflix paid your internet provider. This kills innovation.
Should you care? Yes. why? 1. You probably use a lot of US internet infrastructure no matter where you live, your favourite indie site might get horrendously slow. 2. This shit might spread. the ISPs of Europe aren't less greedy than the Americans, they are just better regulated. If this kind of shit gets "normal" in the US, it's only a matter of time until we get it in the rest of the world.
A very good explanation. Thank you.
Happy to help :)
School shootings
Gun control..
Most of them
Why do people need gun in their home?!!
Bc people like to break into homes to do harm or steal things.
College debt and being practically thrown out of home as soon as you’re 18/goes to college.
All your stupid school and guns shit..
Gun culture, the NEED to have a gun in your daily life. Unless you live in Alaska and get chased around by bears on a daily basis no one really needs a gun. Just invest into better training your police officers so they become more effective.
Another thing is the constant threat of outright bankruptcy in the event of a medical emergency. Or people refusing any treatment thanks to the bills included. That’s just downright third world country problems.
Oh and just the insularity, this belief that no one outside of USA is free. When in reality can be shocking to many.
Whilst reading through this I realized how similar Iceland is to the USA
Freedom of speech :c
Your election process, gun violence, obesity, net neutrality, & health care system
How dogmatic people are on whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican.
On the parenting baby subs here I see Should a have a baby shower for my second child and then huge debates on if its tacky. Where I live it's any excuse for a party. Fifth baby? Sure we will have a baby shower cuz PARTY!
Having college debt
Major ones: Crazy health insurance, eating in mcdonalds, kfc, etc while knowing its unhealthy, the tendency to have different sports than the rest of the world (football, baseball), calling football when its played mostly by hand.
Probably guns and huge college depts
Worrying about being shot....
I am fairly sure shootings happen in more places than just the USA.
Occasionally.
It's the constant shooting and people being so concerned about being shot themselves that is the thing I can't relate to.
The shitty apartments in Sweden sound like luxury hotels compared to what people seem to live in over there...
Minimum wage being at only 7.25$/hour.
Healthcare mostly.
“Graduated with 300 absences and a 0,40 GPA LOL” ok sis we’re just tryna get semi decent education over here but go off
Healthcare costs. I would be in so much fear of hurting myself if a simple fracture could bankrupt me
Political slander campaigns. I was in a taxi from the airport and I heard 2 in a 30 minute trip. In Ireland we call that 'defamation of character.' Or in simpler terms illegal and IMMORAL!! Considering America is such a big proponent of litigation I can't understand how the offending politician, parties and the networks themselves are not sued beyond the point of bankruptcy.
"Graduating" high school. Over here in the UK you just finish school and nobody had a big ceremony for it or anything.
My grandson just had a pre-k graduation.
Credit scores
Universal healthcare. I cannot imagine ever having to make the decision whether to see a medical professional or just hope you get better because you can't afford the bill.
School shootings, Bruh why shoot up the entire school and not just the bullies???
So shooting up a school is ok as long as you you only shoot the bullies?
Uhh I mean the logic behind school shootings is flawed imo. why shoot innocent ppl (yeah Ik they are messed up in the head) but still... Won't shooting the bullies at least make you feel a little better and have a sense of vengeance? But idk I guess shooting people aint cool.
Going bankrupt from public health care
Vetting to get here. I apparently didn't get the memo on how easy it is to get here legally.
School shootings
GUNS: Trying to avoid being polemic, but I just do not relate at all to the whole gun culture - especially to the fact that you can buy guns in supermarkets!?
First of all, americans are americans, not who born in USA. I'm brazilian and i'm american. And Fuck Donald Trump.
Expensive internet, home owner associations, medical debt.
Gun violence
The debate over gun ownership, or the debate over abortions, the debate over gay rights, the debate over racism
Pretty much the constant in fighting over every important issue
Healthcare.
Hate to say it but school shootings.
Prices for medical treatment.
How has no one said guns...
Minors having access to firearms and their parents or guardians not being held accountable enough for the crimes they commit with those. From an outsider's perspective, I think that if the law was strict enough regarding this, adults would take better care of something as important as this.
Gun control...
Getting shot when I'm at school.
Gun violence in schools.
Paying for college
School shootings..
School shootings are for pussies, in saudi arabia we got school bombings
God damn it.
Pills.
Everybody is apparently taking something.
It doesn't happen in other countries. You take pills till you feel better, then you stop.
If it's a long term issue and the choice is between pills or moderation, everyone else goes for moderation, Americans go for pills.
The opioid crisis. I live in The Netherlands, we have a lot of drugs, but there’s definitely no opioid crisis.
Guns. I don’t get why so many of them are so fanatical about guns.
I'm an American (Texan to boot) and don't understand the fanatical gun people either.
The radicals bother me the most. They talk like they need guns to protect themselves every waking minute like the US is in some constant state of anarchy.
I completely agree. Trying to have a civilized conversation with them about any form of gun legislation is impossible. There's absolutely no reasoning (I've tried).
When i was in college for medical assisting the classes they made me take were ridiculous. Film class. Statistics. All the math and English I did in high school all over again. Creative writing. Just a way for them to make more money. Btw I owe 53000 dollars and will top out at 14 dollars an hour so I had to switch professions for my worthless degree. The advisors who signed me up were pushier than an used car sales man and totally lied to me.
I don't understand payment cards in America. A debit card with a chip and pin just seems natural and hassle-free.
I'm too late to say 'school shootings', right?
As an American, it scares me that America is often the model for elsewhere. Our social services and legally protected basic human needs are abysmal. Abysmal.
Paying for healthcare and guns, I'm from Canada so I don't need to worry about those
The phrase: "I could care less" - meaning that you care a fair amount, when you probably don't if you want to say this statement. Also, "Let's see if I/we cant" when you are trying to accomplish a task. Should be "can", surely. I love America though you can keep saying what you want. - A Brit.
Gun laws.
Health related financial stress. It breaks my heart.
Unpaid maternal leave
Not everyone has unpaid leave. I have 2 children and and was paid for 12 weeks after I gave birth.
OK. I should've reworded that. In Canada we have a long term paid maternal leave (I believe it's a year or so but I'm not too sure on that)
Doing taxes, almost everywhere tax is included in the price of the item which you pay immediately.
You do taxes at the end of the year to report your income.
We have sales tax, what is paid on daily purchases. The local governments benefit from those. Once a year we have to file taxes to the federal government and state government, these are monies that are taken from our pay earned st the employer. That money is given to the state and federal governments.
Oh yeah and taxes are paid straight up from the salary, no need to do any of that paperwork
Pregnant at 15
Like why?
Schools preach abstinence as sex education. In a lot of stores, condoms are locked up and you have to ask a store associate which can be nerve racking for a young teen. Once in high school i got carded for condoms and lube(was 18 at the time)
the amount of sugar in everything
School shootings
I haven't seen a comment about the obsession with guns yet.
Paying for healthcare. The cost is insane and I couldn't even imagine.
Not being paid to go to college
Medical bills.
When my son was born my wife spent 24 hours in labour and ended up needing an emergency cesarian. She then had to spend another 4 days at the hospital, in a private room, before she and baby could come home.
Didn't cost a penny.
Arguing about the interpretation of a 230 year old constitution and a 2000 year old book
Going bankrupt over a moderate medical occurence.
The Opioid Crisis. It's heartbreaking to see a good proportion of the population decimated like this, the scale of which just blows my mind. And the unnecessary political headwinds those with solutions have to face.
The tax system. Do all people do their own taxes? It appears to come up on here whenever they are due.
Most employed people in the UK do not do their own taxes. People can self assess for various reasons, normally the self employed.
We have tax automatically deducted and adjusted so at the end of the year we should have paid the correct amount. Is this not the case for people I the US.
So further to that, do you pay tax on every pay cheque? Or have to pay a final bill at the year's end?
As a Canadian who lived and worked in the UK I was blown away that people trusted the government to figure out how much taxes to take from me. If you donate to charities or contribute to a retirement fund you are not getting the proper amount of reduction in your income tax. People in the UK don't save enough for their retirement (in my opinion) and I think it's because they don't do their own taxes where they could see the benefits of contributing.
Thanks for the response.
With pensions, monthly charity donations, and other schemes. They can be deducted before tax is applied on wages. I don't do it on mine with charity payments, but I really should look into it, save a couple of beer tokens.
Your right with the pension crisis, that has probably started. Which is why everyone who works by law has to have a pension scheme of some sort. Not just rely on the state pension.
No, because there are many elements of the tax code that apply to specific circumstances.
Technically it should be this way for Federal & state income taxes. Your employer's payroll department takes your tax info & calculates how much to withhold each pay period, then they send you a statement that you pass along to the IRS. You shouldn't have to owe the IRS & they shouldn't owe you.
But I've had at least 5 employers that somehow managed to screw this up.
And then if you own a business, have property, kids, etc., it all adds layers to the 'filing taxes' process. We don't really have a universal tax code so much as a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tax code.
Thanks for the response.
It's still goes wrong here. I have 2 jobs, which should apply 2 different tax codes. Last year they didn't, I noticed on a pay slip and got it corrected. So this year I have a different code from standard, so they can get the money I owe them back.
Nope, we gotta do it ourselves, despite the fact they already do it and tell us if we're wrong. Basically companies make money off of software to do your taxes so they lobby to keep us doing them ourselves (aka their software making money)
Thanks for the response.
Sounds expensive in time and money. To be honest, I'd rather get fleeced by the system a bit so long as I don't have to do anything. Not that I pay a massive amount in the grand scheme of things.
Anything on YouTube when I'm linked a video I'm not allowed to view it from my country
Health Care
Sharing a room in a college dorm. Guys. You're adults. Why do you put up with this?
not getting 5 weeks of vacation each year (Sweden)
Binary political system.
Having to pay to go see a doctor. It makes no sense.
If I have something, I call, go to the doctor, she'll examine me, prescribe me drugs, I go to the pharmacy, give them the prescription my doctor gave me, they grab the meds, give them to me, I say thanks and walk out the door. I am never paying anyone except for my monthly insurance fees.
Portion sizes for everything! Lunch to me is like my American cousin’s (only 8) snack to him!
Your news channels having 24h broadcasts and just how much personal opinions go into the news shows. I just want the news and not whatever shit the journalists have to say about the it.
Your obsession with the constitution. Most countries have one
Lack of time off. Even when I was a waitress I still got several weeks off.
Student debt. So many Americans talk about how they are completely bogged down with sometimes hundreds of thousands in debt. From all of my time in college, university and training I still had less than £30,000 to pay back and it is paid back in very very small amounts each month by default and it is cleared anyway if 30 or 40 years pass.
The degree to which naked corruption and dishonesty rules your politics. From the buying of politicians by industry, to the deliberate ignoring of the will of the people for personal profit (looking at you, Ajit Pai), to the "sneaking in" of some law changes with other, unrelated law changes before anyone's had a chance to read them. How the heck do you achieve anything that isn't motivated by greed and self-interest?
Americans always seem to share rooms with a roommate for university, at least here in the UK absolutely everyone has their own room to sleep in.
Paying for college
Signing for debit and credit cards. Even worse using contactless and having to sign with it.
Collection agencies for loans, debt etc. Getting intimidated by a private company you don't even know just because the bank let them go after you.
Here are some of my „favourites“:
People getting fired without any notice just like that. Instantly. That’s insane!
The notion of a fixed amount of sick days. I mean, wtf? If you are sick, you’re sick. Period. Shouldn’t matter how long it takes to recover.
Not having 30 days of paid vacation. Come on, how are you supposed to recover from work?
Having to pay a ridiculous amount of money for doctor/hospital/emergency room visits, etc.
Having to pay a ridiculous amount for drugs. (Yeah, talking about you, Epi-Pen)
Patriotism. I know this is a large thing all over the world, but I never really encountered it because everyone here hates the government because the government is bad.
Oddly enough, here in America, people who identify as 'patriotic' also tend to identify as anti-government.
Dude, yes. It’s such a mindfuck
Not a non-American, but I live with a Swiss girl. She just cannot understand how we pay college football coaches so much money. Go Huskers.
Children in school having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a morning ritual. It just looks so cult like it's very unsettling. Especially as a german who saw videos of kids in the Hitler youth reciting a pledge to Adolf Hitler in history class. Gives me a bad feeling in my stomache. Though that one doesn't get mentioned here TOO often it still get's brought up in a thread every now and then.
Also most of the men being circumcized at birth without any medical or even religious reason for doing so.
The huge medical bills following life saving surgery. Just makes me think "they've saved you only to suffer in life?". Very depressing some of the stories, having to turn to charitable help and fundraisers to cover bills for the same procedures we get covered under the NHS.
"covered by the NHS" unless you're a sick infant, than the government/hospital gets to lock you in a hospital and leave you to die. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/alfie-evans-british-court-rules-against-parents-treatment-for-terminally-ill-son/ - for reference
People love to bring up that "but look what the NHS did!" horror story to argue against the millions of people suffering here in the US.
Not to negate it but stories like that happen everywhere where the government is in control of medicine. Whoever is paying for the care is in charge of it. Is the U.S. system perfect? Of course not. But at least individuals get to make the decision. Are you really saying that someone going into debt for experimental care or using a GoFundMe to pay off their medical expenses is worse than parents being forced to watch their child die and being physically stopped by the police from taking their child to another country/hospital that would treat him/her/them?
Nope, not at all. Of course the child dying is worse. I'm saying that reprehensible things happen here, too, but you can't judge the efficacy or benefit of different health care systems on the whole by comparing them to individual anecdotes.
Pill commercials. Like what? I don’t know about medications, why should I be the one asking my doctor if I need it? Isn’t that his job? To know when and why I need a medication?
Hospital bills. I'm from the UK.
This may not relate to the question, but I don't understand greetings. In mexico, where I'm from , we say good morning from midnight to 12pm, Good afternoon from 12pm to 7pm, and good night from 7 to midnight. it doesn't matter if your leaving or just arrive, but its not the same in the US right?
We say good morning as a greeting in the morning but not as a goodbye. Good afternoon and good evening feel more formal, and are used more as a greeting by those in the service industry. Good night is usually said before bed. Sometimes we'll say "Have a good night!" As a goodbye.
School shootings
Your guys' stance against a universal medical program/ having to pay for medical services.
[deleted]
Freshman 9th grade Sophomore 10th grade Junior 11th grade Senior 12th grade
After this is uni or trade school!
The debt/credit culture. People spending above their means in general...
Lot of cats Lot of trumps
Wtf is summer holidays do you really get 3 months off school?
When i was younger, yes. Now, the kids get closer to 2 months. You can also take college classes during the summer or choose to take that time off until the fall
School shooting.
Bad, expensive internet. I pay around $20 for 500MBs for stable connection.
Eh, that depends where you go. Here in my place it's perfectly acceptable. A lot of countries have it worse off. When I went to Canada I was stunned by how outrageously expensive the Internet was.
I pay $50 for 1gig here in Texas.
Not an 'issue', but freedom. It seems like you all make America out as the only country with freedom.
Guns and free speech. Both are pretty hard to come by in most countries, but are in the Bill of Rights here.
I know it's what people usually go to, but UK has free speech and no school shootings. Like, plenty of other countries has 'freedom' and free speech. Other countries have guns too, and still have less of a problem with them than America does.
Healthcare and education costing money.
Crockpot or a slow cooker or just having different cookware for very specific uses. Like air-frying fries to make them more “healthy”. I bake fries, meat, vegetables in the oven when the recipe calls for it and use a dutch oven or any pot on very low heat when I want to simmer and tenderize meat. I sometimes use a pressure cooker. That’s it.
Tipping. In America it’s an obligation because servers/delivery drivers are not paid a full minimum wage. Here where they make a decent salary (minimum wage or higher) it’s seen as a nice thing to do, as the employer pays their wages and delivery fees are included in the purchase of food (which go to the drivers). Americans get so up in arms if anyone says that tipping is not an obligation, when in many countries it’s not..
GUNS!!!!
Violence is festishized so that the religious conservatives can have something to get off to while still preaching piety
Frat parties are like a fast pass at Disneyland. You pay a fee every semester and in exchange the frat sets up several parties throughout the year, usually with different sororities so you have chances to sleep with girls from all around school.
Gives older people a chance to relive their college experience
Honestly, its because we are all different. I’m a Cajun from Louisiana. Just in our state we note the difference between South Louisiana and its Cajuns and North Louisiana and their rednecks and lack of culture. I live in Texas now and these people are completely different from other Southerners(tbh, the South doesn’t consider them part of the South. They are Texas, they’re their own thing. But Americans don’t like being told they cant be part of something so they just throw money and appropriate what they want). And its the same for West Coasters, Midwesterners, East Coasters.
Walls. You people punch walls and it makes a hole. How?
Sometime between the 1950's and 1970's contractors made the move from plaster walls to either particle board or sheetrock(dry wall) and even more recently to "whipped" drywall which is drywall but 60% lighter(because it's 60% air and as such weak as fuck).
These materials are cheap, flimsy, and have a horrifyingly short life span but are cheap in the short term so contractors charge about the same for installation of these materials knowing fully well that in 15-30 years they will need to be replaced or at the very least repaired. It is much less time consuming to screw in 8-16 boards of sheet rock/ drywall and tape,mud, sand and paint then it is to use plaster.
Tldr: drywall is cheaper with a higher profit margin for contractors.
Student loans. Seems like the worst first world problem
I remember when I was in California I saw commercials for Slot Machines. They were advertising good odds and everything, I was dumbfounded that commercials like that even exist.
Um literally being scared to go to school because there's at least one new school shooting every week
Not having a bidet.
One that is a bit more specific is surgery times, specifically for replacements, like hips and knees.
In the US, I've heard of standard hip replacements taking up to 3/3.5 hours. In the UK, they average around 45 minutes (at least in Northern Ireland).
I once watched a full knee replacement (I was on work placement with an anaesthetist/anesthesiologist) in 27 minutes (minus the time to sew back up), and they were in recovery ~5 minutes after that.
"My country is a shithole, fuck America!"
Travel.
Price tags not including GST in the supermarket. Like wtf?!
Almost any medical issues or payment problems
As an American, this makes me super fucking depressed
Pretty common I believe, but for me it’s healthcare. I’m Canadian. 🇨🇦 I’ve been lucky enough to only pay 47$ on a 500+$ pair of glasses before. The fact that I can see a doctor whenever I want is a good feeling.. it’s scary to think I’d have to pay. Or even pay and then be reimbursed months later.
Healthcare. We have free healthcare. Cannot believe Americans put up with huge bills, bankruptcy , homelessness. While insurance companies and hospitals get rich.
You said “if the government turns tyrannical”. That’s far from being the truth in the US in 2018, I’m sure. But if it happened, if a government truly turns tyrannical, the institutions that allow impeachment won’t work and peaceful protests won’t be enough.
About Venezuela, I might have misunderstood your post. You said “in 2018” and I thought you meant that was impossible in the world today.
Where are all these countries?!?!? What the f*** are we doing wrong here in America?
Discrimination, racism and segregation
Big breakfasts, i only drink a cup of coffee.
Don't worry; we throw half of it away.
Too bad, it looks tasty
Most people don't have a big breakfast on a regular basis.
All the drug commercials that casual say "may have suicidal thoughts" as a side effect. How are you guys ok with selling these types of drugs?
The drugs are the same as in other parts of the world. The only difference is that they are marketed over here because of our weird pharmaceutical laws. The drugs that "may cause suicidal thoughts" exist in Europe too, for example.
Most of the drugs we sell are also sold abroad. We do extensive tests on drugs before they can be released. After release doctors must report side effects even if it can’t be proven the drug is responsible for the side effect. So if one person in 1000 has suicidal thoughts that has to be listed.
So maybe on topic but maybe not....
I would watch Top of the Pops every week in England and I remember one time the top 3 being ...
Iron Maiden
Megadeth
AC/DC
Yet I never met a single metalhead while in school or any social functions. It was like it was dirty to like metal but the top of the charts would be filled with metal music. And they would just gloss over it on Top of the Pops like it was an annoyance before getting to Kylie Minouge.
Weird
Reading all of these things really puts into perspective how fucked this country is over shit that shouldn't be an issue...
I was born in the USA, but I still can't relate to the fact that you fools put up with it (in reference to most of the complete bullshit people mention in this thread... going into lifelong debt to pay for hospital/college, the labor laws, etc. etc. etc.).
Why do Americans get such a pass from non-Americans? Surely the rest of the world realizes that you have to put up with bullshit from the US government in large part because the American people put up with bullshit from the US government?
For me it is the frequent reference to weed. Seems like smoking weed is a favorite past time by almost everyone in America.
Also the crazy expensive hospital bills. There is other systems that work and are cheaper, but Americans don't want that because the association of cheaper medical and hospital visits are evil or bad. Socialist and whatnot.
Most Americans do want a change. Trump didn't win the popular election.
Hard to say, I don't live in the center of the universe.
my sister is actually moving to the states and today she just came home with an armful of birth control she had to buy. (they give you 3 months worth at a time, so they gave her 3 but she had to buy off the rest) that’s a thing i am so thankful for, living in Canada all medications are free from a certain age.
[deleted]
Diarrhea and constipation is the worst shit ever.
On my trip to America recently I noticed how I never have to worry about leftovers back home. The food portions here are enormous!
I love that they're so big! I take them home and keep them for another meal.
It's definitely not a bad thing in that case, but when you're staying at a hotel with not much space to keep food or heat food I hate to see it go to waste.
The whole IHOb brouhaha
Having a weekly salary. I see this mentioned in movies as if it's the norm, so I assume it is. Also weekly rent payments, weekly anything else. We do everything monthly here. (Namibia)
American here. Most things are monthly. Paychecks are weekly or every other week usually.
That's not common. Salaried workers are normally paid bi-weekly or twice monthly. Hourly workers get paid weekly. And the only thing you rent weekly are rooms in skeezy motels. Normal apartment rent is monthly.
Not being able to buy and eat kinder eggs...
Every add for medication is followed by all the potential side effects... which sound worse then the thing that I had to begin with..
You know you want "anal leakage" in order to make your headache go away!!! LOL
People wearing shoes in the house - or is that just on American TV shows?
I've never been inside a house where people asked me to take off their shoes. I'm 51 and have lived in Louisiana, California, Wyoming, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and New Mexico (and Florida but I didn't visit anyone's home while I was there). I live in New Mexico now. In the Rockies. I've been here 19 years and still...I've never been in someone's house where someone asked me to remove my shoes. O.o
Edited: To fix grammar
Pretty sure that's just TV. My mom kicks my ass when I forget to take off my shoes
The "rude to tourists" thing and the "speaking only english" thing. Most everything else I can relate to, been livin here almost a decade
I think that the posts about snow and that stuff I live in a very hot part of Mexico, everybody talks about how is a pain to clean the snow that in front of your door and that stuff
Internet neutrality
How blatantly their government puts it's own interests above that of its citizens and no one does anything about it, even though they promised they would back in 1776, the first time it happened.
Last time the Canadian government screwed us, half the country threatened to just leave and make their own, way cooler country where no Easterners were allowed unless they could play hockey. Feds said you can't do that. We said "and you'd stop us how?" They stopped screwing us. Justin's dad was a controversial man at times.
School based massacres...or massacres for that matter.
P.s - stop killing eachother so much.
The Notre Dame college confuses me. The name is French, their American Football team is called “The Fighting Iris,h” but it’s in America
It's a catholic college founded by a Bishop from France.
As for the nickname, this is the best explanation I could find.
The most generally accepted explanation is that the press coined the nickname as a characterization of Notre Dame athletic teams, their never-say-die fighting spirit and the Irish qualities of grit, determination and tenacity. The term likely began as an abusive expression tauntingly directed toward the athletes from the small, private, Catholic institution. Notre Dame alumnus Francis Wallace popularized it in his New York Daily News columns in the 1920s.
Thanks, now it makes more sense
As an American, being worked like an animal for a Not livable wage, I just want to walk into traffic. Maybe my overpriced life insurance can do some actual good for someone close to me
That male masturbation involves moisturizer. Still got my d intact, complete with builtin cover.
None of the coins have their worth written on them. This is a pain in the arse for tourists.
Having a shitty president. We only have a shitty prime minister.
We no longer have Obama.....
Edgy
One more thing that doesn't quite open up to me is the justice system where anybody can sue anybody for any stupid reason. Like when lottery winners were advised to lawyer up before the lawsuits start pouring in. This is a big WTF for me because it looks like potential legal trouble is lurking in every direction and everybody needs to have both a lawyer and an accountant on speed dial.
I have even heard of a guy who got in trouble because he could not afford to take care of his lawn before the neighbors came to the rescue.
Anything to do with fucking Walmart or Target
Bonus points (not "issues" as the question says, but differences nonetheless):
Lawns and porches. Space is so limited here that nowadays you'll be lucky to have space for a garden in your tiny 2-bedroom apartment. The average US house would be considered a palace here.
Any car with an engine over 2 liters. The national speed limit here is 80km/h (about 50mph). A 1.0 to 1.5 liter engine is more than enough to propel a small car to a speed that would get you in trouble.
Cruise control. Doesn't exist. The longest distance between obstacles (like roundabouts or traffic lights) is a few miles max. Meaning every few minutes you'll be stopping, even without the usual traffic.
Where are you from?
Malta, Europe.
That’s what I would like to know. I’m sure someone has done the math, I’m just too lazy to look it up.
I’d be curious to see how much a person pays for education and healthcare over the course of their life in one of these countries. My guess is it’s going to probably be comparable to what someone in the US pays, the only difference is it’s optional (at least for education) in the US.
And this comment isn’t meant to be a smarta$$ or negative. The doctors, nurses, custodians, admin staff, teachers/professors all have to get paid. Whether that pay comes from an individual through premiums/tuition or from a government pool funded by taxes from those same individuals I’m thinking the pay is going to be about the same.
The one difference I can think of is in the US there are people who use healthcare and then don’t pay (don’t have insurance). Their costs are made up a lot of times by over charging actual “paying” patients.
I won’t get on my soapbox about how college isn’t right for everyone.
Actually health care costs (adding public and private costs) per capita are close to double in the USA vs. any other industrialized western country.
Sure doctors and nurses need to be paid, but there are no profits for hospitals, insurance providers, etc. (and those companies are very profitable based on the slope of the demand curve for their services). Also, hospitals and doctor's offices have much smaller administration departments based on having a single payer and not needing to have long, drawn out dealings with insurance adjusters and payment chasing.
Have a look at this data: in 2016 US per capita health care spending was $9,892 compared to Canada at $4,753 or UK at $4,192. All amounts are converted to US dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
And most measured health outcomes are better than in the US.
Anything involving "Muh freeze peach"
im just "oh so you want the right to be an asshole ok. just go hug your Gen lee statue and leave me alone ok."
Having problems with medical treatments due to a lack of money. And the same with school/university degrees. Both are free here in Denmark. In fact I get paid around 900$ from the government to study my free education. I am graduating medical school (6 years) in 1.5 years and I will be almost debt free (I took an optional low interest government loan to get a little more money each month).
Minimum wage. I always get riled up when someone whines about a job that pays american minimum wage. The minimum wage in my country is the equivalent of around 2 dollars...
yes. USA minimum about $8 per hour, so that's $64 per day.
Mexican minimum wage is 88 Pesos = $4.6 USD per day.
People here that earn minumum wage live on the boundry of powerty and the uncertainity of even being able to afford basic stuff, so I don’t really have sympathy for the american representation of being broke in a sense of - “I can’t afford the premium Netflix package because I work at Subway.”
So why do so many people want to come to the US?
In Australia you don’t feel guilty if you don’t tip because the staff have a salary from the restaurant.
[deleted]
Did you expect something else when the question asks about issues?
The post asked about issues with the country what'd you expect?
Enlightened discussion, not the usual checklist of things that everyone outside the U.S. thinks is wrong about the U.S.
(Just kidding, it's reddit, of course I didn't expect enlightened discussion, and shouldn't have been surprised at all that it's the usual checklist.)
So what sort of issues would you consider to be "enlightened"?
Subtle issues related to culture, community, and relationships, not the usual checklist of grievances that global leftists have against the U.S., which they've been harping on for decades now.
Very hard to know the subtleties as an outsider though.
You'll find that type of discussion if you sort by best or top comments.
I guess r/news can’t get enough Euro circle jerks.
I like how most the most anti-US responses come from accounts that are barely a few months old
[removed]
Yeah cause Reddit is so gung-ho about America
Serious question- Can you provide any example of a pro-America thread that has been on the front page in the past several months? Surely if the "One Nation Under Gaaawd" brigade is as large as you think, you can easily give me an example.
Its ridiculous. Ive posted on numerous comments refuting their asinine "criticisms" of the US, and all I got were downvotes, and no actual rebuttal. This website is completely filled with self-hating Americans and Europeans with god complexes.
[removed]
No what it is is 9k people who didn't even read the question in the title
You would understand how bad US is if you didn't live in it. Dummy.
[deleted]
Something like the pledge of allegiance is just downright brainwashing, and I'd be really careful talking shit about the education in other countries..
Considering that the US is the most prolific country in international politics then yeah there are a lot of people who have reasons to think we suck.
Sounds like you get your news from memes.
Yes the u.s. is so terrible that millions risk their lives to come here ....
This is my argument every time. If the US is such a shit hole, why does EVERYONE want to come here?
Because you guys let a shit tonne of them in, compared to other countries.
Australia: \~190,000 permanent migrants per year, plus \~18,000 refugees (we send some of our refugees to the USA instead of letting them in here - clearly the US wasn't their first choice). Those numbers aren't how many people WANT to come, they're the max we allow in per year.
Canada: \~250,000 immigrants and refugees per year
USA: \~1 million migrants, plus \<50,000 refugees per year
Just because you willingly allow 4-5x more migrants in than other countries, doesn't mean your country is somehow preferable. It just means you let more in. Believe me, if Australia raised our quota to a million people per year, I'm pretty sure we'd fill it. Probably get one or two migrants from the US, coming for our beautiful beaches, sensible government, straightforward tax system, generous employment laws, paid parental leave, healthcare and higher education that doesn't bankrupt you...and our school kids don't need to worry about being shot in the head while trying to get an education.
LMAO you really believe this? You think people would want to go to Australia given the chance??? That is so cute. Australia is a backwards little farming community on the ass end of nowhere. The only reason ANY migrant would want to come there is proximity and attempting to flee even worse poverty. The reason Australia doesn't let anyone in is because your economy (1.3t) competes with failing European states (Spain 1.35t) and actual third world crime sinks (Mexico 1.22t). Your economy literally cannot support bringing anyone in. Your population (~25mil) is appallingly small given that you live on a literal continent.
Please try to remember that if people want to study strange spiders or Aboriginal victimization or the effects of kangaroo crime they'll go to Australia but yeah, no, no one is dying to get to Straya, cunt.
Oh shit you're right. Nobody wants to move here, and we don't have millions of overseas tourists each year. Totally imagined that. Ya fucking pellet.
Most of our migrants come from the UK, sweetie. Doubt they're coming here for proximity, or because they're fleeing poverty or a war-torn country.
Your comment about our population being appallingly small just proves how clueless you are. Go have a look at some maps of Australia that show climate zones, and compare them to maps showing population density. Maybe that'll help you understand one of the reasons our population isn't as large as yours.
The usa is the worst most evil empire the world has ever known.
I mean... there is always Nazi Germany... or how about the Golden Horde...
Nazis didn't last. The usa has been around for a long time. The usa is far worse than the nazis. The nazis were just more obvious about their evil.
How can you even begin to believe that the US is more evil than Nazi Germany? The US has its problems sure, but I don't remember the US burning LITERALLY MILLIONS of people just because of their ethnicity or faith. Sure the US has racism and some view capitalism as evil, but that doesn't even begin to compare to the inhuman acts of the Nazis
That's why I said more directly evil. Do you even know how to read? The usa has killed far more people over time and has done a lot more damage to the world.
You literally said that the US is worse than Nazi Germany... and scrolling through your comment history, I've come to the conclusion you're either a bad troll who takes himself too seriously, or you're somebody in desperate need of a friend. Take off your warped little perspective changing glasses and look at the world for what it is.
Well your are correct on one point. I don't have friends and I'm so lonely.
The usa has a larger death count and has caused far more suffering than the nazis. That's just a fact. Stop defending the evil empire.
They hate us cuz they ain't us.
I hate being American. I'm always ashamed when someone online asks me what country I am from.
You're fucking retarded then.
At least I don't use ableist language like you.
Checking by what else you've been writing, calling you retarded is an insult to autistic people.
My bad. But you're still a fucking dishrag.
Too bad your mother didn't teach you that insulting people is mean.
No way, that has to be the British Empire.
[deleted]
I'm surprised that no one has answered you seriously yet. We still have guns because our country is based on the principal of the rule of law, and the right for private citizens to own weapons is part of a law that the founders of the country passed as essentially the highest law in the land. Technically they're amendments but they're still law. And until that particular law is changed, we will have guns, despite how much some people would like it to be otherwise.
I'm just trying to explain why we still have guns, not get into nuanced arguments about what is reasonable gun control. I guarantee if you didn't have the second amendment in place, guns would be gone already. Or mostly so. Like Australia or Britain.
It's even more depressing than that: nearly half of the gun deaths are suicides.
[deleted]
its a shame that the same people that blame gun violence on mental health probably wouldnt want mental healthcare to be more available.
It's also true that if guns weren't a factor, there would be fewer successful suicides.
Yeah because Americans have guns but not drugs. Thanks, war on drugs. /s
Banning drugs has worked pretty much nowhere. Banning guns has worked pretty much everywhere.
Yep, it's impossible to find a gun in Mexico and Brazil. Their bans worked great
Can't comment on Brazil, but Mexico, unfortunately for them, borders the US, meaning there's always going to be a huge pool of guns readily available for smuggling across the border.
well, if they can't make it work we might as well give up and learn to live with it i guess
Thank you, now stop trying to encourage imbecilic anti gun law as any kind of solution.
Just curious, do you think the Canada for example has banned guns? Because if so, I have a surprise for you.
A suicide is not more depressing than an innocent kid getting shot at school.
I wasn't refering to that. When people see the 10000+ gun-related deaths in the US each year, they usually think gang-related violence. But those numbers hide a dark secret of depression and suicides. The school shooting are just a part of the whole depressing picture.
Kids will probably find more creative ways to kill who they want. The problem most likely isnt the guns but rather our aggressive and predatory society. That's at least what it seems like to me but I live in a densely populated area with many aggressive people.
Its only a couple thousand that die per year from gun deaths if you exclude suicides out of 350 million people. Alcohol kills more people than guns.
Why would you exclude suicides? It stands to reason that more people will commit suicide if they have access to a tool that allows them to do it in an instant at the click of a trigger.
Or they could choose any of the other 10000 ways to die
Because we protect ourselves with guns.
What kind of backwards world do we live in when "we protect ourselves with guns" is a debatable comment. Do people seriously think no one has ever used a gun for legitimate self-defense? What about the stories of people STOPPING mass shooters with guns? I don't understand.
I didn't even say people should or shouldn't use guns to protect themselves. I just said people use them for that purpose. How is that controversial at all?
I think people are just really sensitive about it, and it's also easy to live in a bubble if you don't know anyone who's used a gun for self defense.
Personally I have several hunters in my family, I know people think of hunters as crazy southern hillbilly's but my cousin is just a regular guy who lives in our woods and sometimes feeds his family venison from a deer he shot in their backyard. It's "green", it doesn't contribute to the beef industry and saves them money. Not to mention it helps keep the deer population under control.
That's a great use of guns. Wish I had the option to eat beef outside the beef industry.
[deleted]
I'm not being sarcastic. People own guns in the usa and protect themselves with them. Just a factual statement.
Is it not stressful feeling like you have to be armed at all times? I feel like I would be so paranoid if I felt like I needed a gun on me all the time, more so if I knew everyone around me was also carrying.
If I lived in Baltimore or Detroit or Chicago, it would be much more stressful not having a gun
Why would anyone want to live somewhere like that?
Lot's of people cannot move for financial reasons. Lot's of people don't want to leave home and their family. Whatever the reason. These cities can be dangerous places, and, if I lived there, I would like to protect myself if I ran into trouble.
Well that's fair enough I guess, I probably should have worded my question better as what I was trying to say was, I can't understand why anyone who could move elsewhere would want to stay in an environment where they felt a need to be armed all the time. Wouldn't they rather be somewhere a lot safer, where the was no real need for them to have to have a gun on them?
Oh I'm sure a lot of people would choose that option. However, there are literally always people who are going to commit crimes and there are people who will be violent. Violence happens all over the world, every single day. I would, no matter where I am, want the right to arm myself for protection.
Maybe I would feel differently if I'd ever been in a situation where my life was threatened, I don't know, but for now I personally feel safe enough in my area to not require a firearm for my protection, and I realise I'm pretty privileged to be able to say that.
Absolutely, and it's up to the individual whether they want a firearm or not. No one is being forced to own one. But for me, personally speaking, I would want to own regardless of where I live. Even if you live in one of the safest cities in the world, all it takes is one person, one time. It's a protection thing, it makes me feel safe and confident.
Lifelong Detroiter, here. Why do you think it's cool to be edgy and shit on struggling people?
I don't think it's cool and I didn't try to do either of those things, I just can't understand why anyone would want to live in a City that is so dangerous that every feels the need to be armed to protect themselves, but of course there are people who can't go else where, for whatever reason.
Google's worst crime stats in US, Detroit number 1....edgy?
Well if Google says it's shit then by God it must be, amirite?
It's FBI crime stats, but you must be one of the 2047 per 100000 victims per year since you so good at it.
Reasons.
As someone that carries a good 90% of the time I’m out of the house, I’m not stressed out thinking I have to carry every where I go. I feel confident in my abilities to carry and effectively deploy a firearm should the need arise. Legal gun owners and legal carriers of guns don’t scare me, unless they work for the FBI those guys are horrible gun carriers, it’s the criminals that carry that bother me. I don’t live in a Chicago type environment but there are enough major crimes in our area to warrant a way to protect my family.
Are trying to find somewhere else to live? If I was in an environment where it was dangerous enough to make me feel like I needed to be armed to protect myself, I'd want to get out of there asap, especially for my family's sake.
Not everyone can just uproot and move. I'd like to move out to the country, yet here in good ole 'merica, the meth heads have taken over the "country", so I'd still have to carry cause tweekers are worse than gang bangers.
Sure. I don't own a gun personally. I'm just stating the reasons others have them.
You just live in ignorance not thinking about problems instead of insuring yourself against them with training and education.
Does having fire extinguishers in your house make you stressed, too? After all they are such a terrible reminder of how awful your home burning down would be.
I'm lucky enough to live somewhere where the chances of me ever encountering gun violence is so small that I feel no need to carry a weapon on me, it's a strange concept for me to imagine living somewhere where everybody feels the need to be trained and armed, is it so wrong of me to ask a simple question to try and understand why people feel a need to be armed all the time?
Also it's hardly fair to compare a fire extinguisher to a gun. Fire extinguishers are designed to put out fires, save damage to property and lives, guns are designed to save lives and take them as well. Plus there's probably a hundred more likely scenarios of where a fire could break out in a building than one where I'd need a gun to defend myself.
Yes, when your idea of questioning a people's way of life ends with legislation that disarms the law abiding, we have a problem. Nobody is forcing you to carry our own a gun, but don't prevent others from doing so in a safe, legal, and responsible manner.
You just don't see that concealed carry holders are first responders where a shooter could stop a bad guy, just like someone who has taken first aid is the first responder for someone who has a heart attack or stops breathing. People who know where the fire extinguishers are the first responders for a fire.
It would be insane considering first aid and CPR training something only "medical nuts" do, but it's commonly seen that carrying is only something gun nuts do. I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm asking you to put yourself in my shoes and honestly ask yourself what it's like and what would make someone want to carry a gun.
Myself, I'm the big guy. I'm ginormous. This means that when something any happens people automatically look to me for help. This also means that assholes pumped up with testosterone fuck with me to prove how manly they are. People aren't stupid, either. Nobody is going to pick a fight with me without their friends coming along or a weapon, so I carry to have a chance against predictable escalation that I've been the victim of multiple times in my life.
I have never started a physical confrontation in my life, but I have sure as hell ended a few very quickly.
If you live in an area without fear of violence you probably have money or live a life of isolation. I like going to big cities but unfortunately there's a lot of people that will mess with you. Counter intuitively moreso when you're the big guy.
when your idea of questioning a people's way of life ends with legislation that disarms the law abiding, we have a problem.
I wanted to know why it is that some people feel the need to carry a gun on them, and straight away you think that I'm somehow threatening your right to own a gun? You can't just throw down the "but my rights!" card the second you hear anything that sounds even vaguely anti-gun. You're never gonna make any difference with the issue of gun violence and mass shootings in the US by refusing to discuss it.
As I've said to others, if you want to carry a gun for your own safety and protection, I can understand that. I guess what really baffles me is how so many Americans feel like a situation could arise where they have to use a gun at any given point, to me that highlights a major issue, especially in a first world country like the US.
I don't live in Isolation or have lots of money, I'm just a regular guy from a working class area, but we don't have guns, the vast, vast majority of criminals here don't have guns, so I feel perfectly safe. Again, this idea that in order to feel safe and free from the fear of violence, in the United States of all places, means you'd have to be living in isolation or a life of luxury just baffles me.
I don't see how we're not discussing this.
If you live in an area without fear of violence you probably have money or live a life of isolation.
Or live in pretty much any other western country other than the US?
Crime outside major cities with gun bans tends to be less than crime rates in the EU.
Don't know if anyone ever shot a bunch of kids in a school with a fire extinguisher.
Clearly you've never heard of the Bowling Green massacre.
No, not stressful at all. Guns are not animals. They are tools. Get to know them, they're not so scary.
A nail clipper is a tool, a gun is a weapon that can cause a huge amount of damage in the wrong hands or if misused. A gun can take a life in a split second, and you can out run or overpower most animals, you can't out run or over power a bullet. So yes, to me they are a very dangerous and I'd be damn nervous if I knew I was surrounded by people with them.
I knoe its sounds obvious, but not everyone thinks like you do. Some people find it stressful living in dangerous neighborhoods and not having firearm protection.
protect yourself from what, dumbass? i live in urban NJ, 10 miles from NYC Bee-lining. any person i know that has weapons uses them for sport at the range, in a field, or for hunting. I, myself, was captain of my high school marksmanship team. If you have weapons to protect yourself, you have bigger issues than protection.
What are you gonna do a thief or murderer breaks into your house? Just take it or run? Seriously what's the plan
what is the statistical likelihood of that even happening? furthermore, what is the likelihood of that happening while you are home. further still, how many burglers break into a house, while you are home, while armed with a firearm?
you will find that it is supremely unlikely the further down the list you go.
Well I guess it depends where you live. I'm my state, my city there are about 20-50 break ins a week with some of them being deadly. Usually home invasions. I know it's not a good city in this state and plan on moving where I have the means. Just keep in mind some of us don't live in nice neighborhoods. A quick search of my city shows 60k violent crimes involving burglary and personal residences in a city with 1.2 million for 2017 stats.
Now do the ratio and compare it to London, bet you we’re not even close to it
EDIT : per 100k
You are not very smart are you? All I said was people use guns to protect themselves. I don't own guns personally and I wasnt offering an opinion on gun ownership. Take your triggered self elsewhere because this is not the topic of my comment.
no. people dont use guns to protect themselves. the only people who use guns to "protect themselves" are the ones who shoot first to begin with.
You are an idiot arent you?
No /s needed. The only thing stricter gun laws would do is make it difficult for law abiding citizens to get a gun to protect themselves. By definition, criminals dont obey laws.
As someone who's life was potentially saved by the fact I was carrying a gun. I hope you are never put into a situation where you wish you had one. Cops cant get to you that fast bud.
I get why other countries don't get it. Doesn't mean we need to change though.
[deleted]
Most murders are committed on the streets of Detroit, Chicago, and New Orleans. I, and everyone I have ever met, have literally never been nervous to go into school ever. School shooting are blown way out of proportion to push an agenda, much like the whole European terrorism BS. It's all nonsense for pushing an agenda. Why don't gang-related murders get nearly the attention that school shootings get? Because they are trying to push the anti-gun agenda. Meanwhile, people get murdered everyday in cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, but there is barely a sentence (if there is one at all) on the news. It's the same thing with police shootings. While I do agree that these cops are too aggressive, it's blown way out of proportion.
Yeah you really can't compare a gang related murder on the street with a kid taking his dad's gun from their house and killing multiple other innocent kids and teachers in a fucking school mate.
In that scenario, the dad is as much at fault as the kid. That is an irresponsible owner and he needs to be taken to task. My point was that based on pure numbers, gang-related murders are astronomically higher than school shootings.
Well then it's definitely news worthy if someone takes a gun to school because of an irresponsible gun owner isn't it?
And no ones comparing the overall death toll numbers that's just a dumb comment. If 20 people were shot and killed in a gang shooting all at once it's just as likely to make the news as a school shooting.
Plus a school shooting is a fucking horrific tragedy, they're not blown out of proportion they're a horrific thing to happen in modern society and a direct reflection of gun culture in the US.
Not trusting the police because they could straight-up shoot you if you belong to a minority and get away with it.
Not defending the police record with regard to America, but in most countries minorities don't trust the police.
I would also put this in the "Things people in the US don't understand about OTHER countries".
The really corrupt police of Mexico doesn't give a shit if you're black, brown (like most of them) or white, they only see in green.
Not trusting the police because they could straight-up shoot you if ~~you belong to a minority and~~ they can get away with it.
FTFY
So, you don’t actually know what it’s like here.
When accounting for crime rates, minorities are actually less likely to be shot by police. Stop drinking the kool-aid, Heinz.
[deleted]
Exactly, every time I hear about how "crazy" it is that we can buy and own as many guns as we want or how strange it is that we can buy a gun without proving that we "need" it I become even more infatuated with the fact that this is the only country that followed through with the fact that we have the RIGHT to own these things and that because it is a right I don't have to prove that I "need" it.
I carry a firearm every day. Not because I feel as though I am in danger but because I live wholeheartedly by the idea that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have. I am a university student who went through an extra class to get an enhanced CCL specifically so that I can carry on campus. Again, better to have and not need than to need and not have. Assuming that there is no instance in which I need to use it not a single person on that campus will ever know that I am carrying a gun. I also have an AR-15 that hasn't shot at anything other than paper targets(though I did take it deer hunting only because it is legal to in my state).
Do you know what those other countries have? The freedom to send their children to school without the constant fear that they will be called up in the middle of the day to be told their dead because someone came into their school and shot them.
Do you know why people fear that? Because of sensationalized media coverage, do you know why mentally ill students do those things? Because sensationalized media coverage. How many students die a year from mass shootings, now compare that to alcohol, obesity, smoking, or any other deaths. See how small it really is?
Ok, as a non-American I would say I can't relate to the fact that people like you would say something like this ("I carry a firearm everyday because I can and want to") and not realize how really fucked up that is.
[deleted]
Living in fear that you are going to be attacked is fucked up. Sure, you will say that you are not living in fear, you just like to be "ready", and I guess you like the feeling of "packing heat". But you have to understand that to most of the people in the rest of the world, that is fucked up. For sure it is to me.
You're exactly right, I'm not living in fear and I never have. Im happy that the rest of the world wants to live their lives in that way, they have that right. You have your right to live how you want, but don't go trying to force others to live by your standards
Are you in fear of a car wreck when you use a seat belt? Or are you simply subconsciously acknowledging risk vs reward, with no emotion involved?
Guns are no different.
I understand what you are saying. Fear may be too strong a word. I put on my seat belt because I'm aware that there is always a chance that there will be a collision whenever I am in a car. But if I was concerned about being shot I would wear a bullet proof vest, not carry a gun. But that would be crazy. Because while being in a car accident is unlikely in any given trip, it remains a real possibility and seat belts are proven to reduce injuries in an accident. I don't think that there is a significant chance of being attacked or shot at when I leave the house, primarily because I live in a country where people think that the need to keep a gun with them at all times is crazy.
A bullet proof vest has a small chance of protecting you if you are shot. it doesnt help in any other sort of situation where there would be a disparity of force, from a bear attack (yes, that is a real thing), to being attacked by a man wielding a knife
As an American the two issues i'm seeing the most is the lack of free healthcare and the corrupt political system.
This is why I do not support socialized healthcare. If i'm going to acknowledge that our government is run by corrupt agencies why would I trust them to make decisions with my life or my loved ones life on the line?
In order for me to support socialized healthcare i'm going to need to see some serious improvements within our governmental infrastructure before I could even entertain the idea.
I get your point, but you trust a private company who's goal is to not pay out insurance. Pre existing conditions anyone? It's basically which side of fucked do you want to be on
That’s a solid point. I would take my chances with the private company still though. It’s a much smaller entity so less people to deal with, on both sides, which means logistically they will be better. It would at least be an established and well run company. Not exactly how I would describe our government.
I always wondered how Americans got to the weights they do.. People walking around at 400lbs etc.. They I went to do a college course in BOston and managed to put on over 30lbs in 3 months.. What the fuck is in the food????
Also Fixing Eggs??.. We break em.. And eat them :P
Gun violence, non-universal healthcare, insane college tuition fees with legal loan sharking.
Not really an issue but food sizes and free refills. It's just madness to watch a kid drink two "small cokes." Also, your "small coke" is a "large coke" in Europe and there's no larger sizes than "large."
How is this child sized? It's the size of a small child.
Clearly, they should drink no more than 70% of their volume.
I am completely stunned and horrified that America is, right now, forcefully seperating children from their parents, putting them in cages, and then 'losing' them. Yes, 'losing' children.
I know it's an attempt to persuade people from seeking asylum in your borders.
Turn them away, close your borders, build your walls - that's all 'whatever' stuff for the rest of us. But whoever is responsible for this is someone without any humanity. For christ sakes in some places they are purposefully antagonizing parents by letting them hear their children scream for help, but keeping them locked up so all they can do is hear them.
If you don't want to get angry and involved for the children consider this: you are creating new terrorists on your southern border. What would you do if someone kidnapped and 'lost' your child?
Edit: An international news source on the issue. It is being heavily reported. This is happening right now, this is not historical.
http://bbcworldinfo.com/2018/05/27/trump-blames-democrats-for-border-policy-separating-immigrant-children-from-parents/
Source?
http://bbcworldinfo.com/2018/05/27/trump-blames-democrats-for-border-policy-separating-immigrant-children-from-parents/
It is getting a lot of coverage. I humbly ask you guys check other international news sources as well.
I am inquiring about your source on the part about locking them in cages.
I don't recall for that point in particular. I've been reading about this constantly for days. I would have to reread every article to find it. If you feel it misrepresents what you read about it from your sources then I will edit it, no problem.
Why is this the detail that you were curious about? I thought that the "The Government Lost Our Children" point would make the others fairly inconsequential. I'm not questioning your ethics, this is just curiosity. Or was it a case where you checklisted everything I said?
I’m absolutely not defending what is going on. I do not agree with separating children from their parents. I can understand parts of it (understand, not agree with) and can see that perhaps one viewpoint is that since the parents were being detained that the children should not be held in a cell with them. I understand that crossing the border is considered illegal and the government feels this should be enforced (again, I do not agree). It has already been discussed that a number of these children were not even with their parents but were with a group of people. If I were a government official and I found a kid with a group of adults and none of them claimed that child, should I just let them carry on? I think that’s a bad idea. From what I understand many children were handed off to relatives who were already in the US (legally or not) unless none were located. Now, if I had a family member’s child given to me I would absolutely take the kid and there would be no trail for the government to track them down.
I’m not attacking you but I have not read anywhere about children being taken from thier parents and locked in cages. I really feel that that is malicious gossip. We, as Americans, may have to follow laws we don’t like, and do jobs we don’t like (sombody has to be a border guard, right?), but we really aren’t all savages.
http://bbcworldinfo.com/2018/05/27/trump-blames-democrats-for-border-policy-separating-immigrant-children-from-parents/
Its getting a lot of coverage. I humbly ask you guys check other international news sources.
seperating children from their parents, putting them in cages
that happened under Obama not Trump
however they still get separated if the parent committed a crime and has to go to jail
the way to cure this is to not cross the border illegally
visit the embassy in your country before you come here and get permission to enter legally
http://bbcworldinfo.com/2018/05/27/trump-blames-democrats-for-border-policy-separating-immigrant-children-from-parents/
If this differs from what you've been told I would begin questioning my sources, or at least validating them at international news sites outside the reach of your government. (This comment isn't being directed at any of your political parties in particular.)
Also: these people are asylum seekers mainly I believe (not 100% on that). Asylum seekers can't very well go to an embassy in their country.
Asylum seekers
in the last couple days those false claims for asylum are now not valid. Asylum is when your government is persecuting you however 90% of the claims are simple problems with criminal gangs in their home country.. it is not the USA's duty to allow you into our country because you have bad neighbors that are criminals.
and you say these people can not go to the embassy in their home country... if they are not coming from Canada or Mexico then they are passing through many countries to get to the USA
and if they are passing through these countries then they can stay in those countries and not even come to the USA
If you are running from Venezuela to the USA because of persecution in Venezuela then there are many other countries you can go to.. countries where Spanish is the primary language.. countries where the culture is the same.. countries where they would be much happier and closer to their relatives if that is important.
MOST People are not coming to the USA for Asylum..
and even if they are they can cross the border at a Highway where there is a border inspection center and not way out in the middle of the desert in 130F heat.. sneaking into the country illegally
and as for Visa overstays .. many on holiday or college students... they just need to have a bounty put on their head and thrown out at their expense and fined.
I hear you. I think I understand.
What is your source for: (even better if it is non-American to get around the fake news claims).
A) "in the last couple days those false claims for asylum are now not valid."
I have a lot of other questions depending on what the sources are and what they confirm, but it's no sense getting in to that before I see what you are seeing.
Except this one: What difference does it make why they are coming? How is that justification for imprisoning young children? I've read a non-American source that says around 100 of these children are less than 4 years old.
http://bbcworldinfo.com/2018/05/27/trump-blames-democrats-for-border-policy-separating-immigrant-children-from-parents/
jeff sessions the atorney general made a statement yesterday that no longer will things like spousal abuse or basic criminal acts be allowed for reasons of Asylum ..
Asylum is for when people are persicuted by their government not for general crimes.
honestly i don't care if a kid is being locked up when their parents bring them here.. Actually the parent should be given the choice to take their child and leave the country ... OR go to lockup
It is not the fault of the USA it is the fault of the people that cross the border illegally
obesity acceptanse, this gender-fluid thing and SJWs in general
[deleted]
Disagree. I'd love to see this thread but for my country (UK). Going to the US for part of uni was a massive culture shock and it's fascinating the differences! My uni accommodation had cable TV but no kettle... us tea loving Brits simply can't fathom not having a kettle!! Doesn't mean I'm bashing America for it, I just find the differences in culture fascinating. Going to a university football match was incredible!! It's such a big deal in the states whereas no one cares in the UK. Sure there'll be bits people butt heads over but that's why it's so interesting! We hold these strong beliefs just because we were born on a different patch of land... Yeah, culture just boggles my mind. Love it.
Tea is sick people or your grandparents. And thank God we don't play that commie sport ;)
I was wondering when there was going to be another one.
[deleted]
Something new. Fuck me right?
[deleted]
I bet you thought that was a home run quip. Yikes.
As your hero would say, facts don't care about your feelings. Worshipping a country is not normal behavior
Username does not check out.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Like adults for some things and not for others....not adult enough to drink a beer until 21. Not adult enough to see nudity on the TV without a massive fuss.
Alcohol is a mind altering substance. It's absolutely reasonable to put a restriction on it like that. We can quibble over the specific age but it's reasonable.
It's ok to have standards of sexual content. It doesn't bother me but I do like that sex isn't on display 24/7.
You're definitely a fuckin' Libertarian. Jeez.
Nope. Just an adult who can handle the responsibility of being an adult.
I want to keep the money I make and decide what to do with it
Basically "Muh Taxation is theft"
Most rational adults realise the necessity of Taxation and the social safety net.
There's a safety net and then there's a nanny state.
Nanny state
Yeah, sure thing buddy.
Christ.
[deleted]
The incarceration rate is almost all due to low level drug crimes. There's certainly an argument to decriminalize weed, but to suggest that we have a police state of some sort is ludicrous.
We are just a more badass version of you. We said fuck the king, and succeeded.
This kind of thing is why people from more developed countries make fun of you.
I live in a "third wolrd country" and I would not consider moving to the US an upgrade.
[deleted]
I love that I'm being downvoted for saying how I feel.
Jeez, you guys take "patriotism" to a weird level...
Maybe we all need to spend less time on reddit and see the world trough our own eyes.
Y'all have really weird ideas about how life is in other countries.
Civil war, it sort of nearly happened in Aus though. (West v east)
Can you please explain a bit?
We were not that close to a war but there have been groups in the west wanting to leave 'Australia' since the 1800s, right up until 2017. It comes and goes as the capital is located in the east and a significant number of westerners feel they are left out of the loop when it comes to support from the government. This resentment is increased by the fact that West Australia is a massive financial power due to mining and what not. There was some radical people who wanted to leave by force but I can't seem to find where I read this.
Tasmania and Queensland have also wanted to go on their own but it is all fairly trivial and not that common of a sentiment these days.
I did start to write a short story on the possible future of an independent west backed by China (biggest import/export ties) and a US backed east engaging in a conflict. It just intrigues me but I would never wish it to be true.
Sounds like texas
I am Australian and I have never heard of this. Can you provide links? I am interested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionism_in_Western_Australia
That has some info on the parties and history. Ill try to find the other links.
I’m pretty sure Tasmania could not survive on their own though. I’ll read that once I get to work. Thanks!
The "What discontinued product do you wish would make a comeback?" question that's asked here every so often. They're all American products I've never heard of
The hate for some Internet or cable service providers. So they are crap? Cancel and move on, what is the issue?
The issue is that the US is fucking massive and a large majority of people live in areas that is only serviced by one internet service provider. So most people can’t just cancel and move on.
[removed]
Or illegal to do so.
I have exactly two choices of provider (3 if you want to add sattelite internet), Comcast who are expensive but offer decent speed or DSL that is barely faster than dial up. Moving on is not an option and that is typical in the US.
Internet/cable providers have functional monopolies throughout most of the country. It’s not helped by the fact that every few years new mergers between already giant telecom companies are allowed.
We would if we could, but we can't so we complain. Look up Ajit Pai, behold the horror.
The cops and the aversion tot he police in general. Here seeing a cop makes me feel safe. And they're always friendly too. Though tbh i've never been in a situation where a cop had a reason to be unfriendly to me but if i watch shows like Cops I feel like 99% of the time people bring trouble upon themselves by the way they act.
Sure in the US you often get stories about cops doing bad things but the US is a fucking massive country.
Most of the time, it is the people bringing it upon themselves. But you get extremists who blame everything on cops, using only a few cases, most of which aren't the cop's fault.
That show is heavily edited
Comcast. All I know is you don't like this guy.
You gave me the best unexpected laugh I've had in a little while. Hope you have a great week in...Australia? I'm guessing?
That's an understatement.
Having their own cars at 16. Here in uruguay you usually don't get your own car until you can pay it with your own money.
Also the debts. Here we have free education (from kinder to university) and free health care. Also if you work, you can apply to use one of the private hospitals for free.
Also i don't understand ehy everyone want to make loans for everything. We don't make one until is VERY necessary, cause always is a lot cheaper just to save some money.
Credit score sounds something straight from a dystopian sci fi book where megacompanies rate you on how good a consumer you are and everything depends on your score.
Also college / medical debt. My master's degree cost me about 2000 € in tuition in total (about 400 € / year).
Their obsession with family roots and how much of each of the world's countries blood they have in them. "I'm 1% Irish, 2% German, 0.5% Native American, 5% Scandinavian, 10% Scottish so I ordered a Kilt".
Guns and Trump. I've been to America several times and love the people there and America has some of the greatest Landscapes and sceneries ever. But I just can't help myself but to think that these 2 things are so fucking obvious to EVERYONE else in the world. It really shows how corrupt Americas System is, someone like Trump would have never made it to the top in the first place in other countries and gun lobbyists holding so much power to color the views of a whole country is ridiculous. And it's unheard of here as well.
Healthcare and weapons. They both seems insane to any sane person
Student loans & Gun Control (Ireland here)
The fact that some people wear wristbands saying not to call them an ambulance because it could bankrupt them.
Your extreme love for your military and soldiers. While I do respect our military I just don´t get it how you are so obsessed by it and that "thank you for your service" thing.
maybe its because America Saved the ENTIRE WORLD .... TWICE
and we are still doing it today
if it wasn't for the USA .. North Korea wouldn't be giving up the Nukes
do you think Justin Trudeau of Canada or Merkle of Germany could have got that agreement? HA!
Well, not to forget all those WMD hidden in Iraq and how the US brought peace, prosperity and stability to that region.... /s surely something to be REALLY proud of.
you need to look up "French Mandate" it was the French that screwed up the middle east
You also have to look up The Iraq Invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990
I am not talking about golf war I, when Kuwait was liberated on an UN mandate, I am talking about the massive screw up caused by Bush after 9/11 with all the lies and how a country was left in chaos and is until now.
I am talking about the massive screw up caused by Bush after 9/11
no you are not..
It was under Bill Clinton that the UN Inspectors were denied access to Weapon Sites in Iraq and it was Bill Clinton that still today holds the world record for the largest number of bombs dropped in a single day
The Nuclear and Chemical Weapon Inspections started over a decade before Bush Jr took office...
However almost every country in the world was behind the Iraq War..
Even China sent hundreds of Troops ... I think Mexico was one of the few countries to never send anyone to the middle east.. but then again Mexico has never helped in Any War because Mexico only cares about Mexico
Well excuse me, some of the major allies of the US where NOT behind this war. Like France (remember the "freedom fries" thingie??). It´s a fact that (Was it Cheney or Rumsfeld, I don´t exactly remember) had false information on the WMD which he presented to the UN. And the UN didn´t buy it and didn´t give them a mandate. The US had as much support as they could get after 9/11 with many allies fighting alongside in Afghanistan but even those allies knew that the information on Iraq and the WMD was bullshit and that the war was unjustified. It simply isn´t true that "almost every country was behind the Iraq war" in 2003. The exact opposite is the case. Either you are mixing up the events of 1992 with the invasion of 2003 or you simply have no idea of history. Little hint, you can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Opposition_to_invasion
major allies of the US where NOT behind this war. Like France
yeah France sent 18,000 troops
just stop man.. you got your mind twisted
You keep on mixing things up. You are talking about the invasion and liberation of Kuwait in the 90s aka "Operation desert storm". It was back then, when there was a broad coalition (including France) fought alongside the US. And they did not invade Iraq though as the UN resolution didn´t cover this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
But not in 2003. That´s a totally different story. The Gulf war in 2003 aka "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was not covered by an UN resolution and only a few countries joined the US in this war. France certainly didn´t. Get your facts straight. France and the vast majority of other countries did NOT take part in the gulf war in 2003. I have no idea where you have your numbers from, but they are not correct. I just think you keep on mixing up these two events.
Because without them, there would be no freedom.
I know what you mean, but I guess some folks in Vietnam and Iraq might disagree with you on that. And some other not so official war zones. Plus really, not every soldier is in any way a hero or doing any sort of really important job security or "freedom fighting" wise. So why especially thank them for their "service". Just because they are doing a rather normal (like any other office job or blue collar worker job) job just in uniform? I don´t think that is really something that special and something to get that excited about. But as the thread implies: it´s just something that many non-Americans simply cannot relate to, as it just isn´t part of our culture, just like this hyper patriotism you have.
Attitude towards medicine. All medical services here are free at the point of use, and prescriptions are only £9 per item (and my GP prescribes me two months' worth of anti-d's a time, so it costs me £4.50 per month to get the medication I need). We don't stop to think about calling an ambulance, or google our symptoms in place of medical advice, because we can get it without losing our credit rating over it. I also don't get why whenever the issue is brought up an American will always go WELL YOU PAY TAX EVERY MONTH SO IT'S NOT FREE, CHECKMATE like...yeah? a) so do you and b) the tax I pay is lower than your premiums and doesn't come with any co-pays or underwriting.
School/college in America sounds fucking terrifying, even before you factor in the mass shootings happening every other week. Extra credit? Major/minor? Sororities? Wha? WHAT IS BETA-GAMMA-SIGMA? WHAT DOES IT MEAN??
Guns. Only nation on Earth that believes access to guns should be universal, but access to live-saving healthcare shouldn't be.
The cult of celebrity seems a lot stronger in America. In England once a celebrity gets to a certain level of famous we have this weird thing where we turn on them and are no longer interested in them. I've noticed it a lot recently with Ed Sheeran. But in America, certain famous people seem to be treated almost like gods.
American Christians seem a lot more...hysterical than British ones.
Oh yeah, and basements. I've never seen a basement in my life, but every single American home has one? Madness.
EDIT: And sick days and maternity/paternity leave. We had two girls in our office take a year off paid to look after their newborn, then return and put their babies in childcare bc the state provides a certain allowance for this each month.
As a Belgian guy, I didn't know basements were rare in Great Britain.
I imagine a lot of older houses have them as pantries, but I've never seen one!
Calling your senator to do your part for _____
What is this supposed to accomplish? I’m sure the senators have their own staff to brief them on political issues. Would they really listen to a thousand anonymous people over people they employ to research this stuff?
I actually think this is absolutely lovable. Here (France), it's like nobody is ever satisfied by their representatives but then saying "hey maybe we should call them" sounds like the most surreal thing, as if our representatives were from another world and totally unreachable (both figuratively and abstractly). And that's kind of sad.
Well, they do.
I'm Canadian, and this is a thing here as well, a lot of public officials have office hours and see members of the public, have meetings with advocacy groups etc...
The idea is to just show that if 1,000 people are willing to take the time to call or write, they view it as a real issue they'd be willing to change their vote over.
The Senator or whoever doesn't actually give a fuck what the actual issue is, and they don't have staff 'researching' it, they just do what their largest campaign donaters want or what their political party says.
But if enough people voice their disagreement such that it would seem unlikely to be re-elected if they kept the position, then you'll sometimes see them defy their donors and party and change position.
Remember they're not voting for or against these things based on information or principle.
You've made a lot of false assumptions about American politicians. Calling them is almost the only way to get any attention from them. No, they don't listen much otherwise. Staff? Research? No they listen to their party and donors first.
If you are a constituent and polite your representative (for the most part) will at least listen to what you have to say. You are after all a vote and you are connected to other votes.
Literally this is what they do??? They work for their constituents. If their constituents call and write and make their views known, then the representative is supposed to you know... represent them.
Clogged toilets. Americans seem to have the world's worst plumbing.
School shootings.
Anything concerning guns
Student debt
Healthcare insurance
Working more than one job
What i really envy is being able to set up a side job from your home and sell what you make,(machining stuff for example) here it's basically impossible if you want to do it legally
I could go on, but let's stop at that.
Worshipping the flag and the national anthem.
americans are way into their patriotism like i could just breathe around an american and they'd start a 10 hour speech about the troops while a photo of a crying bald eagle in front of a waving american flag slowly fades into view in the background
The seemingly constant mass school shootings. The only threat I suffered at school was not making any friends
Honestly pretty much all of it. Health care, educational debt, opioid epidemic, meth epidemic, mass shootings, paying with cheques, crazy partisanship, military patriotism, religion being a serious topic in politics, abortion, no vacation time, no cheap childcare, stay at home parents, i could go on.
I was on board until stay at home parents. Is that something not common where you're from?
No not at all. We have affordable and universally available childcare guaranteed by the government. Also, we have 1.5 years of parental leave total that can be split among the parents as they wish per kid. So parents do get to stay home with their kids for a long time with 80% of their salary, but then they go back to their regular job. Their employers have to keep a role for them, it's very illegal to get rid of someone for having a kid. Lots of parents plan their kids so that the oldest kid may stay at home for the first 3-4 years and then usually one parent works a little bit less. The kids then go on to good childcare that is very very affordable compared to the US.
So there is really no need for stay at home parents. This is great because women get to have careers without sacrificing motherhood or vice versa. I know this is possible for a lot of women in the US, but here it is possible for more women.
Home Owners association. I can't imagine who thought it would be a good idea to give some random people the right to tell you how can and can't have your house. Seen so many horror stories on here about them. Seems so stupid.
Homeowners are scared of losing market value on their investment. When counties evaluate a homes value for tax purposes, it's directly related to your neighbors home value. It's not really a home, it's a money making vehicle. The fastest way to get rich is to buy a home cheap, renovate, and upsell for a profit. It's called flipping houses.
Please don't mistake my explanation with approval. It's killing us.
They aren't random people. While the new houses are being sold, the developer controls the home owner's association. After a subdivision is completely sold, the developer exits and the residents of that neighborhood control the group. So it's your friendly neighbors who become dark overlords.
School shootings.
Non universal healthcare. I had a hernia repaired a couple of years ago, I cost me $5 for my Oxi-coden.
Your republicans will argue that waiting lists will kill you, but that is not true. Elective surgeries are lower priority, but if you get diagnosed with cancer, or are rushed into the hospital with a heart attack you will get treatment right away and it won't bankrupt you.
Presidents.
In the UK, no one (that I know) really raves or celebrates upon the election of a Prime Minister. Life just goes on.
People going to the bar, drinking and then getting in a car to drive home.
I don't know how much of an issue this is, but here's one that weirds me out.
Americans: Stop cutting your dogs' ears just for looks! It's inhumane!
Also Americans: I'ma cut off my baby's dick skin. It'll look good.
I completely agree with the former, but those two mentalities can't coexist in my brain
Cognitive dissonance Most Americans suffer from it
Nobody cuts dog ears.
We sometimes have a program with pet adoption agencies where they will pick up stray cats and dogs, fix them and vaccinate them, and then try to adopt out the animal. They snip the ears after this is done so that if the animal is picked up again, they won't be immediately killed, but will instead be given to an adoption agency. People are more likely to adopt animals that have been vaccinated and neutered. Maybe you are thinking of that?
No, I'm talking about Great Danes and Pitbulls
Who the fuck does that? I did not know this was a thing.
Anytime you've seen pits or danes with pointy ears, their ears were cut in that shape. They have naturally floopy ears. I believe (don't quote me on it) that it was originally done for dog fights so the opponent's dog wouldn't grab 'em by the ears, and it stuck for a long time as the "normal" looks of those dogs.
Mass shootings Almost monthly. Nuf said
When the media makes minor celebrities of these shooters and fill their delusions of grandeur. It emboldens more to commit horrible Acts. Best way to get it to stop is to have the msm adopt a policy of not showing the face, not saying their names. Then allow School staff who would like to train to carry a firearm at school to do so. The reason they attack schools is because they know there is very little anyone can do to stop them. But if there was the likelihood that they were stopped at the door these horrible people would be less likely to commit these atrocities.
Guns
What is with the radio commercials? In Canada, the afternotes are spoken rapidly, but you can still understand them. In America, it's just fast gibberish!
There was this American commercial that target audience with heart condition and encouraged them to join a youtube community as a support group and I was outrage and just yelled at the t.v, "Forget the support group, just give them free healthcare!"
And the gun culture is just weirdest, Canada has VERY strict gun laws and control here and we're a perfect example of how it can work and it can prevent and/or reduce the casualties and deaths, but they, somehow, always deny that.
The great thing about rights is I don't have to justify my exercise of them.
No one asked you to
The right itself must be justified though. It could be argued that freedom from the fear of gun crime is a right. The 'right' to own guns is not universally recognized as overarching to other rights. Rights often compromise other rights. These things are not absolute or universal.
Uh... we were talking about America. Not absolute rights. It's a law. In America.
Yes you're right guns do increase crime.
No, guns escalate crime.
There's a difference.
Is there?
Quantity versus severity.
yes
I like bacon, didn't know it was on everything, I only see it occasionally.
But fuck me do I love cheese
[deleted]
What?
If breaking your leg causes you to lose your savings then you didn’t really have savings to begin with
who is turning into broken legs?
Oh hey another "Lets shit on America" reddit thread. We need more of these
Consider it inspiration to work on fixing flaws
Its so cliched, ill informed and douchey
If the perception is wrong, work to change the perception, if it right, work to improve.
Criticism is not an attack. Problems exist, they should be worked on.
And knowing how things look from the outside has a good value too.
Apparently the US is the only Western country with problems. It is downright amazing. The self loathing Americans are the worst offenders of the perception
That would be "what-aboutism" The question is about america, if you want to post a question about another nation you are free to do so.
I'm american, and I am not the least bit offended by any of this, lots of things need fixing, some are just cultural quirks.
Once again, Critique is not an attack.
Im not offended just annoyed. Of course youre fine with it. You think it makes you look sophisticated to shit on America to non Americans.
LOL! I do love reddit...
How do you make a muscle stronger? You work it until tiny tears happen, when they heal, stronger muscle.
How do knives get sharper? How does anything improve? Resistance, damage, repair, repeat. We have some severely fucked up systems, they need reform. Pointing them out is a good thing. Hey some other places have solved some of the same problems, we should look at those, and adapt them.
I don't know you about you, I kind of want my country to always be working on better. Perfect is not possible, better always is.
But its constant nonsense shit. Its every fucking thread about anything to do with the US and even other countries. Thread about duck hunting in Canada turns into how the US healthcare system is the worst in the world. There is never ever a compliment of anything American
So? Do you need constant praise and only sunshine and rainbows? I am sure there is a subreddit for that.
US health care is cripplingly expensive. Other places have solved this issue, and it is something the US should work on.
Look, we have differing views here. You want to wave around a tattered flag, and I want to sew up the tears and and repaint the pole.
Serious question- Can you provide any example of a pro-America thread that has been on the front page in the past several months? There's a difference between "needing constant praise" and reddit being a literal "lets constantly shit on the US at every possible opportunity" forum.
Threads are made of many people, how much positive does it have to be? Ratio-wise. But hey, you are always welcome to dispute what they are saying, and equally welcome to start your own "why is the US great" asks too. Try it! I might work.
Failing that there are other boards you can try instead. Find what works for you!
So? Do you need constant praise and only sunshine and rainbows? I am sure there is a subreddit for that.
No. Just how about a break every once in awhile from the constant trashing of the US. Its douchey
US health care is cripplingly expensive. Other places have solved this issue, and it is something the US should work on.
Solved it? The NHS is in a crisis with budget and staffing RIGHT NOW
Look, we have differing views here. You want to wave around a tattered flag, and I want to sew up the tears and and repaint the pole.
I disagree that the flag is tattered
"If the perception is wrong, work to change the perception"
Thats amazing logic. So if I make a statement like "all French people are cowards," or "black people are always drug dealers," both of which are untrue, its the duty of French people and black people to "work to change that perception?" Not the duty of the idiot making those statements to actually do some research for themselves?
Why not both?
I mean no one is going to research to change their mind without some spark or reason to, so you might have nudge them a bit.
In this case we were talking the issues of a country, so if something were wrong, show people why they are wrong (gently, we are trying to change perceptions here not start a fight). Give them something to change their minds.
Oh, hey look! Yet another thread where the rest of the world can come in and openly shit on America. Reddit's favorite past time. What fun!
Yeah, this starting to get pretty silly
America deserves it lol
In America your offended by the word cunt but in Australia we are offended by dead kids
Super expensive health care and such
School shooters
Gun problems
A lot of things that have already been mentioned, like resistance to gun control (it works, ffs) and an aversion to free healthcare.
Also, the massive food portions. I just. How? My friend went to the US last year and took photos of all of her meals in restaurants (mostly fast food), and it was astonishing. Her fries were refilled for free each time she ate half the portion. Her drinks were topped up for free. The pancakes she was served were as big as my dang head. Is food just a lot cheaper in the US? I feel like we would pay twice as much in the UK for the same amount. There must be such a high amount of food wastage, too.
The US is the world's largest food exporter. Being almost double the next closest country.
TIL!
Interestingly enough, the chart I was looking at to verify that has the Netherlands at number 2. Didn't expect that one.
But the Netherlands is so famous for its edibles!
I went to school in the UK. I saw literally no difference in portion size. I was terrified I was going to starve because I had always heard about our gargantuan portions. I spent 3 weeks in Europe last year, same thing, a negligible difference in portion size. So it’s bizarre how often this comes up.
Maybe it depends on which part of the US, or which establishment? I know your McDonald's portions are bigger, and we don't get the whole free refills thing at all here. I also do think that your groceries etc tend to be cheaper than those in Europe (but then UK groceries are cheaper than most in mainland Europe, too).
This comment slayed me. I almost worked in that our McDonald’s portions were bigger in the US vs the UK but decided I didn’t have space for it.
Tbh I think that because McDonald's is so quintessentially American, we might just assume that it's more representative of your portion sizes than it actually is! Everyone I know who's visited America has said that you get given more food for your buck there, but I haven't personally been.
We are finding common ground here. The food is definitely cheaper here in the US but I attributed a lot of that to the Pound being much stronger than the US Dollar at that time. I just meant that when I went into a restaraunt and ordered food, I felt like I recieved more or less the same amount. Definitely never went hungry.
Haha, I'm glad my people didn't starve you!
The food is definitely cheaper here in the US but I attributed a lot of that to the Pound being much stronger than the US Dollar at that time.
Food is heavily subsidized in the U.S.
I don't know how representative it is, but my wife and I frequently will share a meal and still have enough left for another meal. I do have a remarkably small stomach though so YMMV.
Food is really cheap here, but those refills and portions are mostly restricted to restraunts. Tends to be more under control at home.
Oh yeah, I should have made it clearer that I was referring to restaurants!
Nah, I think anyone would know from "free refills". At home we call em seconds lol
Her fries were refilled for free each time she ate half the portion.
The only restaurant I've ever heard of doing that is Red Robin, but if I'm remembering correctly (it's been a couple of years since I went), they give you a pretty small portion to start with.
There is a massive amount of waste. The thing people in Europe have difficulty understanding is the sheer size of our countries (I'm Canadian).
Let's take a look at the land area of England: 130,279 km². And now let's compare it to Ontario (my home province): 1.076 million km².
So my province is almost 10 times the size of a country.
A really fun one is to compare Scotland (80,077 km²) with one of our Great Lakes - Superior(82,103 km²). So we - US and Canada jointly - have a lake that is larger than a country.
Our farms are massive. Truly, unbelievably massive. It really wouldn't surprise me to find a farm that is larger than some European countries. This means we can produce massive amounts of food. So we either eat it or throw it out.
I find it so upsetting that you could probably drive through, like, 4 European countries and the same amount of distance wouldn't even get you through one US state. We're so puny!!
That’s scary . I live in Scotland and never really thought about how small a country we are but we pack a punch for a wee country
I actually pick on Scotland in that comparison because my parents are Scottish and all of my family - except for my brothers - are still over there.
I'm not allowed to watch Broadchurch any more since I start to develop the accent.
Our farms are massive. Truly, unbelievably massive. It really wouldn't surprise me to find a farm that is larger than some European countries. This means we can produce massive amounts of food. So we either eat it or throw it out.
The farms aren't that big, it's just that there's so many that you can drive along a highway for a ridiculous amount of time and it's like 99% farm. The largest farm in the world is like 22 million acres (China) which comes out to 89,000 square km, it doesn't look like a single farm is as big as a country (at least a decent sized one) in the US.
we either eat it or throw it out
Doesn't the US have an enormous poverty problem? Seems like you could redirect this excess food a lot more efficiently.
The reason that a lot of cooked food gets tossed from restaurants is because of food safety regulations and lawyers.
At the end of the night, a lot of restaurants toss any leftovers instead of giving it to the local bums because if a bum gets sick from eating some shit that has sat around and started to develop bacteria, he can go to the hospital, call a lawyer and sue you.
Not just for hospital bills, mind you, but millions of fucking dollars, because that how ambulance chasing lawyers roll and juries always side with the victim because everyone wants an easy payday.
So instead of losing your business to an act of charity, like feeding the homeless, fuck it, toss that shit out.
Now on the other hand, sealed food is usually given to food banks and local charities, but most people don't want to be seen taking handouts of dented cans of food and the like, so a lot of it goes bad too over time.
Yep. That's it. Legal and insurance issues with handing out stale or possibly unsafe food.
The other side that really gets my knickers in a twist is the perfectly fine fresh food - fruit and vegetables, mostly - that don't get sold because they don't look perfect.
It's perfectly normal for a red pepper to have a large portion that didn't go red, but it won't sell in a supermarket. There's no reason not to use it for something else.
In my 35 years in the US I've never seen a place that gives free refills on their fries.
Complaining about taxes or claiming that taxes are "stealing".
Absolutely ridiculous to me. Taxes are a big part of what make the best countries the best.
Sure I can understand that sometimes taxing can piss you off or like in my country, there's a fucking tax for literally EVERYTHING, already taxed money is being taxed in many cases, but the bigger picture is always more important.
Taxes are fine...it's when I pay taxes to help Africans create a Facebook account that pisses me off (or similar situations).
I believe this. Remember that the war that made our country was started by resistance to a tax. And it wasn't a large tax either, it was the principle of the thing. Any time you take money from a person, and it does not benefit them, I think you can call that theft.
That's a very small section of Americans.
It's a big enough section to be alarming.
No. It's just loud enough that you think it's alarming.
/r/libertarian has over 200,000 subs. That's already 200,000 too many.
Also not all American. And not everyone on that sub believes in being a libertarian.
That's fair, but I guarantee there are tons of libertariarians who don't use that subreddit too, probably a much larger amount.
What's wrong with people believing that you have to earn you own shit, that is isn't the government's job or anyone else's to pay for you, and small governmemt?
I'm mostly talking about their whole "taxes are theft" nonsense. And what's wrong with it is that it's incredibly selfish and anti-society. If they truly believed their ideology was better, they'd all go move into the middle of nowhere and fend for themselves, by themselves. Unsurpisingly, few of them do, they just want to bring everyone else down.
I'm sorry but what is the point of this question? All countries have different issues. All this thread is doing is making non-Americans feel superior for not having our specific problems.
I think it’s interesting seeing which problems are/are viewed as culturally specific.
Then you can leave the thread unroll the completely opposite thread is made relating to Europeans or Asians...
ITT: People who apparently have a need to feel superior to the US.
I'm pretty deep into this thread, lost count of how many posts that bashed our "need" to be superior, only for them to go on how their ways were superior. It boggles my mind.
Is it time for the hourly Trump column so soon?
The problems of Diarrhea. I had it once when i was 10 and had food poisoning, but it seems to be an everyday thing for you guys and it makes me worried about what's in your food!
What the fuck? Someone has lied to, I am so sorry.
Daily shit on America thread
School shooty rooty tooties.
Absolutely needing to have 28 firearms at your disposal at all times and getting licence to carry them and have them on your for grocery shopping because FREEDOM!
(am Canadian, btw)
This is inspiring, and makes me want to go buy another gun.
As an Australian:
School shootings
Healthcare debt
Going to jail for some weed
Jail for weed doesn’t happen anymore. There are usually more serious charges that result in imprisonment. Weed just gets a fine like a traffic ticket.
Most people never get significant healthcare debt.
An insignificant fraction of the population is affected by gun crime <.1%.
Good to know! I guess I watch too much Cops and we definitely get a lot of hype here in Australia every time there's a shooting in the U.S.
Jail for weed doesn’t happen anymore. There are usually more serious charges that result in imprisonment. Weed just gets a fine like a traffic ticket.
Depends on local/state laws. Where I live you most likely will go to jail.
Or worse yet, get given a sentence where you just have to show up to jail and work from 6 am to 6 pm on saturdays and sundays without pay for a few years ( I.e. Indiana )
Why Americans ask so many questions about themselves to foreigners. You guys care so much what everyone thinks of you.
[deleted]
You want doctors to be slaves?
Aren't they already slaves to their student debt over there? But that is another matter entirely
As a person of the U.S. this thread reminds me of all the reasons I am depressed about this country.
Wow it's almost like every country has problems, and most have way more! There's no need to be depressed over one of the best countries you can live in
You can move brah
Costs way more money then I can possibly make.
Catch 22 I guess. When you make enough money to move you'll realize you dont want to pay the taxes of these other countries.
We pay less tax here in Australia than the US but it's a bit hard to get in.
Taxes are way higher in Australia than in the US.
Nope. Only the very wealthiest Australians pay slightly more tax than their US peers. The vast majority of Aussies who are on low and average incomes pay less tax than their US equivalent. The calculators are available online.
For eg. A single person earning 30k usd who lives in new york will pay $5344 in income taxes. That 30k usd becomes 40k when converted to aud. On which the taxes would be $4500 aud or $3378 usd
I am looking at your tax brackets right now. Your rates are significant higher and kick in way earlier. As an example someone making 100k aus is in a 37% tax bracket. This is the equivalent of 75k usd which falls in a 25% bracket.
On 100k aud the tax payable is $24632. The 37% doesnt apply to the whole income as our brackets are graduated (37% is for every dollar earned over 87k) and the first 18k is tax free. When converted to usd 75k income the calc tells me you'd pay $19465 usd (as a single in new york, I chose the state at random avoiding california as i have read their rates are the highest in the us) which is $25931 aud.
Note this is all calculated as a single person with no children. In Australia depending on income you receive further tax breaks in the form of family tax benefit which is more difficult to compare as it takes into account both parents incomes and/or child support received.
No type of local taxes in aus? I live in texas and dont have state taxes. Just the federal income taxes alone on 100k aus your actual tax rate is 25%, on 75k usd it comes out to 19%. It gets much more lopsided the more you earn. I guess we're just talking about different scenarios, I'd pay a way higher rate on my current income if I moved to Australia.
Nah all our taxes are collected and distributed federally. I didn't know there were taxless states in the US so I learned that, google says there are 7 states like that. You'd probably come out even once you deduct health insurance premiums and deductibles if you have those.
I make a bit more than $75k though. 😀 Generally the people here that want all of those social programs are the ones that won't have to be burdened to pay for it.
This thread reads like "what is going on ever there? Are you guys ok?"
[deleted]
r/fatlogic
Your love for guns . 😂🤣 I do not understand it . What the fuck do you need so many guns for .
Well it all started with these assholes in red coats that wanted to make us pay them all these taxes, without equal representation within the government. Then they wanted to take away all our guns so that we would be forced to submit. Then we kicked their asses, and made it a constitutional right to own firearms so that we could do the same thing again to any government that over stepped.
So your telling me that your citizens would be able to defeat the us military 😂
Also that was like 100+ years ago the only ones your killing are yourselves .
How does a country like Serbia have 4x less gun related deaths when you only have a 35% difference in guns per 100 000
USA 112 Serbia 72
USA 11.6 per capita Serbia 3.4 per capita
Lol I never mentioned the U.S. Military. All I mentioned was any country over stepping. And we're fond of our constitutional rights. And I doubt Serbia has the gang problem we do.
Actually they have real criminals not lil uzi gang bangers that thing their 50 cent 😂🤣
This has, unsurprisingly turned into a shit on America thread, which is fine. Yeah, our president is a scumbag and our political system is in shambles but we still out here thriving. Keep hating.
An orange headed maniac leading the country.
That orange headed maniac helped end the Korean war
College debt and going the crowdfunding way so you can be operated/treated for severe diseases.
Banned words.
Just on broadcast television and radio.
Subway and KFC losing customers and serving worse quality food. They're doing decent in Europe, especially Subway, and KFC is very popular and has great items on their menu in Japan.
Okay?
[NSFW]
It's just like what Jim Jefferies said. In America, you can't pay a woman to have sex with you, unless your friend Steve is in the corner of the room recording the whole thing with a camera and you guys plan on selling it (pornography). So you can have a girl who just turned 18 yesterday getting it on with multiple men, and as part of the "climax" of the film, all these men will finish off on her face.
And in America, and ONLY in America, that "glazed" woman is not legally permitted to have a beer.
The American exceptionalism. My guilty pleasure is reading r/worldnews and r/news stuff sorted by controversial. It is insane how amazing and arrogant some Americans can get about their own place in the world. There are so many issues with your country and yet still they vehemently defend their "nr 1 spot". I get that you love and support your country but boy some of you can take it too far.
Even if there was a metric of "who is nr 1" and my country would be at the top, I'd never act like that.
Yes and then there are threads like these where the anti American circle jerk is in full force and people comment endlessly about how much better Europe is (for example). It goes both ways.
Yes and then there are threads like these where the anti American circle jerk is in full force
Haven't you kind of just proven his point? This thread is full of legitimate criticism of the US (much of it from Americans) and your attitude is not to reflect on it, but to dismiss it as a circle jerk.
This is why you can't have nice things: you guys just refuse to learn.
I never said I disagree with any of the points being made here. I haven't replied to a single comment complaining about gun ownership, medical expenses, college expenses, etc...because I agree with all those criticisms. But if you browse the new comments in a post like this, it's pretty obvious how many Europeons just use this as an opportunity to get up on their high horse and look down on all the "stupid, fat, gun fetishising americans".
Cultural appropiation. I really believe its only available in the US.
ITT: Every sensational headline that came from America in the past 24 months. (aka: nothing regarding everyday American life).
SJW. Those people are clearly manipulative and some of them are straight up insane.
Gun violence, college debt, healthcare debt, overbearing Christianity, two-party system, test-score-based school funding, and political arguments turning vicious.
Now that I actually write it out, your country's pretty fucked.
Schools in the US that still physically beat children for "discipline" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment_in_the_United_States
There are only 2 states in the entire country where it's prohibited in both public and private schools. 19 states have publicly paid teachers that beat children, and 48 states allow parents to pay a private school to do so.
Net neutrality
Having a crazy president.
These threads always just turn into a “lol fuck america bad health care and the stalls don’t go all the way down.”
It gets old
A lot of this stuff about racism. Not that it doesn't exist in Europe. But it's def not as much of a "thing" on social media. Also SJW or anti-SJW stuff is less extreme here. Sure there is uproar around people getting shit for telling insensitive jokes. But not all these videos about people of different cultures talking about the challenge of being their particular ethnicity etc.
Class division is a lot less in your face over here.
But it's def not as much of a "thing" on social media.
Y'all just have rampant, overt racism at soccer matches, complete with signage and riots.
Yeah, I guess it's sort of contained in areas like that. It seems like people are able to really live out their racist sensibilities at events like this. Although soccer teams are all of mixed race, so I'm not sure what you imagine.
I don't have to imagine anything, I watch plenty of soccer.
Beyond that, the other part you are failing to acknowledge is the difference in the press in both the United States most European Countries, and the way that such stories are promoted.
It's not nearly as bad as they would have you believe, so I'm not sure what you imagine.
Well I lived in the states for 7 years. In fact, in terms of "what they would have you believe", racism is a lot worse in America. It was probably the biggest culture shock I ever had. But it seems as though you are taking this personally or as if somehow my perspective is causing some discomfort in you. I don't know how else to explain your combative tone. I wasn't even arguing with you, just sharing my point of view.
There's no way to reliably establish whose is objectively more correct through a reddit conversation. And besides, who cares? I don't think we care, do we? I'm white anyway.
When did you live in the states and which part of the country was it in?
Contrary to popular belief outside of the country, we are not one monolithic culture from coast to coast.
Well on the surface western European and US culture seems so similar. Especially in the North-West where pretty much everyone speaks fluent english by the time they are 12. We get all these US movies, music and games etc, even for me who grew up before the internet became a thing.
And I get that it's naive, but I never really considered the fact that my whole idea of the US was based on what I had gleaned through media. Of course it makes sense that it's not accurate. I also had a lot of American friends from travelling the world. But the idea I had was not one of racism at all. I really thought that different races were part of the same culture over there.
So anyway, I ended up going to northern california and wound up living in San Francisco and Santa Monica for 7 years.
What shocked me was just how separate races really were. Like over in oakland it was all black people. In SF you had these neighbourhoods, like mexican in the mission, blacks in the tenderloin, white yuppie in certain areas.
Not only that, over there was the first time I really felt the separation on a social and emotional level. Just walking in the street, or at a club or grocery store. I could feel a divide in a way I had never even imagined before.
Of course that is not a metric by which to determine the intensity of racism. And that's not the only thing that shaped my perspective. This is just how it hit me on a personal level when I first arrived.
I felt like nobody prepared me for it either. Which made for some awkward moments in conversation. I remember having a nice chat with this black chick and I noticed she kept saying aks instead of ask and I genuinely didn't understand what that was. So I asked her about it and it was obvious that this hit some kind of nerve.
I told her then that I felt as though she was upset by that question and I didn't understand why. After all she grew up in the same city as all the other people, then how come she had such a different way of saying things? And she didn't give me an answer.
It didn't take that long until I understood what happened there. And that many of the things which stood out as strange to me were so normal to the people around me that they often didn't even understand what I meant when I pointed them out.
I guess that to me, this division between people and how it manifests on a social level is more of an indication of racism rather than racism itself.
I'm just sharing this because I don't think that the way racism is or isn't depicted in popular media is necessarily a reliable indicator of reality.
Getting shot
Most shootings are not random. Usually drug dealers.
Overly obese people and fanatics of all sorts. From religion to race to politics("alt-right" and "libtards"). Also really stupid people, don't seem to get that many of those here.
Toilet paper rolls running out. Am an Indian here. We have jet spray system at almost every major place now...close to no one uses toilet paper here. And if that jet spray is not available then people resort to the simple 'bucket of water' but ask anyone here about toilet paper and the reaction you will receive is "yuck it is not effective,and it is gross"
How do you dry your butt?
I use one of those sprays, but dry off with paper.
As an American, I've never seen a jet spray system, ever.
It's not much, tbh. It's just a small shower head attached to a pipe which is situated beside the commode. Basically, it is a miniaturized version of the hand shower.
Can you stop making “English (US)” the only option. Or just don’t put it there.
There are at least 5 other significant countries that officially speak it (including the one it’s named after)
English (Traditional)
English (Simplified)
Solved!
Also, abortions. Totally legal here, nobody gives a shit.
Gas being expensive, religion being common, datacaps
In Denmark a gallon of gas on a good day is $6.75. I do not know any christians and here datacaps are only something you have on mobile 4g and new plans are often unlimited too. Cable internet is decent where most people have 50/50 and anything under that is a slow connections.
All the trump bashing
That’s easy since almost half the country didn’t vote or support him during the election. Plus as long as you don’t threaten the President, by law illegal, Americans can basically say whatever we want at the President and unfortunately he has also has the Freedom of Speech to say the same thing back.
That's what we do to our presidents, we make fun of them. Trump makes it way too easy.
How they take everything to management instead of clarifying it with the person in question first. It just seems deeply coward to me
Mass shootings. Thankfully.
I hear you guys have to "pledge the allegiance" every morning at school, is this fully true?
To me it sounds like some north korean shit
Not really, thats old outdated shit
But there are a bunch of videos on youtube about it that are recent?
See we have to do it every day at school, it expires in 24 hours....
No idea what you just said
Our pledge of Alliance only last 24 hours, that is why we have to do it every morning at school. Otherwise communism might creep in.... or something.
Ah I see, it's a pretty weird tradition
Absolutely hating other cultures.
One thing I would like to point out is that a lot of these problems mentioned are due to large size and population of country. Its easy to give free healthcare and education in a small country with less population but US has so many communities that its not that easy.
I'm from India and we are also kinda facing the same problem.
Honestly there is not nearly as much of these gender wars and hate in Europe. Some things in the threads such as "I wish X gender knew this or that" are just common sense in my opinion and I'm surprised to see so much drama around basic human respect.
Tipping. Weird concept. College being so expensive. But mainly I don't get how many Americans just blindly watch and trust the media. I don't understand how in this age, where information is literally at your fingertips, so many are just blindly following the news and NOTHING MORE. I don't get why you want your own president to fail and why anything related to him warrants hatred and insane bias. Really strange to me.
Our media used to be unbiased. Look up who actually owns the major news outlets in America, its mostly liberals. So they can push whatever agenda they want. The vast majority of people i know have turned off all the news. We dont talk much about it either. On the other hand, where I'm from there is major support for Trump and what he's getting done.
Obviously school shootings. It seems to happen way to often in America. I can't imagine what would happen if there was one in Britain.
Dunblane 1996
Thankfully this type of thing is as rare as hen's teeth.
"how is X a thing in this first-world country?".
I don't think the USA is a first-world country. No free healthcare, still have the death penalty, states all have different laws, no net neutrality...
Most of them. It's really not as bad as the news makes it out to be here.
Once you go out and actually talk to people here, you'll find that it's really okay here.
The title should be "Non-Americans of Reddit, why do you hate the US.
Bible oaths? I mean how is that still a thing that is taken seriously?
Not so much an issue, but Americans are the only people to use the imperial system for measurement. Which may not seem lorna big deal, but I'm from Canada and when I drive across the border the speed limits all change measurements. No idea why they stick with system as it is confusing and they are the only people using it. It's so fricking weird.
As an American, I am now thoroughly depressed.
Same.
Conceal or open carry.
I come from a country that doesn't have that and we have a shooting death rate that is FAR below the rate of the US. Our gun laws aren't lax, but they also aren't that strict. Anyone can get a gun in Canada as long as you have the certification. It's like a drivers license but for guns.
"Religious morality" rules such as no premarital sex, no abortion, or no adultery. And guns. Basically, almost anything a Republican politician would say to get more votes.
Those political positions and justifications don't exist in Europe, at least nowhere I've ever lived.
Liberals.... Liberals and their nonsense I absolutely cannot relate to.
Classmates gunning me down
Their flag & soldier worship is strange to me.
Their obsession with someone's race or cultural background and having to mention it when signing up for things. Their simplistic approach to politics with only the two options that apparently determine your entire personality and moral system.
Their objectivist philosophy of life and government that says if you don't have something it's because you don't deserve it because you didn't work for it so I should help you fuck you. Wanting giant cars.
Thinking anyone is probably a pedophile.
Being able to kill unarmed black men with no repercussions outside of some media coverage for a few weeks.
Getting offended as a hobby over stupid shit (although this one I've seen people from England also getting into)
Having random people flip out every few days and shoot a bunch of people out in public, and then changing absolutely nothing so it keeps happening.
Being super weird and regressive about a bunch of things like equal pay between genders, depictions of sex, holidays for workers, maternity leave for pregnant women, murder of abortion doctors, prostitution, marijuana etc
Being super weird and regressive about a bunch of things while still holding yourself as the benchmark of liberal progress in the world and ignoring all the countries that have already had those things for decades.
This is just what from what Reddit has shown me in like a week.
The flag "worship" is not necessarily that. It's more like honoring the memory of your.family member who served. My father served in the army when was younger and was honorably discharged due to a injury he suffered through training.
I still have his flag one of the soldiers gave to me to during his resting. I still like to think of it as one of the last things my father gave to me before saying goodbye to him.
Other countries do this too besides the United States..
Electing your head of state, what happens if you elect an idiot?
School shootings. Worked in a UK school for several years, never once worried about something of that scale occurring specifically in a school.
school shootings
Horrifically high healthcare bills and the debate over whether or not climate change is a thing come to mind... Oh, and what's with all the guns?
Health care and guns.
It is inconceivable to me that anyone could argue against universal health care coverage, and the way I see firearms talked about by Americans in the media or on Reddit is like looking into an alternate dimension.
"Non-Americans of Reddit, how would you like to subtly complain about America while keeping it disguised as normal conversation?"
Every. Week.
Race-assignment for babies. My american friend is a white dude and his wife is african-american. They're 7-ish months pregnant and we get talking about their prepwork for the baby. He told me they were trying to decide what to put on the birth certificate, since they knew if they put 'caucasian' or whatever it is, the baby might have an easier time in certain contexts down the line, but it also felt weird. They also considered putting 'mixed' or 'multi racial' or somesuch, but that too has some really unfortunate connotations.
There is no such thing as registering your race in any official context where I live. I've never seen it in an unofficial context either. Frankly, I would feel that it was a huge overstep and deeply inappropriate if an official institution demanded official documentation of my child's race.
prescription drugs. everywhere. for everything. all over the TV. wtf?
Police violence. Im mortified that the police can kill me on the street if i make a wrong move...
I cannot understand why there has been absolutely 0 governmental response to massacres happening constantly all over the country, and mostly in schools. In SCHOOLS. No gun control measures. No measures at all.
Every part of your gun culture is at this point is terrifying to anyone thinking of travelling there, it was for me.
I cannot understand why
US politicians answer first to the corporations and other special interests that give them campaign contributions and other gifts. In a country of 325 million people, an organization representing 6 million people (not all of them even necessarily voters) has a virtual lock on shutting down gun control legislation. The number one issue for politicians is where their next dollar comes from. If they upset X group, they can count on that group funding the campaign of a competitor in the next election. Yes, America has one of the most backward approaches to democracy.
Hospital bills...
Get a healthcare system already!
Your country is crazy y’all!
Owning guns. Or even wanting to own one.
Health insurance.......or deciding if health care over food/shelter is most important.
Sadly it's seemingly not an issue, but that whole genital mutilation of baby boys just by convention is pretty fucked up for a 1st World country.
Trumps love and administration for dictators and his apparent distain and disrespect for close and proven allies. And of course the so called patriots who blindly follow this. Perhaps history doesn’t exactly repeat itself but man does it do a good impersonation every now and again. I live in Germany and lessons can be learned.
anything health insurance.
Guns
Reading this thread makes me cry. I grew up thinking that it was a privilege to live in America. But it's anything but. Our country is so fucked.
Our country has problems, but it is still an excellent place to live.
That's not enough. We could do a lot more, for our people and the world, but we refuse to because we only care about profit and having power over others.
Wait, so is our country fucked or excellent with room for improvement? Also, no we don't. That's some post- modernist crap right there. If you have that view of this country you need to meet more people and watch less tv.
It is a privilege living in the USA (not American but been there). Most of the people bitching here probably envy you, and the overwhelming majority of the Earth's population would love to be exactly where you are with the freedom that you have.
[removed]
And you live in...?
Don't lie to yourself.
Okay, but... there are so many things we do that actively hurt our people because we refuse to take positive steps, for the stupidest of reasons. That's worth talking about. We need to get off our American Exceptionalism trip, which has never done anything but gotten us into trouble, and get real about our problems.
Most of the people here appear to be from countries where there is absolutely no reason to envy me whatsoever. My life would not be one iota worse or less free if I lived in Canada, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, etc. etc. etc.
There's no mistake the US has done that other countries haven't done or tried to. No need whatsoever to feel guilty. Feel proud of the amazing gifts the USA has bestowed upon the world.
Every country has problems. Nobody has it 100% correct. As an American, we aren't the first country to have a bad leader, or violence issues. We aren't the only ones with religious fanaticism, or racism. We aren't the only ones who have debt, or people who have financial issues.
If you asked each of the people responding to this thread, and asked them for things they don't like or understand about their countries, they would definitely have things to list. Our country isn't fucked. I think there is a general ebb and flow to life, and right now a lot of people are pushing back against the status quo, so it seems as though all of these problems are new, or worse.
We do have problems in the US. But we are also raising the most aware and socially responsible generation yet. The issues that the past couple of decades have uncovered or magnified will be dealt with in the next couple of decades. That will probably cause some more things to come to light, and the next generations will deal with those things.
The baby boomers stood up against systematic racism and got the ball rolling with racial, gender, and sexual equality. Generation X moved that ball a little farther. Millennials are redefining what equality means in ways none of us thought were possible.
The next generation is going to have to deal with things like universal basic income, Social Security/retirement, AI and things that are just cresting the horizon. Some ideas will be great, some will be bad, and some will just be mediocre. But you get up, figure out what's working, what's not, and you adjust.
Don't look at the way things are now and think that they can't change. We still live in a country where all positions of power are up for grabs. 10 years ago Bernie Sanders would have been a small blip in the political discussion. An obscure first term Senator would have never had the clout to be in the running for president, let alone win 2 terms. Trump would have never won without the internet. The internet is changing the way we gather and dispense information. Grass root candidates can get votes by having their name spread around in an instant. It's the young people who have the power to take back the government from the corrupt. Find candidates for local and state government who would do a good job and support them. When they prove themselves with a little, let them rise to higher positions, so that those who do the best for the most can scale up.
As people, we have the responsibility to adjust our circumstances. If something makes sense, keep doing it, or start it. If it doesn't make sense, stop doing it, or don't start it. Just don't look at things as if they'll always be as they are. Stand up for what you believe and do something about it. Make the change. Show support for others making a change. Be the person your descendants will be proud of. Be the person you will be proud of.
Tl;Dr - We aren't fucked unless we do nothing about our problems
I live here. I was born here. I'm a citizen. I pay my taxes. I vote in every election. I join organizations. I donate time and money.
And I have every fucking right in the world to express my feelings in this thread.
You didn't tell me one thing I don't know, or already feel and believe, but I hope you enjoyed your moment on the soapbox.
I did. I like helping people who feel like things aren't going well realize that things can get better. You didn't say you were actively part of the solution. Most people who are helping make things better have hope, not despair. It's one thing to say that we're in a bad place right now, but it's a totally other thing to say that the country is fucked. I'm happy to hear that you're doing your part. If more people do theirs, we can help make things right.
I'm sorry that my comment made you think that I was bashing you. I just saw a comment that looked like it was coming from a place of despair and utter hopelessness. My comment was an attempt to help show you (since I thought you felt hopeless) and others who may feel the emotions that you presented that there is hope and that we aren't doomed.
Awesome, we almost went a whole day without a "What Sucks about America?" thread.
Thanks, OP!
This one qualifies:
Every Christian wedding I have ever attended has included MULTIPLE speeches that revolve around how the bride and groom are ~finally going to have sex that night. The last one I attended was for a cousin of mine and his best man's speech included something like "we all know how athletic he is, which should come in handy tonight!" While one of the bridesmaids referenced how "sex will soon be your favourite sport". So. Fucking. Creepy.
Working for below minimum wage and relying on tips, and choosing to do that job and not leave for one that reliably pays better. Also, drive-thrus that aren’t food places, like drive through pharmacies and banks.
Working for below minimum wage and relying on tips, and choosing to do that job and not leave for one that reliably pays better.
A large amount of people who work in the service industry are there only temporarily while in school or on weekends to make a little extra cash, but I still think it's bullshit that anyone has to rely on tips just to get by.
drive-thrus that aren’t food places, like drive through pharmacies and banks.
Just lazy.
American here. Married to a Dutchie and have spent time living in Australia, the UK and other countries so I can understand, at least partially, some of your perspectives.
This post shows me how extreme some people think about headlines they hear about America. Guys, it’s not as bad as you think! Some exceptions; I agree the healthcare system is not very fair and a huge cost hole, but many of the things posted here are just a bit extreme and enjoyable to read and laugh at. Don’t worry, we are humans too. Haha
Your politics: 2 party system? The way of campaigning: realy agressive and commercial it seems. Trump: like common guys... Your gun laws and why people even think they need a gun? School shootings, i cannot even remember one in europe (but probably there will have been one) Sueing people for what we here in the Netherlands would probably see as your own fault. Advertisement for lawyers next to the highway. No health insurance for everyone. Until recently the fact that weed was illegal. Your patriotism and "american dream", like cool, good for you, but who cares, be humble. And i could probably come up with lots more.
ITT: list of reasons why the US is a third-world country.
Trump. I don't give a fuck about him, stop flooding reddit with trump shit. He's your president, he's gonna stay your president for at least a couple more years. Get over it.
As an Australian, I just don't understand how a country with as much resources as America has such low educational outcomes and their medical system is horrendous.
Can I say Flat Earth? These guys... are not joking around are they?
Lots of Americans seem to believe it and I think there's even a convention for those according to some news. There are probably other Flat Earthers outside the US, but it's just probably a lot more concentrated in there.
Using the imperial system to measure things (just completely illogical to me) and PUTTING MONTHS BEFORE DAYS IN DATES! WHY?!
July 4th October 31st December 25th
We say some of the holidays different, but that's how the majority are said.
School shootings/ mass shootings.
They virtually never happen in my country & when they did we did something about it and they haven’t happened since.
See Jim Jeffries stand up bit on guns/ gun control for the full story.
BLM
The whole feminist movement, the rape epidemy your seem to have, the gender theory/studies. I'm french and I'm super glad no one ever brought any of those subjects at school or college, or work, or anywhere. Every time I read about it it sounds so toxic my brain bleeds.
Now I try to stay as far as I can away from it on reddit.
Most of us hate it too, tbh. Sorry we have to export that to the rest of the world.
Bash the USA: a thread
The gun culture.
I'm not advocating any particular stance on gun control or the 2nd ammendment , but the fact that such a widespread and heated debate exists at all is fascinating.
Hell, my country is going through a spate of violence and extra-judicial killings right now, and the politics and news media never seem to mention the topic of arming citizens for self-defense.
The focus is more on bringing crooked cops and politicians to justice.
We don't really "do" guns.
police brutality, being sued for some dumb shit, being shot going to school, drinking water,
Gun Laws
How is the medical system and gun violence not number 1?
The gun thing
Gun violence.
Shooting school kids with assault rifles stands out.
Mass shootings in schools.
I absolutely cannot comprehend that children can be afraid to go to school and those in power do nothing to improve the situation because they're hamstrung by political donations...
school shootings
Gun control, Australia set it up years ago an nd there hasn't been any mass shootings since
School shootings
Why would we need weapons, serious question. Almost forty and never seen heard or witnessed violence with a weapon and I live in Glasgow. !!! Men tend to use fists in a fights here. Never heard of anyone other than a school child carrying knives . Your country your rules, I get that ! Just find it strange . Look , if that makes you feel free, chap on.
Mutual combat is not what weapons are for.
They're for when you don't want to fight but are forced to, because you should have an advantage.
I avoid violence, it complicates things.
But if someone tries to visit it upon me, I'm going to do everything in my power to put them in the ground so that I don't have to deal with their bullshit again.
I don't like violence but I'm lazy and don't want to fight the same asshole twice.
You won't have an advantage if they have a gun as well, which without gun control they will. All you've accomplished is enacting a race to the bottom in combat.
It's also a lot easier to commit atrocities with firearms than it is with knives or even explosives.
Also... you'll kill someone because you're lazy... I'm going to go ahead and say that yeah you are violent, but it's a byproduct of your culture.
I'd rather race than be left in the dust.
I refuse to die because I didn't do everything in my power to defend myself.
If you don't then more power to your corpse.
Let the earth inherit the meek.
Right, but that's the whole point of a state imposing gun control, you won't have to race.
Tell that to the other states whose criminals just go to the newly defenseless state next door.
Tell that to the country that does the same.
Sorry, I meant state as in nation state.
Gun control isn't much of an issue in Europe, you could see how they handle it as they've much broader borders to deal with than you lot.
Europe never had more guns than citizens in its territory.
Europe never had a founding right in favor of ownership.
Lazy defeatism.
It's adorable that you think so.
Just the border with Mexico (a failed state run by narco gangs) is longer than the perimeter of some of your nations.
America is really big.
We have a state park that's bigger than Switzerland.
Aside from being unconstitutional, imposing a firearms ban in the United States simply would not work.
There would be a civil war and the lesser Washington would lose it.
Because criminals don't get their guns illegally?? You're an idiot
It's exceptionally rare that they do in the UK.
The fact that you felt the need to end that small comment with that infantile insult goes to show how most Americans think with their hearts rather than their heads on the topic of gun control.
How is that not thinking with my brain? In Chicago they have very strict gun laws, so how are criminals getting guns?!? They're illegal it can't be possible!!!
Not having access to proper health care. Shithole country?
My healthcare is better than yours and I don't pay 50% of my income in taxes.
Being scared of black people.
So this really just turned into lie about America.
You need to get off the Internet and see how people actually interact. It is nothing like the picture that reddit paints. Seeing racism in action is incredibly rare and I live in the South where its most prevalent. People are generally decent with the exception of a few pieces of shit.
Hahahahaha
People who aren't around them don't have that fear... Weird.
what?
Do you mean like how the left kowtows to their every whim? Or how little old ladies cross the street to reduce their chance of being mugged?
Yeah nobody ever crosses the street to get to the other side. Its all about preventing getting mugged
All of your date/relationship problems. I feel like you guys are always making it so complex when it truely needs to be simple.
Whether its having to wait for a certain number of dates to do certain things, managing several dates at the same time, the whole "is this even a date or are we just hanging out" thing...
It's much easier in Europe (or at least in France) :
"Hey you wanna be my girlfriend ?"
"Sure"
"Neat"
To be fair, you're on reddit. Socially adjusted people in America don't have those issues.
I'm moving to France now asap
Itt: people listing the things Americans hate about America. That is kinda the point though, but in different words
American here, just chiming in to say that the more I read from non-Americans about what makes my country un-relatable to the rest of the world, the more I'm convinced that we are a severely flawed example of how a country should operate to best serve its citizens.
Sadly, I think that it's ingrained in our culture from birth that the U.S. is the superpower is has been for years because we're still "the greatest nation in the world." Even JFK asked Americans to consider what they could do for their country rather than the other way around.
Remember: the highest trees catch the most wind. Most countries are flawed, some more than others. America is probably the most "visible" of all countries, therefore its flaws become way more visible.
Another what's wrong with America thread, worded differently I see.
Man, foreigners sure do love to bitch about the US.
It's jelousy
A lot of these issues aren't a big deal, but rather perpetuated by reddit's echo chamber to make it seem like a big deal.
School shootings
Are so rare they are negligible
Therapy, Suing people, lack of real gun control, lack of public holidays, lack of actual holidays, social security numbers being on paper, working for $4 an hour plus tips, trailer parks.
So So many things I just don't get - but it's a place that I'll keep going back to
Wait, what's weird about SSN's being on paper? Do you mean as opposed to being on more durable materials?
Expensive healthcare, guns (school shootings, 2nd amendment, NRA), corporate personhood, not able to get an abortion, Fahrenheit, natives (not sure on the correct term), and having to immediately pay off student loans regardless of whether you have a job or not. Also how bloody long your election races are, it’s so annoying.
School shootings are negligible, the 2nd amendment is an extension to the natural right of self preservation, and the NRA is a group of people that realize this
corporate person hood is acknowledging that an organization made of people has the same rights as people, and people don't suddenly lose rights as an individual when they join a collective
if you dont want student loans, dont take them
Guns! From Australia
Why do you need to send men with guns after me for exercising my natural right to self preservation?
The high school shootings. I cannot comprehend that.
School shootings and how they're not related to being able to buy guns in supermarkets.
The supermarkets that sell guns are legally the same as any gun store
School shootings.
are so rare they are negligible
Rare compared to where?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
The only country with it's own dedicated "School Shooting" Wikipedia page.
Rare compared to any other sort of death
That list is completely invalid. it includes a fuck ton of events that are not school shootings. It even includes events that did not involve a firearm, did not occur on school property, and no one got hurt or injured.
That has nothing to do with OP's question though, the question asks.
which issues frequently brought up here by Americans can you absolutely not relate to?
The person who replied cannot relate to School shootings as they generally don't happen regularly in the western world outside of the US.
Paying for Healthcare
I mean, health care isn't free, for anyone.
He/she means paying for healthcare at the point of use
Either way, he/she is paying for it.
Bankrupting yourselves so you don't have to pay slightly higher taxes for free health care.
Trumps election and your election system all together. How did it even get to that point?
The whole "I need a gun to defend myself" thing. Most countries have crime but we don't "need" a gun to defend ourselves.
Would you rather fight someone who has broken into your house with the intent to kill you with a gun or your fists?
See I live in a country where the chances of that are low enough that I don't have to worry about it and because firearms are harder to come by I don't have to worry about someone having a bad day on the office and going on a rampage.
Id prefer to have the best measure of self defense possible.
But how much of the risk of someone breaking in whilst armed is due to living in a country where firearms are relatively easy to aquire? From an outsider looking in it looks like the problem is created by the solution. Ie everyone has guns so there is more gun violence, requiring people to be armed in order to defend them self which cause more people to be armed.
The thing is over the last 25 years the amount of guns have increased, while the amount of gun violence has decreased...and still is decreasing.
I would want to arm myself even if guns were not allowed and you could guarantee criminals would not get them.
If someone breaks into my house and we both dont have guns, there is still a pretty high chance i could be injured or killed.
It comes down to who is bigger/stronger/faster and I do not want to play with those odds. I do not want to have a knife fight. I want the best means of defense possible.
I do not see why i should have to sacrafice my right to do that when i have done absolutely nothing wrong with my gun.
Besides i dont think its even possible to completely ban guns at this point. There are 400,000,000+ legal guns here. God knows how many illegal ones. How do we get rid of them?
I think it's fair to say that we won't agree on this matter. I guess I can understand wanting to defend yourself, but like I've said previously. I live in a country where at the age of 35 where I haven't met anyone that has been violently attacked at home by an intruder, with or without a firearm. I work in a business with about 1000 people and before that I've worked in a other roles with large numbers of people. It's just not a thing that we have to consider on a daily basis sure we lock doors and Windows, you try to avoid dark alleys and stuff, you know the basics but we don't have this constant fear of "I need to defend myself". So like op asked it's a situation I can't possibly relate to.
Down voted for mentioning an American issue I can't relate to? Good job Reddit.
Your obsession with guns.
Well it all started with these assholes in red coats that wanted to make us pay them all these taxes, without equal representation within the government. Then they wanted to take away all our guns so that we would be forced to submit. Then we kicked their asses, and made it a constitutional right to own firearms so that we could do the same thing again to any government that over stepped.
Guns. You guys are just crazy fucked up.
Edit: sorry that some people can’t relate to the fact that the rest of the world can’t relate to the crazy gun love in America.
What is wrong with this?
wrong with what? my post or gun love?
Owning guns
No idea why you were downvoted. There are a bunch of pussies all over here downvoting stuff 'cause feelings.. take that upvote back.
Remember, the question is "what issue we can absolutely not relate to".
Guns culture, from a European point of view, if beyond crazy. Guns are tools made to kill people, which is something that is not that necessary in real life (yeas there is hunting as a sport, but the American craze with guns has nothing to do with hunting. There is hunting in Europe, and I'd say most people are somewhat cool with that).
But, from Europe, seeing people hoarding guns, talking about the subtle difference between two models of human killing machines, bringing kids to shooting ranges, gun shows, having the possibility of buying those killing devices with little to no background check is completely weird. The idea that it is ok in some places to have a concealed weapon, as is starting to fire at people was something you need to be ready to do is mind-boggling.
While guns are part of the history of America (far west, etc), they are also part of European history (WWI, WWII), and many families still have stored guns from the war, particularly in rural areas, but the general attitude is "those are killing machines that should not be handled by the public". We don't really care if that makes us pussies for you guys, it is just like you wouldn't you neighbor to build an atomic bomb in his basement.
This attitude with guns is also particularly visible in Hollywood movies. There is no blockbuster in which there isn't hundred of guns firing shit all over the place, as it is was the only way for anything tense to actually happen. Believe me, from the other side of the sea, it is really weird to see.
So, yeah, this is an issue "we can absolutely not relate to".
A lot of stuff to do with health and nutrition, about how people are fat through eating too much bread and corn syrup in everything. Corn syrup is rarely used here due to it not being subsidised, people don't eat all that much bread and yet obesity is still on the rise.
That laws, regulations, taxes, etc vary greatly from state to state and even city to city. Like, it always seems to come up when people talk about how American stores don't include sales tax in price labels because the tax varies so much, but I've never heard anyone talk about why that tax varies so much. Over here all that stuff is almost universally constant across the entire country.
Think of the US as a bit more cohesively formed union than the EU. All the EU member states have different tax structures and domestic policies, yet can trade and move freely between each other. Big difference is that the US federal government has way more power over the people here
Sales tax varies simply because the rate is set by the state and local municipalities. It starts at the state level, but counties can impose sales tax also, and even though I don’t think it’s common, cities can also. The county where I’m from originally was a full 2 percent higher than the county right next to it.
It used to be somewhat common for people in that county in Tennessee to drive across the border to Arkansas to shop because years ago, local sales tax was 8.5% there and sales tax just across the bridge in West Memphis, Arkansas was 5%. If you lived close, it was a pretty significant difference, especially for large purchases.
The county where I’m from is in Memphis, TN and the sales tax on food items at the grocery store is 7.25% and sales tax on everything else is 9.25%.
I live in Mississippi now and it’s similar although I don’t know the exact numbers.
Am neither American nor European. So Incan safely say most of the things.
So Incan safely say most of the things
You're from Peru?
Pretty much anything to do with guns really. Not so much mass shootings and so on, but the way that gun ownership seems so key to the American psyche (Brit here).
PDT time
Donald Trump
So much credit card debt...
(UK) Is IPA really a hipster thing over there? It's been my go to cold weather beer for years alongside pale, but now I'm seeing American audiences say it's just bitter and unpleasant (which it shouldnt be).
All American craft breweries first come out with an IPA, as it is a simple process. But we have very different styles of IPA's such as New England, West Coast and East Coast. Some brewers love hops, and that is what give it a bitter flavor. When I first tried an IPA I really didn't like it. But in general, IPA was hipster thing but has now gone mainstream.
Now I try to stick with New England style cause it is just so damn hazy and delicious!
Americans don't understand beer, that's the problem.
The whole to-do about buying your first bra. In so many books I've read with American young girl protagonists, it seems like it's seen as this big milestone in a girl's life. It's just not a thing where I'm from.
Exactly. When our youngest needed her first bra she said "I think I need a bra". We said "OK, we'll pick you one up when we next go shopping". No big deal.
Think of it as a coming-of-age ritual.
It wasn’t a big deal in my house, just a thing that happened.
Quality of tap water.
Culture related stuff, questions like "what are the best restaurant chains"
Country roads and things being so far away
Net Nutrality
Racialising everything, excessive patriotism, gun laws, medical bills, America-centricism, etc etc
Their healthcare system. It scares me to think that something entirely random could happen to you, but that's too bad, pay $200,000 or you'll just have to suffer.
[deleted]
Fair enough. Fixed
Eating ass, I feel like it's not much of a talking point here
I'm American and I don't get it either.
The cost of car payments and healthcare.
We all know about the healthcare but the amount of money people pay each month for a car really surprised me. I don't drive in the UK myself but my Wife has a car and we went for the cheapest, reliable car we could find and paid for it from our savings upfront. It was £2000.
I see people paying hundreds of dollars a month for a truck loan.
I know typically shops, homes and places of work are spread out in the US and driving is a necessity but do you really have to spend that much?
It’s probably partly a supply and demand thing. Cars are much more of a necessity here. I don’t think a lot of non-Americans appreciate just how spread out everything is. Point being, demand is higher.
Just spitballing, of course.
Edit: somehow I missed your final paragraph... I don’t know how. Ignore me!
Edit 2: I’ll try to add some more context. Multi-car families. I think a lot of places in the UK/europe, if you have a car, you probably only have one. Families in the U.S. are bigger, and multiple cars are frequently a necessity. So, that increases the demand of cars even more than you might think when just considering distance of places alone.
Cars are frequently also seen as a rite of passage for teens. So, that’s probably a non-functional reason to add to all this.
[deleted]
Corn subsidies/sugar lobbying and lack of wide-spread preventive healthcare.
Sugar is in literally everything.
days off, or sick days ... In eu you can take time off to cure hangovers, in US u cant stay home even after pregnancy ...
Simply not true. If you've ever had to schedule anyone or worked in a job where you were asked to cover when someone called out in the US, you'd know this is a wildly incorrect assumption
Yeah, no. This is not how it works.
and how does it work how much days off u have per year ? or sick days ? or maternity leave ?
It varies by company. Full-time employees between 2 and 4 weeks vacation plus 5 to 10 days sick, plus national holidays. Maternity leave is not required in most states but many companies offer it. What might justify your statement is part-time workers. They get usually no benefits to speak off and many of them would not get paid if they did not work. Being poor they choose to work.
what about you, how many days off you had last year or per year ? And how many "holidays" per year are there ?
I looked for full times jobs in us in IT, and none of them was even close to what are you saying, also friends who live there agree that there are very little on average.
There are companies in the US that have "take as much time as you want" leave policies and others that pay people a bonus to take leave. admittedly, these are unusual. My company is 4 weeks leave, 10 days sick and 3 months maternity plus all national holidays. We also have very good health and dental insurance and a top class retirement plan (called a 401K). Unfortunately, there are way too many companies that treat employees like shit.
so we do agree then, you have great like really great benefits but it not something common.
Here it starts from 26 days off its 5 weeks, + 24 hours of leave which ammount to 3 days + unlimited sick time. Maternity is 6 months payed 100% 6 months payed 8% + you can add vacation and not payed time and still keep your job. Also 11 -14 days of festivities during the year.
so average person has 35-40 days minimum per year. Also if we go donate blood you get the day off paid and it takes 15 30 minutes. and you can do that several times a year.
so we do agree then, you have great like really great benefits but it not something common.
Mostly we agree. I have no data to declare if it is common or not but I would guess it is not.
are u american btw, ur nickname is very Russian
British (Scottish) with Dual US Citizenship. I used to work for Antonov Design Bureau in Ukraine on the Antonov 124. The Nickname for the aircraft is the Ruslan hence the username.
The University system. Truth being told, I actually have mixed opinions on it.
I don't really see why you don't even study anything specific in the first year, the whole point of University imho is to specialise (even more so than the specialisation you take in high school). However I think the major-minor thing is pretty good but only if the two subjects go well together (politics + sociology, a science and a language etc.).
Greek life sounds rad, if a bit extreme, wish it was bigger here to be honest (although we do have clubs/societies).
Electives - they exist here, but aren't as prominent as in American courses it seems - especially for STEM. My first and second years, for example, (aerospace engineering) have no optional modules as far as I can tell.
I think the educational philosophy at the college level isn't as much about specialization and having a well rounded education. So there are courses that everyone, regardless of major, is required to take. These take up a lot of the first two years. It is also viewed as an opportunity for students to try different things and figure out where their interests lie, so that they can make a better choice of what to major in.
Nudity... ppl really dont care about naked little kids on beaches, or topless women or similar stuff ... Americans take it seriously
People are constantly making references to the American remake of the Office, which I’ve never seen. No one ever talks about the original show despite it being a comedy classic. Always makes me irrationally angry.
You should watch the American version. Not because it’s any better than the original. Just because it’s really good.
Being Scottish I saw the entire UK series first and loved it. I now live in the US and struggled with the first couple of episodes of the US version but it did turn out to be excellent but different. I will say Steve Carrel does not even come close to how cringeworthy (in a good way) the Gervais portrayal is.
Its definitely a show you need to power through the first season it finds it footing in season 2. I generally like originals compared to American adaptations but the Office and Shameless are my exceptions.
A few things
Homecoming
Gun Control
Having to pay for healthcare
Calling the bathroom a restroom
Not having public school uniforms
I have never known anyone to be kept back a year
How each state is basically a mini-country with it's own laws and values.Very strange.
Anything relating to weight, if it ain’t in stone, I cannot fathom how heavy something is.
I remember watching Tomska’s Fat Loser yesterday and at his heaviest he said he was 240 lbs or something, I had no context for it until I read 19 stone.
19 stone is really heavy. I’m around 11 stone, I think that’s 155 lbs in american but I can be sure.
Your passion for your flag.
I wouldn’t like to see any of Uk flags burned, but I wouldn’t cry over it or feel intense anger.
Worshipping the military.
Religious fanaticism.
Debt/mortages.
Medical bills.
University tuition.
Being unable to afford [insert basic human right here].
Not being able to get medical attention because you can't afford it.
Double or even triple jobs.
Tax returns... I don't understand the whole idea of the government giving money back to you. Here we file our taxes and we either end up paying (most of the cases) or we don't pay anything, the government never gives money to you.
It must be hard going though life so belligerent and angry all the time.
It's exhausting
The deep issues of personal finance in r/personalfinance. The financial costs of life isn't nearly as bad as they are in the US over here.
Having nice things.
Haha . I am just outside glasgow . Bet your parents missed good old square sausage . We all sound like David tennant
In general, debt.
That Climate change is a hoax. I am from India and everyone here believes climate change is real.
People being shot and killed on a daily basis. Very rare where I'm from. Also, police carrying guns.
That Climate change is a hoax. I am from India and everyone here believes climate change is real.
Also having to pay for all healthcare.
I dont get how they have to pay a LOT for health...
Hospital fees. It's an absolute shit concept. I payed ~₹10000(close to 200usd) when I had an accident and had 3 fractures in my skull. And it was a 5 star hospital. All the consecutive visits to make sure my eye didn't get sucked into the fracture didn't cost a dime.
Paying for medicalcare
The worry about medical treatment costing me any money.
Oh you need a heart transplant? Right this way. That'll be £0.00.
Oh, you had to pay a taxi to bring you to the hospital? Submit a receipt and we'll get that paid back to you.
Anything related to their health, "care."
The obsession with the flag and respecting it. That shit is crazy to me. People in my country like our flag but no one is losing any sleep if if touches the ground or anything
not really what you ask, but I feel the general American news is mostly based on America, unless its a war or dictator or disaster, which I suppose put many Americans at a disadvantage, when it comes to comparing their country, with the rest of the world in talks with the rest of the world. because the typical person from the rest of the world who would speak english in such forums, would have news where the rest of the world including America had a much bigger part.
TL;DR so us infidel outsiders, know much much more about your country then you about ours.
First world shit
The extreme levels of respect you all have for the military. Discounts, bonuses, special license plates you call it. I'm not saying it's wrong rather just completely different from anything I ever encountered here in the Netherlands.
Health care costs. I've had Americans argue with me that their lower taxes was worth more than free health care because they don't get sick.
Electing an orange as president. We only elect potatoes (as prime minister) in Belgium.
https://img.humo.be/q100/w600/h/gvdw/humo/48f7f8e4ce71176de19da0253fe7da06/charlesmichelmrpotatohead.jpg
Going broke if you break a limb.
Having to pay for an education..
lmao, who pays for that stuff?
Guns...
That some American feel that they need a gun to feel safe.
Ranch dressing.
Wtf is it and why is it seemingly in every single Pinterest recipe?
And the guns, religion, politics etc.
Have you not tried ranch dressing? That's sad.
Sorry it's a mayo base with garlic and herb seasoning, very popular here
It’s quite likely we have something the same but don’t call it ranch! Anything mayo based in the UK seems to just be mayo with XYZ.
No universal healthcare.
Seriously. That shit is barbaric.
As a Brit now living in Canada, i cant imagine having to decide between STAYING ALIVE vs SAVING MONEY.
The amount of ads during tv, we just cut straight back to where you guys would have waited for it to play
The sheer amount of frivolous litigation. What is it with Americans and suing over everything?
Never encountered a broken ice cream machine.
This is a McDonalds-specific problem.
It's what happens when the restaurant is too cheap to perform maintenance. See McDonald's.
[deleted]
The funny thing is, most of us actually would love to have a universal system where we pay a bit more taxes. It's our politicians that hate the idea- a lot of their most powerful lobbyists are from the healthcare providers, so you see our dilemma.
Shootings, and the tipping of cash. I'm the sure the large population difference would be a part of it.
Well, here our servers only make around 3 USD an hour so cash tips are expected for good service.
I thought the employer was supposed to make up the difference if they didnt reach minimum wages?
As a chef of 10 years, I can tell you they don't.
Also, the ones that do- the super corporate chains, are only required to make it up up to minimum wage at 40 hours a week, regardless of foodservice workers routinely working 50-60 hours a week.
Yikes I can't imagine working 50 hours a week, you would have no life at all!
Usually we work a full time and a part time job- or else how would you afford to rent in a good area, or a car, and bills and food? My older brother just turned 30 and he has a 40 hour a week job and a part time he does 24 hours a week. I hax two jobs and a work study during college to help cover tuition, and still had to take out 12,000 a year to cover it.
I'm being honest when I say I really can't comprehend this at all! I thought America was cheap? Massive houses (3 bedrooms plus with a pool and big garage etc) can be bought for less than £200k in areas that look lovely (Florida coast for example). I know that New york city and San Fran are expensive but there are plenty other places.
I live in UK, which had much lower wages and higher property prices and living costs than America. I work 37.5 hours a week and have a mortgage, live in a great area and have regular holidays to Europe.
This really baffles me.
Then why don't you sue them or at least report it to the trade union? No way should a company be breaking the law like that.
Lol "trade union". We don't have that option for servers here. And it's perfectly legal to do what they do to their employees- it's something that you agree to when you're hired on. It's in the paperwork.
Peanut Butter? What with americans talk about peanut butter so much?
It's cheap, healthy, and useful. Lots of good recipes. But most important, it's cheap here.
Medicalbills.
These Baskets and balls. I just dont understand, although i would like to try Chef Currys Le Bron, sounds like a fancy french dish.
I'm not sure if this is something that TV shows created or if it's really common, but I cannot relate to eating a sandwich for lunch. Even if it's an elaborate sandwich with a wide variety of ingredients, I don't think I would be able to rely on it until dinner time.
I can't imagine a different lunch, and have trouble seeing it as dinner.
I have eaten sandwiches for dinner before but it was only because there was no "conventional" dinner, and it felt weird! I felt like it was a snack or something.
Sports.
It's not so much that the sports themselves are different, it's the whole set up surrounding them. Franchising, draft and college systems, pricing and the manner in which support is given and ownership systems seem incredibly strange to us. There's places where the american way can sometimes seem to have more of an advantage (e.g the draft system and closed leagues make sports extremely competitive) but these seem to be directly at odds with the American way of life and it's a wonder how they get the support they do.
The continued outrage over Russia meddling. I've read a lot about it and while I believe the Russians definitely wanted Trump to win and likely have him wrapped around their finger, how is it any different than the way Saudi Arabia and Israel have had other Presidents so wrapped. If I was American I would be way more outraged about his policies and just general corruption. Hillary ran a shitty campaign. The electoral college gives the presidency, even if a candidate gets a higher percentage of the vote. I'd be more hung up about that.
The electoral college is designed so that you can’t just win California and New York and be the president. If the votes were purely by population, the ideal campaign strategy would be to campaign in those two states and no where else. With the electoral college, you have to win a good majority of all the states. It makes each state matter more.
Yeah, I understand the need for a mechanism of counterbalance. My personal opinion is that Hillary lost the election fairly and that the Russian 'interference' paled in comparison to strategic failures (not taking States like Mich. and Wisc. for granted) by her campaign and the billions of free coverage Trump was given by the media.
I agree. In my opinion, trump didn’t win because he was a great candidate, Hillary lost because I can’t think of a worse candidate.
Peanut butter.
[deleted]
On college. It's a trade-off between access and cost. Compared to a lot of Western Europe we have higher college admissions because, unlike a lot of Western Europe where weather you go to college is determined by a test in HS or tracking of some kind leaving you with no other options, the US prefers to leave your options open. In exchange you pay for the freeer access to college
[deleted]
Yeah, we can't wait to get out of our parents homes. I didn't. Who wants to be known as needing your parents?
I live in the UK and don't know anyone who has been circumcised. It seems like it is a much more common practice in America, and honestly it seems pretty crazy and I don't understand it.
It's quite a bit more common here (and Canada as well) than in the rest of the Western world. Began around the 1920s...because it was thought that it would prevent young boys from masturbating.
Religion! Isn't it great?
Well I had no idea that was a reason for it, why would it make a difference?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless, I guess I'm lucky to be in the minority here.
Americans don’t bring it up actively but I just can’t understand why they don’t have proper toilet doors. Why are the gaps so massive?
because it saves money, which is the only thing that matters here
From what I have been told by an American - certain places are obligated by law to have public bathrooms but they do not want to pay the maintenance. So the huge gaps are to stop you getting privacy, so you're unlikely to use it, so the owner has to spend less cleaning and maintaining it.
All of the crap that’s put into your food? Obviously we have added “bad stuff” in our food too, but no where near as bad as what I saw in America. You have fructose syrup in stuff I didn’t even think needed it
Taking people to court for the stupidest reasons and demanding a shitload of money. Like seriously, why do you guys do that. "Oh, I have emotional trauma from that guy tripping and dumping is diet coke on my jacket! Pay me!"
As opposed to what?
Accepting however shittily someone treats you with no legal recourse?
Dude, I never said that. But demanding millions because a cup of coffee was hot... seriously? I mean, if you don't know that coffee is hot than you're stupid.
The case to which you refer is not so simple as "lol coffee hot, u dumb".
Prior to that incident McDonald's had a policy of free refills on coffee if you were still in the establishment (like they do for soda).
In order to disincline customers from exercising this perk, they overheated coffee so it wouldn't cool to a drinkable level in the period of time the average customer was present.
As a result, the coffee given to the woman who filed that suit was well above safe temperatures and when she dropped it (from the heat) she suffered second and third degree burns over the majority of... a very sensitive area.
Every idiot who trots that out as an example of a frivolous lawsuit is actually proving the need for such suits.
An establishment knowingly endangered customers in order to avoid actually fulfilling the terms of a promotion to attract customers resulting in severe trauma and lasting injury to one.
Ok, so that one may have had some ground. But there are so many others. What about the judge who sued a small family cleaning company for millions because they got a stain on his pants?
My point is that Americans seem happy to sue for ridiculus amounts of money for small issues. Why the hell is that? Here you'd be laughed at if you tried that. If there is an issue with actual cause you don't get millions, there are specific rules about that. You get compensation, yes. But you can't ruin someone into,debt just because you want to.
There are frivolous lawsuits for sure.
Many of them even win.
But the possibility of a lawsuit helps keep bad behavior down somewhat of only for fear of hassle.
The fact that American presidents can't do more than 2 terms. Why? Surely if a president is great enough to be voted in over and over again then he is worthy of staying in office?
Remember the history of the country. There is a fear of monarchy/power staying with the same people for too long. FDR did four terms and political cartoons started saying things like "King Roosevelt" and such.
We don't like entrenched monarchies.
The constant shitting of ones pants.
Wtf? Where did you get this?
Countless stories in threads on AskReddit involve someone shitting their pants, always Americans.
Not really brought up, but I've always wondered why ye can't have a referendum on gun law, since it's such a dividing factor? Even just having it in the same vein as you're presidential elections, where ye have electoral college, so everyone gets a say instead of a small minority of people just boycotting the government or bribing them like it sounds like the NRA does (not an expert, sorry if that's wrong) (maybe this idea is just coming from the fact that I'm a young person (19) in Ireland, where we are having our much too late purge of religion from state affairs via removal of it from our Constitution, with like 8 different referendums on the way)
Drinking before 21 being illegal seems to be very odd
Medical debt/costs/bankruptcy.
Don't get me wrong, getting sick can still be a big financial challenge here too, but it's not the kind of "sudden unavoidable collapse into life-long debt bondage" the US specializes in.
Sports, sports, sports, sports.
We watch football (soccer) and if you are a big fan of your team you also watch Futsal, Handball, Volley, etc., but you don't watch it 24/7.
Also, our teams are usually the same, so if you have a football team they usually also have basketball, volley, etc.
I couldn't imagine cities like Madrid or Lisbon having different teams for each sport. There are a lot of small teams but you don't have 3 mega teams in 3 different sports.
Health care and tuition fees.
Health care costs
Hearing about the next global scandal caused by our country’s leader. Ours is too meek and mild to do anything of the sort
Someone once said, if you need this particular oil or somethng, you should be able to get it at your town's local gun store. WH Smith & Wesson? (UK). Mind you, we have LUSH shops, the smell of which can easily knock down a target at long range.
No paid maternity leave.
You don't think parents should take responsibility for their own children?
For profit health care
Filing your taxes...Wtf is that all about? I never had to file taxes in my life!
Yeah, tax preparers have a lobbyists. So, no easy taxes for us.
The net neutrality thing
Bumper stickers.
Seriously, why do Americans have to advertise every fucking thing about their politics, kid's school, church, etc... on the back of their car?
Anything really, most of the stories sound just so complicated because of different social, financial standards and so much weird laws.
Dealing with stuff at 'the local walmart'. Wtf is a walmart? We don't have any of those in the uk.
Count your blessings. Imagine a large building, built like a box, with 20 foot, sorry, 7 or 8 meters high ceiling. Then fill it with anything people buy. Everything. Food, clothes, hardware, electronics, housewares, sports, pets, gardens, just everything. Then remember that the people who work there are paid exactly minimum wage, which won't pay your rent. But they can get welfare benefits. The building won't last more than a decade, and nobody buys it afterwards. But all the other stores close because they can't compete.
That's pretty shitty. T'swhy we need unions.
This is probably a bit to late but weapons.
Here in Europe we don’t see them often only the army or police has one. I’ve never even touched a gun
Having to answer for the behaviour of your nation's leader.
College football being a big deal
When they have health insurance but accidentally end up at a doctor that's out of network and suddenly owe 23 shartillion dollars to a hospital somewhere. I don't understand how you can be fine with that system..
Also, in some states getting fired from your job for potentially no reason (at-will employment) other than the boss not liking your face that day. I'm glad I don't have to work in the US, it seems you can be fucked over in a myriad of ways for no fault of your own
Health care in this country is fucked, and I'm sure the majority of people would love to have universal health care. But the majority don't trust our government to run such a program. Now I'm from a state that requires one to have health insurance and my job gives me great benefits. So in my case I won't go bankrupt if I need to go to a hospital.
As for the At-Will employment, it not really that bad. Most companies in there policies make it hard to fire someone right then and there. Most have a 90 day probation period where they can fire you without any reason. After that, they usually have some reason.
It works out for the company and for other employees because it gets rid of the people who are not good at their job!
Issues with homeless people and pets. Don't really have that in Norway
You don't have homeless people? Or do you not have pets?
No homeless people or homeless pets
Wow, hard to imagine
I can't relate to wanting to live in Naturaldisastersville.
Living in a place where nature can easily ruin your life has always seemed crazy to me.
Where do you live?
Manchester, UK. The biggest natural disasters we get are an occasional spot of snow, and a bit of rain.
Does censorship count?
Because at least there's an off season for tornadoes and floods.
Censorship of what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom
By censorship, if you mean "Being a racist in the UK is not allowed". Yeah. How's that not a good thing?
In practicality, you can say what you like here as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people.
If you're referring to the Tommy Robinson debacle, he was breaking the law.
I'm referring to the fact that anything other than incitement, calumny, fraud is perjury can be illegal speech.
Those are the only valid exceptions to total freedom of speech.
The whole high school culture. Do they actually bully people that much?? I am right now on a school that would be equivalent to high school. I never see bullying, the bullies would be frowned upon by other kids.
Yes, it's traumatic.
All of them
Not going to the doctor/hospital because you don't want crippling debt
Graduate from college at 21. Also I've noticed, that lots of Americans start family at very young age (20 - 23yo).
Anything related to guns-wars. I mean, freakin' kids wanting to be part of the military seems damn CRAZY! War is one of the worst things to me and people from the US just take it like nothing, even when they see how soldiers suffer from PTSD. Also, guns+general public=Disaster. Eventually, some freak will get a weapon.
Leaving school with dept
The credit system. What the fuck is that supposed to be :)
Sometimes you need or want something now that you won't be able to afford right now, like a car.
Thus credit.
I know what credit card is. But how one "builds" credit, and why should I use credit cards to be able to get a loan just boggles me
Financial institutions that offer credit use your credit history to determine how likely you are to default rather than pay.
Your credit score is how they rank it.
Credit cards and large loans both contribute to or detract from that score because they're measuring the same thing: financial responsibility.
The likelihood of loss versus gain on their part due to actions on your part.
You start small with credit cards and establish a pattern of behavior that demonstrates your ability to use credit responsibly which raises your credit score and from that you are able to have higher credit limits and lower interest rates on loans.
Because you're trustworthy.
Actually I’m not of any nationality. I’m a SoVeIrGn CiTiZeN. I am a free inhabitant of earth, and I am bound to no law.
The tipping culture. Here we only tip for absolutely outstanding service or if you’re at a very very high class restaurant.
Student loans and healthcare problems.
The whole hospital fees which are insane in vevery aspect, like the amount they pay at a hospital is a tuition fee of a university for 2 years at least !
Data caps and internet speed. I can only dream of having something as good as a TB of data at 100Mbps per month.
Biscuits and gravy. Why are you putting gravy on scones! What is wrong with you heathens!
Don't knock it till you try it. 😜
American think they no longer have to pay us the money! XDDD THIS IS NOT CORRECT!!! XDDDDD
I've never had to bury a child or a friend because some cunt brought a gun to school.
All the fast food restaurants which we either dont have, or are less central to our lives.
Actually Harold & Kumar go to White Castle had to be renamed in the UK as we would think they were going to an actual castle.
How you all talk about your class getting shot.
net neutrality
Expensive medical bills or prescriptions and I’m so thankful for that
I am American and currently live in California. I have been very fortunate in that my career I travel to Europe for more then 8 months out of the year, mainly the Baltic regions. When I come back to America and I am just disgusted with how many over weight people their are and how "normal" this has become. People are so convinced here that they will not get the body because they do not have the time to work out. Well guess what not every European works out and they are not over weight. It makes me sick, I don't care if you eat fast food every day just don't over eat and you will lose weight. It's disgusting.
Mutilation: injure severely or disfigure
I am completely uninjured and feel no pain and like I said before my member is not disfigured but quite pretty and impressive to most. By definition yes a piece of skin was taken from me without my consent but I have never known it any other way and am not bothered by it.
Paying thousands for medical treatment and potentially going bankrupt as a result. Also guns in schools... Or anywhere really.
how neighbours pry and report to social services if you leave your kid home alone. i know it's really unsafe to leave children unsupervised, but i honestly think americans are over anxious. I was given a set of rules growing up in india (including, don't open the door at all, don't cook there's food already and don't watch too much tv) and was fine without any supervision and actually really loved the days i was home alone watching sappy movies on the telly.
It's worse than that. CPS are encouraged to take kids from their parents, so it's usually remove the kids, then ask questions.
Abortions, kind of a basic human right? Huh Texas?
Also why is everyone always drinking bottled water? I'm sure most of you have nice drinkable tapwater?
How college works in the US next to France.
Like for some people it takes 5+ years to get a bachelor degree because the price of education is so much high that they need to take a year break to get enough money.
One summer working full time + my scholarship (1600 euros a year) completely covered housing/food/registration price for the whole year, I still have 300 euros left for last summer.
Also, people saying stuff like "I work full time and go to college full time". How do you do that ? Can you chose the classes you attend and so have like 15 hours of classes a week ? Because I had something like 25-30 hours of classes/week this year and struggled to balance it with a 5 hours/Week part time job with the styding and all.
Oh and your grading system, I think it's common to north america as a whole because my canadian friend told me the same, but apparently in the US a 70% grade (which would be a 14/20 in France because grades are on 20 points) is "meh" while in France it's pretty damn good, it's rare to go above 75% (15/20) and "meh" is like 10/20.
The high costs of gasoline and health care. For comparison, gas in the area of Canada where I live is about $1.20 per liter. In the U.S., it's around 75 cents a liter. And on reddit, I've read more than one nightmarish story of someone who ends up owing a hospital 50 or 60 grand for something that in Canada would cost no more than a week away from work.
Mr Rogers. Whoever the fuck he is.
A children's performer, a Marine corps veteran, war hero, and the sweetest man you'd ever seen. He encouraged compassion, understanding, politeness, and acceptance. Unique for his time.
Paying for healthcare
Oh boy it's this thread again
Net nuetrality.
like who says my internet should be open and free?
/s
Not being able to afford health care. Living in fear of a mass shooting. Not being able to buy cakes because of government-sponsored biggotry. Constantly worrying about which nation my country will invade next. Having a leader embroiled in scandal and suspected of being a Kremlin puppet.
I could really go on and on. Get your shit together America.
Gun violence - it seems obvious but in countries like UK (where I am) and Australia we don’t have easily accessible hunting rifles and I don’t think assault rifles (or any automatic guns) are even legal here. We don’t have mass shootings for a reason - we don’t have guns. Americans say having a gun makes them feel safe but that’s only bc others have guns. For example if a child hits another kid with a stick the parent blames the child but still takes away the stick. To me it just seems common sense that America ignores bc having a gun is cool.
Standing in line for movies.
Not here per say, but on other forums. Where to locate my 6 concealed weapons? Car door, glove box, center compartment, boot, belt, shoulder. Oh the hardship.
The price of healthcare and educational system
College Sports. My (UK) family stares in amazement when I show them 100,000+ people watching a college game.
Messaging on android. Looks like the rest of the world settled on WhatsApp. (which itself is American). USA is still trying to agree on a platform.
Gym memberships
MLM's
The occasional gunfights
School shootings, and the crazy reactions to school shootings.
no net neutrality
Most countries don't need it because there is good competition in ISPs - for example in the UK if Virgin Media decided to institute a block or a slowdown on traffic people could move to BT or Sky or Andrews & Arnold or Plusnet or EE or GiffGaff or TalkTalk or...
Am American, but can I throw for-profit private prisons in here? This is insane to me, and there have been back-room deals between judges handing down sentences and the for-profit prisons.
We have them in the UK too, run by companies like Serco and G4S. We haven't had any massive scandals with Judges taking bribes to put people away, but we do have issues with them being insecure, having riots often, lack of staffing, lack of enforcement of rules, easily available drugs and contrabrand, and general incompetence.
Judges here actually get leaned on by the government not to lock people up because it costs money and we don't have enough prison places.
While not rampant, there have been some big bribe/conflict of interest cases. Unfortunately, one of the biggest involved juvenile prisons: https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/08/12/pennsylvania-judge-gets-life-sentence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/#1b3308c84aef
Even worse, our laws regarding juvenile prisons are very very grey area, and kids can be incarcerated without having committed a crime. This judge was locking kids up for misbehaving at school!
That's just mad, we'd never get a case like this in the UK. People have to do something serious to get put in the tanty
Alimony. To me it sounds like quitting a well paying job for another one I find more fun, then asking my previous employer to pay me the salary difference.
Guns
School shootings and gun laws. Live in a country with many guns, but with stricter gun laws and almost no school shootings
The crippling debt you are paying off because of that ambulance that was called when someone else knocked you over in their car etc.
Medical debt.
School shooting or mass public shootings in general.
Getting shot in school.
Net neutrality
Net neutrality
There is no non-western opinion in this thread. Mostly Europeans and Australians opinions. I would love to hear more diverse opinions like from Nigerians, Ethiopians, Iranians, Khazakistanis etcetera.
Drinking ice cold water even in winter
Health care - it's just completely insane.
Tipping
Taxes not being included in the price of grocery store items/restaurant menus. At least it is my understanding that they aren't. I don't know if other countries have this, but Germany certainly doesn't and it makes so much more sense.
We dont have any taxes on basic groceries in Texas if that makes you feel any better.
getting broken off because you can't pay the neighborhood tax on a gambling spot you just opened, probation officers, coleman dope, having to pay off the local police gang unit...
Money. Even in Western world , most people live on much smaller wages and cost of living isn't proportionally smaller. Just compare cost of living to average salary and note how big of proportion some spending are.
Trump is a good President. I cannot relate to that
Getting kicked out of your house and having to support yourself and live alone as a female. It's extremely rare where i come from.
So much American politics.
Also, for a country so developed, religion is running rampant.
Going to buy something and having to calculate the tax pre-purchase
It’s part of your contract when buying the house. Typically the developer includes the creation of the HOA with the paperwork when they are developing the neighborhood. That way it maintains the property value associated with their name. Anyone that buys a property from said developer, is also forced to join the association, or they can’t buy the house. There are older neighborhoods that create HOAs after the fact. Those are voluntary in most cases. But most newer neighborhoods in America will have an HOA because of the developer.
HOA's are often prohibitively expensive and I do not abide (aka I dont live in a hoa neighborhood, and god willing I never will)
HOAs are really only common in areas that have a housing shortage as a way to keep "poor" people out. Saying most newer neighborhoods have a HOA is completely false unless your talking about specific areas.
It's been my experience that the new developments along the Front Range tend to have them. When I bought my house I looked for a 25-30 year old house with expired covenants and an unformed HOA for that reason.
Using the house's thermostat. We don't have that here, them fancy stuff. Just an electric fan that came free with the stove and it's on, rain or shine. Oh, 37 degrees Celsius? Turn on the fan on oscillate. What do you mean it's June and raining? Put the fan on 1 and turn it left a bit. I'm getting a little chilly.
I think it's so weird how even redditors (I remember le atheism) seem to all have "their" church they go to. And it seems super common on reddit. I don't know anyone personally who is religious beyond going to church on Christmas so it's something I can't relate to at all.
I don't even know what you really mean by "I was at my church". Do you mean mass, the building, some kind of "community meetup" with other church people? What do you do when you're at your church?
I bet I can think of more...
EDIT: I can think of more:
What's weird about our high schools?
How you have to pick which classes you have, and the fact that there are different versions of the same class (like AP). Also, the after-school clubs, the sports teams...
High School in my country is just the classes that are in the curriculum; if at the end of the year you aren’t approved in 1-3 classes, you have to take rec classes of those after school on the next year. That’s really it.
Gun violence. Denmark has very strict weapon laws. I knew a guy who got a huge fine because he accidentally left a papercuter from work in his car and the police did a routine check. (This was late evening Friday, in close proximity to people drinking) The police feared he might stab someone in the nightlife.
Anything related to your ridiculous politics.
Get so sick of this american shit on here, really, i wish there was a European version of Reddit.
Healthcare
Being sent to the principal's office. Why are all these principals bothering with petty student things instead of administrating and managing the school? Also, hall passes. And tardys! If you were late, you slunk in silently and shamefully, and depending on the teacher's preference you said "sorry I'm late, because reason". Some teachers locked the door to the classroom and you simply missed that class as punishment. The concept of "talking back" boggles me as well.
We have to be tough on this because of legal culpability. The teachers and school maintain liability of students while on campus If a student skips class to fight or leaves campus and either commits a crime or gets into an accident, the school is open to potentially devastating lawsuits.
Patriotism. In advance I must say that I'm from Germany and ever since after WW2 being (openly) patriotic was "dangerously close" to being a Nazi (it isn't the same of course but people became very careful with all that for obvious reasons). So maybe it's just a niche german thing but to me it feels like there's no reason to be "proud to be an American (or any other nationality)". I mean you may (or may not) live in a great country but why be proud of it when you personally have done nothing to make it great, you were just be born into it. It's like if Bill Gates children would be proud of being rich. It's nice and all but it's not like they did any significant work that led to their richness (hypothetical of course I don't know about his children actually, but you get what I mean hopefully).
Choosing health care based on cost. Like ‘well I was gonna get it checked out but I don’t have insurance and I can’t/don’t want to pay.’
I just can’t wrap my mind around this and I don’t get why Americans think this is better than universal health care. I guess since I can’t wrap my head around their situation the opposite is also true... they probably can’t wrap their heads around how universal health care would work.
I mean, we know how it would work (probably a medicare expansion to everyone), but regulatory capture and lobbying means that no UHC program is going to be geared towards the general populace instead of towards making a few huge companies insanely rich.
At this point you guys would have to put those companies out of business for the good of the public and because of the issues you mentioned... this isn’t going to happen. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of private insurance right now and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Universal health care works because it’s not profit based in the typical sense. We put tax dollars into a pot and then those dollars are MEANT to be spent on health care (whether or not they’re spent properly is a whole other topic lol). But the goal is to spend that money. An insurance company takes money from you and instead of spending that money on your health, their goal is to keep as many of those dollars as possible in their pocket. Their goal is to NOT spend that money. So until they are removed from the equation you guys are SOL. It’d be way too expensive.
having food
Whenever someone mentions a 401k I'm confused
reading this makes me happy I live in the netherlands
Anti-vaxxer and flat earthers
Well... The obvious... A massive hospital bill that'll ruin you.
And accidentally dipping your balls in toilet water? Apparently some American toilets has water all the way to the edge?
The whole racism/sexism/transphobia debate. We have some right extremism/fascism issues, the rest is very unknown to me.
Where do you live?
Paying for healthcare
Political campaigning starting two years away from the election.
Politicians feeling the need to make themselves look religious even when they're not particularly. Here if a politician is openly religious it'll be assumed they're mad, so they have to make qualifying statements about how it won't affect their decisions.
The thing where transexuals were banned from public restrooms, never met anyone in Europe who gave a rats ass
Your corrupt politicians. Seriously, it's just getting frustrating now from an outsiders view.
ITT people get downvoted for answering the question.
Net Neutrality, very annoying.
Electoral college
Immaturity around gun laws.
The World Series.
Calling the ambulance for breaking your arm
Since so many negatives (as in, worse in the US) come up: Owning a house as a regular average person.
Houses are expensive here, man...
They are pretty bad in some of the larger cities as well. You see exurbs (areas outside the suburbs) growing like crazy here. People living so far out to afford a house that they are have horribly long commute. I'm lucky I moved to my current city when I did as housing was affordable then.
Health insurance. I live in Italy, underwent surgery one week ago, stayed at the hospital for one night, and didn't have to pay anything. Even the pre and post operation exams are free. Of course we have to pay a lot of taxes to get this treatment, but at least I can live without the fear of going bankrupt if I ever get sick.
gun violence. they're not really frequent in many other countries
lockers
Why are your chickenhawks so hungry for nuclear war. Is it the fame, Glory, Bloodlust?
Us people from southeast asia are scared for our lives, considering the warning shots North Korea launched
The need to carry guns for protection.
Gun .. violence
School shootings. There are not a lot of school shootings outside US.
Insane student loans. Not being able to afford healthcare.
My university career paid itself within 6 months working, and I went to a not-so-cheap but not-expensive either university, some of my coworkers paid their career within the first month.
School shootings.
Going bankrupt from medical expenses. It is not a thing, people don't know it exists in the world.
Police brutality all over social media. School shootings don’t happen as often here.
Anything related to housing. It seems fairly normal in the US to buy a house, and renting is absolutely scandalous and unheard of? Also seems like jobs are incredibly hard to get, and University is expensive as fuck, and health care is shit. I'm blessed that over here in Europe, none of that is really an issue! Wish it was different for you guys though :(
> It seems fairly normal in the US to buy a house, and renting is absolutely scandalous and unheard of?
Most people aspire to home ownership, yes. I prefer owning such a large asset myself to flushing money down the toilet.
> Also seems like jobs are incredibly hard to get
Unemployment is under 4%.
> health care is shit.
Never had any issues with health care.
As I said, just seems that way based on Reddit people and posts, and people I know.
Medical bills (if you disregard plastic surgery). Just, why? Why should a persons life be dependent on whether they have a full-time job that has insurance as a benefit?
Medical debt. Just... what the fuck. Or people who don’t seek out help or medical attention in the first place simply because they can’t afford it.
dryers. how do you hang your clothes on a box that spins?
What? Are we going to put them outside, where somebody will take them?
People being so nice while at the same time not giving a shit about you. The first time I visited the US I was surprised at how nice people were. They seemed so interested in anything I had to say. My brother pointed out they were bluffing and after that I couldn't help notice. They all had the same reactions and the same way of talking and answering and I could tell they didn't care that much.
I mean there ARE good people, but most to them were pretending.
The idea that if I have an accidental and need to be hospitalized, that I will go bankrupt if I don't have insurance.
I think it's a toss up between:
Having to pay more to have a kid than buying a new car.
School Shootings
Being able to really easily convince doctors to give out prescriptions
The polarizing two party system and the issues it brings.
Your fetish for your volunteer/professional soldiers
Health, student debts, obsession with guns, legal lobbying (seriously wtf America)
School shootings... I can't grasp a system where kids can get their hands on guns.
Hating our president.
I just couldn’t give a shit who runs this ship honestly...
Edit: Holy shit I read this the wrong way, I am an American. Whoops.
Would you feel that way if the ship was sinking?
Yeah, honestly.
But that’s just my opinion.
I can understand that. I hate the whole crew with a few exceptions. But I remember a time when I didn't pay attention to them, and I miss those times.
Lol
Paying for Healthcare
College Debt
Going Bankrupt for Healthcare
Tax on Everything except the sticker
Gun Culture over dead school kids
Fraternities/Sororities
Guns. I've never held a gun nor seen one fired in real life. Have only even seen them a handful of times in my country (Ireland) in 30 years, by the army in parades and escorting vans carrying money.
College debt and hospital bills. Brazil healthcare is free.
Your whole relationship with healthcare, Be it the advertisement overload on your TV (Do you sometimes feel a slight headache? You could have Occasional headache syndrome- take this pill or you may die - surgeon generals warning, side effects include death), the obesity epidemic (seriously put the chips down and have some fresh fruit & veg), the opioid epidemic (Meth as well, fucking hell just say no, kids), the clusterfuck that is health insurance and medical bills (Hello every other country has nationalised health because we are not selfish barbarians and we care about our neighbours and families)...
The whole shebang. Just argh!!!
Waiting for hours in line at the DMV to renew one's driver's licence - mine is valid until 2050's.
Waiting in line to vote - I've never waited longer than five minutes to vote.
Panicking about doing your taxes - the government sends me a proposal about my taxes and if everything seems fine, that's it. I don't even have to return the letter or let them know I've received it.
> Waiting for hours in line at the DMV to renew one's driver's licence - mine is valid until 2050's.
This is due to people aging.
> Waiting in line to vote - I've never waited longer than five minutes to vote.
I early-voted in the IL primary in March and there was no line.
> Panicking about doing your taxes - the government sends me a proposal about my taxes and if everything seems fine, that's it. I don't even have to return the letter or let them know I've received it.
Most companies take it out of your paycheck. What people are panicking about is the reconciliation that everyone has to do and people put off to the last minute. It is generally a good thing, however, because people get money back due to deductions (i.e. home mortgage, property taxes, health care costs, child care, student loans, etc.) I would never accept a government tax number because I want my deductions.
It really surprises me that I haven't this one (although I guess it shouldn't given its touchiness as a subject):
School shootings and most other gun related violence/ crimes.
School shootings. The worst thing that you heard of at schools when I was growing up were prank bomb threats.
The gun issues? Bonkers that guns are so widely available. Can't imagine what that's like. I'd have been banged up years ago if I was allowed access to a gun.
Medical debt....as a Canadian I just spent 3 months in a psychiatric hospital and now as an outpatient I see three different professionals weekly (family therapist, psychiatrist, psychologist). Haven’t paid a cent for anything except the food I bought while on hospital outside passes cause the hospital meals were so gross (but free!!).
To be honest as someone who will be mentally ill for life, if I were to one day end up homeless I’d have no problem checking myself back into the hospital for a few weeks of free room, board, and psychiatry.
Double dipping. Like honestly, what's the deal with that?
Quite a lot man haha. Healthcare actually costing money, university being much more expensive, and just the general education system being vastly different.
College debt, medical debt and school shootings. I understand its a huge country, but common, even in Russia this stuff isnt as frequent as it is in USA...
Having to deal with problematic speech. Like how you can get arrested and sent to jail for Holocaust denial in most of Europe. Also complaining about only paying 25% in federal taxes.
Having to travel hours to the next city. Living in an area where there is no civilization for miles. Not being able to get anywhere without having a car. Visiting family in the same country by airplane.
I live in a very small and densely populated country. I can get anywhere by public transportation, you can pass through my country in less than 3 hours, and you can't walk more than a few miles/kilometers without coming across some building.
Also college roommates. Having to share a sleeping space and not having one single area that's just yours that no one else can enter, that would be a complete nightmare for me.
Everything related to using your credit cards so many times you end up being broke
House sizes.
Like, we have fairly tiny places in the UK by comparison. You guys ever get things like our terraced houses?
The idea of local authorities having a lot of power. Like states having their own laws.
As a Canadian? Health care bills. Blows my mind that people have to pay for basic health care.
I love these comments man
This IHOP debacle.
I’m from Canada and the only IHOP we have is in Niagara. We don’t have Waffle House either. And then you have people shitting on Denny’s, which is all we have besides smaller all-day breakfast spots 😂
see ... thats what happens when you get free healthcare ... you can't have nice things like Waffle House
Guns. How is it ok for normal citizens to have guns.
Paying for health care...
Problems related to health "I can't do x cause my insurance won't cover it" and shool loans debt
Twizzlers. Like WTF? Healthcare. I don’t know how you guys put up with that.
Your tv show quotes or “references “ as you calm them.
Anything to do with your fast food or convenience food that isn't McDonalds/Subway/KFC
[deleted]
its a credit reporting company
If you don't pay your bills the company you stiffed reports you to equifax and then everyone else knows you are a loser and they don't lend you money
The fact that you need a college graduation to get a good job. In austria you can get nearly everywhere you want with an good matura(close to a high school graduation i guess)
School shootings
"Omg mcdonalds is more than 10 yards away and I dont have a car"
Depending on the time of day, you can only use the drive thru.
Going bankrupt because you broke your leg.
Anything gun related
Healthcare. I’m Canadian.
The emphasis on celebrities, drugs, and alcohol
No one is going to say schools shootings or the gun problem
No net neutrality
Paying for healthcare
Buying new cars on finance only to make huge payments on it each month then complain about it like it's some unavoidable thing. Just spend 2k on something second hand surely?
Plenty of us do. My truck cost $1k and I love it!
School shootings
Gun violence. Trump. Deep-fried butter.
Drive-throughs at banks. You lazy, lazy bastards.
I find it's faster to just park and go inside. They have like 4 tellers doing nothing while the drive through line is like 4 cars back.
Better than parking and getting a ticket.
LGBTQ, feminism, veganism, where I live we’re too busy with our jobs
Two-party government
Gun violence
A feeling of not being safe any time you're outside in public
Drinking soda/pop more than you drink water
Willingly eating Hershey's chocolate
So. much. debt. I feel kinda bad that healthcare costs so much there. This might not be a strictly American problem but pretty much no one I know is in debt right now. We're not like fancy shmancy rich by any means, we're just fortunate enough to make enough money not to be in debt.
The gun debate, why socialism is so bad, why the pledge of allegiance is a thing in school, the hard on for private health care, why there even is a debate about a womens right to an abortion.
The chance that my kids could go to school and get their heads blown off, and that being an acceptable risk In order to maintain access to guns. Insanity.
Guns and healthcare.
School shootings
Having the leader of my country descend into Alzheimer’s.
Shitty healthcare system. And heaps of ads about medication. Live in straya.
We also have at least 4 weeks of paid annual leave for part time and 6 weeks for full time depending on where you work.
I'm visiting a foreign country (Canada), I didn't think I needed to bring local currency, thought I could just use USD.
Your butthurtness when someone says "the N word" or "the C word". I understand there's a lot of racism in America, more than in other countries, but words are just words, get over it.
Dane here. All issues regarding healthcare.
Being polarized on every single issue possible: abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control... How do you get things done...
Gun control.
As an American, I'm going to guess: tipping, our health care/insurance system, people not voting
Healthcare.
How a commercial talks about mothers for 5 mins straight and at the last second we are shown that it was a shoe commercial. Can't relate to any commercial that are shown on TV.
Healthcare bills
School shootings, diabetes problems, net neutrality problems, just off the top of my head, there are a lot more things I've read a lot of things that, thankfully, don't Apply in Croatiam
[deleted]
thats only suppose to be used for the small amount of food that remains on your plate after you scrape the most of it into the trash... its not for your entire house
Ordering an XL at McDonald's
Earth being flat
How much healthcare actually costs in America! I would never even consider having a baby knowing the cost without decent insurance.
Sports culture in high school and university. I'm just up across the line in Canada and it's light night and day. Down there there are pep rallies and marching bands and the players are local celebrities. At university I saw a small pep rally organizing once and i don't know anybody who had actually gone to any game at all during their time there. Participation in mass events like longboat or storm the wall was incredibly high though.
Even high school is different. We had a mandatory attendance football homecoming and nobody gave a shit even though we won the championship that year.
Net neutrality. Cause we got it.
Oh sick burn
American black ghetto like Compton is poverty - people living among palm trees in California, having singular houses with yards, cars and food on their table is not poverty to me. Blew my mind when I was a kid, couldn't understand that.
I am Canadian and I cannot relate to American Pride
Net Neutrality
European here. Pretty much everything on /r/personalfinance concerning student loans and social security issues (the former is non-existent here, the latter is pretty much taken care of by the government). I’m also always baffled by how many Americans on Reddit have combat or at least military experience. Not sure how many vets we have in my country (couple thousand?), but the overwhelming majority of the population never even comes close to a firearm.
I am long enough in the "American Internet" to be familiar with most thing, but one thing which still seems weird to me, is the entitlement, that if you make alright to good money, you should be able to afford your own house, and then complaining you can't afford it.
My mother has a PhD in Chemistry, worked all her live in the field, and we never would really consider having our own house. We always just rented a 3 and later 4 room flat. Also people around, it is pretty rare that someone bought/built their own home, most people just rent.
Also people complain about the high cost of houses in LA, SanFran, New York etc. These are your Mega Cities, why would you want to live there, if you don't have a damn well paying job? It seems also people who work "blue collar" want to live there, and then complain that they need a car to commute because living in the city is to expensive, still have to work 60h to get around, and still are at the brink on financial ruin.
You are a big country with thousands of rather big cities, why do you seem to have the need to live in the mega-cities?
Medical problems and not being able to afford it.
Fear of firearms.
Thankfully I live in a country were it's highly unlikely to encounter people with firearms.
Gangs and guns and the drug wars and all of that. European countries have some pickpockets but the entire gang warfare thing is a foreign concept to most of us.
I live in a city with a homicide rate of 0.7 and for 5 months I stayed in 3 cities in the USA, all with homicide rates above 20. I was just shocked at how... common it all was. I thought only very small parts of these cities were considered dangerous, it was more like 2/3rds of the cities were, only small parts were acceptable and nice. I remember hearing gunshots a few blocks away and my heart stopped and I screamed and cried and the others in the apartment just laughed at me.
Idk how you guys live with that. I always thought that stuff was just a myth made up by movies and hip hop music, but its even more extreme than the movies make it out to be. Obviously not all of America is like that but even living NEAR that is terrifying to me. People shooting each other by the hundreds and thousands over drugs and gang territory just a few blocks away from super rich nice areas... what the hell guys.
[removed]
Half of these posts are wild generalizations of people who know nothing about America or have probably never been there. Don't be depressed.
The question didn’t ask about experiences, it asked about impressions. As an American I’m endlessly fascinated by how we’re perceived overseas, both positive and negative. TBH though, I suspect a third of the people answering here are Americans with an axe to grind.
The question asked about issues. Most of the topics being brought up are non-issues and in many cases not true at all.
Example: Americans obsessing over fast food menu items. No one does this. It’s a stereotype.
Twinkies Deep fried butter things Gingham Kenny Rodgers Elvis eating huge sandwiches KKK Villages that are made from signage Women roller blading in tiny satin shorts, with headbands, listening to Michael Jackson. (I've unfortunately never seen anything remotely like this in the UK)
Lots of people have social anxiety which I don't see in Eastern Europe
Religious freaks who post dilemmas about having sex before marriage.
The way amaricans seem to eat in movies is so different fromhere in italy... We sit down for a 3 course meal for lunch and you stiff a burger down your throat...
Net nutrality
Legos
Suing people for injury costs. We have ACC (accident compensation corporation) here in NZ, and basically exists to deal with injuries on a no blame basis. This is funded through things like our car licenses and employer taxes.
So when i see on shows about injury lawyers and stuff, i find it bizarre.
Haven’t read all 8700 comments but wooden houses and the amount of drywall used.
We generally have brick/concrete houses. With accasionally an innerwall from timber and drywall.
What’s your favorite fast food resteraunt
People cheering in the cinema being annoying. Where I'm from, people cheering in the cinema is almost seen as a social event and is actively observed to see if a film works or not.
Bands not playing live in their city. My country is almost always forgotten about during European tours by the bands I want to see yet Americans complain about having to go to the next city to see a band live
The next city for us is like the next country for you.
401k and health insurance.
Sunday not being a guaranteed day off.
Expensive healthcare
Everything related to their self entitlement
School shootings. Those things really dont happen around here.
Dishwashers. I had never seen one in person.
I don't understand why so many people in America are so easily offended by such simple things as nicknames. In Ecuador, our nicknames are literally insults. "Gordis/Gordo/Gorda" just means fatty, we call people by their race, like "Négro, Chíno, Gringo", etc. And literally, not one person down home is ever offended by it, but you call one person up here in America any of these, it's they get offended. Calmaté, we aren't being racist, it's just how we refer to people...
Crossing guards in or by schools. Why are children not taught to cross the street in their own. Isn't that a life skill?
how expensive it is to buy fresh bread. Sure you can get pre-sliced soybean oil, sugar added bread for pretty cheap. But some nice fresh bread with simple ingredients (flour, yeast, salt and water) is not only difficult to find but costs 6$ for a loaf.
A dozen eggs for $0.29
Paying for ones healthcare directly. The last thing I want to worry about in a hospital bed is how much this will cost me.
There are two I think 1. People finishing tubs of ice cream when they are sad/ heart broken.
Net neutrality, it doesn't exist here
School shootings :)
Free speech. wtf you guys have free speech?
Having to pay for contraception Not being able to pay medical bills A 401k and investing in it
School shotings edit: not trying to be edgy, if it seems like it
You psychos wear shoes inside your houses.
Like wtf man
Paying for education, instead getting financial help to pay for housing/rent in the meanwhile.
Paying large amounts of money for barely functional internet.
Please explain where you are paying a large sum of money for barely functional internet? I've been to countries outside the United States that are the same way. I know its cheaper in other parts of the world and get about the same speeds.
But I can counter with.. I can't believe Europe pays for text messaging therefore has to rely on texting with an internet based texting app.
Registering to vote.
Being Dutch, you get a 'postcard' sent to your address when you are old enough (18+) or live in the area you can vote for.
Having multiple jobs
Not being able to support yourself or your family from one full-time job is insane and sad. Some of these are people that do Uber/Lift at night to make ends meet.
Cars
The average human being is a carsexual and people absolutely love to talk about their car or each other's cars. It's crazy.
Free parking
Store your private property right there for free, block the sidewalk, crossing, bike lane, exit etc. However you please. I'm realizing how shit it must be to rely on a wheelchair in this country.
So what you are saying is you love to pay for parking?
Yes, I do. Free parking is awfully for everybody besides the person parking. Paid parking and resident permits per household etc. Give cities a better grip on facilitating sufficient parking. It also helps people to pick other forms of transportation to popular areas, like entertainment and business. This keeps the roads and parking space more free for people who need to go by car or things like wider sidewalks, playgrounds etc. etc.
So, yes I would be happy to pay for parking.
Edit: some clarification
Yeah, we’re cheap. Parking should be free. We’re going to a place to spend money or just be at our house, parking should be complimentary. People here rarely care about other forms of travel. It’s easier to complain or go someplace else that offers the same thing at a free or reduced cost.
Parking in public space is never free, it's just a matter of who foots the bill.
Net neutrality.
School shootings. Not happening here in my third world country. And we have a huge security problem.
Bill Nye and that other guy who wears a red jumper. I don't give a shit who they are and I just can't relate.
School shootings
Saying the national anthem at your first class at school always seemed so strange because idk anyone that would say they are proud to be from out country, or even know the national anthem. No teenager cares enough.
We don't say the National Anthem in school. We do the Pledge of Allegiance. Most people think you are pledging your life to the government. That's not true. You are pledging yourself to the country as a whole. The people (in theory) run the government and the government works for the people. Of course this can be debatable and I'm not here to debate that. It could go on for days.
Weak trade unions.
School shootings
Those "I paid like $15.000 in medical bills" comments
Net neutrality
Not going to the doctor or hospital due to monetary reasons.
Credit rating. It's just weird how not owning/using a credit card or taking loans makes it harder to get, well, loans (including mortgage).
First that comes to mind is guns, you need a license over here to own a gun which is apparently not that easy to get, even some police officers aren't allowed to carry guns. There' no fuss, no complaints, no need to own one in the first place.
Schools: I'm Canadian and I have a teacher that used to teach in the States. We have standardized testing but I've heard it's a lot different in the States. Biggest one though is school shootings. I've only heard of like 2 or 3 in our entire country, and exclusively at universities, not high schools. I can't fathom What a school shooting would be like.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myers_High_School_shooting
Town I grew up in. That was fucked up. Having that be a regular occurrence would be horrifying.
Drivers ed in school.
How does drivers ed even work? Do you get your license after you pass?
It might be good to have that in school everywhere. Well done America for that one.
Dishwasher. Never had one, and somehow never wanted one.
I won't get started on the gun debate but popping to the shop to buy an assault rifle.
Lawyer ads. Completely forbidden in Brazil.
School as a whole. My family has an American friend who used to be a teacher and we went and visited a few times on holiday. They're so different from British school in so many ways.
Paying for healthcare. 6 grand to have a baby? $900 for stitches? $20 for gauze and a bandage? Wut
Canada not being real? Im Canadian, and I'm real
The second amendment
Clogging the toilet. Shit has never happened to me. Do your toilets flush differently?
Two high schools.
2 weeks of vacation.
Cheese is slabbed on everything.
Cars not giving a f when turning right on red when pedestrians are crossing.
No free health care.
Conspiracy theories.
Fear of the government.
Sexual Puritanism.
I still have no fucking idea what 9/8c or whatever means. Apparently it’s something to do with time zones but?? Why write it like that?? Why not just advertise for the correct time in the different zones?? Why??
Probably so they don't have to pay for their ad in different time slots.
They ask about their favorite basketball and football team, remember all of the athletes, and what happened in every single games. Omg
How theyre weirded out by us using bidets, like... try ‘em its great
Student loans... God Damn that just kills me imagining myself in their place
[deleted]
Women propose here all the time. Just more common for a man too propose.
All the stuff about medical insurance/healthcare. Where I live it’s pretty much free
Dating girls that are like 6 years younger. It instantly makes you pervert. Here it is perfectly normal to have 15 yo girlfriend when you are 21.
In the US it is very common for a man to date a woman that is 6 years younger. However dating a girl as young as 15 is frowned upon.
Sounds like I belong in Finland.
clogging the toilet. Never heard of anyone that had that issue.
Not being able to understand 24h times (19:30, etc).
Dishwashers. We wash them all by hand over here. The idea of a dishwasher just seems unsanitary as bits of food could be left in the machine. And I heard sometimes it doesn't clean dishes very well.
Taxes and the fact you guys are actually liable to pay your own.
In other words, you guys pay the IRS directly at the end of each tax year. In NZ the employer deducts the tax and pays it out. So you get paid the nett amount each week/whatever.
Also, its 2018- sort your tax system/codes out.. the dark ages are long gone.
Employers here DO deduct taxes and pay you the net amount. It's only self-employed people that pay their own.
Our employers do deduct our income taxes from our paychecks. But there are times where you aren't having the correct amount withheld. There is a form to full out that will calculate how much the company needs to withhold for the IRS, if you didn't fill it out correctly you will owe the difference to the IRS.
Why every american house's doors looks made of cardboard? I see tons on videos where people destroys their doors like its paper thin.
Assuming you're talking about interior doors, we have two types of doors; solid and hallowcore. Solid is sold wood, more expensive and usually installed in new construction, Hallowcore is literally thin sheets of wood veneer acting as a door. You can punch through it easily. The goal with hallowcore doors is to provide a visual buffer, not a structural hindrance.
Those are interior doors, they are hollow core. Exterior doors are usually solid.
Work/ life balance, working over 40h/week with little annual leave as the norm.
Yeah it's bullshit. You from EU?
Yes.
Your first world problems. I live in a country where currency devaluated a 2500% in the last two decades and 50% only in the last 2 years, but somehow changing your car once every two years it's an economic crisis.
Walmart
Student loans. All levels of education are 100% free here. They are also 100% underfunded and shitty as fuck, but you know.
America doesn't understand education. We have the greatest universities in the world that are the envy of every other nation yet we have underfunded and broken elementary education.
This is the difference between privately owned universities and the government ran public schools. Harvard, MIT, and Stanford are just a few of the best universities in the world which are privately operated.
Yes, it's a weird juxtaposition that we have the best universities and not the best public education. Although some of our public colleges are pretty good, too. UC - Berkeley, Michigan, Rutgers, etc.
Paying for studies
Having to read every single thing I sign out of fear that people want to fuck me over in any deal. That's never been a concern here.
Fear of the IRS
Gallon, quart. Feet, inch, mile. Fahrenheit.
The whole system is a big inconsistent mess.
Lack of maternity paid time off and general support (from healthcare to nursery.
Really fucking horrible food - recipes that are basically just shit that tastes nice mixed with nine other things that taste nice.
Leaving school during summer for three months. THREE MONTHS. Australia has a three week break for Christmas in summer and that's the longest break we get.
Also the cafeteria system. Closest experience I ever had was a visit to Ikea where you grab a tray and pop food on it to pay for. Cafeterias in Australia are called Tuckshops and it's where you go to buy snacks after you eat your bagged lunch. Or if you plan ahead, where you drop off a paper bag with money and your order written on it and come back at lunch to collect your order.
Trump.
Gun laws. It makes me extremely mad and upset that every other week i see another school shooting in the news
Net neutrality. Here in europe (for now) we don’t have such problems.
Going on vacations
American sinks.
Originally coming from the UK and now living in the US, I will grant you that having the hot and cold taps merged into one outlet makes way more sense than the old British style of having separate hot and cold, but whatever the US gained there it lost with it's absolutely bizarre, over-engineered, and extremely failure prone method of plugging the sink.
UK: Plug. On a chain. That's it.
US: Mechanical linkage goes from a little button through the back of the tap, down through a hole in the sink, in through a HOLE IN THE PIPE, up the pipe, into the bottom of the sink, so that you push/pull the button to open/close the plug. Who the hell came up with this and how stoned were they?!
I have that in every sink at home. In Portugal. Not a button, but a rod
Telling everyone they are very special and that they are better then everyone else.
"I felt sick one day, an ambulance took me to the hospital and BOOM: US$ 2000 debt." It's unreal.
Guns, you are crazy about them
As an American, almost nothing in this thread applies to my experience.
Guns
Paying hospitals bills can’t relate and buying guns
Your incessant posts about the various fast food chains and how good/shitty their food and service is. If I didn't know any better I'd think Americans never cooked actual meals for themselves, it's all pancakes, bagels, waffels and burgers.
College debt
Not that I see it often on Reddit but the whole "Murica - Greatest Country in the World" is odd.
By many criteria, the United States is a decidedly mediocre country.
Also those who espouse the sentiment "I Love America" in the abstract often appear to in practice despise a goodly number of their fellow American citizens. What is United State if not the American people?
Medical bankruptcies
Baby gender reveal parties. I don’t get it. Someone close to the parents-to-be gets to know the gender of the baby and plans a whole party to reveal it to everyone in form of a blue or pink shaped cake/balloons/other stuff?
School shootings
The thing about milkshake machines at McDonalds always being broken.
Trump
Medical bills.
At 16 in the U.K. I could drink beer with a meal have sex smoke get married with parents permission join the military use a gun with a licence drive a car. Our laws were country wide not different state by state.
Paid healthcare/really expensive healthcare. Norwegian btw
Guns. It still makes me double take when I see a comment casually talking about gun ownership/buying ammo/attachments etc - it's baffling to somebody who's never experienced it.
Well the dashboard camera . Most of the r/wtf , r/yesyesyesno videos i see are due to the cam whereas in my country , ive not seen even a single of those things.
GPA and SAT scores. We just have grades in the UK, so I don't really get it
Why do your universities look like palaces? Maybe if they didn't, you guys would be able to afford them. I'd prefer a cheap college that looks like shit than a beautiful one that I'll pay until I'm 50.
Dating "protocols" seems ridiculous!.
The ammount of time to call or text someone. The fact that you are labeled a creep for breaking those rules. Lmao.
Perhaps its just a younger generation thing. I cant visualize my old ass self not being straight forward with a girl I like.
This thread makes me hate my own country.
Why do you guys pay so much for college/uni and why do you have to get ‘accepted’ to be able to attend one?
Here in Belgium higher education is really cheap (+-900 euros a year or around 200 if your family is poor) and people can go wherever they want after getting their secondary diploma(unless it is in the medical field).
Cornbread.
Indicting someone related to the government.... I dream of that day
Oh the aliens! Somehow all the aliens in hollywood seem to be obsessed with America.
When you eat hamburgers with milkshakes
American, but how many variations of "every state is a X" can we get?
Eating bacon for breakfast
How you can watch your children murdered and not do anything about it.
The huge deal with abortions in election campaigns. It feels like half the people only vote for a candidate because they are either pro-life or pro-choice.
Support of Israel and Saudi Arabia in their genocide campaigns.
School shootings
Being from England I will hopefully never be able to relate to getting health insurance and the crazy cost for going to the hospital
having sex, then starting to date.
The "USA and then the others" mindset.
Healthcare being way too costly. It's free for us.
the whole gun control debate. its just not applicable here because even a majority of our police dont get them
Being only able to speak one language fluently.
Why do you keep going on about flat-earthers?
Well, coming from Eastern Europe I can't really relate to moaning about Baby Boomer generation being able to live of one wage, whereas Millennials are generally fucked. My parents, and parents of my parents had way worse, than me. :/
Shit with the imperial measurements. Knock that shit off. If reddit is a global platform it needs SI or standard units or shit that can be divisible by 1000. Grams, Kilograms, Metric Tons, Nanograms, a Kilometer, meters, centimeters. Parts per million or ppm, or Parts per billion. The rest of the fucking world has SI. If you are in science, or biochem or the rest of it - change your measurements.
Given we have shitty subway nonsense everywhere - I ask for a 15cm roll in stead of inch nonsense.
[deleted]
The biggest difference? Taxes.
Playoffs in baseball and basketball. Dropping all those teamnames that mean nothing to most non-americans.
ITT: people who didn't even read the title and just pointing out random things that are different about their country vs America
I actually read through every single primary comment (as in, I don't necessarily read those that comment on that comment) and that is an accurate observation. I wish people would bring up more personal stuff instead of just naming differences.
That spicy food gives you explosive diarrhea. It doesn't -- you idiots are eating rotten food.
While I’m sure you are joking (if not you need to reevaluate yourself), I’ve seen people get it from freshly made food not rotting. Some people can’t handle spicy food. Also in the US spicy food is really really spicy because it’s almost like a competition here.
What country are you from? What do you eat that is spicy?
Well, guns I suppose. I'm not against them, but I only know one person who has any and he lives in a rural area and only uses them for hunting. Guns for self defense aren't a thing here. I don't think they even let you get one if they think it's going to be for that.
A few years ago, a nutcase tried to rob a gun store with a machete... and got shot by one of the people working there. In America? Totally expected. But here? The guy nearly got himself in trouble. Had to go to court. There were questions about whether he handled things the right way (as in, could he have difused the situation, or run out the back or something. 'Stand your ground' is NOT a thing here).
I'm sure there's a bunch of other stuff that I can never really relate to, but as soon as the question is asked, I can't think of anything...
Being ruined because of hospital bills.
Advertising geared towards conservative/patriotic citizens. Particulary political ads made by politicians to try and gain voters. I don't really know how to explain it, it just seems like a lot of ads are being really condescending towards a lot of people and think that by shoving some pictures of guns and the flag and throwing in buzzwords about God and freedom, that people will buy into that and vote for them. I'm Scottish and if someone tried to gain my vote by showing 5 minutes of thistles and shortbread while wearing a kilt and playing bagpipes, I'd be offended that they think I'm dim enough to pledge my political support based on overused stereotypes.
Being asked to join class-action lawsuits via television advertisement if you're suffering negative effects from things like pharmaceuticals.
Guns. I don’t understand why they legal
Sunday gunday
I live in a country where firearms are banned. Only the army and police can carry it. I just cannot see why the gun debate in America is such a difficult issue to resolve
Single parenthood rates and the taboo around staying with family after 18 and joint families. I just can't get why Americans hate the idea of a family.
It is a competitive culture thing - it isn't anti family per se, but rather anti dependence. My memory is that this has only been true since WW2 when US servicemen were able to buy homes and establish single-family homes as the norm.
Draft Kings adverts.
As a Canadian travelling in Ireland, I have to admit that tipping confused the shit out of a bunch of them.
Healthcare, Welfare, free education. I could not imagine living without these things. I would not be where I am today.
401k and the worries about healthcare
how to celebrate 5 de mayo... Mexico just views this as just regular day.
How many different ways can reddit come up with a thread discussing what they don't like about America?
I'd tell you but you'd have to convert it from metric
THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE.
Divorce. Americans treat marriage like they treat a relationship. One small hiccup and they are ready for a divorce. I don’t think they every wanted a marriage- I believe they just wanted a wedding...
Mist if the Starter Packs
I'm in University here in Canada and it's just University. There are no crazy cult-alumni-network-gang-things you apparently have to join, and fraternities and sororities are pretty much unheard of. Not sure if that's just the Hollywood version of school down in the States, but why would you want that kind of reputation for post-secondary education, anyway? It's just school, ffs.
You don’t have to join shit. Most kids don’t. USA is nothing like the movies.
Also that paid vacations aren't a thing in USA. In Italy at some point companies have to oblige their employees to take vacations if they accumulate too many leave days without using them
Huh, most jobs have paid vacation. I get three weeks per year, can roll over 1 week per year and bank up to 6.
Being bankrupt by or having to sell my home for medical treatment...
It's illegal for Americans to collect rainwater.
No it’s not. That is not a federal law. Some states or locations due to drought or overpopulation may have some laws but not all of USA. You are probably referring to California and that place is fucked. Noting like the movies.
Downloading piracy won't take us to jail. Ever.
Applebee's. I always see it get mentioned in comments and I don't get why. It just sound like a wetherspoons in that it is cheap, cheerful and all across the country. Sure it might not have the best food but no matter where you are you know what you are getting and it's a good price as well.
Having to pay outrageously for basic health care. And people not getting treatment because they're scared of a bill.
I went to the ER a few times for kidney stones and i was seen extremely quickly (either instantly or within 15-20 mins) and it was cheap! Most expensive item was a CT scan for 150€ or which i had to pay 2.48€ i just looked it up.
How terrifying your IRS is.
The EpiPen thing, i've seen they cost a lot for the americans; in my country we just use epinephrine and a syringe that literally cost cents.
I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of health insurance ones.
The increasing maternal death rate in the U.S. I am Uruguayan-American, and I noticed the total lack of concern for women in a healthcare setting firsthand, both as a Nurse's Aide and as a patient (non-maternity). I ended up with toxic shock due to my OB/Gyn's total irreverent attitude to my concerns/symptoms/bias against women. When I became severly ill, he insisted that his nurses do labs to check for STDs since he "was sure" I was lying about only having one partner (my now fiancé).
On the maternity ward, when I brought patients concerns to nurses or doctors, they often disregarded them, as if the patients were no more than small children. It was unsettling. There is also little follow-up for women who can't afford preventative care (maternity and non).
While I live in the U.S. I do not intend to have children. It's too high a risk to take. I'm baffled by how a supposedly 1st world nation continues to lag in women's Healthcare.
Comcast
School shooting
School shootings
School shootings
TV.
Firstly the insane amount of Ads. Like every 5 minutes. How does a program flow when it stops all the time.
Secondly, the channels or whatever the system is. In the UK it's on BBC1 or Channel 4 etc. In the US it's 9/3c or some bizarre shit.
Haha. The channel are just regular numbered Like channel 2 is ABC Channel 123 is food network 9/8est Would be what time the show starts.
👍🏼
You have tv tax we don’t
really just fuckin Trump man. In Australia really the most you'll get is a comedian or actor making a joke about them or calling them an idiot or cunt. But in America it's almost constant with celebrities going on stage to 'stick it to the man'.
Medical Bills is always weird to me cause i live in a country with free healtcare
What’s your tax rate brobee? Cause I doubt it’s really free healthcare.
Im still a teenager so i dont really know but yeah, we do pay more tax than other countries. But its still one of the wealthiest countries in the World so no one is complaining.
In the Uk taxes on my salary would be 40%. In America it’s 25%. In America I can choose my health plan or decide not to have one and pay out of pocket. Are you willing to give up 15% if your salary for healthcare?
I dont really know. Im not paying taxes for some time to come so i dont really care yet. But in the end i think i would prefer free healtcare
Dude it’s not free. It’s taxpayer funded healthcare. You pay for it in taxes.
Yes i know but what if i had a severe injury that would have cost hundreds of dollars? Then i would be grateful for the tax i paid. I know its not free but it is "free" and i am okay with that
What if you paid and additional 15% for years. Never had an accident. Invested that 15%. (In my case $20,000 per year.) In America the land of the free and the home of the brave we have the option to save all that money and invest it or purchase a small health plan or a comprehensive health plan. But seeing as you pay no taxes I couldn't possibly expect you to understand how paying your monarchy 40 cents on every dollar must suck.
Better yet. Every time you go to McDonalds buy a 10 piece mcnugget immediately give 4 of them to a nasty fat kid that obviously doesn't need them. That's your taxes hard at work.
I see that it must suck but if you think about other peoples lives and not just your own you may find out that sometimes you cant afford a healtplan good enough. It may be different in 'murca but where i live all people are relatively wealthy. Even if you are poor the goverment will help you out.
And by the way why the fuck do you call the goverment a monarchy?
Name your country horseman and I’ll tell you mine.
Your profile picture is literaly the american flag and you have been incredibly active on the trump sub. No wonder that you dont like taxes you are an republican!
I just checked your recent comments and it seems that you have spend the entire day on this post being incredibly agressive with people.
I am a Russian bot brobie. Пердит - это мое дело и бизнес хорош.
Пердит - это мое дело и бизнес хорош
Sorry was supposed to translate to "Farting is my business and business is good" My engrish is not so great comrade.
You republicans are seriously confusing me
Im not a republican. I voted for Obama twice. I am a libertarian.
Why the fuck did you then claim that the trump administration is kicking ass?
Clinton is a filthy animal and deserves prison. I switched from being a democrat in 2015. And because the Trump administration is kicking ass.
As the great american actor Mark Hamill once said
Quote: "Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong."
Mark Hamill is a loser.
Why do you think that? Wait let me guess... he doesnt like trump?
He is for ubi and a bunch of other liberal bs we can’t pay for
Well penn jillette isnt innocent either
http://100worstpeopleontwitter.tumblr.com/post/29047300708/64-penn-jillette/amp
I think hamill is a great guy
Here is a quote by the great American magician Penn Jillette *"It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."*
Gun control.
Obesity
American here but I'm sure they have no idea about ihop vs ihob
Net neutrality
Not "frequently brought up" but I just discovered on Bernie Sander's twitter that some truck driver are "independant contractor" who must pay a rent to drive a truck, then pay gas themself, etc. etc. They are effectively not paid at the end of the month and must get another job to survive. I'm pretty sure they don't have it quite that bad in Europe. We have "auto-entrepreneur" but trucker are not affected yet. https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1006592085221347329
Amazon white Van man (not seen a women deliver yet)
That 14 year old I sorta know having two jobs and freelancing in addition to school just to pay for medical bills.
Credit cards. We usually don’t use them
Gender neutrality and otherkins ????
That's an internet thing not an American thing
Got it
I really don't get why American teenagers talk shit about EVERYONE. And how they find that obvious and normal to do, as if it's something that everyone does. They're so crazy about gossip that they even make up stuff just to see how cool it is to see the rumour spread. I just don't get it. (I'm sure not Everyone is like that, I'm saying this based on my experience with American teens and what they've told me)
Making the word "Naivety" sound french
uber!!!
The obsession with buying a school in a "good school district." Here in Canada the schools are all pretty much the same.
- The need to constantly upgrade your cell phone.
- The taste of tap water (tap water in my home town is not drinkable so I think Americans are very fortunate to not have to fear running out of drinking water)
- Not really an issue, but I've never understood why people cheer and clap in the middle of the National Anthem. Let Gaga finish the song, damn it. I can't hear her.
Pronouncing "shone" the same as. "Shown"
How else would you pronounce it?
It's pronounced "shon" or "shonne" in English-English, depending how you are reading those two words. Like the word "con" but with an "Sh" at the beginning instead of a "c"
Oh. Well, TIL. Thanks!
US citizens obsession with the country flag. Our country flag is simply a symbol.itss our way of life, our values, the way we treat our neighbours and countrymen that's important!!!
Net Neutrality
Relations between black and white people. And any activism around it. I mean, I know what it can look like (there's enough ways to read and watch about it online), but it's really hard for someone like me from central europe to relate to the grand scope of the matter.
Quite a lot ... Net neutrality, paying students loan, and the whole credit score thing.
I don’t even know what the net neutrality means and how it works? Paying students loan isn’t done here, you either can afford school or not.. and I don’t understand how credit score works or what it means to have a good credit score as we don’t do credit purchases over here, but rather outright sell..
Thankfully, when women talk about not being able to go for a run outside without being cat called and harassed. I get the occasional looks and smiles from men, but I have never felt unsafe while out running.
Messaging apps. The rest of the world has moved on from texts.
What’s it like needing something from a country then dismantle its society to fuel domestic consumption? And tailgating ?
401k ...Roth IRA :)
School shooting
Country clubs - like how people live in little gated communities and all go down to the country club to use the pool, play golf and eat dinner.
Lawn mowing problems
Car enthusiasts obsessing over driving “stick”. It’s literally is something the rest of the world does from 17 yrs old and is more associated with old or economy vehicles. It is cute though.
Deep Frying as the Holy Grail. WTF?
Net neutrality
Anything sports related. Especially baseball.
Huge student debt... where I am from college doesn’t cost even what books for a semester cost in the Us.
Net neutrality:)
Healthcare prices.
Not so much on reddit though, but it's a crazy difference for me re expectations. We have a home lifestyle channel here that shows pretty much back to back American reno or house hunting shows. The types of houses that you guys can buy over there for crazy low prices is mind boggling. And people are going through and criticizing things in the most gorgeous houses I've ever seen and I'm screaming at the TV OMG you can change a fucking light fixture, that house is amazing!!!! I'm trying to buy at the moment and what i can buy for 900k is a shoe box compared to what you guys can get over there. The people on those shows seem so spoiled, but they have so many amazing options.
These shows are usually staged. To either showcase a region or just great for sale houses. It is not truely the selection of houses the people had to pick from. Plus the house they pick is the one they already bought. Im usually screaming at the low prices and absurd picky people too. You are not alone. Americans are thinking the same thing.
The amount of gun violence and mass shootings and how little is being done about it.
Absolutely blows me away
Credit scores or the need for a credit card.
Scrolled a lot and not a single mention: rascism. I just dont get it, here we even call darker people 'the black' along with their name, I event met a chinese dude that introduced himself (in spanish) 'hello I'm the chinese'. I still dont know his name.
Keep in mind that most of our black population died like 200 years ago in the war, so what we have now is not really black but brownish. We do had some black migrants recently and there is no problem with them.
Tipping. I am used to tipping drivers as the "lazy tax", but I can't imagine having to tip at least 20% out of courtesy. That seems like a pretty high amount.
The obsession on nudity. It's okay if kids watch the TV and see gore, brutality, drug abuse, all that shit, but if there's a bit of nudity (even non-sexual) then god forbid.
Investing into 401k or Roth IRAs or other such things.
Mexican here. Im really confused with the quality of lower (and sometimes plain) middle class housing in the us and how it is worse than that of the poorer classes in Mexico.
Also how everything must be bigger, louder, hotter, better, stronger, etc
Im really confused with the quality of lower (and sometimes plain) middle class housing in the us and how it is worse than that of the poorer classes in Mexico.
lol
Student debt, collage is free or very cheap in Iraq
Internships being a "bad" thing.
Ive been more worried about medical bills than the broken bone in my hand so I used duct tape to make a cast..
Goddamn, I might be moving to the UK after reading through this thread.
Losing your virginity at 16 Driving a car at 14
What? The legal age for driving is 16. Also, it's only 'legal ' after 16-18 depending on the state.*
You can't drive the United States until you're at least 16 by yourself
I was talking more along the lines of movies where someone in 8th grade now drives a car to school
Ah.
The world revolving around everything American!
Trump is a Nazi.
Trump is a fascist.
Trump is a dictator.
Having lived and worked in countries where you’d get arrested for saying those things online.
Fried Oreo!
The pledge of allegiance, truly can't wrap my head around that, and the fact that children in schools have to recite it. And more generally the "over the top" nationalism which seems very odd to me.
And also the fact that no one in power seems to care about your president insulting people and diminishing the media on Twitter.
Skunks.
Baseball
Cleaning your arse with just toilet paper after bowel movements...
What else do you use?
Bidet, I was raised on that, I could never walk after whipping it only with TP... it's just nasty.
Just how they bitch about everything really...
credit scores
I brought up how healthcare should be a right with my Nigerian colleague. He laughed at me and told me he was born on the floor of a mud hut, and that there was no such thing as a right to healthcare.
Proms. We don't have them in my country.
Using butter instead of olive oil, as an Spanish I have never thought of that until I started to look for recipes on the internet
You all optionally chose to adopt soccer into your country.
As a side note, go to comments and sort by controversial. I literally had to think of an answer to tell you all this.
Only having one kind of banana. I have two kinds of different banana varieties growing in my backyard. There are at least 3 kinds of different banana sold in any given local supermarket. I could name at least 5, my grandfather could name more than 10 including the rarer varieties.
While we don't relate to it since we don't permit private citizens to carry arms, the mere thought of it sends chills down to the bones.
Hospital/doctor bills. My friends bf missed his appointment because they told him he didn't have one, but actually did. They just got a bill in the mail about a missed appointment.
Guns
Surprised this isn't somewhere at the top - school shootings..or mass shootings of any kind
School Shootings , guncontrole, the list is Really long
Shootings and gun control issues
School shootings. Control your guns dudes.
Toilets that flush upside down
Your bowl starts full of water, then hopefully empties, but a fresh cistern full comes down anyway and if there's a blockage it goes on the floor.
Normal toilets start mostly empty, then the flush comes, and if there's a blockage then the bowl just fills up. There's no chance of spilling on the floor.
Why would anyone purchase a toilet that was guaranteed to overflow vs one that can't overflow? Like.... Why?
Healthcare financial issues. Health care is free for me, well the important stuff at least.
minimalism. the majority of people already are have few things, but not for option.
The pooping, I feel like americans poop every other hour and it's either a liquid hellfire or it clogs the drain.
Net Neutrality being repealed in America but living in Europe.
this whole thread made me so depressed.
I still can’t fathem the fact that you guys don’t use kettles. How? Why? Why????
Worrying about credit score.
What gets me is when I read of someone saying their going to get a loan, that they don't actually need, so they can get a credit score. I'm always thinking what the fuck your consistent savings wouldn't show you can pay the loan back?
Health insurance
Why illegal immigration is an issue, they're fucking criminals.
Kind of on the reverse... a problem Iin England that warmer countries like America can't relate to. LACK OF AIR CONDITIONING DURING HEAT WAVES JESUS.
Y'all need to get that single-payer health care
Net neutrality, guns, paranoia of everything being "socialist", medical care, ridiculous overzealous patriotism.
The weird things that sounds like conspiracy theories but are considered completely normal.
"Why do you use paper money for everything instead of getting $1 and $2 coins like every other country?"
"Oh the paper producers give money to the legislators so that there will be demand for their products to make $1 bills"
"Why is your tax returns so complicated? Where I'm from everything is added by default and you can literally do your taxes with a single text message saying "Everything looks OK to me""
"Oh the makers of the tax returns software give money to the legislators to make the returns needlessly complicated."
"And you go along with this"
"Of course we do. They have to live too, don't they?"
I suppose this happens all over the world. But at least we call it corruption and not just completely normal lobbying.
Gun violence
The insane cost of healthcare
Paying large hospital bills
Trump.
People complaining about hospital bills
Paying for healthcare.
American here, but lived 2 years in Uruguay a while back and here's a couple things I got asked about a lot:
1) American breakfast. They were universally flabbergasted by what they saw in movies.
2) Throwing broken stuff away. They couldn't believe we would throw away a broken TV and buy a new one instead of having it repaired.
This info may be a bit dated now though
Dying at school
No top comment about kids being murdered at school?!
Govt taking away my guns
Rugby and/or american football
Everything related to the lack of health insurance.
Funding for public schools. I once saw a charity for teachers where people could donate pencils, paper, books and that kind of stuff. What's up with that...
The food portion sizes, then being asked if you want to take any leftovers home! I've just had the biggest meal in the world. Why on earth would I want to eat any more if it! Oh, also, jay walking... Nearly got arrested for that in LA! We can cross whenever we want in the UK!!!
High School 'Graduation'.
I'm an international student in US who just graduated with a Master's degree and I never understood why high school graduation is such a big deal. Students and parents both celebrate like it's a huge achievement and throw parties, etc. There's even a grad walk!
My dad just said 'Good Job' when I passed (yes passed not graduated*) top of my class in 12th grade. In India it's expected that you'll pass high school. It's a big deal if you don't.
It also creates a toxic environment when staff expect a tip and don’t receive one, even if you didn’t leave one personally it rubs off on the performance of the staff
Racism, and reacting to it.
It should be a nok issue by now, a true relic of the past. Using the race card by both sides should be embarrassing.
And yet again, there they are, still the same issues and resentment from a century ago.
I don’t think big bad oil cares about enacting social change through an “open society” agenda like George does. They just want to make a lot of money. Big bad oil is a business. And businesses care about one thing above all - money. George doesn’t have a business. He’s an investor, speculator, philanthropist. He cares about social change.
Your fixation with high school. There are a million movies and tv series about high school. When you remember something from your past, it's high school this and high school that. Then there is prom and you act as if it's the only meaningful thing in the world, even as adults. It's almost as if there is nothing worth living for after high school for you guys.
Your fixation with high school. There are a million movies and tv series about high school. When you remember something from your past, it's high school this and high school that. Then there is prom and you act as if it's the only meaningful thing in the world, even as adults. It's almost as if there is nothing worth living for after high school for you guys.
Bi partisan politics
I am an aboriginal Canadian and I do not relate to them complaining about Health care costs.
Baseball. In the U.K. we have a similar game called “Rounders” but it’s a bit of a fun game played mostly by girls. You guys seem to have taken that and built a billion dollar franchise around it!
The fact your healthcare isn't universal.
Medical Bills. I'm British so they basically don't exist here.
They do, but we all share the load relative to our incomes. Ostensibly that's what National Insurance payments are for, but it all goes into the same big pot.
Totally free high quality universities.
Net Neutrality, I'm sorry :(
Medication with crazy side effects for just about everything, swatting and school shootings.. its so foreign to me 😂
Food is so different here and its everywhere it explains why so many people are over weight
University culture. I go to uni max 8hrs a week for a full time course. It is much more relaxed in every other country.
I talk to no one when in there. And why would I want to live at uni? Plus I work 30hrs a week, how can some people not work for 4 years, especially when work experience is required to get a job?
Heaps of the Trump stuff - realistically it's had 0 impact on my life or my country compared to the impact it's apparently had on the US so when it comes up I can't really relate to the problems people face domestically as a result.
It's not so much an issue, but how massive the Church culture is. I drove across the country and Christian Radio is pretty much everywhere. Then you look on TV the Joel Osteen's and Peter Popoff's - Church culture is huge.
The whole advertising medicines thing in fact. In India it's not even allowed to advertise medicines for even common cures anywhere. I mean they can't say " Are you suffering from common cold ? , buy < insert here > medicines near you. " Believe me it matters alot. It takes away all the unnecessary tension away regarding how something is constantly wrong with you. The down side is I dont understand when any character in a Hollywood movie mentions a medicine name where the audience was supposed to understand what the characters were suffering from. Even when these movies are dubbed to other Indian languages the " take this medicine for treatment of that " changes to " take some medicine for treatment of that " or simply just " consult a doctor for a treatment of that ".
Healthcare costs.
School shootings?
I cannot relate to your health insurance issues at all. Or that you guys do your own taxes.
We have the NHS, and PAYE. They’re reasonably straightforward. Yet you lot seem to oppose universal healthcare. I don’t know why. I like being able to go to the hospital and not die because I can’t afford to pay for not-dying insurance. It’s pretty good.
People in my country don't usually get to have rifles and never get to test them in schools. That's something I hope I never have a chance to relate.
Guns. Healthcare. Crazy expensive college. Food. Sink grinder things.
Learning to drive at as young as 15, most people where I’m from don’t get behind the wheel until they’re at least 18
Cheeze, on everything.
A pro-gun ownership lobby being a major political force
paying for medical care. I never clocked that people don't go for checkups that much because it costs money, sometimes causes people to miss diseases and such.
Unions.
the rising costs if healthcare
Recreational drug use.
Americans never seem to feel safe unless theyre carrying a weapon... knife, extendo, pepper spray, gun, chipotle, brass knuckles
Income tax. Lol
Living in constant fear of everything such as: being shot, falling ill, taxes, your government, your neighbours, losing your job on a whim. Homeowners associations forcing you out for having the wrong colour blinds. Etc.
Tipping. It's such a big deal for you.
In the US, people who work where tips are common are usually paid far less than the minimum wage. Around $2/hour. McDonald's averages around $9 - $10. The rest of your wage is based solely on your tips. Can be very unreliable as well.
That sucks and it seems preposterous to me.
I don't understand how the fuck the americans say "soccer" instead of "football".
I honestly don't know.
How easy is to sue someone for a number of crazy/silly reasons, crazy high education cost, doing your own taxes.
How easy is to sue someone for a number of crazy/silly reasons, crazy high education cost, doing your own taxes.
Pledge of allegiance.
Credit ratings for individuals.....
Like, creditcards are a pitfall for so many, yet you need to spend money with a credit card otherwise you get a bad rating and can’t get certain benefits?
Maybe I’m all wrong but that’s what stuck to me.
Issues with not being able to afford health care.
I was lucky to be born in a country where healthcare is universal so I never once will have to suffer through any emotional cost regarding if I can afford to go to the hospital or not.
Feeling free.
School shootings and the size of your fast food meals, a small for you guys is a large for Australia
Donald trump
Toilet paper. Here, we do it with water jets. Feels so much cleaner.
Fear of getting shot in school or getting shot in general
The never ending differences in law between states.
Gun violence and Police propensity to shoot to kill.
What is up with white clothes and labour day and what is labour day? Whats a 401k? Whats the deal with a building having a "super"? Is he employed or elected or something? Do you guys really watch parades on TV?
What is up with white clothes and labour day and what is labour day? Whats a 401k? Whats the deal with a building having a "super"? Is he employed or elected or something? Do you guys really watch parades on TV?
Parades were a novelty when I was a kid, kinda like watching just the championships of your respective sports-ball.
Super means superintendent. They supervise the building for the landlord as most landlords down live in the buildings they rent.
A 401k is a managed retirement account. A way to put a set amount of money aside each paycheck and make it very hard to access till retirement age.
Fuck all if I know about Labor Day. IIRC There was some superstitious thing involving wearing white between May Day and Labor Day. It eventually turned into a social thing where folks wearing white after Labor Day would be knocked for not paying attention to the date.
Having to pay 70 grand for a surgery.
Having to register to vote. What the fuck USA?! You invented modern democracy. Fix it already.
I came here to write 'Healthcare woes' and 'Gun legislation'.
Then I read the comments, so I'm going with poop knives and garbage disposals
Seriously don't get garbage disposals in sinks. I've never clogged a kitchen sink, and I only bother putting the largest remnants into trash. I do have a tendency to only put food I intend to eat onto my plate, and would rather go for seconds than trash food, which I consider immoral to the point that it actually pains me.
For instance, if I eat rice, then there is sure to be a bunch of rice kernels on the plate when I'm done, cos it's rice. This just gets rinsed straight into the sink, because when I'm finished washing up, I'm going to scrape food waste out of the filter (with a little silicon thing for that purpose) and bin it. Anything passing through the filter just doesn't clog the pipe.
Dont get it, utterly mystified. As far as I can tell this is the solution to a problem that doesn't have to exist.
Paying for healthcare
How terrible American health care and insurance policies are.
Our health care is awesome, paying for it is what sucks unless you have good insurance.
Healthcare and Insurance. I really don't get it. Aussie here.
I guess it's not suuper frequent but (dis)honouring the flag? Sure, intentionally defacing a flag can be a gesture of disrespect, but y'all seem to worship the thing. (I'm Canadian)
Shootings. However I'd love to own a gun in eastern europe.
Traffic circles! The concept seems so alien here. While in Asia they are known to keep traffic going and avoid grid locks.
We are putting in tons of traffic circles here in North Texas.
Mass shootings, identity politics, hospital bills, student loans.
Maybe I am a bit late to the party, but something I always read but never understand is this whole generation baby boomers vs millenials conflict. I feel like somehow both parties are accusing each other of doing bad things but I really can't understand why.
The American election system. It’s not relatable at all!
I'd like to add, although late, that a lot of things stem from the whole "freedom" part of our belief system. I'm not justifying it, I'm just explaining. Also, I'm not saying this is the only reason these things happen, they're just one of them. I have to put all these disclaimers on here since some triggered redditer will come up with some example where it doesn't apply.
Anyway!
A lot of things that are common in other countries are not a thing in the U.S because of the belief that the government should not interfere in the private lives of people. Although "sometimes" the government pretends to forget that in the name of financial interest and "national security".
For example, maternity leave is not mandatory. Why? Again, why would government get in the way a private business does business? It all falls down to companies. Some companies are shitty and don't have maternity leave. However there are many that do and the time varies. For example the company I work at someone was gone for 6 months and she decided to come back to work.
I agree that certain things should be changed in order to better the lives of our citizens.
All the comments here are making me sad about the state of things here in the US. Especially the employment stuff, vacation and sick leave.
Here is a simple one. Driving a stick shift.
Houses made mostly of wood,seems counterintuitive in a country where there is so much wealth and gunshots
Home owners associations,in the land that prides itself on being the home of the brave and free you have to keep your grass at a certain length or get fined.....odd.
Homeowners association, sounds like a massive thing in the US.
Live in a midwestern suburb, don’t have one
I think the obvious one at the moment is net neutrality and trump. Americans also have a lot of words I don't understand.
The second amendment It clearly isn't working so why not have tighter gun control laws? I heard that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. From my perspective each public shooting just warrants a speech like there's a template of speeches where they just switch the gender, location and number of casualties
The gridlock in the American political system is unparalleled. The founding fathers intended to make the constitution difficult to change, but I don’t think they ever anticipated the corruption and toxic partisanship.
ITT: lots of misconceptions and Europeans extrapolating a single, isolated event or person into all of America.
I couldn't relate to some Americans surprise that we had ZERO public transportation on Sundays. So...wait...it ISN'T normal to wait three hours for a bus on weekdays????? AND WHEELCHAIR USERS CAN GET ON A BUS???? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN???????????????????
Being an Asian, i cannot relate to my friends when they stress too much about mental health topics. The place where I come from, having a square meal a day, transportation and access to good education system is what most of the kids are worried about. Forget about sports, college football and other nonsense.
Note - I understand the importance of mental health but just saying our battles were different, way different
I've been through some shit in my life. some bad luck, some bad choices. I worked on it and I'm in a good place now! I was watching a show called "Animal Kingdom" today and wile watching it, I realized like Wow if I was from the US I would have died like six times over already! It's crazy how the odds are stacked against average citizens over there! One little slip up, one strike and you can be out! And nobody gives a crap or batts an eye! Ohh and health care or the lack there off, collage debt, the death penalty, whats that thing called where they divi up voter districts, The way you elect presidents is ridiculous! Let alone who you elect, guns in the hands of mental patients, senators calling for money, suing for ridiculous amounts of money and actually getting it! And hundred other things I saw on The Daily show back in the day and now on Last week tonight with John Oliver. And uhhh your country is a mess!!!!!!
On the teaching subbreddit every teacher seems to hate their job and doesn't know why they continue to do it. Not really the same in Australia. I understand there are so many more issues in the US than here (ie. safety, salary etc) but it just seems like such a widespread hatred for children rather than other issues. I just don't understand why you'd feel the need to stay in a job that they claim is driving them all into depression.
Gun violence and police needing guns, it boggles my mind aye. nz
Most American television shows where your average wage earner lives in something close to a mansion.
Net neutrality.
School shootings / how easy it is to buy a gun.
Mass shootings Stolen valour
Working 6 weeks after having a child. Allowing hired help to spend more awake time with their newborn than they do.
School shootings
[deleted]
This me right hereb.I only speak English at work ,my kids my family and some friends I speak Spanish....they keep telling speak inEnglishcyou are in America ,however USA does not have an official language
School shootings.
School shootings
School shootings
Racism .....makes zero fucking sense .....
guns and health care
Everything related to dates. Here in France we don't have specific date rules. Let me explain that to you. We don't count dates, we go out and if it goes great we go out again and then things lead to other things. It's hard to explain to Americans but here we don't bother setting date rules. Except some that are obvious, like not taking girls to the movie theatre on the first date for instance.
Healthcare not being free. I dunno how Americans can live with that honestly, it sounds like hell.
Freaking poisoning by CO2. I mean, how does that occur?
Did you mean carbon dioxide? I've heard of carbon monoxide poisoning but not carbon dioxide poisoning?
My bad, it's CO, not CO2
Teenagers without cars. Why would the little guy even absolutely need a car is beyond me.
Our public transportation is trash. You can get your drivers license at 16 in most states and depending on where you live you need it for work possibly school or just to get out of your shit hole town for a day and go do something.
T-Mobile. Apparently they're Satan in internet provider form, but I have no real idea why.
T-Mobile. Apparently they're Satan in internet provider form, but I have no real idea why.
You might be thinking Comcast instead. My experience with T-Mobile is favorable and haven’t really heard otherwise. Comcast just possesses legal monopolies in regions of the country and take advantage of that by providing low speeds at high prices, not quite unlike every other American ISP, but they take the cake with their even worse customer service and near daily service outages or throttling.
This is probably already mentioned but you don't have electric kettles! It's either boil a pot / old school kettle on the stove or microwave a cup of water.
That breaks my brain every time. Kettles are such a daily part of life.
I wouldn't drink tea nearly as much if I didn't have an electric kettle.
I've had several electric kettles. Who told you we don't?
It appears I've been deceived!
We don't do tea or ramen as staple food items
Getting a DUI. Just don't drink and drive. It's not socially acceptable.
I don't care that your public transport is shit, that you get ticketed for being drunk in the sidewalk or that you all live really far apart.
Don't. Drink. And. Drive.
higher education costs (they do exist in my country, but its nowhere near as big of a finical strain as it is to yanks), and also healthcare (also not completely free here, but it's more of a nuisance than an actual financial problem)
I don't understand the extent of how much Americans worship their military tbh
Not being allowed to have your elbows on the table. Why would you even want to do that? I have tried it after reading about it on Reddit and it is very uncomfortable.
not really an issue but it’s pretty annoying when everyone is talking about american tv commercials like it’s their inside joke. likei don’t know what the fuck a geico gecko is and i don’t know anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma. WHAT IS EDUCATION CONNECTION?!
Never understood why you call piece of clothes "wife beater"... same time sexiest and offensive.
Something to do with after ww2 many men would wear them and I guess ptsd or being shit faced would beat their wives wearing them.
It's kind of a joke, a stained tank-top is stereotypical apparel for white trash/Hillbilly's who also stereo-typically have domestic dispute issues.
That’s actually informal/slang and originated in the UK.
The obsession with guns. I get it, guns are fun to shoot, but there is absolutely no need for everyone to have such easy access to them. You can also shoot guns in plenty of european countries, but you don't have to be afraid that your neighbour owns an assault rifle so you feel the need to get one as well.
Oh that and school shootings.
physically picking up your payslip at work. Like, what if you are on vacation and can't pick it up? I guess you guys barely get any vacation days but still. What year is this? Automatic Bank transfers hello? Alsoeveryone seems to use apps like cash and venmo to transfer each other money if you paid for their dinner. Why do you need separate apps for this if this is literally the job of banks? I don't understand.
Having a metered home internet connection. Wtf is up with that?
Where do I start:
Bankruptcy through health care costs
School shootings/mass shootings
Oligarchy
Plainly obvious corruption in government
Opioid epidemic
Employment laws that give companies all the power
Doing your own taxes (PAYE here)
Imperial measures, and "cup" especially.
Paying thousands of dollars on hospital bills
School shootings
Net neutrality
Other than rampant prescription drug addiction, insanely high numbers of mass shootings and paying to pay huge amounts of money for healthcare, nothing really springs to mind.
I haven't been on a vacation for more than 3 years, I have a 1 and a 2 year old, and if I do not call in sick or ill more than 2 hours before my shift, I get "written up", 3 write ups is grounds for immediate termination. This is a state job mind you.
I have had more than one job in the restaurant business and the medical field where you were not allowed to call in sick unless you were in the hospital. Both places said you have to.come to work and we will decide if you are sick enough to go home. And if you do have a job where you can when you come back you get looks of snarky looks and back handed "hope you enjoyed your day off" I hope they all got what I had...
alcohols and drugs.
Those weird bathroom stalls for schools with no doors. I just don't understand.
School boards full of toxic society twits with no reasoning capacity whatsoever.
Females in positions of power. We've met female prime ministers what the he'll is wrong with Americans? You guys have had 44 predidents. Maybe more, I dont make it my interest to know a lot about a place that won't affect me in the future when I move back to my home country.
People not affording their health care or medicine. I come from Sweden and even though it is not completely free it is almost so and a lot of help is offered. I come from a family with different health issues and I guess we would be really poor if we lived in USA instead. I am thankful every day for living where I live.
Too bad your money doesn't go nearly as far as mine does in the U.S.
My $300k home would cost over a million $$ in Sweden.
The need to give tips. In my country it was in fact illegal to even give or collect tips
A lot of us struggle with that one as well.
Healthcare prices, like literally blows my mind seeing what you guys pay for simple things
Politics and the way people get mad at each other, disown their friends, yadda yadda yadda. You're not on a team. This is not a football game. You have no say in anything at any time other than election day. Red and blue does not give a fuck about you. You're fighting over nothing.
Their gun policy.
Why is it so easy to buy a gun there?
-And this is coming from an Indian.
Tap and Go payments with credit cards in shops.
In Australia we had them for years even before Apple and Google Pay so when they came around it was seamless to just use our phones to pay for stuff. I was really confused by all the "Now supports Apple Pay" kind of signs.
From my Philippino coworker: The suicide rate. Life is precious and it seems like the people who are seemingly well off are just as likely to do it. Kind of made me realize how desensitized we've become to it.
Gaps in toilet stall doors. No, I am not comfortable with that in the slightest.
Anything about guns
Yeah. Our housing market is in a really bad state right now with a big risk of a bubble.
People immigrating and making a big deal out of it on Reddit.
Yeah， that annoys me too． Its not like they did something amazing.
When they abbreviated a town, city, state or university they have lived in or attended, and expect everyone to know what they mean.
School shootings.
Privatised healthcare and I don't know what 'sedan' means.
Sedan is a four-door car, whereas a coupe is a two-door car.
Ah! Thanks x
Having a shooting incident about once a week. You guys have more of them in a month than we have in a decade.
As someone who is not regularly exposed to them...having guns. Or more specifically the necessity for having more than one firearm in a household.
There are others, but just ones that I know of rather than see regularly raised on reddit
I didn't realize how wierd and kinda fucked my own country was before this
Trump.
Not an issue, but, Mr Rogers. I guess the issue now is weeping at this new film about him. I just honestly know nothing about the man.
HOW about the corruption and undermining of the American government by the Koch brothers and other special interest groups. Read “Dark money” by Jane Mayer
Net neutrality.
Medical bills? What medical bills?
ITT: Americans complaining about education and healthcare.
the schoolsystem
guns
insurences
Having to mortgage your house and kids for a 2 day hospital stay.
TV advertisements that bag out other companies. I saw another mobile phone company (think it was Samsung) bag out Apple using all of their trademarks.
Health insurance money related problems.
Healthcare costing too much. Am Canadian.
But getting time of work. Having to deal with gun issues.
Most of all, not having to pay an arm and a leg for medical treatment. I live in Ontario, Canada. Assuming nobody touches it, I've got free meds until I'm 25. I can go to my doctor, talk about my depression, and set up visits with mental health care workers... for free (sure, we pay some heavy taxes, but I'd pay more if it meant more benefits). Just wish they would get a better dental plan is all.
Putting cheese on everything. You guys put cheese on broccoli, that just blows my mind, I can’t see that tasting good.
Going bankrupt because of a trip to the doctor. I live in Canada and happily pay a few extra bucks on my paycheck so I can go to the doctor if I bust a limb at work or some low income folk can shit out a kid and won't go $90000 in the hole.
How it’s weird that in england we have a tap for cold and a tap for hot.
Possibly more generational than an American idea? But participation trophies.
Comments such as 'they complain about them but they were the ones that gave them to us' and 'I hated participation trophies I didn't feel like I achieved anything' are completely alien to me.
I have always gotten participation trophies in every sport I ever participated in and they never bothered me-I certainly never felt like I hadn't achieved anything, it was a cool trophy I could display that meant I had participated in a sport. We also had MVP and most improved and I was very happy when I won MVP once.
My grandparents who are the type to lament future generations have never brought up participation trophies, I doubt many people use it as an argument here (Australia).
Also pineapple on pizza-pineapple on pizza is kind of a big thing out here. By far our most popular pizza is Hawaiian. I would never have thought that anyone actually disliked it (they are most certainly in the minority) as it always dissapears at every party I have been to.
Oh and Tide Pods. I had no idea what they were and I don't have an inclination to eat one.
School shootings
Rabud gun culture, and the refusal to implement firearm restrictions at the cost of children's safety
Lunch money
Miles and Inches.
I’m from US and A, but was born and raised in motherland. Is it strange that us, Yankees spend money to plant and fertilize our grass only to have to spend money on gas to mow it every week/ twice a week?
Political over-correctness. People getting offended by everything, no matter whether or not it makes any sense, or even if it has anything to do with you. For example feminism - holding a door for women in Europe is being polite. Do it in the US and people start freaking out. While on that topic, I have seen a lot of attitude where feminism apparently means women are better, not equal. Basic logic out the window.
Also, people suing over being offended. I should be free to express my opinion, if you don't like it that's kinda your problem not mine???
The relentless adds for Medication! Its just constant, everyone in America is taking tablets or drugs for something! Every other add on TV was a pill for this and a pill for that, i couldnt get my head around how much ofnot there was. I guess thats what happends when health care is all about the money.
Olive Garden
Comcast.
Literally anything that has to do with shootings of any form + anything that has to do with any form of medical bill.
Haven't had either happen to me, to friends, relatives etc. because both are a nigh-complete non-issue here.
Giving exactly 15% tip.
ITT: People pointing out that tastes differ from theirs like it's some kind of surprise.
All boy- or girlschools
Giant toilets so big that your junk touches the water way too often.
Tuck some loose ball skin under your thigh
It's the D man, it hangs low and gets wet.
The compulsive disorder Americans have that forces them to another perfectly good food in obscene amounts of poor cheese. Wtf is that about? Also your obsession with super heroes. I am guessing these things come from not wanting to live as an adult.
Dude, would you want to be an average adult here??
Dude, would you want to be an average adult here??
Good point.
Space bubbles and "privacy" like asking someone's age or weight. I can guess to close proximity, so why is such a thing a problem? And I get not touching strangers, but there's nothing wrong with a pat on the back or standing a foot away from someone. Chill.
u/ijustpretendtocare
u/hipnikdragmir is totes too close to me!
This is why "do not disturb" is on. Also, you got this.
You didn't fail this time 😂😉
Getting married. Around here it's more like 50/50. And most of my friends are just getting a cohabitation agreement. I personally don't see the gain in marriage over that.
There are a lot of tax/financial benefits of being married in the US.
Like what? Here in the Netherlands it only seems to have downsides. My parents are getting divorced as we speak and my dad is struggling to get his company above the water because mom claims 50% of everything.
If you're with someone for good it's stupid not to get married in the US.
Just look at this link
https://www.theknot.com/content/benefits-of-marriage
Still don't see the upside. But tbh it's different in the Netherlands. We allready get Healthcare or pension when I retire without marrying. I ve bought my own house and my gf is living here with me. Would be no gain for me. Doesn't make sence to get a marriage agreement over a cohabitation agreement. In a cohabitation agreement you can set your own terms in cases of splitting or for instance, death or pets or belongings etc.
Everything healthcare related, here in the uk we have free high quality healthcare.
Guns = freedom
Going bankrupt over medical issues
People negotiating salaries. It's rarely an option here.
I met someone last year who was born in Belgium but had family and parents that are from the US. She qualified for great degrees without student debt in Belgium, but in the end chose to go to Toronto and get a huge student debt. I don’t get it...
People complaining about overly strict rules for clothing in schools.
I sympathise, but like... we literally had a full body uniform we had to wear everyday? Not to mention strict rules about piercings (none out of the ears for girls, none for boys), hair colour (nothing unnatural) and facial hair (none). Hell, in my school girls weren't evrn allowed to wear PANTS. so.
What country?
I'd also like to know when this person was in school, as well as where.
Active shooter drills. Blind political fanaticism. Anything to do with food stamps. Insurmountable healthcare costs. Stupid but established things like adding tax at the register, cheques, tipping culture, imperial units, and gridiron.
Problems with advertisements. Down here in Hong Kong every ad is some weird Chinese commercial which I barely understand
Net neutrality We never had Net neutrality and the ISPs had always throttled international traffic. Even the government supports it and created some sort of Intranet to stop people from using the “internet”.
Which country is "here"?
Iran
Sounds shitty. Sorry for ya
Tips and the average minimum wage is $7.
I get that it's a problem because taxes are bullshit but i still can't relate to why tipping is still necessary and the reaction for not tipping is similar to witnessing a murder.
The trivial access to guns
It being too hot outside :(
healthcare bills
Ok so most of these stuff are basically me being prejudiced and I’m sorry if I come off like that.
Being born and raised in ”the socialist hellscape” Sweden, I feel most concerned when I read about the american health care system, school system, college expenses and general politics. I feel like, from my perspective, the general attitude in the US when it comes to paying taxes is very negative, which is hard to understand when you live in a country where taxes basically is a key pillar. Free health care and education is something we take for granted, I can’t even imagine how it is to not have that warranty. Oh, and don’t even get me started on the NRA and the ””Gun control””(????)
The food and drug industry in america is also something I cannot comprehend. It seems like everything is about making profit and not about actually helping people, which is really twisted.
(Also, spring break?? Is that really a thing or is it only like, a movie thing?!)
...then again u gave us Beyonce and I speak for the whole population of Sweden when I say that we are very grateful for your generos gift to all of us
Edit: Ok, one more thing. What in the hell is up with FAHRENHEIT
60 hour weeks being considered full time and needed to earn a decent wage instead of 40 hours.
WUT?
I see so many posts that are generally from Americans that they are working 50+ hours a week, and consistently see people saying they work 60 hours a week, otherwise they can't afford to live. Here in Australia full time hours is 38hrs and it's enough to earn a liveable wage
Huh. I guess I don’t know those people. Lol.
It's good it's not like that everywhere then
the thing about americans not liking mayonnaise. like how???
As an American, I can tell you I've never even heard of this. Mayonnaise is on / in all kinds of stuff.
Maybe it's referring to our reluctance to dip shit like fries in it
Frat parties and sororities
I still am not sure what that's about
My man, let me enlighten you. After high school we head off to college, or university. The stated purpose of which is to get an education, but the real purpose of which is to find out who you are and sharpen your skills that will get you through your 20s and 30s. One of those most important skills is sex. Now, due to the puritanical nature of sex education in America we are naturally curious and have no clue what we’re doing at first. So, its a lot of trial and error. Which means you need to take a lot of reps to perfect your game.
Now i told you that so i can tell you this. College, is like Disneyland/world/whatever. The point being is that in both Disneyland and college, the goal is to ride as many rides as possible. And going greek(joining frat/sorority) is like the fast pass. You go straight to the front of the line with the opposite sex and have access to parties where you are literally set up to succeed.
This is hidden behind stuff like brotherhood and being a part of something bigger, but thats pretty much horseshit. After you graduate you lose contact with 90% of your “brothers” and even during the whole process, its really just a ruse to always have a drinking partner, never have to be alone and think about how much that sucks
Winning wars with nukes
Lol no one wins war with nukes. We all die if there's a nuclear war. But if you're talking about nukes in general, that's just an unfortunate part of life. You'd have to ask the eight or so other countries to get rid of theirs also even if we do.
I'm pretty sure Harry S. Truman won a war with 2 nukes.
That was before everybody had them
Well we could've won WW2 without the nukes...just would've been more bloody.
The whole primaries process, people being able to vote on the candidate who will become their parties representative in the upcoming election.
I enjoy the whole spectacle of it.
Rather than just having the party select their own candidate to put forward. (And then having the party knife them in the back, and pick a new leader mid-term, as tends to happen here in Australia lately)
Peanut butter. And jam / jelly.
Together.
heathen
Having to pay for health care or be scared to not be covered by their insurance.
Being Bilingual is not a requirement to get good job. (I have to know french and English)
You can sue and be sue for absurd reasons and win. Even if it's possible to sue someone I don't know a lot of people who have been sued and have sued where I'm.
It has probably already been posted, but cars. It feels like it's top priority in the US to get one when you're 16. There is a certain pressure to get a drivers licence somewhat early in Europe to my knowledge (so you can use your parent's car(s) etc), but it's far from necessary to actually own a car and for most there's no actual benefit.
Just curious, why isn't it necessary for where you live? Where I live in the U.S. I feel like I need one because the bus is so slow and doesn't run on Sundays. And there are limited bike lanes that I personally wouldn't feel safe biking on.
It's sort of the opposite here. The buses (and trains) have dedicated lanes and is therefore generally never late, and very fast (as well as available on days when literally no one uses them). Bikes have dedicated lanes with traffic lights and protection everywhere so that's also a good option. The third thing is that going by car is insufferably slow since traffic is a nightmare and there is never any infrastructure built to make more room for cars, but rather the opposite, and a lot of the time they make one-way streets and random no-passage signs to confuse inexperienced drivers (and parking is a nightmare as well). The final nail in the coffin is that you can generally do most things by foot anyways. The only benefit of a car is to transport a lot of goods and traveling long distances with said goods, which is quite niche.
I don't think there's anywhere in the US with dedicated bike lanes in that way. Bike lanes in the U.S. are just a strip of paint on the side of the road that's only barely wide enough for one person to bike. My city has a more dedicated bike line running down a street where the university is, but there's always people using it as a sidewalk so it's kind of useless.
OK, so keep in mind that things are much, much, much more spread out in the US than they are in Europe. In many places (with the exception of downtown in a big city) most things are simply too far to walk, and public transportation is generally super spotty. Another side effect of having so much space is that parking is plentiful and usually free.
I'm not defending getting all 16 year olds a car, just explaining why it's a much bigger focus here. One of my favorite quotes (I have no idea where it's from) is "The difference between Americans and Europeans is that Americans think 100 years is a long time, and Europeans think that 100 miles is a long way."
Most likely been said, but commercials for medications. Sometimes they spill over on tv when watching American channels. But jesus that makes no sense who actually goes to their doctor and be like "so i totally sow this commercial hook me up". I suppose its like those people who google their symptoms and go tell the doctor what they have.
Trump.
The high-sky cost of healthcare is just absolutely ridiculous. I've heard that even minor stuff like getting an x-ray costs >1000 USD? like, what??
My husband needed 9 stitches in his hand a few years ago. Had to go to the ER because it was in the middle of the night on a Sunday night. $4k
The whole internet situation. What's up with data caps and slow as hell internet? In EU it's pretty cheap to get great internet and there's no such thing as data caps outside of mobile networking.
Most places in America have maybe 1 or 2 options for broadband Internet. Where I live there is one broadband Internet company set up, so since there's no competition there's mo incentive to offer good service.
That's what i don't understand. In capitalist America it would seem logical to have competition. Gigabyte internet here is really cheap and the infrastructure is really strong.
People there are complacent and are putting up with it. It's too late now seeing as the internet has become a utility but it should have been fought for when it was a commodity.
It's because the companies make more money by keeping to certain areas than trying to go and compete with good pricing and services.
Population density
This depends a lot where you live, I’m australlian living in Los Angeles, the internet here is amazing, my kids are streaming Netflix and amazon prime across 5 TVs, I’m watching a 6th, and my Starcraft is downloading an update at 8 megabytes per second.
We have no caps, and use a few dozen terabytes per month.
In australlia I used to pay twice as much for a significantly slower connection which was capped at 100 gb per month.
How much do you pay now and what bandwidth?
I pay 79 per month for internet and have a gigabit ( slightly below ) connection without a usage cap.
Only issue is that I have no choice of ISP. If my isp were to triple price or do something dumb like charge extra for (or throttle ) video streaming then we would have no other choice but pay up.
Well, here I pay 10 USD per month for full fiber gigabit. I know compared to your previous deal it's better but seems way too much for me.
EDIT: 10 USD for Internet, cable and unlimited mobile Internet, calls and texts.
[deleted]
If the roads are too icy and unsafe to drive on, then they'll close. Often, it might be more because of teachers not being able to come.
[deleted]
It all depends on the part of the country. It could only snow a little in a place like Texas, but they'll close schools because they never get snow so they don't have snowplowers on hand.
Is all of it an answer?
How open Americans are with “casual” drug use. Still something I find hard to relate to.
Unless you're talking about marijuana, we definitely are not open about "casual" drug use.
I got a different impression looking at things online then!
Although the openness about marijuana use is also strange too (all drugs are demonized where I live).
This depends state to state a lot.
In general most users are pretty casual with it since it’s part of their lifestyle. In the same way drinkers appear to be casual about drinking.
Some state are legalised for medicinal, others are completely legalised ( for pot )
When a packet of smokes is equally difficult to get as a packet of joints then it’s kinda hard to be anything else apart from casual.
Interesting stuff to find out. Thanks for the run down!
Cultural appropriation, white privilege, shootings at schools, crazy feminist, crazy sjw, racism rants, racial tension.
Seinfeld
The stereotype of a typical Highschool creeps me out. Does every Highschool need a rich jock, a poor jock, a nerd, a gay dude, a girl who doesn't care, a girl who acts like she doesn't care but secretly does and finally the management who doesn't know shit what the kids are up to? PS. Not a Big fan of American Teenage dramas.
My highschool was nothing like that, but it was in the middle of one of the largest cities.
I think those dramas portray a smaller town attitude but are still a bit hyperbolic.
My small town school back home was a closed one(away from the city in the woods but way too rich than the city schools). It started to mimic those shows and it was wierd and made me think, "Does America really do it this way? ". Thanks for the reply:-)
Australlian living in America,
I think it’s more of a case of trying to appeal to all sorts of potential audiences. My kids school is 90% anime weirdos, 10% stoners and a couple of neo nazi kids with shaved heads who think trump is the second coming and I’m positive will end up as school shooters. ( one of which has threatened to show up with a gun multiple times, cops have shown up and not done anything, and school refuses to get rid of him. )
Wow, the neo nazi thing is interesting. I hope they end up shooting themselves but not the children in school:p Anime, over here people are into Hentai😜, and nothing more Japanese.
I suspect it’s an excuse for them to be into hentai but these are 15 year olds so I would rather not ask.
Yeah American schools seem to be perfectly fine with really scummy kids continuing to be scummy and even constantly disruptive, although I think that this has something to do with the fact that most schools here are “zoned” which means the school you go to is based entirely on where you live ( because local property taxes fund the local schools )
Americans seem to be allergic to the idea that school funds could be pooled at a slightly less local level and distributed evenly based on the number of students which go to each school. ( to the point where property prices are directly effected by the quality of the schools they are zoned for, we looked at 2 rentals which were identical but were about 500 meters apart, price difference was 20% simply because one was in a great school district and the other one was in a terrible one )
15 year Olds are definitely into it. Hands down. Separating kids based on school districts is definitely tiresome and fascist because, it's the government that's running them and children who deserve need the best education. Effed up! And they end up complaining that Highschool is stressful and end up on 13 reasons why?
I know they used to have programs where they bussed disadvantaged kids into higher performing school districts, but that’s not happening around where I live so I don’t know if they do that anymore.
Compulsory education for all is good, as long as it ain't toxic for the people around them at school. I wish there was a choice.
Student loans. I dont know how that shit works. Its like the government pay your studies and you have to return the money when you find a job?
It's irrelevant whether you find a job; you pay it back even if you don't. They don't care.
That's fucked up. How much usually is per month? Usually, just curious...
I went to college like 25 years ago, so I have no clue whatsoever what it would be now per month.
I just Googled it and this is from the first result: Budgeting for Student Loan Repayment. The average student leaves college with about $25,000 in student loan debt. The monthly payment on a $25,000 student loan is approximately $280 (assuming 6.8% interest and a 10-year repayment plan), which can cause financial strain if you're not prepared for it.
So, when you end college you need a job yes or yes. And if you have to pay a rent, a car, the loan debt... Its really hard over there. I didnt think that was to much...
You didn't think what was too much? $280 per month?
25.000$ for college
No, that's $25000 in debt after college. That's probably about 1/2 the actual cost of college itself.
Yes I mean, the debt...
[deleted]
Woah, thats really tough, and people are okay with that? I mean, the government or anyone cant see the situation? USA is not a country in economical crisis at the moment I think, so, what is the explanation for it to be so expensive?
Edit: Economical crisis lol
[deleted]
Oh, I see... That makes sense, the situation, not the thinking, but yes, I guess all of that sucks a lot. I mean, I live in Spain and we enjoy free health care, I dont have to pay 15.000€ if I break my arm, and I'm gonna start college in three month, in a public college, knowing that my whole studies wont cost more than 7.000€. People here think public college is too expensive, I was curious how much expensive is there, and is abussive...
It's just that inequality is a serious thing here, only most people don't see it. I think maybe because we have been conditioned to think there is endless opportunity for those who want to work hard but it simply isn't so. People can and have "made it" but it's not garaunteed like most believe. It's very much like joining in a monopoly game where most of everything is owned and developed. Like George carlin says it's called the American dream because you habe to be asleep to believe it
[deleted]
Every single law in this country is written with the best interests of business in mind; the individual matters only as fodder for them.
That’s not how you get paid it’s how you get fired. It sucks but that’s the truth!
Using toilet paper instead of water to wash your ass. As an Indian I will never understand that.
This might be weird but in the movies where kids are involved, "Playing catch"like is that really what you do? My dad would be like "Fuck off go play outside I need to play me some half life"...
Also guns and crime, can never relate to those because I just can't imagine a country where anyone you talk to has a chance of carrying a gun
Maybe it's just a baseball/american football thing. But playing catch was pretty common when I was a kid.
Maybe it's a farmboy thing and city people didn't do it but I'd run around in my garden, maybe slip under the fence and go pet some cows or smth
The whole concept of tipping
Not wanting a border wall...
When almost half of illegal immigrants are here on overstayed visas, what exactly would a billion dollar wall do?
The tip percentage and how the waiters are getting paid. In my country the waiters get paid monthly and generally we don't even have to leave anything, some people leave the change but it's no an specific percentage.
Australlian living in America,
The tip percentage is simply a recommendation not a rule. You are free to tip more, less, or zero if you wish.
Many places which allow tipping pay their waitstaff a decent wage ( although some places allow waitstaff to be paid only a few bucks an hour because they can get tips, other parts of America force the employer to pay waitstaff who end up earning less than minimum wage once tips are factored in for a shift. )
Paying for healthcare
Net neutrality
NOT voting on sunday.
[deleted]
What's An auto mechanic make/live like???
School buses that know your personal location to pick you up/drop you home. Also tipping. Here in Australia I have never ever seen anyone tip, I sometimes say to the cashiers to keep the change because I don’t want 80 cents jingling in my pockets. But I will never understand tipping something like $10+.
Killing enemy soldiers in their sleep on Christmas.
Not being able to go to the doctor or hospital when you clearly need to go.
Also, when I was in Vegas last year I found the billboards for places like 'injuredinahotel.com' hilarious.
The amount of siblings and/or immediate family members that don’t get along or worse.
The breaking of dress codes that ppl agreed to and feel entitled to complain about.
Non mandatory vaccines. Maybe it's not just an American thing but in order to go to primary school where I am you need to have your immunization card
If you compost, they aren't good for a lot, but on the occasions that you use them, they're incredibly convenient. Wash scraps of uneaten food right off the plates, down the drain, and chugga-whirrr, all cleaned up.
Laughs in Europe free uni, cries in Britain
Oh i also get, and agree with kids meals (im a parent), this particular relative have brought mcdonalds fries to places that already serve fries because he only likes McDs fries. And yeah strawberries are the shit.
Difference between route and rout lol
Trump
What the FUCK is a condo?
It’s short for condominium.
Basically, it’s an apartment that you own instead of rent.
Thank you, Bob.
ITT: People who don't know how to reply to comments.
Having a shitty jobs that don't offer holiday pay or being in jobs you hate. So many Americans complain they can't have holidays or have to work more than they are rostered
Certain cities flagged renters that call Police as nuisance tenants threatening landlords and leading to their eviction or lease not being renewed if "too many" calls are made. If you live in a bad neighborhood, or your the victim that's not your fault. When I saw that story about that I had to SMH in disgust. I understand what problem they are trying to solve but I never heard any country solving it this way.
ref: https://www.aclu.org/blog/calling-police-can-get-you-evicted
obsession with plastic cups that are red
Cops killing people, going bankrupt because of medical bills, the million commercials (breaks) you guys have on tv, all the different things that can get you fired, no maternity leave, suing for everything, the size of your houses, having to personally drive everywhere.
The absolute saturation of Ads in every aspect of life EVERYWHERE. I'm in the states right now and it feels like not a moment goes by with some sort of ad being pushed in my face. My phone has been showing me a lot more than I get when I'm home too. Idk how you guys live with this.
american here and i have totally noticed this in the past 5-10 years. its obnoxious to say the least. im slowly purging my social media because im just tired of all the ads/marketing/bs/people bickering with each other. if they're not arguing with one another, theyre trying to one-up each other showing how "amazing" their life is. anyways, back to the topic.
The over saturation of ads, marketing, and consumerism have legitimately ruined the holiday season for me. christmas/new years use to be my favorite time of year while growing up and now i absolutely cant stand it and count the days until its january so its all over. here in the states, they start advertising for the season in fucking september now! that is so beyond ridiculous. do yourself a favor and dont move here. our country is a complete shit show right now.
I've had Ad Block and Ad Block Plus on my computer for quite some time now so I'm not bombarded with ads. And I don't own a TV so I don't have to suffer through commercials. And a lot of the time, once we've seen a new billboard or whatever, we just tune it out, we're so used to it. :)
Blocking the toilet when you poop.
Blocking the toilet?
Many times on Reddit I see Americans talking about how they clogged/blocked a friends toilet with a huge shit. Am Australian and we never do that. What the hell do you guys eat that you would shit enough to clog a toilet?
Australlian living in the USA, it’s just that the plumbing here is crap.
A single lid to a razor blade is enough to clog the toilets here
Sometimes we eat crap, sometimes it's the crappy plumping or the amout of TP used.
It's usually because of how much toilet paper it takes to get your ass clean.
I switched to baby wipes and love them.
Your sewer system doesn't if you flush them.
Ever seen a fatberg?
I throw them away.
Oh, one of the replies made me think of one. It's not an issue, but definitely an American thing that I absolutely don't get is, referring to black American people as African American, seriously, what? Just call them black people, I don't get the labeling of a black person as African, there are other places that black people might come from, like the Caribbean. If you call them black, you are simply defining them by an obvious trait, whereas if you call them African American you are assuming something about them.
I think this is going out of style. I only ever hear african-american on the news and stuff, I never really hear people say it in real life. Most people just say black.
Imperial units.
I don't get why they lose their shit over cursive handwriting and how it's such an ordeal at school. We were taught it at age 7 without fuss and it's faster than block letters.
Medical debt. Here in Australia we have free healthcare and can choose private health is we want to choose a particular surgeon etc. when I see medical debts of hundreds of thousands of dollars for relatively routine stuff in the US, I am shocked and horrified. I can’t imagine being made bankrupt over a heart attack or losing my house over a broken leg.
Taxes issues, school shooting (if it's not done by a black , Arab or Muslim ), stereotypes
Take away Tacos
Health care. It makes no sense to me that America is such a wealthy country, yet the gov doesn't see the sense in providing free health care for all? Especially since it's so preventative. Like wouldn't it make sense to go to the docs and get your flu sorted out before it becomes really bad and you have to take time off work? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to make someone better asap, so they don't have to have time off and pay tax??
Student loans. Danish paid education and all.
Sounds like they’re smart people!
Scottish here who loves the USA and has friends who are American.
Okay it has to be sports. Some friends talk about American specific sports like football, baseball, basketball. I just can’t relate as I don’t like sports.
Politics apart from whoever the President is at the time most of us outside the US haven’t a clue about senators or congress.
State specific issues we probably have no clue either. Unless it’s ‘the wall’ or something that makes international news.
You weren’t a 12 year old boy at one point? You didn’t want to jack off all the time and thought “oh this kinda feels like lotion, I’ll try it!” Because once upon a time I was and I know it fuckin sucks ass.
Having to use your car for everything (especially in the south)
The hype over grass fed beef and Kerry Gold in Keto posts. That's just normal here
r/wooosh is full of them .... So being said that it's still awesome
Being bankrupted by medical bills
Naps!
medical bills and student debt. Both don't apply here (Denmark) as we have national healthcare and paid education, as in we get paid to go to school once we turn 18.
Net Neutrality
The illegal crack and drug worship on Reddit (seemingly in real-life as well).
How cut-down American TC shows are due to adverts - 30 min running time has to be edited to 20 mins to include enough advert breaks.
Obsession with making everything racial.
Faecalphilia/ obsession with scat and related things (You can often spot an american just due to how many times they use words like "ass")
Free health care. Sorry.
No shit Im very late.
Im listening to the Podcast Potterless right now and if someone did the same thing in Middle Europe there would be only half the podcasts time since they talk about racism and sexism in the books and movies ALLLLLL the fucking time... I get it Americans have to make up for smth , but holy fuck so many of these points are god damn stupid. Besides a minority of retards, people in Germany are super liberal, whereas in the US the population divides in actual racists and people who are overly keen to not be rascist...
Parents throwing their children out of the house.
In short everything. There is quite a bunch of things I could complain about in my country, but then I look at the dystopian limbo wich they call the US and am just glad to live in Germany.
"I haven't been able to find a job for a month now. I want to kill myself!"
Bitch, please.
Health care. In Canada everyone has free health care, I cant imagine having to debate if u want to go to a doctor just because you can't afford it that's pretty messed up.
This thread is making me sad I live in America. This entire country is so fucking backwards...
[deleted]
Depends. Many fields of science just use metric even in America. Although this isn’t always true it generally is.
Literally every time when someone abbreviates their location with a city or state name.
You can have guns in tv shows but god forbid you swear
As an American, I think any lengthy maternity or paternity leave and months of vacation is awesome. So how does that work within your company? Do you hire Temp replacements or does someone else get stuck doing double work? What if you are someone who choses NOT to have kids, do they get any compensation equal to their Parent-counterparts?
We get freelancers come in to cover vacation depending on how long it is - a week or more and we get someone in at my company... a day or two and a coworker can usually cover. Parental leave is usually a full time set contact for the duration of the leave. If you choose not to have children you don't get "extra" days off equal to your parent counterparts. .. parental leave is a benefit available equally to everyone, whether you choose to use it is up to you.
Getting "written up" at work. It just sounds like something that happens in school.
Public sector services being equated with communism.
Anti-Vaxxers. In every thread. I've never seen them outside of memes.
I've had to unfriend people on Facebook because that's all they talk about...even when presented with the truth in the simplest to understand language. It's like talking to Flat Earthers and 45's Fans. If there were a hell, we'd all be going there.
Unfriending them just puts them deeper in the echo chamber.
I tried. I REALLY did. I used ALL the words. On ALL of her posts. And talked to ALL of her friends when they'd come at me. It was exhausting! She was just...la di dah! Like I hadn't said anything. It got to where I dreaded scrolling through my News Feed knowing she'd be there. Ug.
Well that’s normal. Chances are you won’t be heard and you won’t change minds. But presenting your opinion and facts and evidence is still important even if you aren’t heard. How many of her friends might have read something and thought “oh my god how did I not know” but never reply. Also when you hit a brick wall I usually just start using stuff with high emotional impact. Like stories about kids dying because of the anti vaccination mentality. Something that could make someone legit consider they are hurting the innocent with their actions BECAUSE THEY ARE.
The problem with the Anti-Vaxxers that I have known are that, one, they seem to have situational deafness, when someone presents a counter argument they absolutely can't internalize it, because they have already invested so much time into this mindset that anything that challenges that is essentially heresy. And two, to be educated would require them to be open to it, when in fact they are not. These people are part of a community who feels marginalized, and threatened, they get a since of belonging, and feel like a hero fighting the injustice they perceive as being directed at them. These are people who get their self-worth, not from their accomplishments, family, or self, but from the group/groups they belong to. You will never make headway with these people, because to try is to challenge their group-identity, and if you did manage to convince them (which you won't as I have stated) they know they would lose their connection to the group that gives them their identity. SJW's are similar in this way.
Agreed, just feel like the argument is still worth making.
Oh, I talk a lot about herd immunity. Because that's what killing babies. :(
Also refusing shots at birth or prenatal.
I don't understand why people don't trust "Science" yet they live in houses, drive cars and are chained to their phones...
Simple answer, they are ignorant and that ignorance drove them into an echo chamber and it’s too deep for anyone to pull them out especially cause everyone else there is just repeating how nice it is to be in an echo chamber.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but cheerleading. Its a great deal in the US and I often read about cheerleaders who are popular in school. Cheerleaders also have a lot of intricate, sometimes dangerous movements.
In my country we are like- ''oh those who compete, compete. Those who are not, here's the poms-poms and the cans and bottles with beans, have fun!''
Cheerleading is highly competitive and there are (small) scholarships offered for cheerleaders.
[deleted]
NBA, Legal advice and Toilet paper.
(I mean, how can you call that grease clean, if it ain't washed?)
student debt.
I have a few culture shocks I think would be interesting:
I had a coworker/ boss from Ireland who was appalled at our healthcare and employment regulations. The company we worked for only offered benefits to official management, and even then, you had to have the position for a full year before they took effect. The fact she only got 7 days of combined sick days and vacation was, "Absolutely fucked." Health insurance to her made NO sense at all and she was confused as to why, with health insurance, she was still paying ~$60 for an asthma inhaler.
Japanese exchange students visited my high school a few times. We're not as strict with our time tables and so its not uncommon for our buses and trains to be a few minutes late, and as Americans we accept this fact. However, when they went to take a train into Boston and it was a few minutes late they said it was, "Unacceptable!" Another thing they were amazed at was the size of our cars. I live in a part of New England that's fairly rural so large trucks and SUVs aren't uncommon at all. I remember someone brought their family's Ford Excursion and the exchange students going gaga over it and it's size.
Just about any foreigner I've talked to doesn't understand peanut butter. Most recently I had a woman from Poland tell me, "It's an ingredient! Like mayonnaise or pepper!" another thing she didn't understand? S'mores. She couldn't wrap her brain around s'mores.
Again, a complaint I've heard from people of different ethnic backgrounds tell me about American food is that overall everything is too sweet, like we put sugar in freaking everything- which is mostly true.
Making a big deal out of someone's race or racism
Not having Net Neutrality.
-- India.
Basically all the time Americans just assume everyone else is American. Like there is nothing outside the U.S. of A.
For instance the concept of "cross country driving". When I do that, it takes about 1.5 hours (west-east).
Buying things on Amazon
Medical expenses - especially around childbirth.
The gaps in stall doors. I really had no idea they even existed until a few months into using Reddit.
Credit cards
Well, we have credit cards, but I don't know of anybody using it like I read it on reddit. All of the people I know use a card that is automatically paid off every month. I don't know a single person with credit card debt.
high schools and healthcare
Having to worry about medical bills.
Financially Crippling healthcare, Oh and maternity leave.... astonishing.
I live in Germany. „Regular“ judges just apply at the institutions. You have got to have excellent grades and a clean background check. Judges, as well as many teachers, police oficers, fire Fighters etc. enjoy special privileges in order to prevent corruption.
The cost of Healthcare and school shootings
college culture and fraternities.
Voting in an idiot.
Let's see......booming economy, lowest unemployment since 1948, lowest trade-deficit in a long time, 40+% drop in illegal immigration, negotiating with N. Korea when nobody else could, exposing the corrupt and ultra-biased media, not taking anyone's bullshit at the G7 summit......you've got a lot to learn, pal.
Omg lol. Omg this is great. I should post this to r/cringepics and r/bestof
How about posting your response under f/somepeoplecanthandlethefacts ?
Some Chinese Americans feel really offended seeing a white girl wearing Qipao (traditional Chinese dress). I don't get it. Moved here 5 years ago from Beijing.
I have never heard of term "Millennials" till recently. Now i have been hearing a lot and especially with americans post/threads. Not sure if its american term or more general but never heard it in 3rd world countries
The fact that waiters and waitresses get paid so little that you HAVE to tip, if you dont, youre getting a spit burger next time.
In the UK, tipping is not compulsory, but if youve done good service, we'll give a tip. If youre shit, youre not getting a tip at all.
I cant imagine HAVING to tip even if the service was below average
You should seriously consider using social networks to create massive groups of protest and take the streets. It is wild that there is a huge sector of the population addicted to painkillers because what doctors gave them was too potent. Or that you have to pay a fortune to give birth or... Pure basic staff. I do know that there are superlovely ppl and great professionals in the US but I still struggle to understand how did you get to this point. Do not give up. Protest. Write to your politicians. Every little helps.
Trump 😏
Applebees - Always mentioned in worst of lists. I know they microwave everything.
Gary, Michigan - Most dangerous place
The_Don**( subreddit. Just a weird place)
I moved back to the USA after living in Korea for years. Couldn't believe the amount of time American news talks about the "North Korea threat." They talk about it more than they do in South Korea.
Get the fuck outta here with the "North Korea threat" TV news! North Korea can't do shit to anyone. They've got an army of 90 pound starving people and a bunch of military equipment from the 50's.
And do you think they were ever going to nuke the United States and just get their whole country turned to ash? What the fuck kind of sense does that make?
There's no country out there that could fuck with our military. Any country that tries to attack is getting smashed or going down with is in a nuclear firestorm. Ain't happening. There's no North Korea threat, or Iran threat or any of that shit. We're getting taken for our tax dollars using fear!
Something I can't fathom is the US way of internet connections and plans that go with it. Not having a choice between providers would suck a lot.
The entirety of american work culture/system.
No mandatory vacation and limited sick leave, no maternity leave or a shit one, expectation of overtime. No security at all if you happen to get fired, which by the way is as easy as disagreeing with your boss.
All the fast food related things. I haven't even heard of half of them. And some shit about olive gardens.
Not having kettles and instead using the stove to boil water. Kettles are just so much more convenient.
We don't really use kettles that much over here.
We're not really a big "hot tea sipping" society (mostly elderly people drink it).
Mall security, ive never even seen security in a store outside of Clare’s and that time I accidentally got locked in a mall and the alarm turned on.
I was curious if your rates were any different since you don’t have “credit agencies”. They don’t seem very different. Your Mortgage rates are very appealing.
Fahrenheit tempurature measurements. I just can't get my head around it, and I never will
Jaywalking
Having no health insurance and having to pay obscure amounts for ambulance and hospital stays. Legaly being not allowed to get private bloodwork in some states. Having to pay obscure amounts for bloowork, if they are allowed to do so.
Police brutality/bullying.
They're pretty chill here. If you're nice to them, they're nice to you (well, as much as they can be without letting you completely off the hook). I guess it comes from also having a much smaller population. If there's fewer cops, there's fewer asshole cops. It's hard to get a reputation for being assholes if there's only been 3 police brutality cases in the last 30 years. Because they've got SO MAMY cops, and police brutality tends to make national news, The USA is sort of playing with a handicap there.
My only complaint is towards the emergency call operators in my country. They aren't trained up to the standard that they should be, and that means they can be a serious liability to the safety of the person calling. I have only had 2 incidents with bad calls, but my auntie (who used to be a cop) has confirmed that their training is absolute rubbish. :/
People using their garages to store everything but their own car, including when it's freezing / snowing.
The kicker is that they leave their $30.000+ cars outside while the garage houses mostly worthless junk worth hardly anything.
This is very common in England also.
Racial divide. Black & white people still can't get along?
Breaking my leg and not having to worry about debt for the rest of my life or being fired without cause
American toilets clogging all the time
Anestesia to remove wisdom teeth,here in Europe we remove them with local numbing and barely feel a thing
Anthony Bourdain. Although I am not especially interested in most of your celebs, the local press or what not still manages to introduce me to most of them on some level. But this guy was completely unknown to me until he died.
You can't just say "I've stayed in Europe", like, you do realise staying in Munich is completely different than staying in Cardiff, right?
I'm baffled by how expensive your internet and phone contracts are. Here in the UK and majority of Europe you can pay like £30 per month for unlimited fibre. My phone contract for instance has unlimited data, calls and texts and I only pay £20 per month for that.
Edit: Also, why are data caps still a thing for you guys?
Garbage disposals and why you don't have electric kettels
Obesity
Aw thanks. No worries; all I took from it was that you miss your home. I’m just so displeased with what is going on here right now and how people treat each other. At this moment I think we suck.
School shootings
paying for healthcare
The obsession with guns. I just do not get it.
American football
Worrying about medical bills and college fees
Going to bog chain grocery stores like Walmart in the middle of the night. Seems so strange to me... what does one need at 3 o'clock in the morning? I mostly just feel bad for the people working those night shifts.
Selecting jobs based on the Health insurance plans they offer.
In many other countries we've come up with this thing called a 'government' which supplies healthcare.
The healthcare is paid for from a pool of money paid to the government based on what people can afford, calculated from their income and assets- we call that 'taxes'.
A government providing basic services out of tax dollars? Shit that's gotta be communism!! /s
College not being free. I would die.
In the states people drive everywhere and think nothing about driving for two or three hours. Home in Europe an hours drive is a long journey. Also the public transportation is better.
"saving America"... for what? We don't need it.
Net neutrality. We have that.
Tipping....this whole situation of the US tipping process and expectations has always puzzled me. Would it not be better for the employer to just pay a reasonable hourly rate to their staff? Just seems annoying to have to tip every single time you dine out , but mainly stressful for the staff themselves
Heath care and not being able to afford it. We have a standard emergency fee of 100 euro which covers everything and actually you don't have to pay it straight away and can even contest it if you can't afford it. For people who don't work they have medical cards and it's all free and if you are on low income you can get a gp card so doctors and hospital will be free. Prescription have a standard fee of 2 euro and its covered by medical card.
I pay 40 euro a month for extra private insurance because it covers therapist etc but you can get therapy free but it has a waiting list.
I would be scared to live in American in case I got sick :(
rather refusing medical treatment than running the risk to go bankrupt. most of our medical things are covered in the netherlands
except the dentist. you have to get a separate insurance for that
Way late to the party and it's probably been said a couple of times but I can't wrap my head around how a country with supposedly high standard of living can have such a hich percentage of the population who are so uneducated. It's really beyond me how any nation can let their educational system fall into such disrepair. And the worst part is that nobody seems to be doing anything about it!
Quoting Bible to Atheists who are not even Christian to begin with.
~~Most of the things on~~ r/latestagecapitalism
Having a moron lead a country
dang
American football, Baseball cards and US phone carriers.
Racism
I'm canadian. Blows my mind how half of america not only disagree with Trump's policies but hate him for it. A billionaire that is 70 yrs old leaves his lavish lifestyle to make America great and people think he's nothing but a clown that needs to be impeached. Clearly America is benefiting from his policies. Stop the hate, stand with your President, support your government, and if you don't like it VOTE ffs...
I don’t understand why Canadians like you post with all the nut jobs in T_D. The asshole is not even your leader and treats Canada like shit.
If you actually are a Canadian then please have some self respect.
The reason you leftists are a dying breed is because of the cuckish comments like "nut jobs in T_D" and "basket of deplorables"... The world is being woke. Its not just an American movement its world wide. Get used to it!
Odd. What with use folks on the left being vindicated pretty much daily, I'm happy and smiling. You seem kind of bitter, though.
Seems the right is the only one winning lately. We are the ones smiling my friend.
Odd. Given how bad a week you just had.
I mean, it's been fun watching the pretzel logic Trump fans have been using to somehow make make this week look good, but they've got nothing to work with.
Really.... I seem to recall a week of unprecedented accomplishments. Though, you having your hate goggles on are blind to notice that. You don't see that a 70 year war has ended which demolished the chances of a nuclear war from starting which would have killed a minimum of 30 million people. But fuck Trump right?
Nothing was accomplished.
North Korea did not end the war. Nor did they promise to. No nuclear was has been averted.
You do know that North Korea's nuke test site collapsed a few months ago, right? That forced them to suspend all testing for a couple of years while they rebuilt it.
They made a vague statement that, in exchange for many US concessions, they would think about talking about it more.
This is from a nation that has, on several occasions, promised to de-nuclearize, with details, and then changed their mind.
Epic Trump failure. Please tell me one thing that he got out of NK.
1)"The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity." 2)"The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean peninsula." 3)"Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula." 4)"The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified."
To the left this means nothing. They believe that a commitment from Kim isn't worth the paper it is signed on. If Obama had this kind of commitment they would be praising him on every news channel but unfortunately he made no such effort as to even try. To the right this is one step forward to peace. One step closer to winding back the doomsday clock. For that I thank Trump and his efforts.
Yep, a vague promise to do something later. Rather less specific than their last couple of commitments. Thank you for citing the evidence that I am right. I have to wonder why you like to undercut your own arguments, though.
Can you please list at least one accomplishment? Obama would never have signed this kind of commitment because he understood how to make deals.
In Trump's case, we're dealing with a fellow that is so out of touch that he thinks America has a trade deficit with Canada.
Respectfully, he's hardly left his lavish lifestyle. It's not like he's gone to live in a shed in a carpark.
[deleted]
My Prime Minister was voted in the same way Trump was. I disagree with his policies the same way some Americans disagree with Trumps. The difference is we don't burn our flag, divide our country, kneel to our anthem, or conspire to toss him out like a dirty rag. We go on with our lives knowing that if he fucks up enough we will vote him out in 4 years. We keep keeping on. Let him do what he was voted in to do. If we don't like it we deal with it and move on. Americans seem to feel the need to put pussy hats on their heads and march. Why? The constitution says Trump won. Let him do what he promised the American people. If it doesn't work out then vote him out in 4 years. Simple. The world will not end in a 4 year term... Never has, never will. Deal with your loss and try harder next time.
Thank you, this is exactly what I keep telling my American friends.
[deleted]
Democracy is all about voting. The majority wins. If you don't like what the outcome is, to bad! Suck it up and move on. Vote again in 4 years. Utilize peacefully assembly, speak your mind, and do what you can to practice your "freedom of expression"... In my opinion, burning the flag, kneeling to the anthem, and saying "FUCK YOU" to the leader of your nation does nothing but take 5 steps backwards for your cause. The moment those negative steps actually become a majority of the populous, you no longer have a nation that once was. You might as well start over.
Except the majority lost
Thank god for the electoral college! Without it, it wouldn't be the United States of America, it would be the United States of California...
[deleted]
All the marches, protests, etc won't change a thing
Wow I'm glad I learned history in the US and not in Canada
I think you let what the TV shows, makes you believe that most or even a significant amount of Americans do. We have something that you don't have and that's the First Amendment. We can protest and say what we want. Don't damn people that do protest. This has happened here for ages and mostly has made America better. That is, voicing what you think is right without censorship.
Stand with your president
Funny, considering all the flack Trudeau has recieved.
Though I can't really say much about that whithout being a bit hypocritical, as a french, spitting on our various presidents is a national past-time.
I really do NOT like Trudeau's policies. I don't like everything about him including the man he is. But I am Canadian. I would never say "Fuck Trudeau". Especially on a world stage. I debate my political opinions with others that disagree with me. Things I will never do is kneel during our national anthem, yell "FUCK Trudeau", burn the Canadian flag, or disrespect my country in any way. Though, I would like to spit on Trudeau, I wouldn't....lol
Well, he does make it easy to not take him serious, when one day he is contradicting something he said in the past. So much, that there is an entire subreddit that points this out.
/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/
Just like every politician ever... Google democratic immigration policy...Obama, Bill, Hillary, Chuck, Nancy, all of them used to say exactly what Trump says now. The only reason they changed their mind is because they say what they think the American people want . It works the same way with abortion, immigration, taxes, and all policies. Whatever gets the vote gets the say. The only difference is Trump is actually doing it. 8 years ago the left wanted more border security, tougher immigration reform, better vetting, a blockage of immigrants from Muslim countries, and the Embassy moved to Jerusalem... But Trump says it and BOOM! He's a racist.
The only reason they changed their mind is because they say what they think the American people wan
as is their jobs. the point of being a politician is to represent the party and the members. the same reason why trump is currently saying the opposite of things he said 15 years ago or so.
[deleted]
But DRUMF MEANIE!!!! BAD MEANIE!!!
The only people who don’t like him are the autistic reddit liberals and the bottom tiered IQ of our country who actually believe the propaganda.
Look at the election map by county to be reassured, nobody actually believes the Trump hate is genuine anymore.
believe the propaganda
Ironic.
When did Trump "Leave his lavish lifestyle"?
You wouldn't understand what a billionaire lifestyle is like. Trust me, his lavish lifestyle is gone.
I see. You can't back up your statement, so you fall back on being vague.
How about you give me a reason that you understand what a billionaire lifestyle is like?
Please provide a citation for anything he has 'given up'.
Google the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire... He has "given up" more than our little middle-class minds can comprehend...
Yep. You're still trying to weasel out of that statement after realizing you can't defend it.
Trump went from living a BILLIONAIRE'S lifestyle to living a $400,000 a year lifestyle. If you can't comprehend that then there is no point in even debating this topic.
He is still making the same money, from.the same companies, that he always did.
His income has increased, as he is adjusting taxes and regulations to increase personal.wealth.
He has lost over $1 billion in a year and a half... Your logic boggles me...
Yeah, now you are just flat-out lying.
You are in denial... He was worth 4.5 billion... Now, 3.5 billion...
Ahh, good we are making progress.
Is is good that you finally confessed that you were lying when you said "Trump went from living a BILLIONAIRE'S lifestyle to living a $400,000 a year lifestyle."
So you've taken the first step towards waking up.
Lmao... Let me break out the crayons so you can understand exactly whats happening here. The fact that he is worth 3.5 billion dollars doesn't mean he is living that lifestyle. He earns $400,000 per year living in the white house and working there for the American people while living the whitehouse lifestyle. He can't live the $billion lifestyle while trapped in the white house... With that being said it is clear that you have no argument in this debate because you are clearly wrong. Which also leads me to believe you are trolling me. Which doesnt bother me, it is all you have left so I dont blame you. Finally, yes I have been woke. Woken by the great awakening! I see clearly now...
Ahh, so you don't understand that money is fungible. That makes sense. Clearly, getting a $400K salary from the government has cut him off from all of the other sources of income that he has, and is unable to spend any of it. So your basis for this "given up his lifestyle" claim is bad math. And he's hardly living the "whitehouse lifestyle", given his epic spending on vacations, so that's also wrong.
Can you come up with a reason why you keep listing this $400K figure? He has multiple sources of income, sure. One of them happens to be $400K, but why is that one significant? I mean, yes, Trump has promised to divert his government salary to charity, and then never did it. But if he had, he could have just channeled in $400K, or $600K, or a million or two's salary from elsewhere.
I started this thread because I figured you were one of those misinformed people who thought he had given up his businesses. But I see you already knew he'd kept all his other income, so all you have is bad logic and the usual blindness that infects Trump's followers.
Canadians and most Americans only know the popular culture image of Trump. To you, he is just "that rich guy who built Trump Tower, had a reality show and was in Home Alone 2".
New Yorkers have known about his con artistry and crookery for decades -- and his mafia ties, his womanizing, and his money laundering.
He's a crook who conned ignorant Americans into voting for him-- while the media sat by and allowed him to become "legitimate"-- Why? Because he was a ratings golden goose- so they really didn't go out of their way to tell anyone about his past.
He owes billions to Russian oligarchs because he's a failure as a businessman (he even bankrupted a casino-- that's how inept he is) and they're cashing in via political favors.
if you don't like it VOTE ffs...
Well that's what they did. And they lost. That's why they're so mad now. If anything I think it's weird so many americans say they love democracy but then go crazy when they lose.
To clarify I udnerstand the election was really really close but no country preaches democracy like the US does so even if it's a very close result you gotta accept the outcome. That's how it works. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite.
The lack of acceptance comes in two part probably. One part is the investigation going on into Russian interference in the election. The other part is that Trump lost the popular vote in the election. This combination has led more to the anger that the campaign that won might have worked with a foreign party and won, while losing the popular vote.
I agree. I'd like to say it's because in the world we live in today, everyone gets a trophy as a child, win or lose. When they grow up to be adults they don't understand why, when they lose, they don't get "the trophy". Life is a competition, yet in todays world, we don't learn that until well into adulthood. Back in my day (the 80's) we learned about losing and we tried harder the next time. We also learned that sometimes you simply just don't win and we lived and learned. These days if you don't win you throw a fit until you get your way, even if your way never comes.... Just constant fits... Sad really... Big league...
Well, they actually won the popular vote, but the system is fucked...
System not fucked. If it wasn't for electoral college, the only places that would really matter would be California and New York. Electoral college gives the less populated states a voice. It is amazing that no one has a problem with the electoral college until this election. Maybe if Hillary didn't ignore a bunch of states she thought didn't matter, she may have won.
The electoral college has two consequences:First your vote is not everywhere worth the same, which I don't think is fair and second of all, it is also responsible for fewer people voting, because a certain party ever wins in some states, no matter what happens.
And your argument is also not true at all. First of all California and New York have together 18% of all votes. But not everyone would vote democrat. So the other states could certainly tip the scale back to the republicans.
To make it short, the system is completly outdated and kinda stupid. But I don't see it changing, because the founding fathers have been gods and did never make mistake /s
18 percent will absolutely sway the vote.
Ye wouldn't it be awful if everyone's vote was equal.
You weren't around in 2000?
I had a problem with it well before this election. I think it's been used to disenfranchise the people every time that it hasn't matched the popular vote. Not just now, not just in modern history, but every single damn time.
It is not right that the vote of a person in Wisconsin is worth the vote of more than one Californian.
No, pure democracy is what would be fucked. You should be thanking your lucky starts we aren't 100% majority rules in every decision. In fact the federalists made sure this didn't happen
Yes the whole system is fucked up and corruption and bribery runs rife. The US is a real shitshow of a country these days.
I think they're more mad about the shitty election system. Hillary had more overal votes from the people but the 'the winner takes it all' system let trump win
So I'm suppose to be OK with all the humanitarian violations he does? No thanks. I am not a monster.
Humanitarian violations? Were you this vocal when Obama was dropping 20,000 bombs on Syria? Or locking children in cages along the border? No, you weren't. Explain to me these "violations" you speak of. I'll patiently wait so I can debate you over them...
The presidential election is always intensely sensationalized and people get so focused on the president to the point where they only wanna talk about him.
Your joking right? Right?
That's the problem with you people... You're absolutely shocked that anyone would have a different view than you and you get so angry when it happens. You aren't better that us! You are worse. You have zero tolerance for a different view and become assholes when confronted with them. Settle down and debate a person instead of calling their views a joke.
So many downvotes but you're spot on!
[deleted]
There's that leftist hospitality I've been talkimg about! Such anger. The movement isn't just happening in America there bud, it's world wide. Get over it!
How are you getting downvotes. I dont even like Trump but your comment speaks the truth
Mass shootings, bankrupting healthcare, trump is president.
Americans will fight you on all three of these points.
Credit score
Credit score matters in the UK, where are you?
Getting a mortgage - having never used a credit card I had an average score which meant I couldn't get a low rate of interest.
After I have now bought a few things on finance, any hard pulls of my credit history have actually lowered my score. So despite having the money/income to pay things off I can't actually get finance sometimes even though I have never defaulted on any payments. To fix this, I suspect I need to actually get a credit card and pay it off for a few months/years.
Sweden
So how do lenders determine whether or not you will pay them back?
It's more connected to things like your phone contract/apartment contract. If you don't pay them back you'll get a fine. If you ignore that fine you'll be listed at "kronofogden", in which they mark you as not trustable. They can even go to your home and take whatever you have to pay off your debts.
During this time most organizations and employees can legally deny any requests from you involved with money. The mark will stay there forever, but won't really matter after a couple of years.
So, how is that not like a credit score?
You have a binary good/bad. We have a graduated measurement.
Here we're either fine or fucked.
I had No Credit till recently. Took me about a year to build up my credit score to buy a house. But, did it, and only had to put 10% down onthe house.
My credit score would be negatively affected if I decided to not pay my phone bill one month too. It sounds like a similar system, you just don't have a trackable number system by which you can determine your own score?
Here you're either marked as not trustworthy or trustworthy
I assume the default is 'Trustworthy' then?
Would the default be enough to take out a large loan? Or would you need some history?
You need to have an income or something else of value to take out a large loan, which is not determined by your history
So just proof of collateral?
Kinda yeah
interesting. Thanks for the insight. Much appreciated.
[deleted]
Because you can't buy a gun in a supermarket without a background check. And it takes a deep background check and a tax stamp that costs tens of thousands of dollars to buy an actual assault rifle. Just because a rifle looks scary does not make it an "assault" rifle.
Educate yourself
because both of those things are false
[deleted]
Well it all started with these assholes in red coats that wanted to make us pay them all these taxes, without equal representation within the government. Then they wanted to take away all our guns so that we would be forced to submit. Then we kicked their asses, and made it a constitutional right to own firearms so that we could do the same thing again to any government that over stepped.
Ok but that was a while ago, the world is quite different now
That strange orange thing i sse in the news all the time
[deleted]
Im from the UK i cant vote
Extreme amounts of gun violence, shitty health care, donald trump as president and triggerhappy cops vs black people just to name a few
Pretty much all of this is overblown by the media
The cultish pledge of allegiance kids have to chant in school
Not a non-American but I've lived overseas for more than a decade. Two obvious ones: gun violence and healthcare. Where I live these are not problems. I feel lucky every day to not deal with the scourge of the former or the lack of the latter.
Did you have an issue with either of these before you moved?
No but two things changed: age and having a child.
Age and having a child only decreased your chance of the first being an issue
Um...I’ll have to send my kid to school. While the chances would be extraordinary low that my child would be a victim there, we don’t have to think about the issue at all where we live. 0 gun violence here. Not an issue.
Love how this is basically just a thread bashing the American healthcare and education system. Find something more original to bitch about. Most posts attack one aspect or negative of said system and ignore the positives behind why the system is the way it is.
american here, what would you say is a positive of the american public and private education system?
Why you don't have universal healthcare; and
How is it that you haven't banned guns yet..
Enough people want universal healthcare but nobody wants to pay for it. Havent bothered to ban guns because every time we try to mass ban something criminals just get rich off selling them.
Trump
I simply cannot fathom the depth of corrupt corporatism in their society. Its terrifying to think about. It affects everything about public policy, about every American citizens daily life (and others too), Its infected every single aspect of their society.
And Its hurting people. Why do they just lst this happen?
As a Canadian, Guns.
School shootings
How is it possible that no one said school shootings
I had to sort by controversial to even see the obvious first answer which is the gun fetish.
Yo I know I’ve belonged in a different country my entire life but reading this thread makes a part of my soul die that I’m still here! America blows, let’s be honest.
Edit: Downvotes, really? As someone who would be dead if I did not have a huge change of income at 24, who has paid a ridiculous amount of money on health care, schooling, my home and taxes, who cares about the corruption and control... downvote all you want but this country is completely ass backwards.
Mass Shootings
Hardly an american phenomena
How many has America had in the last 10 years compared to other civilized countries?
How many times larger is america than other civilized countries?
You do know you can do "per capita" yes?
Per capita, we are lower than over a dozen european countries
What information are you using? Something like this:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
[deleted]
I was raised to be thankful and proud that I was an American.
Well guess why.
"I was raised to be thankful and proud that I was an American."
You are. Anyone born in western society regardless if its America Britain Germany France etc etc etc have it dam fucking good. Ive seen videos of people being lynched over simply accusations, Ive seen cartels butcher innocent people, Ive seen people run over in China with no one batting an eye just oops I smashed that person dang it, Ive seen cartels torture people like you couldn't imagine, Ive seen the aftermath of suicide bombings the torn apart bodies the people frantically searching for loved ones, Ive seen people in Africa tied to a tire and set on fire for being a thief they actually have a name for that its kinda common, Ive seen people dying and the only thing people do is take out their phones and records the person here in western society if you're seriously injured or dying people are GOING TO TRY and help you not true in places like India. I once saw a man cut in half by a train still alive, out of this entire giant crowd that was watching this guy only one lady was trying to help and comfort him. You are extremely lucky to be born in any western country period dot the end.
What rabbit hole? Take a look at everything wrong with other countries, none of them are perfect. Reddit just likes to shit on America all the time. We're not that much worse than other places out there.
[deleted]
I can't live abroad because I have health problems. Our healthcare system is corrupt, but I've managed ok. I'm fortunate enough to live in a city with a large array of specialists who diagnosed / are working to diagnose me.
I have friends abroad though, they're doing ok, with the exception of the one who's car got shot the other day in South Africa. She's a little frazzled. I don't act superior about it though as I could get shot at if I wandered into a bad neighborhood in my city. Do you suggest the both of us move to the UK where apparently there is no chance either of us will ever encounter violence anywhere ever?
[deleted]
I don't know about college tuition, but it's ludicrous to claim that gun control and healthcare are not being addressed. It's on the news every other day, people are arguing about it and fighting for a solution. Sure, there isn't a lot actually being done at the moment, but it is being addressed.
Having a fucking orangutan as head of state.
We've got a soggy teabag but still better than that idiot.
Hardly, President Trump is a genius and we will never tire of winning.
Winning what?
Um let’s see. Stock market, unemployment, lowered taxes, freed the hostages held by NK, ended Korean War. Never get tired of winning.
I didn't realise you guys were living in a utopia my bad
Hell yeah. But don’t tell anyone lest they spoil the fun.
Can you do something about Tommy Robinson? That shit is getting out of hand.
I don't think we have the death penalty unfortunately
Pretty harsh. Didn’t know you got a death sentence for catcalling Muslim rapists and pedophiles. But be all smug and what not. You call for the death sentence for those Muslim London bridge terrorists?
They got a death sentence. The police came and shot them.
Robinson is a coward and a fear mongerer. Yeah I was kidding about the death penalty but I wish he'd fuck off. I don't see him inciting abuse of white people in the street when a white gang rapes some people.
That happen a lot over there? If only a young lady had the right of self defense.
Are you asking if rapes happen over here? I'd imagine they happen in every country regardless of whether or not we sacrifice a bit of personal security in exchange for inflated murder and suicide rates by firearm. Are you implying rapes don't happen in America?
U should check out /r/dgu
Just because they deter crime doesn't mean they deter all crime. They certainly don't reduce crime. Infact weren't 2500 sex offender just arrested? Operation broken heart.
2300 Online child sex offenders. Are we supposed to start arming children? Another example of how the Trump administration is kicking ass.
Not to beat a dead horse but here in the states we have an expression. “When seconds count the police are minutes away.” - Peace out
What the hell does that have to so with him?
Medical debt
Kek
sex related problems (missing sexed)
College debts, medical bills and religious nuts.
Extreme racial tensions.
Their apparent national inability to hold a poo in until they get to a toilet and if they do make it to a toilet they can't use it without spraying the entire area with shit or clogging it. At least according to about 15% of stories on Reddit.
Any post on discontinued items. What the hell are dunkaroos? Quaaludes? Something flavored somethings?
Don't know about the others, but Quaaludes were drugs that were frequently used recreationally. Have they been discontinued? I remember hearing about them a lot in the 70s and 80s but I haven't heard the name in a long time. A long time.
Ah, I saw it on a discontinued thread so it might have been a joke answer, but because I never know any of the answers I didn't know what it was. Assumed it was some kind of sweets hahaha
Problems with tipping culture. Problems with not having healthcare.
The pledge of allegiance and the obsession over the national anthem
The Electoral College.
I get it; there's a bicameral legislature, and you want to be able to balance the needs of the flyover states with the high-density cities on the coasts. That said, it's crazy to me that anyone would find it in themselves to support the electoral college system when it comes to the Presidency. It absolutely flies in the face of 'one man, one vote' -- a cornerstone of democracy -- to have a system where a voter in Wyoming has 3.6 times the electoral power of a voter in California.
'So you're saying that we should let LA and New York decide who the President is?'
No. I'm saying that the people should decide who the President is. And that's where the people fucking are.
Worrying about me / kids / families getting shot at school. That schools have regular drills for this kind of thing seems to hideously dystopian to me.
Your voting system is insane! (As are your education and medical systems)
Paying out of pocket for health care
The fact that Americans love to criticise everyone, including Americans from the other American political party, but are in general unable to handle criticism themselves, as can be noticed by massive downvotes.
Only throw punches if able to receive.
I mean maybe the downvotes are because how low effort the comments can be? If you just write school shooting I'm not entirely impressed with your riveting analysis. These threads are weekly at minimum and generally have incredibly condescending tones. Mean while if you ever see Americans criticize any aspect of anywhere you generally see a flurry of "at least we don't mow down school children".
Everything. The fuck is student debt, the fuck are hospitality bills, the fuck are shootings, the fuck is this the fuck is that.
Food: obsession with sweets, sugar, melty cheese, huge portions Home: take off your damn shoes inside what are you pigs in a barn??? Politics: wtf murica? Guns??? In frickin Walmart? The fake cheerfulness, the two-faced conversations. The forced spirituality, and grandiose descriptions.
American here and I canot relate to this title.
Paying for college. It's completely free here in Czech Republic.
But who wants to go to college there?
Emmm... people? The colleges here are arguably just as good as the ones in USA. They're just funded by the government. That is why we are getting so many foreign students - they can get good education here for cheap.
The us has some of the best universities in the world what do you mean
I never sais US universities were bad, but they are expensive, unlike the ones in Czech Republic or other European countries...
You said they were comparable, they are not
Says you
School shootings.
I'm American but we all know it's true
Gun control. I'm deffo gonna get mad down-votes for even mentioning it but in the UK it literally never comes into conversation.
If we didn't have guns we'd still be Englishmen.
That's why.
all black people related issues. we have no black people.
over there it seems that while they are a minority of like 10-15%, so much of the news/current issues are about things related to them. meanwhile other similarly numerous groups like latinos and asians just go about their business.
Why must we have this thread once a week?
There's no reason you have to post...
https://media1.tenor.com/images/c88ec4382b2d280b34d29daa11742c74/tenor.gif?itemid=5343842[.]
Getting my school shot up
Being kicked out of your home at 18
Paying for healthcare. It's absolutely bizarre to me that if you get sick, you're potentially going to cost yourself a lot of money.
Minimum wage or unethical low pay. Canadian's min. wage recently just went up to 14/hr.
Guns. In India you can't see a gun in a shop if you don't have ID and a license. There's no gun show loophole, gun rights movements, nothing. The only people with guns are police, criminals and very few license holders. That's just pistols.
I don't think I've ever heard or seen anyone own a semi automatic or automatic rifle. A notable exception is Sanjay Dutt who illegally owned an AK variant he received from a mafioso (actually a really funny/sad story). He ended up going to jail because the dude he got it from orchestrated serial train bomb blasts in 2006.
Thinking evolution is not a thing. Seems to be that half the questions of Quora are from Americans who don't understand it and think its not a real thing. As a non-American, I've literally never come across a person who has raised this issue in conversation. I'm sure there are some around who don't accept it, but they likely keep quiet so as not to be thought weird. Most people get a clear understanding in school science classes, and its not exactly rocket science.
School Shootings and Non-Muslim mass shootings in general
Ye we only got the brown kind
?
Crippling Medical bills.
I'd say, but I don't want to be lynched
The gun culture and gun violence.
Coming from Spain, I had only seen guns in police and soldiers. However, I went to college to the US, and I had friends that owned guns and carried them everywhere with them. I was even in a school shootting situation at UT. This has always been very weird to me. I still don't understand why many Americans need to own firearms, and I've lived there for 10yr.
Guns.
Nobody here has guns. Why is that such a big deal?
You can protect your house in different ways then guns. (dogs, alarm system, better locks,...)
I really dont see why every house would need a gun.
(I'm not saying that Muricans should give up their gun. Or i'm not making any statement about guns in America. Im just stating i don't understand why its such a big deal in the usa, but not in any other country.)
Because guns are already here. Other countries just ignore that, or believe all thr illegals will just vanish because a law js passed
SJW.
School shootings
Actually getting upvotes
The American problem with messaging apps. They often complain that they've to use multiple apps. iMessage, Facebook messenger, SmS, Viber etc.
While the rest of the world has one simple solution: WhatsApp. Simple, secure and have so many features.
Why can't Americans migrate to single common messaging platform.
We had a lot of them introduced to us as they came out. Mind you tech was still evolving through each one. Maybe not everyone had a smartphone when X came out. Your grandparents finally got that computer for Facebook and now only know Facebook messenger.
Others still are demographic dependent. Business and techies use Slack. Most gamers use Discord. They're functionally really close.
In fact, going back on Discord, some adopted and kept their older gaming staples. Mumble, TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, sometimes Skype even.
My phone has 8 or so messaging clients installed on it for all my communications
I believe the majority use messenger now. Or at least they did before the whole Facebook fiasco.
Also Whatsapp is originally from California. It got bought out by Facebook sometime ago.
But Facebook messenger isn't (was never) secured by E2E encryption. And it has become partly like Instagram recently. Filters and other superficial stuff.
ITT: Americans are heartless, brain dead morons.
As an American living in the south, I completely agree. I’m actively looking for jobs in other countries right now.
Having a racist president
He's not president anymore. Trump is.
Fraternities/ Sororities in University
[deleted]
welfare payments .. a lot of people cheat and get food stamps and then you can only use it for food so they eat themselves to a heart attack...
Most people that work for a living and aren't on welfare take better care of themselves.. not everyone but most.
Guns, full stop. I don't get the level of attachment to guns or the resulting nonsensical public & political discourse. As a Canadian, we have lots of guns, for hunting, sport shooting etc. But it's basically a non issue or even talking point. Every once and a while the government wants to redo the legislation, but its generally a policy discussion not some earth shattering attempt to undermine our way of life. It just boggle my mind how so many people can be so invested in the idea of guns, especially considering the impacts they've had on your society recently.
American football.
Racism, guns, lobbying, equality, abortion, secularisation, legal weed—It's like you guys are dealing with things we here in the Netherlands have wrapped up decades ago, if not longer.
Right to bear arms.
Gun stuff.
I’m American, but bankruptcy for medical bills is something many non Americans can’t understand at all.
I wish I could discharge these student loans in bankruptcy.
Not tipping being basically a human rights violation.
the pledge of allegiance seems really screwed up to me.
Why?
seems cult-ish. i mean most civilized nations don't make their citizens swear to it's flag, it's government or anything else. the fact that you're expected to say it, every single day in school seems real mind washing and pretty creepy.
a little searching around shows that the only countries that do are: United States, Mexico, Philippines, India, China, Singapore, and Turkey.
so, still weird for the world, but not as weird as i initially thought.
I'm from the Netherlands, and it's banning guns. Here in the Netherlands little to no effective means of self defense are legalized and the government's attitude is that of "hit the gym or get fucked". Come on America, don't let your freedom be curbed by popular mistakes abroad.
Gun shootings, gonna sound like a bitch but fuck it. there was a school massacre in my country 20 odd years ago and guns were immediately regulated with tight restrictions and controls. I've never understood the frankly moronic ideals Americans hold onto. like they'd rather their children gunned down than just fucking controlling guns? it's ridiculous the worst thing I had to worry about at school is if it would be burnt down and that's never happened.
Guns...
GUNS
The amount of systematic resistance again gun control. It took one school shooting here in the U.K. to change the laws.
Trump or a shitty political system. I'm not a fan of Merkel either (I live in Germany), but compared to the american voting system and your current president I couldn't be more glad
School shootings
Guns and god
The fear that my kids will be shot at school.
Net Neutrality. When I first saw the explanation of what it is, I was like "damn, that's a must!". Then I realise that Internet providers here in Russia probably don't know about this term. And I hobestly don't know what keeps them from profiting in this area. Maybe no incoming offers. But law is definitely not an obstacle as far as I know.
Donald Trump.
School shootings
The "love for guns"
NEEDING a pickup-truck.
Seeing a school being shooten up everyday on the news
Adults (ie non-students) living with roommates.
Highschool graduations?!?! Can you relax ,graduating high school is not that deep anywhere else in the world...jeez get a real degree
Not everyone can afford a a degree that will sink them in debt for the rest of their lives. High School graduation may be the only graduation a lot of people get to experience.
1. Healthcare
I'm used to free healthcare. (Or more correctly you pay only up to ~150 USD a year, when you reach that limit it's free). To not go to the doctor/hospital because of costs sounds horrible.
2. Job security
Feels like you can get fired by your boss on a whim.
3. Lawsuits
Seems like a lot of people are really afraid of getting sued, also seems like a lot of people sues for no reason at all. It must cause really high strains on the justice system. Also going around being afraid of getting sued sounds shitty.
4. Free time / vacation
Feels like a lot of you guys have very little free time or vacation time. I work 7 hours a day (excluding voluntary paid overtime) and have 5 weeks vacation time a year (and additional holiday days ~ ie. Christmas, national day, easter, etc.)
5. Politics
How all the big money is allowed to influence the politics. It's terrible.
6. Gun policies
Can't you guys see how this is ruining your country? Regular ppl don't need assault rifles.
(I'm Norwegian)
I'm so tempted to leave America reading all these comments.
Borrowing money from banks to go to college, and get in debt since the start of their working lives for that.
Being afraid of going into public due to the risk of being randomly shot. Im so glad that i cannot relate to that at all.
School shootings.. Shootings in general really.. A lot of gun nuts will say something about the 2 recently and say "clearly gun control doesn't work". but please continue with that list....
Getting shot whilst in a primary school.
The casual disregard for human life Americans have.
Stealing your xbox? BOOM
Killing civilians in a war? You gotta break some eggs. Right?
Shooting low level criminals,blacks, mentally ill? Hastag BlueLivesMatter?
Poor and Sick? Just die.
I admire the USA very much and I think it is a beacon to the world. Most people who criticize the US are often hypocritical, biased, envious or ignorant. So I like the country and its social norms as a rule, and that's why so many people want to move to the USA rather than other countries.
Among the American people, I think there are some occasional fringes that sound ridiculous worldwide:
-the pathetically offended ("cultural appropriation"; "eating Chick-fil-a is homophobic" and other outlandish stupid bullshit like that); and
-those who think breastfeeding or tits in general are a big deal.
Anthem protests, people seem to care a lot for an anthem they probably don't know the words to.
Guns. Am British. More interested in shooting my load on my girls face, than shooting a black kid in his face.
Racism
College debt. Free college woo!
Baby showers. Or showers in general. In Germany it's bad luck to give presents before the actual birth of the child.
So when I read about baby shower drama or having even several showers and still complaining about something, that really annoys me.
Half of all Americans are low income or living in poverty. So, yes, new parents receive gifts. Newly wedded couples have 'money trees' at their receptions for people to give money (in addition to regular gifts). And so on.
We get gifts in Germany as well, but not for a bridal shower AND a wedding or several baby showers. It's the entitlement that bothers me. You get so many gifts yet there is room to complain to babybumps about some drama surrounding your gift giving event.
Eh, don't use Reddit as proof that your bias is legitimate. There are extremes in any population and Reddit doesn't represent reality anymore than any other anonymous forum does.
bridal shower AND a wedding or several baby showers
A wedding shower is uncommon and I've never heard of a couple holding both a bridal and wedding shower. If it happens, it's rare. Nor have a heard of several baby showers being held for the same pregnancy. Multiple pregnancies, yes.
Their second amendment rights. Why do you need to carry a death machine with you everywhere you go?
I dont really get how easily the gun issue became an issue. I mean guns are legal in most countries and there's not as much violence or school/mass shootings. I get that it's an important sport for many, so taking them away would be like taking archery away. But all the violence is so easily avoided!
But both sides fight constantly not reaching any solution when the easiest I can think of is: regulation. If you really love your guns and you're that good citizen who just wants protection, you're not gonna care if you've to wait a few days for an extensive background check or psychological exams. You're not gonna care if you've to store your gun unloaded and away from your ammo. You're not gonna care if you've to renew your license every couple of years. Like people in Ireland go through more vetting to be a teacher than some people go through in the USA to get a gun. And if you hate guns; these regulations will make sure you don't see many.
All these school/mass shootings and general gun violence wouldn't be so common if guns weren't so accessible.
Another thing I don't get is how passionate about guns people can get. I understand its your sport and all but like some people are insane. I remember seeing a video that a gun shop made about guns to get before they're banned. (????) Like theres a REASON they're being banned!!!!!!!
As a Canadian, healthcare.
My mom wasn’t feeling well for a few months. Went to the doctor. She got booked in for an MRI scheduled for three weeks later. MRI found cysts on her ovaries and uterus. One month later she had her hysterectomy and is at home recovering with lots of meds. This cost her $0.00. Like, how the fuck is it even a debate for the most powerful economy in the world to provide this kind of service to its citizens? Maybe build one less navy destroyer per year and put some extra revenue into healthcare.
Paying hospital bills and getting a huge debt to study in a University.
American here I get one sick day a month, 2 personal a year 5 days vac.first 2 years 10 days until five and 15 days after.
Huh OK great comeback I would like to point out that Britain, Sweden, Australia aren't true full social country's but all have free health care because of the socialist idea that I can look after another. And let's not forget that the president is a know racist/rapist in the "home of the free"
Getting shot at school. Seriously, what the hell?
Not entirely answering the question, but when I was visiting my friend in Chicago, I found it funny there was a "No Firearms" sign at the train station, and my friend was so used to it, she was so surprised at my perplexed and amused attitude towards it. Canada has really strict gun laws, so open and concealed carry is illegal
I guess on a darker note relating to that, it saddens me how my friends in the states are often nervous when at the mall, or in a bar, because they don't know if that might be the next place such an atrocity happens.
Being scared of black people (canadian)
How the hell trump got elected????
I simply do not give a shit about net neutrality.
Having a dickhole for a President
[deleted]
Thanks for infecting your fellow student body and spreading diseases...?
I actually think its good when little kids go to school with a little cold. Now note if it is a highly dangerous cold then of course not but just your common cold it is good.
Yes everyone will get it but that is what happens when kids start to socialize for the first 6 months its cold after cold after cold and then their immune system toughens and their not sick for years.
Most new teachers now all about that.
Oh I guess I was talking more about adults. Not kids. I don’t have kids so I have no idea if that’s beneficial or not haha. I caught a very bad strain of flu from a coworker right before Christmas and still want to strangle that person for coming in sick. 4 days of straight up vomiting. NOPE.
Nah it’s usually very light, I just feel like americans make a very big deal out of small things
Idk I’ve been in America since I was 20 (28 now) and grew up in Germany. In Germany, people would call out sick with doctors notes all the time in school. And at work too, actually, since employers can’t limit you from taking sick time if it’s doctor approved. In America on the other hand... when I worked retail I almost lost my job once bc I was too sick to work and didn’t call out “in time”. In all jobs I held (corporate professional as well as service/retail) people are terrified to call in sick for fear of getting fired (aka why my coworker came in with the flu and got me and a few others sick)
Wet wipes for when you go to the bathroom. Hello! Use a damn bidet. The rest of the world does.
The petrol (gas) stations. So, to get petrol, I have to choose between the 81, 82, 83 or 84 octane (all a lot less octane than we have in the UK). Then I have to go in the shop, pay the man the money, go out, fill up the tank, go in, get my money back, go out, get back in the car.
Also, why don’t you have any credit card security?
I'm not sure where you are getting those octane numbers.
For the most part at the majority of gas stations in the US you get three choices
87, 89, and 91 octane.
I made them up- I knew they were low. I believe we usually have the choice of 95 and 98 here
I'm an American, so have nothing to offer except to say that every time I read something of this nature, I realize again how we tout the USA as being the best country on Earth, when in reality we are a bearly functioning society. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our politics are bought by corporations and cannot work together to accomplish anything, I have one day off a week and am currently fighting to take a three day vacation. Unfortunately, I'm to poor to leave. Those of you from other countries, never take for granted the freedoms and laws you have.
Awesome, another post bashing America.
College debt, shootings.
I'm a massive employer my family is 130+ people...
How shitty your employers treat people, but also how many American employees endorse it's as good for the economy!!! At the same time saying universal healthcare is abhorrent...
You guys are strange!!
In my opinion one opinion above conflicts with the other... So many Americans I've met carry same value in both.
Respect and fair treatment of a employers is fair and reasonable. Universal basic healthcare is proven to amazing for the economy and society overall..
How much bloody space they have in the suburbs. From the UK, the urban planning is far mote retricted in large cities here, suburbs don't look anything like the US.
Net neutrality.
Guns.
I don't even know if it's true but from what I have seen on the internet having to be very careful what you say to who you say because the other guy could have a gun and decide to shoot you in the head in certain parts of the country
Your obsession with "the right to bare arms".
If you are surrounded with weapon carrying people are you safer or has the margin of risk just hit the ceiling?
The numbers speak volumes.
School shootings
Electoral college votes, government oversight committee &.... Donald Trump. But then I guess USA doesn't relate to him either.
When they just can't figure out how to stop school shootings.
Um... you take away the guns. It's not that complicated.
Trump
Getting shot, getting sued, getting no healthcare because of economic position, hard drugs, having a president, seeing over-exaggerated TV-shows/commercials, automatic weapons etc.
Being afraid of being shot at work, school, or anywhere for that matter.
Why do Europeons think we are just cowering in fear every time we leave our house? It's not a thing. That doesn't happen. Yes we have a lot of gun violence, but it's trending downwards and has been for a long time. I have not been afraid of being shot one single time in my entire life. It's like people who are afraid of flying even though the chances of there being a crash is astronomically low.
Not European, Australian.
Cowering in fear isn't the right term. Afraid might not be either. But when you have to train your schoolteachers in what to do should a gunman invade the school, or watch a training video on the steps to take should one attack your place of work, that is something people here just can not relate to (as per the thread title).
That's fair. I can see your point. I just see a lot of people in this thread that are under the impression that we are risking getting shot every time we leave our house. That's not the reality.
As an american reading this list, I gotta say that this country is pretty fucked up in a lot of ways. The worst is that we really aren't ready to change the crappy things on this list yet.
Needing medical attention and not being able to get it due to lack of funds/health insurance
And now it'll get even harder because they can deny said insurance if you have ever been diagnosed with any condition before.
Yes, I'm serious.
The whole sentiment of a gun keeping you safe.... A guns only purpose is to shoot something/someone, and as long as it is around you, you could be that someone.
See... this is the mistake. A gun can no more shoot its owner than a knife cut it's owner. Sure it can happen... to an idiot who shouldn't have had it in the first place. Guns are like cars. You need training and understanding of the power and danger therein to operate said machine. I was trained in guns since childhood and respect and understand the power and operation of them. I have never and never will have any issue with guns because I follow proper safety rules. People are idiots and drive drunk, killing innocent bystanders. The same happens with guns. The only difference is that when a drunk driver kills a person, we understand that it is the driver's fault and not the automobile industry. No one pushes to outlaw cars because of a drunk driver... maybe they should.
What was it like being trained inside of an actual gun? You must be teeeeeeeny tiny. Holy shit.
It was surprisingly roomy until they added the T-42 Space Capacitor. After that, the gun became cramped and smelled of elderberries. I have no idea why. I still have dreams of the old gun. The curtains fluttering in the barrel and the spare chamber creaking throughout the night. At the end of the day... there's no place like Glock.
This good. Me like these brain much now.
Now this is the argument I see a lot, but how big of a percentage of people need to be idiots before you consider it a problem? At some point you have to say that too many people simply can't be trusted with guns. You can argue that you need more training and understanding, but heck even federal agents are doing backflips with guns, I'm sure that guy went through plenty of training.
Also, cars aren't a good comparison because they're a basic necessity in every day live, having a gun is not.
I disagree with your second statement. A gun has actually saved my life. A car never has. It has been only a convenience. And for the percentage, anything over 0. I think both cars and guns should require private classes paid for by the individual and a rigorous testing procedure to ensure safety and sanity. I would make all guns available... with certain training. Just like all cars. But if I had my way, anyone who ever laid a finger on either of these things would be so vetted as to make lapses much more rare / impossible.
Guns, belief in god and her role in a secular nation, unions, restricted abortions, weak public health care, slavery, prison populations, immigrant labor, donald trump, violent colonial land grabs and near genocide of first nation people and the value of money.
Healthcare costs: I am watching a lot of videos about investment lately and in all of them, they keep bringing the "emergency fund for medical bills".
Don't get me wrong, I would do exactly the same if I were living in the US. But it is so bizarre, because in my country, you pay monthly the public HC but then you will never have a healthcare bill so high that you would need an emergency fund for it. Another issue would be to become paraplegic or something like that, because you have a lot extra costs and the country only covers some parts of it.
Another additional issue: Guns. I understand their points, but it gets really annoying when they keep implying that they are more free because they have a gun. It gets really weird when they try to explain it to you in a way that sounds as if you couldn't even conceive the idea of having a gun. In my country, anyone can have a gun to hunt, for example, within two months of starting the license procedure. I just don't feel like I need one if I live in a large city.
Related to the previous one: School shootings and other kind of extreme violent acts. I mean, we have had some terrorist attacks in Europe and it has been horrifying, but reading the US news cycle it feels so apathetic. Like something that happens monthly and people read the article just to know "where it has happened this time".
Finally, the mental image that some Americans have about Europe, specially Sweden: Some people really believe that Europe is some kind of war zone and that Sweden is one year away of becoming a Islamic theocracy. I have seen that in Reddit quite a lot and I don't know if they are simply spreading bullshit on purpose or they truly believe it.
Some people really believe that Europe is some kind of war zone and that Sweden is one year away of becoming a Islamic theocracy. I have seen that in Reddit quite a lot and I don't know if they are simply spreading bullshit on purpose or they truly believe it.
Most likely it's Russian propaganda. They want to instill fear of us taking more Muslim refugees. This ties in cognitively with both border walls and Christianity as patriotism. It also smears a country who knows how to provide proper services in return for tax dollars so the government is not held accountable for doing the same for us. That enables the crooked politicians to continue persuing the interests of foreign oligarchs instead of their constituents. The people become apathetic and are given people to blame that don't makes sense. Ie, I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, but the rediculous way they blame her for our problems when she lost the election a year and a half ago. People just want someone to blame and this redirect works well.
Medical bills - I simply can't get my head around the fact that you can get hundreds of thousands if dollars into debt just because you're I'll. Guns - it goes against all logic, facts, and statistics that more guns = safer country.
School shootings
School shootings
School shootings
T R U M P
School shootings
Medical system, college debt, guns, tipping, sex ed, dress codes, leave from work, Thanksgiving
School shootings....
"I am [insert ethnicity/name of country/etc here] American"
I have never thought about it and it is something very weird to say out loud.
[deleted]
Great name - really fitting.
Please, elaborate on 'victim status'.
Victim status? Irish Americans who know everything about "St Patty's" day but has never been to Ireland? Italian American who criticize your pasta dish because it is not traditional but had never tasted a traditional dish?
Or are you thinking about an specific group that uses that label to actually raise awareness and organise against the very real oppression they are suffering?
You are mixing purposely two topics: racism and xenophobia with people telling me that they are 1/16 Spanish and thus we are almost fellow countrymen.
Health care. We got it covered in Germany.
No debts made here.
The things that influences Non-Americans to live in America.
Money. Money. Money. In my country the government give you monthly free supplies of food if you are citizen
It’s not free. Someone pays for it...maybe an American.
And when people are healthy (because they were fed and housed), educated and working, they pay back into the system. Wow. What an idea! Damn. I wish someone else had thought of that.
That’s not how it works in reality.
What? That when you have healthy citizens they work putting back into the system? That appears to be the way it works in democratic socialist societies like Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Even Germany appears to be doing well when their idea of "paid schooling" means you are being paid a monthly stipend while you're attending. college. (I think it's one of those countries where foreigners can go to school for free, also.)
Small homogeneous countries can do that. Also, paid college is only given to a select few. In the US this wouldn’t work. It would also cause an uproar if only the top 10% of academic performers were allowed to go to college and race/extracurriculars/other bullshit wasn’t used in the selection process.
So, that’s great for a country smaller than Texas but it’s not going to work here.
We have a lot of educated citizens that have free healthcare who will never pay taxes that come close to the federal student loans they’ve defaulted on.
What? Can I have some sources, please? I was thinking about Germany, for wanting to let people attend colleges for free (although they'd have to pay room and board, I think).
I don't understand your last sentence.
Immigration. The way in which America has handled immigration over the last century is so awkward and backwards compared to the rest of the world.
How's that?
In most countries if you immigrate illegally you are deported. In America you get to stick around for a long time.
In most of the world merit based immigration is considered to be non-racist... whereas in America it is a marker for a racist.
Don’t listen to that guy, he’s making things up.
As you know in most countries if you show up and claim asylum they allow you free entry into the country while they process your case, in America they either turn you back or put you into detention.
Australlian living in America and dealing with the immigration process.
Every few years America makes immigration harder in a very haphazard way and now what they are left with is a process which is almost impossible to go through unless you marry an American.
I disagree. How we handle it today needs improvement but we have opened our doors over the past 100 years quite well. We have little problem with immigration. We have a problem with illegal immigration.
Guns. 2 year election cycles. Fat people carts at Walmart
Fat people carts! Love the term.
School shootings.
Australian here: school shootings.
Not completely banning guns after there's so many school shootings, as far as I've seen it doesn't even come up in discussions
Imagine being an American who wants to at least not make it a right to own the damn things.
That's me.
Needing guns for your safety
The whole "Guns" thing. Around here it's really reaaaaaally hard (usually only cops, lucky people or high connected people) can get one legally (and it's either a revolver or a pistol) also there is a whole bunch of caliber restrictions.
I've never saw a gun ad for example
Gun control mostly.
Firearms and the constitution. It's just like, get over it. Stop shooting everything.
The need of having guns to be safe
School shootings.
Hell yeah, a shit on the USA thread
Can we get a dig at Donald trump? Maybe some shots at our healthcare? Oh fuck yeah
It's a one way obsession. Like, I couldn't give two fucks about italy or instance, it's gdp is smaller than florida, america is so far and away the most powerful country in the world with the most cultural dominance that it's like a lightning rod for jelousy.
I've lived in four countries. You're welcome to shit on any of them. If Americans weren't so goddamn touchy, these threads wouldn't exist.
It’s not really that I’m touchy, it’s that these threads pop up every fuckin day. You rarely see the shit on the brits threads. It just gets tiring after a while
You rarely see the shit on the brits threads
I'm in Ireland right now ... we have entire shit on the Brits subreddits:
r/me_ira
Oh fuck yeah
I don't understand how it's "tiring". You have the option to see the post title and not click on it.
Lets replace the US with the UK. If every time you logged on to reddit, the front page was filled with dozens of threads titled with some variation of "Why does the UK suck, and why is your country superior?" that have thousands of upvotes and comments, you wouldn't find it tiring?
front page was filled with dozens of threads
Mate, that's absolute bullshit. That hasn't happened.
Also, you can filter your own home page results, just unsub to any subs that have an anti-American slant often.
But let's be honest, you just wanted an excuse to bitch about a threat that could have some negative opinions on the US.
Mate, answer the question. Replace the US with UK in all these threads. How would you react? And lol. A "thread that could have some negative opinions on the US." They're literally all negative comments, just like you and the OP intended.
Your question is a strawman though. The front page isn't filled to the brim with anti-American posts.
literally all negative comments
That's not accurate. Also people are pointing out things that they don't have to deal with in their own countries that the USA does, if that skews towards negative it just shows a wide difference in the cultural norms of the USA and their own countries, which they view as negative.
you and the OP intended.
How the fuck could I intend it? I didn't create the post.
You're just being sensitive. You need to grow a thicker skin.
I'll start keeping a tally of anti-US threads that constantly come from r/politics, r/worldnews, r/technology, /r/LateStageCapitalism etc. Come to reddit whenever Trump does literally anything and take a look at these major subreddits.
How the fuck could I intend it? I didn't create the post.
No, you didn't create it, but all of your comments on the thread are negative. So clearly you came into this thread to push an agenda.
whenever Trump does literally anything
Being critical of Trump is not being critical of America, I'd wager 90% of the comments are from Americans.
all of your comments on the thread are negative
I've not responded to the OP's question at all in this thread. I've called out some BS about Taxation and School Shootings but that's it.
I don't have an agenda. Why are you so fucking paranoid? I will reiterate; You need to grow a thicker skin, bud.
[removed]
Why is this getting so many downvotes?
People owning guns? I don't have a gun. I don't know anybody who has a gun. Funnily enough, I get along perfectly well in this place without guns. Mainly because the only thing guns can be used for is killing (or at least severely maiming) people, and I don't intend to do that. So I don't need a gun.
I'm an 18 year old american; I own 2 guns, and am shopping for my 3rd. Most of my friends and family also owns guns; currently we have 21 in my household. I got my first gun when I was 15. Allow me to assure you there is other things to do with guns than kill people, target practice, hunting and collecting come to mind. Basically, some people can't imagine wanting a gun. I can't imagine not.
Only country without guns is north korea
Damn you got me there
Gun violence - the last mass shooting here was dunblane school shooting ... In 1996.
You're comparing a country with a population of 5 million to one with over 300 million. Your country would basically be a state here, we have plenty of states with lots of access to guns and very little gun violence.
A country of 64 million. Any stats for your claim?
The population of Scotland is just over 5 million. Where do you get 60 million from?
The population of the united kingdom, which includes Scotland.
My mates at school getting shot
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
That's down to geography, and therefore a fallacious comparison.
About as rare as acid attacks in the US?
Not nearly rare enough apparently. I would say that 1 is too many. But I guess its ok though if the odds of being killed in one are low.
Hating my country because of an orange man with small hands
gun control
doesnt work
School shootings.
So rare they are negligible
Weapon as national identity.
School shootings
Too rare to be worthy of legislature
This entire thread summarized: America is so fucked up.
Guns. Like why? What's so attractive about them that you'd rather normalise obscene violence than enact something effective to protect your children.
Fuck. Put this together with your medical system, the prison system and slave-like work conditions. And I think I should instead be asking why you Americans just don't seem to give a fuck about one another. Where's the heart?
But yeah, if it was one thing, Your culture of gun violence.
Edit: Cant tell if y'all shills, trolls or idiots but gun control does work everywhere else in the world, so don' try that one, and better education, healthcare and workers rights has only ever made a country stronger, and might even solve your gun problem, but you do you.
Gun control doesnt work
Forcing someone else to pay for charity isn’t compassion. Taxation is theft.
Taxation is contributing to the country and people that you'd supposedly care about and identify with as a whole.
But those high tax breaks are working out well I'm sure.
That’s not actually how taxation works. In theory a perfect system might work that way. In reality your taxes fund a government that inefficiently redistributes the resources. Often the redistribution is corrupt or just plain stupidly done.
If you want to help your neighbor then help your neighbor. Don’t ask jack booted thugs to steal money from your countrymen in the hopes that the thugs might help your neighbor. That’s the reality of taxation.
Wanting more taxes doesn’t make you a good person that loves other people. It makes you an asshole that wants to control the lives of others by using threats of government sanctioned violence. You aren’t kind. You’re just a lazy thief.
You're wrong. It's who you vote for.
Sometimes there isn't anyone to vote for, but that's the nature of politics. Just because people distort the nature of it doesn't make the entire concept wrong or immoral.
We just need to strive to be better
But that isn’t true either. Who you vote for has very little impact on how taxes are used. Non-elected bureaucrats do that. Either way, the money would be more efficiently used by the private citizen to fund their own well being. The government just steals the pie and give a slice or two to certain groups in order to buy votes.
There is truth in what you're saying, 60% of me completely agrees with you. The other 40% is an idealist I guess.
Hopefully taxes do more good than harm...probably not but they aren’t going away. So, yeah. Might as well be an idealist.
Gun laws and whole issue around it. Why do you have need to carry around guns?
Why do you need to send men with guns after me for exercising my natural right to self preservation?
Is everyone so aggressive in US? It feels like US is massive jungle and everyone but you is wild animal who wants to eat you. In Europe no one has guns except of very few people. In uk even police doesn't have guns and I feel pretty safe. I don't need to self preserve myself by aggression, we are past that
You want to send men with guns after people for exercising natural rights, out of no reason other than fear.
Sounds about right
Guns.
What about this?
Why has nobody said guns?
What is wrong with guns?
To most of us outwith the USA, the obsession with carrying a gun is baffling. I appreciate your constitutional rights and all that, but to consistently carry a device capable of killing just feels outright bizarre. Not surprised this is now negative upvotes, but still, it's a complex one for those of us from different cultures.
to consistently carry a device capable of killing just feels outright bizarre
Do you feel this way about carrying car keys or a hip flask?
Neither a car of alcohol has the single purpose of killing. It's an unfortunate byproduct, but not it's intention. I get your proposition, but equally they're not comparable.
Nor does a gun have the single purpose of killing
What are its alternative uses? I'm not arguing here, but like this thread suggests I'm trying to understand, as a non-american (who incedently visits regularly and really enjoys the country), the mjdnset behind carrying one everywhere you go.
[deleted]
Gun control does not work
I don’t see why not. You make guns illegal and gun ownership goes down over time - sure there will still be gun crime but it seems likely that they would decrease as ownership decreases
man wants wife dead for her cheating on him. man has gun. Man shoots wife
man wants wife dead for her cheating on him. man has no gun. Man stabs wife.
man wants wife dead for her cheating on him. man has no gun and no knife. Man beats wife to death with golf club
Incentive to commit the vile act of murder remains the same in the absence of guns
Sure - the crimes where there is only one victim are very easy to repeat without a gun but let’s be honest mass killings are what we should be aiming to end for now. Let’s start with the big fish and then move onto the crazy husbands.
It would be much harder to replicate the death toll of a mass shooting if all the killer had was a knife.
Sure there will still be school kids who are depressed and want to kill but if they don’t have access to guns the average kill count is likely to be lower than now.
You and I both know nothing will ever change - Americans love their guns and their second amendment and gun companies love making profits of this. Hence the point of this subreddit - things non Americans don’t understand about America!
mass killings are 1% of homicides. They are not worthy of legislature
Even if they were, there are means besides knives that can be used. Bombs, molotovs, cars, etc all exist without guns. no one is arbitrarily limiting killers to knives in the stead of guns
Not all of us. I really try not to get painted with that brush.
[deleted]
Each time some one refers to America as a country or American as a persone from USA... Is so wired in everyones mind and coming from the continent i can really not relate to this kind of imperialist vocabulary.
That's generally because when you think if the Americas, you don't think oh man Argentina or Canada first. You think of the U.S.
Yeah i know, that's what I mean is really wired in everyones mind. I wonder where does it comes from
Guns. Canadians hunt but do not worship the guns used to hunt. Even the concept seems wrong wasn't it supposed to be to protect against the British? Shouldn't it be single shot type guns not powerful guns that shoot many times per minute and not hand guns. Substitute swords for guns and it shows how foolish as it is.
Flag. Worship versus admire. Canadians can admire the flag but people in the US worship it as if it were a religious relic. The Canadian flag represents Canada the material the flag is made of doesn't.
Healhtcare. You see people in the US say to soldiers "Thank you for your service" because they protect US citizens, Wouldn't a doctor be similar? What is being protected? People dead from simple diseases every other country easily controls. Healthcare is human rights not a business.
Self-importance. Everything wasn't invented in the US. Just because something is different compared to the US doesn't mean it's wrong. Take the trade dispute the US demands changes because of what they perceive as wrong only because other countries do things differently.
Everyone seems racist. Anyone can be racist white, black, anyone.
Lastly, I say "the US" not America.
Guns. Canadians hunt but do not worship the guns used to hunt. Even the concept seems wrong wasn't it supposed to be to protect against the British? Shouldn't it be single shot type guns not powerful guns that shoot many times per minute and not hand guns. Substitute swords for guns and it shows how foolish as it is.
Canadian gun laws are about as lax as they are in the US. Here are some non restricted firearms in canada
http://www.tacticalimports.ca/nonrestricted-firearms-c-1.html
Flag. Worship versus admire. Canadians can admire the flag but people in the US worship it as if it were a religious relic. The Canadian flag represents Canada the material the flag is made of doesn't.
People respect the material flag as the symbol
Healhtcare. You see people in the US say to soldiers "Thank you for your service" because they protect US citizens, Wouldn't a doctor be similar? What is being protected? People dead from simple diseases every other country easily controls. Healthcare is human rights not a business.
You mention veterans. You do realize veterans have government provided healthcare through the department of veterans affairs? And this healthcare is so shitty that most veterans dont use it? Why should we expect government provided healthcare for all to be different?
Self-importance. Everything wasn't invented in the US. Just because something is different compared to the US doesn't mean it's wrong. Take the trade dispute the US demands changes because of what they perceive as wrong only because other countries do things differently.
We have tarrifs for national security reasons primarily, as you need not be dependent on any specific nation. Over dependence is a weakness
Everyone seems racist. Anyone can be racist white, black, anyone.
That is just false
USA! USA! USA! USA!
We don't really care that much about patriotism as much as you do, and we actually have a country with history...
I was with you until that condescending ending. America definitely has history.
Multiple genders to identify from.
I can understand choosing a sexual orientation but genders are pretty straight forward, you’re either male, female or both
What about neither?
The 63 genders or whatever is only a thing according to less than 1% of the population
You’re ignoring the fact that transgender people’s brains are more similar to the gender they identify with. Gender isn’t just about X and Y chromosomes. It’s about how genes associated with those chromosomes, and others, express. That expression can be “abnormal” (in the technical sense) due to gene regulation and the role that neonatal (and maybe postnatal. I’m not an expert) environment plays.
But there is absolutely an observable, measurable difference between trans-males/cis-males and trans-females/cis-females. And we’ll only find more as time goes on.
(Also, just in case you aren’t speaking colloquially: people don’t choose their sexual orientation. It is what it is.)
School Shootings
Honestly I just can't get past this whole thing about guns and schools. Seriously what the fuck America?
Oh great one of these dumb threads.
stop using americans. its a continent not a country.
When someone hears the word Americans, who tf is thinking: "They must mean Canada". If you are from the United States of America, you are American, and there is no ambiguity in that phrasing.
I know a lot of south americans who would disagree with you. They use "american" to mean someone from the americas.
your comment illustrate exactly my point
Some say it's even 2 continents.
But we own the overwhelming majority of the Americas. LOL
well you got a point there.
[deleted]
not just redcoats tho, the first amendment guarantees your right of free speech, to assembly and so on, while the second amendment gives the right to bear arms. together however they make the right to form a militia, as a sort of a check if the state infringes on their common interests - known as "right of revolution".
[deleted]
im not entirely sure if you are allowed to hunt with assault weapons. and i fail to see the need for automatic weapons as home defense aswell, but i kind of do see the point in having armed citizenry as a last bulwark against tyranny.
[deleted]
oy, im not a yank :p
y time to check your weapons and ammo. We have no problem with this. You're still clinging to a second amendment ori
For a long time the 2nd Amendment only applied as more of a States Rights argument. The federal government could not forbid States from stockpiling arms to form a militia. It was only in the 2008 Supreme Court case of Columbia v. Heller that the 2nd amendment was reinterpreted to cover individual rights to firearms.
What makes an assault weapon is cosmetic features
Shit, cops can just go in your house whenever to search for guns? That's messed up. No one should be able to go into your home, unless you okay it. Especially the government!
Uh no we have the second amendment to protect ourselves from assholes and a broken government that would allow cops to enter your home without a fucking warrant. Jesus man do you not have any rights?
This is one of those moments where I wish I had more upvotes
Right back at cha
[deleted]
First off healthcare is not free. Unless your a bum and don’t work then you pay for it in your bloated tax system. Hell half of you don’t pay enough taxes to cover your own entitlements. Second, we have the civil rights act that guarantees equality . Life liberty and the pursuit of happy ness is in our founding documents. And last I checked London’s murder rate was higher that New York City. And you fuckers don’t even have guns.
[deleted]
Might be zero if you had the legal right of self defense. But again saying your healthcare is free is comical. Unless your a bum then it is free.
You dont have a right to anything anyone else has to provide for you.
I am glad the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments prohibit what you just said
Shooting other humans/bombing other under developed counties for greed, power & mineral wealth
This thread makes me want to leave.
Gun rights. Owning a gun raises your risk of being shot, and the only practical purpose of a gun is to murder. Gun lobbyists argue that violence would increase without guns and that not being allowed to own a gun equals slavery. This from the country that relies on slavery for its consumer goods, has a history of enslaving people, and replaced Libya's democracy with a terrorist state with an active slave trade. While marijuana possession actually results in being forced into manual labor for less than a tenth of minimum wage. The only violence-related problem with banning guns is the time it takes to remove guns from the black market. Moreover, Americans don't even need to pass a background check to purchase a firearm so criminals and schizophrenics can jump the loopholes to purchase firearms. Semi-automatics are sold in store and easily convertible into fully-automatics. Police don't use law enforcement modification so anyone can get shot and the police aren't held accountable - for a variety of things. The American police departments are often extremely corrupt and bigoted, and trained to shoot first ask questions later. No other developed country has such violent police. Police go into schools and fire blank gunshot rounds to scare children into behaving (supposedly during emergencies) and what you end up with is violent criminals being allowed to purchase semi-automatics, visit the hardware store and upgrade their firearm to a fully-automatic. Anyone can be a mass-killer. It's harder to get a driving license than a fully-automatic assault weapon. That is what I cannot relate to.
And you don't know what you're talking about
I've never had the police come into my school and fire a weapon.
My cousins in Louisiana use their guns to hunt as their family has for many generations. It is not easy to make a living there. No one has a right to prevent them from hunting.
We do not need assault weapons. We do need better background checks.
Owning a gun raises your risk of being shot,
Wrong
and the only practical purpose of a gun is to murder.
Wrong
Gun lobbyists argue that violence would increase without guns and that not being allowed to own a gun equals slavery.
This is true, and they say this because it is true
This from the country that relies on slavery for its consumer goods, has a history of enslaving people, and replaced Libya's democracy with a terrorist state with an active slave trade.
I can say this about the UK, France, and several other nations
While marijuana possession actually results in being forced into manual labor for less than a tenth of minimum wage.
How is this relevant?
The only violence-related problem with banning guns is the time it takes to remove guns from the black market.
Wrong
Moreover, Americans don't even need to pass a background check to purchase a firearm so criminals and schizophrenics can jump the loopholes to purchase firearms.
Wrong
Semi-automatics are sold in store and easily convertible into fully-automatics.
Wrong
Police don't use law enforcement modification so anyone can get shot and the police aren't held accountable - for a variety of things. The American police departments are often extremely corrupt and bigoted, and trained to shoot first ask questions later.
Wrong
No other developed country has such violent police.
Wrong
Police go into schools and fire blank gunshot rounds to scare children into behaving (supposedly during emergencies) and what you end up with is violent criminals being allowed to purchase semi-automatics, visit the hardware store and upgrade their firearm to a fully-automatic.
Wrong
Anyone can be a mass-killer.
True in any nation
It's harder to get a driving license than a fully-automatic assault weapon. That is what I cannot relate to.
Wrong
Seriously, you need to learn US gun laws, and what you are talking about. Pretty much nothing you are talking about is true
Statistics on gun violence are public. As are statistics on gun violence in Canada and Australia. @Initiative: Not sure how you managed to find an academic or government study which has opposite findings. When I say schools I mean the schools for which there is video footage of said drill. When I say driving license I mean a license allowing you to drive a car without supervision. I am sure there are some American municipalities which do use law enforcement modifications on their policing firearms, but they are the minority. I referred to actual slavery in the American prison/consumer system to point out where people who are against slavery can direct their efforts. Clearly anyone who buys products made through slave-labour does not have a principled anti-slavery stance. I also acknowledge that 'murder' is open to interpretation, as many people do not believe that killing is murder.
You need evidence to back up your claims. You have none.
The evidence is statistics on gun violence.
That aint evidence
Trump
[deleted]
That's not how democracy works. It's not complaining. It's a constant reminder of the mistake our voters made so that we don't do it again in 2 years.
[deleted]
I actually had a very similar conversation with a relative of mine after Trump got elected. I was explaining to her the flaws in the Electoral College and she hit me with the same argument that you are.
"The election is already over. Why complain about it now?!"
Yes this election is over. But we have another one in 4 years. Thats how our democracy works. It's cyclical. We aren't complaining about the past just to wallow in our pity. We are complaining about the past because we get to try again in 4 years and we need to realize the flaws that we are making now or have made recently.
Getting shot at school.
This is too rare to be faced with legislature
Adressing yourself as if you were the only country in the continent
NEEDING a gun, no less an assault rifle, to protect my family.
College debt, medical bills, moving out as soon as you graduate high school, data caps and lastly their undying love for obsolete technologies like SMS
School shootings
Paying for school. I think i have payed 300 bucks of worth for books/tools that were required. Albeit i did go into vocational school/art school what didnt require that much books.
Also the healthcare prices.
Something something Trump something
[deleted]
Obesity and bad diets.
The LA vs NY rivalry.
School shootings
Paying for health care
The level of butt hurt on this threaf is laughable 😂😂😂 not everyone in america is happy with it, we dont have to be, amd working for change does nothing when the whole system is workinf against us.
Gun regulation problems and the fear of being shot. The fear of being ill and not being able to pay for it. Education problems. You can have a good work situation for almost nothing in France (35k€ a year as a Scrum Master and I must have paid 1k€ tops for school). Having multiple credits card debt (Most people in France only have one card and a debit one). Having a Muppet for president.
Guns.
Wtf
gun control, I have no idea why it is so contentious.
Because our good ol boys need their thousand dollar toys to protect their rights or something
Gun laws.Looks like Americans don't have common sense regarding guns. The control that business have over politicians and Americans acceptance of it.We came out in economic shambles after 9yrs because of that but at least in general put up a fight against it. Why are there not other options then being Republican or Democrat.
Looks like Americans don't have common sense regarding guns.
I mean what's common sense? We have mandatory background checks and waiting periods, and the places with the strictest gun control in the country are also experiencing the most gun violence.
I think most probably my perception is because I am generalizing instead of taking into account that laws can differ between states.The impression I got is that the background checks are slack(recently read about a person who was in charge of this failed to do it for a whole year because of a problem with the system). For instance in our country the procedure is as follows:1)You are allowed to have only a handgun,shotgun,or rifle(excluding automatic rifles.This is only one of each.If you want more you apply for a special permit). First you must undergo training in the use and writing a test on the knowledge and laws regarding fire-arms. Then you apply at a police station for a licence to own such a license.You need to motivate why you want one.A police officer will come and inspect your premises to see if you have a safe installed and interview your neighbours. Laws are strict on how to keep firearms safe.Age to qualify is 21 and checks on your mental,drug abuse history.All this is nationally applicable and not regional.Your license is reviewed every 5 yrs.I personally had to have shotguns destroyed which I inherited from my grandfather and the .22 rifle, I kept with a lot of effort. The US I see looks like the ability for children to get hold of their parents firearms without the latters knowledge.Also youngsters been able to buy it without being emotionally ready.The process to aquire a weapon can sometimes take anytime between 6mths and 1year with us. Alas,violent crime is rife in our country,but it can be blamed on the enforcement of laws rather then the laws itself.Mass shootings are unheard of,let alone school shootings. Apology for the lengthy reply and no offense was intended with original comment.
Bidet's! I'm in Canada I've never seen one. Not even Canadian tire sells them.
American and I've never seen one in the wild.
is this the thread i go to to feign surprise at stuff ive known about for ages so that i can feel superior to a bunch of college aged american kids fishing for guilt karma
Trump
Found a Russian Bot.. posing as a Texan and Hating on Trump
Didn't you get the memo. Us Russians lurrve Trump.
Alleged gaps between toilet cubicles. I still have no idea where there are gaps.
I think it was the Dallas airport that I discovered some private organ company advertising their services. It was sickening. Also your drug commercials are bizarre. Your lack of easy and free access to routine or emergency healthcare is mind-boggling (though I suspect rural Canadians might empathize more) and the number of your citizens devoted to religion is borderline terrifying.
These turn into a "why are country is better than yours" topic and I'm just so over it
I keep looking for things that make America better and so far all I’ve found is garbage disposals 😞
Societal racism, at least to the same extent.
Disciplining children. Way too rough for me.
A LOT of people my age (24) casually mentioning not having health insurance.
I’m 28, have no insurance, am $500,000 in medical debt, can’t afford school, don’t have the credit for student loans, can’t afford rent, and I live in my car. In Texas.
It’s summer. (98-103F).
Fuck America.
Net neutrality lost
I live in America but I can’t begin to understand why people are so hesitate to discuss politics. Isn’t it our responsibility to talk about issues that concern us? Not talking about it makes issues go unnoticed and it is a waste of one of the things the founding fathers fought for. We have the right to criticize our leaders but people treat it as taboo to do so.
America's President Donald Trump and what is he doing with life.
Fraternities
Everything related to student debt
Hyperboles. Uncanny resemblances, excruciating pains and crippling depressions are things I don't empathize with, not because I don't acknowledge their existence, but because I'm not fond of hyperboles in general.
Reading about work culture in the Netherlands compared to America is...fucking sad. Late stage capitalism folks. We are but numbers.
Healthcare bankrupting you. Long waits at the ER. Denied coverage from stupid reasons (costs too much)
America is 3rd world in may ways.
College debts, it just seems crazy to me to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to get an education.
School shootings
Getting shot
Race issues
Gun control. I understand the issue, just don't understand why they can't seem to have a reasonable conversation about it
1 conservative based news source is why
I don't get it. It sounds like you're trying to say everyone should be in favour of more gun control and I'm not sure how I feel about that but I'm trying to ask why the people on both sides of the debate never have a reasonable conversation instead of screaming matches about being murderers or being commie bastards who wanna take our guns away etc
Edit: fixed a word and added another
I am saying the single news source for conservatives does misinformation campaigns daily and teach people to argue poor points. And support conspiracies and plenty more. If it was a good news source it shouldn’t do those things.
So many school shootings that the NRA is running out of excuses to peddle.
Hating trump
I’m American but when I was in high school a lot of exchange students were surprised that the athletes would leave in the middle of class for games.
A corrupt legal system, thousands murdered through gun violence, a reality star running your country, no functional healthcare system, not using the metric system.
I'll give you the metric system. I really don't know why we haven't fixed that yet. Mostly because we're America! We do it our own way.
Complaints of voting being "difficult" when there are a few options such as early voting, mail-in, etc.
I moved to the US recently and to be fair I did end up in the south, but the overly violent racism. I’m not from a developed country nor would I say we don’t have our kind of racism, but I hadn’t heard of random people being specifically targeted so much because of their race/ethnicity. It’s terrible and terrifying
That when you’re 18 you have to move out
Going to school and not getting shot?
Food that looks like someone threw it up, and WTF is the deal with sloppy joes, that ain't right.
I'm sorry but sloppy joes are amazing
mince on soggy bread, no thanks
Man, you gotta try it before you say you don't like it. Sloppy Joes are the shit!
Student loans. In most European countries university tuition is nonexistent, or at least manageable.
That Plutocracy is settled, corrupts in education and ignorance keeps us entertained.
That net neutrality thingy. I have no idea if it relates to NZ.
The head of thr FCC kicked it of his domain to Congress.
It won't affect you, but it will make some stuff more expensive/worse in the US.....
Oh bugger, good luck with it
To be honest, NN being passed won't help anything, we need to remove further regulations because it made it harder to start a smaller and promoted the big guys.
And that was under Obama.... Thanks, Obama.
-- content removed by user in protest of reddit's policy towards its moderators, long time contributors and third-party developers --
PROM
Honestly, as an American, my healthcare is only $42 a month that includes dental and prescription. I pay a $500 deductible for major healthcare issues, any doctor/hospital and it covers more than 80%. I’m not a one percenter or anything, and I have paid more in the past and terrible coverage. The company I work for now, in medical diagnostics, is par for large companies. If I was Married with kids, it’s like $75/mo.
Where do you work? That's amazing, of course, my company could pay me $10,000 less per year and put it toward insurance and deductibles too, so I guess it depends how you slice it. I will say that as expensive as it is, it has worked out in my favor in a serious way.
I don’t really want to say the name, but I’m a remote employee for a laboratory diagnostics company fixing machines in healthcare related companies. My main US office is in the Bay Area.
Thanks
"Wipe from back to front, or front to back?"
The correct way is to turn the bidet on for a few seconds, and then pat the area dry with some TP.
I mean, how the hell do you even wipe with just dry TP? Or even wet wipes? Those stuff is useless when compared to a bidet.
Dear Amazon,
For Thursday I would like a bidet. Please guarantee delivery by 9 pm as it will be crucial for my evening constitutional.
Resistance to gun control and worshipping money. Neither make sense to me. Money is just tokens for experiences— sometimes you have more, sometimes less— those who have a surplus can afford to give a little to those who struggle, because that’s what a civilised community does. And seriously, control your damn guns, you’re legally murdering people, including the children you claim to love.
Yeah, as an american I more or less feel the same way about money, but it's become the defining factor in our measurement of success.
It’s quite sad in a way, isn’t it?
Pretty much. I've met some very interesting, well educated people that have led very happy lives that never went above middle class.
Probably guns, but also femenazis, cuz our feminists want, yknow.... equality. Also it’s not just handfuls of angry women, it’s loads of angry everyone. For many reasons. Also “snowmageddon”? I know that was a while ago but seriously. Complaining bout snow? We just call that “Tuesday”.
But, I CAN relate to shitty public school systems.
[deleted]
It basically comes down to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qJGsSuFRIg
guns lol
I'm not a great example in that I have lived and worked in the USA, half my family is American but even when I'm familiar with an issue I still won't 'relate' and here's my funny little list of things I find strange:
the only other people who seem to be closest might be Chinese and a lot of that is because they really are assigned a government book listing that province and the rights and entitlements, laws and typically (until recently) they haven't moved as much so you probably were born, lived and died your entire life in a province. In the USA i rarely find anyone who hasn't lived, worked, school, retired etc in at least a half-dozen states. But yet they are, proudly, from the Ole' Bloozerhackle state of "Show me Yours and I show you Mine" where they are apparently called 'an old tarfoot from way back' or some damn State thing.
The America-wide obsessions with 'Pest Control' and I think I see about ever 3rd vehicle on the road and every 4th story my Uncle tells is about having Pest Control remove termites, raccoons, birds, bees something from a home. Pest removal is a BIG thing for Americas, its part of life, it's like plumbing vans, landscapers then Pest Control
For some reason NFL football is actually a part of the federal government, its a branch like CIA, IRS, NFL.. I mean its just bizarre but Americans are somehow convinced that football teams are actually part of their government services, are federal and state holidays (bank holidays, proper national holidays) and it crosses nearly every class, political side, its a pan-American belief that the NFL is actually an act of Congress.
I would mention there is also a peculiar 'Americanism' idea about their constitution where - crossing almost all political spectrums - they do seem to believe it's actually one of the books of the bible. Like a holy scripture that was divinely-inspired and 'Gospel'. It's strange how they talk about it.
How often they post things on Reddit - a massive worldwide website in cyberspace where I do believe most users are non-Americans and yet they post 'as if' they are posting on a website in America for Americans that is somehow supposed to be open only to Americans.
The majority of things here only happen in certain parts of the country. People outside of the US dont understand how fucking enormous the country is. I've seen people from Europe talk about how they're travelling to the US, and in a week they're going to DC, driving to Chicago, stopping by mountRushmore, to Yellowstone, to california. You'll end up driving for 90% of your trip.
You can explore the big interest points in European countries. The united states is much, much bigger than people think and has multiple different cultures laws and customs throughout the country. Each state seems like a different country.
Net neutraility, I have never and will never care about this apparently big thing.
Soccer is somehow worse than american fotball. They are both pretty boring.
The ownership of guns.
Just...anything gun related. Where i live, the closest i have ever been to a gun was when we got a tour of the local police station when i was in 4th grade.
[deleted]
Shit, at least spell it right RETARD
[deleted]
Yeah that's not a thing.
I didn't have the fear until someone tried to shoot me.
Having to pay for healthcare.
Carrying guns in public.
[deleted]
Find a job, get a work visa, make sure you have enough money to survive for a couple of months, then move.
[deleted]
Depends, I know in Canada it's incredible tough. Europe not so sure.
serious question -- how hard is it to get such a Visa? I keep thinking that a lot of countries must be wondering just how many more of us there are going to be...
School shootings
School shootings..
School shootings.
the fuck was with that musical episode....?
[deleted]
Flossing is actually really important for gum health. Tooth brushes aren't able to get the food lodged between our teeth so it will rot in there and cause gum disease and tooth decay. Dental care (other than the cost) is actually one thing I think we do really well here. Floss is inexpensive too so it's not like they are telling us to do it for the money.
It surprises me that no one still hasn't brought up any gun-related discussion...
I'm Italian (not the more "calm" of the European countries) and from what I can remember I've never seen a real gun in my life.
Dude every other comment is about guns. lol
He's probably sorting by top, and since every mention of guns is being down voted to oblivion, he may have missed it.
I read like the top 20 ones and none was about guns ahah
I think my Reddit it's broken...
Gun Violence.
Gun laws
Guns.
Everyone's talking about guns and healthcare, but can we talk about wtf is up with "cursive"? Like you can't just join up your letters like normal people; you have to make them in this oddly specific way that no-one else in the world uses and that none of your students can remember so they end up giving up and printing like 8-year-olds.
Yeah no one here uses cursive either. At this point I'm pretty sure they only teach it for signatures.
I work for a bank, get 3 weeks vacation (since the day I stepped foot in the place) and buy a 4th. In addition I get 80 hours of sick/personal time (100% paid). Everyone gets 4 months for family leave/paternity/maternity (100% paid). Not too shabby
Just general social justice warrior BS. We got more serious issues to worry about like the shit military government destroying our economy.
Gender rights is less of an issue here in Thailand. Really pretty transvestites are celebrated and many of them even become celebrities. Even though same sex marriage isn’t legal being gay lesbian trans bi is generally viewed as pretty normal.
I have never seen people protesting for race , gender and religious stuff. But extreme political beliefs and corruption is pretty common.
Shootings in schools...
Gun's
Terrorism and guns
Guns.
news about mass shootings in schools they just don't happen here. I can't imagine being afraid to go to school. also on the lighter side TV adverts for prescription drugs that's weird
Gun issues and military posts.
Guns, guns everywhere. Meanwhile I've never met a single person in Poland that has a gun
[deleted]
Don't get it
School/mass shootings. They're just not nearly as common here as they are in the US. If anything, they're practically unheard of.
Guns. Just, guns.
Gun laws
Brit here. Almost all of what they say, really. They're nutcases
Kids getting shot in school
I don't understand what the black people in America are complaining about. Yes, I know they were slaves and segregated but today the rules are the same for everyone and honestly I think being a Russian in a goulag or a Jew in the holocaust was not much better and yet people moved on. Honestly, their life are better than most of the world population and their situation is better than ever before and yet there is endless discussion about how miserable they are, even new black immigrants are doing better so what is all the fuss? Can't Americans just move on?
School shootings
Gun violence (almost non existent here) healthcare (its free) and education loans (free or at least reasonable)
gun violnece
in poland we dont have gun drills
jsut fire drills
and they say video games causen violence
school shootings
Anything to do with guns. Looking at America from the outside, I cannot understand the cultural obsession with guns.
Gun Violence
Having to pay for medical coverage.
Shootings.
[deleted]
"Social Justice Workers"
Think you meant "Social Justice Warriors".
(Anything but "warriors")
Whops
School shootings
Going to a fucking 'Walmart' . Or having a bad president.
Why people in the USA think its such a great place ? Its not - the media forces it on you - its almost communist in its inwards looking self appreciation - terrible place to live.
You sound far more brainwashed by the media than most Americans. The notion that America is a "terrible place to live" is a complete fabrication. We have problems. We acknowledge them, and we're fixing them. But democracy is a slow process. But the standard of living here is just as high as any European country.
Oh, there are a lot.
That'll do for now...
"Most people working in hospitality rely on tips to earn wages because the minimum wage is ridiculously low."
This is actually a huge misconception even among some Americans. Everyone makes the same exact minimum wage. We'll go with a server at a restaurant and use minimum wage in my state. Server makes 5.35 an hour everyone else makes 8.95 an hour. Come pay day I would take the servers hours times their pay rate and come up with the gross. Next I take the gross and add in the tips the server earned during the pay period. I then take the hours the server worked and multiply that times 8.95. If their gross plus tips doesnt equal their hours times 8.95 the employer by law is required to pay them the difference. So a server could earn zero tips and they would still be paid the same minimum wage as everyone else. The thing about tipping is the customer is paying for some of the servers wages directly to the server instead of the employer paying it.
Now the thing about tipping is once you go to high end restaurants and what not those servers are making so much money in tips it can be truly insane. So theres actually servers out there very happy with the current system in place lol.
Does every state require the employer to cover the difference? And why not just add the cost into the price of the food if people are tipping and the employer has to pay the difference anyway? I just don't understand why the rules are so different haha.
Does every state require the employer to cover the difference?
Yes. Even if they repealed the laws and didn't, there's a Federal minimum wage that must be met in the same way.
And why not just add the cost into the price of the food if people are tipping and the employer has to pay the difference anyway?
There's a tipping culture in the US. For many people it's just mindless tradition, but the idea behind it is that wait staff who do an exceptional job are tipped more and therefore out-earn those who have a bad attitude or are inept. It's meant to be a meritocratic system, sort of like how making commission on sales drives salesmen to become more proficient at their skills.
I live in the UK and I still tip bar or wait staff if they've made my meal a pleasant experience but no one would consider me rude or thoughtless if I didn't. They get paid the same minimum wage as anyone else, regardless of how good at their job they are.
I understand the sales analogy, and it's good to be good at your job but people working as wait staff (at least here) are often students and only working because they want beer money. Their time is as valuable as anyone else's and it doesn't make sense to me to let random strangers determine that value.
[deleted]
In the UK, where I am, some things are tax exempt as well, but they still manage to figure it out haha.
[deleted]
Perhaps!
People here use PINs all the time, or contactless. Do you guys still sign receipts?
[deleted]
That's so weird! Add that to the list hahaha
The complete unwillingness to even consider tightening gun laws at national level. If it were up to me I'd take them all away but I know that's unrealistic. I don't think it's unrealistic for all states to adopt policies seen in states with stricter laws (since it's precendent).
Why should we do this?
Health insurance. Ok, so you have to pay for healthcare and the easiest way to do that is to get insurance. But insurance doesn't cover anywhere close to everything you might need, and the copays besides are huge. Also the idea of medical bankruptcy makes me feel so sad because it can take one broken leg to make that happen. I can't even imagine how stressful it is to be sick in the USA, on top of actually being sick.
Medical insurance is normally pretty good
Tax. Where I live, if you're employed by a business, the business takes care of all the tax you owe. It's your responsibility to check you're paying the right percentage etc but it's rare we have to actually claim for anything, or speak with the Tax Office at all. Also when tax isn't already added to your food and whatever else you're charged tax for. I went to the States, figured out how much a coffee was and got the exact change before I was told it was a completely different amount.
Income tax is pretty simple if you arent a millionaire. If you are a millionaire, you are normally hiring someone to do your taxes
Sales tax is handled by the state, county, and city. You cant advertise tax rates when within 5 miles the tax rate changes 4 times.
Lack of paid maternity and paternity leave. It might be ambitious to want to implement paternity leave, but the fact a woman probably has to go back to work very soon after having pushed an actual human out of her (relatively) very small vagina, or after undergoing surgery, is baffling. Obviously she can choose to stay off longer but then she isn't guaranteed her job or wages. Plus she has to pay for having the baby if she has it in hospital. That along with the regression of abortion law in many states just makes life so much harder for a pregnant person. It's baffling, since every single person alive has come out of a (biologically) female body.
We have unpaid maternity leave.
Employment laws. Most people working in hospitality rely on tips to earn wages because the minimum wage is ridiculously low. In Europe when you go out for a meal, the server's wages are included in the price. Also, at-will laws just make it incredibly unfair for workers. I know it can work both ways but an employee is the vulnerable party in this situation. A company is much more likely to find a new employee than an employee is to find a new job. It's open for all sorts of abuses and it makes me anxious even though it's unlikely to be something I ever experience. I remember being without a job and struggling to find one, and it was hell.
Servers want tips more than a "reasonable salary". They make more than what a "reasonable salary" will every pay even through tips
Well, your gun crime rate is through the roof. When other countries have experienced mass shootings they've put restrictions on guns and in most cases they haven't seen another.
It's good if you can pay for it, but I've heard hundreds of stories where people need important medication or treatment but their insurance doesn't cover it. That means they either get into a lot of debt or do without which is obviously detrimental. And that's if you can even afford to pay for insurance. Socialised healthcare has its issues but it's comforting knowing I'll never be bankrupted for accessing medical care.
I'm sure it's easy enough to do taxes, it's just not something I can relate to because I've never had to do it. And your second point about sales tax is also something I can't relate to since all taxes (apart from council tax) are set at a national level.
I know you have unpaid maternity leave but if you're already skimming the line of poverty (or are over it) you can't afford to take a lot of time off work. There's also only a short amount of time where your job is protected making it harder for women to take the time they need to heal. Here you get up to a year I think, at 60% of your salary. Your holiday leave is also not suspended so that's 27 extra days (at my work) paid annual leave they can claim as well.
That may be true but it still baffles me. As I mentioned in a previous post people here still tip if the server does a good job but they also never have to worry about their employer fucking them over.
Well, your gun crime rate is through the roof. When other countries have experienced mass shootings they've put restrictions on guns and in most cases they haven't seen another.
Gun crime is a meaningless statistic. Weapon substition is not accounted through it
Those nations are so small and enacted gun control recently enough so that they wouldnt expect a mass shooting with or without passing gun control
It's good if you can pay for it, but I've heard hundreds of stories where people need important medication or treatment but their insurance doesn't cover it. That means they either get into a lot of debt or do without which is obviously detrimental. And that's if you can even afford to pay for insurance. Socialised healthcare has its issues but it's comforting knowing I'll never be bankrupted for accessing medical care.
I have heard hundreds of stories where people need important medical care and the VA is too incompetent to cover it. Socalized healthcare through the american government would be worse than our current system
I'm sure it's easy enough to do taxes, it's just not something I can relate to because I've never had to do it. And your second point about sales tax is also something I can't relate to since all taxes (apart from council tax) are set at a national level.
honestly, a national sales tax is basically a flat tax. It has the same net effects
I know you have unpaid maternity leave but if you're already skimming the line of poverty (or are over it) you can't afford to take a lot of time off work. There's also only a short amount of time where your job is protected making it harder for women to take the time they need to heal. Here you get up to a year I think, at 60% of your salary. Your holiday leave is also not suspended so that's 27 extra days (at my work) paid annual leave they can claim as well.
If you are skimming the poverty line, dont have a kid
That may be true but it still baffles me. As I mentioned in a previous post people here still tip if the server does a good job but they also never have to worry about their employer fucking them over.
the people we tip pull in 12-40 an hour. They would be making about 11 if we paid them a "reasonable salary". It just doesnt help them
As I said before, as much as I would advocate for removing guns entirely, I know that's unrealistic in the USA. Stricter controls are not, though, even just more rigorous and consistent background checks would help. It might not stop mass or accidental shootings entirely but I think it's worth trying to save some lives.
No matter what you do with healthcare it's not going to be perfect and people can and will fall through the cracks. For me, it's just about managing it and minimising the risk for as many people as possible. And if you get healthcare through the VA then you're probably not worried you'll lose your house as a result of your treatment.
I don't really understand what you mean about the tax thing. The question of the post was "what can you not relate to" and I can't relate to having to calculate sales tax myself when I'm at a store. I just tried to give context for why that's the case for me.
We both know it's not that easy. Contraception fails, abortions are harder and harder to get, and people are being punished enough for being poor. Why add mandatory childlessness onto that, if they really want children? it's unrealistic to just say "well don't have kids". The USA is the only first world country in the entire world that doesn't have paid maternity leave, and if you don't think that's a problem then I can't explain to you why it's important.
Where did you get that figure? Wikipedia, font of all knowledge, quotes an average of $13.25 in the state with the highest average. Of course underreporting happens but there's no evidence to say it's $40. Either way, it's baffling to me and again, this is a post asking about what I can't relate to.
I was just outlining my confusion over things I've heard about from Americans and because of my experiences living in Europe I can't figure those things out. I'm sure the current system works for a lot of people but I've known a lot of people it's failed.
As I said before, as much as I would advocate for removing guns entirely, I know that's unrealistic in the USA. Stricter controls are not, though, even just more rigorous and consistent background checks would help. It might not stop mass or accidental shootings entirely but I think it's worth trying to save some lives.
We have every single thing you could possibly check for covered by our current background check system, and it is damn consistent.
Any aditional policies ignore the due process of law, and would only serve to disarm the poor and minorities, leading to more deaths due to them being defenseless
No matter what you do with healthcare it's not going to be perfect and people can and will fall through the cracks. For me, it's just about managing it and minimising the risk for as many people as possible. And if you get healthcare through the VA then you're probably not worried you'll lose your house as a result of your treatment.
No, i am worried about losing my life due to not getting treatment
We both know it's not that easy. Contraception fails, abortions are harder and harder to get, and people are being punished enough for being poor. Why add mandatory childlessness onto that, if they really want children? it's unrealistic to just say "well don't have kids". The USA is the only first world country in the entire world that doesn't have paid maternity leave, and if you don't think that's a problem then I can't explain to you why it's important.
Dont have sex, then
Where did you get that figure? Wikipedia, font of all knowledge, quotes an average of $13.25 in the state with the highest average. Of course underreporting happens but there's no evidence to say it's $40. Either way, it's baffling to me and again, this is a post asking about what I can't relate to.
Bartenders very well make 40 an hour
School shootings.
Firearm laws and the so preciously b3loved 2nd amendment...
The fact that americans love/want firearms so much up to an extend where children in Preschool are being tought how to react in case of a shooting
That whole "it needs a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" bullshit
The fact that americans usually buy way over the top cars/trucks to drive to the mall and back
Without guns we'd still be a colony.
That's why.
Yes back in the 1800s that was a fucking thing but today we have 2018... 200yrs later where children get shpt up at school because of your idiocy
People don't get shot because we have guns.
People get shot because we don't have adequate gun laws or a robust mental healthcare system.
Just keep listening to the NRA bud... people DO get shot because of the amount of guns in the US... the mental healthcare system has little to do with that...
The NRA is a terrorist organization.
Adequate regulation and mental healthcare are the defining factors of gun violence in the United States, not prevalence.
There are plenty of other nations with a huge rate of ownership and much lower gun violence because of sane regulation and a focus on mental health.
Guns . You can like gun, that's a powerfull thing and a fun thing to practice as a hobby. But why can you have military weapons with military bullets in your home, and on you in the street. That shit is not for "Fun / Because you like it / Because it's to defend yourself"....no.
Thoses are higly engineered weapons whose purpose is to kill human in diverses scenario. There no fun in that. It's not to hunt deer or whatever.
Having special area, like a really big shooting range, but the weapons and bullets can't fucking leave this place, I would understand. But as it is, I find it terrifying and sad. So much news with deaths by guns, so much lifes that could have been spared.
Ho and quite another thing, a little less dramatic but....why a lot of people in USA are obsessed with lavander ? Or did I just crossed the rare tourists in France from USA who have that obsession ? I found it funny and quite cute, but surprising.
Find me a gun that is not a military weapon.
And the only ammo that isnt "military bullets" are fancy hollow points.
Bitching about internet plans having data limits, how else could you charge appropriately to use?
Paying a flat rate with unlimited data use.
That is only good if you use more data than average, otherwise you are subsidising video collectors. I guess the point is if you live in a country where unlimited plans have never been common, the idea of losing them doesn't seem as outrageous as it seems to, to americans on reddit.
[deleted]
What is wrong with this?
Paying for medical care. It's so far from my reality, it makes me scream "WHAT A FUCKING SHITHOLE" every time.
Edit: keep downvoting, Americans. Enjoy your undiagnosed cancers and sudden bankruptcies. Freedom is more important after all!
I'm not American, still downvoting tho
Yes, freedom is more important, I agree.
[deleted]
Where do you live that doesn't have racism or elections?
Unless you are in north korea, you have guns
You have black racism
And you very well should have elections
I’m an American that left the US to avoid Trump. A bit different perspective, but for me it’s going to work when I’m ill. Unless I’m dying, I go to work. And then my boss has to send me home or to the doctor. All my colleagues find it a bit odd. Or so they tell me.
You moved to avoid Trump yet 90 days ago you made a post about a local grocery store in Iowa.
So? Am I not allowed to still follow my hometown grocery store’s Facebook page? I don’t think it’s that weird...
[deleted]
Not Canada... America. They said America. I kid... Trump's an idiot... but so are the others. You can't tell me you think the other leaders are awesome. Politicians are narcissistic pandering fools who cater to the lowest common denominator to gain personal power. Yup... Trump does that. But so does your leader. I don't know where you are from, but believe that there are NO good leaders because the job invites corruption and self serving asses.
Do you honestly think that Trump is at the same level as your average leader (regardless of whether you think they are all corrupt or idiots)? To me he seems to be suffering from much more profound idiocy than probably anyone else, and he's close to the top with his level of malevolence, too.
No different. He speaks the language of the people needed to solidify his power. Trudeau, Merkle... they do the same. The truth is, he hasn't DONE anything that other presidents haven't done. But he tweet about it and makes the vocal minority (unfortunately) incredibly angry while mobilizing his base. He is pissing you off by acting as he does without having to really DO anything. That makes him a politician.
The genuine belief that access to firearms is a human right
Gun control
Cost of college and healthcare, its "free" and equal in my country.
[deleted]
Hense my use of "free"...
The importance of individualism at the expense of the collective. This is why universal healthcare is impossible, why you can’t take guns off people, why the minimum wage is so low… sheesh, so many problems!
Paying to have a baby
Healthcare bankrupting people
Gun control. Every other first world country has already got it, why is this such an issue in the US? I mean I get you have your 2nd amendment and everything, but Australia had the exact same problem and even they eventually solved it. Meanwhile Americans just can't give up on the guns they but in Walmart.
We do have gun control though, we just will not allow guns to be completely banned. It's in our constitution.
Yeah I know that, but you don't need a special licence to hold a gun in America. It's much easier to get one then in any country in Europe for example. As I said before, Australia had the exact same problem, with it being written in their constitution and everything, and they succeeded to make guns harder to get.
Access to guns.
Gun Control
Mass shootings.
I live in Australia and have never had a problem with gun laws here cause criminals don’t have access cause usually they’re too broke to afford a license for a firearm. So sick of this second amendment crap those Americans who defend it honestly look like cry babies to the rest of the world. Just have an ego too big to amend the amendment. Answer is easy...Duh!
Crime hardly dropped after the gun ban. Sure gun crime did, but other violent crimes rose in almost equal rates. Comparing Australia’s tiny population to the US’s massive one is hardly realistic.
You have a fair point, but I was under the impression that the mean population of gun violence in Aus is lower than that in America not based on static population in numbers but as a percentage. For instance Australia may have 24 million people (where 24M =100%) whereas America may have 326 Million people (where 326M = 100%). So the percentage is based on a median outcome. I never knew there had already been a nation wide gun ban?
Well of course the gun violence is lower, there’s less guns.
It wasn’t a full nation wide ban, it was a mandatory buy back of long rifles, all shot guns and semi automatic rifles in 1996. 7 years later they did one for handguns and revolvers over .38 caliber and shorter than 120mm for handguns and 100mm for revolvers. So pretty much any gun except very long .22 pistols are banned and I’ve never heard of a .22 with a barrel longer than 120mm. You might still be able to get a .357 revolver but I’m sure there’s tons of regulations and waiting periods and tax stamps you have to get.
To speak of gun violence in America, it’s not as huge of a problem that it’s made out to be. 95% of shootings are committed with handguns so banning “assault weapons” ( a made up term to compare semi automatic rifles with assault rifles) won’t do much to stop shootings. The vast majority of shootings are also gang related and in inner cities with strict gun laws anyway. These guns are also typically stolen or illegal in some way. As far as legal gun owners go, concealed carry permit holders are the least likely demographic to commit a crime. No matter how to shape it, concealed carry holders commit less crimes than any other group.
School shootings
Gun violence in school
Gun culture.
Being shot at in the school
Not feeling safe.
The need to own a gun, to live in a gated community, to have a security system, a couple of locks on doors and bars on windows.
Not going into some neighborhoods because they are not safe.
Try going on vacation in Jamaica. LOL!
School shootings. As far as I know that has never happened in muy country.
Jaywalking and adultery.
apparent open racism that is currently everywhere
Tipping and taxes not included in the price..
Being drunk after 6 drinks
Guns
I don't understand how you're all so retarded and, at the same time, you love yourself so much.
The lack of air-conditioning.
Having all my friends survive high school, only one guy guys getting shot up, and it wasn’t bullets.
Gun ownership as a fundamental right.
I live in Mexico and, while we have our fair share of violence because of the "War on Drugs", I have never met anyone who owns a gun. It's not a priority for us, even for safety and even if it's in the Constitution (Article 10).
So I find it really creepy that people are so scared of each other in the U.S. that they feel the need to have a gun at home. Especially the culture of gun fanatics, the NRA and all of that.
TIL that my country sucks
Hyper chest-thumping patriotism - flying giant american flags, tattooing constitutional amendments, carrying the constitution, weeping at the anthem...just corny.
Net neutrality. IDGAF, and I hope americans lose it, so I can laugh like I did when Trump won.
Y'all
It’s the perfect word.
indubitably
"My American friend's always like 'Oh no, my school's being shot up!' It's like stfu Yankee ddoodle."
The alt-right, Fox News addicted Trump lovers who keep on defending him and attacking literally everything else, despite how much of a corrupted idiot he obviously is.
You think he's corrupt? Lol you know nothing of "real" politicians then!
Funny looking president with orange hair
After reading all of this I'm suddenly less proud to be an American
Try 99% of other countries and your pride will be back.
Trump
How the hell can a gun lobbying organisation be the third most powerful entity???
Having shitty healthcare lol
I'm an American and this whole thread is depressing. :(
When I come home from work and read this type of thread it really makes me feel spoiled to live in a first world country and not USA.
It's like you want to make the world into the Warhammer universe..
Good thing you're confident enough to actually say which country you live in.
Sweden. I didn't mean to invoke passive agression though, I do understand that half your country doesn't want to do what is being done with net neutrality and such. I wrote my post with poorly chosen words and realized after I went to bed. BUT the fact is that the united states is not a first world country.
Edit: I do sound like an asshole in my first post. Damn.
Sweden is encroached by hostile immigration and multiculturalism making Swedes hostage of bullshit. Great country, but has a lot of work to do.
I don't disagree with a single thing you said. But if you say it as a swede publicly, you are the biggest piece of shit. It's pretty bad. But for me personally not much has changed.
Say it. Face the shrill opposition because it's unsure of itself and paper thin. Most Swedes seem to want to correct this shitty multicultural bullshit. Defend your culture, country and people.
Yeah I just don't talk that much about politics. I just know a lot of people would take offense. My vote is unaffected though.
About the part where I said I was largely unaffected? I live pretty rural. For people in cities it's a bit different. Crime rates are up to say the least. In my town the immigrants are good though, mostly nice people. I think it has to do a lot with resources and time spent talking to individuals and adjusting to the new environment, everyone knows each other.
Yeah I just don't talk that much about politics.
Do it. Fuck the offended.
Will you let the shitheads knock at your door and ruin your lifestyle?
This political party is gaining votes in part of because of how ostracized it became. It really doesn't matter if someone speaks up. They are skyrocketing in popularity every poll. No one needs the social pariah stamp. It's still gonna happen whether it's what the virtue signalers want or not.
If you mean the nationalist political party, great. Take your country back!
I mean if you lived here you'd be a bit apprehensive as well.. You're kinda marked if you openly say you are going to vote anti immigrant.
If I said I would to the girl I like she'd probably not be that into me anymore.. It's so much propaganda. But as I said it's not going to affect my vote in the least. That's my private business and everyone respects enough not to hound others for what they will vote. I believe politicians are pretty much money grubbing assholes and liars, but this party, they will do this one thing.
And this thing means so much to this country for it's prosperity. We just can't afford them all and take care of our own at the same time.
There appears to be almost no culture. Just seems to be all about big chunks of grilled meat, Guns, Sports, tv and tiny american flags. Travel Europe and travel America, the difference in historic culture is insane.
This just strikes me as ignorance of America. We produce so much culture that the world defaults to consuming ours.
Having an orange clown as a president.
Trump.
Net neutrality I think it's called. In Canada i just sat here whilst everyone in America is freaking tf out.
Their attitudes to guns. Even the moderates there are semi-pro-guns. Here in the UK it's only a certain type of person who would edvocate for everyone havin them. Outside of the USA there aren't any first world nations where the citizens seem to be constantly preoccupied with the idea of one day needing to gun down a bad guy who tries to mug them or whatever.
People who speak out in favour of gun control but temper it with "Now, I'm not against guns...". Really? Why aren't you against guns? They're the problem. Or they actually are against guns, but they can't say it because that's un-American and the gun nuts will accuse them of trying to take away their freedom.
they actually are against guns, but they can't say it because that's un-American and the gun nuts will accuse them of trying to take away their freedom.
Yep, that. In a lot of places, it'll get you ostracized, persecuted or blackballed to be identified as a "fucking liberal commie" if you say you are anti-gun. For some stupid (and I do mean stupid) reason, a lot of Americans think guns = freedom.
[deleted]
But for the most part we have much cheaper healthcare (or free at the point of use!) - and even though it's cheaper it's a better standard of care than the US, very little gun violence, a much lower chance of being murdered, better public transport, better policing (because our cops aren't afraid of being murdered every 10 seconds), for the most part better electoral systems with more direct representation, no or little military-industrial complex, less poverty, better treated veterans, no indoctrination about religion or the flag or patriotism, higher quality goods, more healthy base foods (like not putting sugar in bread), better nutritional information, better data protection, better protection of rights, and a good balance between rights and responsibilities towards others.
Overall, we're much less individualistic and I think that makes for a better living environment personally. We rub up against each other much better than some groups in the US.
Mexicans are lazy and rapists.
Am not mexican or hispanic but it blows my mind white people demonize them so much. I feel so bad for them and pray for grace because most of them are humble people just trying to make a living LEGIT doing shit we dont want to do. Like my late night pizza delivery guy. Speaks english well enough. Works late. Very nice, humble, and unassuming. I always tip them well.
Fuck ignorant white ppl.
Fro what I've seen on tumblr, that is far from an exclusively white american thing.
Yeah but we can always fuck ignorant shitty ppl. It is never wrong.
There's been 2 major wars on American soil. The revolutionary war and the civil war.
Americans kicked the crap out of England in the revolutionary war.
Then we fixed our problems ourselves with the civil war.
We have and love our guns because we can.
Americans will always fight back, we'll never back down, and we won't ever be invaded.
Gun violence looks like its everywhere, because thats how the media portrays it.
Most of us just want to be left alone to live our lives.
[deleted]
We earned it. America has saved the worlds ass at least twice, if not more.
It ain't bragging if you can back it up.
Leaving my house and worrying about gun violence.
A huge majority of us don’t worry about it at all. It’s vastly overblown on the internet and it’s not really indicative of every day life over here.
Very true. In fact, over the last few decades gun violence has been on a decline even while ownership is increasing. If you remove suicides and a couple very violent cities, gun violence really isn't that big of a problem. It's the high profile mass shootings that get a lot of attention, for good reason, that are what is really concerning because of the randomness of it
'Postmen are shooting people.'
'Teenagers are shooting people.'
'The police are shooting people.'
'Everybody is shooting everybody else.'
'I got shot and they charged me all my money to take the bullet out.'
No one said yet? Gun problems
school shootings.
Ignorance.
School shootings
The lunacy of the Republican party, gun control, racial tensions, not being able to go to the doctor for something. Just to name a few..
Going to school and not getting shot
Oh dear how much time do you have?
The guns. The police. The religion(s). The health care. The political system/circus. Talk radio aka lunatics with a mic. The military industrial complex. ~~The Donald~~ Agent Orange. Workers rights (lack thereof). And in the face of all that the persistent claim to be numbahwahn.
School shootings
Guns. Nuff said.
Feminism.
Thankfully doesn't exist over here.
School shootings, gun control (literally everything about weapons), paying for college, not having free healthcare, net neutrality etc etc. It's a neverending list.
ITT: people attempting to criticize the US for stuff that exists in dozens of countries.
But in the USA go big or go home.
Bullshit. Travel around: 99% of other countries have much worse problems. Exceptions here and there pay taxes through the nose. All in all, the USA is a wonderful country.
The hatred against Trump
Getting shot at.
Weekly massacres
... do you seriously think we have WEEKLY massacres?
Bi weekly?
Public schools don't have armed guards even though any psycho over the age of 5 can get ahold of and bring a gun to school.....btw American born and bred
Armed guards aren't the answer
Anti-Trump Rhetoric. Any idiot can see what Trump is trying to do. There is a Proverb. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Basically, as I see it, he is trying to teach the USA to fish again. He is saying we need to manufacture and not just keep buying from the rest of the world. The USA have be become consumers from the rest of the world not producers. They have forgotten how to fish and now the USA only buys fish. Even before Trump became president. I could NEVER understand why the USA was just buying from China and why USA factories were moving out of the USA to foreign countries and manufacturing less and less. Yes, Trump is teaching the USA to produce again, to fish again; but the fake main stream media is working very, very hard against him. The propaganda is totally rediculous. I can see it as a total outsider. I feel very sorry for him. The USA does not know how lucky they are to have a president like him. Very, very sad.
Nice try Donald
Yes Hillary...
Mr. Hannity, you already have a nightly cable show. No need to come here.
Sorry mate. You have got the wrong person. Just stating facts as I see it.
"we?" The post was a question posed to non-Americans.
What are you talking about. I am a Non-American. I was last in America 40 years ago.
Did I misread it, or did you edit it? I thought that you had referred to Americans as 'we.'
I think you misread it. I don't even know if you can edit a post after it has been sent.
Hmm, I probably tried to reply to another post and clicked the wrong one...sorry!
[deleted]
In Europe nobody and no employer (other than police or few other extremally sensitive jobs) would care.
Drug testing is common in UK construction, but it makes sense with the high levels of health and safety.
It's the opposite in America. One of the few jobs you can do that's not minimum wage without being tested for drugs in construction.
I've worked retail jobs with random drug testing. Right now I work retail and they only test if there is an at work injury, test positive, they can avoid paying your medical bills.
Out of all the jobs I've worked they yes all had drug policies in place but only one actually drug tested me, and that was only once they can drug test you again but they never did random drug tests only if someone was obviously high. Most office jobs dont drug test. Same with restaurants. But construction and jobs like that still have to drug test because if an employee hurts someone or damages someones property and they test positive for drugs even just marijuana the company can be held financially liable.
Drug testing is expensive and its not really effective, the lazy drugged out employee is still going to be lazy sober. More and more companies minus construction and other related fields are stopping random drug tests.
Insurance companies demand it.
Makes sense, when you see how keen americans are on their crack-drugs. Assuming reddit is a reflection of the country as a whole.
Ya im Americans and I smoke 18 crack drugs a day
Lol, what a dumb comment