I have worked a lot in international teams with many different cultures, but predominantly US. Being born in NL and based in DE currently, it has always amazed me what a low standard of living my american colleagues had compared to us. The elections provided me some more insight into the debate surrounding Bernie Sanders' plans and I just can't understand the seeming lack of understanding of how nice it is to have true (imho) quality of life. Free time, insurance, working roughly 35 hours a week, fresh air, exercise, good food, etc . etc. I don't want to engage any political discussion, and I see similar mindset with some europeans. It somehow just baffles the crap out of me to see people want to, and be proud of, overworking / sitting in a car 2-3 hours a day / breathing polluted air / eating prefab sandwiches or other junkfood. Meanwhile labelling any alternative as 'communism' Had a bit of that for the first few years of my working life. Never again.
You can spot the Americans who are responding to you. They are the ones who say it's not every job like this. Or that some areas of the country are different. You'll notice that the concept of having worker protections like mandatory paid time off etc. mandated by law and enforced by the government doesn't figure prominently into their thinking. It provides insight into the politics of the country. Looking to government for protection from exploitation by employers, polluters, etc. is not what a large percent of Americans do.
"You can spot the Americans who are responding to you."
American here (although I own a swiss business and travel there frequently).
The reason that americans do not embrace these things is that, for the most part, the United States still has a very, very flat social hierarchy.
If you put Joe-6-Pack and Larry Ellison into a room together, J6P will still hold his head high and demand equal treatment and respect - from both Ellison and other third parties.
But J6P intuitively knows something else: asking for favors alters that relationship and establishes an explicit power balance (as opposed to the implicit one which was obviously there to some degree).
On the other hand, if you come from Europe, the idea of a "better class" isn't so foreign - even if you disagree with it. That power balance is quite a bit more explicit and there is a fairly well established (sometimes in blood) "contract" between the people who work for a living and the people who own things.
Personally, I like the American arrangement but I think it's days are numbered - eventually the sorting will complete itself and workers will have more days off ... but "gentlemen" will have certain privileges like english lords do in 2016.[1]
[1] Exemption from jury service, immunity from arrest for civil cases, "access to the sovereign".
> The reason that americans do not embrace these things is that, for the most part, the United States still has a very, very flat social hierarchy.
No, its because they bought the red scare and everything that was said about Socialism and then continued to parrot that bullshit since then, which then collided with the Protestant work ethic that poisoned peoples minds into equating work and pay with personal worth.
Worker protection laws are something evil that only dirty commies spout to bring good, hard working Americans down. If you were a good, hard working American you wouldn't need protection.
"No, its because they bought the red scare and everything that was said about Socialism and then continued to parrot that bullshit since then, which then collided with the Protestant work ethic that poisoned peoples minds into equating work and pay with personal worth."
Yes, agreed - but that (the red scare) is just another symptom of the underlying still-evolving class system in the US.
I don't disagree with what you're saying at all - I'm saying you should consider why those ideas resonated in the US while they did not resonate everywhere else.
The standard conclusion among 21st century progressives "they do it because they're stupid" is inaccurate (and destructive).
Looking into the culture from afar, it does appear to be more than just the repercussions of 'red scare' tactics.
The impression I get is that in some parts of the country there's a general distrust in government, alongside a trust in entrepreneurship. Neither of which seems stupid to me.
I'd also say that government spending is an easier sell in metropolitan areas as public investments in cities make a bigger impact on quality of life. Public transport is a good example of this, if I was in a rural setting I wouldn't expect much in the way of public transport spending, but I'd expect it in a city.
However, whilst it's healthy not to trust in government too much, the same is true of trusting big business to act in your interest. Government should act to keep companies in line with public interest. Whether that involves big government or not is debatable, but I don't think it'd be a good idea to have any one single company that had larger influence on the general population than the government does.
>Looking into the culture from afar, it does appear to be more than just the repercussions of 'red scare' tactics.
Then again, the US had one of the most progressive and vibrant worker rights and union movements in the world (fighting for child labor, the 8 hour week, women's work, immigrant rights, etc) -- until about the 2nd World War and the Red Scare.
>The reason that americans do not embrace these things is that, for the most part, the United States still has a very, very flat social hierarchy. If you put Joe-6-Pack and Larry Ellison into a room together, J6P will still hold his head high and demand equal treatment and respect - from both Ellison and other third parties.
And that -- the mere demand for equal treatment and respect -- is the only kind of "flat hierarchy" in the US. In every other way, that is, in any way that actually counts, Larry Ellison and Joe 6pack are so different in assets, life prospects for them and their kids, influence, power, etc, that Larry might as well be Louis XIV. Heck, there are European nobles that are more approachable than US businessmen or third rate Hollywood stars in pragmatic terms. So, this flat thing is mostly a founding myth of the US, than any kind of reality.
>But J6P intuitively knows something else: asking for favors alters that relationship and establishes an explicit power balance (as opposed to the implicit one which was obviously there to some degree).
Good wages, sane work culture, vacation days, etc are not "favors". Those are rights. Nobody handed them down to the Swiss people, much less the rich.
That people would think of them as favors to be asked from the rich, as if those are Kings, once again shows how little flat the US system is.
What would be actually flat(ter) would be to have the people enjoy more of the freedom, security, etc that the rich do.
"And that -- the mere demand for equal treatment and respect -- is the only kind of "flat hierarchy" in the US. In every other way, that is, in any way that actually counts, Larry Ellison and Joe 6pack are so different in assets, life prospects for them and their kids, influence, power, etc, that Larry might as well be Louis XIV."
I think your language, above, is very indicative of the inability to understand this set of choices. Why is the demand for equal treatment and respect "mere" ? Why is it not something that "actually counts" ?
Don't misunderstand me - I find myself confounded by a lot of these aspects of US culture and politics, but I think it's worth trying to see something deeper at work than simply "they're dummies".
I would also like to take issue with the comparison between Larry Ellison and Louis XIV. Yes, LE is very rich and probably has a lot of hidden political levers that are meaningful but there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever and I really am taken aback by the confusion that people in this thread have between wealth and social class.
On the other hand, my entire thesis here is that given enough time, that distinction will blur - so perhaps your confusion doesn't matter.
> Don't misunderstand me - I find myself confounded by a lot of these aspects of US culture and politics, but I think it's worth trying to see something deeper at work than simply "they're dummies".
I'm sure you have, but if you have not you should read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". The ideas you're presenting here may as well have been quoted from it.
>I think your language, above, is very indicative of the inability to understand this set of choices. Why is the demand for equal treatment and respect "mere" ? Why is it not something that "actually counts" ?
Because "demanding" equal treatment and actually getting equal treatment is not the same thing at all. From their doctors, to their "local congressman", to the law, to the restaurants they go to, they'll get entirely different treatment.
Of course the point is moot because those working class american wont be able to afford the same doctors, lawyers or restaurants in the first place, much less make an appointment with their congressman.
>but I think it's worth trying to see something deeper at work than simply "they're dummies".
There is something deeper at work. Several decades of actively making the American public less independent and vocal about their rights (except token rights, like the right to bear guns and ideological issues related to religion etc.), and convincing them either that they are inconvenienced millionaires or that food stamps are the pinnacle of progressive policy.
> Rights may not, by definition, require taking from someone else.
That's a limited and by no means universally accepted definition of rights, often employed by libertarians, which conveniently aligns with the objectives of the ruling class in the US.
Funny, also, how in your mind "good wages" implies taking from someone (the "job creator"?), while lower wages don't take anything from anyone?
Actually rights are totally fine by "taking from someone else" in the general sense.
Your wage (which you have a right to, as an employee) is already "taking from someone else".
The "right to work" (part of the universal declaration of human rights) includes taking a job that somebody else could take in your place.
And of course the whole idea that "sane work culture", "good wages" and "vacation days" are stolen from other people is inane. Who do you think the Swiss collectively stole them from?
You're making his argument for him. Clearly there is no general "right to work", however nice that may sound, just like there is no "right to marry and have children".
While I'm hesitant to start an argument with you, the issue is not that simple. There are "natural right" strands of thought which would deny existence of a right to work, or similar ones ("2nd generation human rights"). But other schools of thought, possibly most, would affirm their existence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US voted for, while the USSR, Saudi Arabia and others abstained) does contain the rights to work, leisure, education, among others.
And the European Court of Human Rights, and other legal institutions, make these rights enforceable, too.
So, just saying "there is no such right" falls short.
Countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are very flat societies as well but have employee protection and comprehensive social systems. In every company I've worked in the CEO has had a cubicle with the rest of us, including a large multinational. I can approach a minister on the street and talk to them, even the prime minister (who I frequently see jogging around the neighborhood and even saw in a supermarket).
So I don't think a class system has anything to do with it.
In the large New Zealand companies I worked at, the CEO wouldn't make eye contact or even talk with you. Why would he? He worked hard to get his position and you're just a lazy minion. He also had his own office on another floor, .
Labour laws are for small companies, but even then they don't obey them. My first job out of university, at a small company, told me I was paid both a salary and a wage. A salary because then I didn't get paid for overtime (nor did it get recorded), and a wage because then they didn't need to pay me that much. Take it or be unemployed. True, I could have just turned it down, but by being registered with the Work and Income people, I had a contract requiring that I took the first "reasonable" job offered, without a definition of reasonable. That particular one owes me about $20k in unpaid wages.
The next one, a multimillionaire with the Prime Minister's office on speed dial, owes me about $10k. Complaints (multiple complaints, at that) about them to the ministry have a habit of just disappearing. Personal safety threats, basic rights violations, serious health and safety issues, public funding fraud, inaccurate time sheets, and less-than-minimum-wage pay, but not one visit from the ministry.
There's no doubt that a class system is in play there.
Your experience is completely at odds with my own, I've always found senior management, politicians, and the wealthy to be very approachable and friendly, this even includes my teenage job at a rural Waikato abattoir stuffing pig colons into bags in the offal room. I guess your experience shows that there are elitist pricks everywhere, but to be honest if I had a boss that didn't treat me as an equal then I wouldn't work for or with them.
You'd be right, but oddly when they did they layout the staff areas were the ones with the sea view, the CEO just looked at another building across the road.
I am also an American. While I realize that Hacker News strives for a tone that embraces the ideal of "assume goodwill", I must break with that ethos to respond to you. What you've written is the silliest comment I've seen on Hacker News in many months. In the USA wealth has been concentrating since the 1970s. We now have the most uneven distribution of wealth of any of the developed nations.
Look at the chart "Wealth shares of top percentiles of the net wealth distribution in selected OECD countries":
The elections in the USA are increasingly heated exactly because the USA is increasingly torn apart by divisions of class, and the divisions of class are growing exactly because wealth is concentrating into the hands of the 1%, and even within that 1%, wealth is concentrating into the top 1%, which is the top .0001 of the USA.
"In the USA wealth has been concentrating since the 1970s. We now have the most uneven distribution of wealth of any of the developed nations."
I agree with everything you wrote.
However, I wasn't talking about wealth - I was talking about social class.
The inability to recognize the difference between wealth and social class is probably a good indicator of a relatively flat social hierarchy. In times and places with deep social class division you wouldn't be prone to making that mistake.
You would know exactly which rich person to call "m'lord" and which not to.
You're talking actual statistics; he's talking social psychology. Americans do think/act much in the way he described compared to how Europeans think/act. You are also right that the numbers show us Americans are getting screwed by our system. But we don't shape our culture by the facts/statistics. I wish we did.
Note: I'm an American by birth, and the Western European societies I've interacted with have, except Scandinavian, been enthusiastically classist.
> the United States still has a very, very flat social hierarchy.
Disagree somewhat. In northern Europe, public transport is used by pretty much everyone (broad sample of society from all strata). Most everyone goes to comparable public schools. University quality has much smaller variance than in the USA (there's not exactly MIT, but also not exactly Trump U.) In other words, there's a fairly broad common life. The CEO of a company certainly has a good life, but the janitor will have a decent life, too, with 4 weeks mandatory vacation and enough money to fly to Spain for vacation, and health insurance and unemployment insurance etc.
In the US, different strata of society interact far less. There are different schools, different super markets, gated communities - even the humiliating TSA experience is avoided by the rich using General Aviation terminals.
Inequality in the US is much larger than in northern Europe, notwithstanding Zuckerberg's wearing jeans.
TL;DR: In the US, you have superficial equality hiding tremendous inequality, while in Europe you have visible inequality on top of substantial equality.
Doesn't this sound problematic? It's almost a form of political correctness. Joe-6-Pack may demand (and receive) respect, but lives under the consequences of crippling income inequality and corporate welfare.
In some cases, absolutely - which is why we're discussing it.
But like everything, there are costs and benefits involved in everything (yes, everything). The idea that longer vacations or 35 hour work weeks have no trade-offs is a mistaken one.
The related idea: that american workers make the decisions they make just because they are stupid is also a mistaken one.
An interesting comment I read once from someone in the US said people in the US who aren't rich expect to be rich some day and being poor is just a temporary situation.
In the EU or any European country the goal seems to be to assist everyone not just the poor. In the US it seems like people berate the poor for not working hard enough or call them communist for asking for social assistance (ACA/"Obama care" etc.).
As a Canadian I used to have a good bead on people in the US now I don't know what's going on there. These days it seems like freedom in the US means freedom to hate or punish others rather than freedom for a person to live a healthy safe life.
Recently Nassim Taleb said mostly the same thing. That while your average citizen is probably better off in EU versus US, at the same time the average citizen is mostly locked into his "class" in Europe, versus US.
In 1971 a child from the poorest fifth had an 8.4% chance of making it to the top quintile. For a child born in 1986 the odds were 9%. The study confirms previous findings that America’s social mobility is low compared with many European countries. (In Denmark, a poor child has twice as much chance of making it to the top quintile as in America.) But it challenges several smaller recent studies that concluded that America had become less socially mobile.
(edited): it seems very old fashioned. Maybe it's like that in Switzerland? But I assume for example the nordic countries are much more egalitarian than USA.
J6P can demand equal treatment. Ultimately politicians have finite time and will listen/comply to wishes of the people that can help the politicians the most. 20% of a politicians time is spent raising money for their next campaign.
let's not forget that switzerland is basically just rich white people. racial tension in the US contributes a LOT to the dislike of anything even remotely resembling 'socialism'.
but you make a good point. i think the american aristocracy is currently in the end stages of forming and will be completely established within a few more years. once it gets bad enough, there will be a new relationship model between workers and owners, but until then, it's a free for all.
i say this as a business owner who does fine for himself and the other stakeholders but the level of wealth that the top echelons have is mind boggling.
like, i don't actually see a path to amassing that much wealth no matter how hard i work. to achieve that seems to be some voodoo mix of circumstances like birth, connections, and straight up luck.
That would be true if there were enough social mobility, and that's I think the American dream: that your wealth is directly related to your tenacity / hard work. Unfortunately that's not really the case, as money is hard to gain for those without opportunities and easy to keep for those born into it.
Then you end up with a lot of well educated janitors and tomato pickers. Not everyone can be upwardly mobile and become a millionaire with no one left to fill the void of low level poorly paid jobs needed to support them.
> Then you end up with a lot of well educated janitors and tomato pickers.
So you are saying that instead of a fair competition, you would prefer that people's lives are defined by the conditions they were born into and educated in? Wut?
> Not everyone can be upwardly mobile and become a millionaire with no one left to fill the void of low level poorly paid jobs needed to support them.
You realize that those jobs are going away in somewhat near future right? Just like e.g. truck drivers?
No, that's not what he's saying. Assume that through education you can randomize which people end up as the hedge fund managing directors and which people are the janitors. Still, there will be many janitors, and still, there will be very few hedge fund MDs.
Something I've noticed during this election cycle, is that the poor see multiple classes within the poor, with "white working class males" as a sort of minor aristocracy.
> Looking to government for protection from exploitation by employers, polluters, etc. is not what a large percent of Americans do.
I think some of the reasons for this is due to the immigrant history of the U.S. When my grandparents immigrated to America their only desire was to be free from government persecution and harassment. They left Europe with a wary eye for government, and rightly so.
I think many in the U.S share a similar experience whether or not they are 1st or 10th generation Americans. Unfortunately, that attitude has manifested itself in some negative values and policies.
> It somehow just baffles the crap out of me to see people want to, and be proud of, overworking / sitting in a car 2-3 hours a day / breathing polluted air / eating prefab sandwiches or other junkfood. Meanwhile labelling any alternative as 'communism' Had a bit of that for the first few years of my working life. Never again
Wtf lol. America isn't necessarily like this. You just had a shit job.
I don't know. I've met tons of software engineers in the US that never work less than 45 hours a week in spite of having only 3 or 4 weeks of vacation a year. It seems kinda ridiculous to me
People are reacting rather violently to 15 days is three weeks, although it isn't. Its the standard two weeks plus 5 holidays, Memorial Day, 4th Jul, Labor, Thanksgiving, Christmas. That's 15 days.
In my youth I worked for a place that advertised 15 days very proudly as meaning two weeks salaried vacation plus a personal day (usually Friday after thanksgiving). After all if you're salaries at a 24x7 operational company, if you want a Saturday off with guaranteed no phone calls, you need to take vacation.
> People are reacting rather violently to 15 days is three weeks, although it isn't
That depends on how it's counted, it may be counted the way you are but it also might not be. For instance, the standard holidays that you list do not come out of my PTO pool, which is the number of days that I was told it was when I was hired. The result being I have those days plus those five, plus the day after Thanksgiving, as time off, I just don't get to pick when those last six days are used.
Not necessarily. In my current industry if you don't work for maximum weekly work hours, saturday will be count as a work day if you literally work or not. So a week vacation is counted 6 days.
Ps. Non-US
I formerly worked for an American subsidiary of a French company. When I told my friends that they gave every employee a minimum of 20 days off, their jaws dropped.
It's much easier to say "portions of America aren't necessarily like this" while also saying "portions of America very much are like this." I know because I used to live in one of the latter parts and now I live in one of the former. Just because your experience doesn't match the experience of the person to whom you are replying doesn't mean that person's perception is wrong.
America in aggregate most certainly is like that. There are cases where some or all of these things don't apply, but these aren't representative of a typical American worker's experience.
You're right that the USA are more diverse than often acknowledged. However, they are still sufficiently clustered and distinct from, say, northern Europe (also comprising multiple states with diverse cultures etc.) that the discussion here is meaningful.
Your comment reinforces the point mvdwoord made. It ought not be up to a person to find the right job. It is up to society to enforce basic worker protections. Failure to do so leads to exploitation. The U.S. is not as nice a place to live as other rich nations.
The U.S. is not as nice a place to live as other rich nations.
Funny that the waiting list to immigrate to the US can be decades long. I guess those people are just too stupid to know how bad it is in the US?
Also, I immigrated to the US from one of those other rich countries and I think quality of life is better in the US (but it's all a personal preference).
There are lots of countries in the world that are less well off than the U.S. I have not made any claims about living conditions in those countries being worse or better than the U.S. I've not made any claims about people coming from poorer countries being dumb or even people coming from richer countries to the U.S. being dumb.
I made the claim that the U.S. is not as nice a place to live as many other rich countries. Objectively speaking this is a true statement. The U.S. ranks lower on many measurements of living standards. Of course there are counterexamples in that some people have a better standard of living in the U.S. than they did in another country but we need to be mindful that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Nope - nothing objective about it. I moved to the US from a European country with a supposedly higher standard of living. I worked longer hours here, experienced workplace bullying, and a whole host of things that would be illegal in my original country.
However I also experienced more freedom and diversity and was able to find a much more heterogenous community, as well as do things that were simply not allowed in my home country.
My life is much richer here and so the US is much nicer for me to live in.
The US has one major thing going for it when it comes to immigration. Being a melting pot, it is much easier for someone to come in and find a community of people from their own country to make the transition much easier. That, and English is more common as a second language.
> I guess those people are just too stupid to know how bad it is in the US?
US marketing is the best in the world, no doubt; maybe "mistaken" or "deceived" is more accurate than "stupid".
A few observations:
- people trying to immigrate to the USA come predominantly from desperately poor countries that are, indeed, not as nice a place to live. (People from those countries are also frequently denied tourist visa to the USA, btw.)
- among my fellow students at a good university in California that came from first world countries, only about a quarter decided to stay for longer than a few years.
- among Chinese that go to study in the USA, increasing numbers apparently choose to return to China.
> it's all a personal preference
To a large part it is.
Among expats that have options and have seen different continents, the US is more of middling choice, I'd think, but for some people it just clicks and they love it. (And NY is in a different category, anyway.)
It's not. Immigrants from first-world nations get fast tracked through their green card and naturalization process because the quotas aren't exhausted as rapidly as those for poorer nations.
I know several people who have emigrated from some of the above countries to the USA, because running a small business is extremely painful (see for example France).
If you think about companies as "us versus them", where "us" is workers and "them" is giant faceless monolithic corporations, then your idea that enforcing worker protections is a high priority might make sense.
But most companies are small. I run a software company ... I am just a guy trying to get by, who now in addition to the normal-person's burden of making my life go, has to also make a company go, and that company provides jobs for 10-12 people.
If you make my situation much harder than it is, the company would cease to exist or would downscale to 2-4 people, shedding the majority of the jobs. I am not a faceless corporation, I am just a guy who wants to get interesting things built. My little company is certainly not set up to "exploit workers", especially not on an industrial scale.
Now, paraxoically, if you add a lot more friction to what needs to happen to run a business (regulation around hiring, firing, invoicing, etc), then people like me drop out, and then what you mostly have left is the larger companies who do want to exploit workers because that is just kind of how larger companies work. Plus then you lose all the innovation / energy / economic activity that comes from smaller companies. It maybe seems like not the best idea. (If it is, how come Silicon Valley is not in France?)
As an investor, I fund a small French company and I have seen some of the crap they have to deal with just because they have a handful of employees. It makes me very glad I don't live in France.
I don't see things in terms of workers vs. employers. I see things in terms of what is morally right and what is good for society. People should not feel forced to come to work when sick. People should not be forced to work while on vacation or pressured to not use their vacation. People should not have their access to healthcare dependent on their employer.
Go to reddit/r/personalfinance and you'll read lots of stories of people in shit jobs being taken advantage of by their employer. A society that allows people without money/education to be exploited is not a good one. In the U.S., from my perspective, we have a "I've got mine, fuck you" society. I'm not exploited at my job and I have a very comfortable existence. However, many of my fellow countrymen are not so fortunate.
What about the other burdens you don't have to worry about in these countries like healthcare for employees?
Also, those restrictions on firing may be giving you a lot more potential employees. Changing jobs is a risk and if you were able to fire them after a week then that would be a major financial setback for them.
One thing I think a lot of people in business agree about is that we should adopt a more European approach (the Swiss approach is particularly good) to healthcare. You're right: the American approach to health care is a disaster for small employers.
I agree ... it doesn't make any sense to me that an employer should have anything to do with supplying healthcare to employees. It just makes the system more complicated. I'd be happy with simplifying that out.
But this doesn't seem to be nearly enough to tip the balance in terms of operating a business overall ... I consistently hear from people how much it sucks to operate a small business in Europe. I don't see what's wrong in principle with having worker protections kick in at a certain company size, but that doesn't seem to be popular.
Most worker protection laws in Germany only kick in when you've got a certain number of employees. I'm too lazy to look up the number, but it's small, single-digit I think.
In IT, Canada is pretty good, too, and scores higher than the US on some business indicators. There is probably more paperwork involved since there are no LLCs so you'd need a corp, but it's very manageable with an accountant's help. I also haven't heard of patent trolls or lawsuits being a problem, which is something that would scare me if I lived in the US.
Of course, if your business is in maple syrup or something else with heavy government intervention, then your experience will likely be quite different. :)
From NJ, US - the reason Bernie's plans were seen as nuts by the mainstream media is because the US has an extremely conservative bent compared to many European countries. Our left-wing, I imagine, would be right-wing in Europe, and our right-wing would be decried as extreme-right fascists.
Anything that helps the average American is Communism, and we can't have that, can we?
You'd be surprised. I'm not sure if you've ever spent significant time in Europe, but it's not a fairy-tale land. You would also be surprised at how insular and "right-wing" they can be.
As a non-American, what I see is that many Americans, especially those commenting here, suffer from a particularly virulent form of "the grass is greener over there" syndrome. Europe is a beautiful place, but behind the beauty lies ugliness of a different kind. The US has many problems, but there's also a reason why Silicon Valley and people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are in the States.
If you value knowing your place in the social hierarchy and having less and paying more for it, then by all means, adopt the European model. However, as jblow said above, there are so many bright spots in the US, too, so maybe it's better to just work on the rough spots instead of always looking over the fence.
Elon musk was born in South Africa, and spent time in Canada before moving to the US. My point was more about it being possible for these people to achieve their heights in the US, while their place of birth is less important. Jeff was lucky in that he didn't have to immigrate. :)
I'm not particularly lit up by the creeping threat of American Communism and the word "socialist" doesn't scare me; I'm a centrist-liberal Democrat small firm owner. And I didn't vote for Bernie. In fact, I actively voted against him.
Why? Because I thought his policies were a combination of marginally impactful, dumb, and/or unrealistic. Eliminating free trade agreements isn't going to bring secure jobs back to the Rust Belt. Massive expenditures to get everyone to college is a terrible plan --- and one the people hit hardest by the decline of manufacturing do not want. Single-payer health care is unrealistic and nationalizes something close to 20% of our entire economy.
The problem with these policies isn't "socialism". It's that they won't work.
Switzerland isn't a socialist country (look how the Swiss health care system works). The issue here isn't a crazy problem Americans have with "Socialism" (although using that term to describe a policy isn't a great way to win support for it).
The categorising (and dismissal) of ideals that you don't agree with under a blanket statement and refusing to see them as anything other than binary is the most destructive thing in our society IMO.
It means you can group public healthcare with the forced redistribution of wealth and call them communism and equally bad.
The war of drugs is the same, it means you can group (relatively) harmless drugs like Marijuana with harmful drugs like Heroin and dismiss both as equally nasty when they are anything but.
The world is seldom binary, but categorising things makes it such.
Unfortunately the word "green" is the new "communism".
If you'd constantly be told (in the media, the movies, TV shows, by the government, and thus society in general) that you live in the Greatest Country on Earth, wouldn't you end up believing it, too? Yes, you would.
I currently work in central Virginia a bit more rural. Good pay and great cost and quality of living. 3 of the more senior engineers work 60% and 80%. But HR has told me that no one wants to come here. It has been a great place for starting a family, the only risk is there is not very many software engineering options.
