...and that's why he also said on Monday: "If you took someone and asked them, without them knowing whether they'd be born boy or girl, black or white, with or without any relevant talent, or to rich or poor parents, and asked them when and where they'd like to be born. They'd answer, 'The US, in modern times'. There is no place on Earth, and no time in history, that a person can make the most of their talents, as today in the US. As hard as it is to be in the bottom 10% here and now, it would have been much worse any time in the past."
I see how it could sound weird to the eyes of an American, but the only place where I think his statement would be incorrect is Western Europe. A part from that I'm confident that a majority of people around the world would very much like to either have been born in the US or give their children the opportunity to live there.
At least where I'm originally from, emigration to the US is seen as an an incredibly desirable outcome even more so than to europe. Though personally I'm glad I've ended up in canada! Funnily enough, my parents first choice was still the US and they only tried for Canada when they didn't get picked in the Us Visa lottery.
I don't think there is as much business opportunity in Western Europe due to taxes and regulations.
This is why the US has given birth to the majority of big businesses in the world in the last 20 years. A lot of startups that started elsewhere, moved to the US to continue their growth.
Europe might have some quality of life elements such as health care, vacation time, and regulations to protect citizens and workers... but being able to start a business in the US is what Warren Buffett refers to as opportunity.
The US might be the best place to start a world-conquering multinational like Google or Facebook, but it's not the best place to live for general social mobility or for starting a small business. Small business startups play a lesser role in our economy than other Western European countries. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/think-w...)
This is provably false. It is incredibly hard to create a small business in western Europe. Capital borrowing is difficult, employee staffing is onerous, and local officials make sure that larger established companies compete more strongly in their areas.
That Atlantic article is both antiquated, and cherry picks data just after the 2008 crisis.
The social policy advantages in Nordic nations and Western Europe today vastly outweigh those in the US. Growing up in the US, I was lucky my parents had good jobs and pushed me to learn and grow. If I did not have their support (and healthcare) I would not have survived college or medical issues at that time, some of which are ongoing today. I'm extremely lucky to have an advanced education, be healthy, and be less than 10k in debt 5 years after graduating. That's entirely due to my parents funding my education and medical bills best they could through that period as well as the insanely good benefits from my current position.
If I was born into a Nordic nation I think I'd have been better off. I'd have had the same supportive parents but no burden from education and medical debts, or stress of finding a position with good benefits before turning 26. I might even be freelancing or building my own company right now without fear of paying for prescriptions out of pocket for me and my SO which would be significantly more costly than our rent.
The US is a great country for opportunity but it is not a place of equal opportunity.
But in his thought experiment what you're trying to avoid is being massively disadvantaged by where you were born.
If you're born in Scandinavia you'll have very good education and healthcare no matter what family you're born into. Maybe starting a business is harder, so what? You can move to the US later in life if that's your goal, you'll still be better off by having no student debt.
In the past this was a murkier trade-off as the cost of immigration vs the cost of student loans was much closer.
Nowadays, however, I'd say that it's possibly the better route to take from a debt standpoint, but there is still the reality that being able to move to the US (or most other countries) is not a guarantee normally.
I'm canadian, I sure as fuck wouldn't want to emigrate to the USA. Warren Buffet has huge biases and blind spots when it comes to sociological analysis. I strongly doubt the man understands what it's like to be making 7$ an hour working at Dennys somewhere in the bible belt because the public school system left you semi-illiterate, or living in any heavily criminalized urban area, or picking fruits in california because you had to escape cartels in mexico/central america. None of the people in my examples or developing their full potential, and there's a massive proportion of americans in this bottom social class.
*And canada could be doing way better. There are glaring social inequalities here too.
> huge biases and blind spots when it comes to sociological analysis.
...apparently so do you since your next sentence is full of such incredible hyperbole...
> 7$ an hour working at Dennys somewhere in the bible belt because the public school system left you semi-illiterate, or living in any heavily criminalized urban area, or picking fruits in california because you had to escape cartels in mexico/central america.
Pew suggests about 50% of America is the middle class, earning about $78k a year. I'm not sure what fraction is in manual labor jobs but if labor means working then the rate is about 62%.
From BLS data, about 12.7% of the population lives in poverty, workers/children/etc. This group is disproportionately minority (non white) and an example of the social failing of the richest nation in history.
That sounds like a very mid 20th century POV. Which I totally get for Buffett.
Most rankings of social mobility put the US outside the top 20. The highs are higher here, but the path to get there, especially from the bottom 10%, is more difficult than almost any country we consider a peer.
I would be interested in how the US mobility fared if the metric was not %, put purchasing parity. I imagine it is better to go from the bottom 10% to 20% in the US than bottom 10 to top 10 in many counties.
After all, an income of 15k (ppp) puts someone in the top 10% globally and 30k is the top 1%
I don't think that's accurate. Economic mobility in the US has been so high for so long, that it stands to reason that most families in the US have already achieved their potential.
What is probably a more telling indicator is the degree to which poor IMMIGRANTS are able to move up - an indicator that the US dominates.
I don't think that stands to reason at all. That sounds laughable, especially in the context of the heinous things American society did to purposefully black families from "achieving their potential". While immigrant families' ancestors were in their home countries accruing assets, educational opportunities, and (relatively more) equal access to what their country had to offer, black people here were held back from their white peers. Home equity, educational opportunities, freedom from police harassment, the ability to organize politically without facing literal terrorism.
Modern times, sure. The United States not so much. If you aren't sure about any other factor, you might want to be born in a society that provides most of its population with the tools they need.
The problem with the that quote is that "it's better now than before" is used my large political movements to justify cancelling the effort that got us here, and letting us backslide.
Will Durant has an interesting quote that has stuck with me, something along the lines of: Out of every 100 new ideas, 99 of them will be bad, and inferior to what was replaced.
My impression is that "It's better now than before" is used to protect the effort that got us here, not cancel it. It's used to protect us against the 99 bad ideas.
There’s a subtle issue with that quote: one of the predicates is “with or without any relevant talent”, but the answer of the modern US seems to assume talent that one can make the most of.
Why not pick a modern country with a better social safety net, lower inequality, and greater economic and class mobility?
...and almost everyone agrees with him. The problem is that any time a Bill is put forward to raise taxes on "the rich", it also happens to include the upper-middle class, not the rich.
Economic mobility is down in most wealthy nations, especially in the US. Not to mention the demonstrable differences in outcome people have based on familial wealth, race, location, etc.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE