Just some Sunday morning meditations on my part after reading the news and thinking about things friends of mine, from around the world, who I work with tell me. I was contemplating what wonderful countries, such as the Scandinavian ones, Britain, France, Japan, etc. are and contrasting them to Syria as it currently is, some of the African countries, and others along that line.
I am interested in what the folk here think is the dividing line between a country with a good standard of living is and one without such a good standard.
To me, availability of food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education, freedom of thought, expressions,and religion, employment, along with a sense of satisfaction, community cooperation, and safety are the hallmarks of a good standard of living. What, however is the root cause of these artifacts?
Many of us are fortunate enough to live in countries where these things, although not perfectly distributed, are more in abundance than other countries. Some of these other countries not as blessed have resources, capable people, and other factors in their favor, but don't seem to hit that mark.
What are your thoughts, folks? What separates the living standards between countries?
How far the dollar can take you. Availability of space. What climate you like. What you can do without.
I will not live in Europe
I will not live in Eastern Europe
I will not live in Russia
I will not live in North America (I will maintain my house here though)
I will not live in South America nor Latin America
I will not live in Australia
......
Jihadin wrote: How far the dollar can take you. Availability of space. What climate you like. What you can do without.
I will not live in Europe
I will not live in Eastern Europe
I will not live in Russia
I will not live in North America (I will maintain my house here though)
I will not live in South America nor Latin America
I will not live in Australia
......
Thailand is the goal Out in the country
Yeah, thailand, where you can get 15 years in jail for insulting the king on twitter.
Thailand offers little in the way of legal protection to foreigners or ownership rights on property. Lawyers are supposed to be terribly corrupt are often part of the problem.
Suffice to say Thailand is fine for a holiday but I'd be fethed if I would live there.
Two good books on this subject are "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Why Nations Fail".
Both look at this problem from different angles, and I think the problem is so complex it needs to be looked at from many angles before it can be solved.
Guns, Germs and Steel is more interested in the scientific and environmental reasons why the world ended up the way it is. It's got some great insights.
Why Nations Fail came out a bit later, and sort of explains things from a political standpoint.
Neither book is perfect, but both provide a pretty thoughtful analysis of your question which is miles better than anything I could post.
Da Boss wrote: Two good books on this subject are "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Why Nations Fail".
Both look at this problem from different angles, and I think the problem is so complex it needs to be looked at from many angles before it can be solved.
Guns, Germs and Steel is more interested in the scientific and environmental reasons why the world ended up the way it is. It's got some great insights.
Why Nations Fail came out a bit later, and sort of explains things from a political standpoint.
Neither book is perfect, but both provide a pretty thoughtful analysis of your question which is miles better than anything I could post.
Interestingly enough, the complexity seems to 'average out' to a simple overall trend when one backs out far enough:
Given regions/societies/countries of the world go through (inconsistent) cycles of doing well and doing poorly once they reach a settled level of civilization. The area that is now China has done this several times, the middle east had two upswings (ancient mesopotamia and the golden age of islam), north/central America was in such an upswing before smallpox, etc. The west has had two upswings, the first was Rome and the second just happened to coincide with the technology threshold of the industrial revolution, leading to the western-dominated world of today. Technological advancement has broken the rules in this system, so to speak, by changing them so fast that the trend can't stabilize.
Of course this is very much just my opinion on the matter that I am drawing from overall history knowledge rather than specific points of evidence. And this is not to downplay that there are very complicated reasons/situations that cause this overall trend to happens and when/how it happens.
Da Boss wrote: Two good books on this subject are "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Why Nations Fail".
Both look at this problem from different angles, and I think the problem is so complex it needs to be looked at from many angles before it can be solved.
Guns, Germs and Steel is more interested in the scientific and environmental reasons why the world ended up the way it is. It's got some great insights.
Why Nations Fail came out a bit later, and sort of explains things from a political standpoint.
Neither book is perfect, but both provide a pretty thoughtful analysis of your question which is miles better than anything I could post.
Interestingly enough, the complexity seems to 'average out' to a simple overall trend when one backs out far enough:
Given regions/societies/countries of the world go through (inconsistent) cycles of doing well and doing poorly once they reach a settled level of civilization. The area that is now China has done this several times, the middle east had two upswings (ancient mesopotamia and the golden age of islam), north/central America was in such an upswing before smallpox, etc. The west has had two upswings, the first was Rome and the second just happened to coincide with the technology threshold of the industrial revolution, leading to the western-dominated world of today. Technological advancement has broken the rules in this system, so to speak, by changing them so fast that the trend can't stabilize.
Of course this is very much just my opinion on the matter that I am drawing from overall history knowledge rather than specific points of evidence. And this is not to downplay that there are very complicated reasons/situations that cause this overall trend to happens and when/how it happens.
I've heard it said that there is a cycle nations go through where it starts out hard scrabble, or slave, which then goes to where it gains freedom or advances through the hard work of it's citizens followed by pride and decadence which precedes a decline period that plunges it back into the first part of the cycle.
On a serious note: Any government that works to protect it's citizens rights, rather than trying to be the ruler, is my opinion of "higher standard of living" as you ought to have freedoms to achieve your goals.
Everything I've experienced / seen about America in my last um... lifetime... Is, unless you happen to be really rather wealthy indeed, it's a pretty bad place to live compared to the UK / Canada / certain countries in Europe.
In saying that, I'd still pick the USA over France, Italy or Spain. Again, assuming a person is not classed as 'very wealthy.'
Germany, I've kinda heard mixed things about. Some say it's awesome, others tell me that 'having dinner in the office, then working through until 10pm at night is a normal thing.'
Oz and New Zealand, sure, maybe, but they have the problems of remoteness. Japan, I believe, is well known for having a pretty bad quality of life overall (The whole 'salaryman' thing.)
Compel wrote: Everything I've experienced / seen about America in my last um... lifetime... Is, unless you happen to be really rather wealthy indeed, it's a pretty bad place to live compared to the UK / Canada / certain countries in Europe.
Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.
To me, availability of food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education, freedom of thought, expressions,and religion, employment, along with a sense of satisfaction, community cooperation, and safety are the hallmarks of a good standard of living. What, however is the root cause of these artifacts?
I would also add social, economic, and geographic mobility to your list.
But, to answer your question, there isn't one. Even if you just look at the history of the United States the movement towards what you describe as a good standard of living was long, slow, and messy; with plenty of opportunities for failure.
Some of these other countries not as blessed have resources, capable people, and other factors in their favor, but don't seem to hit that mark.
In the study of developing nations there is a phenomenon known as the "resource curse" based on the observation that resource rich countries tend to score very poorly when it comes to traditional economic metrics and HDI. The reason for this is very simple, a government which derives the majority of its revenue from rent has no real need to pay attention to the well-being of its citizens, and so it enriches itself while ignoring their needs and the state of the larger economy. You see this a lot in Africa, and on the Arabian Peninsula...though at the very least states on the Arabian Peninsula often have robust welfare systems.
Compel wrote: Everything I've experienced / seen about America in my last um... lifetime... Is, unless you happen to be really rather wealthy indeed, it's a pretty bad place to live compared to the UK / Canada / certain countries in Europe.
Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.
I've heard some pretty nightmarish things about the legal systems in some of the European countries. From an albeit limited perspective, I don't think I would want to live in another country.
On a serious note: Any government that works to protect it's citizens rights, rather than trying to be the ruler, is my opinion of "higher standard of living" as you ought to have freedoms to achieve your goals.
This, this I totally agree with. A place where the government serves to protect it's citizens, not control them, is a good place to be.
Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.
True, for example, I do hear good things about Burbank, compared to LA.
However, ultimately, there are various Governmental / national policies that really do make me go. "Wow, America is a pretty terrible place to live, unless you happen to have enough money that those national / Governmental policies aren't an issue.
But yeah, it basically seems to me. Want an education? Drown in debt. Get sick? Drown in debt. As an outsider, the whole "bootstraps" culture, the whole "I can accept having terrible living conditions in my life now, because one day, one day I might, maybe, tiny, possibly have the chance of making it big" thing, just seems to result in, for the vast majority of people, a terrible quality of life.
Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.
True, for example, I do hear good things about Burbank, compared to LA.
However, ultimately, there are various Governmental / national policies that really do make me go. "Wow, America is a pretty terrible place to live, unless you happen to have enough money that those national / Governmental policies aren't an issue.
But yeah, it basically seems to me. Want an education? Drown in debt. Get sick? Drown in debt. As an outsider, the whole "bootstraps" culture, the whole "I can accept having terrible living conditions in my life now, because one day, one day I might, maybe, tiny, possibly have the chance of making it big" thing, just seems to result in, for the vast majority of people, a terrible quality of life.
I disagree on this. I've lived several places in this country from Maine to California, and aside from a fairly dark point in my life, myself and the people I know in the areas I lived had a very good quality of life despite not swimming in money.
Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.
True, for example, I do hear good things about Burbank, compared to LA.
However, ultimately, there are various Governmental / national policies that really do make me go. "Wow, America is a pretty terrible place to live, unless you happen to have enough money that those national / Governmental policies aren't an issue.
But yeah, it basically seems to me. Want an education? Drown in debt. Get sick? Drown in debt. As an outsider, the whole "bootstraps" culture, the whole "I can accept having terrible living conditions in my life now, because one day, one day I might, maybe, tiny, possibly have the chance of making it big" thing, just seems to result in, for the vast majority of people, a terrible quality of life.
It's not nearly as bad as you make it seem. And if your only frame of reference are places in California, that's just skewing things even further. The quality of life for most people is certainly not terrible.
California isn't my only place of reference, it's just what I've recently heard people talking about living conditions.
Another example, a friend, pretty, Scottish, white female, spent a summer out in a prestigious Texan university studying astronomy.
She went out on campus ground one night with another student, male, black, to do astronomy stuff... Cause that's what you do when you're an astronomer.
Apparently her friend got threatened with a gun by campus police who apparently immediately believed she was being kidnapped by him. It took some convincing from the girl to stop him from being taken in.
Time and time again, I hear about individuals in the States talking about medical expenses of family members and it effectively ruining whole families lives.
California isn't my only place of reference, it's just what I've recently heard people talking about living conditions.
Another example, a friend, pretty, Scottish, white female, spent a summer out in a prestigious Texan university studying astronomy.
She went out on campus ground one night with another student, male, black, to do astronomy stuff... Cause that's what you do when you're an astronomer.
Apparently her friend got threatened with a gun by campus police who apparently immediately believed she was being kidnapped by him. It took some convincing from the girl to stop him from being taken in.
Time and time again, I hear about individuals in the States talking about medical expenses of family members and it effectively ruining whole families lives.
It's settled then. In your view, the U.S.is a piece of crap country. What separates it in your mind from what you consider better countries?
I could talk about the parts of the UK I find pretty rubbish too (the weather being high up there on the list), if it'd make you feel any better.
I mean, the topic of this thread is about quality of living standards and countries after all.
Like I said earlier, Canada, except the parts of it which are having unrest about the whole French-Canadian thing, is a good option from my limited knowledge.
Sweden always seems to top the various lists too.
Edit: Maybe it's because I'm intrinsically cynical, but I find it a lot easier identifying examples of not the ideal of a quality of life, than it is of finding examples for it.
As a California native, from my perspective things aren't that bad here. Yes, everything is more expensive, but people tend to make more as well (minimum wage goes to $10 starting Jan first). We have a great education system that, while expensive (excessively so) at many levels also features a large number of very well equipped community colleges. And honestly I think the state government does a solid job given just how many people and how much area they have to manage. Certainly far better than the Federal government, though that isn't an incredibly high bar.
That said, worth noting that my first response to anyone who says the live/lived in LA is "I'm sorry for your loss" with only about half that being sarcastic. Its somewhat accepted around here (San Diego) that LA is not a place you want to be for any significant period of time.
It's settled then. In your view, the U.S.is a piece of crap country. What separates it in your mind from what you consider better countries?
Well, for me personally, socialised healthcare which is free at point of care is pretty high up on the list.
Sure, it's a bit better now that insurance companies in the US aren't allowed to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions but it took you so long to get to there and people are still reliant on being in work to be able to actually access non-emergency healthcare without paying through the nose for it.
Which can lead to people not going to the doctor when they begin to feel unwell, due to the cost, and you end up with easily fixable problems growing into much larger problems which are also much more expensive to fix.
Also, paid maternity leave. How do you still not have this written into law?
I could talk about the parts of the UK I find pretty rubbish too (the weather being high up there on the list), if it'd make you feel any better.
I mean, the topic of this thread is about quality of living standards and countries after all.
Like I said earlier, Canada, except the parts of it which are having unrest about the whole French-Canadian thing, is a good option from my limited knowledge.
Sweden always seems to top the various lists too.
Edit: Maybe it's because I'm intrinsically cynical, but I find it a lot easier identifying examples of not the ideal of a quality of life, than it is of finding examples for it.
Sorry about the hostile seeming tone, didn't mean for it to come out that way. I just wanted to move the conversation along. I agree with you about Canada being nice, since I used to live on the border and half my family is Canadian.
Just based on my own observations it's kind of hard for folks here in the states to discuss the failures of our country in comparison to the rest of the world.
I personally blame alot of that on the patriotic brainwashing in our education system. The whole "Our country is the greatest ever!" bit we learn over and over in school.
That said, in relation to the topic, I have to agree to the sentiments that it boils down to how well a countries citizens are cared for. Something I admittedly believe other countries do better than us but that might be a bit of 'Greener grass'.
Jimsolo wrote: I've heard some pretty nightmarish things about the legal systems in some of the European countries.
Well, you're not alone in thinking some other legal system is really borked. I for one would avoid the US like the plague unless I was filthy rich. As far as the things anyone gets to see in news justice there seems to depend on being suitably white (ok, that I can manage) and having the money to hire a good lawyer (nope, not possible). Throw enough money on the lawyer and expert witnesses and you're on probation instead of doing 20-to-life like that poor black guy who did the exact same thing as you.
But as for high standard of living? I'd say one of the first things we don't appreciate enough until it's gone is peace. Not peace as in "we're not bombing some third-rate country" but peace as in "no one's bombing our power plants, water distribution or living areas". When standard of living means you can buy an extra hour of electricity compared to your neighbor we're no longer in the high end of living.
I could talk about the parts of the UK I find pretty rubbish too (the weather being high up there on the list), if it'd make you feel any better.
I mean, the topic of this thread is about quality of living standards and countries after all.
Like I said earlier, Canada, except the parts of it which are having unrest about the whole French-Canadian thing, is a good option from my limited knowledge.
Sweden always seems to top the various lists too.
Edit: Maybe it's because I'm intrinsically cynical, but I find it a lot easier identifying examples of not the ideal of a quality of life, than it is of finding examples for it.
The French-Canadian hing has settled down a lot. Trudeau Sr. politely reminded the more violent elements that he had a bigger stick, and we more-or-less have been able to keep things civilized. Things got a bit loud back in the 90's, but they've quieted down a lot.
If you want somewhere in Canada that's "Bad", pick a random reservation. That's bad.
For standard of living, do you mean the current, last generation or so political decisions that lead to differences among otherwise fairly similar nations, or do you mean the longer term, historical trends that led to some nations industrializing while others were colonized?
If the former, that's a political question, and not one I'm keen on wading into right now.
If the latter, you can look at a map and broadly divide the world into a few layers for standard of living:
Fullly developed (first world): Western/Northern Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc.
Mostly developed (Second world) Eastern Europe/Russia, Big chunks of Latin America, China parts of southeast Asia, South Africa, some of the middle east
Developing: much of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, including the middle east.
Dumpster Fires: parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, North Korea, Afghanistan, etc.
As other posters have noted, European Culture was ascendant when the technological curve really became exponential. Smallpox basically wiped out much of the native population in the Americas, which made at least the US and Canada new ground. Japan avoided colonization, at least partially due to having a strong enough civilization to resist the death by a thousand cuts India and China went through.
After that head start, there have been a few big trends: Western States tended to be relatively ethnically and religiously homogenous, which cut down on civil wars. War is destructive, but it can lead to a stronger nation state. Civil War, especially long, drawn out ones, can really weapon a nation. Having a common culture, there is more support for the central government.
There are some goofier factors at work. If you look at Eurasia, the strongest economies and governments are at the edges: Western Europe and Japan, along with southeast Asia. Coincidentally, the two parts of Eurasia the Mongols didn't reach. In a very real way, the rest of Eurasia spent generation recovering from the total war of the Mongol Hordes. Its easier to start colonizing the Americas when you're not redigging irrigation ditches.
Freedom from the priestly class and emancipation from superstition have to weigh in pretty heavily here, as the existing and emerging theocracies of the world put on plain display.
jasper76 wrote: Freedom from the priestly class and emancipation from superstition have to weigh in pretty heavily here, as the existing and emerging theocracies of the world put on plain display.
One of the only true (if partial) theocracies is Iran, which enjoys a much higher standard of living than most Islamic nations, and is rated generally as having a high human development.
jasper76 wrote: Freedom from the priestly class and emancipation from superstition have to weigh in pretty heavily here, as the existing and emerging theocracies of the world put on plain display.
One of the only true (if partial) theocracies is Iran, which enjoys a much higher standard of living than most Islamic nations, and is rated generally as having a high human development.
"A much higher standard of living than most Islamic nations" does not strike me as a ringing endorsement.
jasper76 wrote: Freedom from the priestly class and emancipation from superstition have to weigh in pretty heavily here, as the existing and emerging theocracies of the world put on plain display.
One of the only true (if partial) theocracies is Iran, which enjoys a much higher standard of living than most Islamic nations, and is rated generally as having a high human development.
"A much higher standard of living than most Islamic nations" does not strike me as a ringing endorsement.
Sigh.
The United Nations ranks Iran as 69th in Human Development. This is slightly higher than nations such as Mexico, Brazil, Turkey and the Ukraine.
Iran really is a nice country, minus the rabid nationalism among part of the population and theocracy. But potentially once the ayatollah is dead you could see some normalization of Iran.
I mean if you only take in the bad side of Iran, if you take in the bad side of the US we seem like nothing but homophobic, sexist, gun toting, rabid Christians.
But I was talking about the architecture, people in general, and their outdoors.
Ustrello wrote: I mean if you only take in the bad side of Iran, if you take in the bad side of the US we seem like nothing but homophobic, sexist, gun toting, rabid Christians.
But I was talking about the architecture, people in general, and their outdoors.
Fair enough, since a good chunk of the US population actually are homophobic, sexist, gun toting, and/or rabid Christians.
I have no special emnity for the citizens of Iran themselves, nor their architecture or outdoors.
d-usa wrote: If America would realize that our employment laws are an embarrassment it would be a much better place to live.
If we could combine US personal liberties with European employee rights I would be happy.
I agree with the gist of this. I wouldn't use the term embarassment, but I think some modest adjustments to what's becoming known as "work/life balance issues" is something that would have broad support. I think the obstacle here is that too often citizens take the side of employer interests, when the overwhelming majority of people are not employers.
The main issues that I see are lack of sick leave, ridiculously short parental leave, and the fact that employers can require workers to work over 40 hours a week.
d-usa wrote: If America would realize that our employment laws are an embarrassment it would be a much better place to live.
If we could combine US personal liberties with European employee rights I would be happy.
I agree with the gist of this. I wouldn't use the term embarassment, but I think some modest adjustments to what's becoming known as "work/life balance issues" is something that would have broad support. I think the obstacle here is that too often citizens take the side of employer interests, when the overwhelming majority of people are not employers.
The main issues that I see are lack of sick leave, ridiculously short parental leave, and the fact that employers can require workers to work over 40 hours a week.
I think as a population a lot of people don't think of themselves as "employees" but rather as "business owners who haven't started their business yet".
d-usa wrote: If America would realize that our employment laws are an embarrassment it would be a much better place to live.
If we could combine US personal liberties with European employee rights I would be happy.
I agree with the gist of this. I wouldn't use the term embarassment, but I think some modest adjustments to what's becoming known as "work/life balance issues" is something that would have broad support. I think the obstacle here is that too often citizens take the side of employer interests, when the overwhelming majority of people are not employers.
The main issues that I see are lack of sick leave, ridiculously short parental leave, and the fact that employers can require workers to work over 40 hours a week.
Farming can be brutal for that. During planting season I would easily work 95 hours a week, but I suspect that's the truth of most farms no matter where you are in the world.
d-usa wrote: If America would realize that our employment laws are an embarrassment it would be a much better place to live.
If we could combine US personal liberties with European employee rights I would be happy.
I agree with the gist of this. I wouldn't use the term embarassment, but I think some modest adjustments to what's becoming known as "work/life balance issues" is something that would have broad support. I think the obstacle here is that too often citizens take the side of employer interests, when the overwhelming majority of people are not employers.
The main issues that I see are lack of sick leave, ridiculously short parental leave, and the fact that employers can require workers to work over 40 hours a week.
Seasonal work like farming tends to have massive swings though. There will be weeks when you basically need to be there almost 24/7. There will be others where you aren't needed at all.
Of course jobs like that actually pay fairly high wages when you are working. Most farm workers make $15-20 an hour, some jobs though are piece rate so your pay is directly related to how productive you are. You might get paid $3 per bushel you harvest, so if you do 5 bushels an hour you are getting paid $15 an hour, and could theoretically get paid even more. But a particular job may only last for 6 weeks so you gotta keep moving.
Personally, I feel like, if we're looking for describing a hypothetical place that has a high standard of living, they wouldn't be 'minor' incidents.
And just to try to ease you all, in case you're thinking I'm a "Britain is the best, yay, go Britain" type of person, I came across this fun image on twitter.
Compel wrote: Personally, I feel like, if we're looking for describing a hypothetical place that has a high standard of living, they wouldn't be 'minor' incidents.
And just to try to ease you all, in case you're thinking I'm a "Britain is the best, yay, go Britain" type of person, I came across this fun image on twitter.
What's the context of the picture? It looks like a couple of drunks got rowdy and the cops restrained them.
As for me
Good cheap food - Ukraine
Shelter - free shelter for everyone? I can't remember any. But I'm sure, it should be somewhere without cold winter as in my current city Yakutsk
Clothing - same, somewhere without killing cold weather
Medicine? Germany?
Education, freedom of thought, expressions,and religion, employment?
1) There should be no class stratification
In Russia we don't even have a middle class
2) Religion should not influence the country's politics
As we can see where it is significant, there is always a religious conflict or not the choice of religion
3) The country should not be the enemy of anyone (which is not feasible). Otherwise, all these "freedom of speech" turned into an instrument for the destruction of the country, as it was in the Soviet Union / Russia.
4) People have to enjoy the work. And do not suffer at work, so you enjoy shopping consumption. Because of this, they are looking for ways to get money out of nothing. And they themselves earn those scammers who offer "ways to make money out of nothing" (Forex club).
Compel wrote: The context is pretty much a perfect slice of life of the UK at New Years Eve.
Nothing particularly traumatic or anything.
Are we supposed to look at that photo and conclude that the UK's standard of living is "pretty terrible" for most people, similar to the conclusion you came to about the United States based on what you've heard about a couple places in California?
Compel wrote: The context is pretty much a perfect slice of life of the UK at New Years Eve.
Nothing particularly traumatic or anything.
Are we supposed to look at that photo and conclude that the UK's standard of living is "pretty terrible" for most people, similar to the conclusion you came to about the United States based on what you've heard about a couple places in California?
Indeed. For all we know the guy getting restrained could be an investment banker and the lady is his wife scolding him for having one nip too many
Compel wrote: I've always thought that some place like Vancouver would be the place to be.
Well maybe somewhere else in Canada that's warmer but dodges the whole French debate complications.
But then, my knowledge of Canada is kinda like, "America, but crossed with the nicer elements of living in the UK.
Not quite. There is a marked cultural difference between your average Canuck and Yank.
Good news, old chap, there's not much in Canada that's warmer, on average, than Vancouver. The cost of living is pretty much the highest in Canada, though. Entry level housing is around a quarter million pounds. There's lots to see and do, especially if you are an outdoorsy type. Plus we are still about fifteen years from our next Stanley Cup Riot.
Gameswise, there is the usual clubs and stores that any metropolitan area has to offer, as well as the annual Spike! Blood Bowl tournament that is an international event for players of the Brutalful Game.
Compel wrote: I've always thought that some place like Vancouver would be the place to be.
Well maybe somewhere else in Canada that's warmer but dodges the whole French debate complications.
But then, my knowledge of Canada is kinda like, "America, but crossed with the nicer elements of living in the UK.
Not quite. There is a marked cultural difference between your average Canuck and Yank.
Good news, old chap, there's not much in Canada that's warmer, on average, than Vancouver. The cost of living is pretty much the highest in Canada, though. Entry level housing is around a quarter million pounds. There's lots to see and do, especially if you are an outdoorsy type. Plus we are still about fifteen years from our next Stanley Cup Riot.
Gameswise, there is the usual clubs and stores that any metropolitan area has to offer, as well as the annual Spike! Blood Bowl tournament that is an international event for players of the Brutalful Game.
I always liked New Brunswick myself. Gorgeous country and good people.
Are we supposed to look at that photo and conclude that the UK's standard of living is "pretty terrible" for most people, similar to the conclusion you came to about the United States based on what you've heard about a couple places in California?
Nope, just demonstrating that the UK has its faults too.
and, I didn't just talk about California, there was that story about Texas as well and so many other people I've spoken to over the course of my life who despite being (and this is my Britishness coming through), 'middle class' seem to be acutely aware of how tenuous their position is, if a big unexpected medical bill comes along. Or, a number of people who were 'middle class' who have had those expenses.
Or student loanswise. Unless you're Scottish (who are probably in the best case for this, but does come with its own problems relating to sustainability etc), paying back your student loans end up basically being a 'tax' on you. Which is kind of an issue, and yeah, sure can be something on peoples minds. Now, I may very well be wrong in this, but I've never heard of a British student loan being a major factor in influencing the course of someones life.
Again, this contrasts with the experiences I know of in America where the debt from student loans really does end up being a driving factor in peoples decision making.
Of course, the student loans are always being tinkered with and you never know quite how long these various advantages / disadvantages will last.
As for the other posters, I suppose that comes to the difficulty of it all, the higher the standard of living of a place, the more it ends up costing to live there. Or, if it doesn't cost much, the cost will end up rising to meet it, or, the standard of living will end up going down.
It does seem I have strongly offended a lot of people with the 'pretty terrible' comment, I clearly did not choose my words well and for that, I apologise.
Compel wrote: The context is pretty much a perfect slice of life of the UK at New Years Eve.
Nothing particularly traumatic or anything.
Are we supposed to look at that photo and conclude that the UK's standard of living is "pretty terrible" for most people, similar to the conclusion you came to about the United States based on what you've heard about a couple places in California?
Indeed. For all we know the guy getting restrained could be an investment banker and the lady is his wife scolding him for having one nip too many
wait, you're saying he kills people with a golden gun ?
Compel wrote: Personally, I feel like, if we're looking for describing a hypothetical place that has a high standard of living, they wouldn't be 'minor' incidents.
And just to try to ease you all, in case you're thinking I'm a "Britain is the best, yay, go Britain" type of person, I came across this fun image on twitter.
What's the context of the picture? It looks like a couple of drunks got rowdy and the cops restrained them.
Wait wait wait.
The Chub Scout Master seems to trying to save the can of beer......or is that a can of Fish n Chips.....
Compel wrote: Personally, I feel like, if we're looking for describing a hypothetical place that has a high standard of living, they wouldn't be 'minor' incidents.
And just to try to ease you all, in case you're thinking I'm a "Britain is the best, yay, go Britain" type of person, I came across this fun image on twitter.
What's the context of the picture? It looks like a couple of drunks got rowdy and the cops restrained them.
Wait wait wait.
The Chub Scout Master seems to trying to save the can of beer......or is that a can of Fish n Chips.....
The guy in the blue is like, "Don't mind me, I'll just have another nip or two while you gents see to my friend's needs".
I think reducing the gap between rich and poor is the most important thing, and that is probably best achieved by reducing corruption. I think this is summed up best by one of my favourite quotes:
"With deregulation, privatisation, free trade, what we're seeing is yet another enclosure and, if you like, private taking of the commons. One of the things I find very interesting in our current debates is this concept of who creates wealth. That wealth is only created when it's owned privately. What would you call clean water, fresh air, a safe environment? Are they not a form of wealth? And why does it only become wealth when some entity puts a fence around it and declares it private property? Well, you know, that's not wealth creation. That's wealth usurpation." -- Elaine Bernard
So inhibiting the ability of powerful entities to usurp "freedoms" (which includes wealth) will, IMO, lead to a better standard of living. The socio-economic benefits would reverberate through every facet of society, from crime to education, from wages to innovation. It all begins with preventing private interests from purchasing political power.
The gap between Rich and Poor doesn't really mean anything, unless you believe in the outdated Mercantilism view that "wealth" is a finite thing and there is only so much to go around. In reality, what should be focused on is increasing production and maximizing the number of jobs available. It doesn't matter how much the Rich are making or have, thats just a Red Herring the left likes to trot out because it generates outrage, but the issues don't get fixed so they can continue milking the outrage machine.
In an environment where productivity is rising faster than demand can keep up due to advancements in technology and cheap out-sourced labor, "job creation" as the holy grail for social prosperity is quickly ceasing to be viable. Something like 50% of jobs are projected to be automated within the next half-century. The "muh boostraps" ideology needs to come to terms with that reality.
BlaxicanX wrote: In an environment where productivity is rising faster than demand can keep up due to advancements in technology and cheap out-sourced labor, "job creation" as the holy grail for social prosperity is quickly ceasing to be viable. Something like 50% of jobs are projected to be automated within the next half-century. The "muh boostraps" ideology needs to come to terms with that reality.
The push to make minimum wage absurdly high, like the recent $15 hikes that passed in several areas, is what is pushing automation. The recent labor demands for inflated wages is why automation is becoming more attractive and why these jobs will cease to exist. These measures which are sold to the public as helping workers are actually going to directly harm them.
Automation is inevitable, but if it happens too quickly due to artificially inflating the cost of labor we are going to have tons of unemployed workers.
BlaxicanX wrote: In an environment where productivity is rising faster than demand can keep up due to advancements in technology and cheap out-sourced labor, "job creation" as the holy grail for social prosperity is quickly ceasing to be viable. Something like 50% of jobs are projected to be automated within the next half-century. The "muh boostraps" ideology needs to come to terms with that reality.
I'd argue the "muh bootstraps" ideology, is so patently out of touch with reality already, that'll never happen. I bet you in 50 or so years when over half the American workforce is out of work (as we know it anyway) for no reason other than human labor being technologically obsolete, we'll still have that corner of politics that does nothing but complain about how we need more jobs to save the economy and that everyone who is poor and jobless just didn't work hard enough.
The push to make minimum wage absurdly high, like the recent $15 hikes that passed in several areas, is what is pushing automation.
bs. Greed is what is pushing automation. Even if wages had been static for the past 20 years, companies would still be pushing to automate jobs because robots are cheaper and more efficient workers in the long run. Companies only care about their bottom-line, and automation will do a lot more to help that then even the most diligent person.
And if minimum wage actually followed the rate of inflation it would be around $20 an hour, so spare me the "absurdly high" song and dance.
Grey Templar wrote: Automation is inevitable, but if it happens too quickly due to artificially inflating the cost of labor we are going to have tons of unemployed workers.
To quote someone, "Did the horse get put out of work because it asked for too much, didn't work hard enough, or simply because the internal combustion engine rendered the horse's abilities so meaningless that nothing that horse could ever do would matter?"
"The machines will come slower if we treat other people like crap and leave them in poverty" is a bad argument, and a rather self serving one for people who are so rich now they'll own the automation when that time comes
Never mind of course that automation replacing human labor essentially kills capitalism as we know it, and then we're all scrambling to figure out what we're going to do with all these people who exist but have no economic value. EDIT: And I'd add, this is an issue that gets worse and worse as time goes on. Theoretically, there is no job a sophisticated enough machine can't do, so we could reach the point eventually where no human labor is needed at all, including skilled labor.
Grey Templar wrote: Poverty with a job is better than poverty with no job because a robot replaced you is it not?
You can repeat the same bad argument however you want, but it'll still be bad
So you are saying that having most of workforce be unemployed is better than them at least having some source of income? How does that even make sense to you?
Grey Templar wrote: So you are saying that having most of workforce be unemployed is better than them at least having some source of income?
I'm saying that trying to pretend like we can stop what's coming (or at this point even slow it down), is foolish. It only makes the future problem worse (unemployable poor), while worsening a current problem (working poor). Further, your argument does nothing to resolve the future problem, which we will then be tackling alongside the current problem cause we just going to keep lowering wages to stave off the advance of automation until no one but owners (already a preposterously small % of the population) are being paid anything. It simply throws up the hollow, and I'd argue completely unsupported by evidence, notion that we can delay it by ironically, doing what we're already doing. Wages have not kept pace with inflation, the middle class is shrinking (mostly into the under class), and the wealth gap that you say doesn't matter is going going to matter a hell of a lot when it's the gap between 'owns everything' and 'owns nothing.' Not that that wealth will mean much at that point, because who the hell is going to be the consumer of goods and services in this new economic landscape?
We're at the point where we realize Karl Marx was right about something; Capitalism is doomed to kill itself. I.E. Your argument not only doesn't address the issue, it's based in a value system that the problem tears asunder.
How does that even make sense to you?
Because I actually thought it through instead of steadfastly sticking to partisan idealogues
All I am saying is we shouldn't be taking unnecessary actions which only hasten the arrival of this approaching problem. Hiking minimum wage does nothing to help the working poor(as the costs of what they buy go up), directly harms everyone who doesn't get a wage increase but still have to pay the increased prices it causes, and it makes automation arrive that much sooner.
The more time we have between now and when that happens is time we can find a solution to this problem. Hastening its arrival is just asking for total economic collapse.
Grey Templar wrote: All I am saying is we shouldn't be taking unnecessary actions which only hasten the arrival of this approaching problem. Hiking minimum wage does nothing to help the working poor(as the costs of what they buy go up), directly harms everyone who doesn't get a wage increase but still have to pay the increased prices it causes, and it makes automation arrive that much sooner.
The more time we have between now and when that happens is time we can find a solution to this problem. Hastening its arrival is just asking for total economic collapse.
The only alternative to raising wages to meet rising costs of living is to lower the cost of living. You can talk about personal responsibility and thrifty spending all you want, but the reality is that, again, inflation has far outstripped wages and the problem is only going to get worse as increasing population and education standards increases competition for jobs while automation decreases the net availability of said jobs.
Grey Templar wrote: Hiking minimum wage does nothing to help the working poor(as the costs of what they buy go up), directly harms everyone who doesn't get a wage increase but still have to pay the increased prices it causes, and it makes automation arrive that much sooner.
That's disingenuous. Increasing the minimum wage very well might help the working poor, as it is entirely possible for the increase in wages to outstrip any increase in the cost of living. Further, if you're going to argue that an increase in minimum wage necessarily causes prices to rise (it doesn't) you pretty much have to argue that a higher minimum wage leads to higher wages in general, negating your second point.
Grey Templar wrote: The more time we have between now and when that happens is time we can find a solution to this problem. Hastening its arrival is just asking for total economic collapse.
Here's a solution: don't allow a small amount of people to own so much stuff. The right-wing is quick to write off stuff like cellphones as "luxuries" that the unwashed poor really don't "need", so why is it that the people with enough money to potentially destabilize the economy "need" a private jet, or a luxury yacht? There's a diminishing return on the utility of money, after all.
Grey Templar wrote: So you are saying that having most of workforce be unemployed is better than them at least having some source of income? How does that even make sense to you?
So the choice is between being poor and out of work, or poor and exploited? While that sounds like just the kind of bright future the right wing elite has in mind for everyone, neither are desirable enough to care which is "better".
Grey Templar wrote: The gap between Rich and Poor doesn't really mean anything, unless you believe in the outdated Mercantilism view that "wealth" is a finite thing and there is only so much to go around.
A lot of resources (wealth) are demonstrably finite. Most notably land.
And the gap between rich and poor is actually one of the strongest indicators of other problems in a society, such as: crime, poverty, unemployment, exploitation, failing infrastructure, corruption etc... To say it doesn't mean anything, while simultaneously suggesting that people should live in poverty so as to be more appealing to (rich) employers than machines are, reveals the depth and breadth of your political syllabus.
Grey Templar wrote: The more time we have between now and when that happens is time we can find a solution to this problem. Hastening its arrival is just asking for total economic collapse.
Here's a solution: don't allow a small amount of people to own so much stuff. The right-wing is quick to write off stuff like cellphones as "luxuries" that the unwashed poor really don't "need", so why is it that the people with enough money to potentially destabilize the economy "need" a private jet, or a luxury yacht? There's a diminishing return on the utility of money, after all.
BlaxicanX wrote: In an environment where productivity is rising faster than demand can keep up due to advancements in technology and cheap out-sourced labor, "job creation" as the holy grail for social prosperity is quickly ceasing to be viable. Something like 50% of jobs are projected to be automated within the next half-century. The "muh boostraps" ideology needs to come to terms with that reality.
I'd argue the "muh bootstraps" ideology, is so patently out of touch with reality already, that'll never happen. I bet you in 50 or so years when over half the American workforce is out of work (as we know it anyway) for no reason other than human labor being technologically obsolete, we'll still have that corner of politics that does nothing but complain about how we need more jobs to save the economy and that everyone who is poor and jobless just didn't work hard enough.
Good times. They be acoming
Don't you believe, though, that skill sets in a more mechanized enviornment will evolve to keep the work force employed in a fashion similar to when the country went from a primarily agrarian culture to industrial?
Grey Templar wrote: The more time we have between now and when that happens is time we can find a solution to this problem. Hastening its arrival is just asking for total economic collapse.
Here's a solution: don't allow a small amount of people to own so much stuff. The right-wing is quick to write off stuff like cellphones as "luxuries" that the unwashed poor really don't "need", so why is it that the people with enough money to potentially destabilize the economy "need" a private jet, or a luxury yacht? There's a diminishing return on the utility of money, after all.
Hear, hear.
Also, wage increases for poor people is money that gets spent in the country. A wage increase for a rich person just ends up sitting in an offshore tax haven.
BlaxicanX wrote: In an environment where productivity is rising faster than demand can keep up due to advancements in technology and cheap out-sourced labor, "job creation" as the holy grail for social prosperity is quickly ceasing to be viable. Something like 50% of jobs are projected to be automated within the next half-century. The "muh boostraps" ideology needs to come to terms with that reality.
I'd argue the "muh bootstraps" ideology, is so patently out of touch with reality already, that'll never happen. I bet you in 50 or so years when over half the American workforce is out of work (as we know it anyway) for no reason other than human labor being technologically obsolete, we'll still have that corner of politics that does nothing but complain about how we need more jobs to save the economy and that everyone who is poor and jobless just didn't work hard enough.
Good times. They be acoming
Don't you believe, though, that skill sets in a more mechanized enviornment will evolve to keep the work force employed in a fashion similar to when the country went from a primarily agrarian culture to industrial?
The skillset required will change, but you will also require less of that skillset than you did with the unskilled skillset.
You don't need one engineer for every robot you have in your factory, so your factory will end up employing less people, for example.
For the agrarian to industrial example, it would be like a farmer suddenly only needing to employ three people to harvest a field thanks to owning a combine harvester whereas before he needed ten to do the same amount of work.
New work areas (repairing the robots for example) will open up, but there's currently no foreseeable place for all the people who will be put out of work to go. I say this with the admission, that I'm not psychic, and can't perfectly predict the future. And it's not like someday a switch is gonna be flipped and boom, tens of millions out of work. It'll take years even decades and who knows what changes might occur in that time.
I'll do an example; McDonalds. We had a thread some time ago about how they were testing a burger making machine. Eventually, that machine will be practical, and burger flippers and fry friers everywhere will be replaced. Eventually, even cashiers will be replaced, because why have someone man a store that is automated? People can just walk in, order off an interactive menu, and their food pops out.
There will be jobs restocking and repairing the machines of course... Until we make machines that can do that for us. Then we don't really need anyone managing the store. No need for managers or supervisors. No one to manage or supervise. Once a restocking machine is made, well there goes most of the people who work in stock rooms around the country. Amazon no longer has to worry about it's mistreated workers unionizing anymore (yey?). We'll eventually have automated cars and truckers, and there go all the people in distribution. Most jobs are just mechanical actions anyway, and the only thing anyone is waiting for is a good enough machine to do it better and cheaper. Once we have 'thinking machines' in who knows how long, even people like accountants or even low level engineers are replaced. A lot of stores and venues as currently built, probably can't support practically this kind of market, and will need to be rebuilt so there will be a construction boom, but will humans being doing that work or the Constructicons?
This eliminates so many workers, companies no longer needs Human Resources personnel. So now everyone in HR (which is currently one of the growth areas for jobs) is out of work because there's no human resources anymore.
Eventually, at some point, the only people who will be needed in an economic sense are people to make better robots, and we won't need 300,000,000 Americans to do that.
Point is, that capitalism as we currently know it is predicated on labor being a human resource. When human labor ceases to be a resource of any value, the whole thing falls apart. So what takes it's place? No idea, but in the middle of this change happening, I suspect a lot of people are going to be left with nothing and "they didn't work hard enough" will no longer be a valid excuse to ignore them because hard work (or lack there of) won't have anything to do with it.
The world has gone through a number of economic eras, starting with hunter gatherer and going forward through the millennia.
The work force adapts with each change and moves along to the next advance in civilization.
There are those periods of time where mass unemployment happens, but things find a way of evening back out.
One step closer to the Caste system.
Next thing you know there be a Civilian and a Citizen
University/Colleges will be out of date while those education establishments that gives certificates of completion of a tech/trade field will become popular.
So my short term goal is to slide into ICE so I can mandatory retire from there at 56 and then slide back into USCIS to retire at 60.
Overall I will receive five retirement checks thereby accomplishing my long term goal
The other goal is buying property in Thailand (I'm a Thai Citizen to now) and a couple of bars/clubs with friends in Pattaya....and live life till I die from over sex
LordofHats wrote: New work areas (repairing the robots for example) will open up, but there's currently no foreseeable place for all the people who will be put out of work to go. I say this with the admission, that I'm not psychic, and can't perfectly predict the future. And it's not like someday a switch is gonna be flipped and boom, tens of millions out of work. It'll take years even decades and who knows what changes might occur in that time. ... Point is, that capitalism as we currently know it is predicated on labor being a human resource. When human labor ceases to be a resource of any value, the whole thing falls apart. So what takes it's place? No idea, but in the middle of this change happening, I suspect a lot of people are going to be left with nothing and "they didn't work hard enough" will no longer be a valid excuse to ignore them because hard work (or lack there of) won't have anything to do with it.
There are parallels in ancient Rome. Because of the prevalence of slaves , it became almost impossible for free men to find work. There were huge swathes of people that existed on hand outs (dole) and charity. It actually became one of their biggest social problems as the people ended up with little to do but cause trouble. I believe there were a lot of initiatives to try and get wealthy landowners to share their wealth and employ people, but typically it was resisted. It certainly contributed (in no small part) to the breakdown of their society.
Iron_Captain wrote: World Revolution, here we come!
Who knows, maybe the commies will have the last laugh after all.
The proletariat of all countries, shoulder to shoulder against the bourgeois! I sense a heroic mural in the making!
I hope to see that sweeping historical figure, Ivan Kutcherkokov prominently displayed at the forefront.
Relapse wrote: The world has gone through a number of economic eras, starting with hunter gatherer and going forward through the millennia.
The work force adapts with each change and moves along to the next advance in civilization.
There are those periods of time where mass unemployment happens, but things find a way of evening back out.
Sometimes what evens things out is chaos and war.
It's all about the rate of the change, if the whole thing happens slow enough, we'll be able to manage ok and everything will work out. It happens too fast, and, well, everything falls apart. And those are just two ends of the sliding scale, with societal disruption higher the greater the rate of change. I just hope to hell that when it comes, we are ready.
There are parallels in ancient Rome. Because of the prevalence of slaves , it became almost impossible for free men to find work.
Which is why selling yourself into slavery wasn't a terrible plan, it was the ur-internship.
It was also Joseph's plan for the Egyptians in the Genesis legend (perhaps thousands of years before Rome). After he monopolizes grain, he removes all the gold from circulation, then all the tradable goods, then on the third year the Egyptians are forced give him their land, and they are set to work on their own land to pay the rent. It reads like an ancient 101 in economic subjugation. And the really twisted part is that instead of rebelling and killing him for usurping all their land and wealth, they thank him for it, grateful for the opportunity to live as serfs on their own land.
I wish I could live somewhere fascinating but I am...well I have a gakky little apartment surviving on disability so life isn't going to yield anything great, no fantastic places for me.
I do know I never want to live in the US with my dad, I really didn't care for the US when I was there.
Rainbow Dash wrote: I wish I could live somewhere fascinating but I am...well I have a gakky little apartment surviving on disability so life isn't going to yield anything great, no fantastic places for me.
I do know I never want to live in the US with my dad, I really didn't care for the US when I was there.
Canada is a nice place, though. I would love living in the Maritimes, some where in the country. Are you holed up in the city somewhere, or a small town? Depending on circumstance that can be pretty bad. Living in a big city always depressed me and made me feel closed in. I guess that's from growing up and living out in the country most places I was at in the U.S.
Grey Templar wrote: All I am saying is we shouldn't be taking unnecessary actions which only hasten the arrival of this approaching problem. Hiking minimum wage does nothing to help the working poor(as the costs of what they buy go up), directly harms everyone who doesn't get a wage increase but still have to pay the increased prices it causes, and it makes automation arrive that much sooner.
The more time we have between now and when that happens is time we can find a solution to this problem. Hastening its arrival is just asking for total economic collapse.
I’d just like to point out I’ve probably posted maybe a dozen times over the course of two or three years explaining to Gray Templar why this argument is so hopelessly wrong. To believe that an increase in minimum wage will result in an equal increase in cost of living expenses, then you have to believe that the entire cost of every product is labour (so no materials, no rent, no machinery), and that every person is on minimum wage. Those assumptions are, of course, ludicrous.
In reality, while labour is the largest element in most products, most labour costs are not paid to minimum wage workers. I don’t have a hard figure, but given less than 5% of workers are paid at less than the Federal minimum wage, we can conclude that the price increase from a minimum wage increase would be significantly less than 5% of the increase. So if minimum wage workers got a
I’m not sure there’s anything in my argument there that can be countered. It’s pretty simple stuff. Gray Templar certainly hasn’t ever tried to counter any of it. Instead he just avoids it, or simply doesn’t reply, and then pops up claiming the exact same nonsense a few months later.
So really, when someone just simply doesn’t care that what they’re saying is factually incorrect, what’s the point? What actually can be achieved by anyone, when other posters simply don’t care if what they’re saying has any truth behind it?
Rainbow Dash wrote: I wish I could live somewhere fascinating but I am...well I have a gakky little apartment surviving on disability so life isn't going to yield anything great, no fantastic places for me.
I do know I never want to live in the US with my dad, I really didn't care for the US when I was there.
Canada is a nice place, though. I would love living in the Maritimes, some where in the country. Are you holed up in the city somewhere, or a small town? Depending on circumstance that can be pretty bad. Living in a big city always depressed me and made me feel closed in. I guess that's from growing up and living out in the country most places I was at in the U.S.
I live in a city though for a short while lived in a small town and found it horrible since there was very little to do and everyone there was extremely unfriendly (and/or stupid) that and police swarmed everywhere and harassed any man from the ages of 15-35 for no reason (to be fair a lot of men in that town turned to crime due to its sub par economy).
What would I do in the country?
Sure my standard of living might be a bit better but what would that ultimately mean? What would I do?
Rainbow Dash wrote: I wish I could live somewhere fascinating but I am...well I have a gakky little apartment surviving on disability so life isn't going to yield anything great, no fantastic places for me.
I do know I never want to live in the US with my dad, I really didn't care for the US when I was there.
Canada is a nice place, though. I would love living in the Maritimes, some where in the country. Are you holed up in the city somewhere, or a small town? Depending on circumstance that can be pretty bad. Living in a big city always depressed me and made me feel closed in. I guess that's from growing up and living out in the country most places I was at in the U.S.
I live in a city though for a short while lived in a small town and found it horrible since there was very little to do and everyone there was extremely unfriendly (and/or stupid) that and police swarmed everywhere and harassed any man from the ages of 15-35 for no reason (to be fair a lot of men in that town turned to crime due to its sub par economy).
What would I do in the country?
Sure my standard of living might be a bit better but what would that ultimately mean? What would I do?
I don't know you, so I couldn't say. Do you have any skills that are marketable? Just as a quick thought, a friend works for Jet Blue and has a great time with it. They earn money and miles, and end up flying all over the place for vacations. All this is done from their home.
Rainbow Dash wrote: I wish I could live somewhere fascinating but I am...well I have a gakky little apartment surviving on disability so life isn't going to yield anything great, no fantastic places for me.
I do know I never want to live in the US with my dad, I really didn't care for the US when I was there.
Canada is a nice place, though. I would love living in the Maritimes, some where in the country. Are you holed up in the city somewhere, or a small town? Depending on circumstance that can be pretty bad. Living in a big city always depressed me and made me feel closed in. I guess that's from growing up and living out in the country most places I was at in the U.S.
I live in a city though for a short while lived in a small town and found it horrible since there was very little to do and everyone there was extremely unfriendly (and/or stupid) that and police swarmed everywhere and harassed any man from the ages of 15-35 for no reason (to be fair a lot of men in that town turned to crime due to its sub par economy).
What would I do in the country?
Sure my standard of living might be a bit better but what would that ultimately mean? What would I do?
I don't know you, so I couldn't say. Do you have any skills that are marketable? Just as a quick thought, a friend works for Jet Blue and has a great time with it. They earn money and miles, and end up flying all over the place for vacations. All this is done from their home.
Uh no not really, I wasted a lot of time in nonsense and I sit in my late 20s with really nothing to show for it.
Not that I had much drive in the first place, being on disability is... I donno it takes a lot away from you, emotionally.
People look down on you, you obviously can't work full time, you'll forever be in near poverty.
I've lost a lot of hope in life.
I can't move out of the province, I have no idea what the process is about that.
Not knowing the nature of your disability, I'd say you are still young and have more possibilities than you realize. Have you considered going back to school? I understand Canada has good help for students. Do you have a passion for something?
Relapse wrote: Not knowing the nature of your disability, I'd say you are still young and have more possibilities than you realize. Have you considered going back to school? I understand Canada has good help for students. Do you have a passion for something?
I'm still in school lol (adult high school, mostly due to health reasons, like physical not mental) so... no after this I want to not think about school for a little bit lol I wouldn't be able to afford school, and I don't think I could be a full time student (disability money or not) not something I could handle again.
I had a horrid experience in school, and it's always been a painful link to all that.
Relapse wrote: Not knowing the nature of your disability, I'd say you are still young and have more possibilities than you realize. Have you considered going back to school? I understand Canada has good help for students. Do you have a passion for something?
I'm still in school lol (adult high school, mostly due to health reasons, like physical not mental) so... no after this I want to not think about school for a little bit lol I wouldn't be able to afford school, and I don't think I could be a full time student (disability money or not) not something I could handle again.
I had a horrid experience in school, and it's always been a painful link to all that.
I'll carry this with you to PM later tomorrow. It sounds like you feel yourself in a tight spot that in all likely hood won't be solved on this forum. I can offer some suggestions and maybe some of your fellow Canuks can give you better advice than me.
About all I can tell you right now is to stay strong. I was in a verycrappy situation myself years ago, living in a crack house, thinking life was gak. It's a story in itself, that I won't relate here, except to say I pulled out of that spiral for a far better life.
sebster wrote: So really, when someone just simply doesn’t care that what they’re saying is factually incorrect, what’s the point? What actually can be achieved by anyone, when other posters simply don’t care if what they’re saying has any truth behind it?
The point is to expose the logical inconsistencies to anyone on the fence who may be following the conversation. You don't converse with Grey Templar, you converse at him because he literally doesn't have the capacity to be intellectually honest in a debate- but other folks reading this might.
Relapse wrote: Living in a big city always depressed me and made me feel closed in. I guess that's from growing up and living out in the country most places I was at in the U.S.
Haha, as a city-boy I have the exact opposite feeling. I visited Texas for the first time last week, Houston specifically, and while it's a very beautiful place (and the prospect of $1.50/gallon gas is immensely appealing) I dunno if I could ever live there. Too much open land. I can't handle looking out and being able to see nothing but flat land for as far as the horizon goes, it freaks me out. :p
I sympathize with the feeling of being in a flat area. There has to be some kind of variation to make it interesting.
I live in Utah now, ringed in by some of the most gorgeous mountains I have seen anywhere. Getting to the top of them and looking out over the countryside is amazing.
I don't understand how people can stand living in mountains, completely surrounded on all sides. Places like Utah are way too far from the sea for my liking. I just can't stand being away from the sea for a long time, I get really homesick. It is something in the air I think. Sea air is best air. And seagulls. There is nothing like the sound of seagulls. Coastal mountains are quite nice though, just a bit too cold in winter.
The sea is very important for standards of living. Landlocked places tend to have lower standards of living than coastal places. That goes for economy (no access to sea resources and trade) and apparantly health too: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120716191439.htm
I do miss good seafood, having lived in Maine and New Orleans. I can also say, though, that there is a far higher standard of living on average where I am at in Utah than either of those places.
If there were some way to combine Maine and Utah, it would be the perfect place to live.
