Where would you live

20Cent

Say you were to be reincarnated into a very poor family, but could pick the country that you would be born into.
Where would you pick?


Would that country match your politics?
ie would the libertarian types want to be born into a country without public health or free education. Would lefties want to be born into socialist countries?

Personally I think I would pick somewhere in western Europe as the place best suited to have a decent life if starting at the bottom.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

20Cent wrote: »

Say you were to be reincarnated into a very poor family, but could pick the country that you would be born into.
Where would you pick?


Would that country match your politics?
ie would the libertarian types want to be born into a country without public health or free education. Would lefties want to be born into socialist countries?

Personally I think I would pick somewhere in western Europe as the place best suited to have a decent life if starting at the bottom.

I'd love to, but there are none.

Slouch

I would want a country that provides:

1. Completely free quality education (at least up until secondary)
2. A high level of social mobility
3. Free internet access (very good education available online)
4. The opportunity to leave the country if you want to
5. Public housing (I'd be in the right demographic for it)
6. Free healthcare (I suppose I'd be at a higher risk of infection too)

I think Sweden would be the best fit. I don't know as much about it, but I think Denmark may have found a better mix of welfare and growth-orientated economic policy now. So yeah; Sweden or Denmark. Australia would also be bearable (since you only have to pay for your education after completing it from what I understand).

Sidenote: If I could be certain the current Cuban regime would collapse shortly after I mooched sufficiently off their education system and had completed medical school there, I'd seriously consider putting the country on my list. Cuban doctors have an excellent reputation.

Still, I don't think your chances are going to be great whatever country you end up in if you're among the poorest of the poor.

CoolGirl101

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'd love to, but there are none.

Libya is a very socialist country, maybe you should ship yourself off over there..

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

Libya is a very socialist country, maybe you should ship yourself off over there..

Whatever Gadaffi likes to call Libya, its not socialist.

Lockstep

Germany, the Netherlands or Flemish Belgium would suit me grand.
Norway or Denmark also seemed class when i was there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CoolGirl101

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Whatever Gadaffi likes to call Libya, its not socialist.

They have got a lot of socialist policies though.

Slouch

According to Gaddifi, the mentally and physically handicapped can 'not expect the same share as the healthy in the wealth of society'. He also believes 'differences in individual wealth' are 'only permissible for those who render a public service'. Society 'allocates for them a certain share of the wealth equivalent to that service' (Wright 1981 Libya: A Modern History, 195-196).

I'll make no judgment on this. I will enjoy watching people argue about whether these policies are socialist or not.

Valmont

Slouch wrote: »

I would want a country that provides:

1. Completely free quality education (at least up until secondary)
2. A high level of social mobility
3. Free internet access (very good education available online)
4. The opportunity to leave the country if you want to
5. Public housing (I'd be in the right demographic for it)
6. Free healthcare (I suppose I'd be at a higher risk of infection too)

You may as well add on a quality free lunch, too.

As a libertarian, I guess I would simply rewind back to the paradise of 2007 when businesses were allowed to run roughshod over the entire economy due to the absence of any regulatory oversight. Yep, those were the golden days alright.

Slouch

Valmont wrote: »

You may as well add on a quality free lunch, too.

As a libertarian, I guess I would simply rewind back to the paradise of 2007 when businesses were allowed to run roughshod over the entire economy due to the absence of any regulatory oversight. Yep, those were the golden days alright.

Free for me. I'm obviously not going to care if people in a higher income demographic are paying for it, and public education in Denmark is of exceptional quality.

c_man

Cuba. I mean all I heard in college was how fantastic the country is, so it's gotta be worth checking out.


Although most of those people who espoused that and are now emigrating, are choosing Oz, the States, Britain... I wonder why the socialist paradise doesn't feature?!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

c_man wrote: »

Although most of those people who espoused that and are now emigrating, are choosing Oz, the States, Britain... I wonder why the socialist paradise doesn't feature?!

Even Joe Higgins will tell you that Cuba is a Stalinist dictatorship.

Slouch

Cuban food is very bland and you end up eating 'Moores and Chrisitians' nearly every second night if you go there. The tropical fruit juices are great when you first try them, then you just get absolutely sick of them. Income disparity (shockingly enough) does exist in Cuba and blacks are the most affected by it. Consequently, the association of the black population with crime has led to fairly casual racism among the Hispanic population. Most Cubans seem to work two jobs to boost their income (a lot of tax drivers are also doctors because the two each pay roughly $20). There's also the fact you can't leave.

i suppose it would be bearable to be poor in Cuba though, since everyone's in the same boat and you can always scam tourists for their US dollars (I think they like euro now too). There is a great community atmosphere too, but it doesn't really make up for the absence of available opportunities.

Overall, it's a nice place to visit for two weeks (and incredibly attractive women will go crazy for a westerner in the hope of getting out of there someday). It's not a place I'd care to stay in for much longer than that.

Valmont

Slouch wrote: »

Free for me. I'm obviously not going to care if people in a higher income demographic are paying for it, and public education in Denmark is of exceptional quality.

So you don't really care where you live as long as you get nice things for free? And be damned whoever is paying for it?

Slouch

Valmont wrote: »

And be damned whoever is paying for it?

What part of higher income demographic don't you understand?

Valmont

I'm sure you will have a great incentive to achieve and make something of yourself in this paradise of quality free lunches that are wrenched from the 'higher income demographic'- which is quite a sneaky synonym for taxpayer, mind you. Next it will be the 'breadbasket demographic' or 'those with too much'.

Slouch

If you have to be among the poorest of the poor in a given society, it makes sense to maximise your chances of getting into college. Mandatory education is a good way to significantly increase your chances. Can you imagine the difference a simple BA could make to your family? If you have the opportunity to specialise in business or economics, even better.

I suppose you'd prefer a country where you'd be left for dead if you were unfit for work? That's one thing I couldn't help noticing about the USA. The more successful homeless people have excellent salesmanship skills. The ones who don't, you find lying on the ground, slowly starving, with barely the strength to move. Begging is beyond them.

Try reading this and see if you still think the Danish system provides a poor incentive for social mobility: http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/corak.pdf

Valmont

Slouch wrote: »

Mandatory education is a good way to significantly increase your chances. Can you imagine the difference a simple BA could make to your family? If you have the opportunity to specialise in business or economics, even better.

This system of mandatory education and the showering of degrees upon the populace has only resulted in a massive downgrade in the value of a university education. I expect prices to eventually rise as they have done in the UK and the U.S, effectively producing an army of indebted graduates who will end up stacking shelves- if they are lucky.

Slouch wrote: »

I suppose you'd prefer a country where you'd be left for dead if you were unfit for work?

I think the vast array of private charities for the homeless and disabled would suggest otherwise. Especially so if government aid was removed. It's government aid programs that give people the idea that their concern with the poorer people of their community begins and ends with their tax return.

Slouch wrote: »

That's one thing I couldn't help noticing about the USA...The ones who don't, you find lying on the ground, slowly starving, with barely the strength to move. Begging is beyond them.

That may be the most hyperbolic statement ever uttered on boards.

Slouch

Ideed, many of those charities do exist. Their posters were plastered all over bus stops in Chicago. If you visit the city, you'll find the homeless people you actually notice come up to you with a friendly smile and an open question. They'll usually have an attention grabbing statement too.

"How's your day?"

"Hey man, what motivates you?"

"Hey, Vietnam veteran" *show injuries* (This one was probably true, since he had horrible burn marks across his chest he claimed were from napalm)

"It's my birthday"

Some will take free copies of The Onion from a corner stand and sell them on.

Some of them just had stories that were so good I was happy to give them money just for that, regardless of whether they were true or not.

The ones who have barely the strength to stand can be found down alleyways in poverty stricken districts. A place called Austnn, at the end of one of the bus lines, is a particularly good example. Either those charities are not reaching everyone, or they were trying to con me with an 'I'm so helpless' act. I just have to put that down to which one is more probable.

It's possible Illinois, or even just Chicago is an exception. I did not spend enough time in Indiana or Michigan to say anything about the situation in those states. My memories of California are hazy at best, sice I was a child at the time. The time I spent living in Chicago is enough evidence for me though.

You can argue that the situation is caused by government intervention. These people could get simple jobs if the minumum wage was abolished, which is technically true. You have a theoretically valid point if you want to argue from that perspective. However, if you wish to argue that the situation does not exist, this conversation ends for me I'm afraid.

As for stacking shelves, would you not be reasonably happy to get a job stacking shelves if you came from absolutely nothing? If you can get that far, social climbing would seem a realistic possibility. You might eventually be moved up to the retail desk if you have even a primary school level of mathematics.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Slouch wrote: »

According to Gaddifi, the mentally and physically handicapped can 'not expect the same share as the healthy in the wealth of society'. He also believes 'differences in individual wealth' are 'only permissible for those who render a public service'. Society 'allocates for them a certain share of the wealth equivalent to that service' (Wright 1981 Libya: A Modern History, 195-196).

I'll make no judgment on this. I will enjoy watching people argue about whether these policies are socialist or not.

They're not. They sound to me like an elitist policy guaranteed to ensure him and his cronies earn more than anyone else.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Slouch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was not a child in Illinois. That comment about hazy memories applies only to California.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why not somewhere closer to your ideology?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

20Cent wrote: »

Why not somewhere closer to your ideology?

Hes taking a dig at the Greeks. Its observational comedy.

Slouch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes. I did commit generalisation from the particular. I'm guilty of a logical fallacy. Nevertheless, there are some things I feel need clarification here. The problem I was addressing was not homelessness in itself. It was specifically about those that charities have failed to reach, either because they have to be turned away, are mentally ill or severely physically sick. I have to acknowledge that there are employed homeless and a 'home free' demographic that simply enjoy their lifestyle. Can we be clear that the issue is pervasive throughout Chicago, despite the city having an unusually high number of shelters. Austin was mentioned because it was the most extreme example I came across. The main reason I had for believing that the situation is similar is word of mouth testimony from interstate backpackers. I drew upon my own experience to more effectively get a point across, i.e. that the failure to address the problem is very severe in the US when western standards are applied. If I was talking about homelessness in itself as the problem, googling stats to support my side would not be difficult. I, by no means, had any desire to suggest that it was a uniquely US problem.

I am grateful for the fact that you have been polite in pointing out an error of mine, which I am quite aware I should not have done. You gave me a much needed slap across the face. I became very defensive in many of my earlier comments and some were unnecessarily provocative. I sincerely apologise for this. I'd like to think I was above letting emotions compromise my arguments, but I'm human, and I became friends with a number of homeless people in Chicago and was myself involved in charity work there. It is an issue that hits very close to home for me and I half feel like kicking myself for using it to advance a political argument. Political forums bring out the worst in me I'm afraid. They have the effect of dehumanising those I am conversing with and make me feel like I have an obligation to respond the instant I see someone address me. This is why I don't post in politics much and confine myself to the more abstract topic political theory whenever I do. I honestly thought this topic would amount to no more than a fun hypothetical. I admit to bearing a large amount of responsibility for what I consider to be a degeneration of this conversation.

if you wish for a more constructive debate with me, the best thing to do would be to PM me. Private conversations, particularly when a respectful tone can be kept, are less inclined to lead to me becoming too emotional. I rather think a debate with you could be quite enjoyable, so please feel free to PM at any time.

Once again, I apologise and this is the last post I will make in this topic for a while. I do not wish to get too caught up in an argument that is really no more than an unnecessary distraction in the grand scheme of things. Hell, I'm quite happy to declare myself defeated if it can get this thread back on topic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.