The only ones that do are illegal but that is a different thread. Again it all depends on the issue. Your government supports them therefore your numbers are kinda bogus. If they are not working and contributing and living off the system then they are contributing to poverty.
We have those that do that here. they come here and the first thing they do is sign up for welfare. then sit down and live off the work of others. Then we have others that don't. they work hard and contribute and become very successful business people.
Yes ofcourse, we have both type of people here. But the thing is that immigrants here do not contribute more per capita to poverty then norwegians.
Sorry i should have made myself more clear. Government is trying to pass laws one what firms can pay as bonuses to their employee's and they are trying to cap CEO pay and everything else. this was my fault.
Ah, well on this I do kind of agree with you. I don't think that the government should do such things. A free market on the wages in the private sector is important. However, it is important that they keep a check on things because the way they pay out different things can easily be used to evade taxes.
Evidently you don't read the actual reports. While there are some issues with insurance companies it is worse with government. A year to see a doctor or a specialist. People can't get some drugs because of the expense even though it would save their life.
The cancer drugs that are out there that can up survival rates by 80+% they cannot get because the government doesn't want to foot the bill. Guess what those people get that treatment here.
I don't have to wait a year to see a doctor. I don't have to wait a year for surgery.
That you are doing it badly does not mean the system itself is bad. I can get a doctors appointment today if I need one. If I need surgery or other treatment I get it within a couple of days or a week. Waiting here is only for things that are not important to do at once and that takes up a lot of resources so its not the common thing.
Also, we don't get denied treatment either because of prohibitive cost. There does exist a technical limit on how much money there is point in using, but I think it is at about 500k a year per person and no surgeries or medications cost that much. And that is just for pure hospitalstuff. Things you need in ways of accsessories to deal with disabilities and such (electric wheelchairs, homehelp, computers, etc) come in addition to that. Myself I probably get medical treatment for about 30-40k a year because of my several chronic conditions and I get aid for education and stuff for even more. The thing is that they don't weigh cost in the same way. Here it about wether you need it or not, the cost is not the important factor (ofcourse within reason and medical opinion).
I don't have some government agency going sorry we ran out of funds and well you will have to deal with it until next budget cycle.
It doesn't work like that here either. Which is why our hospitals go over budget all the time
Sorry government healthcare doesn't work hence why european countries are pulling away from it. They can't afford the cost anymore.
Afford the cost? We use less money per capita on our healtcare system then your government uses on yours and we have far wider coverage.
I am for healthcare reform and straightening out the mess that is insurance but not with government control. again this is a different thread. PS the government has yet to run anything correctly.
Then perhaps you need to fix your government Our government runs our schools, our hospitals, our police, our firefighters, our elder homes and lots of other things. And considering our booming economy, extremely high standard of living, and all other statistics I must say they are doing one hell of a job. Same thing can be said for the governments of New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
Economically speaking though, at what point do you write these people off? There has to come a point where we've invested so much in counseling, etc that there is not much of a chance the person would ever contribute that much back to society.
You really think we shouldn't help people that won't contribute much to society? How about autistic kids? Or worse?
can you please tell me where i said they didn't? Quote please?
You get what you put into it. just like anything else.
Well, then I guess we just meant different things. Imo if immigrants gets taken care of they don't contribute to poverty.
With this congress and government we have banks and other financial institutions being taken over. The government is trying to tell firms how to pay their employee's and what pay they can give out. They have taken over 2 of the 3 car makers in this country.
Yes, minimum pays and such are good things as it secures a decent wage, and as such a decent life for its citizens. People should not have to work their asses of to be able to live. And yes, they have taken over the car makers because they sucked. The car manufacturers have driven themselves into the ground and the governement have saved them. I don't particularily agree with that kind of practice, but considering how many people would loose their jobs from it, it might actually be cheaper for the goverment and better for the people if they did do so, so I understand the descision.
A very serious vote coming up will have government now involved in our healthcare.
Well, other countries have government run healtcare and that runs just fine. There are lot of drawbacks to having insurance companies run it.
as much as i detested the spending under republicans these types of actions are just uncalled for. Just wait you are going to get hit with major tax increases to pay for it all.
in fact the tax cheat treasury secretary already said that taxes on middle income people were going to be needed. That they had to some how pay for this 1.8 deficit they have wracked up and keep wracking up.
Considering all the debt Bush managed to put the country in it would be utter madness to not raise taxes to pay it off. The people has to pay for what it leaders does badly.
How do you define poverty then? I am not following the issue. If you have food on the table, a computer in the den etc etc, then how can you be living in poverty?
Defining poverty is hard, but there is a lot of worse poverty in the US then described in what was linked to here. If you read on the sources on the statistics that ljossberir linked to you will see that it is not as good as it seems and it does not say anything about the quality of for example their house. They could have their own house yes, but it could be a rundown shack that probably should be torn down.
However, other statistics also come out there. 2% of the poor OFTEN does not have enough food to eat. If anything like that happened here it would be a scandal. (it has happened here and has been a scandal). 10% have no phone. 30% of the poor has at least one of the following, overcrowding, hunger, no healthcare. Only a third has a PC. Growing up here in what I guess would be called poverty in Norway we had a large house, 4 pc's, 3 tv's, etc.
Also, an overwhelming amount of poverty is single moms. I was raised by a single mom with heavy debt problems and sure, we weren't rich, but we never lacked anything at all.
But yes, I think the medical issues are one of the main issues with poverty as it is imo a basic human right. About 15% of the population have no health insurance. Also, there is a lot of people that are insured that, but that doesn't get the money they need when they get sick. Also about 40% of the population have sometime during the year chosen to not go to the doctor or similar thing because of the cost. In addition 20% of the population have problems paying medical bills, twice that of any other country.
You can say what you want about the government running it or not. But the way the health system works in the US at the moment is inhumane and somehow very expensive.
You actually seem to not know much about this industry that is responsible for your current standard of living. Earlier you even claimed that the oil industry had been privatized. Heres a quote from wiki on the first part about oil acounting for close to a quarter of your GDP.
Well, there was some conflicting numbers there. Some said a quarter, some said 20%. But even without the oil Norway only drops a few places down the list and lands right behind the US at sixth place or so. And considering we also have extreme amounts of growth in our gdp every year It really should not be a problem. I believe it was last year that Norways gdp grew with 6%, outpacing all other nations.
Now StatoilHydra is owned 62.5% by the Norwegian government. Also your non socialist free market doesnt seem very free to me.
Well, yes, this happened because of the merger. The government privatized Statoil before the merger, but they had not privatized Hydro yet so when the merger happened they again became the largest shareholder. However, they are quite strict about not interfering with the actual running of the company. Also, there are from what I know plans to once again sell out most of the shares after the election this fall. Traditionally the government has liked owning parts of big buisnisses, especially the ones that use our natural resources, but in the last decades this has been declining and more and more such companies have been privatized. Also, I didn't say it was a free market, it is a mixed market economy. Which means that while it is mostly free it has more regulations and such then say the US economy. However, the effects of this can easily be seen on the stability of the economies. Our currency is now one of the strongest and most stable in the world and we are one of the least affected by the financial crisis.
They do because when they come here they come at or near the poverty level. I have viewed the restrictions for coming to Norway they are pretty stringent and about half the people who move, move for work. However around 3 million of our immigrants yearly are illegals, which does leave them in the lowest percentile income wise so they add a lot to the poverty line that otherwise wouldnt be there. They also take a lot of money and resources that otherwise could go to programs to support our legall immigrants.
Actually most immigrants we take in are refugees and that is quite unstringent. And because of our somewhat naive system for immigration we also get a lot of illegals. Illegals however are not counted on the records of poor people, neither in the US or in Norway. And the people we do take in to work here often have to be reeducated and such to qualify to Norwegian standards. So yes, most people that come here are also poor people, but they don't count any more for poverty levels.
mystery45: Well, that is a good thing then. However he did say that immigrants count for the poverty levels and now you are basically saying that they don't. I don't have numbers for it so I won't argue either way. I do know that they don't here. They do recive more welfare then non-immigrants, but that is partially attributed to things like more mental issues, culture collisions, etc and certain countries drag down the average a lot.
Of course they matter. People behave differently when they live in large, diverse communities than when they live in small, homogeneous ones. Triple the population density of Norway and see if those per capita numbers don't change.
Oh, you mean like Denmark which is more densly populated then for example Calefornia? Or perhaps like the extremly densly populated Japan which also sports quite the low crime rate (especially murder).
Also, I think that diversity is a bad excuse for higher crime rates. Here in Europe immigration has risen by extreme amounts the last 10-20 years but crime is not more common in these groups. The small crime increases are simply explained that most immigrants are male young adults and that group is the highest crime rate group no matter what the culture/nationality.
For an anti-nationalist you're sure spending a lot of time and effort talking up your own country.
Yes i realize that. But I would just as easily talk the same way about other similar countries such as Canada, the rest of scandinavia and New Zealand. I just know more detailed information on my own country. And I do like the country I live in and I feel lucky for living here, but thats it. I would never fight for my country or develop any kind of loyalty to it. I want to improve my country because I live here, not because I have any kind of national spirit or anything.
So your saying the stuff that almost ALL americans own, yall take for granted. Isnt that the definition of taking it for granted? You basically said our poor get most of what they need.
What I am saying is that the poor here also have that kind of stuff, but we still have less poverty. And you have different kind of poor people as well that don't have that stuff. We don't.
.
And a quarter of your GDP is your oil industry. This helps your standard of living a lot so it seems kind of dishonest to act like this is the fault of us not being liberal enough with social "justice".
The standard of living is more or less just as high in Sweden and Denmark. No oil there. Also, we barley use any oil money. And where did you get that a quarter of our gdp is oil industry? We also have lots of other exports such as fish, paper, wood, etc.
Also we have four million immigrants a year. That puts us at 4 times the percentage of population to immigration as yours. I cant imagine that such a large percentage doesnt leave us with a larger poverty rate.
The difference is that here immigrants get taken care of. They get new education if they need that, they get medical help if they need it as many come from areas with civil war, they get free schooling to learn Norwegian and so on. They are not just left to fend for themselves.
Yes I did read the rest of it, but I find the comparisons bad and irrelevant. Air conditioning and cars is a cultural thing in the US and the so is the size of the buildings. Size says nothing about quality and living in more compact apartments are more common here then buildings. This has alot to do with population density more then poverty. All the other things mentioned are far from luxuries and are things we here take for granted.
But yes, poverty is hard to define. However, you would be hardpressed to find homeless people in Norway, homeless shelters doesn't exist, there are no "soup kitchens", etc. There is also a culture in the US for working your ass off to stay out of complete poverty. Having to work several jobs to keep a house and feed your kids is not that rare. Here is unheard of. I don't think I have ever known anyone or even heard of anyone that has worked two jobs. And our work hours are also considerably less.
Normally I wouldn't ask for a source, but because you said last, I'd like to see it.
I think that it is important to understand the enormous inherent difference in U.S. demographics when compared to any European country, or even to Canada.
As I pointed out before, the population of New York City alone is millions higher than the entire country of Norway. Think about that. Millions. Get through the top twenty U.S. cities alone and you've already got about six to eight Norways.
Then there is the diversity in culture, the large mostly impoverished immigrants from Mexico as well as Central and South America.
It's not that a comparison isn't worth making, but any comparison that is made is inevitably going to be skewed.
Population differences alone should not matter when we are comparing per capita. Also, you are talking about immigration as it is a US only thing. We have tons of impoverished immigrants coming from afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Turkey, etc, etc. The difference is that we don't keep them impoverished. over 10% of the population is first and second generation immigrants, most of them from middle-east and Africa.
Our quality of life in general, is quite alright, I assure you. We won't be needing Norway to offer us financial aid.
Considering your debt and considering our saved up money from oil you could need it
Look around, U.S. are definitely not the only people that can sound overly nationalistic.
That is very true, patriotism you have everywhere and as a anti-nationalist myself I find it ineresting, if somewhat strange.
This shows among others that 12-17% of the population lives in poverty at any given time and most Americans (58,8) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75. Also the poverty rate for minors is the highest in the industrialized world.
"Objectively" there are many confounding factors that may justify the United States' position. Also, if you happen to be in the upper-middle class or over, you're probably better off in the United States. Also, you can never have all the facts.
Well yes, if you are really rich then moneywise you are better off in the US. That is a really small part of the population.
1) Being in the mainstream.
Well, yes some people would prefer that and the US is ofcourse more famous. Though, I actually believe that the number of people that wanted to live in the US that live elsewhere has dropped drastically the last 8 years as the US reputation has become worse and worse. The bad side of being famous is that people also notice all the bad **** alot more. And without arguing their correctness Michial moores moviesdoesn't really help either. They are quite popular here and especially movies like Sicko will make most people think twice.
2) The ability to travel.
Traveling here is really not that much of an hindrance either, especially when Norway becomes part of the EU. As for now no passport is needed if you travel within scandinavia and if you live inside the EU trade and travel within is just as open as in the US. Also, it is quite possible to live in different types of places in Norway as well. Sure we are not far enough south to have places like texas or florida, but we do stretch alot. We have sunny places, warm places, rainy places, windy places, dark places, flat foresty inland, lots of coast, etc. Not as much variation as the US but certainly not as bad as you portray it.
3) Ability to be wealthy.
At my family's income bracket (it's only ~200k), there is no way we would ever live in Norway. Japan, Britain, China... anywhere. Not Norway. Are we conceited? Maybe. But it's not even that difficult to get to this income bracket. My mother is a teacher and my father is a technician. They didn't come from any big name universities. They live off their Bachelor's.
Those jobs here together would probably be 150-300k here depending on the type of technician. But yes, that is a really bad comparison considering your family is one of the very very few that make that kind of money
A lot of the problem with Norway is simply it's lifestyle, which has been strongly influenced by its size.
What spesificly is the problems with the lifestyle?
On the other hand, we will wake up and deal with the sun everyday. There's no avoiding the rain. There's no avoiding a hailstorm. There's no avoiding how many houses are on your block. There's no avoiding your job. There's no avoiding the culture around you. In the United States, at least you can pay an air ticket and leave that city forever. There's no serious choices in Norway.
No avoiding? What do you mean? How is there no serious choices in Norway? How can't we just leave for another city? I moved myself further south earlier this year to a city 5 times the size with better weather.
But Norway probably doesn't have the individual-rights history that the United States cultures have.
What do you mean? One of Norway's earliest parties that was huge in the beginning was a very liberal party and enacted reforms such as universal sufferage, freedom of speech, parlamentarism. Incidentily the party I am a member of today
I've never had the opportunity to check the country out, sadly, but I think Norway sounds way too anti-individual for my tastes. So that's a downer there.
The left in Norway is heavy on solidarity yes, but the center and right is quite individualistic so it changes a bit from time to time. But we are gradually gliding towards more individualism. And the solidaritypart of the left mostly has support in the older generations that used solidarity to build up the country after WW2. For the younger generations however, individuality stands strong
U.S. citizens have a great standard of living, on average. Very few of us are starving on the streets. Lots of us are voluntarily helping those fewout.
Voluntarily.....
Ehm, you can say that all you want but poverty is still quite extreme in the US compared to the rest of the western world.
However, we get to the subjective part. Given where I am right now (middle class), and knowing who I know, I love my life! I won't say that it's perfect, and that I haven't made mistakes. But I think if you ask anyone where they'd want to live, chances are they'll say they're happy around where they are. I love my friends, my family etc., and although they have their flaws and sometimes they piss me off, I'm quite glad where I am, and most people would say something similar, so it's kind of stupid to make objective comparisons when the subjective ones are more powerful. I know that I'd much rather live here then in Norway, for example, despite empyrical examples.
Yes ofcourse. Most people would obviously choose to live where their families and friends are. That doesn't really say anything about the country. However, I think you can compare subjectivly if you look at how other people have it. I feel sad for all the poor people in the US and it saddens me that people in the US have such problems finding a place to live, getting proper healthcare, etc. When I see this I wish I could have them come over to Norway because that kind of thing wouldn't happen here. I don't think a lot of Norwegian cases would create the same kind of feelings in Americans. Not to say that there are not examples of healthcare issues or poverty in Norway, just that they are far less prevalent and far from the norm.
I dunno, I think a bicameral legislature is pretty good, and direct democracy, while good in principle, would be... scary in practice. (American Idol?) If anything, we could abolish the Senate and just keep the House, having them act as a sort of electoral college for a direct vote. Incidentally, that would drastically cut down on the number and size of bills proposed, since a) the public gets bored easily, and b) they have to be able to summarize the legislation to put it on a ballot. Only the most vital programs would be passed.
You think I am supporting direct democracy? Not at all. Representative democracy is what I believe to be the fairest form of democracy. I just think that the Senate is not good for a representative for democracy. But there already is a thread about the Senate so its kind of unnecessary to discuss it here as well.
Well, the criminalization of Holocaust denial is pretty common among European countries.
I am guessing it might be in Germany and Austria and Poland, but I am quite sure it is not in the rest of Europe and at least it is not in Norway. We do technically have laws against racist speech, but those laws are pretty much dormant.
Nope. In the vocabulary of the Founding Fathers, a republic is a mixed government. When they wanted to talk about representative democracy, they were quite capable of using the words "representative democracy".
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy ...", from James Madison. The Federalist, Number 10, The New York Packet, 23 Nov., 1787
Statistics? I'm particularly interested to know how freedom of the press is quantified.
You can read all about it there. I believe that one of the biggest issues is censorship but also who ownes the media. We in Norway also have a lot of media owned by few companies, but it is not nearly as centralized as it is in the US. Also, Norway is from what I remember of other statistics at top of the lists over number of different newspapers and numbers of newspapers (both per capita ofcourse). But yes, the index puts Norway at third place and the US does comparably pretty bad with the same score as Taiwan and South Africa for example.
How so "outdated"? That our representation must be large is a factor of population. That our other institutions are huge is probably a factor of crappy legislation.
I was more thinking along the lines of the Senate. You have a lot of government systems that was probably a nice thing when the US was founded, but you have a extreme adherence to the constitution so it is hard to modernize the laws and the government to something that works better with todays population sizes and todays world.
Do you have freedom of speech in Norway? Just wondering.
You are seriously wondering?
By the way, America is a Republic not a Democracy.
Uhm, do you really think those are exclusive? Republic is a rather useless word anyways. The only true description of a Republic is a government with no Monarch. However, Founding Fathers like James Madison described it as a government with a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy.
I'm not saying America is the best country, but why do people want to live here more than other places?
Statistics?
Our socialist policies and corruption of government is destroying our founding fathers image of the greatest country in the world. We went to war agaisnt tyranny to get away from tyranny...now only to have a tyrant of a government. We ARE socialist, and we are going in the wrong direction. Look at all our government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized policies. Our government is messed up. Spending us into trillions of dollars of debt because they can. "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction." - Tomas Jefferson
Actually, the US is probably the least socialist country in the western world. And the one with the highest debt. The US government has corruption problems yes, but they stem from private companies lobbying not from socialism. Norway for example is far more socialist then the US (though not an actual socialist country) has better freedom of the press and less corruption.
So what's the relevant difference? Where's the line in the sand where you say, "Before this point, it's acceptable to have representation by state, but beyond it you'd better have strictly proportional representation"? And what makes that point so important?
Sovereignity? The UN does not decide the laws of the US the same way the federal US decides the laws for the States. If the UN were able to pass laws that forced the member countries to accept the laws it would be something else. A good way to compare is the EU. The EU still has a lot of soverignity but it is basicly a federation of states and what EU says is more or less law. There is no need for a senate type thing and they have not made the smaller countries like denmark into a dumpyard yet
Not if the decision-making body is the UN, apparently.
The UN is not a ruling government. If it were it should ofcourse be democratic. However, that is not going to happen as nations such as the US is big on keeping soverignity. In the meantime Europe is solidifying and will probably be more of a democractic country then the US is in the future.
Again yes it does. It makes sure that all states get a say in what goes on. that is democracy not tyranny. that is why the system works the way that it does.
I don't think ND would like it very much if CA could tell it how to govern its state. under you system CA or NY would be able to tell any other state what to do.
that is not democracy at all.
Yes, the majority deciding is democracy. However, since you as other countries have several levels of government states doesn't decide over eachothers business. If its a state matter then the state decided it on its own. If it is a federal matter then it the entire country that should decide in a democracy and here the Senate is counter-productive.
Umm because if a law violates the constitution then it gets struck down by the SC. which is another check in the system to make sure that government is behaving like it should.
No they don't have more. You really don't know what you are talking about and bringing up irrelevant points doesn't help you at all.
also CA has 53 rep in the house. a state like ND has 1. so evidently you do not understand the math.
You are arguing circular logic. You are saying that a law should be that way because it is that way. And yes, CA should have that many considering the population difference.
Nope it is tyranny
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest that the minority would be actively oppressed.
that is what you are advocating
That is indeed one of the dangers of democracy and it is why values such as equality, openness and freedom of speech is so important for a sucsessfull democracy.
Also, Are you really saying that other countries that does not have a Senate are tyrranies?
Correction needs to be made here. you do not understand the system and you are basically uninformed of how the system is suppose to work. You are bringing up irrelevant points (your math arguement) as if it proves a point.
when confronted by the facts of how the system actually works and why it works the way that it does you ignore those points. so yes you are making this a stubborn headed "talking to a wall" discussion.
I know very well how the system works and you repeating yourself in every post does not make your arguments any better. You are basicly saying that they way things are is a good thing just because thats the way they are. You are advocating status quo just for the sake of it.
And the math argument is a good and relevant one. Any political party would rather have 300 members from a small state then a large one because it would give them more power on the federal level on average. Please show me the numbers proving me wrong if you think so.
This is where fuzzy math comes into play. Texas gets 32 votes in the house. ND get 1 vote. so who is much more represented again?
sorry you are wrong. 32 votes vs 1 vote hmmm.
Go find a dictionary and read up on "PER CAPITA" Per capita is the only thing that matters in a representative democracy.
Is it? Ought China and India to have between them a third of the seats in the U.N. General Assembly?
The UN is not a democratic assembly. But if the UN were to theoreticly turn into a world government democracy then yes, China would have that. However, it would probably not use a "winner takes all" system like the US uses so that all of Chinese representatives would not be from a single party.
This is flawed logic. No Constitutional scholar would ever argue that North Dakota is advantaged over Texas in the House of Representatives.
Just because they have more representatives PER PERSON does not mean North Dakota's votes in the House carry more weight.
I am not saying that the representatives vote in the house carries more weight, but there is less people behind the ND representative then one of CA's representatives.
What about the justice of awarding states of the union greater or lesser congressional power depending on their populations?
That is what democracy is all about. Every person in the country should have an equal (representative) say about what happens to the country just as every person in the state should have an equal say about what happens in their state and every person in a county should have an equal say about what happens in their county and so on.
The Texas resident has 32 people in the House pushing for legislation that will help Texas compared to the one person for the North Dakota resident. While the representation is made proportionally it can't be denied that the Texas resident has more people in Congress who can influence legislation far more than the one representative from North Dakota. That's my point.
It should not matter what state people live in. In North Dakota 650 people have 1 person speaking on their behalf. In Texas you have 780 thousand people per 1 person speaking on their behalf. And the Senate tips this difference even more. So each vote in North Dakota counts more for how the country is run then each vote in Texas does.
Yes ofcourse, we have both type of people here. But the thing is that immigrants here do not contribute more per capita to poverty then norwegians.
That you are doing it badly does not mean the system itself is bad. I can get a doctors appointment today if I need one. If I need surgery or other treatment I get it within a couple of days or a week. Waiting here is only for things that are not important to do at once and that takes up a lot of resources so its not the common thing.
Also, we don't get denied treatment either because of prohibitive cost. There does exist a technical limit on how much money there is point in using, but I think it is at about 500k a year per person and no surgeries or medications cost that much. And that is just for pure hospitalstuff. Things you need in ways of accsessories to deal with disabilities and such (electric wheelchairs, homehelp, computers, etc) come in addition to that. Myself I probably get medical treatment for about 30-40k a year because of my several chronic conditions and I get aid for education and stuff for even more. The thing is that they don't weigh cost in the same way. Here it about wether you need it or not, the cost is not the important factor (ofcourse within reason and medical opinion).
It doesn't work like that here either. Which is why our hospitals go over budget all the time
Afford the cost? We use less money per capita on our healtcare system then your government uses on yours and we have far wider coverage.
Then perhaps you need to fix your government
You really think we shouldn't help people that won't contribute much to society? How about autistic kids? Or worse?
Well, then I guess we just meant different things. Imo if immigrants gets taken care of they don't contribute to poverty.
Yes, minimum pays and such are good things as it secures a decent wage, and as such a decent life for its citizens. People should not have to work their asses of to be able to live. And yes, they have taken over the car makers because they sucked. The car manufacturers have driven themselves into the ground and the governement have saved them. I don't particularily agree with that kind of practice, but considering how many people would loose their jobs from it, it might actually be cheaper for the goverment and better for the people if they did do so, so I understand the descision.
Well, other countries have government run healtcare and that runs just fine. There are lot of drawbacks to having insurance companies run it.
Considering all the debt Bush managed to put the country in it would be utter madness to not raise taxes to pay it off. The people has to pay for what it leaders does badly.
Defining poverty is hard, but there is a lot of worse poverty in the US then described in what was linked to here. If you read on the sources on the statistics that ljossberir linked to you will see that it is not as good as it seems and it does not say anything about the quality of for example their house. They could have their own house yes, but it could be a rundown shack that probably should be torn down.
However, other statistics also come out there. 2% of the poor OFTEN does not have enough food to eat. If anything like that happened here it would be a scandal. (it has happened here and has been a scandal). 10% have no phone. 30% of the poor has at least one of the following, overcrowding, hunger, no healthcare. Only a third has a PC. Growing up here in what I guess would be called poverty in Norway we had a large house, 4 pc's, 3 tv's, etc.
Also, an overwhelming amount of poverty is single moms. I was raised by a single mom with heavy debt problems and sure, we weren't rich, but we never lacked anything at all.
But yes, I think the medical issues are one of the main issues with poverty as it is imo a basic human right. About 15% of the population have no health insurance. Also, there is a lot of people that are insured that, but that doesn't get the money they need when they get sick. Also about 40% of the population have sometime during the year chosen to not go to the doctor or similar thing because of the cost. In addition 20% of the population have problems paying medical bills, twice that of any other country.
You can say what you want about the government running it or not. But the way the health system works in the US at the moment is inhumane and somehow very expensive.
Well, there was some conflicting numbers there. Some said a quarter, some said 20%. But even without the oil Norway only drops a few places down the list and lands right behind the US at sixth place or so. And considering we also have extreme amounts of growth in our gdp every year It really should not be a problem. I believe it was last year that Norways gdp grew with 6%, outpacing all other nations.
Well, yes, this happened because of the merger. The government privatized Statoil before the merger, but they had not privatized Hydro yet so when the merger happened they again became the largest shareholder. However, they are quite strict about not interfering with the actual running of the company. Also, there are from what I know plans to once again sell out most of the shares after the election this fall. Traditionally the government has liked owning parts of big buisnisses, especially the ones that use our natural resources, but in the last decades this has been declining and more and more such companies have been privatized. Also, I didn't say it was a free market, it is a mixed market economy. Which means that while it is mostly free it has more regulations and such then say the US economy. However, the effects of this can easily be seen on the stability of the economies. Our currency is now one of the strongest and most stable in the world and we are one of the least affected by the financial crisis.
Actually most immigrants we take in are refugees and that is quite unstringent. And because of our somewhat naive system for immigration we also get a lot of illegals. Illegals however are not counted on the records of poor people, neither in the US or in Norway. And the people we do take in to work here often have to be reeducated and such to qualify to Norwegian standards. So yes, most people that come here are also poor people, but they don't count any more for poverty levels.
Oh, you mean like Denmark which is more densly populated then for example Calefornia? Or perhaps like the extremly densly populated Japan which also sports quite the low crime rate (especially murder).
Also, I think that diversity is a bad excuse for higher crime rates. Here in Europe immigration has risen by extreme amounts the last 10-20 years but crime is not more common in these groups. The small crime increases are simply explained that most immigrants are male young adults and that group is the highest crime rate group no matter what the culture/nationality.
Yes i realize that. But I would just as easily talk the same way about other similar countries such as Canada, the rest of scandinavia and New Zealand. I just know more detailed information on my own country. And I do like the country I live in and I feel lucky for living here, but thats it. I would never fight for my country or develop any kind of loyalty to it. I want to improve my country because I live here, not because I have any kind of national spirit or anything.
What I am saying is that the poor here also have that kind of stuff, but we still have less poverty. And you have different kind of poor people as well that don't have that stuff. We don't.
.
The standard of living is more or less just as high in Sweden and Denmark. No oil there. Also, we barley use any oil money. And where did you get that a quarter of our gdp is oil industry? We also have lots of other exports such as fish, paper, wood, etc.
The difference is that here immigrants get taken care of. They get new education if they need that, they get medical help if they need it as many come from areas with civil war, they get free schooling to learn Norwegian and so on. They are not just left to fend for themselves.
But yes, poverty is hard to define. However, you would be hardpressed to find homeless people in Norway, homeless shelters doesn't exist, there are no "soup kitchens", etc. There is also a culture in the US for working your ass off to stay out of complete poverty. Having to work several jobs to keep a house and feed your kids is not that rare. Here is unheard of. I don't think I have ever known anyone or even heard of anyone that has worked two jobs. And our work hours are also considerably less.
Population differences alone should not matter when we are comparing per capita. Also, you are talking about immigration as it is a US only thing. We have tons of impoverished immigrants coming from afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Turkey, etc, etc. The difference is that we don't keep them impoverished. over 10% of the population is first and second generation immigrants, most of them from middle-east and Africa.
Considering your debt and considering our saved up money from oil you could need it
That is very true, patriotism you have everywhere and as a anti-nationalist myself I find it ineresting, if somewhat strange.
As for american poverty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
This shows among others that 12-17% of the population lives in poverty at any given time and most Americans (58,8) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75. Also the poverty rate for minors is the highest in the industrialized world.
Well yes, if you are really rich then moneywise you are better off in the US. That is a really small part of the population.
Well, yes some people would prefer that and the US is ofcourse more famous. Though, I actually believe that the number of people that wanted to live in the US that live elsewhere has dropped drastically the last 8 years as the US reputation has become worse and worse. The bad side of being famous is that people also notice all the bad **** alot more. And without arguing their correctness Michial moores moviesdoesn't really help either. They are quite popular here and especially movies like Sicko will make most people think twice.
Traveling here is really not that much of an hindrance either, especially when Norway becomes part of the EU. As for now no passport is needed if you travel within scandinavia and if you live inside the EU trade and travel within is just as open as in the US. Also, it is quite possible to live in different types of places in Norway as well. Sure we are not far enough south to have places like texas or florida, but we do stretch alot. We have sunny places, warm places, rainy places, windy places, dark places, flat foresty inland, lots of coast, etc. Not as much variation as the US but certainly not as bad as you portray it.
Those jobs here together would probably be 150-300k here depending on the type of technician. But yes, that is a really bad comparison considering your family is one of the very very few that make that kind of money
What spesificly is the problems with the lifestyle?
No avoiding? What do you mean? How is there no serious choices in Norway? How can't we just leave for another city? I moved myself further south earlier this year to a city 5 times the size with better weather.
What do you mean? One of Norway's earliest parties that was huge in the beginning was a very liberal party and enacted reforms such as universal sufferage, freedom of speech, parlamentarism. Incidentily the party I am a member of today
The left in Norway is heavy on solidarity yes, but the center and right is quite individualistic so it changes a bit from time to time. But we are gradually gliding towards more individualism. And the solidaritypart of the left mostly has support in the older generations that used solidarity to build up the country after WW2. For the younger generations however, individuality stands strong
Ehm, you can say that all you want but poverty is still quite extreme in the US compared to the rest of the western world.
Yes ofcourse. Most people would obviously choose to live where their families and friends are. That doesn't really say anything about the country. However, I think you can compare subjectivly if you look at how other people have it. I feel sad for all the poor people in the US and it saddens me that people in the US have such problems finding a place to live, getting proper healthcare, etc. When I see this I wish I could have them come over to Norway because that kind of thing wouldn't happen here. I don't think a lot of Norwegian cases would create the same kind of feelings in Americans. Not to say that there are not examples of healthcare issues or poverty in Norway, just that they are far less prevalent and far from the norm.
You think I am supporting direct democracy? Not at all. Representative democracy is what I believe to be the fairest form of democracy. I just think that the Senate is not good for a representative for democracy. But there already is a thread about the Senate so its kind of unnecessary to discuss it here as well.
I am guessing it might be in Germany and Austria and Poland, but I am quite sure it is not in the rest of Europe and at least it is not in Norway. We do technically have laws against racist speech, but those laws are pretty much dormant.
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy ...", from James Madison. The Federalist, Number 10, The New York Packet, 23 Nov., 1787
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking
You can read all about it there. I believe that one of the biggest issues is censorship but also who ownes the media. We in Norway also have a lot of media owned by few companies, but it is not nearly as centralized as it is in the US. Also, Norway is from what I remember of other statistics at top of the lists over number of different newspapers and numbers of newspapers (both per capita ofcourse). But yes, the index puts Norway at third place and the US does comparably pretty bad with the same score as Taiwan and South Africa for example.
I was more thinking along the lines of the Senate. You have a lot of government systems that was probably a nice thing when the US was founded, but you have a extreme adherence to the constitution so it is hard to modernize the laws and the government to something that works better with todays population sizes and todays world.
You are seriously wondering?
Uhm, do you really think those are exclusive? Republic is a rather useless word anyways. The only true description of a Republic is a government with no Monarch. However, Founding Fathers like James Madison described it as a government with a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy.
Statistics?
Actually, the US is probably the least socialist country in the western world. And the one with the highest debt. The US government has corruption problems yes, but they stem from private companies lobbying not from socialism. Norway for example is far more socialist then the US (though not an actual socialist country) has better freedom of the press and less corruption.
Sovereignity? The UN does not decide the laws of the US the same way the federal US decides the laws for the States. If the UN were able to pass laws that forced the member countries to accept the laws it would be something else. A good way to compare is the EU. The EU still has a lot of soverignity but it is basicly a federation of states and what EU says is more or less law. There is no need for a senate type thing and they have not made the smaller countries like denmark into a dumpyard yet
The UN is not a ruling government. If it were it should ofcourse be democratic. However, that is not going to happen as nations such as the US is big on keeping soverignity. In the meantime Europe is solidifying and will probably be more of a democractic country then the US is in the future.
Yes, the majority deciding is democracy. However, since you as other countries have several levels of government states doesn't decide over eachothers business. If its a state matter then the state decided it on its own. If it is a federal matter then it the entire country that should decide in a democracy and here the Senate is counter-productive.
You are arguing circular logic. You are saying that a law should be that way because it is that way. And yes, CA should have that many considering the population difference.
That is indeed one of the dangers of democracy and it is why values such as equality, openness and freedom of speech is so important for a sucsessfull democracy.
Also, Are you really saying that other countries that does not have a Senate are tyrranies?
I know very well how the system works and you repeating yourself in every post does not make your arguments any better. You are basicly saying that they way things are is a good thing just because thats the way they are. You are advocating status quo just for the sake of it.
And the math argument is a good and relevant one. Any political party would rather have 300 members from a small state then a large one because it would give them more power on the federal level on average. Please show me the numbers proving me wrong if you think so.
Go find a dictionary and read up on "PER CAPITA" Per capita is the only thing that matters in a representative democracy.
The UN is not a democratic assembly. But if the UN were to theoreticly turn into a world government democracy then yes, China would have that. However, it would probably not use a "winner takes all" system like the US uses so that all of Chinese representatives would not be from a single party.
I am not saying that the representatives vote in the house carries more weight, but there is less people behind the ND representative then one of CA's representatives.
That is what democracy is all about. Every person in the country should have an equal (representative) say about what happens to the country just as every person in the state should have an equal say about what happens in their state and every person in a county should have an equal say about what happens in their county and so on.
It should not matter what state people live in. In North Dakota 650 people have 1 person speaking on their behalf. In Texas you have 780 thousand people per 1 person speaking on their behalf. And the Senate tips this difference even more. So each vote in North Dakota counts more for how the country is run then each vote in Texas does.