I appreciate the response!

> By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles.

The idea that EU citizens do not face poverty is simply false. The EU sheltered homelessness rate is very close to the US, both under 0.2% which is phenomenal honestly…

Poverty rate statistics are quite tricky to decipher. But all the data I can find says that there isn’t an outsized difference between the regions. Rates in US states vary as much as EU member countries with plenty of states from both regions exceeding or below US/EU averages.

I’m not trying to be a blind patriot stereotype or even claim that the US is “better” than other portions of the world.

My only point is that objectively speaking, living standards in America are PHENOMENAL. We should not “redistribute wealth like other western nations” because I can’t think of any G20 nations that have a clearly preferable economic system.

Also to your point about Rawls, if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work. We’ve witnessed this countless times over the past century in all the failed socialist/communist societies. In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations!

Nobody is going to work for free. The US spends more money than any other nation on social welfare programs. It’s inefficient and unsustainable. How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now?

If you can think of a particular nation’s system we should emulate I’d love to hear the argument with an open mind. I honest to god cannot think of any.

How about Denmark? Seems like a smooth running country. Hardly any national debt. Free healthcare and education for all. Consistently rated as one of the happiest countries on earth.

I don’t know much about Denmark but it sounds like a great place!

I’d be concerned that policy in Denmark wouldn’t work in the US due to the enormous differences in size, culture, geography, etc.

That’s why I think it really only makes sense to compare G20 countries or entire regions like US:EU

Do you think that Delaware or Wyoming's economic systems are substantively different from those of the USA as a whole? Obviously, the specific industries/service sectors of these states are quite different from one another, and from other states, but they represent applications of "the American way" to very small populations (1M and 600k respectively, massively smaller than Denmark).

The Danish way of things is clearly an entirely adequate model for populations of up to 5M or so. Claims about culture, geography are red herrings (they are almost always overstated, and sometimes just outright lied about).

Whether it can scale to, say, 40M larger (as in our biggest states) is a valid question, but given the much greatest similarity between Denmark and Germany than Denmark and anywhere in the USA, despite Germany's 84M population, I'd suggest the burden of proof there is on those who say it can't scale.

Of course, the Nordic social democracies do have their own problems, and there's no shortage of people from those nations who will fill your ear with complaints. Some of them deserve to be listened to, but if you think that society is better when modelled around collective self-improvement, broad social interdependence, and a general sense of shared responsibility for everyone's welfare, they are mostly noise.

"sheltered homelessness" is an important metric, but it's not the one I would to differentiate between levels of income/wealth redistribution, precisely because it affects such a small part of the population.

the metric(s) I would use need to be ones that are meaningful (and meaningfully different) for more substantial parts of the population.

So, some suggestions could be:

* medical care induced bankruptcy

* personal bankruptcy in general

* percentage of income spent on housing costs

* disposable income after housing, health care, education and transportation costs

* some measure of "timely" access to medical care

* inter-generational economic mobility

There are certainly issues within the EU with any and all of these (worse in some places than in others), but overall my understanding is that the US generally does worse on all of them.

I am originally from the UK, and I would argue that while there are aspects of quality of life here in the USA that are vastly better than the UK or the EU, most of those things are primarily the domain of those who make median or above median income. I certainly don't think that the economic system in the USA is better than those found in the EU, even though there are some metrics where you might make that case. But mostly what the USA has a lot of that the EU has much less of is economic churn - businesses constantly starting and almost all of them failing, followed by more businesses starting etc. This gives the impression of very prosperous, active economy, but I would question whether we really do much better out of this model than the EU does with their much less entrepeneurial systems.

> if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work

The people who earn the most in our system are not the people who do difficult or unpleasant work, and it just seems preposterous to me to suggest that there is a link here.

> In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations!

This is not an example of what I think you're claiming it is an example of. Defaulting on pension obligations is about a failure to honor past labor contracts, not income/wealth redistribution.

> How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now?

Same way we can afford a war whenever "we decide" to fight one. Same way we can "choose" to spend more than the next 10 top military spenders combined. We are a rich country, and we could choose to place substantially more emphasis on the quality of life of all our people. But we "choose" to do otherwise.

That's a typo its supposed to be "Unsheltered Homeless".

I don't think you're understanding the broader point. Look at the economic data. The PPP median household income and PPP net wealth is much higher in the US. Yes, the income/wealth distribution curve is skewed to the right here...

But the majority of Americans are wealthier than the majority of Europeans! A random sample of both populations would yield wealthier individuals on the US side.

Equal distribution by itself is a silly goal. The goal should be increase the net income/wealth as much as possible for as many people as possible.

> I certainly don't think that the economic system in the USA is better than those found in the EU, even though there are some metrics where you might make that case. But mostly what the USA has a lot of that the EU has much less of is economic churn - businesses constantly starting and almost all of them failing, followed by more businesses starting etc. This gives the impression of very prosperous, active economy, but I would question whether we really do much better out of this model than the EU does with their much less entrepeneurial systems.

This is an insane take. The technological innovation that comes out of the US blows Europe out of the water. Where is all the European competition? Just look at the financial statements of the largest EU and US corporations. The data is plain as day!

> The people who earn the most in our system are not the people who do difficult or unpleasant work, and it just seems preposterous to me to suggest that there is a link here.

You're wrong. Any meaningful tax revenue for wealth distribution would have to come from people in the upper quintiles. These are lawyers, doctors, engineers, oil rig workers, underwater welders, etc.

You still haven't suggested any actual policy change. I'm guessing you have a nebulous idea of "take it from the billionaires". There is no way in hell we can create a wealth tax that generates a $1T+ in annual tax revenue. There aren't enough billionaires to sustain such a tax and they absolutely have the means to legally evade taxes or jet off to anywhere in the world. Also, we already have the estate tax!

> This is not an example of what I think you're claiming it is an example of. Defaulting on pension obligations is about a failure to honor past labor contracts, not income/wealth redistribution.

Dude. Its literally a government run wealth distribution scheme. It's the basis for most citizen's retirement. The government isn't paying out what they had promised.

> Same way we can afford a war whenever "we decide" to fight one. Same way we can "choose" to spend more than the next 10 top military spenders combined. We are a rich country, and we could choose to place substantially more emphasis on the quality of life of all our people. But we "choose" to do otherwise.

We cannot afford infinite wars. Our military spending is dwarfed by our spending on social programs. Go read the federal budget for fucks sake. The majority of our budget is social security, medicare/medicaid.

Go read history and international news. How can you hear about the current events in Europe and claim that economic conditions are good? The region is unstable and full of young governments. The region cannot create its own energy, which kneecaps its own heavily industrial economy. The region is entirely dependent on the US/China and is just now decoupling from Russia. Macron is ranting about the lack of European Sovereignty. Inflation is much worse in the EU. The continent will definitely stabilize, and its not the end of Europe...but they've sustained significant economic damage.

I don't give a fuck about nationality. I don't think America or Americans are superior. Europe is our most powerful ally and I wish prosperity for the entire region. I just hate this constant populist rhetoric that the US needs to adopt undefined mythical tax/spending systems to achieve some fantasy utopia.

Please name the policy changes required to solve poverty in America. You'll be a hero.

Policy changes:

return to a much higher upper marginal tax rate (there's no evidence that the reductions which started with Reagan have benefitted most Americans in any way).

reduce military spending (American's socialism) by at least 50%.

take the money from these two actions and use it on infrastructure and social support.

> These are lawyers, doctors, engineers, oil rig workers, underwater welders,

These are not the people who earn the most in our society. They might be the top 10%, but they are not the top 5% let alone the top 1%. The way you make the most money in our society is overwhelmingly by playing games with money. And before you cite someone like Bezos ... well, I worked with him. Bezos is an exception that proves the rule (and is surrounded by people who played games with money in order to make money).

> Dude. Its literally a government run wealth distribution scheme. It's the basis for most citizen's retirement.

If I am hired for a job, and the job pays $X/year and contributes $Y/yr to a pension, with the promise that in retirement I will be paid $Z/yr, there is no possible way to construe that as a government run wealth redistribution scheme, even if I am employed by the government. Wealth redistribution schemes consist of taking money in taxes from people with more money and (in some way) giving it to or spending it on people with less.

> The technological innovation that comes out of the US blows Europe out of the water.

Certainly there is a particular kind of technological innovation that the US is very good at. But ... I would first question the extent to which this innovation is necessarily a force for good, and secondly I would point out that this prowess does not extend to micro-electronics (where Asia dominates overwhelmingly) or mechanical engineering (where Europe is generally still ahead of anything in the USA. There's a reason German designed and built equipment is still so prized). Even with pharma, its not entirely who is doing the best work (rather than the most work).

> But the majority of Americans are wealthier than the majority of Europeans! A random sample of both populations would yield wealthier individuals on the US side.

In terms of income (even adjusted for PPP), sure. But as I tried to explain, that's a silly way to measure wealth, at least if it is the only way you use. As an American, I am forced to spend more of that increased wealth on things that would be free-at-point-of-service or just cheaper in Europe. Granted, there are Americans (mostly wealthy Americans) who like things that way; I understand that, but I think it's a sub-optimal approach to social organization if egalitarianism is the goal.

> return to a much higher upper marginal tax rate (there's no evidence that the reductions which started with Reagan have benefitted most Americans in any way). > reduce military spending (American's socialism) by at least 50%.

This is not even a remotely serious proposal. There is no scenario where both parties agree to cut the military budget in HALF! Have you looked at the actual budget numbers? We're going to have a 2023 budget deficit of $1.5T. Even if we could, in the midst of the the Ukrainian invasion and rising tension over Taiwain, cut military spending by 50%, that's only a ~$400B reduction of our annual deficit. Do you seriously expect to extract an additional >$1T from income tax in the top bracket? Basic napkin math should tell you this isn't possible.

Also lol at "America's socialism". How do you explain the fact that SS,medicare,medicaid absolutely dwarf military spending?

> take the money from these two actions and use it on infrastructure and social support.

Complete non-statement. What specifically are we going to do with you imaginary tax revenue?

> ...Wealth redistribution schemes consist of taking money in taxes from people with more money and (in some way) giving it to or spending it on people with less.

I don't know how to help you understand this. I suggest reading this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_France. Here's some quotes:

"This minimum pension (Allocation de Solidarité aux Personnes Agées in French) is the first level of the first pillar of the French pension system. The ASPA is a monthly benefit paid to low-income seniors, whether or not they are former employees. It is not a retirement pension: it is financed by the State, not by social contributions."

"The mandatory state pension is an unfunded contributory pension based on the redistribution of contributions from those working to those in retirement."

"The mandatory occupational pension is a defined contribution scheme that is mainly based on redistribution"

The French pension system is a direct transfer of wealth from workers/citizens to beneficiaries. The US equivalent is social security.

> In terms of income (even adjusted for PPP), sure. But as I tried to explain, that's a silly way to measure wealth, at least if it is the only way you use. As an American, I am forced to spend more of that increased wealth on things that would be free-at-point-of-service or just cheaper in Europe.

Your understanding is incorrect and the cost of living (including government subsidies to healthcare) is included in the OECD statistics:

"This indicator [Household Disposable Income] also takes account of social transfers in kind 'such as health or education provided for free or at reduced prices by governments and not-for-profit organisations.'"

---

I do not believe you are arguing in good faith. Your argument basically boils down to "Ignore all the economic data because it doesn't tell the whole story". If you reject the OECD data, corporate financial reports, and national statistics, the least you can do is offer some other data to compare.

Go play with this neat little tool - https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm

The US beats the EU on almost every indicator including household income, net worth, debt, and savings.