[It_is_my_time]

(02-02-2016 05:42 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

You have "freedom of speech" in USA? What a joke. Political correctness is much stronger in USA than in Europe. In France there are a lot of die hard leftists but also a lot of die hard traditionals, and voicing your opinions is more or less your own business. You can't get fired for it here unlike in the US.

Not what I have read many times here. I read nonstop about people being arrested in the EU for just being upset at the rapefugees for destroying their town. And now their tax dollars are being spent to teach the rapefugees to not rape.

(02-02-2016 05:42 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

About that. Finding a job here is hard, but once you got it you are set. Short of physically assaulting someone you can not be fired. I don't like having to work my ass off and getting ready to leave my job any time like in USA. It's mentally exhausting.

Redtape is fucking insane in Europe compared to USA, but unless you are doing business this shouldn't bother you more than a few times a year. However there are other risks such as an illegal immigrants invading your home and claiming it as his own.

The red tape is why it is so hard to find a job and there is little to no true middle class in the EU. Owning one average house and working a job for 40 years is what many would classify lower middle class. True middle class life should be the ability to grow and do more with your life than that.

(02-02-2016 05:42 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

I don't care much for Trump or any president because educated Asians are not really his friends, and I doubt he give a shit about us or Europe.

This is a VERY weak straw man. Trump cares about men being allowed to be free men. If you don't like freedom to grow and be successful, then Trump isn't the right person for you.

[Parzival]

I don't know any case where someone got arrested because speaking against Refugees. There are some cases where police interrogated social media posters after they spread claims about rapes and kills. When those claims are wrong then the poster get consequences. Or when someone call for violent acts against people. All those Facebook ban free speech is not direct true. In the social media is a war going on, like the one with Roosh and the meetings. So you have deniers of refugee crimes and also people that invent crimes, mostly rapes and theft from refugees.

We have no safe zones in germany, we have not this strong PC force. Yes we have an agenda and you get blame when you act against it. I know some writer got his books banned from stores. Not by law, by book stores because of the media outrage. On the other hand other very critical people to the status quo get their media cover.
The police or the media do not mention the origin of offenders because PC reasons, unless its total necessary. This is not by a direct law but more by the state of mind we life now. On the other hand we don't have all those rape claims, those anti police outrage nor do we have minorities always claim how unfair the society is. I would say the whole PC stuff is a general western problem with different flaws in all countries. The only legal consequences are either when you invent crimes or when you call for violence. The social consequences I would consider equal, even when the SJW mob is a way stronger in the US then in Germany. I do not hear about people get fired for stuff they do in their private. It can get of course tricky when it creates a bad image for the company but in general its not so easy to fire someone.

About the middle class you are right, even when you earn 10.000 € per month, you have of course a higher standard of living then someone that earns just 2500 €, but the differences are on a small level. Maybe a bigger car, a bigger house, a holiday more, some more savings for your kids, but thats it.

[Dalaran1991]

(02-03-2016 04:14 AM)Parzival Wrote:  

I don't know any case where someone got arrested because speaking against Refugees.

Neither do I, but I don't doubt it happened. In France it is extremely difficult to arrest anyone due to the redtape, but it works both way.

Quote:

About the middle class you are right, even when you earn 10.000 € per month, you have of course a higher standard of living then someone that earns just 2500 €, but the differences are on a small level. Maybe a bigger car, a bigger house, a holiday more, some more savings for your kids, but thats it.

All the people who earns more than 10k a month I know have left France or have another base, it doesn't make sense to stay. I was interning at one of the biggest finance firms, and the young people just want to make tons of buck then get the hell out. The seniors stay because they are among the most important poeple in the business world in France, and also because they have fuck you money.

When you earn 10k and pay 4k in tax it is big difference from earning 2k and paying 700. But dont kid me on this, US has high taxes too, its just not as high as Europe.

If you are an average guy earning-wise you are fucked anywhere you go either way, save certain countries in Asia. It's more a question of which devil you choose to live with until you get rich enough to get out of hell.

[Samseau]

Quote:

On the other hand we don't have all those rape claims, those anti police outrage nor do we have minorities always claim how unfair the society is.

Oh, you'll have that soon enough.

[nomadbrah]

Freedom of speech is probably better in most of Europe still. It's very rare that someone loses their job from making a 'wrong' comment like you do in the US.

Freedom of opinion on the other hand is significantly worse. Most people can't voice opinions even close to those on Fox News without being socially ostracized.

[hydrogonian]

(02-03-2016 12:09 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Freedom of speech is probably better in most of Europe still. It's very rare that someone loses their job from making a 'wrong' comment like you do in the US.

Freedom of opinion on the other hand is significantly worse. Most people can't voice opinions even close to those on Fox News without being socially ostracized.

In summary, in Germany you can't get fired but also you can't say any social or political opinion, that you want, without being socially ostracized and maybe interrogated if not arrested.

In the USA, we can get fired but we can say anything that we want, outside of threats or incitement, without being arrested.

These conditions are two sides of the same oppressive coin. The oppression is facilitated by the same establishment. In Germany, direct laws were justified after WWII. In the U.S.A., direct laws would be preferred but, because of our Constitution, the de facto anti-free speech law has to be implemented using the media as tool toward pressuring employers into firing individuals for free speech.

If U.S.A. government was true to its Constitutional foundation, it would make laws prohibiting firing of employees for holding opinions. However, being that this was not included in the Constitution and is counter to what is desired, the spirit of the law will be broken and anti-free speech pressure will continue to be enacted through the media and punitive measures enacted by pressuring employers. The entire mechanism is corrupt and anti-American as can be.

However, I would give the Free Speech advantage to the USA. If someone can avoid being susceptible to firing, or can take the penalty, then at least any political speech can be made and disseminated.

In Germany, much political speech is never spoken without risk of heavy fines or imprisonment. Political speech possibilities are narrower in Germany. The system almost seems to be patronizing in that it pretends to have freer speech, because they wouldn't even think of firing you, as long as you don't even think of, let alone mention, what is verboten. It's much more like The Village in the classic television show The Prisoner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Villag..._Prisoner) A less obscure characterization is that it is, in a sense, more Orwellian.

[nomadbrah]

Nope, no one is arrested outside a few people in Germany. Danes, Dutch and French politicians have said outrageous things over the years, things like muslims should be dropped in parachutes over the arctic, or that Holocaust was a minor detail in history. I doubt these would fly in the US, how come I haven't heard them? These statements are made by elected members of parliament. They get indicted, tried and fined for racism, sometimes win, sometimes lose, the fine is maybe 1000USD then back to business. Europe definitely has much less consequence for truly outrageous statements, it's just that some statements, such as being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage, would simply lead to complete social shutdown.

[hydrogonian]

(02-03-2016 06:30 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Nope, no one is arrested outside a few people in Germany. Danes, Dutch and French politicians have said outrageous things over the years, things like muslims should be dropped in parachutes over the arctic, or that Holocaust was a minor detail in history. I doubt these would fly in the US, how come I haven't heard them? These statements are made by elected members of parliament. They get indicted, tried and fined for racism, sometimes win, sometimes lose, the fine is maybe 1000USD then back to business. Europe definitely has much less consequence for truly outrageous statements, it's just that some statements, such as being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage, would simply lead to complete social shutdown.

It seems as if you may be glossing over arrests.

No one is arrested for speech in the USA.
No one is tried.
No one is convicted.
No one is fined.
No one serves prison time.

I'm unsure of how you can state that there is less consequence in Europe, comparatively.

And we can still be against gay marriage and abortion here, without being fired nor ostracized for the most part. Though, it helps to be among people of the same tribe, in the U.S.A., to safely admit whatever positions that you hold on anything whatsoever.

[Fast Eddie]

(02-03-2016 06:45 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

...

Completely off topic, but are you the same Hydrogonian who was making South Korea posts on Roissy in ages past?

[Enigma]

(02-02-2016 05:42 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

I don't care much for Trump or any president because educated Asians are not really his friends, and I doubt he give a shit about us or Europe.

Yet all of East and Southeast Asia is currently looking to the US to deter China and North Korea.

[speakeasy]

(01-20-2016 07:37 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 05:54 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote:

Nothing is "free" in Germany - everyone is having money taken from their income to pay for these things, and you get to pay for other peoples problems and poor choices. I don't get how anyone can see this as a good system.

Saying you don't understand something as economically simple as a welfare system doesn't exactly give credence to your argument.

The notion that poverty and sickness, the two most costly burdens on any state, are only results from poor choices even further erodes this.

Where did you get the impression that I didn't understand welfare systems? I stated I don't get how anyone can see them as good systems.

Poverty and sickness (especially poverty) are very often the result of poor choices. Society continually pays for the poor decisions, enabling the whole thing to continue without consequence.

The mere existence of state welfare has an influence on the decisions people make. It's not just simply a reaction to events as you imply, it's a cause of them as well.

Just one example of the devastating effect welfare programs can have on a society- Single motherhood/children born out of wedlock. This is one the biggest, if not the biggest contributor to future criminality, and it's only financially viable largely due to the state's welfare programs for women. If women knew having a child outside of marriage carried deep consequences and no state help then they would make better decisions- leading to a better life for themselves, a better life for the child, reduced crime, and no need for a large welfare state.

A large welfare state enables and encourages, consciously or not, the poor decisions of the people. And we all pay for it, financially and otherwise.

Actually women on welfare don't have any more kids than women that aren't on welfare. It's a myth that women on welfare are breeding like crazy. TANF doesn't even pay enough for per kid to make that endeavor profitable anyway.

Also, most people on welfare are only on it temporarily while they get back on their feet. The stats bear that out. People seem to keep forgetting that safety nets don't exist to make people lazy and be on it forever, it's giving people a cushion to fall on while they get back on their feet. Because someone is down and out doesn't mean they always will be. That welfare may keep them from living in a cardboard box until they can find gainful employment and become contributors again.

That's fundamentally how insurance works as well. If you crash your car, you are forcing everyone else who drives safely and pays insurance to pay for your expenses. But so what? That's the point of a safety net. To spread risk over a greater pool of people so that there aren't as many catastrophes to individuals.

Obviously Germany isn't doing too bad with their system being the 4th largest economy in the world.

[speakeasy]

(01-25-2016 11:06 AM)zatara Wrote:  

The average Joe in Alabama does not live a better life than the average Hans in Germany, that's fairly obvious to anyone who's been to both countries. The top 10% or so of Americans however do live a far better lifestyle than their equivalent in Europe, mostly due to lower taxes and less state regulation on business owners/workers rights for the working class. America is probably the best country in the world to be wealthy in, all things considered (a combination of safety/taxes/public services etc).

The bottom 90% in America though would be far better living in a European social-democratic state due to free university education, free healthcare, legally mandated paternity/maternity/sick leave, minimum weeks of holiday leave, generous unemployment benefit etc. Social mobility is much higher, quality of life is better and the social safety net is a very real thing.

The problem with this is that most Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" (to quote Steinbeck). The majority of Americans think they're upper middle class, or will be, when statistically they both aren't and will never be. Its a country-wide self delusion that shows itself in working class people voting for lower income tax rates (which primarily benefit high earners), being anti-union etc.

The upper class in America have done a wonderful job since the 1960s of demonizing the poor, which deflects attention from themselves. For the average American reading this forum its not minorities on food stamps you should be angry about, its Paris Hilton or Dan Bilzerian paying negligible amounts of income tax.

[speakeasy]

(01-25-2016 11:13 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 11:06 AM)zatara Wrote:  

The average Joe in Alabama does not live a better life than the average Hans in Germany, that's fairly obvious to anyone who's been to both countries. The top 10% or so of Americans however do live a far better lifestyle than their equivalent in Europe, mostly due to lower taxes and less state regulation on business owners/workers rights for the working class. America is probably the best country in the world to be wealthy in, all things considered (a combination of safety/taxes/public services etc).

The bottom 90% in America though would be far better living in a European social-democratic state due to free university education, free healthcare, legally mandated paternity/maternity/sick leave, minimum weeks of holiday leave, generous unemployment benefit etc. Social mobility is much higher, quality of life is better and the social safety net is a very real thing.

The problem with this is that most Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" (to quote Steinbeck). The majority of Americans think they're upper middle class, or will be, when statistically they both aren't and will never be. Its a country-wide self delusion that shows itself in working class people voting for lower income tax rates (which primarily benefit high earners), being anti-union etc.

The upper class in America have done a wonderful job since the 1960s of demonizing the poor, which deflects attention from themselves. For the average American reading this forum its not minorities on food stamps you should be angry about, its Paris Hilton or Dan Bilzerian paying negligible amounts of income tax.

It is better to live your life with the strident hope that you will make something of yourself one day than to wallow in complacent, state supported mediocrity like a pathetic turd.

Damn, you really think the average European is a pathetic turd? Have you ever actually been to Europe? It's not such a bad continent. Quality of life is pretty high unless you live in some shithole like Moldova.

[DarkTriad]

"Actually women on welfare don't have any more kids than women that aren't on welfare."

This seems irrelevant to the point he was making. It hardly matters how many kids a woman has as long as she has a family unit that can support them. It's not how many, it's how many MORE than you're equipped to feed yourself.


"It's a myth that women on welfare are breeding like crazy"

This behavior is absolutely crazy, even if their numbers are the same.

[GlobalMan]

(02-05-2016 12:22 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

"Actually women on welfare don't have any more kids than women that aren't on welfare."

This seems irrelevant to the point he was making.

Thank you, that is correct, was not the point I was making at all. Will respond further later.

[speakeasy]

(01-26-2016 06:13 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 06:07 PM)Parzival Wrote:  

Even when you work at a german supermarket like Aldi or Lidl you make quite a good salary.

Of course. Everyone makes a "good salary" and has a "good job", which should sound familiar to Americans when listening to Obama/Bernie/Hillary.

The problem is, there isn't as great of a chance at greatness or success like in the USA. I didn't bust my ass going to college, and work my ass off at a demanding job for over a decade to make just a little bit more after taxes, and maybe even less, than someone who lazes around and works a very low stress minimum wage type of job.

And on top of that, because I am not taxed to death to pay for public transportation I would likely not use and a healthcare system I would not use, I have been able to save up a ton, invest in many different avenues, and achieve financial security. Something an extremely tiny number of Europeans my age have.

And that is what I want in my life. Everyone should choose for themselves, it depends if you want a chance to bust your ass and achieve greatness, or have a guaranteed safety net with no real chance at greatness.

Every one of your posts indicates that you only see the world in black and white. You talk as if there are no wealthy people in Europe, or that there are no entrepreneurs or major companies that come out of Europe. Listening to you, one would think nothing of value is made anywhere outside of the USA. There are millionaires all over fucking Europe. Go look up the numbers before spouting nonsense. America isn't the only damn nation where you can get rich.

[speakeasy]

(01-28-2016 01:46 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 01:27 PM)zatara Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 08:54 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

That's why all of these claims of Europe being better than the USA are bullshit, because the people there have much lower living standards at nearly every level.

The average worker in Germany works 10.5 weeks less a year than the average American. Every worker in Germany is guaranteed a legal minimum of 29 days (6 working weeks) -> 33 days (6.5 working weeks) a year of leave. Many get more. In the US there is no statutory minimum. The additional difference in hours is from hours worked per week - Americans do a lot more overtime.

Now you might say what use are all these days of extra holidays a year if you have to live like a peasant, which might be true if you were talking about African levels of poverty. However Nominal GDP per capita in the US is $54,629. In Germany its $47,627.

So lets say you're a perfectly average earner in each country. Would you prefer to work 130% as many hours for an extra $7,000? Considering at $47.5k you're already likely leading a fairly comfortable life. I think most people would say no, if given the choice.

This is the number one reason why so many middle class Europeans travel the world extensively in their 20s, while its so uncommon for Americans.

No.

The number one reason Euros travel a lot is because hard work does not pay off.

Taking a year off to trek across South America and then maybe taking a semester off to "find themselves" in Thailand or go on a mission in Namibia does not affect their current or future earning potential since there is no big money to be made or goals to be chased that require time investment.

They have the choice between staying at home and living a mediocre life AND travelling around the world and living a mediocre life. So they choose the later.

A "mediocre" life, lol. I think you need to read Mark Manson's excellent essay, "In Defense of Being Average": http://markmanson.net/being-average

Mathematically, it's impossible for most people to be more than mediocre. If tomorrow we all became millionaires, it would cause hyperinflation making a million dollars worthless and we'd be back to where we started. It's not possible for everyone to be rich or extraordinary. Even if they put in 100% effort to do so. You can only be rich or extraordinary if it's relative to something else. So why belittle people for being "mediocre"? The best we can do is make it so that even mediocre is pretty damn good. I think Europe has done a great job of that. I'd even argue that America has done a great job at that too though with somewhat less of a safety net than Europe.

[GlobalMan]

(02-04-2016 11:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Actually women on welfare don't have any more kids than women that aren't on welfare. It's a myth that women on welfare are breeding like crazy. TANF doesn't even pay enough for per kid to make that endeavor profitable anyway.

That wasn't my point, I'm not talking about quantity of children at all. I'm saying that children being born to single mothers, growing up without a father, are far far more likely to end up in the criminal justice system than children born into a family of mother + father. This is known.

Being able to raise a child without a father, on a level and to the extent that it exists in our society, is only possible with the help of a welfare state. My argument is that if the welfare state didn't exist (or was much smaller), and women knew that they would receive no government help (there's still plenty of private charities) that some and eventually most women would make different choices. Such as not banging that dude down the block outside of marriage. When you know there are severe consequences to your actions most people change their behavior.

The welfare state is not just a response to naturally occurring circumstances, it also contributes to making those circumstances possible or likely to happen in the first place.

Quote:

People seem to keep forgetting that safety nets don't exist to make people lazy and be on it forever

True, that is the intent, but that is often not what happens. And it's not a really a fault of their own, it's that they are punished for trying to climb out of poverty, and rewarded for staying poor- there is a negative incentive. What do I mean by that? Here's an example, complied from Mississippi data:



You have a higher total economic benefit making $3,000 per year than you do making $30,000. So not only is there no incentive- even if you really really really wanted to improve your life it is extremely unlikely that a person could go from making $3,000 to the $50,000+ needed to actually increase their total economic benefit and improve their lives. Typically, IMO, people making $3,000 per year don't exactly have the skills to increase their income by nearly 2000%.

[speakeasy]

(01-30-2016 07:06 PM)Centurion Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 09:30 PM)Moma Wrote:  

My point earlier, was that the poster who stated that US is great for the top percentage is correct.

But most people are average and for the average person, Europe is best.

But isn't Sweden, Germany etc poorer than most US states?

Saying Germany is "poorer" then the USA is like saying Einstein is dumber than Tesla. I don't even think we should be using the word poor in this context. Sweden, German and the USA are not poor countries or even close to it. Germany has a lower median income than the USA. That's all it means.

[speakeasy]

(02-05-2016 01:21 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

That wasn't my point, I'm not talking about quantity of children at all. I'm saying that children being born to single mothers, growing up without a father, are far far more likely to end up in the criminal justice system than children born into a family of mother + father. This is known.

True, but there's no political solution to out of wedlock births. Welfare is essentially unavailable if you have no children and are able-bodies. So the purpose of welfare is to protect children. The children never asked to be born to poor and irresponsible parents. And we don't want to have a situation like Brazil where kids are sniffing glue to go out and rob people so they can eat. People are going to have out of wedlock kids no matter what the government does. I don't like single motherhood anymore than you do, but from a pragmatic point of view, getting rid of welfare would likely cause an explosion of crime which would be worse off than the welfare(which is only 1% of the federal budget anyway). It may be a tradeoff we just have to live with for the sake of keeping crime under control.

Quote:

Being able to raise a child without a father, on a level and to the extent that it exists in our society, is only possible with the help of a welfare state. My argument is that if the welfare state didn't exist (or was much smaller), and women knew that they would receive no government help (there's still plenty of private charities) that some and eventually most women would make different choices. Such as not banging that dude down the block outside of marriage. When you know there are severe consequences to your actions most people change their behavior.

But look at the birth rates of the 3rd world. Not having welfare doesn't do anything to stop people from procreating. I doubt getting rid of welfare would change out of wedlock birthrates. You would just have more kids growing up in abject poverty. I think this is more of a cultural issue to tackle.


True, that is the intent, but that is often not what happens. And it's not a really a fault of their own, it's that they are punished for trying to climb out of poverty, there is a negative incentive. What do I mean by that? Here's an example, complied from Mississippi data:



You have a higher total economic benefit making $3,000 per year than you do making $30,000. So not only is there no incentive- even if you really really really wanted to improve your life it is extremely unlikely that a person could go from making $3,000 to the $50,000+ needed to actually increase their total benefit to improve their lives. Typically, IMO, people making $3,000 per year don't exactly have the skills to increase their income by nearly 2000%.
[/quote]

There are limits to how long you can be on welfare. That was reformed back under Clinton. There's no such thing as being on welfare for life. So it is definitely a temporary program for people to fall back on until they get a job.

[GlobalMan]

Speakeasy I agree that this is a not a simplistic issue and there are dozens of factors at play.

(02-05-2016 01:48 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I think this is more of a cultural issue to tackle.

When you say cultural issues, I don't know what you mean exactly but if it's differences in stats for different races then here's that:

Welfare Usage by American Households:



Welfare Usage by American Households with Children:




Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock in U.S.:

Asian: 17.1%
White: 29.4%
Hispanic: 53.5%
Native Am.: 66.9%
Black: 72.2%

---------

For me, looking at the overall cost + benefit, the welfare state hasn't achieved less poverty, and the cost has been enormous. 22 trillion dollars spent since the 1960's. That's a lot. With no real change in poverty levels. In fact, poverty was dropping rapidly, before the government stepped in to "fix" the situation.




Maybe for some the "cost" shouldn't matter on a topic like this, any cost is acceptable. For me and others, the cost is not acceptable.

------

Something I heard, don't remember where, sums up why this and similar issues are rarely agreed upon:

-People on the left want equal outcomes and are ok with unequal rules
-People on the right want equal rules and are ok with unequal outcomes

Simplistic, but I found this true.

[speakeasy]

Race definitely factors into the equation. Though it's important to note that out of wedlock births have been increasing for whites with each generation too.

Where is the source of your second chart(as well as the first)? I find it hard to believe that 82% of black households with children are on welfare.

[GlobalMan]

(02-05-2016 03:00 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Race definitely factors into the equation. Though it's important to note that out of wedlock births have been increasing for whites with each generation too.

Absolutely, they are all increasing.

Quote:

Where is the source of your second chart(as well as the first)? I find it hard to believe that 82% of black households with children are on welfare.

Data taken from:

The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2012

http://www.census.gov/sipp/

Another chart compiling the same data:

From: http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

[It_is_my_time]

(02-05-2016 12:51 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 06:13 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 06:07 PM)Parzival Wrote:  

Even when you work at a german supermarket like Aldi or Lidl you make quite a good salary.

Of course. Everyone makes a "good salary" and has a "good job", which should sound familiar to Americans when listening to Obama/Bernie/Hillary.

The problem is, there isn't as great of a chance at greatness or success like in the USA. I didn't bust my ass going to college, and work my ass off at a demanding job for over a decade to make just a little bit more after taxes, and maybe even less, than someone who lazes around and works a very low stress minimum wage type of job.

And on top of that, because I am not taxed to death to pay for public transportation I would likely not use and a healthcare system I would not use, I have been able to save up a ton, invest in many different avenues, and achieve financial security. Something an extremely tiny number of Europeans my age have.

And that is what I want in my life. Everyone should choose for themselves, it depends if you want a chance to bust your ass and achieve greatness, or have a guaranteed safety net with no real chance at greatness.

Every one of your posts indicates that you only see the world in black and white. You talk as if there are no wealthy people in Europe, or that there are no entrepreneurs or major companies that come out of Europe. Listening to you, one would think nothing of value is made anywhere outside of the USA. There are millionaires all over fucking Europe. Go look up the numbers before spouting nonsense. America isn't the only damn nation where you can get rich.

Sure there are wealthy people in Europe. It is just easier, FAR easier, to achieve financial freedom in the USA than in Europe. I had the chance to move to Europe after college, and I realized I would rather retire young and be financially free than be dependent on a job my entire life. So for me, staying the USA was the best bet and has proven to be the right choice.

And as the USA becomes more liberal, and follows in Europe's footsteps, it will get tougher here to become financially free as well. Eventually it will grind to a halt, and it will be very tough here as it is in Europe.

[Parzival]

Big advantage of the welfare state ist to keep the poor silent. You give them enough money that they can survive. Have a place to live, food and even sometimes can buy stuff. Still not enough to make a progress. On the other side, the people are not homeless nor starving. So no desperation to the extreme that they turn into criminals or become a violent riot mob.
Its a big silencer for the masses.
The ones that relay the most on the welfare system are people with no qualification that get no jobs in Germany, old people that no company want to hire again and low wage income jobs that get support.

In Germany the welfare system is split, when you lose your job you get 60 % of your last income for one year in general. After this you switch into the basic with 404 € per month + rent and health insurance. The second system is a far more strict and they create pressure on you that you apply for jobs or do qualification. They can even reduce the money or cut it complete. Sure there are people that trick it but most want to escape this situation. Because its nothing. You survive but have nothing more. I guess the long term users of welfare just create a different mindset. What's a problem is that sometimes its not worth to start a job when you change from welfare to a job just to change a free week into a 40 hour week for maybe 200 or 300 € more net. People then prefer to work some job extra illegal instead to get a regular job with almost no benefit.

The whole environment here in Germany do not really support those financial freedom ideas. Its a different mentality and so new ideas don't pop that easy into your mind. Its almost a philosophical question. The condition of the mind is different and so many ideas or opportunities you could have in a different environment never cross your mind.