American here (although I own a swiss business and travel there frequently).
The reason that americans do not embrace these things is that, for the most part, the United States still has a very, very flat social hierarchy.
If you put Joe-6-Pack and Larry Ellison into a room together, J6P will still hold his head high and demand equal treatment and respect - from both Ellison and other third parties.
But J6P intuitively knows something else: asking for favors alters that relationship and establishes an explicit power balance (as opposed to the implicit one which was obviously there to some degree).
On the other hand, if you come from Europe, the idea of a "better class" isn't so foreign - even if you disagree with it. That power balance is quite a bit more explicit and there is a fairly well established (sometimes in blood) "contract" between the people who work for a living and the people who own things.
Personally, I like the American arrangement but I think it's days are numbered - eventually the sorting will complete itself and workers will have more days off ... but "gentlemen" will have certain privileges like english lords do in 2016.[1]
[1] Exemption from jury service, immunity from arrest for civil cases, "access to the sovereign".
No, its because they bought the red scare and everything that was said about Socialism and then continued to parrot that bullshit since then, which then collided with the Protestant work ethic that poisoned peoples minds into equating work and pay with personal worth.
Worker protection laws are something evil that only dirty commies spout to bring good, hard working Americans down. If you were a good, hard working American you wouldn't need protection.
Yes, agreed - but that (the red scare) is just another symptom of the underlying still-evolving class system in the US.
I don't disagree with what you're saying at all - I'm saying you should consider why those ideas resonated in the US while they did not resonate everywhere else.
The standard conclusion among 21st century progressives "they do it because they're stupid" is inaccurate (and destructive).
The impression I get is that in some parts of the country there's a general distrust in government, alongside a trust in entrepreneurship. Neither of which seems stupid to me.
I'd also say that government spending is an easier sell in metropolitan areas as public investments in cities make a bigger impact on quality of life. Public transport is a good example of this, if I was in a rural setting I wouldn't expect much in the way of public transport spending, but I'd expect it in a city.
However, whilst it's healthy not to trust in government too much, the same is true of trusting big business to act in your interest. Government should act to keep companies in line with public interest. Whether that involves big government or not is debatable, but I don't think it'd be a good idea to have any one single company that had larger influence on the general population than the government does.
Then again, the US had one of the most progressive and vibrant worker rights and union movements in the world (fighting for child labor, the 8 hour week, women's work, immigrant rights, etc) -- until about the 2nd World War and the Red Scare.
And that -- the mere demand for equal treatment and respect -- is the only kind of "flat hierarchy" in the US. In every other way, that is, in any way that actually counts, Larry Ellison and Joe 6pack are so different in assets, life prospects for them and their kids, influence, power, etc, that Larry might as well be Louis XIV. Heck, there are European nobles that are more approachable than US businessmen or third rate Hollywood stars in pragmatic terms. So, this flat thing is mostly a founding myth of the US, than any kind of reality.
>But J6P intuitively knows something else: asking for favors alters that relationship and establishes an explicit power balance (as opposed to the implicit one which was obviously there to some degree).
Good wages, sane work culture, vacation days, etc are not "favors". Those are rights. Nobody handed them down to the Swiss people, much less the rich.
That people would think of them as favors to be asked from the rich, as if those are Kings, once again shows how little flat the US system is.
What would be actually flat(ter) would be to have the people enjoy more of the freedom, security, etc that the rich do.
I think your language, above, is very indicative of the inability to understand this set of choices. Why is the demand for equal treatment and respect "mere" ? Why is it not something that "actually counts" ?
Don't misunderstand me - I find myself confounded by a lot of these aspects of US culture and politics, but I think it's worth trying to see something deeper at work than simply "they're dummies".
I would also like to take issue with the comparison between Larry Ellison and Louis XIV. Yes, LE is very rich and probably has a lot of hidden political levers that are meaningful but there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever and I really am taken aback by the confusion that people in this thread have between wealth and social class.
On the other hand, my entire thesis here is that given enough time, that distinction will blur - so perhaps your confusion doesn't matter.
I'm sure you have, but if you have not you should read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". The ideas you're presenting here may as well have been quoted from it.
Because "demanding" equal treatment and actually getting equal treatment is not the same thing at all. From their doctors, to their "local congressman", to the law, to the restaurants they go to, they'll get entirely different treatment.
Of course the point is moot because those working class american wont be able to afford the same doctors, lawyers or restaurants in the first place, much less make an appointment with their congressman.
>but I think it's worth trying to see something deeper at work than simply "they're dummies".
There is something deeper at work. Several decades of actively making the American public less independent and vocal about their rights (except token rights, like the right to bear guns and ideological issues related to religion etc.), and convincing them either that they are inconvenienced millionaires or that food stamps are the pinnacle of progressive policy.
No. Rights may not, by definition, require taking from someone else.
That's a limited and by no means universally accepted definition of rights, often employed by libertarians, which conveniently aligns with the objectives of the ruling class in the US.
Funny, also, how in your mind "good wages" implies taking from someone (the "job creator"?), while lower wages don't take anything from anyone?
Your wage (which you have a right to, as an employee) is already "taking from someone else".
The "right to work" (part of the universal declaration of human rights) includes taking a job that somebody else could take in your place.
And of course the whole idea that "sane work culture", "good wages" and "vacation days" are stolen from other people is inane. Who do you think the Swiss collectively stole them from?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US voted for, while the USSR, Saudi Arabia and others abstained) does contain the rights to work, leisure, education, among others.
And the European Court of Human Rights, and other legal institutions, make these rights enforceable, too.
So, just saying "there is no such right" falls short.
So I don't think a class system has anything to do with it.
Labour laws are for small companies, but even then they don't obey them. My first job out of university, at a small company, told me I was paid both a salary and a wage. A salary because then I didn't get paid for overtime (nor did it get recorded), and a wage because then they didn't need to pay me that much. Take it or be unemployed. True, I could have just turned it down, but by being registered with the Work and Income people, I had a contract requiring that I took the first "reasonable" job offered, without a definition of reasonable. That particular one owes me about $20k in unpaid wages.
The next one, a multimillionaire with the Prime Minister's office on speed dial, owes me about $10k. Complaints (multiple complaints, at that) about them to the ministry have a habit of just disappearing. Personal safety threats, basic rights violations, serious health and safety issues, public funding fraud, inaccurate time sheets, and less-than-minimum-wage pay, but not one visit from the ministry.
There's no doubt that a class system is in play there.
Hehe, still, I'm sure he was near the corner and was close to the window right ? :)
Look at the chart "Wealth shares of top percentiles of the net wealth distribution in selected OECD countries":
https://www.oecd.org/std/household-wealth-inequality-across-...
The elections in the USA are increasingly heated exactly because the USA is increasingly torn apart by divisions of class, and the divisions of class are growing exactly because wealth is concentrating into the hands of the 1%, and even within that 1%, wealth is concentrating into the top 1%, which is the top .0001 of the USA.
I agree with everything you wrote.
However, I wasn't talking about wealth - I was talking about social class.
The inability to recognize the difference between wealth and social class is probably a good indicator of a relatively flat social hierarchy. In times and places with deep social class division you wouldn't be prone to making that mistake.
You would know exactly which rich person to call "m'lord" and which not to.
Note: I'm an American by birth, and the Western European societies I've interacted with have, except Scandinavian, been enthusiastically classist.
Disagree somewhat. In northern Europe, public transport is used by pretty much everyone (broad sample of society from all strata). Most everyone goes to comparable public schools. University quality has much smaller variance than in the USA (there's not exactly MIT, but also not exactly Trump U.) In other words, there's a fairly broad common life. The CEO of a company certainly has a good life, but the janitor will have a decent life, too, with 4 weeks mandatory vacation and enough money to fly to Spain for vacation, and health insurance and unemployment insurance etc.
In the US, different strata of society interact far less. There are different schools, different super markets, gated communities - even the humiliating TSA experience is avoided by the rich using General Aviation terminals.
Inequality in the US is much larger than in northern Europe, notwithstanding Zuckerberg's wearing jeans.
TL;DR: In the US, you have superficial equality hiding tremendous inequality, while in Europe you have visible inequality on top of substantial equality.
Were you not watching this latest election cycle?
I think this is an important point. Switzerland, and most of Europe, is predominantly white. I feel like there is something to say about homogeneity.
In some cases, absolutely - which is why we're discussing it.
But like everything, there are costs and benefits involved in everything (yes, everything). The idea that longer vacations or 35 hour work weeks have no trade-offs is a mistaken one.
The related idea: that american workers make the decisions they make just because they are stupid is also a mistaken one.
In the EU or any European country the goal seems to be to assist everyone not just the poor. In the US it seems like people berate the poor for not working hard enough or call them communist for asking for social assistance (ACA/"Obama care" etc.).
As a Canadian I used to have a good bead on people in the US now I don't know what's going on there. These days it seems like freedom in the US means freedom to hate or punish others rather than freedom for a person to live a healthy safe life.
https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d...
In 1971 a child from the poorest fifth had an 8.4% chance of making it to the top quintile. For a child born in 1986 the odds were 9%. The study confirms previous findings that America’s social mobility is low compared with many European countries. (In Denmark, a poor child has twice as much chance of making it to the top quintile as in America.) But it challenges several smaller recent studies that concluded that America had become less socially mobile.
for reference see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison
That means wealthy people reap the benefits.
but you make a good point. i think the american aristocracy is currently in the end stages of forming and will be completely established within a few more years. once it gets bad enough, there will be a new relationship model between workers and owners, but until then, it's a free for all.
i say this as a business owner who does fine for himself and the other stakeholders but the level of wealth that the top echelons have is mind boggling.
like, i don't actually see a path to amassing that much wealth no matter how hard i work. to achieve that seems to be some voodoo mix of circumstances like birth, connections, and straight up luck.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
So you are saying that instead of a fair competition, you would prefer that people's lives are defined by the conditions they were born into and educated in? Wut?
> Not everyone can be upwardly mobile and become a millionaire with no one left to fill the void of low level poorly paid jobs needed to support them.
You realize that those jobs are going away in somewhat near future right? Just like e.g. truck drivers?
I think some of the reasons for this is due to the immigrant history of the U.S. When my grandparents immigrated to America their only desire was to be free from government persecution and harassment. They left Europe with a wary eye for government, and rightly so.
I think many in the U.S share a similar experience whether or not they are 1st or 10th generation Americans. Unfortunately, that attitude has manifested itself in some negative values and policies.