The United States spends 38% of GDP “investing in people.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni.... Even if you exclude the much maligned defense spending (where a lot of our science and technology investment goes), that’s $6.5 trillion that goes to investing in people or managing people who invest in people.

I’m amenable to the notion that we should invest more. For example healthcare and guaranteed meals for everyone under age 18.

But the idea that “America sees investment in its own people as wasteful spending” is just false. It’s a statement that’s so disconnected from reality that it makes me question the point that is really being made. Are people really saying spending a third of every dollar on welfare is nothing? Or is it a way to deflect from any efforts to criticize how that money is being used? Because if you keep telling people “America invests almost nothing in its people” that makes folks very defensive about the programs we do spend money on, and willing to overlook mismanagement of those programs.

As this article demonstrates, Americans are great at paying out lots of money into private systems without receiving good material returns on these investments. By contrast, for example, my great grandmother in the UK paid into various state taxes regimes all her life. In return, she received very good quality healthcare, home care and long term care in old age, and social housing after the death of her husband. She was a working class person who suffered a lot of hardship, but lived to be 99. In the US, she probably would’ve ended up bankrupt and dead on the street much earlier.

Yep. The US spends more than double what countries with universal coverage spend on healthcare[1]. Those countries also have better health outcomes on nearly every metric[2] and manage to cover all of their citizens.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

[2] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality...

We will need to reduce doctors salaries by atleast 50% if we want to tackle high healthcare costs..

[1] https://i1.wp.com/investingdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/0...

Meanwhile: the dominant component of US health spending is in fact inpatient and outpatient procedures --- services delivered by physicians and trained health care specialists --- and those people do in fact make significantly more money in the US than they do in the UK, Europe in general, or Australia.

Your chart doesn't show anything useful to the point you're trying to make. It shows a massive percentage increase in the admin side as expected, without showing the base it started from, and it does not show any percentage or specific figure break-out on related costs by each group.

You need to show each group and what is being spent on them. Ideally also show the cost increase related to physician and nurse total compensation over the last eg 10, 20, 30 years so we can see how much cost inflation there is related to that segment of US healthcare over the prime years of healthcare cost inflation.

See https://www.quora.com/Who-or-what-controls-the-number-of-med... for more information.

So are developers.

Also, there aren't artificial barriers to more developers really... just an aggressive demand outstripping supply.

It depends what you're measuring. OP is talking about Americans' willingness to "invest in their own people." That's an issue of "money in" not "results out." On healthcare, for example, U.S. governments spend 8% of GDP. That's on the middle-high side compared to the rest of the OECD: https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Country-Note-GERMANY.... We just manage to cover a fraction of the population for similar levels of spending. The same is true for our public education--we spend more get less.

That suggests a very different narrative than what OP was saying. "We spend so much on education, why are our kids falling behind?" Versus: "Why aren't Americans willing to invest in education?"

The problem isn't that America isn't "willing to invest in its own people." It's that Americans get far less in the way of public services for the amount of money they spend. It's a problem of efficiency, not generosity.

> Social Security payments maybe, but you would have to ... account for how the wealthy escape paying into the system at anything like a progressive level.

The earnings cap for Social Security is common in OECD countries, and our cap is higher than most: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2018/04/28/so-hey-why-no.... (Comparisons are a bit difficult. France, for example, has a cap on Social Security taxes, but no cap on healthcare payroll taxes. But the U.S. has no cap on Medicare taxes, and we pay Medicaid out of income tax, which is highly progressive.)

It's also funny you use the U.K. as an example. The maximum state pension in the U.K. amounts to about $10,000/year. The average U.S. Social Security payment amounts to $17,500 per year.

> As this article demonstrates, Americans are great at paying out lots of money into private systems without receiving good material returns on these investments.

Except health insurance, the U.S. is generally behind Europe in terms of privatizing public services. For example, not even Republicans are talking about privitizing Social Security, but some level of privitization of retirement accounts is common in other countries: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p31.html. Australia, Denmark, and Sweden are examples of countries that have partially privitized their Social Security by imposing mandatory participation in private pension systems as part of the overall retirement system.

Transit systems in Europe are often privately operated, while in the U.S. they're almost all publicly operated.

91% of American students attend publicly managed schools, below the OECD average of 82%: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/50110750.pdf. Spain, South Korea, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Australia are countries where 1/3 or more (70% in Belgium) of students attend private schools. In the OECD, it's common for private schools to receive government funding (via voucher-like systems). Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Spain, are examples of countries where private schools receive more than 60% of their funding from the government.

The EU is undertaking a vast reform that would require opening up local utilities to competition: https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-19_en.htm. Among other things, it could speed up the privatization of water systems in Europe (private water systems are already fairly common there, but basically unheard of in the U.S.)

https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm

Now really, the stats you linked probably aren't even all that correlated with social spending. It's more likely a measure of the scope of bureaucracy.

The US couldn't raise taxes by an equivalent amount unless the money specifically went to healthcare in an equivalent way (because otherwise taxpayers would still need to have that money to buy healthcare), so you couldn't use it to solve homelessness.

The problem is that Social Security and Medicare in the US completely dominate social spending, and they're also the same thing. Or worse, since Social Security even gives bigger payouts to wealthier people who had higher incomes before retirement -- the least it could do is give everyone the same amount.

So we end up in a situation where we are at the same time spending too much on government programs and not spending enough on government programs, not because the amount of tax revenue is too low, but because the money we currently spend mostly isn't actually going to anti-poverty programs or public infrastructure or scientific research etc.

This is ignoring that a private insurer will take a profit so not all that dollar is returned in the form of care/insurance.

I am glad to have the government buying my healthcare for me, because they get a good deal for that $1.

Calibrating that balance correctly is the exact thing markets are good at. When you're spending your own money, you may be willing to pay $4000 more for a better drug, but only if it's $4000 better.

That's not usually how government works in my experience.

no one is arguing that we arent paying. The point is, you are equating costs between public and private, and private has to take profit. Government doesnt.

Do we actually know that healthcare is a profitable industry if (like the government would have to) you actually cover EVERYONE?

The point is that it does.

The private insurance company makes a profit because it, for example, owns the building it operates out of. That portion of its profit is attributable to the rent it could have received by renting out the building to the National Health Service in the alternative, which would then have that amount as an ongoing expense. You're still paying the same amount of money to the capitalist who owns the building whether you call it profit or rent. And the government could buy the building, but then it has to pay to buy (and maintain, and forego property tax revenue on) the building -- you're paying for it one way or another.

> Do we actually know that healthcare is a profitable industry if (like the government would have to) you actually cover EVERYONE?

The first thing to note is that the government doesn't cover everyone. There are unavoidably procedures it will deem too expensive and not cover, the same as private insurance. We can't afford to spend a trillion dollars to save one life.

But independent of that, the only way an insurance company doesn't make a long-term profit is if it's mismanaged. If you want more comprehensive coverage then that causes the premiums to be higher, but either way they'll just consult their actuarial tables and set premiums that cover the expected claims.

Where people run into trouble with private insurance is that they don't bother to buy it. If you go in and get a catastrophic coverage quote when you're healthy, it's a reasonable premium, which (because otherwise the insurance is useless) includes the right to keep paying that premium instead of a higher one even if you're diagnosed with something. But in a free market, if you get diagnosed with cancer after not bothering to buy health insurance, the premiums when you go to get it would then reflect the cost of cancer treatment. At that point you're basically buying an installment plan rather than insurance, because the event to be insured against occurred while you weren't insured against it. This is why requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions doesn't really work unless you also somehow induce almost everybody to buy health insurance ahead of time anyway.

Well, socialized medicine also takes $1.5 from someone at 1.5× mean income, and $0.5 from someone at 0.5× mean income, and provides to both $1 in health coverage. In this sense it is redistributive and anti-poverty.

When people in this mindset see homeless they don't think "This is a member of my society that is suffering", they see an Other. Put another way, plenty of old men want to plant trees, they just only want their own group using the shade.

The Trump supporters at rallies, and the cancel/call out culture on Twitter are two examples that come to mind which bias an individual towards large groups of people who mostly aren’t such caricatures.

It’s like the whole LatinX thing, where no Latinos really identify as LatinX but it’s this narrative pushed forward by an extremely vocal super minority.

Or that whole uproar about white women wearing Japanese clothing that happened.

At the end of the day, I think most Americans are more connected than we think culturally and it’s a bit of a shame but we mostly don’t hear the opinions of the people who’re working, taking care of children, and otherwise enjoying life by partaking in hobbies, social events, and cultural activities.

What we do hear are the people so invested in X or Y as to be extremely strongly opinionated enough about and invested in it that they may drive culture one way or the other without the contributions of most individuals.

Of course there is xenophobia, and strong prejudices and biases out there, but I’m hardpressed to describe Americans as being that way as a whole and in general I think we mostly move forward on social issues even if we take a couple steps back.

We’re seeing one of the most unequal periods of American history come to a head right now, exacerbated by tax cuts for the wealthiest, globalization, unfettered money in politics, and a whole slew of other factors.

But I have a feeling we’re going to come out of it okay, and I’m especially hopeful for Generation Z which seems to be all about achieving universal healthcare, affordable education, the freedom to be yourself in nondiscriminatory ways, and tackling climate change.

A few issues with your argument:

1) "plenty of old men" is almost certainty referring to the common portrayal of "old white men" and more broadly speaking all White Americans.

Let's just pick this one apart. I cannot speak for all the various religions in the US and their relative charity work, but I know that every church I have ever been apart of has done a tremendous amount of charity work not just in their local community but across the globe, mainly in third world countries - of not "white people". I will make the responsible assumption that other religions do the same. Considering more than 40% of US citizens attend some religious congregation weekly, that means more than 150 million Americans are contributing physically, and likely economically, to global organizations that have shared culture and do "goodwill" in the US and abroad... most often for the "suffering", and a large % of this group of Americans are white, many of which are old - as it's well known that religious observation is significantly greater among pre-Millennial generations.

2) Speaking to the remaining 60% of the United States, more than 62 million Americans volunteer, it's growing every year, and more than half of American's contribute to charity. Again, even assuming 50% overlap with the active-observant religion 40% of the population, we can assume almost every American contributes to an organization either through labor or charity to help those who suffer, and the delta of those who are likely not contributing physically or economically are probably those receiving said charity, and not a huge swath of millions of racist anti-American "countrymen".

3) To your point about a "disconnected society of mostly old white men", I have lived in South Florida for most of my life, where there is a HUGE influx of immigrants and refugees such as Cubans, Haitians, Central Americans, and most recently South Americans, i.e. Venezuelans - where these communities often represent double digit % of the population, and majority of the population in certain large geographic areas. You cannot "drive around" without seeing a car displaying a flag of their country of origin. From the tone of your comment it sounds like YOU have a problem with that behavior? You are essentially calling them un-American.

Frankly speaking as someone who has gone to public school with the children of these people, most of which the children were born outside the US, many of which are "Dreamers" - I know many might "long for their homeland". I know many have immense pride of their heritage. But these people that I know most often have joined the military, police, or other government service - because that is more often then not a stable, often guaranteed, step up in society both economically and I believe from a respect perspective which by your argument they apparently still have to earn. I assume you do respect those vital national and local services, regardless of the "Americanism" of those carrying out the services.

4) American Culture is defined by "shared culture", it is unique compared to every other country in the world BECAUSE OF THAT, not in spite of that. It is constantly changing and evolving. And the fringe that you speak to is simply ignorant of that fluidity that makes this country so unique and grand. I won't make the assumption of generalizing you and putting you into that fringe, but you certainly are amplifying that group by accusing all others of being apart of it without any evidence or scientific fact.

I don’t disagree with your point in a certain sense, but your framing is fluffy and unsatisfying. America is one of the least racist countries in the world. For example, 82% of French support banning Islamic head coverings, versus just 28% of Americans: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/07/14/french-supp.... I’m a Bangladeshi married to an Oregonian. (Not like Portland, like rural Oregon coast.) I’ve lived in red states, visited rural parts of the country, and currently live in a precinct that voted for Trump. The degree to which Americans are willing to accept you into their communities, given minimal attempts to conform, never ceases to amaze me. (And when I hear about how “profoundly racist” America is, I can’t help but think sheepishly: “man, what would they say about Bangladesh?”)

So how much explanatory power does leveling charges of racism really have? Clearly racism exists and is a bad thing and produces many problems. But racism is also a structural problem endemic to humans, not anything unique to Americans. How much can you really rely on racism alone to explain the level of division within American society?

The vast majority of Americans are not racist in the sense that they are personally antagonistic to an individual of another race. But many of them are racist in the sense that they think black people on average are poorer because they have shitty culture, not because white people historically prevented them from buying land, prevented them from being educated, prevented them from using opportunities like the GI bill, etc.

I've got some bad news: when you solve racism, these problems will still exist. Because the elites will never want to live nearby poor people and zoning laws ensure they don't have to

I think he means that it will be replaced by something else and the end results will be the same. A lot of problems we attribute to racism will be there due to some other cause. Problems have multiple sources, and solving one will not solve the problem. A common debate in society is precisely about how much of a given problem is due to racism. Some people assume it's very high, and others say it is just one amongst many.

Is everything a result of racism? I have no idea. I kind of doubt it. But the comment above gave specific examples of things that impact us to this day that are clearly based on racism, and that won't be solved simply by a generational shift in attitudes (which has largely already occurred in the US).

Are you aware of Dr. Ibram X. Kendi's book "Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America"? I am just about done reading it. Before I may have side-eyed "criminal-justice racism" "health-care racism", etc. After, it is clear as day how racism in America should be a first-order question when examining any social issue/problem.

I really hope you check out the book!

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25898216-stamped-from-th...

As for "health-care racism" I even caught that in the news recently. "Racial bias in a medical algorithm favors white patients over sicker black patients"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/10/24/racial-bias...

Oh Geez.

"The Administration’s First-String Team Two of Trump’s top lieutenants have their eye on what’s crucial." https://www.city-journal.org/william-barr-mike-pompeo - This in reference to Attorney General Barr and Secretary of State Pompeo who I hold in no esteem at all.

So I will certainly read this critique of Kendi's work albeit with my eyes wide open for right leaning bias.

1) Hughes' critique is of Dr. Kendi and both of his books "Stamped", which I referenced above, and "How to Be an Anti-Racist", which I have not read so if you would like to critique my critique of Hughes' critique, there are items I ignore because they reference ideas I know are not from Kendi's book that I have read.

I recommended the book Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America in my earlier post because it paints a clear picture how racism is alive in well in America in 2019, both in overt, covert, and systemic forms.

Hughes' critique shows errors Kendi made, and discredits unsubstantiated claims Kendi made. Yet in the end Stamped from the Beginning, and its central tenets are still standing.

Hughes' critique of Kendi suffers from some of the same issues he charges Kendi with. Hughes cherry picks facts and claims from Kendi's work to critique, and takes a broad brush to make some unsubstantiated claims of his own. Unfortunately this gives Hughes' work the air of pseudo-intellectualism.

In Stamped from the Beginning, Kendi weaves the ideas of racism, anti-racism, and other forms throughout his book as major ideas in America's past and present. Those include assimilation, segregation, "uplift-suasion" (the notion that black people could gain equality in the eyes of white people by being model minorities), and others. As core themes of the book Hughes neglects to mention them or in some cases discusses them in isolation from each other and not in reference to Kendi's core idea of racism/anti-racism.

For example, when countering Kendi's claim that "capitalism is racist" Hughes cites Plessy v. Ferguson

The most famous is the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case, when a profit-hungry railroad company––upset that legally mandated segregation meant adding costly train cars––teamed up with a civil rights group to challenge racial segregation.

Here, Hughes conflates anti-segregation with anti-racist. This is an unfair treatment of a core idea of Kendi's work. It belies either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty on the part of Hughes. One of the biggest take aways from Kendi's history is that one could be against segregation, slavery, or other ideas we associate with racism, and still be racist.

The latter chapters of Stamped from the Beginning show just how the language we hear today around "law and order" and other political slogans emerged from Richard Nixon knowing exactly how to appeal to racist voters without saying the n-word. The lineage is traced from Nixon, to Reagan, Bush I, and up to Clinton (could go further, but I have a few chapters yet to finish).

So if you are considering Stamped from the Beginning, I don't see Hughes' critique as one worth keeping you away from it.

The great crime of America is excluding African Americans from the benefits of capitalism by systematically eliminating their ability to build and protect capital, businesses, etc.

What am I missing?

My point of disagreement is about the assertion that the decline of U.S. civil society is "mostly driven by racism." Our civil society and institutions are declining, but systemic racism against African Americans is, if not better, not worse than it was decades ago.

It's not politically correct to call it racism. According to the powers that be, we should call it "economic anxiety"

Throwaway account of sorts here. I too am a South Asian who has been in the US for quite a while, and have lived in both red and blue states. I used to live in South Asia and the Middle East.

In my experience, Americans (of all races, including whites), are a ton more welcoming than I've seen anywhere else (well, except Canada of course). In fact, the most welcoming community I lived in was in a red state.

In contrast, people in the countries I lived in are much, much more overtly prejudiced. Here in the US I have no problem having a conversation with pretty much anyone - be they of another race or wealthy or in poverty. In South Asia those who were of a different social class were simply invisible. You don't get to interact much with those higher than you, and everyone pretends the poor simply don't exist.

And so much is dictated by your ethnicity/tribe.

I remember the situation in the US after 9/11. There were bad things happening across the country against people of Muslims or those suspected of being Muslims. But the majority were supportive. I remember my Saudi friend remarking "You know, if white people had done something like this in our country, it would not be safe for them to leave their home. And here I am not worrying at all about being outside. I know the majority has my back."

In over 20 years of living in the US, I've never had someone overtly treat me in a racist manner. Yet back home being treated in a prejudicial fashion was the expectation. Life's simply a lot better in the US.

Clearly, the US has lots of prejudism/racism issues. And it's visible. And you can see it in the statistics. And in my experience it has gotten worse in the last few years. We're not saying the US is alright. But when I look globally, the US is definitely in the better half, and probably pretty high in the better half.

Oh, and if you want an idea of how bad things can be even in Western Europe, I strongly encourage you to listen to Epsiode 684 of This American Life ("Burn it Down"): https://www.thisamericanlife.org/684/burn-it-down

You can see the transcript on the site.

Some of the stuff described there would be pretty outrageous/scandalous in the US. The difference isn't that sutff like this doesn't happen in the US (it probably does), but how the public reacts to it when it becomes mainstream news in a major city.

Oh, and just on the side: We South Asians are not really any better. I can't tell you how many times a fellow South Asian in the US complains about racist white people, and then has no problem making racist remarks about Chinese and African Americans. And when called out on it simply dismiss it with "Well that's just the reality!"

(Edited to add: Caucasians make up 40.2% of the city population)

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/6/16/15818104/homeless-sf-count-2... https://datausa.io/profile/geo/san-francisco-ca

https://www.library.pima.gov/content/homelessness-statistics...

It's kinda hard to find, but Tucson's homelessness was 72% caucasian, 19% native american.

I don't think there is any interagency that is putting these numbers in one place yet... that's probably desperately needed for this country to start tackling the problem.

There may actually be a reason why white people are specifically affected- and it is probably related to family processes.

To start: of course this is tracked federally, it has been for years. Here's a recent report https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2018-AHAR...

You will note that it calls out that African Americans are extremely disproportionately represented in homeless groups (13% of population, 40% of homeless people), and in the overall demographic table we can see that white people make up about 50% of homeless people vs ~70% of the population. It also mentions that among the population of unsheltered people, which are the group I'd call more visible, white people are slightly less under-represented, at 60%.

The only place '72%' comes up in the report you linked is the BoS counties, not Tucson, so I'll assume you meant that. That seems well out of proportion to the total population so I'd ask some questions about how well the counts cover tribal lands, etc (since it's actually a count used for federal assistance, which is handled differently on tribal lands). There is increasing attention given to the lack of attention to homelessness on tribal lands, and they definitely used to not be counted - this report gives some info on how they can be undercounted even if included http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/rpts_pubs/na_home...

Talking about Hispanic homelessness is much harder, because there are many variations on how studies count white/Hispanic, and because it’s a less visually identifiable group than black people. Let’s look at Tucson. Pima County was ~37% Hispanic in 2015 (https://www.tucsonhispanicchamber.org/uploads/5/8/0/4/580457...) Tucson homeless population in 2016 was 30% Hispanic. Among adults without children, it was much lower: just over 20%. So non-Hispanic people are actually a little overrepresented, but probably looked very overrepresented among the visible population. And if we look at why there is that difference, my first thought would be that the Hispanic population is weighted towards children (about 50% of school enrollments, from that doc above) who are less likely to be homeless. So I would still disagree that it is at all a “white-specific thing” even in that location. (calculated from here - https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/apitl/1/AOcbyEzOLNSVbwFWOs... )

And if we just look at white/not-white: you do realize that Tucson is over 70% white people, right? And the homeless population is also just over 70% white. That’s not any kind of argument for it being a “white thing”.