There’s a lot more to social mobility than an individual’s ability to become a millionaire.

You’d have to decide whether you agree with the methodology, but European nations feature highest in the ‘Global Social Mobility Index’ [0] while the US is 27th.

[0] https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report....

Merely saying the US is 27th doesn't actually mean much without knowing more about the distribution. There's still a shortest NBA player, after all.

And I did look at the table. There's a difference of ~15 index points between 1st (85) and 27th (70). That still doesn't actually say much without knowing how they're calculated.

OP said “ It feels like there's very little social mobility in Europe compared to the US.”

But didn’t define it.

GP pointed to a definition which shows that OP was wrong.

Social mobility is much higher in the EU than in the US [0]. Being a millionaire in the US still doesn't guarantee that you won't go bankrupt due to a cancer treatment.

[0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/american...

This is not an equivalent comparison.

In Europe many cancer treatments are simply not paid for by social health care, because it's too expensive or experimental.

Rich people still go to private health care providers for more niche treatments, or simply for shorter waiting lists.

What you have in Europe is - long wait lists, for everyone, and fewer numbers of actual treatments (plus many things not covered by social health care, e.g. dentists)

What you have in US is - no wait lists, healthcare that's probably 2-3x as expensive, but you actually can get the best of the best treatment if you pay for it

Clearly for poorer layers of society the US system is bad. But for society as a whole I would question which system is actually better. They both have bad and good parts.

To be honest if the US actually implemented a real market system for health care, and prices would drop a bit (with the kind of stuff Mark Cuban is building), the US health system would be FAR superior than Europe, even if its not free.

It's quite obvious which system is better if you look at life expectancy and infant mortality.

> Rich people still go to private health care providers for more niche treatments, or simply for shorter waiting lists.

You say rich, but private healthcare is a pretty normal benefit for people working in professional jobs. I'm on my third tech job and I've never not had some level of private insurance benefit.

So, this actually reinforces my point, many many people in Europe have private health insurance despite having free healthcare supposedely.

If european healthcare was so amazing AND free, why would people do this? It makes no sense. Of course it does when you realise the cost of free healthcare, which is that it just isn't that great in terms of quality, or you have insane waiting lists, even if it is free.

You're missing the cost of people not seeing a professional until it's very late into their illness and have to either undergo expensive procedures, end up disabled or die. Which is exactly what is happening in the US and is reflected by life expectancy. Private healthcare is just too expensive to the society as a whole. And you keep saying insane waiting lists, but critical procedures are prioritised accordingly and you don't have to wait long if you have a heart disease or cancer. Just to be clear, all healthcare systems have their own problems and not one is perfect, but the one in US is absurdly bad.

Blaming short life expectancy on the US healthcare system is pointing to a tree in a forest.

There are A LOT of reasons for this. For example fentanyl probably took quite a bit off it, considering over 200,000 people are dead at this point from it.

So does the obesity crisis.

Now - I think we are probably more in agreement than not, I think there are huge issues with the US healthcare system, the entire fentanyl crises WAS created by the healthcare system, but still - I don't think the root issue, or problem to be solved is private vs public. Switching to public would just mean another set of problems.

For the record, I'm not from the US, and I mostly use private healthcare, despite there being so called free healthcare available in my country. It's just terrible. So it's almost the same as the US - rich people get healthcare, poor don't.

If you don’t stratify life expectancy by demographics, it means nothing.

Asians in the US live to be 10 years older than Blacks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health_in_the_Unite...

Clearly lifespan is not solely determined by where you live.

At least in Poland private healthcare is great when it comes to simple procedures, but as soon as you have serious health issues you end up in a public hospital.

The us healthcare system is also insanely expensive, highest spend per person on the planet by a large margin

If the US took all the money it spent on Medicaid alone it could afford to fund U.K. level healthcare for everyone.

Not without a massive cut in doctor and (especially) nursing staff pay. Which might be problematic considering all the medical school debt they have.

People in the us visit healthcare providers about just as much, maybe a little less, it’s just that they pay 5x per visit compared to other countries in Europe due to massive regulatory capture and the behemoth of bureaucracy.

In Denmark, the law clearly states that there cannot be longer than 2 weeks from suspicion to initial examination, and if you indeed to have cancer, at most 2 weeks more for treatment. If the public healthcare cannot honor those deadlines you will have the equivalent examination/treatment at a private, and public healthcare pays. This includes some very advanced treatments for advanced cancers.

Yes it does...what bizarre takes. Lack of health insurance affects a gap of people that don't qualify for public programs and can't afford private insurance. Many people with way less than a million dollars buy private health insurance.

> I would like to live in a society where there's no hard ceiling on what you can achieve if you have the competency and some luck

Then EU > US. In the EU most people have a shot at this, with free education and possibilities. In the US your chances are mostly tied to your parents' status.

> It feels like there's very little social mobility in Europe compared to the US

Maybe from middle class -> very rich. But from poor -> middle class Europe is absolutely better.

Based on what? The middle class in Europe is worse off than the middle class in the US. So mobility from poor to middle class in Europe is a low bar.

Define “worse” - in the eu they work less, have more vacation, better social safety net, great food transit, less crime less rape less murder, better healrhcare outcomes, and I think rank higher on happiness

In the us they might have more money (to then spend on healrhcare etc)

Which is “better”?

Mainly low income and unaffordable real estate (compared to the US)? I mean it depends, depending on where you live and where you go to crime is not necessarily such a big issue in the US. Healthcare outcomes are also heavily variable and depend a lot of income (and I’ not talking about the “1%”) but can be just as good or better in the US.

If you’re below the average (income/wealth wise) and have other disadvantages you might certainly be better off in Europe. Otherwise (inherited wealth aside) US might be a better place to be depending on your personal preferences and priorities.

There is not less crime across the board, the food has little diversity in individual countries and is completely subpar in certain countries (looking at UK).

The transit is trash anywhere that you can actually afford to own property. The healthcare outcomes you mentioned are going to need a citation because the middle class in the US generally has OK insurance.

For happiness, that’s vague and will need a citation. Putting the entire US on a comparison with individual EU countries is dumb, but that’s how it’s sliced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report where the US is beat by many EU countries and beats others (e.g. Spain and Italy).

> Which is “better”?

Probably the one with the most immigration.

>Then EU > US. In the EU most people have a shot at this, with free education and possibilities.

This comparison only works at birth, or maybe up to teens. We are, most likely, working professionals here. With a degree and fairly established position. Becoming a millionaire is still a monumental task. However at this baseline US is much easier.

Do an NPV calculation on the value of a solid pension at current interest rates. It'll be worth over a million.

Pretty easy really. But what does being a millionaire actually mean in terms of what you can do with your life?

Is your goal really “become a millionaire”? Not “have the ability to see the world” or “live in a nice house with kids an a dog”, just “have 7 figure on a spreadsheet of what I have managed to accumulate”

>just “have 7 figure on a spreadsheet of what I have managed to accumulate”

7 figure on a spreadsheet enables a lot.

An unregistered savings account in one of Canadian banks (just a point of reference, not sure if US has better) currently offers 4% yearly. That's 40k a year off the million. Enough to retire with kids in a LCOL country or travel year round as a nomad with a base in LCOL country.

Build a little bit more wealth and all those LCOL options turn into MCOL. E.g. northern Italy.

All while just being a working professional. It'd be unheard of in Europe to have this kind of options after just a couple years of work.

The mobility is still high for children from stable families.

> Then EU > US. In the EU most people have a shot at this, with free education and possibilities.

Not with very low salaries and even more unaffordable real estate than in the US. Yes jumping from “lower” to “middle” class seems to be generally easier in Europe but the likelihood that you’ll just get stuck there is much higher.

> In the US your chances are mostly tied to your parents' status

Inherited wealth is as if not more important in Europe. Because while yes free education etc. give you more possibilities the ceiling of how high can you go up on your own is also generally much lower.

> It feels like there's very little social mobility in Europe compared to the US.

What told you that? The median American is significantly less wealthy than the median Brit, despite similar homeowning rates and Americans having way more income. Most of Europe (plus the Anglo offshoots) have higher social mobility.

To what degree is that because of inherited wealth?

I’m not sure median wealth is a better indicator of social mobility than income.

When your friends, family, kids, are sick and unable to afford treatment or go bankrupt because of medical bills you may be singing a different tune unless you are either so totally selfish to ignore their plight or rich beyond millions to pay