He has now moved to the US with her. Her brother is a good friend of mine, and is incredibly irritated with his lack of drive and motivation. I've hiked with the guy, and I don't think he's lazy at all. He just doesn't value money, and his view on life is that he's going to teach school, and do whatever it takes to make his lifestyle match his income, rather than the other way around.
He told me that this is a cultural thing in New Zealand. Nobody pressures you to achieve a certain level of material success. The view is that if you are self-sufficient, then you've arrived. Nobody judges you for not being a "good provider."
Me, as an American, I envy this. I have tremendous pressure from my extended family to make money, so I do. (Plus, in this country, you can't have a decent school system and/or health insurance unless you have a good job)
I live here in New Zealand and thats quiet true. There are 3 billionaires in NZ and almost no one knows who they are. The only guy that is living a noticeable extravagant lifestyle is Kimdotcom, but that guy's german.
Maybe you are right and I am just cynical. But I have felt that some of these groups (with the exception of working class poor) are tolerated because of their success potential than for their status as individuals. And even with that a large number of people appear to disdainful of unsuccessful people in these fields.
And about the only people who seem to like the working class poor are politicians who see them as a voting bloc of sorts.
IMHO it's just a bit of cynicism.
Even those who "hate the poor" here don't hate the poor, they hate the lazy. They simply equate being lazy with being poor. But if you're poor and working (or even poor but not imposing on society) then even the right-wingers I'd know of would have tons of respect.
If anything the desire for status seems to be reviled more and more in America too.
(In this case for instance - living in the midwest puts me into contact with a very large number of people who's beliefs align nearly perfectly with the television narrative).
One thing you have to remember is that in general, Americans are culturally one of the most generous nations in the world. Broadly speaking, that includes foreign aid and domestic welfare as well as voluntary charity. But at that same time, the US is an industrious nation that prizes hard work. It's a fine line to walk and people fall through the cracks in the system.
Nevertheless, it's extremely uncharitable IMO to suggest that the poor are "hated" in America.
Broadly speaking, no, foreign aid given by the US is barely top 30 per capita.
[0] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/AmericanAttitu...
US ranks #21 in Foreign aid and is 1/5 Sweden.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-that-give-the-most-i...
Welfare # GDP US: 14.8 Sweden: 28.9
Giving we are #1 in monitary donations but it's only 1.85% of GDP in the US. http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income... "Based on volunteerism alone, the Netherlands comes first, followed by Sweden and then the U.S."
Both sides of the media play on peoples' emotions. The real question is: are you intellectually honest enough to entertain views and thoughts for their own merit without dismissing them flatly just because "they're from Fox", "John Stossel", or "Romney".
Not having won isn't the problem, it's being satisfied and not playing the game which society shuns.
The startup set are almost all wealthy, if not in assets then definitely in schooling, parenting, confidence. Where did all the most successful entrepreneurs grow up, go to school, what professions are their parents in. It's a pretty homogenous group really.
The poor are treated like shit in the US (and in most of the world), and their concerns and opinions mean nothing to those in power.
I think your perspective may be out of focus.
If you only could. The problem is that in the US a great portion of taxes are locally raised and spent, and the way of dealing with poverty is to price the poor out of areas where they aren't wanted.
To get access to halfway decent schools you need to move to the suburbs, and what's available there in housing is hugely outsized. You cannot save on heating, cooling, cleaning and enclosed space, nevermind the commute, because that economic option does not exist. So you bite the bullet with everyone else and you cannot choose not to play the game.
I, and many people I know are doing it. Of course, like anything worth doing, it takes hard work and dedication, but it certainly can be done.
If only. That would be a great form of funding community governance. Where local communities help themselves up, instead of practically begging for scraps from a wealthy government that really doesn't care until it gets them votes.
Change has to come from within. And it won't come so long as people think like you. i.e. "Change can come when funding comes from better places" Which completely ignores the real problems and real difficulties facing real people in those places you seem to not want to live in. Ask yourself why you don't want to live there.
Meanwhile any child unlucky enough to grow up poor is greated with decay and dysfunction at every turn, is never given the education nor the opportunities to succeed, or have interests much above basic survival. Upward mobility is basically zero. Welcome to feudal America.
We as a society can only share blame for one generation. The next one is on the parents.
As someone who has come from a poor family, I know full well what sacrifice and hard work can do to uplift your children's prospects in the world. Even if that means drastic life changes. And as a consequence of that, I will not accept peoples' excuses for remaining in poverty. Nor will I share the blame for their failings.
Kiwis are some of the warmest folks I have ever met. When my wife and I arrived at the airport our friends had forgotten which day we were arriving and had a 3 hour drive to get to us. The random woman who's phone we borrowed proceeded to argue with our friends over the phone about who's house we would stay at that night.
We saw similar hospitality everywhere we went. Its a stark contrast to the US.
Or when I was in a small town in Virginia with a friend, we were in a shop, and discussing whether the museum there would be open the next day. The shop assistant overheard and offered to call them for us. Even people in DC were wonderfully polite and friendly! So much so that I'm heading back for another holiday in a couple of weeks time.
Most have menial jobs just enough to get by with government assistance.
Yet everyone goes to Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico every year and they make nothing. I can see how all-inclusive vacations became so popular.
I work with 20-year-olds who laugh if they are sent home at work for doing something wrong or if sent home due to some issue at work. A few have travelled all over Europe, Australia, South America yet make nothing as a salary I probably make four times what they do but can't see how they can afford it let alone me.
People are OK with you if you pay your bills nobody freaks out or looks down on you if you aren't super successful or even if you don't work full-time.
> I probably make four times what they do but can't see how they can afford it let alone me.
I'm sorry to break it to you but you are paying for it through taxes. Ok, that's an over-generalisation but there is some truth to it. It's very easy to get by without a salary in Quebec due to the multitude of governmental services (I recall reading that over 50% of Quebec's economy is driven by the public sector). I have a friend who is on welfare and still manages to go to Cuba every year.
Personally, I'm a fan of the attitude (not caring too much about work/money) on an individual level. For a while, I was living the 3 months freelancing / 3 months vacation lifestyle and it was great. That being said, I'm not a fan of the governmental policies which promote it at the expense of other equally admirable attitudes (e.g. entrepreneurship/hard work). It's not all fun and roses. The economy of Quebec has been suffering a lot from those "big government" policies and Quebec has now become one of the poorest province in Canada despite its abundance of natural resources and highly educated population. Of course, I implied here that there is a cause and effect between those policies and the economy but not everyone would agree with me on this. In fact, a sizeable fraction of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_solidaire) actually advocates for economic degrowth... Ok, I'm definitely going off topic now.
[0] I think part of the issue is that in U.S. success is judged by how much money you have.
I have trouble here with the word "invested". There's nothing wrong with giving your children a good education, and there's nothing wrong with wanting them to be successful for themselves and on their own terms. But an "investment" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. An "investment" is something people expect a return on. Having your child do well in life is not a return to you on your "investment".
Look again at what JPKab wrote:
>> I envy [the lack of pressure in NZ]. I have tremendous pressure from my extended family to make money, so I do.
Someone who feels this way is not living their own life.
I work hard to make money and be successful too. But I don't do it because someone else wants me to. I do it because I want to, and I do it the way I want to do it. So I don't envy the bucolic New Zealand lifestyle. It's right for some people, I'm sure, but it would bore me to tears in a matter of days. (I'm not saying I couldn't live in NZ, but I would still want to do the kind of work I'm doing.)
I used strong language quite intentionally. JPKab needs to figure out what he/she really wants to do in life, and that's going to require putting an emotional wall up to block out all that pressure. It won't be easy, but the reward will be an authentic life.
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
This is similar to the way that European countries seem to lose out to the US in wages yet when you take into account the time spend on holidays and lack of overtime you see that the gap essentially disappears.
I genuinely think it's time for an overhaul of how we rate standard of living. Consumption is not a good measure, and it's too closely tied to "more money means better"
Where were you living? The hardcore 'bludgers' are a minority of our welfare claimants.
Your portrayal of NZ strikes me as lopsided, considering we're working longer and longer hours : http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7841749/No-rest-for-th...
Edit: Huh? Why the down vote?
The point of the post is that NZL has 20% below OECD average GDP per capita, when it would be predicted for them to be 20% above.
The key figure is Figure 3 from http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/internat...
In that, you can see NZL at the far bottom right.
On the other hand, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are all above the line, meaning they have higher GDP per capita than predicted. The only nordic country below the line is Denmark, and they are barely below the line.
So, you are saying that the nordic countries are similar, but the very paper this blog post is based on shows they are not at all economically similar.
Oil revenues make such comparisons tricky at best. You would need to consider the hypothetical case of a New Zealand with lots of oil to sell, or a Norway without any.
The nordic countries are known for high taxes, excellent social welfare benefits, free healthcare, free education, low crime, low corruption, high quality of life and so on.
Sure they have some big companies but with a few exceptions they aren't build on innovation nor entrepreneurship. Most large companies in the nordic countries are quite old and the new ones that start there quickly move to the US, England or Asia if they want to scale.
Pretty much sounds like NZ.