American Exceptionalism -- Interesting Article

[earthJoker]

Maybe he just wanted to test us. As he never answered to his own thread so far, he is probably just in front of his PC laughing at us.

[GGT]

That's what blows me away. What happened to Dread over the last few years anyway? Did he get beat up by a homeless person he was trying to give a taco to or what?

He graduated from an Ivy League school, started his professional career, bought property in Manhattan, and started paying real taxes. From his own pocket. Perfectly logical and predictable behavior that happens to everyone when they leave the nest and live in the real world--being conservative with their own money, and everyone else's. I'd have been more surprised if he came out of the gate as a flaming lib'rul.

[EyeKhan]

He graduated from an Ivy League school, started his professional career, bought property in Manhattan, and started paying real taxes. From his own pocket. Perfectly logical and predictable behavior that happens to everyone when they leave the nest and live in the real world--being conservative with their own money, and everyone else's. I'd have been more surprised if he came out of the gate as a flaming lib'rul.

It didn't happen to me.

[GGT]

You also didn't attend an Ivy League school or buy property in Manhattan before your 30th birthday. Did ya?

[EyeKhan]

You also didn't attend an Ivy League school or buy property in Manhattan before your 30th birthday. Did ya?

Becoming conservative like that, as you join coprporate American and mature into an adult, isn't inevitable; it's just easy.

[GGT]

How does that ditty go? Something along the lines of.....the young start out as idealists, then move into conservatism, by middle age are more liberal....it's a Republican/Democrat kind of 'joke'.

[earthJoker]

He graduated from an Ivy League school, started his professional career, bought property in Manhattan, and started paying real taxes. From his own pocket. Perfectly logical and predictable behavior that happens to everyone when they leave the nest and live in the real world--being conservative with their own money, and everyone else's. I'd have been more surprised if he came out of the gate as a flaming lib'rul.

I don't really agree there, but maybe it's a cultural thing. At least here, conservatives are usually the less educated, small business workers. People from Universities usually tend to be less conservative, at least in Europe...

[Hazir]

I don't really agree there, but maybe it's a cultural thing. At least here, conservatives are usually the less educated, small business workers. People from Universities usually tend to be less conservative, at least in Europe...

Well, it's not ideal here either. Considering the number of university graduates that vote for 'green' parties and the likes.

I have - at least I imagine myself to have been all my life - a fiscal conservative. But I also don't really believe in letting everybody fend for himself, because very often that just means a breakdown of civilization. I wouldn't want to live in a country where you can't afford not to live in a gated community because the people in the slum next door will rob you on the way home otherwise.

I do agree about Dread though, he swung from being slightly to the left of where I am to considerably to the right.

[LittleFuzzy]

The cost of LIVING, or the cost of living healthy and (or but ) illiterate (and miserable )??

I forget, how much does an education cost you, in the US? Or, you know, basic things like quality healthcare?

What level of education?

[LittleFuzzy]

Jesus Dread, when did you lose your soul? The first three or four paragraphs are just absolutely absurd. Stopped there assuming the rest of the article is equally ridiculous.

Actually they're not. I didn't read the full thing either, since it was quickly apparent it wouldn't be saying anything substantial which I hadn't seen before, but it's a fairly classic expression of the Jeffersonian school. And the general thrust of that school isn't really wrong in how it characterizes America development as being well outside the "norm" *there's frequently a claim that it's unique, which Hazir finds objecitonable, but it was certainly the path less trodden* particularly during the 18th and 19th centuries. I would maintain it has become steadily less true as the US has become more directly involved in global affairs, and as the world has changed really quite massively during the 20th century, which is why it's probably the smallest school these days, but since its is primarily interested in the ideals of that prior period, it does maintain relevance.

[EyeKhan]

Actually they're not. I didn't read the full thing either, since it was quickly apparent it wouldn't be saying anything substantial which I hadn't seen before, but it's a fairly classic expression of the Jeffersonian school. And the general thrust of that school isn't really wrong in how it characterizes America development as being well outside the "norm" *there's frequently a claim that it's unique, which Hazir finds objecitonable, but it was certainly the path less trodden* particularly during the 18th and 19th centuries. I would maintain it has become steadily less true as the US has become more directly involved in global affairs, and as the world has changed really quite massively during the 20th century, which is why it's probably the smallest school these days, but since its is primarily interested in the ideals of that prior period, it does maintain relevance.

Absurd stuff (IMO) bolded for clarifcation:

It’s almost a commonplace on the left that conservatives are “nihilists” for their opposition to President Obama. It’s opposition for opposition’s sake, an unprincipled exercise in partisan obstruction — mindless, toxic, destructive. When directed at Obama, “no” is an indefensible word, devoid of philosophical content.

Another, different charge has traditionally been leveled at conservatives — that they are “radicals.” This criticism was made of National Review right at the beginning. Conserva*tives want to tear down the state, overturn precedent, reverse the direction of history. They are imprudent and incautious in their pursuit of a blinkered ideological agenda, in other words fundamentally unconservative.

So conservatives get it coming and going. Our opposition to the Left is deemed nihilistic and our affirmative agenda radical. These dueling critiques point to a paradox at the heart of American conservatism. We aren’t Tories, concerned with preserving the prerogatives of an aristocratic elite or defending tradition at all costs. Instead, we’re advocates of the dynamism of an open society. Through most of human history and still in many places in the world, that would make us the opposite of conservatives. Not in America.

Note that some of what this dude says certainly applies to some conservatives. If you think of the traditional fiscal conservative, not so much. Religous conservatives, to be sure. Neo-cons? Absosmurfly. But I would never have regarded conservatives of any stripe as nihilists. They care, alright. Nor are they opposition for the sake of opposition. Its a calculated strategy to win back power, not some knee-jerk reaction to liberals

[Hazir]

Actually they're not. I didn't read the full thing either, since it was quickly apparent it wouldn't be saying anything substantial which I hadn't seen before, but it's a fairly classic expression of the Jeffersonian school. And the general thrust of that school isn't really wrong in how it characterizes America development as being well outside the "norm" *there's frequently a claim that it's unique, which Hazir finds objecitonable, but it was certainly the path less trodden* particularly during the 18th and 19th centuries. I would maintain it has become steadily less true as the US has become more directly involved in global affairs, and as the world has changed really quite massively during the 20th century, which is why it's probably the smallest school these days, but since its is primarily interested in the ideals of that prior period, it does maintain relevance.

America is only different in the way that it was further away from the main theatres of war in the 18th and 19th century. Even your civil war is not exactly out of step with developements in Europe. The partition of The Netherlands was fought largely over the same issues. But since you live by the rule that ignoring most of European history is ok just because the US no longer is a European power you'll never really understand your own country's history.

[Aimless]

What level of education?

Anything past highschool of course, we have already established that, up to that point, the education isn't worth paying for

[LittleFuzzy]

Absurd stuff (IMO) bolded for clarifcation:
commonplace on the left that conservatives are “nihilists” for their opposition to President Obama. It’s opposition for opposition’s sake, an unprincipled exercise in partisan obstruction — mindless, toxic, destructive. When directed at Obama, “no” is an indefensible word, devoid of philosophical content.

Another, different charge has traditionally been leveled at conservatives — that they are “radicals.
Conserva*tives want to tear down the state, overturn precedent, reverse the direction of history.

Meaningless window-dressing. Boilerplate for the magazine the article was published in, it has nothing to do with the substantive ideas discussed in the article, though the last bolded section "We aren’t Tories, concerned with preserving the prerogatives of an aristocratic elite or defending tradition at all costs. Instead, we’re advocates of the dynamism of an open society" does.

[EyeKhan]

Meaningless window-dressing. Boilerplate for the magazine the article was published in, it has nothing to do with the substantive ideas discussed in the article, though the last bolded section "We aren’t Tories, concerned with preserving the prerogatives of an aristocratic elite or defending tradition at all costs. Instead, we’re advocates of the dynamism of an open society" does.

I didn't get past the window-dressing. It was too ridiculous.

[LittleFuzzy]

Anything past highschool of course, we have already established that, up to that point, the education isn't worth paying for

Then there isn't any general answer. Different levels of post-secondary education have radically different costs, and areas of education also alter the final costs. And then there's "value-added" for just what school you go to, a value which may or may not be meaningful. Most state colleges cost between $3500 to $5500 a year, in fees, books, and other expenses related solely to pursuing an education, for 4-year degree program. That doesn't count things like housing, insurance, etc. A number of states have a two-tier university system and the upper tier generally charges about twice that. Costs at private schools are all over the place, with the most expensive going as high $30-40,000 a year in tuition and other educational costs.

[GGT]

Last semester (13 credit hours) at a Penn State extension was $6,000, in-state resident rate. Books and housing extra.

[Loki]

The cost of a university in Britain is 3,000 pounds a year, which works out to about $5,000. That's also roughly the average cost of public 4-year universities. Many states also have various grants for in-state students that reduce that amount by a substantial margin.

[Ominous Gamer]

Average yearly cost of a public 4-year university is over $7000, over $11,000 for out of state.

[Loki]

Ah, the numbers must have included all public universities. $7,000 is still not significantly different to the cost of British universities, especially when you include all the in-state grants.

[Steely Glint]

It's a bit silly and misleading to try and compare the cost of living in the United States with the cost of living in "Europe", which least anyone forget is still a group of separate nations.

[Loki]

It's a bit silly and misleading to try and compare the cost of living in the United States with the cost of living in "Europe", which least anyone forget is still a group of separate nations.

The cost of living is higher in every wealthy country in Europe (i.e. France, Britain, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy). In fact, given the likelihood of capital flight within the EU if prices were substantially different, the US probably has a lower cost of living than any EU country in Western Europe.

[Steely Glint]

Feel free to justify that statement any time you like.

I just made the observation since you were talking about cost of attending university in GB vs the US, whereas many European nations (i.e. Scandinavian ones) don't charge students anything for higher education.

[Khendraja'aro]

Hell, Finland even pays them to study.

[Steely Glint]

Fun game:

Look at this:

http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr#top_50

Look at the 2009 ranking of London. Look at the 2009 ranking of New York.

Then look at the 2008 ranking of London, and the 2008 ranking of New York.

Then think about the differences between the cost of living in, say, Alabama and New York and between London and, say, rural Yorkshire.

Then think about how meaningful it is, really, to make statements like "Country X has a higher cost of living than Country Y". Then remember that Country Y isn't even a country, but a group of countries with difference policies on education, health-care, tax, etc. Then remember that Country X is a political union which grants significant autonomy to it's constituent states.

[Loki]

Look at the 2009 ranking of London. Look at the 2009 ranking of New York.

Then look at the 2008 ranking of London, and the 2008 ranking of New York.

Then think about the differences between the cost of living in, say, Alabama and New York and between London and, say, rural Yorkshire.

Then think about how meaningful it is, really, to make statements like "Country X has a higher cost of living than Country Y". Then remember that Country Y isn't even a country, but a group of countries with difference policies on education, health-care, tax, etc. Then remember that Country X is a political union which grants significant autonomy to it's constituent states.

There are other studies that put the cost of living in London as being higher than in NYC. More importantly, there is a much bigger difference in prices between NYC and the rest of the country than there is between London and the rest of the country. The number is easy enough to calculate by the way. Look at the nominal GDP per capita and then the GDP per capita in PPP. Then calculate the difference (in percent) between them. The two figures for the US and UK are:

US: $46k (nominal), $46k (PPP)
UK: $36k (nominal), $35k (PPP)

That means that the cost of living in the UK is about 3% higher than in the US (and that's probably because the pound fell, thereby decreasing ithe nominal GDP per capita). The above also means that average American could buy about a quarter more products than a UK citizen. When you include the fact that taxes are substantially lower in the US, you see that Americans have substantially more spending power than Brits.

[Steely Glint]

And does that also take into account the extra services taxes in the UK pay for, and thus the UK citizen doesn't have to pay for themselves? E.g. health care, or in Finland, health care and higher education?

[Loki]

And does that also take into account the extra services taxes in the UK pay for, and thus the UK citizen doesn't have to pay for themselves? E.g. health care, or in Finland, health care and higher education?

No, it doesn't, but are you going to claim that it costs the average American $15-20k to get those services (the difference in spending power when taxes are taken into account)? Keep in mind that according to OG's link, the cost of a public undergrad education (in a 4-year university) is $1,600 a year once grants are counted. Also, most American get their health insurance through their job, which means they don't have to pay extra for it.

[Khendraja'aro]

Say, wouldn't the median be a bit more representative than the average?

[Loki]

Say, wouldn't the median be a bit more representative than the average?

No, it wouldn't be more representative of the average; the average is more representative of the average.

Here's a pretty chart with median household income though (adjusted for purchasing power):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

US - $50k
UK - $39k