OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[musiqsoulchild]

Quick update for my Bulls fam....

My father has been in the hospital for the past week. The virus seemed to hit him really hard, he would lose his breathe after a couple minutes of talking, had zero appetite, and was very fatigued. The hospital put him on hydrochloroquine and stopped on the fourth day after it seemed to be doing more harm than good. He has seemed to improve somewhat, he’s regained an appetite... but his lungs don’t look good at all. They plan on attempting plasma treatments starting Monday. It’s a tough situation with him stuck in the hospital with zero visitation. Keeping fingers crossed.

It hit me really hard the past week. Like my father, I had zero appetite and became winded very easily. Mostly for me, it’s been fatigue. I find myself sleeping all day and all night. It’s like a flu on steroids that just won’t loosen its grip on me. I’ll have a few hours where I think “okay, I’m feeling better, maybe I’m finally getting over this” followed by more days of “flu”.....

This sh*t sucks and if you can take precautions to keep away from people and places that increase the chances of catching it, do so.

Anyways Bullsfam.... stay safe and take it easy.

Will update when time and energy allows.

Pulling for you, your dad and your family.

Stay strong brother. Positivity will get you out of this quickly and safely.

[Dresden]

Not surprising but still dumbfounding how ill prepared and in denial the Trump people were:

U.S. Turned Down Offer To Manufacture Millions Of N95 Masks As Coronavirus Spread
Sebastian Murdock
HuffPostMay 9, 2020, 11:03 AM PDT

A company that offered to make life-saving protective masks as the coronavirus began its spread across the U.S. in January was snubbed by government officials.

Michael Bowen, the owner of medical supply company Prestige Ameritech, told the Department of Health and Human Services that he could begin producing 1.7 million N95 masks a week, only to be denied, The Washington Post first reported.

“We still have four like-new N95 manufacturing lines,” Bowen emailed a top HHS official on Jan. 22, the day the first coronavirus case was detected in the country. “Reactivating these machines would be very difficult and very expensive but could be achieved in a dire situation.”

Laura Wolf, director of the agency’s Division of Critical Infrastructure Protection, responded that the government wasn’t “anywhere near answering those questions for you yet” in response to Bowen’s offer.

“We are the last major domestic mask company,” Bowen emailed the next day. “My phones are ringing now, so I don’t ‘need’ government business. I’m just letting you know that I can help you preserve our infrastructure if things ever get really bad. I’m a patriot first, businessman second.”

The new revelation is part of an 89-page whistleblower complaint from former federal vaccine chief Rick Bright, who alleges he was removed from his position as retaliation for his early warnings about the pandemic and his refusal to make “potentially harmful drugs” to combat the virus.

The newly revealed emails also show that Bright attempted to warn agency leaders about mask shortages, citing Bowen’s offer. But the offer fell “on deaf ears,” Bright told Bowen in an email.

“U.S. mask supply is at imminent risk,” Bowen replied. “Rick, I think we’re in deep ****.”

[MrSparkle]

Quick update for my Bulls fam....

My father has been in the hospital for the past week. The virus seemed to hit him really hard, he would lose his breathe after a couple minutes of talking, had zero appetite, and was very fatigued. The hospital put him on hydrochloroquine and stopped on the fourth day after it seemed to be doing more harm than good. He has seemed to improve somewhat, he’s regained an appetite... but his lungs don’t look good at all. They plan on attempting plasma treatments starting Monday. It’s a tough situation with him stuck in the hospital with zero visitation. Keeping fingers crossed.

It hit me really hard the past week. Like my father, I had zero appetite and became winded very easily. Mostly for me, it’s been fatigue. I find myself sleeping all day and all night. It’s like a flu on steroids that just won’t loosen its grip on me. I’ll have a few hours where I think “okay, I’m feeling better, maybe I’m finally getting over this” followed by more days of “flu”.....

This sh*t sucks and if you can take precautions to keep away from people and places that increase the chances of catching it, do so.

Anyways Bullsfam.... stay safe and take it easy.

Will update when time and energy allows.

Hoping you two recover soon.

[Dresden]

As of a few months ago, the median household in the US:
- Has healthcare
- Has access to whatever goods they want at a cheap price
- Makes $43,000 per year
- Is free to move, change jobs, etc. as they see fit

UK: $31,000
Germany: $33,000
France: $31,000
Italy: $23,000
Spain: $22,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gross_median_household_income_by_country

That's not even getting into the fact that they pay more for goods and services.

The half truth of these socialist societies is that they for the large part take care of lower income people by crushing their middle class. No one ever says this when talking about it. By pointing out the benefits of these systems for lower income people while not pointing out just how much the middle will sacrifice is rather disingenuous. I don't blame Dresden or any other individual because I read it so much its a mantra but its not the full story.

The real challenge is trying to figure out a system where we can have our cake and eat it too. Help lower income earners while not asking the middle class to take a 25% reduction in standard of living. I think its possible but it would be difficult and involves a lot of things that neither democrats nor republicans like.

As that article pointed out, these societies aren't "socialist", which generally implies state owned industry and little if any private property. That term gets used a lot to describe countries like Denmark because people are loath to admit that there may be a different way of "doing capitalism" than the US model.

As that article also pointed out, even though McDonalds employees make $22/hr (adding in benefits), a Big Mac there only costs about 27 cents more than it does here.

It also points out that Danes earn about the same as Americans after taxes, but that they have to work 22% fewer hours to make that income. Think about that for a moment. Not to mention 6 weeks paid vacation. Free education through college. Free health care for life, for everyone.

There are a few other things you failed to mention that were mentioned:

Danes are happier than people in the US. So despite their "crippling" taxes, as they are characterized, Danes are happier! They aren't being crushed by their responsibilities to their fellow Danes. They also have a much higher approval rating of their government.

And they live longer! On average two years longer.

And if you think things are working so well for people in the US, we have a poverty rate 6 times that of Denmark. 6 times! And "Finnish children are only one-third as likely to die by the age of 5, and that Finnish women are one-fifth as likely to die in childbirth."

Your argument seems to be that Denmarks system works better for the poor, but for everyone else, Americans are better off. I just don't think that's a valid argument based on some of the facts I listed above. Denmark scores 7.6 compared to the USA's 6.9 on the OECD scale of life satisfaction. If things were are bad for the middle class as you claim, that they are overburdened by taxes and can't afford to buy what they want, why would they claim to be happier?

These sorts of indices are of course subjective, but along with the other measurements- working fewer hours, better access to health care and education, longer life expectancies, less poverty- it's pretty hard to find an argument that Denmark's success is nothing but "one of the biggest lies in the world".

I had an earlier post specifically on Denmark. Regardless, I agree with those noting that Denmark is half the size of Chicago and completely supported and isolated by the EU. Countries like them and Finland are in tiny, happy little bubbles dependent on other nations doing the heavy global lifting and 90 to 99% of the population is one race. Its not comparable. Might as well say that we should follow the Luxembourg national model.

Those larger european countries are at least in the ballpark of the US.

Now you seem to be changing your argument. First it was- Denmark may by good for poor people, but the middle class is getting crushed. I showed that wasn't true by pointing out some statistics. So now the argument shifts to- well, it may be fine for Denmark, because they are very small, very homogenous, and are supported by the EU. Which is it?

And by the way, Denmark is a net contributor to the EU....https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318

[dice]

As that article pointed out, these societies aren't "socialist", which generally implies state owned industry and little if any private property. That term gets used a lot to describe countries like Denmark because people are loath to admit that there may be a different way of "doing capitalism" than the US model.

As that article also pointed out, even though McDonalds employees make $22/hr (adding in benefits), a Big Mac there only costs about 27 cents more than it does here.

It also points out that Danes earn about the same as Americans after taxes, but that they have to work 22% fewer hours to make that income. Think about that for a moment. Not to mention 6 weeks paid vacation. Free education through college. Free health care for life, for everyone.

There are a few other things you failed to mention that were mentioned:

Danes are happier than people in the US. So despite their "crippling" taxes, as they are characterized, Danes are happier! They aren't being crushed by their responsibilities to their fellow Danes. They also have a much higher approval rating of their government.

And they live longer! On average two years longer.

And if you think things are working so well for people in the US, we have a poverty rate 6 times that of Denmark. 6 times! And "Finnish children are only one-third as likely to die by the age of 5, and that Finnish women are one-fifth as likely to die in childbirth."

Your argument seems to be that Denmarks system works better for the poor, but for everyone else, Americans are better off. I just don't think that's a valid argument based on some of the facts I listed above. Denmark scores 7.6 compared to the USA's 6.9 on the OECD scale of life satisfaction. If things were are bad for the middle class as you claim, that they are overburdened by taxes and can't afford to buy what they want, why would they claim to be happier?

These sorts of indices are of course subjective, but along with the other measurements- working fewer hours, better access to health care and education, longer life expectancies, less poverty- it's pretty hard to find an argument that Denmark's success is nothing but "one of the biggest lies in the world".

I had an earlier post specifically on Denmark. Regardless, I agree with those noting that Denmark is half the size of Chicago and completely supported and isolated by the EU. Countries like them and Finland are in tiny, happy little bubbles dependent on other nations doing the heavy global lifting and 90 to 99% of the population is one race. Its not comparable. Might as well say that we should follow the Luxembourg national model.

Those larger european countries are at least in the ballpark of the US.

Now you seem to be changing your argument. First it was- Denmark may by good for poor people, but the middle class is getting crushed. I showed that wasn't true by pointing out some statistics. So now the argument shifts to- well, it may be fine for Denmark, because they are very small, very homogenous, and are supported by the EU. Which is it?

And by the way, Denmark is a net contributor to the EU....https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318

somebody explain to me why level of ethnic homogeneity should have anything to do with public policy. minorities aren't as well off and thus more of them means more of a burden on the system? isn't that exactly what a larger safety net is designed to partly remedy in the long-term?

when it comes to health care, we would certainly be spending less money on care for the poor with a single payer provider negotiating prices on behalf of hundreds of millions of people

[coldfish]

As that article pointed out, these societies aren't "socialist", which generally implies state owned industry and little if any private property. That term gets used a lot to describe countries like Denmark because people are loath to admit that there may be a different way of "doing capitalism" than the US model.

As that article also pointed out, even though McDonalds employees make $22/hr (adding in benefits), a Big Mac there only costs about 27 cents more than it does here.

It also points out that Danes earn about the same as Americans after taxes, but that they have to work 22% fewer hours to make that income. Think about that for a moment. Not to mention 6 weeks paid vacation. Free education through college. Free health care for life, for everyone.

There are a few other things you failed to mention that were mentioned:

Danes are happier than people in the US. So despite their "crippling" taxes, as they are characterized, Danes are happier! They aren't being crushed by their responsibilities to their fellow Danes. They also have a much higher approval rating of their government.

And they live longer! On average two years longer.

And if you think things are working so well for people in the US, we have a poverty rate 6 times that of Denmark. 6 times! And "Finnish children are only one-third as likely to die by the age of 5, and that Finnish women are one-fifth as likely to die in childbirth."

Your argument seems to be that Denmarks system works better for the poor, but for everyone else, Americans are better off. I just don't think that's a valid argument based on some of the facts I listed above. Denmark scores 7.6 compared to the USA's 6.9 on the OECD scale of life satisfaction. If things were are bad for the middle class as you claim, that they are overburdened by taxes and can't afford to buy what they want, why would they claim to be happier?

These sorts of indices are of course subjective, but along with the other measurements- working fewer hours, better access to health care and education, longer life expectancies, less poverty- it's pretty hard to find an argument that Denmark's success is nothing but "one of the biggest lies in the world".

I had an earlier post specifically on Denmark. Regardless, I agree with those noting that Denmark is half the size of Chicago and completely supported and isolated by the EU. Countries like them and Finland are in tiny, happy little bubbles dependent on other nations doing the heavy global lifting and 90 to 99% of the population is one race. Its not comparable. Might as well say that we should follow the Luxembourg national model.

Those larger european countries are at least in the ballpark of the US.

Now you seem to be changing your argument. First it was- Denmark may by good for poor people, but the middle class is getting crushed. I showed that wasn't true by pointing out some statistics. So now the argument shifts to- well, it may be fine for Denmark, because they are very small, very homogenous, and are supported by the EU. Which is it?

And by the way, Denmark is a net contributor to the EU....https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318

If you look, the original reply didn't even mention Denmark.

As far as Denmark contributing or not, they have a very small, high skill specialized workforce. Monetarily they may contribute but if they were forced to be on their own and have a varied economy, they wouldn't be able to maintain their standard of living. Beyond that, they benefit from the Canada factor. They only share a border with Germany which is a pretty great deal. That improves their immigration and security situation to the point where they can pick and choose who comes in their country. Its a huge benefit that most larger nations are not afforded. That's where the "happy little bubble" comment comes from.

Its really not a comparable situation. The bigger countries like Germany, France, Italy and Spain are all 1/5 the size of the US but at least they are in the ballpark which is why I compared them.

[coldfish]

somebody explain to me why level of ethnic homogeneity should have anything to do with public policy. minorities aren't as well off and thus more of them means more of a burden on the system? isn't that exactly what a larger safety net is designed to partly remedy in the long-term?

Ethnic homogeneity is a sign of lack of immigration. In the long term, immigration is great. It keeps the population growing, brings in people willing to do lower skill work. Often brings in people willing to take risks. The US was built on the backs of immigrants.

In the short term, immigration is a problem particularly if its uncontrolled. You exacerbate crime issues, security, education, etc. If you have a social safety net you have a cost issue there too. Hell, I'm part irish. I have no issues admitting that when irish came to the US we were a royal pain in the ass and it caused all kinds of problems.

Beyond that, some nations get their immigrants through uncontrolled border movement. The US, France, Italy, Germany, etc. have had to deal with that. Other nations get to pick and choose who comes in, where they come in and when they come in. That's a massive advantage because you get to screen people and those immigrants likely have greater resources from the get go. Denmark, Canada and a few other nations benefit from this phenomenon.

[Dresden]

somebody explain to me why level of ethnic homogeneity should have anything to do with public policy. minorities aren't as well off and thus more of them means more of a burden on the system? isn't that exactly what a larger safety net is designed to partly remedy in the long-term?

when it comes to health care, we would certainly be spending less money on care for the poor with a single payer provider negotiating prices on behalf of hundreds of millions of people

I'll tell you why it's a problem- because the majority population- in the case of the US that would white people- balk at introducing more social programs because they have been brainwashed by politicians into believing that these programs will be abused by people of color and by immigrants. It's a form of racial and xenophobic politics, that is practiced particularly cruelly by the GOP, although both parties have dabbled in it throughout our history.

[Dresden]

I had an earlier post specifically on Denmark. Regardless, I agree with those noting that Denmark is half the size of Chicago and completely supported and isolated by the EU. Countries like them and Finland are in tiny, happy little bubbles dependent on other nations doing the heavy global lifting and 90 to 99% of the population is one race. Its not comparable. Might as well say that we should follow the Luxembourg national model.

Those larger european countries are at least in the ballpark of the US.

Now you seem to be changing your argument. First it was- Denmark may by good for poor people, but the middle class is getting crushed. I showed that wasn't true by pointing out some statistics. So now the argument shifts to- well, it may be fine for Denmark, because they are very small, very homogenous, and are supported by the EU. Which is it?

And by the way, Denmark is a net contributor to the EU....https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318

If you look, the original reply didn't even mention Denmark.

As far as Denmark contributing or not, they have a very small, high skill specialized workforce. Monetarily they may contribute but if they were forced to be on their own and have a varied economy, they wouldn't be able to maintain their standard of living. Beyond that, they benefit from the Canada factor. They only share a border with Germany which is a pretty great deal. That improves their immigration and security situation to the point where they can pick and choose who comes in their country. Its a huge benefit that most larger nations are not afforded. That's where the "happy little bubble" comment comes from.

Its really not a comparable situation. The bigger countries like Germany, France, Italy and Spain are all 1/5 the size of the US but at least they are in the ballpark which is why I compared them.

To my original post about Denmark, and how much better they were coping with the pandemic than Sweden is, you started your reply by stating "Denmark is one of the world's biggest lies".

Also, you might be surprised to know that according to 2019 figures, the net migration level into both Denmark (3.8) and Canada (7.1) was higher than the US's (3.2).

As for having a highly specialized workforce- yes, that's because, as the article I posted illustrates, they spend a great deal of money providing good education and childcare for their people, which means they can grow up to be productive members of society. That specialized work force is a result of smart social planning, it's not something they were born with. And they rely on trade and participation in the larger European and world economy to bring them the things they don't produce themselves. Why is that any sort of an argument against their style of society?

[coldfish]

To my original post about Denmark, and how much better they were coping with the pandemic than Sweden is, you started your reply by stating "Denmark is one of the world's biggest lies".

Also, you might be surprised to know that according to 2019 figures, the net migration level into both Denmark (3.8) and Canada (7.1) was higher than the US's (3.2).

As for having a highly specialized workforce- yes, that's because, as the article I posted illustrates, they spend a great deal of money providing good education and childcare for their people, which means they can grow up to be productive members of society. That specialized work force is a result of smart social planning, it's not something they were born with. And they rely on trade and participation in the larger European and world economy to bring them the things they don't produce themselves. Why is that any sort of an argument against their style of society?

Why don't we draw an arbitrary dotted line around Greenwich Connecticut evaluate them and copy them? Average income is through the roof, people are happier, they put 10's of thousands of dollars per student into their education, everyone has a job, etc. Why don't we just implement the Greenwich economic plan everywhere?

The answer is because we can't. Greenwich (like Denmark) gets its income by servicing lower income areas with skilled labor and capital. That's a lot of what I meant by them being a "lie". They aren't some socialist haven. They are an aggressive capitalist region who shares some of the wealth locally. Small areas can pull this off and the US has many of them.

When people pick out small countries in europe, they are effectively cherry picking because the populations are so small. Again, Denmark has roughly half the population as the Chicago metro area. Its really the same as picking out a rich US zipcode and saying "hey, let's everyone do that!!!"

As far as the education spending, the US spends a ton. Our issues with education is another topic. If we matched the OECD average, it would be a massive cut in spending.

[johnnyvann840]

To my original post about Denmark, and how much better they were coping with the pandemic than Sweden is, you started your reply by stating "Denmark is one of the world's biggest lies".

Also, you might be surprised to know that according to 2019 figures, the net migration level into both Denmark (3.8) and Canada (7.1) was higher than the US's (3.2).

As for having a highly specialized workforce- yes, that's because, as the article I posted illustrates, they spend a great deal of money providing good education and childcare for their people, which means they can grow up to be productive members of society. That specialized work force is a result of smart social planning, it's not something they were born with. And they rely on trade and participation in the larger European and world economy to bring them the things they don't produce themselves. Why is that any sort of an argument against their style of society?

Why don't we draw an arbitrary dotted line around Greenwich Connecticut evaluate them and copy them? Average income is through the roof, people are happier, they put 10's of thousands of dollars per student into their education, everyone has a job, etc. Why don't we just implement the Greenwich economic plan everywhere?

The answer is because we can't. Greenwich (like Denmark) gets its income by servicing lower income areas with skilled labor and capital. That's a lot of what I meant by them being a "lie". They aren't some socialist haven. They are an aggressive capitalist region who shares some of the wealth locally. Small areas can pull this off and the US has many of them.

When people pick out small countries in europe, they are effectively cherry picking because the populations are so small. Again, Denmark has roughly half the population as the Chicago metro area. Its really the same as picking out a rich US zipcode and saying "hey, let's everyone do that!!!"

As far as the education spending, the US spends a ton. Our issues with education is another topic. If we matched the OECD average, it would be a massive cut in spending.

Exactly.

Also, the demographics of Greenwich are similar to Denmark, with very few minorities and people who didn't have to fight for basic human rights. And, yes, it matters when looking at the demographics of the USA, where we have many people who were born into poverty.

[johnnyvann840]

Now you seem to be changing your argument. First it was- Denmark may by good for poor people, but the middle class is getting crushed. I showed that wasn't true by pointing out some statistics. So now the argument shifts to- well, it may be fine for Denmark, because they are very small, very homogenous, and are supported by the EU. Which is it?

And by the way, Denmark is a net contributor to the EU....https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318

If you look, the original reply didn't even mention Denmark.

As far as Denmark contributing or not, they have a very small, high skill specialized workforce. Monetarily they may contribute but if they were forced to be on their own and have a varied economy, they wouldn't be able to maintain their standard of living. Beyond that, they benefit from the Canada factor. They only share a border with Germany which is a pretty great deal. That improves their immigration and security situation to the point where they can pick and choose who comes in their country. Its a huge benefit that most larger nations are not afforded. That's where the "happy little bubble" comment comes from.

Its really not a comparable situation. The bigger countries like Germany, France, Italy and Spain are all 1/5 the size of the US but at least they are in the ballpark which is why I compared them.

To my original post about Denmark, and how much better they were coping with the pandemic than Sweden is, you started your reply by stating "Denmark is one of the world's biggest lies".

Also, you might be surprised to know that according to 2019 figures, the net migration level into both Denmark (3.8) and Canada (7.1) was higher than the US's (3.2).

As for having a highly specialized workforce- yes, that's because, as the article I posted illustrates, they spend a great deal of money providing good education and childcare for their people, which means they can grow up to be productive members of society. That specialized work force is a result of smart social planning, it's not something they were born with. And they rely on trade and participation in the larger European and world economy to bring them the things they don't produce themselves. Why is that any sort of an argument against their style of society?

Denmark should be more like Alaska. Hell, Alaskans have handled the pandemic better than almost any country in the World. ......... The entire state of Alaska has only had 378 cases and just 10 deaths to date.

Spoiler:

Or, maybe it's because of so many other factors that have nothing to do with politics or the healthcare system in place.

[dougthonus]

I don't know what your definition of a housing crisis is, but they've been describing our housing market here in SF as such for several decades now. People cannot afford to pay rent, let alone buy a house. Median 1 BR apt is something around 3K. To be able to afford a house in SF, you need to make around 250K. It especially hits low wage earners. How can you possibly afford housing on 40K a year, when you have to pay 36K on rent? Even split with a partner, it's very tough.

Any new housing that gets built is typically at market rate, which means unaffordable for lots and lots of people. The suburbs are cheaper, but not by that much.

Don't live in SF?

There are lots of things I can't afford to do, that doesn't make any of those things a crisis. Not being able to afford to live in an extremely desirable city is not a crisis.

[Dresden]

I don't know what your definition of a housing crisis is, but they've been describing our housing market here in SF as such for several decades now. People cannot afford to pay rent, let alone buy a house. Median 1 BR apt is something around 3K. To be able to afford a house in SF, you need to make around 250K. It especially hits low wage earners. How can you possibly afford housing on 40K a year, when you have to pay 36K on rent? Even split with a partner, it's very tough.

Any new housing that gets built is typically at market rate, which means unaffordable for lots and lots of people. The suburbs are cheaper, but not by that much.

Don't live in SF?

There are lots of things I can't afford to do, that doesn't make any of those things a crisis. Not being able to afford to live in an extremely desirable city is not a crisis.

It may not be a crisis for you, or for anyone who doesn't live here or wants to move here, but it is a crisis for SF. We have a lot of wealthy people here, but we also need people to work in the fancy restaurants those people like to go to. We need teachers, we need construction workers, we need janitors, policemen and coffee shop owners. SF is hemorrhaging good teachers, because they can't afford to find a place to live.

San Francisco wants to maintain a diverse population, we don't want to be a city just for the rich. And to do that we need affordable housing, we need more housing period. So if a lot of office space suddenly went un-rented, it might free up a lot of already built spaces for people to live in. That was my whole point.

[Dresden]

To my original post about Denmark, and how much better they were coping with the pandemic than Sweden is, you started your reply by stating "Denmark is one of the world's biggest lies".

Also, you might be surprised to know that according to 2019 figures, the net migration level into both Denmark (3.8) and Canada (7.1) was higher than the US's (3.2).

As for having a highly specialized workforce- yes, that's because, as the article I posted illustrates, they spend a great deal of money providing good education and childcare for their people, which means they can grow up to be productive members of society. That specialized work force is a result of smart social planning, it's not something they were born with. And they rely on trade and participation in the larger European and world economy to bring them the things they don't produce themselves. Why is that any sort of an argument against their style of society?

Why don't we draw an arbitrary dotted line around Greenwich Connecticut evaluate them and copy them? Average income is through the roof, people are happier, they put 10's of thousands of dollars per student into their education, everyone has a job, etc. Why don't we just implement the Greenwich economic plan everywhere?

The answer is because we can't. Greenwich (like Denmark) gets its income by servicing lower income areas with skilled labor and capital. That's a lot of what I meant by them being a "lie". They aren't some socialist haven. They are an aggressive capitalist region who shares some of the wealth locally. Small areas can pull this off and the US has many of them.

When people pick out small countries in europe, they are effectively cherry picking because the populations are so small. Again, Denmark has roughly half the population as the Chicago metro area. Its really the same as picking out a rich US zipcode and saying "hey, let's everyone do that!!!"

As far as the education spending, the US spends a ton. Our issues with education is another topic. If we matched the OECD average, it would be a massive cut in spending.

Does the govt. of Greenwich CT provide all the services that Denmark does? Do they provide free education for everyone who lives there, free healthcare, 6 weeks paid vacation, guaranteed paid sick leave? If they did, then you might have a point.

Greenwich CT is also basically a haven for people who made their money in NYC. You can't say the same thing about Denmark. They have a working economy in Denmark- it isn't just a suburb where rich Berliners live. Denmark isn't so privileged either- they aren't a super rich country. They have made themselves into a very nice place to live because of how they've structured their society. they have invested in human capital. They've provided safety nets for those who need it.

I don't see any valid reason those things can't be scaled up to a larger population. Social security works very well here- it has lifted millions of elderly out of poverty. Medicare is another successful social program.

There is enough money in the US to do these things, if we wanted to. It would just mean changing our tax policies to direct more money from the wealthy towards social programs that help everyone. Many of these programs are actually cost effective. It's very expensive to keep someone in prison for years and years. It's very expensive to deal with the homeless- here in SF, we spend over 400 million per year on the homeless problem. People point out how many trillions Bernie Sanders' medicare for all will cost the govt., but his answer is that we're actually spending more than that on health care as it is, it's just not coming from the govt.

So it's not a question of money, it's a question of how we allocate the wealth that our society produces. We have a country where the top 1% controls 38% of the wealth. If that were evened out, everyone else could have a much better quality of life.

You started out arguing that Denmark's system is crushing the middle class. It isn't. It just makes it harder for the average person to become very wealthy. But it makes it much easier for the other 99% to have a good life.

[Dresden]

If you look, the original reply didn't even mention Denmark.

As far as Denmark contributing or not, they have a very small, high skill specialized workforce. Monetarily they may contribute but if they were forced to be on their own and have a varied economy, they wouldn't be able to maintain their standard of living. Beyond that, they benefit from the Canada factor. They only share a border with Germany which is a pretty great deal. That improves their immigration and security situation to the point where they can pick and choose who comes in their country. Its a huge benefit that most larger nations are not afforded. That's where the "happy little bubble" comment comes from.

Its really not a comparable situation. The bigger countries like Germany, France, Italy and Spain are all 1/5 the size of the US but at least they are in the ballpark which is why I compared them.

To my original post about Denmark, and how much better they were coping with the pandemic than Sweden is, you started your reply by stating "Denmark is one of the world's biggest lies".

Also, you might be surprised to know that according to 2019 figures, the net migration level into both Denmark (3.8) and Canada (7.1) was higher than the US's (3.2).

As for having a highly specialized workforce- yes, that's because, as the article I posted illustrates, they spend a great deal of money providing good education and childcare for their people, which means they can grow up to be productive members of society. That specialized work force is a result of smart social planning, it's not something they were born with. And they rely on trade and participation in the larger European and world economy to bring them the things they don't produce themselves. Why is that any sort of an argument against their style of society?

Denmark should be more like Alaska. Hell, Alaskans have handled the pandemic better than almost any country in the World. ......... The entire state of Alaska has only had 378 cases and just 10 deaths to date.

Spoiler:

Or, maybe it's because of so many other factors that have nothing to do with politics or the healthcare system in place.

In Alaska, it definitely is due to factors other than politics or health care systems- it has to do with population density. You can't say the same thing about Denmark, which is very densely populated.

This whole discussion took off because there have been people saying we should be more like Sweden, and not close down society to stop the pandemic. When in fact, we should be more like Denmark, which has far fewer deaths than Sweden, and who's economy is going to rebound better than Sweden's despite being closed down. You can't just throw up your hands and say "well, there's nothing to be learned here- look at how well Alaska is doing". In fact, there is plenty to learn, and how each country has responded to the virus has a lot to do with it's impact on their citizens.

[Dresden]

To my original post about Denmark, and how much better they were coping with the pandemic than Sweden is, you started your reply by stating "Denmark is one of the world's biggest lies".

Also, you might be surprised to know that according to 2019 figures, the net migration level into both Denmark (3.8) and Canada (7.1) was higher than the US's (3.2).

As for having a highly specialized workforce- yes, that's because, as the article I posted illustrates, they spend a great deal of money providing good education and childcare for their people, which means they can grow up to be productive members of society. That specialized work force is a result of smart social planning, it's not something they were born with. And they rely on trade and participation in the larger European and world economy to bring them the things they don't produce themselves. Why is that any sort of an argument against their style of society?

Why don't we draw an arbitrary dotted line around Greenwich Connecticut evaluate them and copy them? Average income is through the roof, people are happier, they put 10's of thousands of dollars per student into their education, everyone has a job, etc. Why don't we just implement the Greenwich economic plan everywhere?

The answer is because we can't. Greenwich (like Denmark) gets its income by servicing lower income areas with skilled labor and capital. That's a lot of what I meant by them being a "lie". They aren't some socialist haven. They are an aggressive capitalist region who shares some of the wealth locally. Small areas can pull this off and the US has many of them.

When people pick out small countries in europe, they are effectively cherry picking because the populations are so small. Again, Denmark has roughly half the population as the Chicago metro area. Its really the same as picking out a rich US zipcode and saying "hey, let's everyone do that!!!"

As far as the education spending, the US spends a ton. Our issues with education is another topic. If we matched the OECD average, it would be a massive cut in spending.

Exactly.

Also, the demographics of Greenwich are similar to Denmark, with very few minorities and people who didn't have to fight for basic human rights. And, yes, it matters when looking at the demographics of the USA, where we have many people who were born into poverty.

The demographics of Denmark are actually not that different from the USA- in Denmark, 89% of the population was born in Denmark. In the USA, that figure is 86%. So not all that different.

And your point about being born into poverty is exactly the reason why policies like Denmark's are so needed. People aren't as likely to be born into poverty in Denmark because there are fewer poor. And what type of economic class you are born into is much less relevant to you access to quality education, child care, and health care as it is in the US. So your argument here is circular- we can't afford to lift people out of poverty here because we have so many poor people, but they're poor in large part because they don't have the safety net that people in Denmark have to help keep them from becoming poor in the first place.

[coldfish]

So it's not a question of money, it's a question of how we allocate the wealth that our society produces. We have a country where the top 1% controls 38% of the wealth. If that were evened out, everyone else could have a much better quality of life.

You started out arguing that Denmark's system is crushing the middle class. It isn't. It just makes it harder for the average person to become very wealthy. But it makes it much easier for the other 99% to have a good life.

On wealth: That's a complicated topic. Wealth is a function of savings. Our economy very much wants people to borrow and spend. In the short term, its great for economic growth but you also have a system where a pretty sizable chunk of the population does not accumulate wealth. If you have a 100 person economy with all of them making $50k per year and one guy saves $5k while the other 99 spend every penny they make, the one saver now has 100% of the wealth.

Beyond that, we now live in a global economy. The US has accumulated a lot of the entire world's wealth for a variety of reasons. The US benefits from that and its part of the reason why our median income is so much higher than the UK, Germany, France, etc. We make the rest of the world's profit . . . and then tax it. Its a system no one wants to talk out loud about but people on the left need to think about this carefully.

If we just try to seize that wealth, its going to go away. That wealth isn't in cash. Its in assets. If every rich guy has to sell his assets, who will buy them?

As far as the middle class, I think people would be surprised how much the medican american would have to give up in order to be a median dane. This isn't about the 99%. Its about the bottom 20%.

.....

Overall, I do think that our economy has serious issues with inequality and inadequate safety nets. I don't think we need to destroy the system though. IMO, tweaks to education, trade policy, immigration, improvements to ACA, etc. would address the vast majority of the problems for that bottom 20% without having to torch the middle class' way of life.

[dougthonus]

It may not be a crisis for you, or for anyone who doesn't live here or wants to move here, but it is a crisis for SF. We have a lot of wealthy people here, but we also need people to work in the fancy restaurants those people like to go to. We need teachers, we need construction workers, we need janitors, policemen and coffee shop owners. SF is hemorrhaging good teachers, because they can't afford to find a place to live.

I hear you that it's a problem. Chicago and many other major cities will be facing serious problems soon. Chicago or maybe Illinois as a whole could end up insolvent when all this is over. I'd hate to leave my current house, but it wouldn't shock me if we move if the there becomes crazy tax consequences in Illinois / Chicago which they were already talking about prior to this.

I wouldn't call it a crisis, but that's only playing semantics.

San Francisco wants to maintain a diverse population, we don't want to be a city just for the rich. And to do that we need affordable housing, we need more housing period. So if a lot of office space suddenly went un-rented, it might free up a lot of already built spaces for people to live in. That was my whole point.

Hope the best for SF just like everywhere else. I suspect you'd need to get a whole lot more housing for the effect to work to where all housing decreases in value which would have different negative side effects on the population as current residents would all go underwater on their mortgages. No one who buys/builds/converts all this new housing is going to want it to be cheap housing after they invested the money.

I suppose in theory you could offer housing for those only earning under XXX a year or some other thing, but that type of venture hasn't historically worked out real well I don't think in other cities.

[johnnyvann840]

Why don't we draw an arbitrary dotted line around Greenwich Connecticut evaluate them and copy them? Average income is through the roof, people are happier, they put 10's of thousands of dollars per student into their education, everyone has a job, etc. Why don't we just implement the Greenwich economic plan everywhere?

The answer is because we can't. Greenwich (like Denmark) gets its income by servicing lower income areas with skilled labor and capital. That's a lot of what I meant by them being a "lie". They aren't some socialist haven. They are an aggressive capitalist region who shares some of the wealth locally. Small areas can pull this off and the US has many of them.

When people pick out small countries in europe, they are effectively cherry picking because the populations are so small. Again, Denmark has roughly half the population as the Chicago metro area. Its really the same as picking out a rich US zipcode and saying "hey, let's everyone do that!!!"

As far as the education spending, the US spends a ton. Our issues with education is another topic. If we matched the OECD average, it would be a massive cut in spending.

Exactly.

Also, the demographics of Greenwich are similar to Denmark, with very few minorities and people who didn't have to fight for basic human rights. And, yes, it matters when looking at the demographics of the USA, where we have many people who were born into poverty.

The demographics of Denmark are actually not that different from the USA- in Denmark, 89% of the population was born in Denmark. In the USA, that figure is 86%. So not all that different.

What are you even talking about? Since when is the definition of "demographics" simply place of birth/country of origin? What does that even have to do with this debate? What does that have to do with the percentage of the population born into poverty?

In the USA 22% of the Nation younger than 18 years of age live in poverty. 15% of all Americans are born into poverty. Over 46 million Americans live below the poverty line according Census Bureau data.

In Denmark, that number of citizens living in poverty.... is 1.9%.

And your point about being born into poverty is exactly the reason why policies like Denmark's are so needed. People aren't as likely to be born into poverty in Denmark because there are fewer poor. And what type of economic class you are born into is much less relevant to you access to quality education, child care, and health care as it is in the US. So your argument here is circular- we can't afford to lift people out of poverty here because we have so many poor people, but they're poor in large part because they don't have the safety net that people in Denmark have to help keep them from becoming poor in the first place

The point being that the cost of providing things like free healthcare and college educations for everyone would be enormously more for the U.S. Government/taxpayers, per capita, than it does in a place like Denmark.