Politics

[mdwest]

Yes the US of A maybe the richest in the whole world, but why is your societies so poor?. Where is the money going?....

you would have to define "societies so poor".. Im not sure what exactly you are saying there (perhaps a language barrier / translation issue?)...

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I am quite fond of Rubio and Desantis, and many other Republicans. Vance I am not so sure about.

Right there with you...

 

[Tanks]

Yes the US of A maybe the richest in the whole world, but why is your societies so poor?. Where is the money going?..

Define poor. Below are pictures of middle class homes in UK (similar in elsewhere in Europe). What we think of poor is quite a bit different than what Europeans think as poor.

One big difference between the US and a lot of the world is that we do NOT like living on top of each other for the most part with the exception of large cities like NYC, Chicago etc.. Even then, people that can escape to the suburbs do.

And luxury housing at 800K pounds.

 

[Pondoro]

Housing is cheaper than UK many places in Scandinavia..

I suspect Rigbymauser referring to the fact that people in America who have jobs cannot afford proper housing and are forced to live i trailer parks..

 

[RLD]

Regarding the discussion on factories and reductions in product required. An 11% drop in orders does not necessarily translate to layoffs. It depends on what the demand was prior to that drop. But for the sake of discussion let's just say your factory is running at or near 100% of capacity.

Most factories shoot for operating 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. That may seem obvious, but maybe not for the reason you think. It has a lot to do with the cost of the equipment in the factory. Product cost includes the cost of manufacturing, the cost to obtain and operate the equipment in the factory is included in this. This is a fixed cost. Whether you make 1 widget per year or 1 million widgets per year, the cost is the same. So the higher the volume the lower the cost per widget to produce it in terms of dollars per hour. The lower the cost per hour the higher per hour your profit.

So let's say we're running the factory 24/7 to meet current demand (note you may not be able to meet current demand even if running 24/7), when a drop of 10% in orders comes thru. What does that mean for the factory?

Well if you're running 24 hours a day, you now have a reduction of 2.4 hour required to produce the needed amount of product. What that means is you still need to run the factory for 21.6 hours per day.

Let's say you're running 3 shifts, 8 hours per day. You still need all 3 shifts to keep the factory running to meet demand. You could argue that hours could be reduced, but that's not the same as a layoff where a shift would be eliminated.

Furthermore, if when that 10% drop in demand occurred you were unable to meet the previous current demand, it's quite possible that nothing happens.

I didn't even say lay-offs. Or suggest them.

But a policy that produces the redirection of economic activity from inside your country to outside your country is one that is not working economically.

You can juggle the 11% number with seven hands if you want, but I can't imagine a business wants to see it orders go down 11% due to a government policy.

 

[Tanks]

Housing is cheaper than UK many places in Scandinavia..

I suspect Rigbymauser referring to the fact that people in America who have jobs cannot afford proper housing and are forced to live i trailer parks..

Scandinavian countries cannot really be compared to other countries, especially the USA. You have a very homogeneous population and not much of a population.

 

[wesheltonj]

You will have to define luxury. An architect just quoted me $200k for his services and $600 per square foot build cost. As you can guess, now I looking for cheaper build cost and a cheaper architect.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Hehe, yes, you have a point. But it is not entirely Europes fault.

Lets remember the old adage of Nato, from US perspective: "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".

So, Germany is "down" demilitarized, kept down during cold war, for few decades, with limited military and industrial capacity. Legacy of Pax Americana.
In my view, reductions in their military budgets have been diverted to economic growth and civil industry development. They profited nicely from that

They need to build up now.
But they are late.
Also, they had no other option, as per above.

Moreover.
If you want strong Europe, the reality is modern defense rests on space capabilities, is then built down from it.

Sattelites: Recconosance, targeting, positioning, communication.
USA is developing these capabilities since end of WW2, and have invested trillions. But it took decades to build and develop. (similar stands for Russians, and Chinese)

Next step below space race, is stealth air force, Awacs planes, fighters and strategic stealth bombers - again, capabilities developed by USA for decades and with trillions invested. Not to mention emerging new technologies: hypersonic. (USA, Russia, China by now)

Imagine Germany or any other nation, again, starting all this from scratch? Entire EU to invest time, development and invest treasure to achieve this?
Yes it is possible, but not in 5 minutes.

So this is a bridge too far, for time being, and it will take decades. .

What modern EU defense narrative is:
they will build - tanks. Leopards.
Some artillery.
Shells.
Ammunitions.
Improved missiles.

Essentilay, WW2 improved designs, in modern space age. Without space capabilties, they will always need supporting "sponsor"

So, in order to build their defenses properly with full capabilities, they have long way to go.

Sociologically, there is another problem. We in EU, we are all busy with public narrative of DEI policies, stupid non productive green energy, LGBT rights, political correctness, immigrants rights, etc...

O yes, we also have multicultural societies, multiethnic societies, immigrant minorities (and immigrant Majorities) and we in EU have: conscientious objection (the civil right to decline serving the army and carry weapons). this is engraved in legislative and in constitutions

It means nobody wants to join the army. Nothing attractive there. A legacy of decades living in peace under USA protection
So, once they build thousands of tanks, hundreds of aircraft, build the navy vessels and subs, there will be a problem who will drive all of this? It will require a cultural turnover.

Finally, EU approved 800 billion defense start up plans, and industry build up. FIne. That's something.
But it is based on obsolete designs.
But it will give some economic kick.
And, as per latest - US president Trump is saying this is not good, EU should not build and purchase their weapons, they should buy American.

In the meantime under all these sanctions against russia, EU is facing problem of cheap energy. Industry and development is not built on 200 USD dollar per barrel.

And on Belgium, so many times being overrun by foreign countries:

They keep EU finances (compare to Switzerland banking business, and Swiss for their neutrality and financial system have not been overrun. last few hundred years)
And Belgium is EU.
So is under EU defense umbrella.

All in all, everything is complicated, and long term solution, is not within easy reach. Not to mention different interests of various EU countries.

I do hope, next cycle of election will bring new set of leaders with courage and vision to change things.

Mediocres in power till now just deepened this mess.

Good points. Thanks for your insight.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I'm not one to complain or nitpick. But Belgium in 1914 with a 7.4M pop against Germany's 68M pop, or in 1940 with 8.4M pop against Germany's 86.5M pop, never stood a chance. Especially as all the great powers around us, made sure to keep us militarily and economically as toothless as possible. There is not a nation in Europe, that did not at one point invade or conquer (the region now known as) Belgium.

In both cases Belgium wanted to stay neutral, but we became just the highway for the Germans on their way to Paris. A fact perhaps not known as much, but in the 1st world war, not the whole of Belgium was conquered. After flooding the Yser river, the Belgian king with the remainders of his army dunked it out with the Germans, in a tiny part of the country around Ypres. (and yes, with a lot of help from our British, American, Canadian and many other friends)

Your remark on us spending too much on welfare for non-working citizens and immigrants, is spot on though. Couldn't agree more.

Great insight and history lesson. Thanks!

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I didn't even say lay-offs. Or suggest them.

But a policy that produces the redirection of economic activity from inside your country to outside your country is one that is not working economically.

You can juggle the 11% number with seven hands if you want, but I can't imagine a business wants to see it orders go down 11% due to a government policy.

My previous post wasn't directed at you specifically, just a general comment on that subject. That said, I agree with you, no factory wants to see a drop in orders. However, it isn't necessarily a gloom and doom scenario as is being assumed by some.

It may actually turn out to be a good thing. I work in a development environment and have for the last 32 years, but also tied very closely to operations. As such I have need for using production equipment. Any hours I spend on that equipment are hours not dedicated to manufacturing product. Therefore the operations managers often hate me and my kind. However this is balanced by love for me because it's me and my kind that help to refill up the factory with new product.

In times where production required hours drop this means available engineering hours increase thus allowing me to get more done and thus refilling the unused production capacity.

The bottom line is as is so often the case, "it all depends on the circumstances." Both times of higher demand and lower demand have their upsides and downsides.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

Housing is cheaper than UK many places in Scandinavia..

I suspect Rigbymauser referring to the fact that people in America who have jobs cannot afford proper housing and are forced to live i trailer parks..

I don’t know anyone with a proper job that can’t afford proper housing.

Where I live there are mobile home communities that are generally 50+, meaning you can’t own a home there unless you are 50 or older. These an only mobile homes in a technical sense and are permanently installed and look like small house. They are cheaper than “real” homes because mobile homes don’t have to meet the same stringent state and county codes as houses. These communities tend to be cleaner and safer than “real” houses in more ghetto neighborhoods.

 

[mdwest]

Housing is cheaper than UK many places in Scandinavia..

I suspect Rigbymauser referring to the fact that people in America who have jobs cannot afford proper housing and are forced to live i trailer parks..

I think maybe you need to find better resources... and maybe make a better attempt at understanding American culture..

A LOT of Americans choose to live in trailer homes.. they prioritize buying land over housing.. go out and purchase a few acres and throw a trailer on it by choice...

Others choose to live in a trailer park... for no other reason than it is dirt cheap.. they can buy a used trailer for as little as $10K.. and then rent a spot in a park for as little as $250 a month.. they are simply frugal.. they can afford a small apartment.. but see no value in it.. they would prefer to have a nicer vehicle, or to have a firearm collection.. or whatever else makes them happy..

Unlike Europe, trailer homes are part of the fabric of American culture.. most middle income families wouldnt choose to live in one.. but a lot of lower income families live in a trailer by choice.. not out of necessity..

If youre concerned with who can afford housing or not, perhaps do some research...

Across Europe, housing costs, comparatively to income are roughly 25% higher than in the US.. as a rule Europe has higher taxes and lower wages.. "poor" people in the US would be on the lower end of middle class in many European countries..

Its not a cost of living issue.. its a standard of living issue..

As @Tanks refers to.. what the typical American sees as "middle class", many Europeans think of as "wealthy".. and what many Americans see as "poor"... many Europeans see as "middle class"..

How many of our European members on AH live in houses larger than 3000 square feet?

If a European lives in a single family dwelling larger than 3000 square feet, how is that person perceived?

In the US thats pretty "average" and very much "middle class"..

How many of our European members have a vehicle less than 5 years old for every member of the family that is old enough to be able to drive?

In the US thats very average, and very much "middle class"..

How many of our European members go out to dinner at a restaurant 2-4 times a week rather than preparing meals at home?

In the US thats very average, and very much "middle class"..

If a French or German guy living in say Paris or Berlin lives in a 3000 square foot house, has 3x new model vehicles, and takes his family to a restaurant for dinner 3x times a week.. is he middle class? or is he viewed as wealthy?

In Dallas or Oklahoma City or Miami or Charlotte or Boise or Phoenix.. thats pretty "middle class"..

7 of the 10 most affordable major cities in the developed world are in the US.. the only 2 European cities that make the list are Sheffield UK, Middlesberg UK... Edmonton Canada also makes the list..

The 10 most affordable housing markets in the world—9 are in the U.S.

None of the major housing markets in the world are actually affordable, according to a study out of Chapman University.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Pondoro]

So..what is percieved as good (read US middle class as you define it) income in the US..? We cannot compete in cars as they are heavily taxed.. Restaurant are also expensive..

Housing is pretty much the same if you have a good income..in Scandinavia that is, except in Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen..

 

[CoElkHunter]

I was reading where in the ‘80s through 2010, México’s oil production was very high and not priced on the open market which allowed very inexpensive gas to the residents/visitors of Mexico. I remember people from the U.S. border states driving into Mexico to get cheap fuel. I guess that’s not possible now for either Mexico, the U.S. or Canada? Maybe @WAB or other petroleum experts could chime in and explain. Thanks!

 

[RLD]

My previous post wasn't directed at you specifically, just a general comment on that subject. That said, I agree with you, no factory wants to see a drop in orders. However, it isn't necessarily a gloom and doom scenario as is being assumed by some.

It may actually turn out to be a good thing. I work in a development environment and have for the last 32 years, but also tied very closely to operations. As such I have need for using production equipment. Any hours I spend on that equipment are hours not dedicated to manufacturing product. Therefore the operations managers often hate me and my kind. However this is balanced by love for me because it's me and my kind that help to refill up the factory with new product.

In times where production required hours drop this means available engineering hours increase thus allowing me to get more done and thus refilling the unused production capacity.

The bottom line is as is so often the case, "it all depends on the circumstances." Both times of higher demand and lower demand have their upsides and downsides.

You are not trying to say BMW USA wants to sell 11% less cars are you?

I think maybe you need to find better resources... and maybe make a better attempt at understanding American culture..

A LOT of Americans choose to live in trailer homes.. they prioritize buying land over housing.. go out and purchase a few acres and throw a trailer on it by choice...

Others choose to live in a trailer park... for no other reason than it is dirt cheap.. they can buy a used trailer for as little as $10K.. and then rent a spot in a park for as little as $250 a month.. they are simply frugal.. they can afford a small apartment.. but see no value in it.. they would prefer to have a nicer vehicle, or to have a firearm collection.. or whatever else makes them happy..

Unlike Europe, trailer homes are part of the fabric of American culture.. most middle income families wouldnt choose to live in one.. but a lot of lower income families live in a trailer by choice.. not out of necessity..

If youre concerned with who can afford housing or not, perhaps do some research...

Across Europe, housing costs, comparatively to income are roughly 25% higher than in the US.. as a rule Europe has higher taxes and lower wages.. "poor" people in the US would be on the lower end of middle class in many European countries..

Its not a cost of living issue.. its a standard of living issue..

As @Tanks refers to.. what the typical American sees as "middle class", many Europeans think of as "wealthy".. and what many Americans see as "poor"... many Europeans see as "middle class"..

How many of our European members on AH live in houses larger than 3000 square feet?

If a European lives in a single family dwelling larger than 3000 square feet, how is that person perceived?

In the US thats pretty "average" and very much "middle class"..

How many of our European members have a vehicle less than 5 years old for every member of the family that is old enough to be able to drive?

In the US thats very average, and very much "middle class"..

How many of our European members go out to dinner at a restaurant 2-4 times a week rather than preparing meals at home?

In the US thats very average, and very much "middle class"..

If a French or German guy living in say Paris or Berlin lives in a 3000 square foot house, has 3x new model vehicles, and takes his family to a restaurant for dinner 3x times a week.. is he middle class? or is he viewed as wealthy?

In Dallas or Oklahoma City or Miami or Charlotte or Boise or Phoenix.. thats pretty "middle class"..

7 of the 10 most affordable major cities in the developed world are in the US.. the only 2 European cities that make the list are Sheffield UK, Middlesberg UK... Edmonton Canada also makes the list..

The 10 most affordable housing markets in the world—9 are in the U.S.

None of the major housing markets in the world are actually affordable, according to a study out of Chapman University.

www.cnbc.com

Europe is a actually a tricky place to compare the United States because european countries vary so greatly. Are we talking Bulgaria or Norway? Huge ranges.

It is however fair to say that the United States has larger wealth gaps than most european countries and a higher poverty rate than most european countries. But that seems to result from philosophical choices. There is lots and lots of money in America, it is just distributed differently than europe.

 

[Wheels]

Well thought out and written article regarding the geopolitics around America reopening or not reopening the Straits of Hormuz and the surrounding ramifications.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2034311772354592874

 

[mdwest]

So..what is percieved as good (read US middle class as you define it) income in the US..? We cannot compete in cars as they are heavily taxed.. Restaurant are also expensive..

Housing is pretty much the same if you have a good income..in Scandinavia that is, except in Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen..

It really depends on what part of the country you are looking at.. the US is a big place.. and each state is very different...

for example, in Northern California you'd be lucky to be able to afford a 1000 sq foot house in most cities for less than $400,000..

but in Dallas, that same amount of money will buy you a 2000 sq foot house in many neighborhoods..

In Jackson Mississippi $400,000 can buy you as much as a 3500 sq foot house in some neighborhoods..


But.. at the same time.. wages are much higher in San Francisco California than they are in Jackson, Mississippi... so things tend to offset each other..

then you have cultural differences in the US..

In major cities like Chicago, New York, etc.. people as a rule dont value large houses or large pieces of property as much as people do in places like Oklahoma City or Birmingham, Alabama..

So its incredibly varied..

 

[Brent in Az]

NYC Is proposing raising minimum wage to $30 per hour.
Burger flippers making as much or more as a policeman?
No doubt that will end well.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

It really depends on what part of the country you are looking at.. the US is a big place.. and each state is very different...

for example, in Northern California you'd be lucky to be able to afford a 1000 sq foot house in most cities for less than $400,000..

but in Dallas, that same amount of money will buy you a 2000 sq foot house in many neighborhoods..

In Jackson Mississippi $400,000 can buy you as much as a 3500 sq foot house in some neighborhoods..


But.. at the same time.. wages are much higher in San Francisco California than they are in Jackson, Mississippi... so things tend to offset each other..

then you have cultural differences in the US..

In major cities like Chicago, New York, etc.. people as a rule dont value large houses or large pieces of property as much as people do in places like Oklahoma City or Birmingham, Alabama..

So its incredibly varied..

Rural Alaska: my 2000 square foot house on a half acre appraised at 450K for my divorce last year. A few similar sized houses have sold for about that in the past year. I suspect most of them, mine included, would look very ordinary compared to lower 48 homes.

Just decided to chime in since your examples were in my financial ballpark.

 

[deewayne2003]

Scandinavian countries cannot really be compared to other countries, especially the USA. You have a very homogeneous population and not much of a population.

Very good point!

When living in Austin I was surrounded by people who constantly complained about the USA and I would ask them to name a first world nation they would move to and without exception they would say a Scandinavian country, usually Sweden.

To which I would ask...... So why would you only move to a country with a higher concentration of white people than the USA unless you are racist?

Then sit back and watch the glaring hatred in their eyes as they try to process a rebuttal........