The US is the most successful country in human history, as measured by the current in vogue metric of excellence, which is how much stuff (food, housing, cars, toys, etc) everyone has.
There are two kinds of wealth - private wealth and public wealth.
Private wealth is the things that you own, the money in your bank account, the car you drive, the house you live in, etc. For that kind of wealth, Americans are very well off, especially compared to the rest of the world.
Public wealth is the things that you share with others as a society, and how good those things are. It's things like the state of infrastructure, the ease of getting healthcare, the quality and safety of public spaces, how people feel when they're not in their home. For this sort of wealth America is a low way down the rankings.
Unfortunately for Americans, it's the public wealth that actually makes you happy unless you're in the 1% of the 1% who can afford to avoid public spaces entirely. If you own a luxury car but the roads are terrible that's just a reminder that your wealth can't solve all your problems. If you can afford to go to the fanciest restaurants but you're scared to wait for a cab outside afterwards, you're not going to be very happy with the meal. This is true for most aspects of life. Society needs to feel safe for people to truly feel happy.
There are other reasons which are taboo. A lot of Americans flit around their country at the drop of a hat, if they have children it means they don't set down roots and make connections. The other is architecture. The USA has some great buildings but also miles upon miles of concrete and low level business parks.
>This wealth isn’t confined to only the top percent, today’s middle class and working class live lives that past nobility would be astounded by.
Only based on "access to various products and crap" criterium. Based on quality of life metrics, safety, job prospects, food quality, urban design, it often is worse than way lower in GDP countries - and let's not even get into non-tangible stuff...
You don't need to make it that complicated. Happiness is just difference between what you expected and what you got. So a shepherd in Bhutan might expect to his goats to deliver 10 baby goats, but got 15. Then he is happy.
Also, calling USA as most successful country is baseless. Nigeria might have more younger population and better demographic pyramid. Other countries might have better climate and may consume less processed food. People may be leaner in Asia and healthier. Someone might call Americans as obese, unhealthy, gender-confused, less competitive in STEM, politically polarized, sales-oriented conmen. What do you mean by success?
I think the top comment is getting at some issues, that this substack post seems to have a neoliberal (?) focus on material prosperity, but I'd try to frame the discussion maybe in a way to try to make it more obvious and then ask some questions about things.
Assume you are the richest person in the world.
What if you had to live in solitary confinement? (So, you wealth doesn't give you good relationships)
What if you were chronically sick? (Your wealth does not give you health)
What if you were not able to spend your money freely due to living under a dictator? (Your wealth does not give you freedom)
You could probably continue this thought experiment and maybe zero in on some specific problems.
What if you could be the wealthiest person but you literally had to work every waking hour? So, having wealth (in this thought experiment example) does not buy you free time.
What if you had access to being able to buy some of the best stuff but it costs more than it did for generations, forcing you to work more for "better" but more costly items? So having more money yourself doesn't say anything about how the market is developing around you.
Naturally, a counter-argument to some of the above is that money may allow you to buy things to solve some of these problems, but it doesn't always work out that way.
(I liked the article mostly in that it felt like it was expressing an obvious idea, that America has more "success" and thus "should" be happier but the author acknowledges there is some legitimate unhappiness that exist, and then it was kind of like a brainteaser to think about if people are rationally or irrationally unhappy in the USA)
I remember watching a doco series about moon landing a long time ago; and for the life of me I can't remember what its called. But essentially amongst the awe of the whole thing, it also had the perspective from black americans which i can glibly summarise as "so what? i've got nowhere to live and everything cost to much for me. who gives a crap about what all of that". The same thing applies to a much higher % of Americans now is my guess
10 comments
[ 468 ms ] story [ 839 ms ] threadThere are two kinds of wealth - private wealth and public wealth.
Private wealth is the things that you own, the money in your bank account, the car you drive, the house you live in, etc. For that kind of wealth, Americans are very well off, especially compared to the rest of the world.
Public wealth is the things that you share with others as a society, and how good those things are. It's things like the state of infrastructure, the ease of getting healthcare, the quality and safety of public spaces, how people feel when they're not in their home. For this sort of wealth America is a low way down the rankings.
Unfortunately for Americans, it's the public wealth that actually makes you happy unless you're in the 1% of the 1% who can afford to avoid public spaces entirely. If you own a luxury car but the roads are terrible that's just a reminder that your wealth can't solve all your problems. If you can afford to go to the fanciest restaurants but you're scared to wait for a cab outside afterwards, you're not going to be very happy with the meal. This is true for most aspects of life. Society needs to feel safe for people to truly feel happy.
Only based on "access to various products and crap" criterium. Based on quality of life metrics, safety, job prospects, food quality, urban design, it often is worse than way lower in GDP countries - and let's not even get into non-tangible stuff...
Also, calling USA as most successful country is baseless. Nigeria might have more younger population and better demographic pyramid. Other countries might have better climate and may consume less processed food. People may be leaner in Asia and healthier. Someone might call Americans as obese, unhealthy, gender-confused, less competitive in STEM, politically polarized, sales-oriented conmen. What do you mean by success?
Assume you are the richest person in the world.
What if you had to live in solitary confinement? (So, you wealth doesn't give you good relationships)
What if you were chronically sick? (Your wealth does not give you health)
What if you were not able to spend your money freely due to living under a dictator? (Your wealth does not give you freedom)
You could probably continue this thought experiment and maybe zero in on some specific problems.
What if you could be the wealthiest person but you literally had to work every waking hour? So, having wealth (in this thought experiment example) does not buy you free time.
What if you had access to being able to buy some of the best stuff but it costs more than it did for generations, forcing you to work more for "better" but more costly items? So having more money yourself doesn't say anything about how the market is developing around you.
Naturally, a counter-argument to some of the above is that money may allow you to buy things to solve some of these problems, but it doesn't always work out that way.
(I liked the article mostly in that it felt like it was expressing an obvious idea, that America has more "success" and thus "should" be happier but the author acknowledges there is some legitimate unhappiness that exist, and then it was kind of like a brainteaser to think about if people are rationally or irrationally unhappy in the USA)