*backup http://videosift.com/video/Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-Paid-Family-Leave?showbackup=8174

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by eric3579.

Jeez, I had no idea. I took off a full week, paid, for my daughter's birth here in Thailand, and could easily have taken two weeks. As the father.

For mothers themselves here, a google search says:
* 90 days of maternity leave
* Full pay: 45 days paid by the employer and 45 days paid from the Social Welfare Fund
* With a doctor's certificate a temporary change of duties either before and/or after the child's birth is allowed
* Protection from termination of employment due to pregnancy


Guess I can add that to the list of things that this corrupt, shady, and highly unstable government does better than my "world's primary superpower" homeland. (not saying it is a very long list, but it is more than a handful of items!)

Oh god, someone in the US please tell me that Hooters ad is real... 'cos that is just amazing. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

On topic, when I was 22, I was a young software developer and offered a job in the US. They pay was great and then they told me I'd get 2 WHOLE WEEKS vacation. At which point I hung up. I now have 5 in NZ (on top of public holidays).

The way employees are treated in the US is little short of medieval.
We get 14 weeks paid parental leave in NZ and most people think that's nowhere near enough.

Just another evidence on how the US is so damn 3rd-world in some things. Absolutely deplorable.

Canada gets 6 months paid maternity leave and 6 months parental leave. The last one can be taken by the either person. Moms can take a year off, or both parents can take 6 months off at the same time, or trade off after the first 6.

Using @MilkmanDan experience as the example.

Why should an employer give you $1500 to 5 grand to take off 45 days?
If I were in an accident or such should I get such a paid vacation?


Americans are already paying for paid maternity time off but its not for average Americans.

President Obama signed a presidential memorandum ordering agencies to give federal workers six weeks of paid leave to care for a new child or take care of ill family members.

Using your numbers, I'll ask you, why should an employer be allowed to pay an employee $33 a day for full time work? (this issue only covers full time employees)

Now I'll answer YOUR question...employers and the fed should pay for at least that much time off because it's been proven that spending that time statistically reduces the time they'll have to take off caring for that child later, saving work time, child illness, AND healthcare money. It's short sighted VS long term thinking. If you only count today and never consider tomorrow, maternity leave is money wasted...if you DO look at tomorrow, it's an incredibly good investment in uncountable ways.

I love John Oliver

no kids. Seems kinda unfair to get like any paid time off tbh.

No cancer, seems kinda unfair to pay health insurance premiums toward someone else's treatment.

Haven't been unemployed. Seems kinda unfair to pay for unemployment insurance.

Don't drive much, seems kinda unfair to pay for all these roads.

My kid is in private school, seems kinda unfair that I have to pay for the public ones too.

See where this reasoning takes us?

FYI I was thinking $1500/month to 3000$/month. Which would make 75 to 150$/day.

Its nice to have a civil discourse with you.


Other than the clarification above I AGREE WITH ALL THE BENEFITS YOU MENTION.


All I am saying is it the responsibility of the employer to pay for this benefit?


Should the young couple or single woman wait till they can afford such time off? With all the family planning available should the couple or single woman take some responsibility.


According to report California and few other states have placed a tax of sorts to spread this cost over all its citizens. I do not see an issue with this as long all are taxed equal.

-----------------------------------------------------
My reform plan

We do need welfare and social security reform ( which will have to happen) it should be 1 in the same. Everyone over 25 should be able to take 10 years of government paid time off (PTO).

All get 10 years, All pay a tax, call it what you want. But when it is used up then that's it. no more government cheese.

If I am 25 and going to school I should be able to collect a year or two OF government PTO ( paid time off). Your choice.

If I have a baby and want to take 3 months off then I will have 9 years 9 months left for retirement.

If I turn 40 and find myself lost in life and just want to check out of society and go back to school or travel the world for 2 years then I would have 8 years left.

I don't care what you spend you government check on. Schooling, traveling, hookers, drugs. Its you life.

When I turn 65 and think I will still live another 20 I better not retire with my remaining PTO time.

Its your life use it when you need it.


This would stop all the complaining towards welfare people. Also it will keep people from retiring early and sucking tax dollars for years to come. It would naturally provide an incentive to work and to stay working.

There would be no unemployment benefits. Other programs eliminated and rolled into this program. It would streamline the government. Reduce government costs create a a level playing field for citizens. Your PTO pay should be based on you current skill level with minimums and caps.


Granted this is a pie in the sky ideal world thought. But it does have some merit.

Have a good day.

In a perfect world, perhaps. This world is not perfect, and many people don't have the ability to 'plan', either financially or sexually. Your plan leaves anyone who does not plan perfectly for an unknown future on the streets and destitute. That's not the country we have decided we want to live in. If you do, there's always Somalia.
Your plan leaves us with millions of destitute elderly on the streets. Bad plan, that would NEVER work. Again, you expect people to plan for their future perfectly, and if they don't, fuck em. That's terrible, uncaring, non-thinking planning. They don't just disappear if they planned badly and are homeless, foodless, and hopeless, they show up on your driveway with a knife.
How about we just remove all corporate welfare, cut our military by 5%, and actually extend benefits for PEOPLE? The reduced costs in your plan would not even be noticed in the federal budget, not a single percent change, mine would be noticed. I think you believe that 'welfare' (social programs) is a major cost to the fed, it's simply NOT. On the other hand, it does save us billions by not having to deal with sick desperate homeless people by the millions. It's proven time and time again that taking care of them humanely costs far less than ignoring them until you can no longer ignore them.

We (Norway) have 10 months 100% PAID leave, and the dad gets 10 weeks. And its flexible, so mothers can take 12 months at 80% salary, and/or start the leave before birth, dads can choose when themselves etc.

We also make like 3 times as much as US workers.

Ooh that scary Socialism sucks, eh?

Well firstly you're making an appeal to extremes which is besides the point, and secondly cancer or unemployment aren't (or at least shouldn't be in the case of unemployment) a choice which isn't the case with having a family. Also beside the point but roads should quite probably be paid by those that use them, which is why road taxing on cars exists.

Anyhow all that nonsense aside, to give you an idea how it works here; you get 6 months off _paid_, most employers push that out to a year. This leads to things like people coming back to work for 2-3 months after the year already pregnant again, then having their second child and taking anouther year off. At the end of the second year off they quit the job. Now, i've seen this happen several times just in my workplace, and i'd say roughly 50% of the people who take the time off when having kids don't come back at all, at the end of it though, they happily take the cash while on leave.

imho, if you want to have kids you should accept that it's going to take a lot of saving money up for it, and hell - it's not like we're struggling with population right now anyhow. People are having kids just dandy, so no, i don't think really any paid time off is a particularly good idea.

I don't think your experience is the norm, that people abuse the system to get 2 years paid time off then leave the job/career that just paid them. They would certainly not get a glowing review from the ex-employer, and the new employer would have to hire them also knowing they've been on leave for 2 years (so would have no idea what advancements had been made in that time)...which seems unlikely, especially in todays employment environment where decent paying jobs are hard to find.

Like I said to bob, in a perfect world where people think ahead, are responsible, and plan financially and sexually, I would agree with you. Since we don't live in that world, your idea only creates more mal-adjusted, unsupervised children that we pay for later with high crime, therapy, lost productivity, etc. It's way cheaper to pay for a good outcome than it is to pay more later for the bad outcome....and you get a good outcome. No brainer to me.

Well, conservative 'murica is always telling us how they're about "family values", but what they really mean is "valuing families" (i.e. they don't value families much at all).

and @sirex, I don't have kids either (and don't plan to), but I know plenty of people that do. If this could make their lives easier, I'm all for it, even if I had to pay a bit more tax. After all, when I get older, it's their kids that are going to be working, paying taxes, etc some of which will go to pay for my retirement. Swings and roundabouts.

I was simply trying to point out that we all pay for stuff we don't use. I obviously didn't communicate that well.

I do think you might be missing the point of paid maternity leave, though. It is not (in the country at least) to encourage population growth. It is to improve the family situations of those who have kids.

While it's true that childbearing is usually a choice, and that people ought to save money or wait until they are financially secure, the fact is that this just doesn't always happen. There's a parallel argument for public pensions, which would not be necessary if people would just put aside 20% of their paychecks every year.

Given that people are going to have kids, and that they aren't always going to be financially secure, the question is: is there a material or moral benefit in giving those families more time to nurture their children and more time to bond without the stress of trying to navigate financial hardship? What is that worth to society in dollar term?

I don't claim to be smart enough to know the answer.

Norway's national debt is $116B US dollars with a population of 5 million. That's $223,000 per person, man, woman and child. So that child that you got 10 months off for, is born owing $223,000.
Compare that to the US, which has a per person debt of $56,000.

So...way to go, Norway!!!

Sounds like a great plan!

and of course, it continues to rise (national debt)

What is it about socialism that requires that people pay for something they are not getting?

Why should you get paid for not doing work? Your country is like a child's art contest...everyone gets a ribbon.

Ya, about that Norwegian national debt:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Welcome to planet lantern, where 116b/5m = 223k

For the rest of us, who live in the real world, 116b/5m = 23k or about half the debt of the average U.S. citizen.

Your country is like a child's art project... a very simple view of the world that is frequently wrong.

That's cool. What's even more interesting is the time machine aspect.

Back in 2000 (when Clinton was still president) the US debt was 20k per citizen and actually going down. Fast forward 8 years to the end of the Bush administration and the debt has gone up to 33k, an increase of 65%. After 4 years of Obama, it's gone up to 49k, an increase of 48%.

Maybe your next president could try not starting a war in their first term?

dang math

give 'em a decade or two, then get back to me

So, apparently, Norway is successful, not because it is socialist, but because they have a shit load of oil which pretty much sustains the economy.

Perhaps the US can learn from this!

ah, a Rand Paul fan

He's certainly not the worst of the Republican candidates. I agree with his positions on the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, drone strikes, militarizaton of police and immigration.

However, I disagree with him about abortion, gun control, the environment, tax policy and healthcare.

On the plus side, at least he seems to accept the reality of evolution and sorta-maybe-dunno accepts climate change.

So, best of a bad bunch, but I'm far from a fan.

No, we have a debt of $23000 per person: http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/norway
So thats less than half of US debt. Thanks for playing.

In Japan, my wife got 12 months maternity at 2/3 salary. Legally, companies are required to provide 6 weeks pre-birth leave and 8 weeks after-birth leave (paid for by National Insurance). Technically according to the law both she and I can ask for up to 2 years off (at reduced pay) but that never happens--people are too scared of losing their jobs. You can't be fired for taking childcare leave but you can be transferred to a new position and most people are afraid of being delegated to a position that has no further room for career advancement (or requires a ton of menial tasks).

The tax level in Norway has fluctuated between 40 and 45% of GDP since the 1970s. The relatively high tax level is a result of the large Norwegian welfare state.

You literally dwarf the US tax rate per person, almost by double the amount.

You have a VAT tax of 25%, among the highest in the world. My equivalent is sales tax, which is 8.25% on the dollar, and it should be 2.5% lower than that, but Austin is a super-left city that taxes extra to cover all their feel good plans.

To be clear, the average Norwegian household pays roughly $70,000 per year in tax. Including the state’s oil income, government tax revenue exceeds $100,000 per household.

Discretionary spending is kept to an extreme minimum, because you don't have much left after taxes. The cost of living and recreation in Norway is through the roof compared to other countries.

Workers come to the office, punch a clock, shuffle papers, and go home. There is no cultural drive to work hard and get promoted. Norway has created a system that makes it virtually impossible to pull ahead of your peers financially. In fact, culturally, there is a thing where you are NOT supposed to do better than someone else.

What major worldwide innovations or brands do we get out of Norway? None that I can think of offhand, but here is a list of some of their more important companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Norway.

So, you get taxed a ton, cost of living is incredibly high, there is no incentive to do better than anyone else, and in return you get to have free stuff like healthcare and education. Not that it matters really, because once you get out of school you get to become a worker bee drone. Unless of course you move to another country and get to achieve something there.

So, yeah, enjoy your hive mind country. As screwed up as mine is, at least there is a chance to become something if you work hard and invest correctly.

Even if all you say is true, you ignore the fact that they have less than 1/2 the debt per person...so if we taxed people enough to pay for the government we have, we would pay MORE than they do per person.
Also, if they make 3 times what average Americans do, yet are taxed at less than twice the percentage Americans are paid, they make WAY more take home pay than Americans. For that, they get a better standard of living, far better schools, free healthcare (so not 'taxed' up to $1000 a month for insurance) etc...and they have more cash to play with as well. So if they work hard and invest correctly, they can retire in 1/2 the time you could with the same nest egg, but far fewer bills to pay. It sounds like you might just be jelly.

They have less than half the debt for other reasons, many of which are due to the fact that they have an exportable national resource.

The 3 times wage is an assumption. Norway's average monthly salary is 4,451 Euros, equivalent to 5,056 US dollars. The average US salary is 3,640 US dollars per month. I have no idea where he got his numbers from, but these are factual and not anecdotal.

Their cost of living is ludicrous compared to ours, so you have to factor that in when you compare their slightly higher wages.

Consumer Prices in United States are 36.90% lower than in Norway

Consumer Prices Including Rent in United States are 34.18% lower than in Norway

Rent Prices in United States are 27.12% lower than in Norway

Restaurant Prices in United States are 52.31% lower than in Norway

Groceries Prices in United States are 25.87% lower than in Norway

Local Purchasing Power in United States is 14.29% higher than in Norway

Their system is also inherently unfair if you do not use the 'free' stuff. Don't have kids because you are responsible? Doesn't matter, you are paying for them. Don't get unemployed because you show up to work on time and do your job well, doesn't matter, you are paying for others. We do the same in the US, but it is far below the per capita level they pay.

What they don't get, and what some people here are obviously oblivious to as well, is that NOTHING is free. Someone pays, even if you don't. Their system simply nationalizes almost every single company and forces everyone to pay for everyone else, no matter what they do or how responsible they are. Also, note that they nationalized most companies, because a company in any type of free market system faced with draconian rules and corporate taxes like Norway's will simply cut their losses and offshore their work.

So, their system is only sustainable if the government owns the companies, everyone gives up most of their personal wealth, and they are lucky enough to have oil. Yeah, I am soooooo jealous of them.

I feel like both of you likely made mistaken 'assumptions' in your arguments.
I can't understand how a survey can say 'consumer prices are 36.9% higher there' yet 'local purchasing power is 14.29% higher in the US'...Those numbers don't seem to jibe, or really mean anything without more info. Is that per dollar, per capita, average salary, mean salary, what? If things really cost 36.9% higher there, we SHOULD have near 25% more 'purchasing power' per dollar here, not 14....but you also have to ignore that they have far more dollars per person (even after paying higher taxes) to make your point...and you must also count 'national oil revenue' as 'personal tax' to come up with your numbers...if you did the same for the US, I would accept that, but you don't...as if the fed only gets money from personal taxes.

EDIT: Also, are your numbers AFTER tax income? I note they are AVERAGE incomes, and in the US, most people make far less than the average, because the top 5% takes 50%GDP (+-). Remove the top 5% and the bottom 5% and you'll see the numbers change drastically, and it will give you a much more realistic picture of the average person's income. I seriously doubt the wage disparity is nearly as pronounced in Norway, but I don't really KNOW.

All you complain about them paying for (whether they use the service or not) is the same in the US, yet the (underfunded) services provided in the US for the money are almost useless, so a near TOTAL waste. Do you not understand that? We have decided that, in a society, it benefits YOU if your neighbors children get educated, and also if your neighbors don't go bankrupt over medical bills, and it benefits you to not throw destitute elderly out on the streets, and even if you don't drive, it benefits you to have roads in your area...etc.

I find it hilarious that YOU are outraged and indignant FOR THEM, while they are apparently MUCH happier with the system they live in than you are with yours. You might think about that a minute.

We have decided? When did we have this decision? Because it's pretty much an assumption that we all feel that we are better off if our neighbor's children go to college, etc. The road bit is a terrible example, because even if you don't own a car, you use the roads or some other part of transportation that road taxes aid with. I don't feel that I should have to pay for other people's fuckups and I am not the only one to feel that way, by far. If you smoke all your life and then don't have insurance when the cancer comes around, maybe you should have made some other life decisions. If you screw around and get someone pregnant, it isn't my family's responsibility to fix your mistake. If you feel differently, then we are probably going to continue to disagree on everything else.

The numbers are the average of gross monthly income, before taxes. They have less purchasing power because they have far more money removed towards their taxes and because they have a VAT. The local purchasing power is going to vary due to cost of living in each state being different. For instance, the cost of living where I live is much higher than the rest of the state, while the state overall cost of living is less than some other states, such as California.

I am not playing with numbers or inventing facts, just listing what information could be found by simple google searches. As far as the top 5 bottom 5 bit, I can tell you the average middle class family income in 2014 was 4250 US dollars a month gross. This is the average for the entire middle class, which while declining due to various factors is still larger than the upper and lower class in the country.

I am not outraged and indignant for them, I am defending the facts. The fact is that for all they have, they pay through the nose. The fact is that they have a CULTURAL idiosyncrasy that allows them to be happy with being perfectly equal with everyone else, it is the only way a system like this can make someone happy. Do you not grasp that there is almost no single way to get ahead in a society like Norway's? You have to be identical to everyone else. If your idea of happiness is going to a dead end job, working 40 hours, coming home and not being able to do much because you don't have discretionary income, paying for others to not work hard, etc, then by all means move to Norway. Just be careful if you do, because they really don't like paying for immigrants to have free stuff. In fact, they recently had someone get quite violent over it.

I was raised to believe that if you put more effort in that another person, you should be recognized for that effort and get ahead accordingly. Does this mean I agree with CEO salaries? I do not, but that is a different discussion. What I was not raised to believe in is that, if you simply put in the minimum effort, you should get a medal or trophy for just competing. That is bullshit and counter-intuitive to the way the world actually works. If that was actually possible, Darwin would have had a wildly different theory about natural selection.

Has ChaosEngine left New Zealand? Is he living in the US now? It is remarkable how much time he spends thinking of the US and how awful it is.

Did we invade NZ? I suppose our troops were there during WWII when we were trying to keep the sword-happy Nipponese from playing 'who can lop off the most heads this week' game.

Sorry to inconvenience you.

It depends...social security, about 1937, medicare, more like 65, public schools, that depends on what you want to call different systems, but in North America it started in 1647
https://www.raceforward.org/research/reports/historical-timeline-public-education-us
The road bit is a PERFECT example of how, even if you don't directly use a service, you benefit from others using it....just like EVERY OTHER SERVICE MENTIONED.
Because we don't deny medical services to those without money, it's a question of do you pay less beforehand or more later, because either way you pay.
Because uneducated children cost society FAR more than educating them does, standing on your myopic moral high ground demanding 'personal parental responsibility' is a self defeating stance demanding people 'give' more than some have to give with no option for the children of the poor. (That said, I can get behind the 'public schools being free only for the poor' plan I think Jefferson had, as long as those schools are on par with private one's)
I explained clearly why even those average numbers are misleading.
Again, is that purchasing power per dollar, per person, or what?
OK, 'middle class' is not the average American. How about give the average American salary instead of cherry picking a rapidly shrinking sub-group that makes your point?
We all pay through the nose...it's just about when and how. You pay for the indigent by paying higher insurance and medical bills...it would be FAR cheaper to simply pay for their medical care in the first place (as in single payer health care). That saves the 10-25% that insurance companies take as profit on day one, and saves on overall medical care cost per person by properly taking care of people instead of waiting until there's an expensive emergency to pay for. (and makes a much healthier, so happier society as a whole)
The fact is that they are happy with their system. It does not make them all 'perfectly equal', there are rich and poor in Norway...or do you not believe that? People DO get ahead in Norway, probably more so than the average person in America who has seen their financial/social status in life, purchasing power, benefits, opportunities, and security go backwards over the last 40 years, unlike Norway.
No, I think the entire 'identical to everyone else' thing is something in YOUR head, not theirs, and not reality.
Don't have disposable income?!? In Norway, not the US?!?! You've GOT to be kidding. Let's ask someone who lives there...@BicycleRepairMan , is there only one social class in Norway, all equal, all making the same amount of money, all poor and destitute with no disposable income?
Well, the American system certainly disagrees with you. Those that put the most effort into their jobs usually make FAR less than those that put little effort into taking advantage of the opportunities available to them, but not to others. Those that make more in our society almost NEVER do it with manual labor, the hardest work to do. They also rarely do 2 or 3 full time jobs, as many poor must do. It's simply not true that working harder gets you advancement in the US, opportunity and connections get you advancement.
I do agree, giving medals for average/expected performance is ridiculous, but that rarely happens in business.

A little history can go a long way. They were in the fight by choice 3 years before we were dragged into action, and over 15% of their nation enlisted, over 10% of their nation fought overseas, a higher percentage than the US for much longer. We hardly protected them from the Japanese, they protected and hosted US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_New_Zealand_during_World_War_II
When Japan entered the war in December 1941, the New Zealand Government raised another expeditionary force, known as the 2nd N.Z.E.F. In the Pacific, or 2nd N.Z.E.F. (I.P.), for service with the Allied Pacific Ocean Areas command. This force supplemented existing garrison troops in the South Pacific. The main fighting formation of the 2nd N.Z.E.F. (I.P.) comprised the New Zealand 3rd Division. However, the 3rd Division never fought as a formation; its component brigades became involved in semi-independent actions as part of the Allied forces in the Solomons, Treasury Islands and Green Island.
Eventually, American formations replaced the New Zealand army units in the Pacific, which released personnel for service with the 2nd Division in Italy, or to cover shortages in the civilian labour-force. New Zealand Air Force squadrons and Navy units contributed to the Allied island-hopping campaign.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/us-forces-in-new-zealand
"The American soldier found himself ‘deep in the heart of the South Seas’, in the words of his army-issue pocket guide. He usually came here either before or immediately after experiencing the horror of war on a Pacific island, and he found a land of milk and honey (literally), of caring mothers and ‘pretty girls’."
"So the ‘American invasion’ (as New Zealanders affectionately called it) brought a considerable clash of cultures. "

Sorry to inconvenience your feelings and expressions of superiority with some facts.

I would love to spend less time thinking about the US and how messed up parts of it are. Unfortunately, I live in a world where that's not possible.

At least until China buys you out, the US is still the biggest influence on the rest of the world.. economically, politically and militarily.

Right now, NZ is part of the TPPA talks that will directly affect the way country is run.

So yeah, I comment on the US.

Besides, this is the 21st century. The people in my life are not decided by anything as archaic as national boundaries or even geography. I have friends and family all over the globe.

And @Mordhaus Norway has
- 6th highest per capita income (US is 10)
- 3rd highest educational attainment (US is 5)
- 5th highest on the anti corruption index (US doesn't even make top 10)
- 10th on environmental health (again, US doesn't make top 10)
- 8th in the "Good country" index (US is 21)
- 7th on Forbes list of "best for business" (US is 18)

On pretty much any ranking you look at, Norway is rated as a great place to live. Objectively, it outperforms the USA on almost every metric. As does NZ and Ireland

The US is actually a great country. It has an amazing natural landscape, has fantastic science and technology and the people are (for the most part) incredibly friendly. But it's held back by its refusal to acknowledge its faults and its frankly appalling political system. You do lots of things extremely well, but self-reflection is not one of them.

Again, you are misrepresenting the road tax. There is literally no way that you do not use the road or travel system in some fashion unless you walk everywhere cross-country and make no other trips other than for food and work. Even if you ride a bike on a road or take a bus/train, you are using the transport system and therefore should have to pay for it.

Most of the rest of your points about education and healthcare are opinions and I refuse to waste time on them.

The numbers I listed are per dollar per family. I fell I've been very transparent on this and the fact that you continue to rail against it is doing nothing to impress upon me that I am wrong. The numbers are accurate. As far as the middle class, it is still the largest portion of our class structure. Yes, it is shrinking and this should be addressed, but it is what it is at the moment. They are the average American still.

Some of them are happy with it. There are numerous articles from Norwegians discussing their unhappiness with the system, especially since they are having an influx of poor immigrants like the rest of Europe. They suddenly do not like having to pay for people who moved to their country, odd right?

The idea of being the same as everyone else is a fucking cultural meme in Norway and similar countries, its called the Law of Jante. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante. Again, I feel I have been very clear and open on this and you are pissing me off by picking at it like i'm making it up. I don't make stuff up, I find facts and I list them. If the facts do not agree with your viewpoint, that is not my problem.

Finally, we are so far off the topic at this point and you continue to nitpick my facts instead of disproving them, so I am done.

Again, I totally disagree. The 'road tax' is the same kind of social program as SS and Medicare. If you don't understand that not having hoards of indigent elderly, uneducated, and infirmed on those streets is a good thing, we'll never see eye to eye.

Per dollar per family? That makes no sense to me...it's either one or the other.

The law of Jante is a derogative term from the 1930's. If it applies today and most people dislike it, it's incredibly odd that a democratic country didn't change by now. What I read said the term now refers to people trying to 'climb the social ladder'. (a thing that would be impossible if the original 'law of Jante' was reality and everyone was the same status)

I'll await comment from someone who lives there, like @BicycleRepairMan, because I'm far more interested in what he thinks about this than what you or I think about it.

Japan was supposed to buy us out too at one point, don't get your hopes up.

I am not saying that the US is a great place vs the rest of the world, I am just saying that you don't get the 'utopia' that people claim Norway to be without huge sacrifices by the people and also being a net exporter of natural resources.

Norway has one of the highest tax rates and one of the highest VAT rates in the world. They are net exporters of Oil, Natural Gas, and Seafood, almost all profits of which are nationalized by the government and rerouted into pension funds.

They are one of the highest cost of living places in the world and that is not factoring the taxes, but goods and services. If you take your family out to eat and spend 100 dollars, you are going to pay an additional 25 in just taxes.

The society is conditioned to believe in Jante's Law, so this suits them because everyone is 'equal'. However, with the immigration rates rising from poorer EU countries, there are cracks appearing in the laissez faire attitude. Protests and even a mass atttack have happened once people realized that they are now supporting people that are lower than them.

The point is, you can't simply point to the nordic socialist countries and say "Oh, what a wonderful place, if only everyone was so enlightened!" because it won't work without a specific set of circumstances. Most countries don't have those circumstances and must forge ahead in their own path. Additionally, almost no other country has the unique set of challenges that the US faces due to our position as the supposed world leader. Personally, I've long wished we would back off and let the rest of you all figure out stuff on your own. I think, however, that it wouldn't be long before one or more countries would come bitching to us to fix something.

So, newtboy, the US military was not superior to the NZ military?

Don't project your 'superior' prejudices on me...I'm talking militarily.

I appreciate the NZ hosting the US people, but their contribution has to be minuscule due to their size and population.

*controversy *news

Adding video to channels (Controversy, News) - requested by MrFisk.

WE as is "That's not the country we have decided we want to live in" Who is WE??

I don't agree with the WE. So there is no WE.

Anyway:

After reading you response it appears that you premise is this:

People are too inferior to make reasonable and logical decisions to succeeded in life so we need a benevolent government to provide for its people.

----------------Such a defeatist position.-------------------------



I believe that it is a basic instinct to want to succeed. That one naturally raises to the occasion and overcomes adversity. I believe in ones ability to rise to the occasion. To get knocked down and get back up. I believe in the human spirit.



AS for "How about we just remove all corporate welfare" Yep I agree and also get rid of mortgage deductions and all other government cheese.

It sure sounds like you are. You certainly seem to think we're 'better' than Norway, contrary to all measures of greatness and happiness.

Again, you misstate facts. Everyone in Norway is NOT equal, in status or financially. Period. You can keep saying it, it won't make it true just because you wish it was.

Those circumstances apparently being making 'self centered materialistic greed at the expense of others' seem bad again? I hate to tell you, there's a HUGE movement in that direction in the US. People like me have decided that materialism is not the end all, be all some people think it is, and it does not foster happiness. Being happy with what you have, and grateful for your good fortune in life is FAR more important and satisfying than 'social climbing' or being filthy rich, to thoughtful people.

"WE" is the nation as a whole. Because you wish to separate yourself from the rest of us does not mean 'there is no we', it only means you aren't one of us (or don't want to be).
I live in the real world, where most people are poor planners, and most people don't have the means to plan anyway (more every day, thanks to un-livable wages being the norm). It's not defeatist, it's realist. It would be wonderful if we all had the gift of forethought, perfect knowledge of financial planning, prognostication to be able to know what your needs WILL be, and the income to be able to follow through with financial plans. I live well on 1/2 of a <$30K income and take NO help from anywhere, but most people don't have my advantages or the willingness to live with less, or the time and space to do things like grow their own food, or the property and money/credit to get a solar/wind generation system, even though it saves them tons in the long term, they simply don't have the financial ability to plan long term.
I don't see what your next paragraph has to do with the topic. (It reminds me of the saying 'god only gives you the burden you can carry' which ignores the thousands that commit suicide because their burden was more than they could stand.) One can only rise to the opportunities one is presented with, those that have limited opportunities often have no way to 'rise to the occasion' or 'over come adversity', they can't even overcome their food bills, no matter how hard they work at Wendy's.

I'm for getting rid of 'government cheese' for anyone that does not need it, but removing all programs leaves us back in the 30's with roving gangs of the destitute clogging the streets, expensive abusive state run institutions for the elderly poor, and the economy tanking. I could support a 'means test' or the like for 'welfare' and social security, but it would benefit us all if everyone had access to healthcare, and in the long run would even save those who do pay for it, because as I've said repeatedly, we already pay their bills after the fact (by paying higher bills to cover for those that don't/won't/can't pay their bill). Giving us all access to healthcare outside the emergency room saves us ALL money...and removing the insurance industry middleman saves another 10%-25% that we get NO benefit from.

It's about addressing the real world, not insisting all people should act intelligently and fore-thoughtfully at all times, and designing a system that only works if they do and leads to disaster if they don't. I do not believe people, as a group, are good at planning for their future, and we all do better when at least the minimum of financial planning is taken care of by intelligent educated people rather than left to those who plan poorly. Sometimes that means paying to not have people camped on your lawn waiting to rob you...and it's cheaper to put them in an apartment than in jail. The systems could certainly be better (I'm not holding my breath that they will be improved though), but having no 'safety net' at all has already proven to be far worse for everyone, and the country as a whole in many ways.

Your "we" is in you own mind.

Just because people as you believe cant take care of themselves that WE should care for them cradle to grave via tax dollars.

That is foolish.

I do live in the real world and WE buckle down/ plan / save / get screwed and get back up and keep going.

Are you saying you make 15K/yr? If so then you are making more money that 85% of the world population. Your are RICH compared to others. Shit you should be taxed 90% and share it with others.

World Wealth Calculator
http://www.leastof.org/worldwealthcalculator

Then again If I were a man only making 15K /yr I would shoot myself instead of insisting of a lifetime leaching on others.


But my play would take of you and enable you to take paid time off so you could retrain yourself for a better paying job.

I'm such a swell guy. You don't even have to say thank you.