Support NeoGAF

[fse]

GO CANADA!

 

[FightyF]

GAF: Anti-America, Anti-Religion, Anti-Nintendo

Sheesh...a little dose of reality is now called Anti-Nintendoism? I mean, anti-Americanism?

If anythings these stats, especially the ones relating to education should be a wake up call to American Politicians.

As an engineer I find this interesting. We have less engineers, and we're apparently dumber. Yet we lead in technology, hmmm

Leading in technology has more to do with proper funding than anything else. Besides, most of the people leading in research are probably foreign anyways. No, I don't have stats to back that up, just anecdotal evidence, most people I know in grad studies are foreign, mostly Asian.

That's funny, because not only do I not see any Americans in this topic "reminding [themselves] how great [America] is" (save for facetiously), but seldom do I see "Why Europe Sucks" lists emanating from (at least semi-credible) American media outlets; so perhaps one would be justified in drawing conclusions about that sort of behavior on the part of our European friends as well?

Most of the Nationalism and the "we are so great" propaganda comes from media outlets and politicians. I remember a Town Hall meeting (located on campus) on CNN with Albright and that other dude that kinda looks like Kerry (damn, forgot his name!), and they were getting bashed left and right, but at the end they managed to say something along the lines of we are the greatest country in the World and getting a standing ovation. It was kind of scary how people could get easily distracted from the issues.

As far as your second point goes, it's valid IMO, but do remember that firstly, Europe (and even Canada for that matter) doesn't engage in extreme nationalistic pride.

 

[Monk]

That 17 percent of people that believe that the sun revolves around the earth are probably the same ones that voted for Bush.

 

[gofreak]

Are you serious? So I have to first do a database search of every reputable American periodical, and read the transcripts of every American news program, before I am allowed to state that I've rarely seen such attacks on Europe coming from American media outlets? Sorry, but no. I'll go you one further: I've personally never seen a "top 50 reasons why Europe sucks" list...anywhere (not that I have any desire to, as I find such sniping juvenile and counterproductive). But I've seen dozens of such lists about America. If you can find a "this is why Europe sucks" list (itemized as this one is), feel free to post it.

Someone evidently has never picked up The Economist Yeah, they don't do "itemised lists" but they're still very europe-sceptic. I know you're looking for lists here, but trust me, there's plenty of literature out there that's down on Europe too. And I've seen a number of "why America is great" lists before too (most memorably, a remarkably out-of-date list floating around after 9/11), so I guess this is just balance.

Outside of dictatorships the USA is the only country I'm aware of that must at all times remind itself how great it is.

Says the man from "Great" Britain Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Dilbert]

Kind of like that bullshit about women getting paid 70 cents to a man's dollar. If I could hire someone for 70% and get the same work (I emphasize same, because if women truly get paid less than men, it is definitely because the work done by women isn't to the level of men. Not being sexist here, I just mean how often does a man get knocked up and have to take a pregnancy leave?) I would hire someone for 70% and get the same work.

I can't believe this comment has passed unchallenged.

First of all, it's not an "if" -- there is quite clearly inequity in average pay. According to the 2004 median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers 16 and over, women of all ethnic groups collectively average about 80% of the pay of men. If you do some more research on the BLS site, you'll find that this difference in pay exists in virtually every field. I don't have time to research this, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say that the major reason for the inequity is that women probably aren't promoted as often to senior (and therefore higher-paying) jobs as men are. This article would tend to support that view, although it's from 1999 and not as recent as I'd like to support the current BLS numbers.

Second, it is true that woman have a higher rate of absence and lost worktime than men. However, it is hard to make a case that pregnancy is the major contributor since their illness/injury rates are also higher than men...not just the "other reasons" category which includes pregnancy. In fact, the "other" category only has a small spike in the 20-24 age range for women, and is otherwise fairly consistent. Finally, the "other" category covers a lot of other situations in which I'd suspect asymmetry based on gender -- having to miss work time to care for a sick child, for instance.

No matter what you claim, you ARE being sexist. Assuming that a woman's work isn't at the level of a man's and that the difference in pay is deserved for that reason is flat-out offensive. Assuming that attendance at work is a significant factor in how well someone of either gender performs his/her job is just dumb.

 

[NLB2]

Assuming that attendance at work is a significant factor in how well someone of either gender performs his/her job is just dumb.

I've got to go eat dinner now, so I'll reply to the rest of your post later but I just need to ask you this: What?
Are you saying that leaving for an extended period of time in the middle of a project doesn't affect someone's ability to perform his or her job, because that's obviously wrong. Or how about if one of your coworkers is chronically sick and misses work once per week, you don't think that will affect his or her work performance?
Are you a boxing fan, because I've got a really concrete example as far as boxing is concerned. Compare Ali before jail to Ali after jail. Or compare Jordan before retirement to comeback. Attendence is a huge factor in how well someone performs at work in the vast majority of cases.

 

[NetMapel]

Not only does women get promoted less than men, women with the same job as a men are often time paid less too. I am not sure why that's the case, but the paying inequality does exist.

 

[Boogie]

NLB2, these illiterate, presumptuous heathens obviously have never read Kant.

:lol

 

[Monk]

Off topic:

Is believing that hairdressers have the right to demand extra for cutting womens hair because they have to do more work usually, sexist?

 

[Loki]

Most of the Nationalism and the "we are so great" propaganda comes from media outlets and politicians. I remember a Town Hall meeting (located on campus) on CNN with Albright and that other dude that kinda looks like Kerry (damn, forgot his name!), and they were getting bashed left and right, but at the end they managed to say something along the lines of we are the greatest country in the World and getting a standing ovation. It was kind of scary how people could get easily distracted from the issues.

Yes, I'm aware of these sorts of happenings, and aware that our media and politicians frequently engage in demagoguery. My point was A) that I seldom see this type of fairly exhaustive, itemized critique of European nations in the American media; and B) that MrPing was, in essence, trolling in making the remark he did about America, since not only was the topic explicitly concerned with painting America in an unfavorable light, but nobody was "rushing to America's defense" and trying to tell themselves "how great the USA is" in the first place. In other words, there was absolutely no reason to make that comment in this particular topic. Is it a huge deal? No, not at all-- I was just making an offhand remark. The comments from other people who were trying to make it seem as if I'm somehow mistaken (which I'm not) are the only reason I've continued to participate in the thread. So now we're clear.

As far as your second point goes, it's valid IMO, but do remember that firstly, Europe (and even Canada for that matter) doesn't engage in extreme nationalistic pride.

Nationalism takes many forms; one can quite easily construe such "lists" as nationalism (or, in Europe's case, "continentalism"? ). It's certainly more well-substantiated nationalism than oafishly chanting "USA! USA!", but, regardless, it's indicative of pride in one's nation (and their policies); all such claims to "superiority" must obviously be examined on their merits. Given the prevalence of such lists and critiques of America, and the attendant exaltation of European nations/Canada, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that there isn't nationalism in these nations. It's of a different sort, by and large, yes, but it exists imo-- and there's nothing wrong with that unless it's either too fervent or too unexamined (as some/many may feel the current US "nationalism" is).

I was referring to the "contentious" comment. You saved youself by using these words: "seldom do I see".

I was just ribbing you with the "contentious" stuff-- I figured the smileys were a dead giveaway.

Yeah sometimes the most popular new networks deride foreigners. Try every day. Fox (once again the most popular) has made its name cheerleading for Bush. If Bush has problems with the French, Fox jumps on the Freedom Fries train. If we in Canada critize Bush, O'Reilly is screaming at the top of his lungs about how we might as well be commies.

Again, I don't deny that this occurs at all, nor that it's vacuous and puerile on their parts. My comments were referring to a specific form of expression-- namely, the sort of (at least superficially) thorough, itemized critiques from our transatlantic counterparts that we frequently seem to be the subject of.


In other words, it doesn't take much for a moron like O'Reilly to take ignorant jabs at other nations; for this (among other things), he's an ass, and we can typically dismiss him out of hand. But it does take a bit of work to compile the data to make a semi-detailed, semi-substantiated critique such as is the focus of this topic, and I feel that this betrays a different kind of idiocy-- if not in terms of intellectual capacity, then in terms of decorum. It betrays a peculiar, unsettled mentality imo, and is childish in that sense unless it is part of a larger discussion with the explicit topic being "America vs. other nations".


(Btw, I keep saying "semi-substantiated" and "semi-detailed" not because I necessarily take issue with anything they say-- though I do for certain things-- but rather because it's obviously not an academic study/analysis, and so it falls somewhere in between mindless ranting, a la O'Reilly, and a published study, which would likely be "fully" detailed and substantiated)


It wouldn't be so bad if it was just once in a while, but this sort of thing is disturbingly frequent. I'm not saying that America hasn't done anything to provoke it, as we have by demeaning other nations and alienating them simply for disagreeing with our (often ill-considered) policies. But at some point it just becomes somewhat unseemly and counterprouctive imo; that's not how I conduct myself in my own life, and when I see others behaving in such a manner, I'll usually open my mouth, whatever side of the ocean they happen to be on.


In my opinion.

Someone evidently has never picked up The Economist Yeah, they don't do "itemised lists" but they're still very europe-sceptic. I know you're looking for lists here, but trust me, there's plenty of literature out there that's down on Europe too. And I've seen a number of "why America is great" lists before too (most memorably, a remarkably out-of-date list floating around after 9/11), so I guess this is just balance.

I've read The Economist in the past though I don't read it regularly, you're correct. If those sorts of detailed (and seemingly unprovoked) critiques are commonplace therein, however, I don't think I'll be changing my reading habits...

 

[Nerevar]

I think all the test "rankings" for literacy / mathematics / science / engineering just show how incredibly inane those metrics are as the US continues to lead the world in science and technology (even with a draconian moron leading the nation). I mean, if our country is so dumb, how come we're so technologically advanced? Success in business and in life is not dictated by our capacity to score highly on standardized tests.

 

[Drensch]

I mean, if our country is so dumb, how come we're so technologically advanced? Success in business and in life is not dictated by our capacity to score highly on standardized tests.

You think it's a level playing field? Business here gets a head start.
.
Paris Hilton ain't succcessful because she pulled hereself up from the gutter

 

[Nerevar]

You think it's a level playing field? Business here gets a head start.
.
Paris Hilton ain't succcessful because she pulled hereself up from the gutter

While I'm not going to deny that there are those here who have a serious advantage, the notion that we are a nation of idiots because our children rank poorly among other industrialized nations in standardized tests is insane, and little more than a bragging right that foreign nations use. And are you denying that the "idle rich" is something that exists only in America? I was pretty sure that American millionaires often tried to mimic their European counterparts.

 

[Yamauchi]

I don't see what the obsession with America is. Not just from Americans, but from Europeans and others around the world. America had its day, and now that day is moving on. The economy of the United States is being marginalized every year, growing at only about half the rate of the world's economy. The USA is simply a passing superpower, just like every other one in history. I don't know why Europeans are splooging themselves, though. Euro zone's economy has anemic growth. It's barely able to expand and their peopulation growths rates are beginning to reverse. Within twenty years their economies will be entirely eclipsed by nations like China and India while "third world" countries like Indonesia will have economies as large as the leading nations in Europe. So, what exactly is the driving force behind your enthusiasm? It is the brown people that you pasty Europeans treat like crap in your own countries that will be benefiting from the decline of America, not you.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Public:
Majority- idiots.
Minority- extremely savvy and intelligent (not in a strictly academic sense).

Government:
Bush- idiot.
Republican Party- savvy and intelligent (not in a strictly academic sense).

 

[.hacked]

America is #1 and people are always out to knock down the one on top. There is no country greater than the US of A!

 

[D-X]

A good example of what happens when you take a swipe at the good old USA is the backlash George Michael got when released this video:

The programme that these cartoons come from airs weekly in the UK and there's no one they wont take the piss out of, yet no one there has got a problem with it.

 

[Dilbert]

I've got to go eat dinner now, so I'll reply to the rest of your post later but I just need to ask you this: What?
Are you saying that leaving for an extended period of time in the middle of a project doesn't affect someone's ability to perform his or her job, because that's obviously wrong. Or how about if one of your coworkers is chronically sick and misses work once per week, you don't think that will affect his or her work performance?

First of all, there is a big difference between planned absences and unplanned absences. Missing 2-3 months of work to have a child -- especially when you have months to plan ahead about how to mitigate the impact of your absence on your company or team -- is not a big deal. Aside from the length of time, how is it any different from a key contributor taking two weeks off in the summer to go on vacation with his/her family? You almost sound resentful that people are allowed to pursue other parts of their lives which are more important than work.

Second, I suppose there ARE jobs that have attendance as a requirement. It's been a long time since I thought about shift work, but I guess not showing up is a bigger deal when you have a job at your local McDonalds or something where the main requirement IS to show up in uniform on time. In the corporate world, though, you're frequently on your own as to when you take your PTO. If you're genuinely sick and need to miss something, then you deal with the consequences and do what you can to help cover the gap. But I don't see how a single incident affects your "performance" overall. Say I get food poisoning and can't give a presentation because I'm vomiting constantly. Is someone really going to ignore what I do the other 364 days of the year because of that one event? Would they somehow be happy that I came in and barfed while standing in front of the projector? In any kind of sane organization, you avoid single points of failure like the plague. If you have a job that literally no one else can do, then you should leave that job immediately, because you're about to get fucked over. Cross-training people to have flexible skill coverage and developing "bench strength" at leadership positions are requirements if your company is going to succeed.

Finally, based on what I see when I walk around the halls, I'd be willing to bet that most average performers could get the same amount of work done if they busted their ass for 20 hours a week and then went home. Don't ever confuse showing up with getting something done. Performance is measured on results, not a timecard.

 

[MrPing1000]

Says the man from "Great" Britain Sorry, couldn't resist

Thats ok. I don't live in Great Britain though

 

[Sirpopopop]

I'm not saying u all do, those that do the rest of the world sees. American Nationalism is extremely high, the terrorist threats have probably inflated it.

What I mostly see of Europeans allows me to characterize them as generally loathsome arrogant contemptible people who love sneering down at Americans. They like to accuse Americans of having egos yet are totally unaware of how ironic their behavior makes their talk seem.

Thank you and good night.

I don't see what the obsession with America is. Not just from Americans, but from Europeans and others around the world. America had its day, and now that day is moving on. The economy of the United States is being marginalized every year, growing at only about half the rate of the world's economy. The USA is simply a passing superpower, just like every other one in history. I don't know why Europeans are splooging themselves, though. Euro zone's economy has anemic growth. It's barely able to expand and their peopulation growths rates are beginning to reverse. Within twenty years their economies will be entirely eclipsed by nations like China and India while "third world" countries like Indonesia will have economies as large as the leading nations in Europe. So, what exactly is the driving force behind your enthusiasm? It is the brown people that you pasty Europeans treat like crap in your own countries that will be benefiting from the decline of America, not you.

Bolded for Emphasis. Re-read it yet again.

I'm sure someone can make a poll like the one on the first page of this thread, and gather data that paints Europe in a similar idiotic light.

 

[Fresh Prince]

It would be wise for the Asians\Indo-Asians to learn the language- go back to our 'homelands' and act as intermediatries between Western Companies and Eastern Companies :lol

 

[MrPing1000]

absorbing the hate. My country sucks btw NI is a shithole

 

[MrPing1000]

It's a nice place to visit, though.

yeah it probably is, enuff culture to keep u entertained for a while, pitty 90% of the population are subhuman

 

[Hitokage]

Loki: Contrary to what you may think, there is a world outside this forum and sometimes people reference it in threads.

Kind of like that bullshit about women getting paid 70 cents to a man's dollar. If I could hire someone for 70% and get the same work (I emphasize same, because if women truly get paid less than men, it is definitely because the work done by women isn't to the level of men. Not being sexist here, I just mean how often does a man get knocked up and have to take a pregnancy leave?) I would hire someone for 70% and get the same work.

If you weren't blatantly sexist you would consider the individuals applying for your job, not the Male/Female checkbox. Since when does being female automatically lead to anything except having a vagina.

 

[teh_pwn]

Damn, them japanese darn gone take our car market two.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/04/pf/autos/bc.autos.survey.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

I guess we ain't the best at 'erthing than all them other countries combined at all them hard to read catemagories.

If I only got me a better edumacation.

 

[Loki]

Loki: Contrary to what you may think, there is a world outside this forum and sometimes people reference it in threads.

I'm aware of that, but how exactly does that pertain to what I've stated in this thread, particularly as regards MrPing's comment, which is pretty much the sole reason I got involved to begin with.


EDIT: Never mind, I see what you're saying, but I stand by what I said-- there was no reason for that particular comment in this particular thread; if it were a different sort of opinion being expressed in a different sort of topic, I dare say it would be dubbed "trolling".

 

[FeedMeAStrayCat]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Countries are like sports teams-- the fans all want to think they're the best, and they'll take any way they can of showing it.

It's ironic that you imply that your country is better than the USA because they don't try to show how great they are all the time.

Edit: jinx, please don't start saying things are offensive! "Offensive" has been used and abused to the point of meaninglessness. As an alternative, try "moronic," or "absurd."

The bolded statement above is quite possibly the smartest thing said in this thread so far. That's nearly EXACTLY how some people are with countries. I live in America, and all this "America rocks! America rocks!" talk is retarded. As is the "I don't live in America, so BOOOOO America, I'm from a different country and you're the most powerful country in the world, so I don't like you!" talk. All country favoritism is just stupid.

On a side note, I'd like to say that if the US was a videogame console, it would be the GameCube. Because the GameCube is the best.

 

[Loki]

On a side note, I'd like to say that if the US was a videogame console, it would be the GameCube.

Hey, it's hip to be square.

 

[FeedMeAStrayCat]

Hey, it's hip to be square.

It's also hip to be a cube, baby!

 

[Uter]

Are you serious? So I have to first do a database search of every reputable American periodical, and read the transcripts of every American news program, before I am allowed to state that I've rarely seen such attacks on Europe coming from American media outlets? Sorry, but no. I'll go you one further: I've personally never seen a "top 50 reasons why Europe sucks" list...anywhere (not that I have any desire to, as I find such sniping juvenile and counterproductive). But I've seen dozens of such lists about America. If you can find a "this is why Europe sucks" list (itemized as this one is), feel free to post it.

Yes, inane "news" outlets like Fox News etc. (or at least their commentators-- O'Reilly, Hannity etc.) will sometimes call Europeans "pansies" or some other derogatory term, but never this sort of semi-substantial, yet ultimately self-serving, analysis.

Indeed.. INDEED!@#

I find it interesting that America's downfall as a manufacturing, cultural and economic "No. 1" probably has an inverse graph to the absurd pay increases that CEOs started getting around 1980. But capitalism is OBVIOUSLY the only system that works, and any limitations upon said capitalism is morally wrong.

Go back to your hole Karl and try to think up reasons why historical inevitability didn't actually fail but was horrifically thwarted...

 

[Loki]

It's also hip to be a cube, baby!

Touche, Sir Biglesworth.


...but don't ever call me "baby" again.

 

[NLB2]

First of all, it's not an "if" -- there is quite clearly inequity in average pay. According to the 2004 median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers 16 and over, women of all ethnic groups collectively average about 80% of the pay of men.

This chart shows pay of women compared to men overall. I stated in my original post that I do not believe women get paid less for the same work. Perhaps men get paid overall because men on average work in higher paying fields (this is a possible explanation, I don't have any information to show that men on average work in higher paying fields).

If you do some more research on the BLS site, you'll find that this difference in pay exists in virtually every field. I don't have time to research this, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say that the major reason for the inequity is that women probably aren't promoted as often to senior (and therefore higher-paying) jobs as men are.

Ok, disregard what I said above :lol.

This article would tend to support that view, although it's from 1999 and not as recent as I'd like to support the current BLS numbers.

Second, it is true that woman have a higher rate of absence and lost worktime than men. However, it is hard to make a case that pregnancy is the major contributor since their illness/injury rates are also higher than men...not just the "other reasons" category which includes pregnancy. In fact, the "other" category only has a small spike in the 20-24 age range for women, and is otherwise fairly consistent. Finally, the "other" category covers a lot of other situations in which I'd suspect asymmetry based on gender -- having to miss work time to care for a sick child, for instance.

So you and the article cited both believe that the reason for the discrepency in pay between men and women in the same fields is due to men being promoted instead of women. Certainly it would seem natural to promote those individuals who are more likely to not miss work, whether those abscenses be planned or not, than those more likely to miss work to management positions, no? This is irregardless of gender. If I'm interested in promoting someone to a higher position, I will take into account whether or not they are military reservists or how likely it is they will take maternity or paternity leave (whether this is legal or not doesn't really matter). All else equal, why would I be more likely to promote the person more likely to miss work than to show up for work? (Also, the "other" statistic for women goes between 1.3 and 1.8 until it gets to the over 55 age group where it drops to .9. This may show that women, though most likely to become pregnant between 20 and 24, have a large number of pregnancies in other age ranges.)

First of all, there is a big difference between planned absences and unplanned absences. Missing 2-3 months of work to have a child -- especially when you have months to plan ahead about how to mitigate the impact of your absence on your company or team -- is not a big deal. Aside from the length of time, how is it any different from a key contributor taking two weeks off in the summer to go on vacation with his/her family?

My experience in situations like this isn't proffesional but is instead scholastic and musical. Recently my quartet has been rehersing for various chamber music competitions. Two members of my quartet (including myself) will be missing a week of school and rehersal as we travel to Memphis to play at the Conference USA tournament (sixty bucks a game baby!). Although we've known that the quartet will be unable to reherse that week since the beggining of the semseter and we have made sure to add extra rehersals when ever possible, it doesn't change the fact that that week is a week when my quartet will be unable to reherse while the other chamber groups we will be competing against will be able to reherse. Although abscense being planned may minimize the the blow, there is still a blow.

In the corporate world, though, you're frequently on your own as to when you take your PTO. If you're genuinely sick and need to miss something, then you deal with the consequences and do what you can to help cover the gap. But I don't see how a single incident affects your "performance" overall. Say I get food poisoning and can't give a presentation because I'm vomiting constantly. Is someone really going to ignore what I do the other 364 days of the year because of that one event?

Of course not. But all else equal, would you hire someone who is more likely to get sick the day of a presentation or the person less likely to get sick the day of the presentation?

Finally, based on what I see when I walk around the halls, I'd be willing to bet that most average performers could get the same amount of work done if they busted their ass for 20 hours a week and then went home. Don't ever confuse showing up with getting something done. Performance is measured on results, not a timecard.

No doubt this is true, but what does it matter to the discussion at hand?

Also, to addres those saying my post was sexist - as -jinx- pointed out, many more women are likely to take maternal leave than men paternal leave. Just because society as a whole still has certain roles typecast by gender does not mean I personally am sexist.

 

[NLB2]

Loki: Contrary to what you may think, there is a world outside this forum and sometimes people reference it in threads.

If you weren't blatantly sexist you would consider the individuals applying for your job, not the Male/Female checkbox. Since when does being female automatically lead to anything except having a vagina.

This is exactly my point. Women and men do the same goddamn work and therefore, if I'm not an idiot, I would hire women for less money than men and make more profits. Do you think the stockholders would complain about all the women working for the company if their stocks are going up and they're making larger dividends? There has to be a reason for this discrepncy in pay and its not sexism.

 

[Xenon]

So let me get this straight, are we supposed to hate our country because of this list? I'd love to see all the other countries held up to such scrutiny, especially on discrepancies of women salaries. I guess if you go to France they all say humbly “yeah we’re 16th.” I don’t have a problem with someone thinking their country is the best. The only people I can see having a problem are people who think theirs is not(American or “the rest of the world"ian).

Am I the only one sick of this "the rest of the world" concept. Its almost like were in some twisted Pokemon contest.

GAF: I attack American litteracy with Belgium!
America counters with Production!
GAF: HAHA, I GOT YOU NOW AMERICA.... I SUMMON CHINA!
America counters with......

Of course if you compare all that is bad in the US to all that is good in the "rest of the world" were going to look like shit.

 

[IgeL]

Euro zone's economy has anemic growth. It's barely able to expand and their peopulation growths rates are beginning to reverse.

Are you implying that expanding population is a good thing?

Anyway, there are so many statistics that it's somewhat easy to make ANY country look bad. I'm sure there are many stats claiming Finland is bad, yet I know it's not true - Finland is the best!

 

[Space Age Playboy]

Are you implying that expanding population is a good thing?

A stagnant or shrinking population is very bad for an economy. More people = more growth.

 

[Drozmight]

My country's the world.

 

[Do The Mario]

Uneducated rural/ghetto areas would extrapolate those results. The same could be said for any country but the lack of safety nets on the standard living in America means there are probably more then average pockets of poverty stricken and poorly educated people to drag those scores down.

 

[Do The Mario]

The UN's Top 15 countries:
HDI rank 2002
Life expectancy (years) Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) GDP per capita ($) Adult literacy (%)
1 Norway 78.5 4 29,918 99%*
2 Sweden 79.7 3 24,277 99%*
3 Canada 78.8 6 27,840 99%*
4 Belgium 78.4 6 27,178 99%*
5 Australia 78.9 6 25,693 99%*
6 United States 77 7 34,142 99%*
7 Iceland 79.2 4 29,581 99%*
8 Netherlands 78.1 5 25,657 99%*
9 Japan 81 4 26,755 99%*
10 Finland 77.6 4 24,996 99%*
11 Switzerland 78.9 3 28,789 99%*
12 France 78.6 4 24,223 99%*
13 UK 77.7 4 23,509 99%*
14 Denmark 76.2 6 27,627 99%*
15 Austria 78.1 4 26,765 99%*

 

[G4life98]

The effort people put into hating America is both disturbing and flattering :lol

I didnt need some biased poll to tell me that there are some misguided people in my country and its noit like america has an exclusive on dummies...just look at this thread

 

[gofreak]

The UN's Top 15 countries:
HDI rank 2002
Life expectancy (years) Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) GDP per capita ($) Adult literacy (%)
1 Norway 78.5 4 29,918 99%*
2 Sweden 79.7 3 24,277 99%*
3 Canada 78.8 6 27,840 99%*
4 Belgium 78.4 6 27,178 99%*
5 Australia 78.9 6 25,693 99%*
6 United States 77 7 34,142 99%*
7 Iceland 79.2 4 29,581 99%*
8 Netherlands 78.1 5 25,657 99%*
9 Japan 81 4 26,755 99%*
10 Finland 77.6 4 24,996 99%*
11 Switzerland 78.9 3 28,789 99%*
12 France 78.6 4 24,223 99%*
13 UK 77.7 4 23,509 99%*
14 Denmark 76.2 6 27,627 99%*
15 Austria 78.1 4 26,765 99%*

There's a more recent Human Development index than that here (2004):

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/hdr04_HDI.pdf

HDI Rank Country Life Expectancy Adult Literacy Combined Gross Enrolment ratio for primary,secondary and tertiary schools, GDP Per Capita, Live Expectancy Index, Education Index, GDP Index, HDI Value in 2002, GDP per capita rank minus HDI rank

1 Norway 78.9 .. e 98 f $36,600 0.90 0.99 0.99 0.956 1
2 Sweden 80.0 .. e 114 g, h $26,050 0.92 0.99 0.93 0.946 19
3 Australia 79.1 .. e 113 g, h $28,260 0.90 0.99 0.94 0.946 9
4 Canada 79.3 .. e 95 f $29,480 0.90 0.98 0.95 0.943 5
5 Netherlands 78.3 .. e 99 f $29,100 0.89 0.99 0.95 0.942 6
6 Belgium 78.7 .. e 111 f, g $27,570 0.90 0.99 0.94 0.942 7
7 Iceland 79.7 .. e 90 f $29,750 0.91 0.96 0.95 0.941 1
8 United States 77.0 .. e 92 h $35,750 0.87 0.97 0.98 0.939 -4
9 Japan 81.5 .. e 84 h $26,940 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.938 6
10 Ireland 76.9 .. e 90 f $36,360 0.86 0.96 0.98 0.936 -7
11 Switzerland 79.1 .. e 88 f $30,010 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.936 -4
12 United Kingdom 78.1 .. e 113 f, g $26,150 0.88 0.99 0.93 0.936 8
13 Finland 77.9 .. e 106 f, g $26,190 0.88 0.99 0.93 0.935 6
14 Austria 78.5 .. e 91 f $29,220 0.89 0.96 0.95 0.934 -4
15 Luxembourg 78.3 .. e 75 f, i $61,190 j 0.89 0.91 1.00 0.933 -14

According to this, Ireland has greater GDP per capita than the US now o_0

And anyway, here's your answer. "The world's best country"..

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005

Thread over

edit - The Economist's report puts Ireland's GDP lower than the US's, unlike the UN's, but still very high.

 

[Dkong]

I'm still immigrating as soon as I get the chance. Fuck statistics, Europe sucks more. I'm not gonna work my ass off just to be barely able to afford a modest house and a small car after having been in school for 20 years.

 

[teh_pwn]

Yea, perhaps ranking should be based on opportunity. There's no way America is #1 if the ranking is based off the average person's accomplishments, because there's lots of lazy people around here. If all the world's best scientists are coming over here, there's a reason for that.

What's interesting is Japan's life expectancy. I remember a statistic that 75% of Japanese men smoke, but drink lots of green tea -- and that is the supposed reason why they live so long.

Here's where I remember that:

http://chinesefood.about.com/library/weekly/aa011400a.htm

 

[Willco]

Where's the poll that shows how fucking badass we are?

You can't come in America and fuck our shit. We'll jump you and steal your Eurotrash clothing.

 

[Liono]

America by the numbers? I'd like to see those numbers-- I love it when some shithead tries to generalize a group of some 300 million people.

 

[Shinobi]

Off topic:

Is believing that hairdressers have the right to demand extra for cutting womens hair because they have to do more work usually, sexist?

Sexist and stupid...unless they take the same money from guys who want their mullets shaped.

Pay inequality exists the world over and is wrong...it's ridiculous that we're in the 21st century and this issue has to be addressed. Then again when you see the sort of racist acts that have gone on over the past year or so, I suppose it's not too surprising. We really are a planet of idiots.

I don't see what the obsession with America is. Not just from Americans, but from Europeans and others around the world. America had its day, and now that day is moving on. The economy of the United States is being marginalized every year, growing at only about half the rate of the world's economy. The USA is simply a passing superpower, just like every other one in history. I don't know why Europeans are splooging themselves, though. Euro zone's economy has anemic growth. It's barely able to expand and their peopulation growths rates are beginning to reverse. Within twenty years their economies will be entirely eclipsed by nations like China and India while "third world" countries like Indonesia will have economies as large as the leading nations in Europe. So, what exactly is the driving force behind your enthusiasm? It is the brown people that you pasty Europeans treat like crap in your own countries that will be benefiting from the decline of America, not you.

:lol :lol :lol I like this post...

What a ridiculous thing to say. Countries are like sports teams-- the fans all want to think they're the best, and they'll take any way they can of showing it.

The bolded statement above is quite possibly the smartest thing said in this thread so far. That's nearly EXACTLY how some people are with countries. I live in America, and all this "America rocks! America rocks!" talk is retarded. As is the "I don't live in America, so BOOOOO America, I'm from a different country and you're the most powerful country in the world, so I don't like you!" talk. All country favoritism is just stupid.

Both posts are on point...of course Biglesworth ruins his moment with his "Cube is the best" nonsense. :lol

America is held to a different standard though, because America has historically held itself to a different standard. It tells everyone through action as well as words that they're the most important nation in the world, the nation most able to spread freedom and democracy, the nation best able to protect, the nation that people flee to when they want to escape tyranny. So people can't really bitch when America is held to that same high standard on the negative end, particularly when their actions defy and contradict their stated standards.

If America doesn't like it, they can get off pulpit and let someone else take the mic. We all know that isn't gonna happen.

I think the general point of the original article has merit. At the same time it applies to every country on earth. No country is as good as it thinks it is...not even close. For years I've said that no country wears a white hat. We've all got ass cracks, and they all stink. I personally find it disturbing how the cost of living in the west has seemingly been on the rise the last ten to fifteen years...which wouldn't be a bad thing except I don't see this being coutnerbalanced with any real expdiency in developing nations. I just see the world in general as one big mess. Which doesn't mean I'm unhappy with life...on the contrary, I'm thankful to God that I'm still able to breathe. But the government, corporate and media corruption that has become more recognizable to me throughout the world as I grow older doesn't exactly leave me with pleasant thoughts.

 

[BlackMage]

America is held to a different standard though, because America has historically held itself to a different standard. It tells everyone through action as well as words that they're the most important nation in the world, the nation most able to spread freedom and democracy, the nation best able to protect, the nation that people flee to when they want to escape tyranny. So people can't really bitch when America is held to that same high standard on the negative end, particularly when their actions defy and contradict their stated standards.

If America doesn't like it, they can get off pulpit and let someone else take the mic. We all know that isn't gonna happen.

I think the general point of the original article has merit. At the same time it applies to every country on earth. No country is as good as it thinks it is...not even close. For years I've said that no country wears a white hat. We've all got ass cracks, and they all stink. I personally find it disturbing how the cost of living in the west has seemingly been on the rise the last ten to fifteen years...which wouldn't be a bad thing except I don't see this being coutnerbalanced with any real expdiency in developing nations. I just see the world in general as one big mess. Which doesn't mean I'm unhappy with life...on the contrary, I'm thankful to God that I'm still able to breathe. But the government, corporate and media corruption that has become more recognizable to me throughout the world as I grow older doesn't exactly leave me with pleasant thoughts.

Exactly how I feel!

 

[909er]

Uneducated rural/ghetto areas would extrapolate those results. The same could be said for any country but the lack of safety nets on the standard living in America means there are probably more then average pockets of poverty stricken and poorly educated people to drag those scores down.

1 million ppl enter this country illegally every year and aren't caught. Probably doesn't help our education of poverty statistics at all.

 

[Dilbert]

This chart shows pay of women compared to men overall. I stated in my original post that I do not believe women get paid less for the same work. Perhaps men get paid overall because men on average work in higher paying fields (this is a possible explanation, I don't have any information to show that men on average work in higher paying fields).

Another link I provided was a breakdown of average pay for men and women, divided by career field. In almost every case, the average pay for men was higher than that of women. (EDIT: Looks like you saw it after all.)

So you and the article cited both believe that the reason for the discrepency in pay between men and women in the same fields is due to men being promoted instead of women. Certainly it would seem natural to promote those individuals who are more likely to not miss work, whether those abscenses be planned or not, than those more likely to miss work to management positions, no?

Again, I am simply speechless with why you are so obsessed with attendance. The reasons why someone OUGHT to be promoted are for having demonstrated excellence in his/her current job, capability of handling or learning the functions of a higher-level job, and leadership/management skills. Attendance, if it's a factor at all, is a small bullet point under "excellence in current job."

Feel free to do research on the "glass ceiling" sometime. The reason women aren't being promoted has little to nothing to do with pregnancy or attendance.

If I'm interested in promoting someone to a higher position, I will take into account whether or not they are military reservists or how likely it is they will take maternity or paternity leave (whether this is legal or not doesn't really matter).

Discrimination based on gender is certainly illegal, and as far as I know, military service also has legal protections in the workplace. There are myriad labor laws, and they DO matter.

Of course not. But all else equal, would you hire someone who is more likely to get sick the day of a presentation or the person less likely to get sick the day of the presentation?

That is inherently unknowable. Sudden illness or personal conflict is a random event.

Also, to addres those saying my post was sexist - as -jinx- pointed out, many more women are likely to take maternal leave than men paternal leave. Just because society as a whole still has certain roles typecast by gender does not mean I personally am sexist.

No, you PERSONALLY are being sexist. I said that there may be cultural reasons why there is a skew in the "other absences" number. That is far different than claiming that women deserve to be paid less than men because their performance at work is inherently not as good as men.

This is exactly my point. Women and men do the same goddamn work and therefore, if I'm not an idiot, I would hire women for less money than men and make more profits. Do you think the stockholders would complain about all the women working for the company if their stocks are going up and they're making larger dividends? There has to be a reason for this discrepncy in pay and its not sexism.

As I stated before, the evidence seems to show that the difference in AVERAGE pay is due to vastly different levels of advancement within companies. At the same job level, there is some evidence that men and women tend to have similar levels of pay, although not always. So, your idea of "hiring women to do the same work for less" doesn't fly with the numbers.

If you are going to claim that there is a reason women DESERVE to be paid less for the same type of job -- other than attendance, which is a bullshit argument -- then I'd love to hear it. Include, as part of your response, why exactly you think that pay inequity for women is a GOOD thing that corporations should exploit.

Quite frankly, the fact that ANYONE would advocate unequal pay for equal work is incredibly disturbing. Fuck the way "the world works now" -- when you see something which is wrong, you try to fix it, not take advantage of it for your personal benefit.

 

[iapetus]

Look, it all seems pretty clear to me. The problem with women is that they keep having babies all the time. Honestly, they miss more working days having babies than they actually spend in the office, half of the time, and all with no notice. It's like, on Monday they'll be all "Sure, I'll have that report for you by the weekend," but all of a sudden it's Thursday and they're, like, "Sorry, I'm taking another nine months off to have a baby and I haven't done the report because of hormones." It's only reasonable that in those short spaces where they're actually working they should get paid substantially less than their superior male co-workers who only take days off for important things like hangovers.

Obviously in the ideal freakish crypto-communist world jinx inhabits we'd be able to pay women as much as men for doing exactly the same job just as well, or sometimes even better, and maybe even promote them to the level at which they contribute best to the company, but personally I think the only way that could possibly happen would be if they were all spayed before starting work. That would probably be a reasonable way of resolving things, actually. They could earn the same money as men if they agreed to be sterilised for the duration of their employment, or just shut up and accept the lower salary if they want to put the whole office at risk of a bad case of babies.