I feel as though the low standard of living of the average Chinese national is a more decisive factor. The resources that could be spent on public welfare programs are spent on research and subsidies instead.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean, resources aren't being spent on public welfare programs in the US either. We only have a higher standard of living because of the legacy of (roughly) the New Deal era, when we were investing in it as well as unions winning a lot of labor reforms. Those preexisting advantages have only been slowly eroding for the last 40-odd years.

[+] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world -7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

They absolutely are.

Let's say I get into a car accident or have cancer. Treatment involves expensive chemotherapy, blood transfusions, and multiple rounds of major surgery.

If I'm in the poorest 10%-30% of the population, the care is provided free of charge. If I'm poor-but not that poor- I have the option to receive the expensive treatment and just not pay. It will just negatively impact my credit score, but I can also get away with "paying what I can afford."

...this is just one example. Everything from our food to our electronics are subsidized by the government. Most of the resources are more or less taken from poorer nations. If they don't play ball, we withhold aid, bribe officials, loan their enemies weapons, or finance a coup.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Saying 'It will just negatively impact your credit score' like it's nothing in a capitalist nation where nearly all financial trust is based on how effectively you pay back your creditors is a pretty wild take.

Especially when a car and home are the bare minimum for most people to be able to function in the US (public transport is laughable anywhere outside a metropolis) and the average person isn't getting either without a loan.

I wouldn't be so quick to ignore medical debt. The average retired couple spends $350000 on medical expenses in the US. The system is a lot more dysfunctional than you make it out to be.

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It could be better, but even the person with crippling medical debt lives luxuriously relative to the global norm. I think it could be better, but I think it's important to understand exactly how much we have.

Where we got our excess resources is also relevant. I think it's important to understand the exact role that weapons manufacturers and corporate chronies play in bolstering our lifestyles. At the end of the day, I don't think the average citizen wants to know.

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 1 points 2 days ago

Whataboutism lmfao

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Running up medical debt, declaring bankruptcy, and expecting the inflated costs being charged by the insurance system to just sort of absorb it is entirely different from the government having public welfare programs!

You do see how it's different, right?!

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's because they make everything and have spare money to spend on research.

The US runs on debt, and we are running out of debt.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Why spend money on new technology when you can ensure our fossil fuel oligarchs are the richest in the world? Why struggle for a place with new technology when you can dominate previous technology?

We have a president with a personal vendetta against wind turbines who exhausted the legal ways to block development of wind farms so is spending $1B to have a company walk away from one

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 days ago

Ngl good explanation