Fun fact: US toilet stalls are designed in such a way to reduce comfort and thus increase working hours. This comes from the same ballpark
That doesn’t explain the public ones :( as a Brit visiting Disney last year those toilet cubicles were not a pleasant experience.
Cheaper to make them that way
The lack of privacy is to keep you from doing drugs and having sex in the stalls. We shame people out of bad behavior with a 1 inch gap in the door. Spoiler: it only works on people who would already avoid such behaviors in public toilets.
Not only that. The US is also known as the No Vacation Nation.
“have you heard of … oh, “rich country” … well, nvm?”
I feel like you have a point to make, but that the way you’ve written it has failed to clearly convey that point.
removed by mod
deleted by creator
Yep, and given my experience talking with other US citizens about universal healthcare, they’ll argue how it’s some how a bad thing. It’s just a reoccurring thing, people seem to be programmed to hate stuff that’d help them.
removed by mod
What? Are you Scott Adams?
The right are the ones against things that would help us.
I don’t know who Scott Adams is, but googled it. I am no racist.
It’s just funny, you say sth. against the stupid and inhuman liberalism in the USA and suddenly some idiot comes and says sth. stupid. That’s what I meant - it’s a mental illness.
And yes, the other people here are right. There is no left in the USA and it shows. It’s just right-wing or more right-wing.
You know fascism is not the only alternative to liberalism. Liberalism is a center-right ideology in most of the developed world - even the American politicians fascists use as Boogeymen are mostly Social Democrats not liberals.
The liberal parties generally used to be the left wing back in the day, promoting basic human rights and universal suffrage against the capitalists on the right wing seeking to keep up the pace of exploitation.
When the socialists came along they placed themselves on the left of the liberalists, eventually rendering the old school liberal parties somewhere between the centre and the right. In America the two party system kept this from happening, which is why people complain that there’s no true left in the US.
However, the socialists are also split. Social democrats tend to hold Locke in one hand and Marx in the other, embracing both socialist and liberal values. This is often to the disgust of the ideologically pure Communists, as it’s hard to be a Lockean without accepting a degree of property rights that they find unbearable.
If you give up liberalism you generally slide very fast towards authoritarianism, be it on the left or on the right. It’s possible to imagine a non-liberal non-authoritarian society; it’s just very hard to imagine actually getting there.
If you are pro capitalism, you’re on the right, no matter what you call yourself or how much you try and cling to past definitions of words, it’s as simple as that.
Also fuck horseshoe theory and this idea that “extreme left” is authoritarian (when authoritarianism is incompatible with leftist thinking on every level. This means tankies aren’t on the left no matter how hard they protest) - one extreme wants you to be a literal slave to a capitalist dictator, the other wants you to have everything you need and be able to work towards a better society instead of for the benefit of like 10 people.
Try actually learning about liberalism and the harm it causes before you somehow go blaming (actual) socialists (seriously?? The people who have never even been allowed to come close to power???) for the state of politics:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
I never said I’m pro capitalism. :)
You’re right, liberalism was left-wing a long time, ago. But this liberalism is gone, long time ago. You won’t find it anymore. That has no connection with socialism at all.
If you read Marx, which indead you didn’t, you would say different things. The socialists didn’t try to fight liberalists, they just tried to explain to them why their views are wrong in some parts. This split the whole movement, but not because the socialists were wrong. It split, because the liberalists were naive and believed their own bullshit.
Sorry, my english is very bad, but I also think it is very wrong to split communism and liberalism with the word authoritarianism. Communists want more freedom than liberalists can imagine. Their view is not focused on money and the system. And if they are stricter in their actions, than it’s only because they’ve learned that words are not enough. You have to fight people, who are against the true freedom of all people.
I’ll give you one point - Communists indeed don’t tend to aim for authoritarianism. Even Marxist-Leninists claim it’s just a necessary step along the way - the final society will be complete freedom.
I said as much in my comment - I just also pointed out the historical fact that efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
Brave of you to make assumptions what I’ve read and not.
Even Marxist-Leninists claim is just a necessary step along the way
false
efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
China is a capitalist hellhole, and the Soviet Union never achieved communism, and using it as an example of what communism is is like using North Kore as an example of what a People’s Republic is.
I second how glaringly obvious it is that you’ve not read much of anything to do with communism at all that’s outside of the realm of mainstream propaganda. You can protest all you like, but your views speak for themselves.
China is pretty much “capitalism with beast grin”
There’s South Korea and Taiwan.
I am sure you didn’t read Marx and if you did, you did not enough.
It’s hard to implement socialism, if it never was tried. You have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems, cause everything is suddenly gone and than you have slavery, hunger etc. back. And also, if you try to build socialism, suddenly a lot of people are against you. You have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined. And that’s important to understand. You are suddenly enemy with everyone. Look at the russian civil war - they had to fight against several countries, even the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War It’s just crazy. And if you have to fight against several countries than people tend to ignore this and instead they’re saying “See, it doesn’t work.”.
So, yeah, you’re right, communists tend to authoritarianism, but not because they want to. They tend to it, because they have to. There is no choice.
Somewhere in the world there is a country with personalistic resource autocracy, where autocrat and his minions are strong pro-corporate, pro-censorship and against pensions, universal healthcare and net neutrality. Far right autocracy not only exists, but even started war.
Trying to read in good faith, maybe the user meant to refer to (right wing) Libertarianism or neoliberalism.
Back before “liberal” became the preferred slur the American right could say in public, they would often seek to brand their ideology as liberalism in order to draw legitimacy from the high standing of classic liberalism. Libertarianism has liberal roots, it just blows a single element (freedom from state intervention) completely out of proportions.
Academically, the father of Libertarianism (Robert Nozick) makes for a fun and interesting read, but he was torn to shreds by John Rawls (and, in my opinion and less famously, Michael Otsuka). If I remember correctly he ended up abandoning his own theory. Still it seems to have a particular appeal to Americans and their obsession about the self made man, property rights, and private wealth accumulation.
Liberal means just freedom. BS about freedom only from state intervention was invented by capitalism.
Still oddly doing the lifting for the republicans.
They don’t care for nuance.
They’ll use your hatred for your liberals to hate americas left.
Sucks that EU has the tankie problem, but with all due respect, quit your bitching. I wish that was the form of fascism I had to worry myself with.
The America right is murdering the American left.
We are not the same.
Solidarity forever, am I right?
I mean, there is no left in America. It’s far right or center at best.
For fucks sake.
This is why; you.
You and the other clones.
Serving the Republic(ians)
removed by mod
I wish😔
We’re all neo-liberal on this blessed day!
Where’s the difference between neo-liberalism and liberalism? For me there is none. It’s the same, only the historical context is different.
There are three main types of “liberalism” that generally exist in Western democracies, and each of them is quite distinct.
-
Classical liberalism - emphasizes individual freedom, limited government intervention in the economy, and the protection of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property.
-
Neoliberalism - emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government intervention in the economy.
-
Social Liberalism - combines the values of individual freedom with a belief in the role of government in addressing social and economic inequalities through healthcare, education, and welfare programs.
Typically these days, especially in the US, most people think of #3 when they hear the word “liberal” in a political sense, I’d say.
I’m ok with this. Thx.
#2 is basically corporate dictatorship
-
Americans seem to think that as long as you support LGBT+ issues, it’s leftist to have hospitals, roads, schools, and the rest of society run by corporations for profit.
Fuck liberals, but maybe you can get the point across without the ableism?
People choose to be liberal, those of us who are mentally ill didn’t.
Fox News is a helluva propaganda tool
It’s been making our citizens dumber since 1996
Tbf, universal healthcare sucks when it’s done poorly. Does anybody really trust the US government with our healthcare?
Do you trust a company that is required to provide profit to their shareholders by providing you the least possible amount of healthcare?
Health insurance in the US is very complicated. It’s a feature, not a bug. They don’t want you to use it.
Oh, but government death panels. Have you ever had to get a pre-authorization for care that would save your life? Or had a claim denied because that one person that was in the operating room while you were under anesthesia was out of network? Yeah, it’s actually corporate death panels.
More than I trust Aetna.
It’s because we’re so pro-life.
The worse the conditions a baby is born into, the better wage slave they will be
We sort of do
— https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
I know OP said “paid” and FMLA says “unpaid” but it lets you use sick time and even short term disability time (which I believe full time jobs must offer), which are paid
My STD payment was maybe $200 more than I paid into (over a period of about 12 months). So really it’s more like an enforced savings plan.
But a lot of companies make you use up your PTO, including vacation BEFORE you receive your parental leave. The US is pathetically behind at this point. It’s shameful honestly and that’s saying something as a moderate.
FMLA is job protection and is not about pay. Not every job offers sick time. I don’t know what percentage of salary STD covers. IIRC FMLA is only applicable to larger companies.
People shouldn’t have to dig into sick time or take Short Term Disability after having a baby just to maybe get paid for a few days or weeks, maybe at 100% if they’re lucky.
The UK only offers 2 weeks, and they are paid at a very low rate (£172 p/w). Most people I know didn’t take it, and either booked normal holiday leave or just went back to work.
The UK only offers 2 weeks
In the UK you get up to 52 weeks of maternity leave. Of which 39 weeks is paid, the first 6 weeks of which is at a rate of 90% of your salary. The £172 is then the pay for the remaining 33 weeks. It can be shared with a partner.
That’s not quite true. The general rule for most people is that you get a year of maternity leave; the first 6 weeks are at 90% of your usual pay, then you get 33 weeks at the lower of 90% or £172.48 per week, and then the rest is on Maternity Allowance which is a lower amount again.
The two weeks rule applies only to people who otherwise aren’t entitled to maternity leave - normally this is people who are self-employed, agency workers or on a zero hours contract (although you should always check as there are exceptions to these rules that employers will try to pretend don’t exist). In that situation, everyone is entitled to two weeks maternity leave for safety reasons, or four weeks if you work in a factory.
That said, a lot of people don’t get to benefit from these rules because employers will straight up lie to employees about what they’re entitled to, and rely on employees either not checking for themselves, or being too scared of losing their job to insist on getting what they’re entitled to. If you’re ever in this position, you should absolutely contact Citizens Advice - they know the rules inside out and will be happy to help remind your employer of their obligations, and also of what happens to employers who are found to retaliate or discriminate against employees who are pregnant or new mothers.
I should add to that another point: in a more white collar fields companies in the UK compete for employees (among other parts of benefits package) with the terms they offer for maternity cover, and many will provide many months, at least 6, of fully paid leave.
deleted by creator
Murica
Let’s see $1 million medical bills, no health insurance, no paid medical leave, no consumer protection laws, trans genocide attempts, corporations are “people,” a minimum wage of $7.25 and much more.
Is it rich for like three people?
I liked when Biden finally decided to suspend the military budget for the next 5 years, seeing as the U.S. is already operating a behemoth of an army no one dares confront. So the $5 trillion dollars they will now redirect to the public over the next 5 years is going to make a monstrous wave of positivity for the US for decades to come. /s
They said “rich country”, not “a country of rich people”.
30 states require minimum wage higher than the federal requirement
4 states plus DC have minimum wage over $15/hr
deleted by creator
This means nothing if Republicans take power again
deleted by creator
Can we make that 4? 🥺👉👈
About a third of the country has paid parental leave. We have it here in the west coast and I know most northeastern states also have it.
Here in Washington it is 16-18 weeks for women and 12 weeks for men.
My payed time off would be used up in a week. They might be considerate and keep me in payroll after that expired, but I’d be without pay once that PTO ran out.
You might want to look into jobs on the west coast, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, NJ, NY, RI, MA, or CT. Or literally any other country in the world.
I’ve lived in NH and Mass my whole life. As far as I’m aware the states both guarantee 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Your work can opt to pay (at a reduced weekly income) but they can also tell you to pound sand. And seeing as how many people live off week to week paychecks…
Looks like about half of the northeast has it: NJ, NY, MA, RI, and CT.
https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/state-family-and-medical-leave-laws
New Hampshire doesn’t provide it but Massachusetts does have a program. I think there are some exceptions but for the most part it covers most people
I didn’t have much leave back when we had kids, but there’s definitely something. Complicated but something.
My reading is one law requires up to 8 weeks protected unpaid for both men and women, except you can use vacation. Protected as in they can’t fire you.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/parental-leave-guidelines/download
And another provides for paid time for that and other medical or family needs. I really don’t understand the distinction except there are different eligibility requirements and companies are allowed to provide for paid time outside this program
https://www.mass.gov/paid-family-and-medical-leave-benefits-for-employees
Through PFML, if you work in Massachusetts you’re likely eligible to take up to 26 weeks per year of paid, job-protected time off from work when you need it most, so that you can focus on your health and the health of your family.
Still don’t have a decent healthcare system either. So yeah, that tracks.
I did a little digging once when I was in an argument with someone. Per capita the US government spends (from memory) like $600 per person on healthcare per year. For only like $50 more per person, per year, Australia provides universal healthcare and enormously subsidised medication - insulin for example is $30/script for high income earners and $6 a script for low income / retirees, and if you spend >$500 a year on medication, everything is free after that.
That’s one thing I’m grateful for here in Australia, our healthcare. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good.
In addition, the USA spends about 17.5% of GDP on healthcare whereas the UK spends about 9.5%
Still don’t require paying a living wage either. So yeah, that tracks.
But hey, we’re #1 in school shootings and military spending!
(cough and a lot of other stuff)
Take the w where you can get en right? Right!?
Only in terms of cost and insurance, which is obviously a huge deal. The actual medical experience is really good. They’re very fast and very skilled doctors.
Until you need a specialist, then your sol. My wife was in Portland and had to wait three months for an in network dermatologist. It all depends.
