Jump to content

Thoughts / Opinions on the Future of Western Countries


MisterrSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Depends on what metric you are looking at. If you are looking with American eyes in terms of size of cars and house then yes.

I've always found this difference in attitude between European and North American Sikhs to be very interesting. I've seen it myself when NA Sikhs visit the UK, and they say they find it difficult to "breathe" due to the confined layout of homes and streets, etc., even if the location and building itself is relatively spacious according to local standards. Everything, to a certain degree, is oversized in the States, and when apne who still have vivid recollections of Punjabi life come across something that's less than ostentatious, they baulk at it as if it's inferior, failing to understand the reasons for it being so. I guess the latent materialistic Punjabi attitude is suited to the obnoxiously materialistic ethic of North America. A perfect match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 11:49 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

Our houses are small because our country is small and land is at a premium. Yet most UK Sikh houses are extended to have  at least 4 bedrooms and at least 2 bath rooms .

They might be only 1500 sq foot in size but that is more than ample for the most of us.

The benefit for living in a smaller country where everything is compact is that you can walk a lot more than having to take a car everywhere. I can walk to my gurdwara, matha tek and walk back home. 

I think the 'closed' landscape/environment is not favourable, and leads to a 'closed' mindset

Those living in bigger spaces probably have a more open and 'positive' mentality 

Just my thoughts, and I will reckon there is something similar if comparing urban vs rural living

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Premi5 said:

I think the 'closed' landscape/environment is not favourable, and leads to a 'closed' mindset

Those living in bigger spaces probably have a more open and 'positive' mentality 

Just my thoughts, and I will reckon there is something similar if comparing urban vs rural living

There's probably some merit in that. 

Definitely more reserved I would say. I guess if you live in more confined areas, you feel that  you need some boundaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/17/2021 at 12:42 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

Depends on what metric you are looking at. If you are looking with American eyes in terms of size of cars and house then yes.

Not just size of cars and houses. Being in America allows for more material consumption in general. Whether that is a good or bad thing is another issue, but as long as we are talking about "quality of life" in standard material terms, it is a factor. I also think that in America, class is less of a factor, and it is easier for people from modest backgrounds to break into elite circles.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 12:42 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

Then you are not that different to other people who like to see whether the grass is greener

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? What is the point of this comment?

On 2/17/2021 at 12:42 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

Yes of course, if you had read my previous post then I had already answered that. What metrics of standard of living, other than size of house or size of car, there is nothing US really has an advantage over any other western country. If I sold my house and moved to the US, I could easily afford a million dollar house. In fact a lot of people in the UK, if they moved to US and sold their homes, they could easily get a house that is 4000-5000 square foot, multiple bedrooms, multiple baths. (This is what you Americans value)

What avenues do people in the UK have to acquire wealth outside of the property that their family may or may not already have? Can a qualified professional in the UK who is not already a homeowner and makes 30k-40k pounds per year hope to acquire the kind of house that you speak of? (Please correct me if I am wrong and they somehow can.) At least in the US there is still the opportunity to start off with nothing, get a job with good compensation, and buy a decent house and whatever else one may want. That opportunity is available for fewer and fewer people every day (as I said, the US has lots of problems), but at least it is still there.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 12:42 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

If you are looking at salaries, then you need to look at cost of living and what you are left with after your expenses. We don't have to worry about spending quarter of a million dollars for our kid's college fees and then having to do an MBA after that just to secure a good job. And what about your medical expenses, most Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

If you are working 90 hours a week, and earning $150,000 a year , with only like 10 days of vacation (which can you can fired if you take your vacation or even go sick) but you live with your leased car and an overpriced McMansion and compare that with someone earning £30,000 a year with a 4 bedroom house almost paid for and a couple of houses on rent, 25 days of annual leave, a NHS with only having to pay £10 on your medical prescriptions, I think people can figure out where they would be better off.

Higher education and healthcare are too expensive in the US. But the situation is not at all like you are portraying it. State universities in the US are good and don't require anything even close to a quarter of a million dollars to attend. People who come from families without lots of resources frequently get lots of aid. Most of the horror stories surrounding student debt have to do with people making horrible decisions, like attending very expensive private schools or paying for useless graduate degrees (like MBAs and law degrees from low-ranked schools).

I think the NHS is overall better than what the US offers in terms of healthcare. But people in the US who have decent jobs have decent employer-provided health insurance. And there is also support for people who are poor and old and otherwise don't have access to such employer-provided insurance. I think it should be better, but it is something. The bottom line is that it is not a nightmare scenario where people are paying out of their pockets for everything.

Now you are again bringing up an example of someone in the UK who already has a bunch of property. How does one acquire property if they start off with nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 12:42 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

Soft power as in 'cultural influence' it seems to have. The UK seems to attract a lot of the EU countries where standards of living are as high as the UK. We also get a lot of professionals for many parts of the world, may be not 

The US is already 3rd world in some parts.

If you live a great life in the US then fine, but don't think for a minute that the US is the be all and end all, much of the world has caught up. They also have other metrics that far surpass the US as well.

 

 

You make good points here. I agree that the UK does have considerable soft power. But I think much of that soft-power is due to:

1. English being the dominant international language

2. The City of London

 

I think that Brexit is going to deal a severe blow to UK soft power. Young Europeans will not be able to move to the UK for study or work as easily. Will the City of London retain the same level of dominance that it has had in financial services? Maybe, but maybe not.

 

The US, for better or for worse, has more soft power than any other country, and it's not even close. Again, I'm not saying this as someone who thinks America is a great country and the be all and end all. I'm just saying it as it is, based upon my travels.

People all over the world watch American movies and tv shows. People all over the world are heavily influenced by American pop culture. Stuff that is happening in America somehow seems to spread elsewhere, even when it is inexplicable why. (For instance, why on earth did "black lives matter" become an issue in the UK and Europe? It shouldn't have, because black people in the UK and Europe have not had remotely the same history and experience that they have had in the US. But because BLM was going on in the US, it spread elsewhere.)

Here is another thing I have noticed: even though America has lots of problems, it is still able to attract a large proportion of the world's best and brightest. Not just from third world countries, but from the UK and Europe. For example, many of the very best British-born and trained scientists are employed at American universities or at American tech companies. On the other hand, very few top-level American scientists work in Britain. (The massive difference in salary is perhaps the main explanation. But there are other factors too.)

 

To summarize: I am not happy with the way things are going in the US, and I think that it is a country with a lot of very big problems, and some huge divisions, and I would like to find a better place to live. (In fact, even after all that I have said, I would probably try to live in the UK if I was going to get married and raise a family.) But in spite of all that is wrong with the US, I still think it offers unrivaled opportunity. That is especially true for people from immigrant backgrounds. Of course, opportunity alone isn't everything, and I think the stability, security and quality of life that people enjoy in many western European countries may be better.

Anyway, perhaps the problems here will reach a boiling point and the rate of American decline will accelerate to the point where I don't think it offers unrivaled opportunity. I guess we will find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 3:49 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

The benefit for living in a smaller country where everything is compact is that you can walk a lot more than having to take a car everywhere. I can walk to my gurdwara, matha tek and walk back home. 

 

Here is something that I agree strongly with.

I like that there are neighborhoods in the UK where you can walk around and pass by several different gurdware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

Not just size of cars and houses. Being in America allows for more material consumption in general. Whether that is a good or bad thing is another issue, but as long as we are talking about "quality of life" in standard material terms, it is a factor. I also think that in America, class is less of a factor, and it is easier for people from modest backgrounds to break into elite circles.

You do have an elite in the US like the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts, but it less noticeable because the US is a younger country.

Also in the US, the fortunes seem to be turbulent in general, the people who were the richest 10 years ago no longer are richest today and it is replaced by a new crop of people who will be replaced by another crop of people ten years later.

US is some ways feels like a pioneer country and there seems to be a greater entrepreurial spirit but it does not have some of the safety nets like other countries have.

The US also seems to afford people to fail and start over again and again, I think your bankruptcy  laws are different from other countries.

 

2 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? What is the point of this comment?

What is meant by this, people in general can be quite unsatisfied in their lives and think that another country's lifestyle or someone's elses life is better than theirs.

 

2 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

What avenues do people in the UK have to acquire wealth outside of the property that their family may or may not already have? Can a qualified professional in the UK who is not already a homeowner and makes 30k-40k pounds per year hope to acquire the kind of house that you speak of? (Please correct me if I am wrong and they somehow can.) At least in the US there is still the opportunity to start off with nothing, get a job with good compensation, and buy a decent house and whatever else one may want. That opportunity is available for fewer and fewer people every day (as I said, the US has lots of problems), but at least it is still there.

We are still have the same kind of opportunities, people can still get good jobs, people still start businesses. A lot of the Sikh/Punjabis started with nothing.

 

2 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

I think the NHS is overall better than what the US offers in terms of healthcare. But people in the US who have decent jobs have decent employer-provided health insurance. And there is also support for people who are poor and old and otherwise don't have access to such employer-provided insurance. I think it should be better, but it is something. The bottom line is that it is not a nightmare scenario where people are paying out of their pockets for everything.

I think if the US had a comprehensive healthcare that was affordable for everyone rather than health insurance and the co-pay/getting reductions etc, the quality of life would improve leaps and bounds in the US. But if there is one thing I have noticed about the US, it is not a nation in the conventional sense, it is more like a continent. It may be something that should be done on a state by state level. But I don't understand it enough.

 

2 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

Now you are again bringing up an example of someone in the UK who already has a bunch of property. How does one acquire property if they start off with nothing?

Like everyone else does, putting down a deposit and getting a mortgage.

There are 2 things I think that could make things better in the US:

- Better Healthcare system

- Better vacation time

In the UK and Europe, we "work to live", in the US it said people "live to work"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

You do have an elite in the US like the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts, but it less noticeable because the US is a younger country.

Also in the US, the fortunes seem to be turbulent in general, the people who were the richest 10 years ago no longer are richest today and it is replaced by a new crop of people who will be replaced by another crop of people ten years later.

US is some ways feels like a pioneer country and there seems to be a greater entrepreurial spirit but it does not have some of the safety nets like other countries have.

The US also seems to afford people to fail and start over again and again, I think your bankruptcy  laws are different from other countries.

 

What is meant by this, people in general can be quite unsatisfied in their lives and think that another country's lifestyle or someone's elses life is better than theirs.

 

We are still have the same kind of opportunities, people can still get good jobs, people still start businesses. A lot of the Sikh/Punjabis started with nothing.

 

I think if the US had a comprehensive healthcare that was affordable for everyone rather than health insurance and the co-pay/getting reductions etc, the quality of life would improve leaps and bounds in the US. But if there is one thing I have noticed about the US, it is not a nation in the conventional sense, it is more like a continent. It may be something that should be done on a state by state level. But I don't understand it enough.

 

Like everyone else does, putting down a deposit and getting a mortgage.

There are 2 things I think that could make things better in the US:

- Better Healthcare system

- Better vacation time

In the UK and Europe, we "work to live", in the US it said people "live to work"

 

 

Well, if I could afford a house worth a million pounds in the UK on a 30k pound salary, I should move over there!

 

 

I completely agree with you about the healthcare system and vacation time.

 

I think the reason the US doesn't have a universal healthcare system like the UK is simple. Here is something that I have noticed about social safety net programs:

1. It is EXTREMELY difficult to establish social safety net programs (it takes a lot of political power and will, and there is resistance from the wealthy and powerful, who launch media campaigns to scare people away from such programs and stigmatize them).

2. Once a social safety net program is established, people realize how much they like it, and it is EXTREMELY difficult for politicians to take it away. Even right-wing politicians will largely concede that they need to protect these programs.

 

Because of point 1, social safety net programs typically can only be established during extraordinary times when people are desperate or receptive to big changes for various reasons. The NHS was established in the post-war period, for example. The US made various strides in adding to the social safety net during the 1930s, 1964-66, and 2009-2010. But the politicians in power fell short of establishing an NHS-style system during these very brief windows of opportunity. Outside of these once-in-a-generation opportunities, it is virtually impossible to get anything done.

Long story short: the UK left made better use of its once-in-a-generation opportunities than the American left.

 

Other than that, I see similar political problems in both countries. People keep voting for right-wing politicians who will screw them over economically instead of voting for people who are proposing new programs that could help them. Why? Right-wing politicians know how to scare people away from changes that could help them, and they know how to distract people by getting them to focus on culture war issues.

 

Americans keep having to choose between corporatist politicians. One corporatist party (Republicans) caters to racist whites who hate black people and immigrants. Another corporatist party (Democrats) pretends to be progressive, but focuses mostly on identity issues instead of economic issues (because their corporate masters don't mind them focusing on identity politics, but they do mind economic reforms that would make them pay more). In the UK, people generally have to make similar choice, but you had opportunities in 2017 and 2019 to vote for a Labour party that was actually proposing real, sweeping changes that would benefit the average person. Americans have not had that opportunity in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use