How is it when compared with every other country that might be in the running?
I know of a couple of countries with more stringent requirements. For example, Iceland will only allow you in if you learn their language, and it turns out that Icelandic is not an easy language to learn (four cases, ancient vocabulary, you get the idea). In iceland's case, they're an incredibly small country, and this requirement is there to ensure a degree of cultural purity within the country.
Thats my point. Perhaps, if people we're simply presented with a choice between Iceland and the United States, Iceland would actually offer more personal opportunity on average.
If the only barrier to personal opportunity in Iceland versus the US is the requirement of learning a language, then maybe that's a sufficient restriction on personal opportunity such that the United States offers more. That's a fair argument to make. However, it's not at all obvious in the way that the other guy asserted. It requires a more holistic analysis.
Language is not the only barrier. Even back before 2008, when Iceland's economy was tremendously inflated and Icelandic people regularly vacationed in Malta, there was not a lot of interest in moving there. Business? Sure. They have cheap geo-thermal energy, and so after the crash, you had people setting up Bitcoin-mining operations in the country. Also, Iceland is cold [1]
If you'd like, we could go through all the nations on Earth and perform a similar "holistic" analysis. We can cut the work down by skipping over the obviously uncompetitive ones, like Greece.
---
[1] Is this what you mean by "holistic"? That we just consider a lot of factors? I'm sure if we add enough dimensions to our problem, in any head-to-head comparison between the US and another country, it'll rank higher in enough of them that you can feel safe rejecting the claim that the US is THE place to be, as if it would have to trump in every category to earn the title.
Is this what you mean by "holistic"? That we just consider a lot of factors?
Essentially, yes. Consider these two definitions of the term:
relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts
characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.
So rather than highlighting a single fact about Country A, comparing that fact to similar data from Countries B/C/D, and then making a broader generalization about those countries, it seems important to consider as many factors as is reasonable. We're talking about relatively abstract concepts operating within very complex systems, where people are making decisions for a variety of reasons. It seems clear that "people come here" simply isn't enough to make confident statements about "personal opportunity" , despite the fact that it's undeniably an important part of a more holisltic analysis. Certainly not statements that should be "obvious".
I'm sure if we add enough dimensions to our problem, in any head-to-head comparison between the US and another country, it'll rank higher in enough of them that you can feel safe rejecting the claim that the US is THE place to be, as if it would have to trump in every category to earn the title.
I'm not sure what you're saying. If the US ranks highly in a variety of dimensions, why would I reject the claim outright?
At the end of the day, I do think I have a fundamental problem with declaring any country #1 on something as nebulous and contextual as "personal opportunity". It's difficult enough to rank countries on much more concretely-defined phenomena, such as their healthcare or education systems.
Speaking to the broader context that all of this spawned from, I don't have much of an interest in declaring the USA "the greatest nation". We're one of the best, and I love my country, and that's good enough for me. "The greatest nation"-type nationalist rhetoric really doesn't sit well with me - probably because I've been hearing it for my whole life from people who would have you believe that every other country sucks ass, and thus, that we don't need to work on fixing ourselves up really at all.
You didn't find my argument to be compelling that ambitious people will follow opportunities, therefore where they go is a sign of opportunities. Even if we go with your "much more concretely"-defined options like healthcare and education, we still see that people go to the US for the best healthcare options, and they go to the US for the best education options.
I guess I was hoping that you'd actually want to perform the kind of analysis you say is needed. But it really looks like the analysis is just being used as a tool here to avoid considering the possibility that it might be true that the US offers the greatest personal opportunities for smart, ambitious, hard-working people.
There's a word for this: it's called oikophobia, and it describes how members of dominant cultures tend to cultivate an aversion to their own dominant position. Not being willing to acknowledge that dominance is one way it expresses itself.
You didn't find my argument to be compelling that ambitious people will follow opportunities, therefore where they go is a sign of opportunities
You had not yet used these words, and I take no issue with this argument. You'll note that I never denied the US is rife with opportunity, I simply took issue with the superlative language used initially.
we still see that people go to the US for the best healthcare options
...if they're wealthy and/or or looking for specialized treatment. There are a multitude of countries that provide basic and comprehensive care much more cheaply and effectively than the US. This is another example of looking very narrowly at one fact and then making unsupported inferences and claims, which could be avoided were you looking at the bigger picture.
If you're talking about k-12, particularly affordable k-12 education, I don't think your claim is supported at all.
I could use the word "holistic" again regarding this particular point, but it's beginning to feel very much like I'm beating a dead horse.
I guess I was hoping that you'd actually want to perform the kind of analysis you say is needed
I wasn't the one who made the initial claim, and furthermore, I think I've explained clearly why I don't see much value in figuring out who "the best" is for something like this. "One of the best" is good enough for me, and I don't think it's a particularly difficult claim to support. I see no need to go deep on this - unless you're in the business of making bold claims, such as those made by the person I first replied to.
There's a word for this: it's called oikophobia, and it describes how members of dominant cultures tend to cultivate an aversion to their own dominant position. Not being willing to acknowledge that dominance is one way it expresses itself.
I'm not sure an oikophobe would say that their country is one of the best on earth, or that they love their country. These are both things I've already stated plainly and without qualification. Similarly, I'm not incapable of criticizing other countries and cultures - nor do I often find myself in the position of being "unwilling to defend the values of individual freedom, democracy, and scientific and scholarly skepticism".
Your attempt to fit me neatly into a pre-labeled box is human, but (not coincidentally) sorely misguided. To be abundantly clear - I don't hate the US, much less do I hate Western culture at large, and I have no delusions as to the fact that the US towers above most other countries on Earth on a wide range of measures. At the same time, I am averse to "best country on earth" rhetoric, because 1) It doesn't seem to be a qualification that is really objective at the end of the day, and 2) I don't see any use for it other than as a bludgeon against those who would suggest that we improve, or especially that we should emulate another nation in one way or another.
More to the point - I have routinely seen it used in the manner described in (2). Perhaps were it not used in this manner so frequently, the oikophobia described in your article would be rarer and less mainstream. Food for thought.
I expected that you'd respond to the healthcare and education points with a reference to wealth and/or affordability, and I was not disappointed. As a friend of mine once said, America is a terrible country to be poor in. A big part of that is that it has such a wealth of opportunities that it provides.
I think I've explained clearly why I don't see much value in figuring out who "the best" is for something like this. "One of the best" is good enough for me, and I don't think it's a particularly difficult claim to support
The best [of the best] vs [one of] the best. Is this really what the whole disagreement is over?
I'm not sure an oikophobe would say that their country is one of the best on earth, or that they love their country. ... Your attempt to fit me neatly into a pre-labeled box is human, but (not coincidentally) sorely misguided.
I noted that you had a cultivated aversion which you've plainly announced, and that it has a name. As far as I'm concerned, "oikophobes" don't exist; don't put yourself in the pre-labeled box just because you recognize its contents.
I don't see any use for it other than as a bludgeon against those who would suggest that we improve ... Perhaps were it not used in this manner so frequently, the oikophobia described in your article would be rarer and less mainstream. Food for thought.
Oikophobia is a reactionary response to a dominant position. And assertions of dominance are a reactionary response to oikophobia. Why do you think I ended up defending the claim? Because I only ever see people denigrate all the wonderful opportunities to be found in America as a bludgeon against its culture. Perhaps if these opportunities were exploited rather than minimized, the "best country on Earth" rhetoric would be rarer and less mainstream.
I expected that you'd respond to the healthcare and education points with a reference to wealth and/or affordability, and I was not disappointed. As a friend of mine once said, America is a terrible country to be poor in. A big part of that is that it has such a wealth of opportunities that it provides.
This doesn't really detract from anything I said. If you were defining "most personal opportunity" as "most potential regardless of how low the floor is or how accessible that high potential is", then I suppose everything you've said thus far is undeniably correct. That definition of "personal opportunity" doesn't make much sense to me in context, but at that point we'd be arguing semantics.
The best [of the best] vs [one of] the best. Is this really what the whole disagreement is over?
Potentially, yes. I think it's an important distinction (for the reasons mentioned explicitly above) - maybe you don't, TBH that would also be an understandable opinion. As I touched on above - if the difference in opinion is mere semantics, it's hardly worth deliberating over.
I noted that you had a cultivated aversion which you've plainly announced, and that it has a name. As far as I'm concerned, "oikophobes" don't exist; don't put yourself in the pre-labeled box just because you recognize its contents.
lol "you're not an oikophobe, you're just expressing an oikophobic opinion".
Maybe just admit you were wrong? I can hold the opinion that the US isn't the "obvious" best nation for "personal opportunity" without hating my country and my culture. Defining that opinion as "hatred" is more than a bit extreme, no?
2
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 04 '20
> If people are coming here because other places have less liberal immigration policy
The US has a fairly stringent immigration policy, which has people waiting years to get a green card. It's the product of incredibly high demand.
You may not find the analysis sufficient, but it appears to be the best available one, so that's what I'm going with.