Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.

[tooki]

I hope someone sues them for sexual discrimination, seriously.

And loses?

I don't know what Dutch law is like. But in USA (the subject of the rest of your reply), this is so blatantly and unambiguously illegal that they would definitely lose. Affirmative action has been tough to defend in court against the equal employment laws.

I mean, those things are getting increasingly blatant, but in America for example, a supposedly "equal before the law" country, "affirmative action" of various sorts when it comes to race has been going on for decades.

Yep, though it's probably losing steam, if anything. It seems very few people are actually truly in favor of it, neither whites nor blacks. And there have been many cases where rejected white candidates successfully proved in court that they'd been denied a job due to their race or sex.

I have been asked to specify my race on a job application in California.

Was it for a government job? They're the main kind of employer that has to meet diversity quotas in many places, or at least are required to record applicants' race for statistical reasons. Asking for race, except when the law requires it, is very risky otherwise, as it opens up an employer to the risk of lawsuits.

This explains it: https://work.chron.com/ask-race-job-applications-31050.html

Many universities reportedly take it into account in student admissions.

For sure. But I don't see this as quite as problematic, since students have many, many universities to choose from.

I have seen statistics suggesting that even credit scores are slightly inflated for certain ethnicities.

Well, that's likely more correlation than causation. (Less income -> less financial buffer -> higher chance of falling into debt and not paying it.) Next time I pull my credit report, I'll have to look whether they even have race in them. I doubt they do, since I think there's laws against considering race in credit decisions.

It's only logical to extend it to gender now and it's only logical to make it more radical with every year of persisting inequality of outcome despite all that equality of opportunity stuff. It's not without precedent, there is plenty of arguments made for it and there is plenty of politicians and judges who support it.

I don't think sex-based affirmative action is anything new, either. It's just always been less prominent than race-based affirmative action.

[magic]

You know, we can talk a lot about lawsuits, risks, and that annoying constitution thing, but a.a. exists. And it exists in a country I least expected it to exist, if the marketing they show to outsiders is anything to go by.
And it has many supporters, kid yourself not. All the hippy SV companies brag about their diversity efforts (and we know what it means on a market dominated by White/Asian men) and last time I cared about SV drama (a few years ago) Google had pending lawsuits for race/sex discrimination, supposedly because they set crazy goals and encouraged managers to pursue them so every now and then somebody did something unethical.

Was it for a government job? They're the main kind of employer that has to meet diversity quotas in many places, or at least are required to record applicants' race for statistical reasons. Asking for race, except when the law requires it, is very risky otherwise, as it opens up an employer to the risk of lawsuits.

And why would the government give a damn? Exactly my point, that country is certainly not what it advertises itself as.
And nope, it was a private company. I suppose most of the "progressive" ones collect that info, how else would they brag how many XYZ they employ and how it makes them better than others?

For sure. But I don't see this as quite as problematic, since students have many, many universities to choose from.

I may be wrong but reading American forums lead me to the impression that it's a widespread practice and the top ones do it. Wasn't there some drama about Asians at Harvard?

[MrMobodies]

Their decision to do with this 2016 study?


https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/gender-discrimination-and-job-characteristics

Gender discrimination and job characteristics
L. Dubbelt, S. Rispens, E. Demerouti

Human Performance Management
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract
Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between gender discrimination and the perceived job demands and job resources of women and men. This is important because it may provide insight into what factors contribute to women’s disadvantaged position at work.

Design/methodology/approach

– Two cross-sectional studies were conducted, Study 1 in a male-dominated organization and Study 2 in a gender-balanced organization.

Findings

– The results showed that in both organizations, gender discrimination was positively associated with women’s job demands and negatively associated with their job resources. Additionally, in the male-dominated organization the perceived gender discrimination was also negatively associated with men’s job resources. Overall, the results were more consistent across the two organizations for women’s job resources.

Originality/value

– This paper links gender literature with the job demands-resources model to translate gender discrimination into quantifiable job characteristics and may provide alternative explanations for previous found gender differences in well-being and career success.
LanguageEnglish
Pages230-245
JournalCareer Development International
Volume21
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2016

https://research.tue.nl/en/persons/evangelia-demerouti

Evangelia Demerouti
prof.dr.
Full Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Human Performance Management


Personal profile

Research profile
Evangelia Demerouti is a Full Professor at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) and chair of the Human Performance Management Group. Her research focuses on the processes enabling performance, including the effects of work characteristics, individual job strategies (including job crafting and decision-making), occupational wellbeing, and work-life balance.

Academic background
Evangelia Demerouti studied psychology at the University of Crete (Greece) and obtained her PhD in Work and Organizational Psychology (cum laude, 1999) from the Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (Germany). Having worked as a post-doc researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam and Radboud University Nijmegen, Demerouti was assistant professor and associate professor at Utrecht University between 2002 and 2009. since 2015 she is Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

She has published over 200 national and international papers and book chapters, and is associate editor of Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.

https://research.tue.nl/en/persons/sonja-rispens

Sonja Rispens
dr.
Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Human Performance Management


Personal profile

Quote
“Collaborating with similar minds may be easy, but won’t produce radical innovations.”

Research profile
Sonja Rispens is an Assistant Professor at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). Her areas of expertise include organizational culture and behavior, leadership, social and organizational psychology, leadership and teamwork. Sonja’s research aims to bridge the dynamic gap between work-related conflict and optimal collaboration within as well as between organizations. Her experience in conflict management, conflict resolution, and teamwork research forms the foundation of investigating the antecedents and consequences of collaborative processes to build positive, sustainable organizations.

Under the header ‘Collaborative Capital’, Sonja is currently studying the changing nature of collaboration due to technological developments on the one hand and complex societal challenges on the other hand. She aims to develop and evaluate interventions that enable organizations, teams, and employees to effectively deal with the challenges of the future world of work.

Academic background
Sonja Rispens studied Sociology at Groningen University and obtained her PhD in Social and Organizational Psychology from Leiden University with a thesis on interdependencies within workgroups. Before joining TU/e, Sonja worked at Leiden University and the University of Twente.

Sonja is a respected author within the academic community and she publishes both in organizational psychology and management journals. Her work has received several awards and she is a member of the editorial board of Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, International Journal of Conflict Management, and Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. In the past, Sonja has acted as an associate editor for Negotiation and Conflict Management Research and she acted as the Program Chair of the International Conflict Management Association’s yearly conference. She has given numerous presentations at various conferences and events.

Written by the same people who work there.

[EEVblog]

this $280,000/degree(!!!) college will doubtless see a reduction in intake because nobody who wants a decent career wants to go to an institution that has a reputation for creating troublemakers.

 
https://www.oberlin.edu/admissions-and-aid/tuition-and-fees
Is that per year?

[sibeen]

C'mon, Dave; it's only $US70k per year. Got to be well worth it.

[tooki]

You know, we can talk a lot about lawsuits, risks, and that annoying constitution thing, but a.a. exists.

Who said it didn't exist? Don't go putting words in my mouth.

And it exists in a country I least expected it to exist, if the marketing they show to outsiders is anything to go by.
And it has many supporters, kid yourself not.

You can lose the attitude, ok? It's totally unnecessary.

All the hippy SV companies brag about their diversity efforts (and we know what it means on a market dominated by White/Asian men) and last time I cared about SV drama (a few years ago) Google had pending lawsuits for race/sex discrimination, supposedly because they set crazy goals and encouraged managers to pursue them so every now and then somebody did something unethical.

They brag about their diversity efforts. It's much harder for them to brag about their diversity successes, because those are much rarer!

Regarding Google, are you talking about lawsuits because of minorities who weren't hired, or white men who were passed over in favor of minorities?

Was it for a government job? They're the main kind of employer that has to meet diversity quotas in many places, or at least are required to record applicants' race for statistical reasons. Asking for race, except when the law requires it, is very risky otherwise, as it opens up an employer to the risk of lawsuits.

And why would the government give a damn?

Ummmm... as I already stated to you, many jurisdictions in USA have diversity-in-hiring and diversity-in-purchasing laws that require government agencies to give preferential treatment to minorities. You can explore the genesis of those laws yourself. But obviously some people do care, and some of those people are politicians and are able to get laws like that passed.

Exactly my point, that country is certainly not what it advertises itself as.

Well, though I don't see how your prior sentence makes that point at all. But I actually agree with it -- as an American, I am bothered by the lack of introspection of the USA as a whole. There's a lot of flag waving and "ooh rah USA #1!!!" -- but it's all based on arrogant fantasy, not on any kind of examination of, like, facts or anything. :/

And nope, it was a private company. I suppose most of the "progressive" ones collect that info, how else would they brag how many XYZ they employ and how it makes them better than others?

You're conflating pre- and post-employment. The law says that race may not be used in making hiring decisions. Asking before an offer of employment is made is risky, because it gives you information -- before hiring -- that could influence the decision. (This is why, on old-school paper applications, this statistical data was on an anonymous sheet of paper.) Asking after an offer of employment is made is totally fine, because the employee has already been hired and thus could not have been discriminated against.

For sure. But I don't see this as quite as problematic, since students have many, many universities to choose from.

I may be wrong but reading American forums lead me to the impression that it's a widespread practice and the top ones do it. Wasn't there some drama about Asians at Harvard?

I did not say it was uncommon. I said that I don't see this practice as being problematic, because there are a plethora of universities to choose from. I'm not familiar with the Harvard issue, but Asians in USA generally do not suffer from workplace or admission discrimination, in that they tend to do well above average, both in academic performance and then in income. If there is any bias or stereotyping regarding Asians, it's statistically likely to be in their favor, if anything. But my hunch is that their high admission rates to universities are the result of their high academic performance, which makes them extremely good applicants based on merit alone.

[julianhigginson]

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/debugging-diversity#/

here you go guys.... back this, and you can watch it when it's done.

I have no idea how good it'll be, but hey, it's going to be in video format. So maybe some of the guys here might manage to learn something that they failed to get from boring old published peer reviewed, and duplicated studies?

[EEVblog]

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/debugging-diversity#/

While coding isn't for everyone, everyone should have the opportunity to learn it. It is one of the great equalisers of the 21st century. And aside from the obvious moral issues of equity and privilege, improving diversity in computing has practical business and economic benefits.

They already do.

Upon returning to Australia in 2016, Dan enlisted the help of Sarah Estela and Jack Crombie at Endframe who helped craft the hours of footage into a treatment for a feature film. The team made some great progress but the pace slowed when Sarah gave birth to a gorgeous baby girl in early 2018.

How dare she make a choice that drags down that average female wage... 

It should be noted that half of their team are white males, and zero people of colour, kinda disappointing...

[magic]

You know, we can talk a lot about lawsuits, risks, and that annoying constitution thing, but a.a. exists.

Who said it didn't exist? Don't go putting words in my mouth.

I meant it in the sense that it exists despite being against what America supposedly stands for, not despite your word.

Regarding Google, are you talking about lawsuits because of minorities who weren't hired, or white men who were passed over in favor of minorities?

My next sentence should have made it obvious enough. And I don't consider the former a serious matter, not at companies like Google. They bend over backwards to all those "underrepresented groups" and will even fire people who as much as inconvenience women by talking about gender differences at work. And it wasn't an isolated incident, it's a pervasive SJW culture in those places. I mean, just watch that leaked Google meeting where they talked about "company values" and had a collective hug over Clinton's election loss and their CFO or whatever barely held her tears.
What those "liberals" don't seem to understand is that they have largely already won and got their way. Now their biggest enemy is themselves and brutal physical reality IMO. Entire generation of young people has been raised on post-sexism and post-racism and it's them who are now starting to say that this "diversity" thing is going too far, not some old grumpy rednecks, KKK and neo-Nazis.

You're conflating pre- and post-employment. The law says that race may not be used in making hiring decisions.

In this thread I really don't care about laws and legality of anything but about common sense and lack thereof in America. As for laws, I may consider them to the extent they indicate something about American culture. I really don't care who gets sued for what, I only say that America, and California in particular, and SV first and foremost, and their software industry even more so - they are nuts

I did not say it was uncommon. I said that I don't see this practice as being problematic, because there are a plethora of universities to choose from. [...]
Asians in USA generally do not suffer from workplace or admission discrimination, in that they tend to do well above average, both in academic performance and then in income.

And that's why they are being screwed by a.a. the most. And choice is worth little if most top schools are doing the same.

[tooki]

You know, we can talk a lot about lawsuits, risks, and that annoying constitution thing, but a.a. exists.

Who said it didn't exist? Don't go putting words in my mouth.

I meant it in the sense that it exists despite being against what America supposedly stands for, not despite your word.

Gotcha. Alas, the USA has completely forgotten what it stood for. (The introspection thing I mentioned earlier...) It really bothers me.

Regarding Google, are you talking about lawsuits because of minorities who weren't hired, or white men who were passed over in favor of minorities?

My next sentence should have made it obvious enough.

Well good for you. Clearly it did not succeed at this, which is why I asked for clarification.

And I don't consider the former a serious matter, not at companies like Google. They bend over backwards to all those "underrepresented groups" and will even fire people who as much as inconvenience women by talking about gender differences at work. And it wasn't an isolated incident, it's a pervasive SJW culture in those places. I mean, just watch that leaked Google meeting where they talked about "company values" and had a collective hug over Clinton's election loss and their CFO or whatever barely held her tears.
What those "liberals" don't seem to understand is that they have largely already won and got their way. Now their biggest enemy is themselves and brutal physical reality IMO. Entire generation of young people has been raised on post-sexism and post-racism and it's them who are now starting to say that this "diversity" thing is going too far, not some old grumpy rednecks, KKK and neo-Nazis.

I think your impression of the situation is inaccurate on many levels. Just remember that the news articles and stuff that you see are newsworthy because it's not common and thus does not reflect the status quo.

You're conflating pre- and post-employment. The law says that race may not be used in making hiring decisions.

In this thread I really don't care about laws and legality of anything but about common sense and lack thereof in America.

OK, but you asked me why the government cares, and I told you the reason. Why does this annoy you?

As for laws, I may consider them to the extent they indicate something about American culture.

Then you really, really do not know the US well enough. In USA, laws are written by the 1% (through their corporate interests). The will of the American people (as in, of the 99%) has literally zero measurable impact on public policy. So no, American laws don't say anything at all about American culture at large.

I really don't care who gets sued for what, I only say that America, and California in particular, and SV first and foremost, and their software industry even more so - they are nuts

Yes, though I don't think I share all of your objections!

I did not say it was uncommon. I said that I don't see this practice as being problematic, because there are a plethora of universities to choose from. [...]
Asians in USA generally do not suffer from workplace or admission discrimination, in that they tend to do well above average, both in academic performance and then in income.

And that's why they are being screwed by a.a. the most. And choice is worth little if most top schools are doing the same.

But they're not, that's the thing! As minorities, Asians DO count towards A.A. quotas, and since they're desirable employees/students, they're generally not underrepresented. If anything, they are often overrepresented.

[Howardlong]

this $280,000/degree(!!!) college will doubtless see a reduction in intake because nobody who wants a decent career wants to go to an institution that has a reputation for creating troublemakers.

 
https://www.oberlin.edu/admissions-and-aid/tuition-and-fees
Is that per year?

Well someone's gotta fund all those grievance studies graduates who can't get a job anywhere outside of academia.

[julianhigginson]

How dare she make a choice that drags down that average female wage... 

Her choice will probably bring down average women's overall lifetime income, yes. And we as a society definitely need to do something about that.

It should be noted that half of their team are white males, and zero people of colour, kinda disappointing...

Aaaaah, demanding absolute perfection of people you don't agree with, while walking past the same issues on your own side (in your case check out the demographics in this forum and this thread, and maybe check the demographics of the anti-SJW industry youtubers people are parroting + linking in here) Excellent.

But yeah, fine, lets just stick with conversation derailing and blanket denial of issues whenever anyone is talking about gender equality issues, on the forum with the lowest proportion of women contributors I've ever seen.

[EEVblog]

How dare she make a choice that drags down that average female wage... 

Her choice will probably bring down average women's overall lifetime income, yes. And we as a society definitely need to do something about that.

No, nothing needs to be done about that. The species must go on and it's the women who have the babies.
People should (and generally do) get paid the same for the same work. The fact that women have to take time off to have babies is just a fact of life, they should not be paid more for the same work to fix any perceived "problem" resulting from average statistics.
Also, countries like Australia already have paid materinty/paternity laws. Note, paternity, the male can chose to be the (paid) primary care giver whilst the female goes back to work.

It should be noted that half of their team are white males, and zero people of colour, kinda disappointing...

Aaaaah, demanding absolute perfection of people you don't agree with

There was no demand in there, I was simply noting something.

while walking past the same issues on your own side (in your case check out the demographics in this forum and this thread

I, unlike others, do not discriminate based on sex. Anyone is free to use this forum, and anonymously if they so desire. If less woman than men chose to come to this forum that is no concern of mine.

But yeah, fine, lets just stick with conversation derailing and blanket denial of issues whenever anyone is talking about gender equality issues, on the forum with the lowest proportion of women contributors I've ever seen.

So you have evidence that other electronics forums have a higher male/female user ratio? Please present the evidence.

[Howardlong]

How dare she make a choice that drags down that average female wage... 

Her choice will probably bring down average women's overall lifetime income, yes. And we as a society definitely need to do something about that.

Do what though? You either remove her choice, or fund her for her choice.

If you fund her, it’s either as a tax on her company or from the public purse. If it’s a tax on her company, like it or not, women will be less productive from the company’s perspective, so inevitably they’ll hire fewer women.

If it’s funded from the public purse, how much are you willing to pay? To make her “equal” that $1m per annum high flyer should still be paid her stellar wages whether she chooses to stay in the workplace or not, and prop up her wage if she chooses to return to the workplace, to make sure she doesn’t lose out irrespective of her choices, and that golden pay gap is bridged. Meanwhile, an admin clerk on $25k pa who choses to take leave won’t benefit anywhere near as much.

FWIW, I personally believe that a happy medium is to provide income tax rebates on pre-school care if a woman chooses to return to the workplace. There is a practical problem of public pre-school funding because it is very expensive: the legal child care ratio starts at 1:3 in the UK under 2yo, 1:4 under 4yo for example.

[magic]

Alas, the USA has completely forgotten what it stood for.

I think they stood for individual liberty, not multiculturalism. Even Lincoln who abhorred slavery was skeptical and supported voluntary emigration of freed slaves to their own country.

I think your impression of the situation is inaccurate on many levels. Just remember that the news articles and stuff that you see are newsworthy because it's not common and thus does not reflect the status quo.

I'm a software developer, I know some people who work at Google Poland IRL, I have watched that leaked video that you probably haven't, I've spent more than a healthy amount of time on Slashdot, some subreddits and "H".N. My opinion on SV and Google is based on more than just a few media reports. Those people are almost 100% devoted egalitarians, up to and including a significant contingent of "gender and race are a social construct" types.

But they're not, that's the thing! As minorities, Asians DO count towards A.A. quotas, and since they're desirable employees/students, they're generally not underrepresented. If anything, they are often overrepresented.

They probably wouldn't be suing Harvard if it worked that way. And indeed, I've been hearing for years that Asians are even worse than Whites because they "look" like people of color but don't actually deserve favoritism because they are already doing well by themselves. I guess somebody put it into action at last.

overrepresented

AKA "look, it's not racist to discriminate against you for your race because there is that other guy of your race who is doing even better than you".

[soldar]

It used to be that in ye olden times people thought that cooperation between the sexes was the best course of action. A man and a woman would get together and pool their traits and abilities and resources. The family was considered your basic component of society. A mother and a father would each provide for their progeny.  Men would be the primary breadwinners and this allowed women to spend more time to raise the children. The man and the woman did not do the same things, rather they complemented each other. The woman was the primary family maker and the father was the primary breadwinner. Their roles were complementary and the system worked reasonably well because it seemed to go along with our most basic natural instincts and abilities.

Even then there were families where the mother worked more and/or made more. It was not a problem.

But then we were told this system is entirely evil and men better start doing the dishes. We have been told women were enslaved and unhappy under that old system. This in spite of millions of women who were perfectly satisfied. But, never mind, the new system of "equality" was going to resolve whatever problems the old system had. The new assumption is that women are exactly like men in every way. In the way they think, in the way they feel, in their choices they are supposed to be the same. Except that this is very much and very obviously not true. It is idiotic to think that way when just opening your eyes shows otherwise.

Are women today happier than they were 40 or 60 years ago? I doubt it. All I see and hear is complaints and resentment. They are being told they should be engineers and they want to measure up to that when I believe many would be very content having much more time for their families.

Of course, this is the kind of thing we can think in our most secret and deepest thoughts but which could lead you to being burned at the stake if said openly in public.

IMHO all this pro-female and anti-male outrage is totally manufactured by leaders who manufacture the outrage and promise they have the solution.

I am quite tired of all this politics of grievances. Take a group, tell them they were oppressed and they are owed something.

I am tired of stupid feel-well demonstrations that achieve nothing but proclaim how virtuous we are and how evil those who do not think like us are (and were).

I am just so glad I am old enough that all this does not affect me in the least. I have always considered my marriage a team where we complement each other. 

[coppice]

Are women today happier than they were 40 or 60 years ago? I doubt it. All I see and hear is complaints and resentment.

There have been numerous studies of female and male feelings about various aspects of their lives over a number of decades, in a number of western countries. One thing that stands out very clearly in those studies is women are feeling more and more negative about their lot in life. To me the big question about those results is are women's actual lives getting worse, or is social pressure just making them feel worse about their lives (e.g. pressure from advertising). I don't think the studies are clear on that.

[jonovid]

in just 50 yrs Cultural Marxism has take the place of religion in western society.
and it is now destroying everything. right and wrong are been replaced by feelings of equality.
what was once respected & admired is now seen as repugnant & unacceptable.  art has lost its beauty,  poetry its meaning.
falling standards, or just no standards at all, everything is relative. children are no longer to be told your male or female . 
even talking about the weather is now controversial & political.
if western engineering standards are under attack, is most likely been labeled white privilege. it seems all the western world has gon mad!
 

[soldar]

There have been numerous studies of female and male feelings about various aspects of their lives over a number of decades, in a number of western countries. One thing that stands out very clearly in those studies is women are feeling more and more negative about their lot in life. To me the big question about those results is are women's actual lives getting worse, or is social pressure just making them feel worse about their lives (e.g. pressure from advertising). I don't think the studies are clear on that.

All in all there is no doubt women (and men too) are better off than ever before if measured by economic standards.

But happiness comes from the perception of how we are accomplishing our expectations. If our expectations are unreasonable we can be unhappy about not reaching them.

On a purely economic level Americans live better than ever before and yet are unhappier than ever before. It is a complex issue. Even though Americans are better off in absolute terms they see the rest of the world catching up and even surpassing America so they feel they are falling behind in relative terms. Also western societies are growing more divided and polarized which leads to unhappiness.

With women it is similar. Women have a standard of living better than ever before but there are pressures and expectations now that did not exist in the past. Many women would be happy to be housewives but today this is not politically correct and they feel pressured into a professional life. When they are frustrated with work, husband, or anything else they are told there is a clear guilty party and that is all men and the society they created.

I remember once discussing a couple who was separating and a guy said "if a man leaves his wife it's the man's fault but if a wife leaves her husband it is also the man's fault; it is always the man's fault".

This attitude has resulted in men being pissed off and in women being pissed off because they really believe their problems are caused by men when most problems we have are caused by ... life.

Both men and women are unhappier today because we have a sense of entitlement that our forefathers did not have. They accepted that life was hard, sometimes shitty, and they tried to make the best of it. Today we believe we are owed happiness and if we don't get it it must be somebody else's fault.

I have often seen relatively poor people lead simple and happy lives while others that had much more were miserable.

In Spain these days and for years now you cannot turn on the TV without being bombarded with messages about "equality" which often means "discrimination in favor of women". It has gotten out of hand.

So young girls are bombarded with messages saying they should be engineers "just like men". Many might follow the message only to find it was not really what they wanted to do. Women should be told to do whatever they like, whatever inspires them. But no, telling women to choose freely is a sexist message. 

Political and social leaders have hijacked the issue, like many others. They tell women any problems they have are the fault of a male-dominated society and too many women choose to believe the lies. 

The public likes to be lied to. Pensions, taxes and many other problems. We would rather listen to lies than to the truth even if the naked truth would bring us closer to finding a solution.

[tooki]

On a purely economic level Americans live better than ever before and yet are unhappier than ever before. It is a complex issue. Even though Americans are better off in absolute terms they see the rest of the world catching up and even surpassing America so they feel they are falling behind in relative terms. Also western societies are growing more divided and polarized which leads to unhappiness.

Wrong. For most Americans, real income (income adjusted for inflation) has been stagnant or even gone down, and millennials are the first generation to be worse off than their parents. That Americans are unhappy has to do with the fact that quality of life is going down in USA, and even worse, people's prospects are seriously worse than ever. Income inequality in USA is worse than it's ever been. So on paper, the USA as a whole is doing well. But the strong economy is only benefiting a small number of people (literally the 1%). Everyone else is doing the same or worse than in the past.

Yes, the rest of the world has caught up or surpassed USA, but that's nothing new. And frankly, most Americans don't care about what goes on elsewhere -- they firmly believe USA is #1 without ever performing a comparison!

[coppice]

On a purely economic level Americans live better than ever before and yet are unhappier than ever before. It is a complex issue. Even though Americans are better off in absolute terms they see the rest of the world catching up and even surpassing America so they feel they are falling behind in relative terms. Also western societies are growing more divided and polarized which leads to unhappiness.

Wrong. For most Americans, real income (income adjusted for inflation) has been stagnant or even gone down, and millennials are the first generation to be worse off than their parents. That Americans are unhappy has to do with the fact that quality of life is going down in USA, and even worse, people's prospects are seriously worse than ever. Income inequality in USA is worse than it's ever been. So on paper, the USA as a whole is doing well. But the strong economy is only benefiting a small number of people (literally the 1%). Everyone else is doing the same or worse than in the past.

Yes, the rest of the world has caught up or surpassed USA, but that's nothing new. And frankly, most Americans don't care about what goes on elsewhere -- they firmly believe USA is #1 without ever performing a comparison!

When people are in poor circumstances, but see things getting steadily better and their long term prospects look stable, they feel good. When people are affluent, but see things getting steadily worse and their long term prospects look unstable, they feel bad. People can be very short termist in many of the ways they look at things, but the long term trajectory of their lives seems to be an exception.

[tooki]

On a purely economic level Americans live better than ever before and yet are unhappier than ever before. It is a complex issue. Even though Americans are better off in absolute terms they see the rest of the world catching up and even surpassing America so they feel they are falling behind in relative terms. Also western societies are growing more divided and polarized which leads to unhappiness.

Wrong. For most Americans, real income (income adjusted for inflation) has been stagnant or even gone down, and millennials are the first generation to be worse off than their parents. That Americans are unhappy has to do with the fact that quality of life is going down in USA, and even worse, people's prospects are seriously worse than ever. Income inequality in USA is worse than it's ever been. So on paper, the USA as a whole is doing well. But the strong economy is only benefiting a small number of people (literally the 1%). Everyone else is doing the same or worse than in the past.

Yes, the rest of the world has caught up or surpassed USA, but that's nothing new. And frankly, most Americans don't care about what goes on elsewhere -- they firmly believe USA is #1 without ever performing a comparison!

When people are in poor circumstances, but see things getting steadily better and their long term prospects look stable, they feel good. When people are affluent, but see things getting steadily worse and their long term prospects look unstable, they feel bad. People can be very short termist in many of the ways they look at things, but the long term trajectory of their lives seems to be an exception.

But you forgot the situation that applies to a substantial percentage of Americans: poor and see things getting worse, with unstable long term prospects. They feel more than just "bad".

[james_s]

On a purely economic level Americans live better than ever before and yet are unhappier than ever before. It is a complex issue. Even though Americans are better off in absolute terms they see the rest of the world catching up and even surpassing America so they feel they are falling behind in relative terms. Also western societies are growing more divided and polarized which leads to unhappiness.

Wrong. For most Americans, real income (income adjusted for inflation) has been stagnant or even gone down, and millennials are the first generation to be worse off than their parents. That Americans are unhappy has to do with the fact that quality of life is going down in USA, and even worse, people's prospects are seriously worse than ever. Income inequality in USA is worse than it's ever been. So on paper, the USA as a whole is doing well. But the strong economy is only benefiting a small number of people (literally the 1%). Everyone else is doing the same or worse than in the past.

Yes, the rest of the world has caught up or surpassed USA, but that's nothing new. And frankly, most Americans don't care about what goes on elsewhere -- they firmly believe USA is #1 without ever performing a comparison!

I think it's hard to do a direct comparison, most places have advantages and disadvantages and the grass is always greener on the other side. The USA does typically have a lower cost of living than most developed nations, houses are bigger, people tend to have more land, more space, more stuff, and energy is very cheap.

On the other hand our healthcare situation is a complete nightmare, much of our transportation infrastructure is a mess. Our politics are corrupt and there is a large income disparity but I don't think that is something uniquely American.

Despite the flaws, to me it's the best place on earth because it's home, that doesn't mean other places are inferior or that there isn't a great deal of room for improvement.

[DimitriP]

Despite the flaws, to me it's the best place on earth because it's home, that doesn't mean other places are inferior or that there isn't a great deal of room for improvement.

Come on...there are plenty of places to consider as inferior but that's a subject for a diffeent thread

[soldar]

Wrong. For most Americans, real income (income adjusted for inflation) has been stagnant or even gone down, and millennials are the first generation to be worse off than their parents. That Americans are unhappy has to do with the fact that quality of life is going down in USA, and even worse, people's prospects are seriously worse than ever. Income inequality in USA is worse than it's ever been. So on paper, the USA as a whole is doing well. But the strong economy is only benefiting a small number of people (literally the 1%). Everyone else is doing the same or worse than in the past.

Yes, inequality is getting worse everywhere, not only in America, but the standard of living is way above 60 years ago.

After WWII homes were tiny compared to what is being built today. And I mean tiny. One bathroom, a small living/dining room, a couple small bedrooms and that was it. A garage maybe. The size of American homes has been steadily increasing.

Today there are more cars but specially much better cars. Today's cars are cheaper and much better than those of 60 years ago.

What about electronics and communications. Sixty years ago they had a phone in the wall, with maybe a party line, and they could call across town because long distance was extremely expensive. They had a TV for entertainment and that was it. Today very cheaply we have TVs, computers, phones etc. which they could not imagine 60 years ago. And pretty much everybody can afford them.

There is no doubt in my mind that materially Americans today live much, much better than they did 60 years ago. And yet 60 years ago they seemed happier. Today all they do is bitch and complain.

And exactly the same thing can be said about Spain. Exactly the same. Spanish people have a standard of living higher than anything Spain has ever seen and yet all I hear is bitching and complaining. All anybody does any more is bitch and complain.

Maybe things would be better if we'd all STFU, quit with the bitching and put our energies into doing something useful.

I do agree inequality is a problem that is getting worse everywhere.

One thing I really, really like about China is the optimism and positive attitude. Even though in many ways their standard of living is lower than ours they have a very positive attitude. They appreciate they are living an expansion and they are fully taking advantage of it.

Maybe some of it is related to social links and customs. Americans are much more individualistic whereas the Chinese have a wider family and social network they can rely on in times of trouble. People who feel desperate and lonely can be dangerous. There is too much of that in America. And, increasingly, in all rich nations.