Labor Conditions: U.S. vs. U.K.

[MrMacphisto]

As mentioned in passing over at the General Discussion forum, this is a thread about comparing our labor standards here in the States to the standards over in the U.K. Wages, benefits, worker's rights, political movements, productivity, cost of living, and whatever else you want to discuss in reference to work in America and the U.K. is fair game here....

I chose this forum, because if merely comparing gas prices to here and over there is enough to start an argument, then this should be a real fiasco... :devil2:

Anyway... Here's my argument: In general, the average U.K. worker gets more benefits and more rights than an American worker of an equivalent job. In many cases, they get paid more than us as well (if you adjust for inflation and currency exchange rates). However, finding work in most areas of America is usually easier, and the cost of living here tends to be lower than in the U.K. Does labor have it better in the U.S. or in the U.K.?

My answer is... in America...

[kurchatovium]

What is the tax rate in the UK vs US?? That is probably also a consderation. Its not what you earn, its what you can keep. :D

[MrMacphisto]

Good point, Kurch.... In general, the British pay much higher income taxes than us.

What I'm curious about is the sales tax situation... Perhaps, our British members could enlighten us on theirs... :D I think it's referred to as the VAT... I can't remember what the acronym stands for, but it's often called an "indirect" or "necessities" tax.

[milagros317]

VAT stands for "value added tax", but I don't know how much it is in the U.K.

I did find this:




Different rates of VAT apply in different EU member states. The minimum standard rate of VAT throughout the EU is 15%, although reduced rates of VAT, as low as 5%, are applied in various states on various sorts of supply (for example, domestic fuel and power in the UK). The maximum rate in the EU is 25%.

[BigJim]

VAT stands for "value added tax", but I don't know how much it is in the U.K.

17.5% of the goods value at present.

And I think it's supposed to stand for "Vague Additions to the Total" actually.

[Newcastle Uni]

Good Discussion.

I don't know what to make of this. It is difficult for me to make any sensible comparisons here on account of me being new to the labour market in the UK and not being completely au fait of with conditions in the US. I can only give what I perceive to be the benefits and disadvantages of the UK along with something of what I know to be the case in the US.

1) Education
I gather that the cost of studying in the US varies between $4000 (£2222) and $30000 (£16,666) (for tuition fees alone). In the UK tuition fees are currently £1000 ($1800), but will soon rise to about £4000 (£7200). Scotish national do not have to pay tuition fees. This means that a student at Cambridge or Oxford will pay significantly less for their exceptional education than a student at one of the Ivy League universities in the US.
Education in the UK is good value for money and the institutions offer a good standard of education. However, the cost of living for education can be expensive. I recently graduated and now have about £12,000 ($21,600) worth of debt accrued over three years. On the plus side I will only start paying this back when I earn more than £15,000 ($27,000) with the average graduate starting salary being £22,000 ($40,000). The cost of living at a British university away from home can easily be £9000 ($16,200) per year (including all living expenses and rent, tuition fees etc.).

I think education is important as a better educated workforce makes for a stronger economy.

2) Welfare state

Health

I don't pay to visit the doctor, I don't pay to have an operation, I don't pay to go into hospital. The National Health Service (NHS) will even pay for me to have breast implants or a sex change under exceptional circumstances (and exceptional circumstances would be needed for me to enlarge my man-breasts). Medication is heavily subsidised and free for children or those in full time education and under 18. I've been quite an unwell little boy in my life and I have seen a consultant twice a year for about 10 years now. I'm due to have an operation soon. I have been taking medication every day for the last 10 years now. I've not paid a penny for all of this. It was all free. Only since I turned 18 have a started paying for my medication and this is heavily subsidised so that it is cheap. Some may criticise the NHS for not offering the best service in the world, but in my experience I have been offered world class services for free. We pay higher taxes for a free NHS.

Other
I don't know much about this, but the unemployed get a decent amount of money on the dole. Somebody like me could get £56 ($100) per week with additional benefits being offered to those with children etc. There are lots of benefits for the elderly, married couples, those suffering ill health and so on that I just cannot comment on as I don't know much about these things. Cheap brick council housing is available to those who need it.

Minimum wage
The national minimum wage is the lowest amount of money that an employer can pay an employee for an hours work in the UK. This depends on the persons age. It is currently increasing.

For those aged between 18-21

Currently £4.10 ($7.38)
In october £4.25 ($7.65)
Next year £4.45 ($8.01)
For those aged over 21

The national minimum wage is currently £4.83 ($8.71) per hour, rising to £5.05 ($9.09) in october and £5.35 ($9.63) next year.

When it comes to the Welfare state, I'd say the UK wins hands down over the US, on just health alone. Ok, so we pay higher taxes, but it means that the rich pay for the poor. Those that can afford to pay more taxes do and this money is redistributed to the poor.

At the last General Election (to decide who becomes Prime Minister and which government will rule the UK) in 2005 and in the previous General Election in 2001 two of the three main parties pledged to INCREASE taxes to spend on public services. The party that promised to Lower taxes did not get as much support as it would have done had it promised to increase taxes. People want to pay money for a better NHS and better transport infrastructure.

3) Transport
Transport in the UK is woeful. The same roads are always gridlocked on national holidays and for the early morning and evening rush hours as people go to work. The train network was underfunded for years and as a consequence trains run slow and late and this is not good for business. It will take much more investment to bring the train network up to the level it should be at for a major industrialised country. On the plus though, the roads are very good so long as you avoid them during very busy periods and the death toll on British roads is very low (lowest in Europe). I;d imagine US roads are safer as I imagine these to be much longer and straighter than ours.

US probably wins on transport. UK transport is awful! But heck, I don't know what US transport is like, but even the Iraqi transport infrastructure would probably challenge that in the UK. (OK, its not that bad).

4) Cost of living
This must be cheaper in the US than in the UK. We in the UK are heavily taxed and pay twice as much for petrol/gasoline and much more for almost all consumable (even if they originated in the UK!!!). But UK wages are probably higher (maybe) and all of that extra taxation goes to good use in theory in providing a good welfare state.

US wins here

There are a lot more comparisons to be made, and to be truthful those that i've made are inadequate. But......where would I want to live??
I'd rather live in the UK. I like the UK. I like watching 'proper' (half-joking) sports like Cricket, Football, Rugby rather than silly sports like Baseball and American Football. I like English music. Give me a good Guitar rock and roll band anyday over some rubbish rap music or RnB crap. I like UK TV. The UK produces a better standard of TV than the US I find. Our documentaries are more serious and incisive and are more fare than US counterparts. Our news channels are more fair and give a more balanced view. They also give a more comprehensive view of world affairs (this point is verified by every American i've spoken to who has lived in the UK for any period of time).
Those exceptional US programmes (of which there are so many) inevitably come to the UK anyway, so I can see the best (and alas the worst) of US TV along with the best and worst of UK TV.
Also, the nonsense of political correcness gone mad and compensation culture (suing everyone) is less prevalent here in the UK.

So in summary. I chose the UK. The UK is more open to US culture. All US films, music and television eventually makes it to these shores so I get to experience American life at a distance along with my own culture.

Oh, and the UK is more civilised than the US in the respect that it does not execute its citizens by electrocution, gassing or by sticking a needle full of chemicals into their arms. The UK does not allow its citizens to carry guns and so things are safer. Oh, and the UK has never quite had the problems with racism that the US had. You might say that we Europeans started the slave trade, but we were also quick to abolish it, as was a lot of the US i think. But we never had an equivalent of the rascist south though. Oh, and our several recent prime ministers come from humble working class backgrounds, whereas it seems that to be US president you need to be very very wealthy (and having your brother as governor of Florida helps as well). The UK has had a female Prime Minister, and many of our Queens have been female, which suggests we are more open to the concept of sexual equality.

This gives the impression that I hate the US! I don't. I love the US. But along with the many great attributes of the US, there is so much that would be alien to me living in the UK. Similarly someone living in the US would find so much to dislike about the UK. Our ways of life are quite different in many respects.

[jim66e]

Oh, and the UK has never quite had the problems with racism that the US had. You might say that we Europeans started the slave trade, but we were also quick to abolish it, as was a lot of the US i think. But we never had an equivalent of the rascist south though.

No, while American racism and discrimination was mostly internal, the UK's was external. The Irish come to mind, as do the Scottish.

[General Zod]

I spent 3 years in the UK at RAF Lakenheath when I was in The USAF I was there from nov.1987 to nov.1990 Do you still have to pay the TV Liscense fee? I think that's what it was called It was 65 quid a year Also ,there was a seperate "road tax" that you had to pay once a year I forget what that amount was

[BOFH666]

Just to add a bit to what Newcastle Uni (abbreveated to NU as I'm a lazy bugger, hope that's okay) posted...


1) Education


In general education in the UK is simply at a higher standard across the board. NU dealt with education at degree level but even at a relativley young age the UK pulls ahead fairly comfortably. I know a few educators on both sides of the pond and a common 'rule of thumb' is that an 'average' 16 year old student from the US would be, roughly, at the same level as an 'average' 15 year old student from the UK. Also the level of education in the UK is far more consistent than it is in the States, there are very few 'bad' schools here.


2) Welfare state


Right now I'd say the welfare state in the UK has swung a little too far to the 'give everyone handouts' part of the dial, but I'm not particularly worried about that. It'll swing back, we've seen time and again what happens in the UK when the general public gets pushed to breaking point (we go burn down trafalger square and whatever bone head idea caused it is quietly forgotten, see poll tax). But yes, it might cost a good chunk of my pay check in taxes but it's comforting to know that if I get taken into hospital for a full body transplant the first words I hear are "what's wrong with you?" and not "are you insured?" ;)


3) Transport


Actually, the UK is weird on this. Driving is pretty good if you know where to avoid and as the average vehicle size here can probably fit into the flatbed of a Ford F-150 parking and general day-to-day driving is usually simple enough. Public transport in cities and for short distances is also pretty good, though crowded, it's just when it comes to long distance that it goes horribly wrong.

There's another bit to this that I'll come back to at the end.


4) Cost of living


Yep, no doubt we pay more on cost of living, but it's not as large a gap as you may think. London, obviously, is expensive as is the south-east in general but the rest of the country isn't that bad. Birmingham, for example, rates below LA and slightly ahead of San Francisco in the latest studies.

Two things I want to add to NU's list. The first is that, by law, everyone in the UK in full-time employment is entitled to at least four weeks paid holiday a year and it is illegal to demand more than a 48 hour work week without the consent of the worker.

Second, one of the big advantages the UK has over the US is that it's much, much smaller. Wait a minute, hear me out. The US has grown using all that open space and the result is a very dispersed community. Take a survey of how far the US members of this site have to travel to work and back every day, I'd be surprised if the average was under thirty miles and wouldn't be shocked to see double or even tripple that. I'd be amazed if the UK even got to thirty miles a day on average. That has huge effects on cost and quality of living, especially as petrol prices head up and up. People in the UK, to be honest, probably spends just as much time travelling, but as the journeys are so much shorter there are often alternatives available to driving and public transport, at least in major population centres, isn't too expensive.

To actually give an answer to the original question... I'd go for the UK for no other reason than there is far less focus on "work work work" here. Plus, sorry, but the last few years have put me off America as a place to live possibly permanently. Canada on the other hand....

[BOFH666]

No, while American racism and discrimination was mostly internal, the UK's was external. The Irish come to mind, as do the Scottish.

Umm, you might want to be careful when using "UK" in that context, as the UK includes Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. England (eventually) conquered the Celts but it was an absolute bastard to do and took centuries (only getting Wales through treachery I might add ;) ). In all three cases it wasn't so much a case of racism and/or discrimination based on nationality, more a case of "Oy! You! We want your land, kindly shift your arse!". Well, that and not really wanting to share a fairly small island with two immediate neighbours who would quite happily do the same to the English given half a chance. The traditional response to this was, of course, a prolonged period of negotiations which would end when someone on the English side realised that being a hundred miles or more from the end of your supply line facing several hundred nutters on the high ground armed with big pointy things really wasn't a particularly fun situation to be in, wrote the whole thing off to experience and buggered off. Later on, when everyone was more-or-less on the same team said celtic nutters found gainful employment expanding the British empire so it all worked out in the end.

Now if we want to talk external discrimination... *cough*Native Americans*cough*cough*

[asutickler]

Now if we want to talk external discrimination... *cough*Native Americans*cough*cough*


I believe "Oy! You! We want your land, kindly shift your arse!" covers that one, too... ;)

[jim66e]

Now if we want to talk external discrimination... *cough*Native Americans*cough*cough*

Yep the American Indians are an example of a huge amount of external discrimination. I see similarities between what happened to the American Indians and what happened to the Scottish with the Scottish being more adaptable. If that is the version of Englands relations with its conqured peoples then I would reevaluate the superiourity of the British education system. Saying that England conqured the celts implies these actions took place in the far distant past. The Scotts were crushed and highly discriminated against, especally the highlanders during the last half of the 18th Century. Ireland was overrun by relentless English land owners during the last half of the 19th Century. Why are there so many people of Irish decent in America? The English drove them out throug horrible treatment. I don't know much about British relations with their conqured African, Asian, or Austrailian subjects, but I'm sure there was plenty of discrimination there as well.

[BOFH666]

If that is the version of Englands relations with its conqured peoples then I would reevaluate the superiourity of the British education system.

And that reminds me of why I stopped posting here in the first place, back to obscurity I go... Though for the record the conquest of the Celts DID happen centuries ago, there have been incidents such as you mentioned since but... oh why the hell am I bothering, I'm outta here.

(Sorry MrM, if you want to follow any of that post up, you know where to reach me, 'kay?)

[Newcastle Uni]

Yeah. We pay about £100 for a license to watch the television. Wait. Does that sound crazy? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'd happily pay £500 for the license. It means that we get about 8-10 channels with NO advertisements. Four of these are very good (BBC1-4 and there is a news channel, childrens channels and community channels etc.) The money from the TV license goes towards paying for the production of excellent comedy programmes, exceptional documentaries (THE VERY BEST IN THE WORLD NO DOUBT), a great news coverage, the very best websites on the whole of the internat (nothing beats the BBC websites for overall coverage of just about anything you can think to name) and more. There are still advertisement-backed channels (commercial channels), but these run a lot of purile crap most of the time, because it seems that most people are interested in quick entertainment, gossip and sex. The BBC caters for this market, but because it doesn't rely on adverts can also produce excellent programmes that might otherwise not attract great interest from advertisers.

Theres two other reasons I would NOT want to live in the US. Maybe in any other country in the world. But not the US.

1) Political correctness gone mad. Anything remotely offensive to anyone is not allowed in the US. That is ridiculous.

2) Religion. I was looking at some of the American God channels on my Satelite television. I hate American religion. I hate the way people make money out of it. I hate the way the US does religion. People make millions of dollars out of religion. That is totally contrary to religion in the UK.

[BigJim]

and many of our Queens have been female

I think you'll find all of them were.

[asutickler]

I think you'll find all of them were.


Well you certainly couldn't tell just by looking at some of them... ;)

[MrMacphisto]

17.5% of the goods value at present.

Holy shit! That's awful... how the hell can you afford anything?

[MrMacphisto]

1) Education
I gather that the cost of studying in the US varies between $4000 (£2222) and $30000 (£16,666) (for tuition fees alone). In the UK tuition fees are currently £1000 ($1800), but will soon rise to about £4000 (£7200). Scotish national do not have to pay tuition fees. This means that a student at Cambridge or Oxford will pay significantly less for their exceptional education than a student at one of the Ivy League universities in the US.
Education in the UK is good value for money and the institutions offer a good standard of education. However, the cost of living for education can be expensive. I recently graduated and now have about £12,000 ($21,600) worth of debt accrued over three years. On the plus side I will only start paying this back when I earn more than £15,000 ($27,000) with the average graduate starting salary being £22,000 ($40,000). The cost of living at a British university away from home can easily be £9000 ($16,200) per year (including all living expenses and rent, tuition fees etc.).

Socialized education... a great idea, but an expensive one...

I think education is important as a better educated workforce makes for a stronger economy.

I agree. If the U.S. focused on getting almost everyone to work in jobs that required at least an associates degree in a technical field, then we could have a workforce that wouldn't have to worry so much about getting laid off in favor of cheap labor.

2) Welfare state

Health

I don't pay to visit the doctor, I don't pay to have an operation, I don't pay to go into hospital. The National Health Service (NHS) will even pay for me to have breast implants or a sex change under exceptional circumstances (and exceptional circumstances would be needed for me to enlarge my man-breasts). Medication is heavily subsidised and free for children or those in full time education and under 18. I've been quite an unwell little boy in my life and I have seen a consultant twice a year for about 10 years now. I'm due to have an operation soon. I have been taking medication every day for the last 10 years now. I've not paid a penny for all of this. It was all free. Only since I turned 18 have a started paying for my medication and this is heavily subsidised so that it is cheap. Some may criticise the NHS for not offering the best service in the world, but in my experience I have been offered world class services for free. We pay higher taxes for a free NHS.

Socialized healthcare... a great idea, but again, an expensive one when it comes to taxes. Perhaps, America could engage in a very limited socialized healthcare program, but we have too many people to be able to afford one that encompasses as much as yours does....

Other
I don't know much about this, but the unemployed get a decent amount of money on the dole. Somebody like me could get £56 ($100) per week with additional benefits being offered to those with children etc. There are lots of benefits for the elderly, married couples, those suffering ill health and so on that I just cannot comment on as I don't know much about these things. Cheap brick council housing is available to those who need it.

We have similar things to this in America which include: Social Security, Medicare (sort of a limited socialized healthcare program), Workers' Compensation (for people that get injured), and Welfare (for the poor).

Minimum wage
The national minimum wage is the lowest amount of money that an employer can pay an employee for an hours work in the UK. This depends on the persons age. It is currently increasing.

For those aged between 18-21

Currently £4.10 ($7.38)
In october £4.25 ($7.65)
Next year £4.45 ($8.01)
For those aged over 21

The national minimum wage is currently £4.83 ($8.71) per hour, rising to £5.05 ($9.09) in october and £5.35 ($9.63) next year.

Our minimum wage doesn't adjust for inflation like yours does. It takes an act of Congress to raise the minimum wage, and with as many illegal workers as we have, plenty of people are getting paid less than minimum wage here. Then again, where I live, most people get paid considerably more than minimum wage (which is currently $5.15 an hour).

When it comes to the Welfare state, I'd say the UK wins hands down over the US, on just health alone. Ok, so we pay higher taxes, but it means that the rich pay for the poor. Those that can afford to pay more taxes do and this money is redistributed to the poor.

Well... you'd be surprised at how many Americans don't like the "wealth redistribution idea." We might be the "Land of the Free," but economic equality is nonexistent here. Then again, I've heard that the British tax system is not all that it seems to be. I've heard that, because the taxes are so high, the rich often find creative ways to deduct their tax rates below even what the average worker pays. I know Germany has many problems with this kind of thing, at least....

At the last General Election (to decide who becomes Prime Minister and which government will rule the UK) in 2005 and in the previous General Election in 2001 two of the three main parties pledged to INCREASE taxes to spend on public services. The party that promised to Lower taxes did not get as much support as it would have done had it promised to increase taxes. People want to pay money for a better NHS and better transport infrastructure.

As I have said before, America may share a common language with the U.K., but we are radically different in culture. Entire platforms based on lowering taxes (regardless of the consequences) have won campaigns here. I think Americans would rather not have an infrastructure at all than have to pay more in taxes than they already do now. Let's just say that Libertarian economics is becoming very popular here, and you may witness America's government dropping all of its social programs to feed the massive military budget.

3) Transport
Transport in the UK is woeful. The same roads are always gridlocked on national holidays and for the early morning and evening rush hours as people go to work. The train network was underfunded for years and as a consequence trains run slow and late and this is not good for business. It will take much more investment to bring the train network up to the level it should be at for a major industrialised country. On the plus though, the roads are very good so long as you avoid them during very busy periods and the death toll on British roads is very low (lowest in Europe). I;d imagine US roads are safer as I imagine these to be much longer and straighter than ours.

US probably wins on transport. UK transport is awful! But heck, I don't know what US transport is like, but even the Iraqi transport infrastructure would probably challenge that in the UK. (OK, its not that bad).

America is way too big to generalize on transport. Some states have great road systems (like my state - North Carolina). Other states have awful road systems (like South Carolina). It all depends on how much money and effort is spent on these systems. North Carolina happens to spend a lot more (for its size) on roads than most states. Everywhere you look around here, there's always roadwork being done.

Lots of other states don't spend much on their roads, and as a result, their systems suck. Generally speaking, the more urban states have better road systems, because they have to keep them in good shape to function properly. A lot of rural states don't put as much effort into their systems because they can depend on other factors to keep their economies afloat.

4) Cost of living
This must be cheaper in the US than in the UK. We in the UK are heavily taxed and pay twice as much for petrol/gasoline and much more for almost all consumable (even if they originated in the UK!!!). But UK wages are probably higher (maybe) and all of that extra taxation goes to good use in theory in providing a good welfare state.

US wins here

Yep, I figure this is pretty accurate. There are areas of America that probably compare with or exceed the cost of living in many areas of the U.K., but overall, America is probably cheaper to live in.

More specifically, Scotland is probably comparable in its cost to the Midwest or the Mid-Atlantic states. London is probably comparable to San Francisco, Honolulu or New York City in its cost. England is probably slightly more expensive than most of New England and the American West Coast. However, Hawaii might actually exceed the cost of living of the U.K. overall.

Without a doubt, however, the American South (especially the Deep South) is much cheaper to live in than the U.K.

There are a lot more comparisons to be made, and to be truthful those that i've made are inadequate. But......where would I want to live??.... I like English music. Give me a good Guitar rock and roll band anyday over some rubbish rap music or RnB crap.

If I could afford it and find a job quickly there, I would move to London, because it supposedly is the epicenter of Techno music. The Chemical Brothers come to mind... I love a lot of the music that London, in particular, produces, but it just so happens that most of my favorite bands are actually British anyway. So yeah... when you mention music, I'm definitely with you on that one....

I like UK TV. The UK produces a better standard of TV than the US I find. Our documentaries are more serious and incisive and are more fare than US counterparts. Our news channels are more fair and give a more balanced view. They also give a more comprehensive view of world affairs (this point is verified by every American i've spoken to who has lived in the UK for any period of time).
Those exceptional US programmes (of which there are so many) inevitably come to the UK anyway, so I can see the best (and alas the worst) of US TV along with the best and worst of UK TV.

I don't know as much about UK TV, but I like the BBC. I especially like British comedy. I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard "The Office" is a good series.

Also, the nonsense of political correcness gone mad and compensation culture (suing everyone) is less prevalent here in the UK.

Yes.... our legal system is absolute bullshit, and political correctness is just the American way of making sure that people still hate each other but just pretend to tolerate others before talking about them behind their backs. Our cultural prejudices are just as bad as they have always been, but we just have to find creative ways to express them....

So in summary. I chose the UK. The UK is more open to US culture. All US films, music and television eventually makes it to these shores so I get to experience American life at a distance along with my own culture.

Oh, and the UK is more civilised than the US in the respect that it does not execute its citizens by electrocution, gassing or by sticking a needle full of chemicals into their arms. The UK does not allow its citizens to carry guns and so things are safer.

I don't think the death penalty is so much the problem here as it is the fact that we have so much crime compared to most of the First World. Our murder rates are absolutely ridiculous when you compare them to Canada, the U.K., and many other countries. It's not gun ownership that kills people, it's the fact that people here are more likely to react violently than in Canada or the U.K. We seem to generally have much shorter fuses here than over in the U.K. I don't really know why that is, but it's getting rather embarrassing...

Oh, and the UK has never quite had the problems with racism that the US had. You might say that we Europeans started the slave trade, but we were also quick to abolish it, as was a lot of the US i think. But we never had an equivalent of the rascist south though.

Yes and no... The last half of a century has looked far more favorably on U.K. culture than on American culture, when it comes to race. However, as others have mentioned in this thread, the U.K. has a long history of antagonism with Ireland. Also, racism against Pakistani immigrants in the U.K. has sparked the recent terror attacks in London. Granted, I realize the racism in your country is now very limited in its scope. To my knowledge, the U.K. never had anything like segregation. I don't think your people lynched Pakistanis on a regular basis. So yeah... compared to America's last century, the U.K. is comparably more racially tolerant. But... you still have plenty of racial issues to deal with....

Oh, and our several recent prime ministers come from humble working class backgrounds, whereas it seems that to be US president you need to be very very wealthy (and having your brother as governor of Florida helps as well). The UK has had a female Prime Minister, and many of our Queens have been female, which suggests we are more open to the concept of sexual equality.

Well, we've got plenty of Queens in San Francisco... j/k (sorry, had to)

Anyway, yeah... I know what you mean. We have a very classist system of government. Our leadership is incredibly aristocratic, but... Tony Blair has proven that humble origins don't necessarily add up to decisions that are best for the common man. The social mobility in your leadership is better than ours, and gender equality is considerably more prevalent. However, people generally abuse the power they are given as leaders, regardless of their origins....

This gives the impression that I hate the US! I don't. I love the US. But along with the many great attributes of the US, there is so much that would be alien to me living in the UK. Similarly someone living in the US would find so much to dislike about the UK. Our ways of life are quite different in many respects.

I understand... although... I can't say that I feel at home here. I doubt I'd feel at home in the U.K. either. Whereas in Canada, I see potential. I just have to visit it first to determine if my assumptions are correct....

[MrMacphisto]

First off... I'm glad you dropped by, BOFH... Good to hear from you again... :D

In general education in the UK is simply at a higher standard across the board. NU dealt with education at degree level but even at a relativley young age the UK pulls ahead fairly comfortably. I know a few educators on both sides of the pond and a common 'rule of thumb' is that an 'average' 16 year old student from the US would be, roughly, at the same level as an 'average' 15 year old student from the UK. Also the level of education in the UK is far more consistent than it is in the States, there are very few 'bad' schools here.

Well, the advantage that the U.K. has in applying educational standards across the board is that it is a fraction of the size of the U.S. You have only about a fifth of our population, and your land mass is about a sixth of the continental U.S. In addition to this, most of your population lives in urban areas, whereas roughly 20% of our population is rural. That's a much higher rural percentage than most First World countries. As a result, a significant portion of our people live in areas where applying standards is a bit more difficult. For the most part, urban areas have better funded school systems, and thus, our rural areas often suffer from lower standards.

Right now I'd say the welfare state in the UK has swung a little too far to the 'give everyone handouts' part of the dial, but I'm not particularly worried about that. It'll swing back, we've seen time and again what happens in the UK when the general public gets pushed to breaking point (we go burn down trafalger square and whatever bone head idea caused it is quietly forgotten, see poll tax). But yes, it might cost a good chunk of my pay check in taxes but it's comforting to know that if I get taken into hospital for a full body transplant the first words I hear are "what's wrong with you?" and not "are you insured?" ;)

These are good points, but I honestly don't think America could afford to implement a true socialistic system like yours. I don't wanna sound racist, but our illegal immigrant situation is really putting a strain on our infrastructure, and if we had truly socialized healthcare, then these people would bankrupt us. They aren't paying into the system, and yet, they take from our services. I guess you could say they are our version of "freeloaders."

Yep, no doubt we pay more on cost of living, but it's not as large a gap as you may think. London, obviously, is expensive as is the south-east in general but the rest of the country isn't that bad. Birmingham, for example, rates below LA and slightly ahead of San Francisco in the latest studies.

This is true that America's range of living expenses is far greater than the U.K.'s There is a massive difference in the cost of living between Raleigh, NC and L.A. New York City is expensive as hell, and yet, Atlanta is relatively cheap. Still, if you average out our costs of living with yours, your average is somewhat higher....

Two things I want to add to NU's list. The first is that, by law, everyone in the UK in full-time employment is entitled to at least four weeks paid holiday a year and it is illegal to demand more than a 48 hour work week without the consent of the worker.

In the U.S., plenty of jobs don't have any paid holidays, and the ones that do typically only give you two weeks vacation.

Second, one of the big advantages the UK has over the US is that it's much, much smaller. Wait a minute, hear me out. The US has grown using all that open space and the result is a very dispersed community. Take a survey of how far the US members of this site have to travel to work and back every day, I'd be surprised if the average was under thirty miles and wouldn't be shocked to see double or even tripple that. I'd be amazed if the UK even got to thirty miles a day on average. That has huge effects on cost and quality of living, especially as petrol prices head up and up. People in the UK, to be honest, probably spends just as much time travelling, but as the journeys are so much shorter there are often alternatives available to driving and public transport, at least in major population centres, isn't too expensive.

I totally agree. I think the people of the U.S. (and the world in general) would be better off if America was split into about 5 or 6 sections. It'll never happen, but if it did, it would allow Americans of each region to maintain their high standards of living in a world dominated by globalization.

By far, America is the largest First World nation in population, and it's no surprise that the second largest one (Germany) is only 80 million people. There's no possible way we can remain a First World country with 300 million people under one government.

To actually give an answer to the original question... I'd go for the UK for no other reason than there is far less focus on "work work work" here. Plus, sorry, but the last few years have put me off America as a place to live possibly permanently. Canada on the other hand....

Exactly... Canada... America is great to live in if you're rich, but if you're working class, it sucks...

[MrMacphisto]

Yeah. We pay about £100 for a license to watch the television. Wait. Does that sound crazy? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'd happily pay £500 for the license. It means that we get about 8-10 channels with NO advertisements. Four of these are very good (BBC1-4 and there is a news channel, childrens channels and community channels etc.) The money from the TV license goes towards paying for the production of excellent comedy programmes, exceptional documentaries (THE VERY BEST IN THE WORLD NO DOUBT), a great news coverage, the very best websites on the whole of the internat (nothing beats the BBC websites for overall coverage of just about anything you can think to name) and more. There are still advertisement-backed channels (commercial channels), but these run a lot of purile crap most of the time, because it seems that most people are interested in quick entertainment, gossip and sex. The BBC caters for this market, but because it doesn't rely on adverts can also produce excellent programmes that might otherwise not attract great interest from advertisers.

I like the TV license idea too, but I have to admit that I don't watch much TV myself. It would be nice if the system was optional. Like, if you didn't get cable service, you wouldn't have to pay the license. The cable and DSL companies could collect the license fee when they provided you your service, so if you didn't have service, you wouldn't have to pay.

Theres two other reasons I would NOT want to live in the US. Maybe in any other country in the world. But not the US.

1) Political correctness gone mad. Anything remotely offensive to anyone is not allowed in the US. That is ridiculous.

Yep, it sucks...

2) Religion. I was looking at some of the American God channels on my Satelite television. I hate American religion. I hate the way people make money out of it. I hate the way the US does religion. People make millions of dollars out of religion. That is totally contrary to religion in the UK.

These things are a lot of the reason why I don't follow any religion whatsoever. The commercialization and politicization of religion in America has made it rather disgusting. Much of Christianity here has become an excuse for people to discriminate against people different from themselves rather than a philosophy of love and peace. Granted, my viewpoint is biased, because I live in the most notoriously religiously fanatical part of the U.S. known as the Bible Belt. The South, as a whole, is religiously uptight. Supposedly, other areas of the U.S. are more sensible about religion (except Utah, of course).

I've met plenty of sensible Christians, but unfortunately, they seem outnumbered by the idiots. Then again, I guess that could probably be said of any group....

[Newcastle Uni]

I wonder which country would be best to live in. I'm pretty sure its not the UK and i'm pretty sure its not the US. Maybe no ONE country has all of the answers. Perhaps it comes down to cities within a country. In that case, which city is best to live in.

As for the Welfare state. You have to pay a LOT for a good Welfare state. In the UK we are very critical of our Welfare state. It could be so much better. But we don't spend enough on it. I think France has a great Welfare system. Does anyone know what its like?

[Newcastle Uni]

I thought the Chemical Brothers were American. I really liked their last album. Galvanise is a great song!

[MrMacphisto]

I wonder which country would be best to live in. I'm pretty sure its not the UK and i'm pretty sure its not the US. Maybe no ONE country has all of the answers. Perhaps it comes down to cities within a country. In that case, which city is best to live in.

If we're going by the U.N.'s Human Life Development Index, then Norway is #1. Iceland is also highly ranked, as are Canada and Australia. The U.S. was #8 last time I checked, and the U.K. was around #15.

As for the Welfare state. You have to pay a LOT for a good Welfare state. In the UK we are very critical of our Welfare state. It could be so much better. But we don't spend enough on it. I think France has a great Welfare system. Does anyone know what its like?

I don't know much about France, but I've heard that Canada's social programs are great for basic care. Of course, getting an advanced medical procedure in Canada is supposed to involve months of red tape. From what I understand, it's best to invest in minimal private medical insurance up there as a supplement to public healthcare.

[MrMacphisto]

I thought the Chemical Brothers were American. I really liked their last album. Galvanise is a great song!

Yeah... "Push the Button" is an excellent album. I was wrong though... The Chemical Brothers are from Manchester, not London.

[BigJim]

Holy shit! That's awful... how the hell can you afford anything?

Now you know why American tourists are appauled at the prices here. Our tax rate sucks our vitality out through our arsehoels it's that bad. Add to this the 22% flat rate for incomce tax, national insurrance and petrol costing us the equivalent of £6-£7 a gallon and you'll understand just what being ripped off by your government really means.

[BigJim]

Also, racism against Pakistani immigrants in the U.K. has sparked the recent terror attacks in London.

Ummm, pardon? I was just wondering MAc, could you explain this a bit better as I'm really not sure what you mean.

[Newcastle Uni]

Ummm, pardon? I was just wondering MAc, could you explain this a bit better as I'm really not sure what you mean.

I'd be very surprised if racism was responsible for the London attacks. Rather the perpetrators claim to be appalled at the treatment of Iraqis and Muslims around the world and wanted to get revenge on the UK.

Most people in this country are not 'racist' even though they hold racist views to some extent.

[drew70]

Ummm, pardon? I was just wondering MAc, could you explain this a bit better as I'm really not sure what you mean.I don't know what Mac means half the time he posts. I mean, sarcasm is effective only as much as your audience gets it. This is probably just more "sarcasm" that we don't get. Clearly, racism had little to nothing to do with the recent acts of terror in London.

[MrMacphisto]

Now you know why American tourists are appauled at the prices here. Our tax rate sucks our vitality out through our arsehoels it's that bad. Add to this the 22% flat rate for incomce tax, national insurrance and petrol costing us the equivalent of £6-£7 a gallon and you'll understand just what being ripped off by your government really means.

Good lord... that sucks... I don't really know what to say, man... Do the women make up for it? :D

[MrMacphisto]

Ummm, pardon? I was just wondering MAc, could you explain this a bit better as I'm really not sure what you mean.

Well, the Pakistani terrorists that implemented the train bombings started out as normal citizens, but after spending some time among radicals in their studies abroad, they blew their experiences in the UK out of proportion. At least from what I've read, they suspect that the radicals they encountered slowly steered them toward making their attacks.

It seems rather surreal when you look at it as a whole. For the most part, racism seems to be less significant in the U.K. as compared to the U.S. Yet, Pakistanis often experience prejudice living over there. Like I said, this is just according to what I've read, and since you actually live there Jim and Newcastle, I have to defer to whatever you've gathered in your experiences.

I'm not suggesting that prejudice justifies terrorism, but these events don't occur in a vacuum. Someone doesn't just go from being a normal citizen to a homicidal radical without some kind of traumatic experience.

[Newcastle Uni]

By far and away the largest amount of racism in this country is directed at asians (mainly of Indian and Pakistani origin). A criticism often levelled at these people by the racists is that they fail to integrate properly into UK society. These people do not base their racism on skin colour, and actually like black people because of the successful way in which they have integrated into society. Several black people play in each major football side, including the English national side and we're very proud of all black sportsmen in general.
I personally like asians a lot. Yeah, they can be an isolated bunch of people, what with their abstinence from drink and dislike of Western extrvagance in many instances and what with their backward way of treating women. But British-born Indian women are amongst the mre beautiful in the world, with the most fantastic feet!

Does this help any? Ah yes. The London bombings. Who knows why they did it. At the risk of being pounced upon, I can very well understand why those people did what they did. I don't think they are as terrifying as we are in Iraq and the rest of the world. In that case we are the biggest terrorists. That said, understanding their actions does not excuse them. They shouldn't have done what they did even though what they did is understandable. What else were they to do. Diplomacy doesn't work. They were impotent.

[MrMacphisto]

By far and away the largest amount of racism in this country is directed at asians (mainly of Indian and Pakistani origin). A criticism often levelled at these people by the racists is that they fail to integrate properly into UK society. These people do not base their racism on skin colour, and actually like black people because of the successful way in which they have integrated into society.

America is very much like this. Most people here aren't as focused on skin color as they are on culture. Whenever we see a lot of immigrants around us that speak English as a second language (or barely at all), we sometimes get agitated. Some of us find their accents hard to understand, and the ones who can barely speak English at all leave us wondering at what standards are actually enforced in the process of naturalization. Muslims in America have been the focus of a lot of this angst for obvious reasons.

On the flipside, this same angst develops in the immigrants themselves because they didn't quite expect the average American to be so closed-minded about other cultures.

The problem in America is that we spread this image to the outside world that we are a country of openness and multiculturalism, but in truth, about half of America's population would rather not let in people of extremely different cultures. Many Americans understandably get upset when they see poor Third World families enter this country and end up further burdening the badly funded social programs we have.

Inevitably, these hypocrisies in our culture lead to a lot of conflict, and I'd assume the same is somewhat true of the U.K.

I personally like asians a lot. Yeah, they can be an isolated bunch of people, what with their abstinence from drink and dislike of Western extrvagance in many instances and what with their backward way of treating women.

Asian is such a vague term. In America, we often think of Asian as being East Asian. Koreans and Chinese usually come to mind first. America has many Indians and Pakistanis as well, but for some reason, we think of them second when we hear the word "Asian."

As for how Muslims treat women, I can definitely say that I don't understand it. Although it is rather funny to hear American conservatives mention this, when their own stances on women's rights aren't usually that "progressive" to start with. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Does this help any? Ah yes. The London bombings. Who knows why they did it. At the risk of being pounced upon, I can very well understand why those people did what they did. I don't think they are as terrifying as we are in Iraq and the rest of the world. In that case we are the biggest terrorists. That said, understanding their actions does not excuse them. They shouldn't have done what they did even though what they did is understandable. What else were they to do. Diplomacy doesn't work. They were impotent.

*shrugs* The way I see it... Attacking London was just downright idiotic. Blowing up innocent people is bad enough to begin with, but when you think about the cause they were supposedly supporting, attacking America would have made a lot more sense. The U.K. was just the sidekick of the U.S. in the Iraq War. That's not to say we didn't appreciate the help, but America provided most of the firepower, and we're doing the vast majority of the reconstruction. So, if anyone is a valid target, it's us.

The average British person was against the Iraq War and still is, but in America, support for the war and Iraq in general fluctuates. So, essentially, these terrorists were killing people in a country that probably would have stayed out of the Iraq War if they could have done things over again, instead of targeting people that probably would have done things the same on a second chance (Americans). As a result of their atrocities, I wouldn't doubt it if the average British person is becoming more sympathetic to America's plight in this Iraqi financial quagmire, and if anything, prejudice has probably heightened against Pakistanis and Muslims in the U.K. after these attacks.

In summary, the acts of these terrorists have 1) needlessly killed innocent people (performed the same atrocities as their enemies have), 2) increased British support of anti-terrorism initiatives, and 3) increased prejudice toward their own ethnicities.

Both the U.S. and the U.K. are just lucky that our enemies are incredibly stupid. If these guys had really been crafty, they would've done something far more diabolical to us like poisoning the water supply or dusting a handrail in an airport with anthrax particles.

[Newcastle Uni]

Yeah. But you have to understand that it would be a lot safer and easier for these bombers to reach London than somewhere in the US, where tight border controls could get them found out. Plus attacking London will always make news. It was a sensible thing to do (as far as they were concerned)

I know about the difference. When the word asian is mentioned the US think of Koreans, chinese or malaysians etc. I find these asians to be uglier with worse names than our asians. Indians and to a considerably lesser extent pakistanis are very beautiful. Chinese girls are so small and skinny.

Sorry for being so racist.

[MrMacphisto]

Um... yeah... Well, my best friend is 2nd-generation South Korean.

I happen to have a "thing" for East Asian women (at least, Korean and Japanese girls... I don't really know many Chinese women). I've seen some pretty Indian girls as well, but man... Your post didn't really offend me, but I believe you really should prepare yourself for a serious flaming on that last post.... I kind of get the feeling you intended that though....

[asutickler]

Yeah. But you have to understand that it would be a lot safer and easier for these bombers to reach London than somewhere in the US, where tight border controls could get them found out.


Speaking as a citizen of the state with what is probably the worst (on a per capita basis) illegal immigration problem in the United States, I feel the sudden urge to ask: "Tight WHAT?!?!?" :wow: :shock: :blaugh:

[Newcastle Uni]

Well its pretty damned difficult to get into the US if you're flying from the UK. I rather suspect the bombers wouldn't want to try and cross the Atlantic ina row boat.


As for the Asian post! Sorry, sorry, sorry. So many of my friends are asian. I LOVE ASIANS! They are gorgeous and I find that they are the most ticklish race on earth. I love asians.

I was just letting my racist generalisations get the better of me. In the UK a lot of Chinese girls are very hot, but many that I saw at uni with me were skinny as hell and looked about 8 when they were really about 20.

I'm not racist in the least,. But do you know that black men are able to call each other nigger and names us white people couldn't call them. Well, being so non-racist in real life i feel as though i'm allowed to use racist terms as well since i clearly don't mean them. Anybody understand??

[BigJim]

Well, the Pakistani terrorists that implemented the train bombings started out as normal citizens, but after spending some time among radicals in their studies abroad, they blew their experiences in the UK out of proportion. At least from what I've read, they suspect that the radicals they encountered slowly steered them toward making their attacks.

It seems rather surreal when you look at it as a whole. For the most part, racism seems to be less significant in the U.K. as compared to the U.S. Yet, Pakistanis often experience prejudice living over there. Like I said, this is just according to what I've read, and since you actually live there Jim and Newcastle, I have to defer to whatever you've gathered in your experiences.

I'm not suggesting that prejudice justifies terrorism, but these events don't occur in a vacuum. Someone doesn't just go from being a normal citizen to a homicidal radical without some kind of traumatic experience.


There might be an argument that the way we've behaved in the Middle East was racism, in which case I would probably agree with you; but I find it very difficult to believe that general racism towards the Asian community within Britain could have inculcated a generation of suicide bombers.

I also have to agree with something Uni said: probably the biggest sporting hero we've ever had in Britain is Frank Bruno. A hero because he had guts and was a gentleman, rather than because he was world class of course. Frank Bruno is as black as the ace of spades, his parents being of West Indian origin. But he was as proud to be British and to represent his country as an athlete as any white boy with three hundred generations of British born ancestors, ergo he was as British as any of us and a geezer I'd really like to meet and beg for his autograph one day. As N_U says, the Asian community in general (doing my best not to stereotype - this is only in my experience, not a definitive study) is far less amenable to any form of pride in their home country, preferring to cleave to their culture and continent of origin. No better an example can be given than when England hosted the cricket World Cup a few years ago, when the asian communities of Bradford, Leeds, London, Manchester and so on turned out in their thousands to support Pakistan and India, waving those country's flags and dressing in team colours. I say they have the right to do so if they choose, but it made me sick and angry to see it. And don't forget, I'm the one round here who thinks blind patriotism is for the mind-numbed and brain-dead, so it had to hit a particularly raw nerve.

[Newcastle Uni]

So Heres a question James, can I call you James (no? maybe just this once),

Why don't asian communities integrate in the same way thay other communities do? Thats not to say that they don't integrate, but the only time i;ve ever had lots of Asian friends was when I had a summer job in a call centre. There were about 8 asians in my training intake and they were all great people. They definitely had very British values and any Britain would love these great down to earth, friendly and funny people, yet afterwork they went back to socialising amongst themselves again. Why? Is it a bad thing? Probably not.

[BigJim]

So Heres a question James, can I call you James (no? maybe just this once),

Why don't asian communities integrate in the same way thay other communities do? Thats not to say that they don't integrate, but the only time i;ve ever had lots of Asian friends was when I had a summer job in a call centre. There were about 8 asians in my training intake and they were all great people. They definitely had very British values and any Britain would love these great down to earth, friendly and funny people, yet afterwork they went back to socialising amongst themselves again. Why? Is it a bad thing? Probably not.

In short, I have no idea why this would be the case. Perhaps a racial sociologist could hazard a guess, I wouldn't like to say.

As far as I'm concerned, it's neither bad nor good. I find it very sad that so many immgrants (and indeed descendants of immigrants who were born here and are as British as I am) are desperate to live and work here, yet find it very easy to cheer and dance when we lose at cricket. That is of course, their right. I would never deny them that right, but it does make me sad that they take advantage of living here, but feel no loyalty to its representatives.

[Newcastle Uni]

In short, I have no idea why this would be the case. Perhaps a racial sociologist could hazard a guess, I wouldn't like to say.

As far as I'm concerned, it's neither bad nor good. I find it very sad that so many immgrants (and indeed descendants of immigrants who were born here and are as British as I am) are desperate to live and work here, yet find it very easy to cheer and dance when we lose at cricket. That is of course, their right. I would never deny them that right, but it does make me sad that they take advantage of living here, but feel no loyalty to its representatives.

It makes me slightly annoyed as well when they'd rather support Pakistan, Bangladesh or India than England. Is this the case when England play other teams? Is it the case when we're beating (sorry playing) the West Indies and the like?

Oh, whats your forum like? You'd probably rather keep 'my sort' away, but is there a thriving british community? I'd love to be at the next gathering, wherever it is. I wanted to organise something, but only several people here showed an interest.

[BigJim]

It makes me slightly annoyed as well when they'd rather support Pakistan, Bangladesh or India than England. Is this the case when England play other teams? Is it the case when we're beating (sorry playing) the West Indies and the like?

The Windies have plenty of supporters, but I'm not aware of the immigrant Carribean community in England turning out in droves to suport them. Not any more anyway, during the late 80's-early 80's it was more prevalent.


Oh, whats your forum like? You'd probably rather keep 'my sort' away, but is there a thriving british community? I'd love to be at the next gathering, wherever it is. I wanted to organise something, but only several people here showed an interest.

It's going quite well, we've almost reached the thousandth member milestone. I've had worse than you there N_U and I've yet to ban anyone. Edit a few posts and issue one formal warning, but that's all. Feel free to drop in and sign up mate.

[Newcastle Uni]

The Windies have plenty of supporters, but I'm not aware of the immigrant Carribean community in England turning out in droves to suport them. Not any more anyway, during the late 80's-early 80's it was more prevalent.




It's going quite well, we've almost reached the thousandth member milestone. I've had worse than you there N_U and I've yet to ban anyone. Edit a few posts and issue one formal warning, but that's all. Feel free to drop in and sign up mate.

I'll do that.

[MrMacphisto]

I was just letting my racist generalisations get the better of me. In the UK a lot of Chinese girls are very hot, but many that I saw at uni with me were skinny as hell and looked about 8 when they were really about 20.

You say that like it's a bad thing. j/k lol... Sorry, I had to. But yeah, I know what you mean. East Asian women are known for being very youthful in appearance. Many of them age very well. Unfortunately, the thin frame of some Asian women is the result of anorexia. Supposedly, anorexia is a lot more common in Korea and Japan than in America or the U.K.

I'm not racist in the least,. But do you know that black men are able to call each other nigger and names us white people couldn't call them. Well, being so non-racist in real life i feel as though i'm allowed to use racist terms as well since i clearly don't mean them. Anybody understand??

Yeah, the nigger thing bothers me. Some black people don't even like being called nigger or nigga by other black people, but it seems odd that any of them would use it as a friendly term and then get upset if a white person attempts to use it in the same casual way.

[MrMacphisto]

So Heres a question James, can I call you James (no? maybe just this once),

Why don't asian communities integrate in the same way thay other communities do? Thats not to say that they don't integrate, but the only time i;ve ever had lots of Asian friends was when I had a summer job in a call centre. There were about 8 asians in my training intake and they were all great people. They definitely had very British values and any Britain would love these great down to earth, friendly and funny people, yet afterwork they went back to socialising amongst themselves again. Why? Is it a bad thing? Probably not.

I believe I may have the answer. In America, this is becoming more and more prevalent among almost all minorities. However, blacks and hispanics (the largest of our ethnic minorities in the U.S.) are often likely to intermingle with whites. In my city, it's very common to see a black man and a white girl together (despite the quiet racists that are still against it). The same is true of Hispanics, and you even see intermingling between blacks and Hispanics. I think the increased interracial mixing of race in America is a good thing, because people aren't able to be as racist if they all have similar racial ancestries.

By contrast, many immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia all tend to maintain cliques within their cultures. I work in a warehouse composed of labor from places all over the world, but I've noticed we have a particularly large number of African Muslims. Most of them speak French as their primary language, so their English isn't that great. I have a feeling that this contributes to their tendency to keep among themselves rather than branching out toward whites.

Language barriers seem to be the most obvious rationale for voluntary separatism. I know that if I were living in Sudan for some reason, I'd probably seek out other white people and primary English speakers to associate with, even if I could speak Arabic. While nationalism obviously plays a big part, I'd say comfort is equally important, if not more so. These Asian immigrants in the U.K. probably feel more comfortable around people who look the same as them and share many of their cultural idiosyncrasies.

[MrMacphisto]

In short, I have no idea why this would be the case. Perhaps a racial sociologist could hazard a guess, I wouldn't like to say.

As far as I'm concerned, it's neither bad nor good. I find it very sad that so many immgrants (and indeed descendants of immigrants who were born here and are as British as I am) are desperate to live and work here, yet find it very easy to cheer and dance when we lose at cricket. That is of course, their right. I would never deny them that right, but it does make me sad that they take advantage of living here, but feel no loyalty to its representatives.

And thus... you have struck upon my basis of support for interracial mixing. If America were to openly embrace (and encourage) continual mixing among our various minorities, then America would find true cultural unity via a true sense of the "melting pot" idea. This worked beautifully for white culture in America in the early 1900s, when various groups of European immigrants intermingled to the point where ethnicity became virtually indistinguishable among whites. The old antagonisms between the Irish and Italians lessened, and a great mix of culture was created. I think the same thing could be accomplished among all races here, but the difficulties we face in this mixing and assimilation is that each of the major cultures now present in America are so different from each other....

Loyalty is bred through familiarity. The famous saying is that "familiarity breeds contempt," but it also leads to unity. If everyone in a country can relate on some level, then loyalty to the nation as a whole is more firmly established. Sadly, the only way this is generally established in America is by creating some hideous "common enemy" that brings everyone together through fear.... but that's not true unity, that's just political posturing....

This is also why the homogeneous cultures of the world have a serious advantage over America and the U.K. They have firmly created a sense of unity among their people from centuries of cultural loyalty. Countries that encourage immigration must face the challenge of re-establishing unity through intermingling.

[jim66e]

And thus... you have struck upon my basis of support for interracial mixing. If America were to openly embrace (and encourage) continual mixing among our various minorities, then America would find true cultural unity via a true sense of the "melting pot" idea. This worked beautifully for white culture in America in the early 1900s, when various groups of European immigrants intermingled to the point where ethnicity became virtually indistinguishable among whites. The old antagonisms between the Irish and Italians lessened, and a great mix of culture was created. I think the same thing could be accomplished among all races here, but the difficulties we face in this mixing and assimilation is that each of the major cultures now present in America are so different from each other....

Loyalty is bred through familiarity. The famous saying is that "familiarity breeds contempt," but it also leads to unity. If everyone in a country can relate on some level, then loyalty to the nation as a whole is more firmly established. Sadly, the only way this is generally established in America is by creating some hideous "common enemy" that brings everyone together through fear.... but that's not true unity, that's just political posturing....

This is also why the homogeneous cultures of the world have a serious advantage over America and the U.K. They have firmly created a sense of unity among their people from centuries of cultural loyalty. Countries that encourage immigration must face the challenge of re-establishing unity through intermingling.

The reason that the various ethnic European groups were able to merge together came from strong feelings of loyalty to American and mostly occured in the second generation of immigrants. They were willing to let go and become just Americans, instead of placing another continent or country in front of it in their term for themselves. They also benifited by unifing events such as the First World War, while now the nation is more divided and polarized than ever.

[MrMacphisto]

The reason that the various ethnic European groups were able to merge together came from strong feelings of loyalty to American and mostly occured in the second generation of immigrants. They were willing to let go and become just Americans, instead of placing another continent or country in front of it in their term for themselves. They also benifited by unifing events such as the First World War, while now the nation is more divided and polarized than ever.

True... WWI functioned similarly to the way terrorism does now, but the difference it that WWI (and 2) were more legitimate threats. Terminology was, indeed, less politically correct, but intermingling occurred to a great extent, which lead to the feelings of unity. They were American not only because of their choice to move here, but because subsequent generations formed a unique blend of European culture that was mostly only present in America.