What a myth.
You probably live in a cramped 60 sq.m. rented apartment, whilst your American counterpart lives in a mansion house in the suburbs of a major city.
You ride the public transport to work and your counterpart drives his luxury SUV.
You probably live in a cramped 60 sq.m. rented apartment, whilst your American counterpart lives in a mansion house in the suburbs of a major city.
You ride the public transport to work and your counterpart drives his luxury SUV.
1. Marketing 2. Needing to fill space
I believe most Americans live in far too large houses and would benefit from downsizing, especially once the kids move out. Additionally, I think Americans would benefit from some strategies to avoid impulse buying (the ones I have used successfully in the past, but have lacked the discipline to maintain include never buying anything the day I think of buying it, but always waiting at least 1 day, and avoiding using credit cards and almost entirely depending on cash).
renting in your 40s and making quite literally 1/3rd of salary an american sounds really cool now that i think about it
This is a discussion about whether living in a suburb with a massive house is significantly better than living in a smaller apartment in a city.
He could be a Canadian and sharing a condo with 10 people!
If someone in the US can afford a huge house in a popular and safe suburb, it is very likely they could also afford a smaller, luxurious condo in Manhattan, Los Angeles, or San Francisco.
Oh, it's way worse. Within 10 minutes' walking distance from my home, I have a professional theatre, a concert hall, a cinema, a library, multiple very good schools, museums, several shopping centers, hundreds of bars and restaurants, a farmers market, and a ton of other places. I'm naughty and barely consume anything to visit those places, not even a drop of petrol. I'm so deprived of luxury that I walk to work like a Depression-era pauper.
Soccer moms was a phrase invented in the US for a reason.
i think the op framed the argument in a way that will make a lot of people react negatively
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne... [1]https://eyeonhousing.org/2015/06/a-cross-country-comparison-...
A lot of myths in this whole thread.
The countryside is similar.
And I disagree that the quality of life is the same for someone who lives in a nice house vs small apartment, has to use public transport vs personal luxury vehicle and so on.
You’re probably not right about which one is actually better.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/cities-depression-lower-rate...
And this is in the U.S. which has among the worst cities but the best suburbs in the developed world.
Looks horrible. I'm sure it's much better to be packed like in a can of sardines with all kinds of random people.
I feel I need to consume less in general whenever I’m outside the U.S. It might be the lack of stress that pervades everything in the U.S.
I don’t need material things to comfort me when my spiritual needs are taken care of.
Why not be properly compensated, spend less and enjoy life with extra vacations or early retirement?
Do most Europeans need an early retirement or are they living a relaxed, fulfilling life and have no need for an escape?
Pros and cons.
So are big European cities like Amsterdam, London, Paris etc. The only difference is that it's not guns but knifes, machetes, brass knuckles and what not.
Those are just problems of big cities, not some problem unique to the US.
Top 50 cities (not in a war) with the highest homicide rates (best proxy for crime, (a) because it's most easily available, (b) it's fairly easy to compare across places because different places have different reporting and data collection standards) lists 8 cities in the US and 0 in Europe.
What is amazing and took me by surprise that even Eastern European cities just coming out of the Cold War have lower homicide rates than at least 8 US cities.
Also, if you think the homeless problem in the US is like anywhere else in the developed world you need to get out more.