Oh, well, I knew the number was quite bigger for Sweden then from USA, I've mistaken with some other things, but well. It's actually even a bigger difference. 18% for Sweden, 13% for USA... so, 5% more immigrants compared to the population in Sweden, vs USA. Better come up with another excuse for social-democracy working so much better than capitalism.
Sweden: As of 2008, 18% of the population had foreign origins (13% if excluding Finns and 9% if also excluding other Scandinavians), with 14% foreign-born and another 4% born in Sweden of two foreign-born parents.[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
Hi, it's: Ashraf, no last name (or 1st, cause I don't know if Ashraf is a family name or not). Another: Shabib stating he was a taxi driver. The last name was removed by Wikileaks. And I can't find the 3rd name anywhere.
So you are saying because one of these small countries has a decent system that you should just be able to easily expand that 35-50x in size and get the same results?
Mate, if number of people is the problem here, then Cuba should be heaven on earth. So what about finding another excuse?
What do all of those countries have in common? No immigration whatsoever.
See, that's why we Europeans, call you Americans stupid. You are here, in the net, could easily check the fact before open your big mouth, but you choose to say just the shit you hear in Fox News. Some of these countries have in fact MORE immigration than the USA. 12% in Sweden against less than 10% of population in USA. So what about find another excuse?
I bet, being fried in an Electric Chair isn't also a very interesting way of dying. Oh, sorry, I'm wrong, it's obviously a very human way to die, since you, the good guys, the Americans, enjoy using that method.
I'm sure that the Taliban greatly appreciated suddenly having a comprehensive list of the names of hundreds of Afghan civilian informants.
And where are you taking those numbers from sir, from your ass? 3 names. There are so far 3 civilian informant names. One was already dead and another a Taliban double agent. Don't know about the 3 one.
So, what about shutting up, since you obviously cannot check facts before open your big mouth for hundreds of exaggeration!
Any rational person can watch an interview with him and realize that he's completely ego-driven.
No, any rational person knows that before this, Assange constantly avoided the media, even though when you got nasty secrets about Iran and China you were all happy about the guy. And still he didn't show any Narcisitic behaviour. Now he has finaly started to give his face. Perhaps because he know very well, the USA cannot be trusted and any day now he will be shot down by some American black cover ops. And the best way he has to keep himself safe, is to make sure everyone knows him, so that you cannot simply "silence" the guy.
Absolutely no human organization made any statement about Wikileaks. "Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirms there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks."
Just because some guy from an human-rights association said something about the matter, it's not the same as saying that a Human-Right organization said something about the matter. Because if you mix the two things, you would also say that the USA governments wants Wikileaks founder "Hunted Down And Grabbed And Put On Trial' " just because some idiot Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush Karl Rove said so on air in FoX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8a8EWiWls
Of course, when do Americans kill some one, IT'S NEVER a war crime.
When the other kills your people, they are always the bad ones and the terrorists.
The bombing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a war crime as well for you right? Then sir, neither was the attack on the twin towers in 9/11. Those two things are exactly the same... except that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, almost 500 000 (half a million) people ended up dying in a much more atrocious way. So, if you don't know the maths, that's more than 10000x more innocent dead people than in 9/11.
Absolutely no human organization made any statement about Wikileaks. "Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirms there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks."
Just because some guy from an human-rights association said something about the matter, it's not the same as saying that a Human-Right organization said something about the matter. Because if you mix the two things, you would also say that the USA governments wants Wikileaks founder "Hunted Down And Grabbed And Put On Trial' " just because some idiot Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush Karl Rove said so on air in FoX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8a8EWiWls
Replace a plutocracy with a more socialist-minded system, ask cubans, chinese, russians, and many other nations how well that shit worked out for them.
Yeah, ask those poor Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finish, Icelandic and mostly ask the French. Poor lost souls. Oh the humanity.
Might say exactly the same about the pilots of the aiplanes that dropped 2 atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their commanders, their generals and the American president at the time. Did they all become maniacal killers of women and children too?
They will never be a Japanese children, woman, sick, old people and every living soul in that city charred and burned by the fall of an atomic bomb. They will also never be a Vietnamese children running naked in the street with her skin burning from the napalm that an aeroplane just dropped over her village.
Now, that should make you comment less tendentious.
A bunch of allied AI troops were in my way and I shot them down while laughing. He said that I, or maybe just my actions, were "sick" and said something else about how you shouldn't fire on your own guys
Of course not, and your father as a Vietnam vet knows that very well. What you should do is to drop napalm over children in villages. Now that I'm sure he would find perfectly acceptable and human.
Glad you acknowledge that. Now if you could please explain to the rest of the world why you invaded Afghanistan and IRAQ (which had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks) instead of Saudi Arabia (which are you good pals) that would be a really interesting thing to ear.
So if I'm a guy who builds explosive devices to detonate in crowded markets or on school buses, I should get mad that kids get to play soldiers who kill me and men like me? Poor me!!
Or if you are part of the guys that killed thousands of innocent by dropping 2 nuclear bombs over civilian populations. Should you get mad that the rest of the world doesn't like you? Poor you.
Well, let's see, you don't like it when we say the obvious: Mass Transportation. We hear the excuses it doesn't work there because the cities are to big.
Well, the cities are too big because most of the Americans wants a house for themselves (their family), and a grass lawn where they can make nice barbecues but take 1 ton of water a year to keep green. Come to Europe and take a look around. Practically no-one in a big city has a house for themselves, we all live in apartments. If you really want an house, well you have to move to the countryside. Where there is plenty of space and few people and you can drive your cars in normal roads. You gas is way to cheap there, and you got used to it. In fact you got so used that it's not enough to keep driving around... you have to drive around in huge cars, or SUV's.
In a normal city, public transportation works. If you can't have metro everywhere, you get bus lines. But of course, that only works, if people actually live together, not if the house are so big and so separated that the BUS has to stop every 10 houses to pick up and drop people. Also, if you see in Europe, even in big cities, like Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris or even London (although London seems to be the least of the bunch), people actually live in the centre of the city. The centre is not just shops/restaurants/cinemas, no, there is people there... but again, people living in apartment blocks.
That is the real problem you have. No mater how good are the cars, how good are the roads. If you continue building your cities this way, you will always need more and more roads and have more and more cars because it will be impossible to provide mass transportation to everyone.
A bicycle it's the most energy eficient method of transportation that ever existed... still, as cool as it is (I go to work by bicycle everyday), it can't replace other transportation.
Now, the same it's true about solar power. Let's do some maths. A Nuclear reactor, produces 500 MW in an area of about 1 Km^2. To produce the equivalent to that, under optimum conditions (in the tropics during the day, at noon), we would need. 500000/52 -> 10 Km^2 of solar panels. Well, in fact the average in Earth, taking into account that there is night, and that most of the biggest spenders of energy are at high latitudes, and that you loose quite some energy in sending them to batteries and then get it back from it for using would be less that 1/10th of that energy (at the best), so, we would need about 100 Km^2 of solar panels PLUS batteries (I would like to use electricity during the night) to get the same as I would get from a single nuclear REACTOR... it's not even a nuclear plant, that can have 3-5 reactors.
So, yeah, it can be cheaper, but I want to see you getting space to build that near a big city. The only way it would be to install solar panels in every buildings rooftop. But well, it would still be enough and you would need to buy the batteries to accumulate during the day. In the end, nuclear is the best option. I know people are afraid when they hear about it, but it's time to let old gosts go away and embrace the future.
Free? It's not free. Your education and healthcare are paid for with tax dollars instead of private funding but it's not remotely free.
Let's get this straight. We pay more taxes. We get Univerity Educations, Healthcare, etc, with them.
but it's not a bad concept and certainly no worse in principle than a system run by the government.
Well, in out way of seeing things, it certainly is, let me tell you why. If you where born poor, in a poor neighborhood, and with uneducated parents, you chances to go trough University are practically 0%, not exactly 0%, but certainly low enough for you to be loosing many young bright minds because you don't give them enough monetary help to go until the top of the educational system.
Unemployment rates in have historically been lower in the US than in much of Europe. There is no free lunch here.
Numbers - EU Unemployment:8.5% USA: 9.5%
Greater unemployment benefits create incentives for people to remain unemployed. After all, why work if you can get by without working?
Let me tell you very simply with numbers why that is a false statement. 1st - Check Eurostat for Unemployment and you can clearly see that there is no correlation whatsoever between social support for unemployed people and unemployment rates. It's quite easy, just look at Northern Europe and the picture get's right away evident. What you are stating is just a pre-conceived idea with absolutely no scientific or statistical basis to it. Unemployment depends practically only on the work market of the country. And the numbers support that.
You don't really know much about Americans do you? Much easier to lump us all together with ridiculous stereotypes than to actually try to understand.
Stereotype, no sorry. You are much more consumer minded than we are. I mean, how many SUV's do you think there are in all Europe vs just in Texas for instance? Besides my point was not even that, as practically all the commenters understood. My point, was that you just care about the money and not about the benefits you get from paying taxes and have less money.
Different approaches with the same end goal. Americans prefer a different approach that suits our particular sensibilities. If you don't like it, that's your choice and we don't really care.
Ok, let me put you a very simple question then: You don't have an health insurance, you have very few money cause you are unemployed you in a bad paying job. You contract AIDS. Does the HeathCare you have there (or had, I still didn't understood what Obamma did change. Really, not being ironic, I just can't find straightforward info about it) pay for the medicine that's need for you to be treated and have a normal life? And Cancer, do they pay for you treatments and medicine? I mean, the best medicine at the time, not some stuff with 20 years old. Please just answer this.
Yeah, the weather is really shitty in Southern California, Florida, etc. Do you have ANY concept of the geography in the US?
Men, please relax. Once again you missed the point, that no-one else missed. I wasn't saying that all North America has a bad climate. We are not that ignorant around here... it's practically a full continent, how can it all have the same climate? Just think a bit before start shooting. I meant (and like I said, seems everyone understood that except you), that quality of life is more than money, it's also good food and good weather, for instance, I didn't say that all America has bad weather and bad food. Gosh, get a grip.
Are you seriously making the incredibly tired argument that Americans have no culture and not access to it?
Look at previous point. And anyway, you do have it, but I don't believe you have it like here. Can you for instance go and see a big Russian ballet com
Sorry for answering two times. But actually the graph you gave me reflects what I said (in my 1st answer to you), see the line that says: coin fiscalo-social, en % de travail total. It gives 50%! Because like I was saying, you must remember that the employee doesn't pay himself one of those taxes. So actually half the green the employee is paying for you, the other half he is paying for himself... but as you can see in the end, they are only taking half of the money from your work in total. So the 50% I said.
My lower tax rate combined with my savings means I have freedom. I can move anywhere in the world and live well (even France). Can you say the same? Or is your quality of life limited to where you live (and based on who is in power at the time)?
No, I don't, I'm quite limited to living in the European Union and if I want to move to a rich country outside EU, I know that all I've made here will be kind of lost. Then again to say the truth, the only 1st world countries outside EU where I see myself living are Australia or New Zealand (that have a quite good social system as well), cause I feel I have mostly of what I need in Europe, which let's face it it's extremely diverse.
This is not to say I couldn't go living to Australia, I could, and actually I have 2 friend couples that just went there about 1 year ago. But no, they don't live well (well, in the sense of wealthy), they just have a medium middle class life there.
But this takes me to the important point. By living here, I receive quite a lot from the state, but I also contribute. My taxes are used for good stuff. Stuff that benefits me and the other citizens. In my way of seeing things (and you see that's the way the other mostly do around here), that's the correct way to take your life... contribute to society. That's why not all the immigrants are treated the same way around here. For instance, Ukrainians are really hard working, and they pay taxes and they have kids and raise them here... so we like them. Some other immigrants, because of they culture, don't want to do that, so of course we don't feel very happy to have them around.
In the end, well, see it a bit as the Americans thinks about their army... people that contribute to their country. We don't like armies that much... but we certainly can appreciate people that contributes to the country in other ways, and in here it's not difficult, just work when there is work to do, and pay taxes when you got a work.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, well, I knew the number was quite bigger for Sweden then from USA, I've mistaken with some other things, but well. It's actually even a bigger difference. 18% for Sweden, 13% for USA ... so, 5% more immigrants compared to the population in Sweden, vs USA. Better come up with another excuse for social-democracy working so much better than capitalism.
Sweden: As of 2008, 18% of the population had foreign origins (13% if excluding Finns and 9% if also excluding other Scandinavians), with 14% foreign-born and another 4% born in Sweden of two foreign-born parents.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
Hi, it's: Ashraf, no last name (or 1st, cause I don't know if Ashraf is a family name or not). Another: Shabib stating he was a taxi driver. The last name was removed by Wikileaks. And I can't find the 3rd name anywhere.
3 names! Just 3 names have been confirmed. 1 was already dead, one is a double agent for the Taliban. The 3rd I don't know.
So you are saying because one of these small countries has a decent system that you should just be able to easily expand that 35-50x in size and get the same results?
Mate, if number of people is the problem here, then Cuba should be heaven on earth. So what about finding another excuse?
What do all of those countries have in common? No immigration whatsoever.
See, that's why we Europeans, call you Americans stupid. You are here, in the net, could easily check the fact before open your big mouth, but you choose to say just the shit you hear in Fox News. Some of these countries have in fact MORE immigration than the USA. 12% in Sweden against less than 10% of population in USA. So what about find another excuse?
3 names. 3! Are the only thing found so far. 1 of them was already dead. Another a double agent for the Taliban.
I bet, being fried in an Electric Chair isn't also a very interesting way of dying. Oh, sorry, I'm wrong, it's obviously a very human way to die, since you, the good guys, the Americans, enjoy using that method.
I'm sure that the Taliban greatly appreciated suddenly having a comprehensive list of the names of hundreds of Afghan civilian informants.
And where are you taking those numbers from sir, from your ass? 3 names. There are so far 3 civilian informant names. One was already dead and another a Taliban double agent. Don't know about the 3 one.
So, what about shutting up, since you obviously cannot check facts before open your big mouth for hundreds of exaggeration!
Any rational person can watch an interview with him and realize that he's completely ego-driven.
No, any rational person knows that before this, Assange constantly avoided the media, even though when you got nasty secrets about Iran and China you were all happy about the guy. And still he didn't show any Narcisitic behaviour. Now he has finaly started to give his face. Perhaps because he know very well, the USA cannot be trusted and any day now he will be shot down by some American black cover ops. And the best way he has to keep himself safe, is to make sure everyone knows him, so that you cannot simply "silence" the guy.
WRONG!
Absolutely no human organization made any statement about Wikileaks. "Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirms there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks."
Just because some guy from an human-rights association said something about the matter, it's not the same as saying that a Human-Right organization said something about the matter. Because if you mix the two things, you would also say that the USA governments wants Wikileaks founder "Hunted Down And Grabbed And Put On Trial' " just because some idiot Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush Karl Rove said so on air in FoX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8a8EWiWls
Of course, when do Americans kill some one, IT'S NEVER a war crime.
When the other kills your people, they are always the bad ones and the terrorists.
The bombing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a war crime as well for you right? Then sir, neither was the attack on the twin towers in 9/11. Those two things are exactly the same ... except that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, almost 500 000 (half a million) people ended up dying in a much more atrocious way. So, if you don't know the maths, that's more than 10000x more innocent dead people than in 9/11.
The Americans kills, period. Please don't give credit to an evil group of people.
FTFY
Absolutely no human organization made any statement about Wikileaks. "Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirms there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks."
Just because some guy from an human-rights association said something about the matter, it's not the same as saying that a Human-Right organization said something about the matter. Because if you mix the two things, you would also say that the USA governments wants Wikileaks founder "Hunted Down And Grabbed And Put On Trial' " just because some idiot Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush Karl Rove said so on air in FoX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8a8EWiWls
Replace a plutocracy with a more socialist-minded system, ask cubans, chinese, russians, and many other nations how well that shit worked out for them.
Yeah, ask those poor Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finish, Icelandic and mostly ask the French. Poor lost souls. Oh the humanity.
Might say exactly the same about the pilots of the aiplanes that dropped 2 atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their commanders, their generals and the American president at the time. Did they all become maniacal killers of women and children too?
Let me had something to your description:
They will never be a Japanese children, woman, sick, old people and every living soul in that city charred and burned by the fall of an atomic bomb. They will also never be a Vietnamese children running naked in the street with her skin burning from the napalm that an aeroplane just dropped over her village.
Now, that should make you comment less tendentious.
A bunch of allied AI troops were in my way and I shot them down while laughing. He said that I, or maybe just my actions, were "sick" and said something else about how you shouldn't fire on your own guys
Of course not, and your father as a Vietnam vet knows that very well. What you should do is to drop napalm over children in villages. Now that I'm sure he would find perfectly acceptable and human.
80% of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi
Glad you acknowledge that. Now if you could please explain to the rest of the world why you invaded Afghanistan and IRAQ (which had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks) instead of Saudi Arabia (which are you good pals) that would be a really interesting thing to ear.
So if I'm a guy who builds explosive devices to detonate in crowded markets or on school buses, I should get mad that kids get to play soldiers who kill me and men like me? Poor me!!
Or if you are part of the guys that killed thousands of innocent by dropping 2 nuclear bombs over civilian populations. Should you get mad that the rest of the world doesn't like you? Poor you.
Your neighbours paid for a house near your house, so they are not getting something for free.
And I'm paying for a broadband connection every month so that I can download what I want.
Well, let's see, you don't like it when we say the obvious: Mass Transportation. We hear the excuses it doesn't work there because the cities are to big.
Well, the cities are too big because most of the Americans wants a house for themselves (their family), and a grass lawn where they can make nice barbecues but take 1 ton of water a year to keep green. Come to Europe and take a look around. Practically no-one in a big city has a house for themselves, we all live in apartments. If you really want an house, well you have to move to the countryside. Where there is plenty of space and few people and you can drive your cars in normal roads. You gas is way to cheap there, and you got used to it. In fact you got so used that it's not enough to keep driving around ... you have to drive around in huge cars, or SUV's.
In a normal city, public transportation works. If you can't have metro everywhere, you get bus lines. But of course, that only works, if people actually live together, not if the house are so big and so separated that the BUS has to stop every 10 houses to pick up and drop people. Also, if you see in Europe, even in big cities, like Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris or even London (although London seems to be the least of the bunch), people actually live in the centre of the city. The centre is not just shops/restaurants/cinemas, no, there is people there ... but again, people living in apartment blocks.
That is the real problem you have. No mater how good are the cars, how good are the roads. If you continue building your cities this way, you will always need more and more roads and have more and more cars because it will be impossible to provide mass transportation to everyone.
A bicycle it's the most energy eficient method of transportation that ever existed ... still, as cool as it is (I go to work by bicycle everyday), it can't replace other transportation.
Now, the same it's true about solar power. Let's do some maths. A Nuclear reactor, produces 500 MW in an area of about 1 Km^2. To produce the equivalent to that, under optimum conditions (in the tropics during the day, at noon), we would need. 500000/52 -> 10 Km^2 of solar panels. Well, in fact the average in Earth, taking into account that there is night, and that most of the biggest spenders of energy are at high latitudes, and that you loose quite some energy in sending them to batteries and then get it back from it for using would be less that 1/10th of that energy (at the best), so, we would need about 100 Km^2 of solar panels PLUS batteries (I would like to use electricity during the night) to get the same as I would get from a single nuclear REACTOR ... it's not even a nuclear plant, that can have 3-5 reactors.
So, yeah, it can be cheaper, but I want to see you getting space to build that near a big city. The only way it would be to install solar panels in every buildings rooftop. But well, it would still be enough and you would need to buy the batteries to accumulate during the day. In the end, nuclear is the best option. I know people are afraid when they hear about it, but it's time to let old gosts go away and embrace the future.
Free? It's not free. Your education and healthcare are paid for with tax dollars instead of private funding but it's not remotely free.
Let's get this straight. We pay more taxes. We get Univerity Educations, Healthcare, etc, with them.
but it's not a bad concept and certainly no worse in principle than a system run by the government.
Well, in out way of seeing things, it certainly is, let me tell you why. If you where born poor, in a poor neighborhood, and with uneducated parents, you chances to go trough University are practically 0%, not exactly 0%, but certainly low enough for you to be loosing many young bright minds because you don't give them enough monetary help to go until the top of the educational system.
Unemployment rates in have historically been lower in the US than in much of Europe. There is no free lunch here.
Numbers - EU Unemployment:8.5% USA: 9.5%
Greater unemployment benefits create incentives for people to remain unemployed. After all, why work if you can get by without working?
Let me tell you very simply with numbers why that is a false statement. 1st - Check Eurostat for Unemployment and you can clearly see that there is no correlation whatsoever between social support for unemployed people and unemployment rates. It's quite easy, just look at Northern Europe and the picture get's right away evident. What you are stating is just a pre-conceived idea with absolutely no scientific or statistical basis to it. Unemployment depends practically only on the work market of the country. And the numbers support that.
You don't really know much about Americans do you? Much easier to lump us all together with ridiculous stereotypes than to actually try to understand.
Stereotype, no sorry. You are much more consumer minded than we are. I mean, how many SUV's do you think there are in all Europe vs just in Texas for instance? Besides my point was not even that, as practically all the commenters understood. My point, was that you just care about the money and not about the benefits you get from paying taxes and have less money.
Different approaches with the same end goal. Americans prefer a different approach that suits our particular sensibilities. If you don't like it, that's your choice and we don't really care.
Ok, let me put you a very simple question then: You don't have an health insurance, you have very few money cause you are unemployed you in a bad paying job. You contract AIDS. Does the HeathCare you have there (or had, I still didn't understood what Obamma did change. Really, not being ironic, I just can't find straightforward info about it) pay for the medicine that's need for you to be treated and have a normal life? And Cancer, do they pay for you treatments and medicine? I mean, the best medicine at the time, not some stuff with 20 years old. Please just answer this.
Yeah, the weather is really shitty in Southern California, Florida, etc. Do you have ANY concept of the geography in the US?
Men, please relax. Once again you missed the point, that no-one else missed. I wasn't saying that all North America has a bad climate. We are not that ignorant around here ... it's practically a full continent, how can it all have the same climate? Just think a bit before start shooting. I meant (and like I said, seems everyone understood that except you), that quality of life is more than money, it's also good food and good weather, for instance, I didn't say that all America has bad weather and bad food. Gosh, get a grip.
Are you seriously making the incredibly tired argument that Americans have no culture and not access to it?
Look at previous point. And anyway, you do have it, but I don't believe you have it like here. Can you for instance go and see a big Russian ballet com
Sorry for answering two times. But actually the graph you gave me reflects what I said (in my 1st answer to you), see the line that says: coin fiscalo-social, en % de travail total. It gives 50%! Because like I was saying, you must remember that the employee doesn't pay himself one of those taxes. So actually half the green the employee is paying for you, the other half he is paying for himself ... but as you can see in the end, they are only taking half of the money from your work in total. So the 50% I said.
My lower tax rate combined with my savings means I have freedom. I can move anywhere in the world and live well (even France). Can you say the same? Or is your quality of life limited to where you live (and based on who is in power at the time)?
No, I don't, I'm quite limited to living in the European Union and if I want to move to a rich country outside EU, I know that all I've made here will be kind of lost. Then again to say the truth, the only 1st world countries outside EU where I see myself living are Australia or New Zealand (that have a quite good social system as well), cause I feel I have mostly of what I need in Europe, which let's face it it's extremely diverse.
This is not to say I couldn't go living to Australia, I could, and actually I have 2 friend couples that just went there about 1 year ago. But no, they don't live well (well, in the sense of wealthy), they just have a medium middle class life there.
But this takes me to the important point. By living here, I receive quite a lot from the state, but I also contribute. My taxes are used for good stuff. Stuff that benefits me and the other citizens. In my way of seeing things (and you see that's the way the other mostly do around here), that's the correct way to take your life ... contribute to society. That's why not all the immigrants are treated the same way around here. For instance, Ukrainians are really hard working, and they pay taxes and they have kids and raise them here ... so we like them. Some other immigrants, because of they culture, don't want to do that, so of course we don't feel very happy to have them around.
In the end, well, see it a bit as the Americans thinks about their army ... people that contribute to their country. We don't like armies that much ... but we certainly can appreciate people that contributes to the country in other ways, and in here it's not difficult, just work when there is work to do, and pay taxes when you got a work.