18 ms·

As a European (used to free healthcare, statutory maternity leave, and 25 days paid leave per year) it shocked me on first visiting America how third-world it a

As a European (used to free healthcare, statutory maternity leave, and 25 days paid leave per year) it shocked me on first visiting America how third-world it actually feels regarding what people consider a "normal" work/life balance. People work incredibly hard, long hours and often with very little to show for it. It's surreal.

rmc 10y ago
And many of them think that people in Europe have it worse. That the economy would just collapse into African-levels of poverty if there was mandatory paid holidays. This is a danger of American TV shows and movie studios remaking shows for the American audiences. They don't get to see that Europe is mostly a developed place.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  Not to disagree with the parent comment (because overall I prefer the European way) but we do have it worse in some ways. Salaries for professionals are markedly lower, we live in much smaller houses etc. I get the feeling that when you're winning at life in America, you're really winning. But when you're losing you're really losing. In Europe the ups and downs of life are more smoothed out.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I live in America and my wife's family is from the UK. We aren't rich by any means but we bought a small house last year and when her family flew in they kept commenting on how big our house was. Our house is about as small as you can get without living in a trailer. I'm a high school drop out and we each make less than the median nation income and I feel we are better off than if we lived in the UK. Though I admit life from 18 - 25 would have probably been less of a struggle there.
    - intended 10y ago
      Whats the comparison of sizes like ? Really curious because if the next smaller house in size is a trailer then the UK sizes must be weirdly small.
      - onion2k 10y ago
        Here in the UK houses are tiny compared to the USA, but it's really just because there's far less available land to build on. The entire UK is about half the size of California.
      - TulliusCicero 10y ago
        Average home size in the UK is less than half that of the US: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house US @ 77 sq meters per capita vs UK @ 33 sq meters per capita.
        jdietrich 10y ago
        The average new-build British home is 76 square metres; a typical single-wide mobile home ranges from 60 to 93 square metres. We're a crowded island, we have small houses.
        dagw 10y ago
        We're a crowded island, we have small houses. The UK has a lower population density the than both Belgium and Holland, both of which have larger average houses than the UK. So there has to be more to it than simply being 'crowded'.
        HarryHirsch 10y ago
        Haven't run the numbers, but the impression is that the South of England is much more densely populated. The majority of people lives south of the M62 and east of the M5/M6 highways. And then there's greenbelts to prevent the endless exurbanization.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Now let's hope nobody gets ill.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        We both have health insurance, we make too much for Obamacare but we costed it out and we can afford for one of us to stop working if we had to.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Excellent. Make sure you keep a sharp eye on that and the future developments, this is one of those little things that can really ruin your life. It's bad enough to have a serious health issue, if it gets compounded by a financial crisis then you can go from 'ok' to 'really bad' in a surprisingly short time when there is no safety net.
        anamoulous 10y ago
        What gives you the right to be so imperious about this?
        jacquesm 10y ago
        I think you are mis-understanding what I wrote. Having seen a couple of lives of states-side friends ruined by what would have been minor (but still serious from a medical perspective) issues in Europe I'm all too aware of the differences in the various health-care solutions. I've also lived in enough places with various levels of health-care and insurance (and lack of insurance) to see this as a potential problem. So, instead of reading imperiousness, how about worry?
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        We keep one years expenses at all times as well as our mortgage payment is a little less than the cost of a two bedroom apartment so if a finical crisis hit that left us out on the street we would be there regardless. The problem with the housing crisis was people had variable rate mortgages that made their payments quickly balloon up under them. We have a fixed rate so that can't happen.
  - wiz21c 10y ago
    What you describe about really winning/loosing is inequality. I generally think that inequality is bad for populations (you may disagree, but usually, those in favor of inequality are those on the right side of it)
    - Pyxl101 10y ago
      I recommend reading: http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html Inequality is the result of people earning different amounts, such being compensated in proportion to the value they generate - rather than everyone earning the same irrespective of that. Inequality is the result of reaping the rewards of your own work: someone is more effective, so they earn more. Why is it bad? How can any market economy even function without it? If an author writes a really good book, then it will sell and they'll make a lot of money. They earn a lot more than the author who writes bad, unpopular books. That's an example of income inequality. A great comedian will draw large crowds and his shows will fetch a high price. That's an example of inequality too. What's wrong with that? How will anything work if it were otherwise? Inequality is arguably not the right economic easure to care about for social issues. Imagine every human in year 7000 is rich enough to own entire planets, but the super wealthy own 100 planets. Who cares? Why is that a problem? If your concern is about a particular class, then you should look at their standard of living and progress in it over time, not compare against how much someone else has.
      - pcrh 10y ago
        Most people commenting on economic inequality are referring to inequity, i.e. that there are people who receive benefits disproportionate to the value to the work they contribute or the output they create. Few people object to higher rewards for those more talented or harder working.
      - pyrale 10y ago
        > Inequality is the result of reaping the rewards of your own work: someone is more effective, so they earn more. Why is it bad? How can any market economy even function without it? Let us make an experiment and drop Paul Graham in a rainforest to see how much value he manages to extract. Then, once he has starved to death or died from some random infection, let's think again what makes IT jobs more valuable than garbage collector jobs.
  - gommm 10y ago
    In France, it's mostly the middle class and smaller companies that face a heavy tax burden. The really rich have a lot of ways to reduce their tax burden. It creates a system that disincentives creating a small company because of how tough it is. At a lower level, the welfare system sometimes create situation where people would lose money if they started a part time job instead of not having a job. So, there are some problems. That said, I still feel that the system is better than the US system, there's less inequalities, less worry of disasters because you know that you'll be protected by the system and brilliant kids have a chance of getting a good education even if their parents are poor.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    Salaries for professionals are markedly lower, we live in much smaller houses etc. I get the feeling that when you're winning at life in America... If having more money and a bigger house is winning that's true, but many people don't see life that way. Being happy, having time to enjoy life with your friends, doing worthwhile and interesting things, raising your kids well, etc are also ways to win. In general if you talk to an older, wealthy person, they say those are things that should have done instead of working so much.
    - shokunin 10y ago
      Yeah, try enjoying your time with friends and long vacations with no money in your pocket. Fuck Berlin.
      - onion2k 10y ago
        try enjoying your time with friends and long vacations Try enjoying your time with friends and long vacations when you work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week! Ah, you can't! See! There's a balance to be struck. Having no money isn't fun, but having no time isn't fun either. If you talk to people about their regrets, it's much more common to hear people lament working longer hours than not having had enough money.
        vilmosi 10y ago
        It's not called a work-life balance for nothing.
      - ionised 10y ago
        Nobody in Berlin has any money? That's awful.
        usrusr 10y ago
        That's awfully untrue. Except for the part where having no money as a lifestyle choice is a very Berlin thing to do. I have literally met people who switched from full time in a smaller city to part time remote to fulfill their dream of having little money in Berlin. (Berlin also has its share of genuinely poor people, but those are not the less-than-silicon-valley-wage developers we are talking about)
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    It's that attitude that is the problem though. Poorer American's generally don't want change to help them because they believe it's only a matter of time until they are 'really winning'. Taking your two points: would a larger house and higher salary make significant improvements to your quality of life or will it provide short term satisfaction of having nicer/bigger/more expensive possessions?
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > Salaries for professionals are markedly lower, we live in much smaller houses etc. This is an age old debate, and it's very hard to compare one vast continent to another. Regional differences between US cities and European cities are at least as large or larger than the difference between the avereages of US and European salaries/living standards etc. The difference between central manhattan and rural Apalachia is just like the difference between the fancy parts of Stockholm and rural eastern Europe. There is just no comparison in Salaries, Life expectancy etc. When it comes to those of us that are "winning", the difference is there, especially for some professions like doctors who can basically make a killing in the US but not in Europe. That is probably to do with that it's an economic risk/investment to get the MD in the US, whereas in Europe it's normally free. When you are a finished doctor you aren't entitled to a fancy car - we just paid your MD so you better get to work and be thankful ;) To make a fair comparison between me (a software dev) and a comparable person in the US (in a similar metro area of ~1M people) you'd have to make a pretty tricky calculation involving costs of healthcare, childcare, money saved for retirement, pensions etc. On the bottom line I think the US person would make a bit more money, but on the other hand would have a worse work/life balance.
    - J-dawg 10y ago
      > whereas in Europe it's normally free While we're correcting misconceptions, in the UK it's most definitely not free. But I believe it's still a lot cheaper than the US. The universities are capped on the fees they can charge, and your student loan is regulated by the government (you only start paying back when you're earning over a threshold).
      - alkonaut 10y ago
        When I look at the UK from Scandinavia, it seems to me that it's basically "50/50 continental Europe and the US". Wage inequality, parental leaves, employment security, higher education etc.are decidedly "non-european" in the UK. So yes when I talk about "Europe" in the context of "Europe vs US" I think the UK needs to be considered separately.
        10y ago
  - kingkawn 10y ago
    You have been colonized by American propaganda
  - prolly_a_moron 10y ago
    >In Europe the ups and downs of life are more smoothed out. When a substantial portion of "success" (especially monetary) can be attributed to luck, isn't this the sort of environment you want?
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      The philosphical tool called "The Veil of Ignorance" suggests it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    >I get the feeling that when you're winning at life in America, you're really winning Depends on what you mean by winning. If by winning you mean having lots of money to buy your family a bunch of stuff, then yeah. However, if by winning you mean having the time to build a strong relationship with your family and maintaining your own physical and mental health, then you might have a more difficult time with that.
  - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
    > much smaller houses When people spend most of their wake hours in a cubicle smaller than the bedroom where they sleep in something is very wrong.
  - namlem 10y ago
    Rent is also lower in Europe, and house size has pretty rapidly diminishing returns.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  It surprises me that Americans don't even get Christmas (or the “holidays”) off. Would the religious right not support that?
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Well, my impression is that the big family holiday in the US is Thanksgiving more than Christmas?
  - Brendinooo 10y ago
    What do you mean when you say "Americans"? Wikipedia says that 94% of businesses offer paid time off for 12/25[0]. Even Walmart is closed on Christmas! What is your implication, that the government should require all businesses to be closed on Christmas Day? Does that happen where you're from? >Would the religious right not support that? Perhaps you have a bit of a boogeyman image of the 'religious right'. Regardless, the question is moot because just about everyone celebrates Christmas in the US, religious or not. A better place to examine the question would be Easter weekend, where only 26% of businesses offer PTO for Good Friday and 6% offer it for Easter Monday. I try to follow religious and political news, and I've never heard of anyone try to make a push to make Good Friday a federal holiday. I'm sure some politically active religious folk would support it if asked though (and it can be achieved by secularizing the name, making it "spring holiday" or something like that[1]). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_the_United_States#Holiday_listing_as_paid_time_off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_the_United_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday#United_States
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      > What is your implication, that the government should require all businesses to be closed on Christmas Day? No. But if the government requires employers to offer a day or two of paid leave, employees could get Christmas or a nearby day off. As you point out though, this may be moot as most employers offer this anyway. But other holidays might be a good target. > Perhaps you have a bit of a boogeyman image of the 'religious right'. Huh? I was appealing to why they might support something, not oppose it.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > That the economy would just collapse into African-levels of poverty if there was mandatory paid holidays. Or that it would collapse into Greek-levels of poverty.
dnel 10y ago
I visited the US for the first time while on honeymoon and a couple of friends we visited while over there asked how I was handling doing work while away, it was an eye-opening insight into American culture I'd never witnessed before but it was a good opportunity to explain work-life balance from a European pov though, I didn't hear any counter-arguments from that small sample, maybe someday it'll catch on.
- hellofunk 10y ago
  In Holland, everyone takes off 4 - 6 weeks in the summer to travel the world. This is so different than Americans: 1) In the U.S. you can work for years at a company before getting more than 1 or 2 weeks paid vacation. 2) Most Americans don't travel much outside their own state or region, let alone country. Most don't even own passports. 3) Even when not on the job, either at night, on the weekends, or on vacation, Americans tend to stay attached to their job via email or phone. It's true that American salaries can be a lot higher than European ones, especially for developers. But Americans also typically do a lot of side jobs or have households with 2 or more full-time jobs per family, 2 or more cars per family. So one has to ask if it is all worth it?
  - dnel 10y ago
    That's the benefit of travel isn't it, these same friends we visited had come over to the UK 2 years prior for the first time and that experience adjusted a lot of their pre-concieved ideas about the British in a positive way. If American's were enabled to take the time to see the world a bit more they would be less reliant on media stereotypes to understand it and might question their lot a bit more often but perhaps that's not in the interests of the people who run America.
    - hellofunk 10y ago
      As Twain said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice." Americans could use a little less prejudice in their lives.
  - readittwice 10y ago
gambiting 10y ago
There's a Cadillac ad for US, where the narrator openly says that those Europeans enjoy their holidays, but an American works hard and gets to enjoy nice car cue cadillac car enters the scene. They openly ridicule the idea that Europeans can take a month of holiday per year. I do feel a bit sorry for that attitude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8
- jacquesm 10y ago
  I wonder how many Europeans would trade their car for a Cadillac anyway, they're not very popular here because of fuel consumption and size.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    I'm actually extremely surprised that you can buy a Cadillac in EU at the moment, since Chrystler and Dodge stopped selling all of their cars in EU few years ago citing lack of interest - but apparently you can order a brand new CTS-V or an Escalade in the UK? http://www.cadillac.co.uk/v-series/cts-v-series.html http://www.cadillac.co.uk/v-series/cts-v-series.html I've literally never seen a cadillac over here, except for a few US left-hand-drive imports. And yes, an Escalade looks almost comical on UK roads, it's just too big by every measure.
    - 72deluxe 10y ago
      I used to think Range Rovers were large in the UK until I went to NYC where it suddenly looked like a toy compared with the giant 4x4s they drove. How on earth anyone could survive being hit by one is beyond me - the radiator grill was chest height.
    - rsync 10y ago
      "I'm actually extremely surprised that you can buy a Cadillac in EU at the moment, since Chrystler and Dodge stopped selling all of their cars in EU few years ago citing lack of interest - but apparently you can order a brand new CTS-V or an Escalade in the UK?" Cadillac is produced by General Motors. On my most recent trip to Zurich I saw cadillacs and chevy camaros, etc., out driving around. They are crap cars but I think there's some counter-cultural cache that they possess in a place like that.
thw1438383 10y ago
Atleast they get paid relatively more than in the EU. In Japan you're expected to work mad hours (read 11-12 hrs) for what is barely above minimum wage in the US! Add to that Tokyo is hecka expensive. I was quoted a salary of $ 30k for a deep learning position. Now that is third world.
- tscs37 10y ago
  Please keep in mind that your costs of living are also different. In the EU you don't pay as much for the same services as in the US, especially healthcare. I'm not sure about Japan but it could be the same thing there.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    Tokyo's definitely cheaper than the bay area or NYC, but it's still not exactly cheap. The median monthly rent is low, but you have to figure that the median apartment is tiny by American standards.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      So many comments about big houses, I'm wondering if buying a big house in the suburbs that you have to commute hours to work from and therefore rarely enjoy is (to quote Homer Simpson) both the solution and the cause of all America's problems.
      - spiralx 10y ago
        It's certainly a problem that American suburbs lack the local services that typically exist in European cities, which is currently exacerbating the issue of suburban poverty: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs-and-the-new-american-poverty/384259/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs...
    - astrange 10y ago
      I see this comment a lot in threads about quality of life - people say American life is better than the 60s because houses are bigger. Why do you want that? I'll accept "having more than one child" but not "having a bigger TV".
cyphunk 10y ago
The hardest thing for me to explain to my American family, as someone living in the EU, is that a tax or burden that is evenly distributed has near 0 negative impact on collective productivity. A society where everyone is missing one leg will still function and be largely productive, up until they have to compete with a society where everyone has two legs. That leg is something like health care, maternaty leave, vacation, VAT, higher taxes. In the USA policy indicates that they'd rather give up their literal leg, than risk being #2.
- collyw 10y ago
  Don't Europeans pay similar levels of tax to Americans?
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    Depends on which europeans you mean. The higher taxed countries like the nordics pay mad taxes. I don't mind though because I feel it's well spent (i.e. my attitude towards public spending is that it is usually pretty efficient). That's probably a big difference to the US where the attitude seems to be that taxes are pretty much a black hole. Tax calc for me: Employer pays $8k Payroll taxes deducted: $2k My gross salary: $6k My income tax: $2k My net salary: $4k If I make one big pruchase for all my $4k, the VAT is (with some exceptions, 25%) so I buy goods for $3k + $1k tax. So basically, of $8 paid by my employer each month, I can buy goods or services for $3k. That's pretty steep! If you look at the income tax above, you'll see it's only 1/3 however.
    - sheeshkebab 10y ago
      US way: You make $8k a month: You pay $2k in taxes (Employer pays an additional $1k in tax), so your income is 9k. You pay $500 in health and other benefits (employer pays another $500) If you spend remaining $5.5k, you'll usually pay $250-$500 In sales taxes. In other words, you have $5k remaining to spend on shit that you probably don't need.
      - 10y ago
ptero 10y ago
There are pros and cons to both models, e.g. I think recent french experiment with mandated 35hrs (I think) work week backfired pretty badly. I live in the US and know more than one person working a 6/6 cycle (6 month of work, 6 month of rest and travel) which they would never be able to do with old, rigid work arrangement. I think for skilled workers with skills in demand flexible work options can offer huge benefits. For cashiers and conveyor workers it's the other way.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Where are they and who are they working for? Outside of teaching, I don't know of any jobs that would permit that, and it sounds great.
  - ptero 10y ago
    They consult on 6-month long projects. After 4-5 months of rest they start looking for next gig. At worst they have to look longer than they plan, but it works. But you must be willing to move to wherever next job site is, SV, Boston, DC, etc. I also have several friends who work 3 day a week (24 hrs) by choice so they have more free time.
lr4444lr 10y ago
Have you left the major urban areas? There may not be a big social safety net, but the work life balance and cost/size of property is very varied across our great landscape.
Brendinooo 10y ago
When I read about the Pressed Steel Car strike of 1909[0] and other various labor conditions of the early 20th century (child labor, 72-hour workweeks, company stores), I think that a 40+ hour work week in front of a desk is pretty civil in comparison. I mean, the Pressed Steel Car factory was supposedly bad even by the standards of the day, but one person dying on average a day? And remember, a lot of people came to the cities in the first place because the work there was favorable compared to farm work. The outcome of your factory work was generally more predictable as well. All this to say that, in light of historical perspective: 1) The notion of calling the United States of today "third world" strikes me as extremely hyperbolic. The average human in 2017 (at least in the OECD) probably works way less than the average worker at any point in human history, and probably lives better. 2) The notion of "working to excess" is probably overstated. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressed_Steel_Car_strike_of_1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressed_Steel_Car_strike_of_19...
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  >was favorable compared to farm work This, I believe, is a misconception. There's only so much farm work and population increases means work had to be found elsewhere. On top of automation lowering the number of farm hands one needed, and worse, a lot of that work being temporary seasonal work that paid very little. The Grapes of Wrath and The Jungle show the brutality of this period from both urban and rural perspectives. A lot of urban dwellers in that period would have been fine with farm work. If anything, it was safer and healthier than factory work.
  - Brendinooo 10y ago
    You're probably right; I'm sure there were many different reasons for urban migration. And yes, undoubtedly safer. I don't have a source handy, but I remember reading that for farmers who didn't own their land, it was really difficult when bad weather ruined the crop and you couldn't make rent as a result, not to mention the fact that you didn't have food that season either. That's what I was referring to.
oldprogrammer2 10y ago
Given that the US is large and varied, what you describe doesn't sound like where I live (Texas). Oddly enough I had that same reaction when I first visited London: life seemed worse than where I was from. I don't know anyone who works more than 40 hours a week, in tech or elsewhere. Those of us in the corporate world have 15-25 days of paid time off (not including holidays, to be clear), based on time with a company. As an employee, I would love to see this increase. As an employer, I would see it as a recruiting opportunity that many job candidates would value. Most people I know own a home, and others rent houses or apartments at relatively low cost. And probably significantly larger and nicer than European expectations. And they all have plenty to show for their hard work, though much of it may not be enriching our lives substantially. On the healthcare side, maternity leave is usually only 30 days (not very much, I know, but much better than none). While our healthcare is not "free", I feel like the higher compensation, lower taxes, and lower cost of living in the area enables my family to afford paying higher premiums for better insurance. Having said that, I still feel anxiety about the future. Losing my job doesn't just mean I lose my income, I also lose my health insurance coverage. I'm not sure how quickly I could switch to an ACA plan with an income-based discount, and I wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise if I had no job. Unfortunately, I don't think switching to a single payer system alone will address the deep issues in the US healthcare system. People are quick to blame the insurers, but much of the blame also needs to be placed on the providers who charge astronomical fees. The source of the problem, in my opinion, is lack of transparency in pricing resulting from the presence of a middleman (the insurer) and the inability to shop around for many medical services that could be commoditized. So while I agree that in many ways Europeans have it better (but not without cost in terms of lower wages, higher cost of living, or high unemployment), I don't think painting such a dismal view of the US is warranted. Based on my experiences traveling in Central and South America, a comparison to the third-world, even if limited to work/life balance, is highly inaccurate. Disclaimer: others' experiences will absolutely vary.
- iamacynic 10y ago
  > Central and South America, a comparison to the third-world, even if limited to work/life balance, is highly inaccurate. of course it is. calling the US as a whole, a third world country is absurd to anyone who has actually been to one. that's not even taking into account that the US is what literally defines what a first-world country is, warts and all.
FLUX-YOU 10y ago
America does look normal compared to Japan though.
magic_beans 10y ago
You think the US is bad? Try Japan, South Korea, or China.

rmc 10y ago

And many of them think that people in Europe have it worse. That the economy would just collapse into African-levels of poverty if there was mandatory paid holidays. This is a danger of American TV shows and movie studios remaking shows for the American audiences. They don't get to see that Europe is mostly a developed place.

J-dawg 10y ago
Not to disagree with the parent comment (because overall I prefer the European way) but we do have it worse in some ways. Salaries for professionals are markedly lower, we live in much smaller houses etc. I get the feeling that when you're winning at life in America, you're really winning. But when you're losing you're really losing. In Europe the ups and downs of life are more smoothed out.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I live in America and my wife's family is from the UK. We aren't rich by any means but we bought a small house last year and when her family flew in they kept commenting on how big our house was. Our house is about as small as you can get without living in a trailer. I'm a high school drop out and we each make less than the median nation income and I feel we are better off than if we lived in the UK. Though I admit life from 18 - 25 would have probably been less of a struggle there.
  - intended 10y ago
    Whats the comparison of sizes like ? Really curious because if the next smaller house in size is a trailer then the UK sizes must be weirdly small.
    - onion2k 10y ago
      Here in the UK houses are tiny compared to the USA, but it's really just because there's far less available land to build on. The entire UK is about half the size of California.
    - TulliusCicero 10y ago
      Average home size in the UK is less than half that of the US: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house US @ 77 sq meters per capita vs UK @ 33 sq meters per capita.
      - jdietrich 10y ago
        The average new-build British home is 76 square metres; a typical single-wide mobile home ranges from 60 to 93 square metres. We're a crowded island, we have small houses.
        dagw 10y ago
        We're a crowded island, we have small houses. The UK has a lower population density the than both Belgium and Holland, both of which have larger average houses than the UK. So there has to be more to it than simply being 'crowded'.
        HarryHirsch 10y ago
        Haven't run the numbers, but the impression is that the South of England is much more densely populated. The majority of people lives south of the M62 and east of the M5/M6 highways. And then there's greenbelts to prevent the endless exurbanization.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Now let's hope nobody gets ill.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      We both have health insurance, we make too much for Obamacare but we costed it out and we can afford for one of us to stop working if we had to.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Excellent. Make sure you keep a sharp eye on that and the future developments, this is one of those little things that can really ruin your life. It's bad enough to have a serious health issue, if it gets compounded by a financial crisis then you can go from 'ok' to 'really bad' in a surprisingly short time when there is no safety net.
        anamoulous 10y ago
        What gives you the right to be so imperious about this?
        jacquesm 10y ago
        I think you are mis-understanding what I wrote. Having seen a couple of lives of states-side friends ruined by what would have been minor (but still serious from a medical perspective) issues in Europe I'm all too aware of the differences in the various health-care solutions. I've also lived in enough places with various levels of health-care and insurance (and lack of insurance) to see this as a potential problem. So, instead of reading imperiousness, how about worry?
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        We keep one years expenses at all times as well as our mortgage payment is a little less than the cost of a two bedroom apartment so if a finical crisis hit that left us out on the street we would be there regardless. The problem with the housing crisis was people had variable rate mortgages that made their payments quickly balloon up under them. We have a fixed rate so that can't happen.
- wiz21c 10y ago
  What you describe about really winning/loosing is inequality. I generally think that inequality is bad for populations (you may disagree, but usually, those in favor of inequality are those on the right side of it)
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    I recommend reading: http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html Inequality is the result of people earning different amounts, such being compensated in proportion to the value they generate - rather than everyone earning the same irrespective of that. Inequality is the result of reaping the rewards of your own work: someone is more effective, so they earn more. Why is it bad? How can any market economy even function without it? If an author writes a really good book, then it will sell and they'll make a lot of money. They earn a lot more than the author who writes bad, unpopular books. That's an example of income inequality. A great comedian will draw large crowds and his shows will fetch a high price. That's an example of inequality too. What's wrong with that? How will anything work if it were otherwise? Inequality is arguably not the right economic easure to care about for social issues. Imagine every human in year 7000 is rich enough to own entire planets, but the super wealthy own 100 planets. Who cares? Why is that a problem? If your concern is about a particular class, then you should look at their standard of living and progress in it over time, not compare against how much someone else has.
    - pcrh 10y ago
      Most people commenting on economic inequality are referring to inequity, i.e. that there are people who receive benefits disproportionate to the value to the work they contribute or the output they create. Few people object to higher rewards for those more talented or harder working.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      > Inequality is the result of reaping the rewards of your own work: someone is more effective, so they earn more. Why is it bad? How can any market economy even function without it? Let us make an experiment and drop Paul Graham in a rainforest to see how much value he manages to extract. Then, once he has starved to death or died from some random infection, let's think again what makes IT jobs more valuable than garbage collector jobs.
- gommm 10y ago
  In France, it's mostly the middle class and smaller companies that face a heavy tax burden. The really rich have a lot of ways to reduce their tax burden. It creates a system that disincentives creating a small company because of how tough it is. At a lower level, the welfare system sometimes create situation where people would lose money if they started a part time job instead of not having a job. So, there are some problems. That said, I still feel that the system is better than the US system, there's less inequalities, less worry of disasters because you know that you'll be protected by the system and brilliant kids have a chance of getting a good education even if their parents are poor.
- onion2k 10y ago
  Salaries for professionals are markedly lower, we live in much smaller houses etc. I get the feeling that when you're winning at life in America... If having more money and a bigger house is winning that's true, but many people don't see life that way. Being happy, having time to enjoy life with your friends, doing worthwhile and interesting things, raising your kids well, etc are also ways to win. In general if you talk to an older, wealthy person, they say those are things that should have done instead of working so much.
  - shokunin 10y ago
    Yeah, try enjoying your time with friends and long vacations with no money in your pocket. Fuck Berlin.
    - onion2k 10y ago
      try enjoying your time with friends and long vacations Try enjoying your time with friends and long vacations when you work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week! Ah, you can't! See! There's a balance to be struck. Having no money isn't fun, but having no time isn't fun either. If you talk to people about their regrets, it's much more common to hear people lament working longer hours than not having had enough money.
      - vilmosi 10y ago
        It's not called a work-life balance for nothing.
    - ionised 10y ago
      Nobody in Berlin has any money? That's awful.
      - usrusr 10y ago
        That's awfully untrue. Except for the part where having no money as a lifestyle choice is a very Berlin thing to do. I have literally met people who switched from full time in a smaller city to part time remote to fulfill their dream of having little money in Berlin. (Berlin also has its share of genuinely poor people, but those are not the less-than-silicon-valley-wage developers we are talking about)
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  It's that attitude that is the problem though. Poorer American's generally don't want change to help them because they believe it's only a matter of time until they are 'really winning'. Taking your two points: would a larger house and higher salary make significant improvements to your quality of life or will it provide short term satisfaction of having nicer/bigger/more expensive possessions?
- alkonaut 10y ago
  > Salaries for professionals are markedly lower, we live in much smaller houses etc. This is an age old debate, and it's very hard to compare one vast continent to another. Regional differences between US cities and European cities are at least as large or larger than the difference between the avereages of US and European salaries/living standards etc. The difference between central manhattan and rural Apalachia is just like the difference between the fancy parts of Stockholm and rural eastern Europe. There is just no comparison in Salaries, Life expectancy etc. When it comes to those of us that are "winning", the difference is there, especially for some professions like doctors who can basically make a killing in the US but not in Europe. That is probably to do with that it's an economic risk/investment to get the MD in the US, whereas in Europe it's normally free. When you are a finished doctor you aren't entitled to a fancy car - we just paid your MD so you better get to work and be thankful ;) To make a fair comparison between me (a software dev) and a comparable person in the US (in a similar metro area of ~1M people) you'd have to make a pretty tricky calculation involving costs of healthcare, childcare, money saved for retirement, pensions etc. On the bottom line I think the US person would make a bit more money, but on the other hand would have a worse work/life balance.
  - J-dawg 10y ago
    > whereas in Europe it's normally free While we're correcting misconceptions, in the UK it's most definitely not free. But I believe it's still a lot cheaper than the US. The universities are capped on the fees they can charge, and your student loan is regulated by the government (you only start paying back when you're earning over a threshold).
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      When I look at the UK from Scandinavia, it seems to me that it's basically "50/50 continental Europe and the US". Wage inequality, parental leaves, employment security, higher education etc.are decidedly "non-european" in the UK. So yes when I talk about "Europe" in the context of "Europe vs US" I think the UK needs to be considered separately.
      - 10y ago
- kingkawn 10y ago
  You have been colonized by American propaganda
- prolly_a_moron 10y ago
  >In Europe the ups and downs of life are more smoothed out. When a substantial portion of "success" (especially monetary) can be attributed to luck, isn't this the sort of environment you want?
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    The philosphical tool called "The Veil of Ignorance" suggests it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >I get the feeling that when you're winning at life in America, you're really winning Depends on what you mean by winning. If by winning you mean having lots of money to buy your family a bunch of stuff, then yeah. However, if by winning you mean having the time to build a strong relationship with your family and maintaining your own physical and mental health, then you might have a more difficult time with that.
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago
  > much smaller houses When people spend most of their wake hours in a cubicle smaller than the bedroom where they sleep in something is very wrong.
- namlem 10y ago
  Rent is also lower in Europe, and house size has pretty rapidly diminishing returns.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
It surprises me that Americans don't even get Christmas (or the “holidays”) off. Would the religious right not support that?
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Well, my impression is that the big family holiday in the US is Thanksgiving more than Christmas?
- Brendinooo 10y ago
  What do you mean when you say "Americans"? Wikipedia says that 94% of businesses offer paid time off for 12/25[0]. Even Walmart is closed on Christmas! What is your implication, that the government should require all businesses to be closed on Christmas Day? Does that happen where you're from? >Would the religious right not support that? Perhaps you have a bit of a boogeyman image of the 'religious right'. Regardless, the question is moot because just about everyone celebrates Christmas in the US, religious or not. A better place to examine the question would be Easter weekend, where only 26% of businesses offer PTO for Good Friday and 6% offer it for Easter Monday. I try to follow religious and political news, and I've never heard of anyone try to make a push to make Good Friday a federal holiday. I'm sure some politically active religious folk would support it if asked though (and it can be achieved by secularizing the name, making it "spring holiday" or something like that[1]). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_the_United_States#Holiday_listing_as_paid_time_off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_the_United_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday#United_States
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    > What is your implication, that the government should require all businesses to be closed on Christmas Day? No. But if the government requires employers to offer a day or two of paid leave, employees could get Christmas or a nearby day off. As you point out though, this may be moot as most employers offer this anyway. But other holidays might be a good target. > Perhaps you have a bit of a boogeyman image of the 'religious right'. Huh? I was appealing to why they might support something, not oppose it.
paulddraper 10y ago
> That the economy would just collapse into African-levels of poverty if there was mandatory paid holidays. Or that it would collapse into Greek-levels of poverty.

dnel 10y ago

I visited the US for the first time while on honeymoon and a couple of friends we visited while over there asked how I was handling doing work while away, it was an eye-opening insight into American culture I'd never witnessed before but it was a good opportunity to explain work-life balance from a European pov though, I didn't hear any counter-arguments from that small sample, maybe someday it'll catch on.

hellofunk 10y ago
In Holland, everyone takes off 4 - 6 weeks in the summer to travel the world. This is so different than Americans: 1) In the U.S. you can work for years at a company before getting more than 1 or 2 weeks paid vacation. 2) Most Americans don't travel much outside their own state or region, let alone country. Most don't even own passports. 3) Even when not on the job, either at night, on the weekends, or on vacation, Americans tend to stay attached to their job via email or phone. It's true that American salaries can be a lot higher than European ones, especially for developers. But Americans also typically do a lot of side jobs or have households with 2 or more full-time jobs per family, 2 or more cars per family. So one has to ask if it is all worth it?
- dnel 10y ago
  That's the benefit of travel isn't it, these same friends we visited had come over to the UK 2 years prior for the first time and that experience adjusted a lot of their pre-concieved ideas about the British in a positive way. If American's were enabled to take the time to see the world a bit more they would be less reliant on media stereotypes to understand it and might question their lot a bit more often but perhaps that's not in the interests of the people who run America.
  - hellofunk 10y ago
    As Twain said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice." Americans could use a little less prejudice in their lives.
- readittwice 10y ago

gambiting 10y ago

There's a Cadillac ad for US, where the narrator openly says that those Europeans enjoy their holidays, but an American works hard and gets to enjoy nice car cue cadillac car enters the scene. They openly ridicule the idea that Europeans can take a month of holiday per year. I do feel a bit sorry for that attitude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8

jacquesm 10y ago
I wonder how many Europeans would trade their car for a Cadillac anyway, they're not very popular here because of fuel consumption and size.
- gambiting 10y ago
  I'm actually extremely surprised that you can buy a Cadillac in EU at the moment, since Chrystler and Dodge stopped selling all of their cars in EU few years ago citing lack of interest - but apparently you can order a brand new CTS-V or an Escalade in the UK? http://www.cadillac.co.uk/v-series/cts-v-series.html http://www.cadillac.co.uk/v-series/cts-v-series.html I've literally never seen a cadillac over here, except for a few US left-hand-drive imports. And yes, an Escalade looks almost comical on UK roads, it's just too big by every measure.
  - 72deluxe 10y ago
    I used to think Range Rovers were large in the UK until I went to NYC where it suddenly looked like a toy compared with the giant 4x4s they drove. How on earth anyone could survive being hit by one is beyond me - the radiator grill was chest height.
  - rsync 10y ago
    "I'm actually extremely surprised that you can buy a Cadillac in EU at the moment, since Chrystler and Dodge stopped selling all of their cars in EU few years ago citing lack of interest - but apparently you can order a brand new CTS-V or an Escalade in the UK?" Cadillac is produced by General Motors. On my most recent trip to Zurich I saw cadillacs and chevy camaros, etc., out driving around. They are crap cars but I think there's some counter-cultural cache that they possess in a place like that.

thw1438383 10y ago

Atleast they get paid relatively more than in the EU. In Japan you're expected to work mad hours (read 11-12 hrs) for what is barely above minimum wage in the US! Add to that Tokyo is hecka expensive. I was quoted a salary of $ 30k for a deep learning position. Now that is third world.

tscs37 10y ago
Please keep in mind that your costs of living are also different. In the EU you don't pay as much for the same services as in the US, especially healthcare. I'm not sure about Japan but it could be the same thing there.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  Tokyo's definitely cheaper than the bay area or NYC, but it's still not exactly cheap. The median monthly rent is low, but you have to figure that the median apartment is tiny by American standards.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    So many comments about big houses, I'm wondering if buying a big house in the suburbs that you have to commute hours to work from and therefore rarely enjoy is (to quote Homer Simpson) both the solution and the cause of all America's problems.
    - spiralx 10y ago
      It's certainly a problem that American suburbs lack the local services that typically exist in European cities, which is currently exacerbating the issue of suburban poverty: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs-and-the-new-american-poverty/384259/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs...
  - astrange 10y ago
    I see this comment a lot in threads about quality of life - people say American life is better than the 60s because houses are bigger. Why do you want that? I'll accept "having more than one child" but not "having a bigger TV".

cyphunk 10y ago

The hardest thing for me to explain to my American family, as someone living in the EU, is that a tax or burden that is evenly distributed has near 0 negative impact on collective productivity. A society where everyone is missing one leg will still function and be largely productive, up until they have to compete with a society where everyone has two legs. That leg is something like health care, maternaty leave, vacation, VAT, higher taxes. In the USA policy indicates that they'd rather give up their literal leg, than risk being #2.

collyw 10y ago
Don't Europeans pay similar levels of tax to Americans?
- alkonaut 10y ago
  Depends on which europeans you mean. The higher taxed countries like the nordics pay mad taxes. I don't mind though because I feel it's well spent (i.e. my attitude towards public spending is that it is usually pretty efficient). That's probably a big difference to the US where the attitude seems to be that taxes are pretty much a black hole. Tax calc for me: Employer pays $8k Payroll taxes deducted: $2k My gross salary: $6k My income tax: $2k My net salary: $4k If I make one big pruchase for all my $4k, the VAT is (with some exceptions, 25%) so I buy goods for $3k + $1k tax. So basically, of $8 paid by my employer each month, I can buy goods or services for $3k. That's pretty steep! If you look at the income tax above, you'll see it's only 1/3 however.
  - sheeshkebab 10y ago
    US way: You make $8k a month: You pay $2k in taxes (Employer pays an additional $1k in tax), so your income is 9k. You pay $500 in health and other benefits (employer pays another $500) If you spend remaining $5.5k, you'll usually pay $250-$500 In sales taxes. In other words, you have $5k remaining to spend on shit that you probably don't need.
    - 10y ago

ptero 10y ago

There are pros and cons to both models, e.g. I think recent french experiment with mandated 35hrs (I think) work week backfired pretty badly. I live in the US and know more than one person working a 6/6 cycle (6 month of work, 6 month of rest and travel) which they would never be able to do with old, rigid work arrangement. I think for skilled workers with skills in demand flexible work options can offer huge benefits. For cashiers and conveyor workers it's the other way.

mcguire 10y ago
Where are they and who are they working for? Outside of teaching, I don't know of any jobs that would permit that, and it sounds great.
- ptero 10y ago
  They consult on 6-month long projects. After 4-5 months of rest they start looking for next gig. At worst they have to look longer than they plan, but it works. But you must be willing to move to wherever next job site is, SV, Boston, DC, etc. I also have several friends who work 3 day a week (24 hrs) by choice so they have more free time.

lr4444lr 10y ago

Have you left the major urban areas? There may not be a big social safety net, but the work life balance and cost/size of property is very varied across our great landscape.

Brendinooo 10y ago

When I read about the Pressed Steel Car strike of 1909[0] and other various labor conditions of the early 20th century (child labor, 72-hour workweeks, company stores), I think that a 40+ hour work week in front of a desk is pretty civil in comparison. I mean, the Pressed Steel Car factory was supposedly bad even by the standards of the day, but one person dying on average a day? And remember, a lot of people came to the cities in the first place because the work there was favorable compared to farm work. The outcome of your factory work was generally more predictable as well. All this to say that, in light of historical perspective: 1) The notion of calling the United States of today "third world" strikes me as extremely hyperbolic. The average human in 2017 (at least in the OECD) probably works way less than the average worker at any point in human history, and probably lives better. 2) The notion of "working to excess" is probably overstated. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressed_Steel_Car_strike_of_1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressed_Steel_Car_strike_of_19...

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>was favorable compared to farm work This, I believe, is a misconception. There's only so much farm work and population increases means work had to be found elsewhere. On top of automation lowering the number of farm hands one needed, and worse, a lot of that work being temporary seasonal work that paid very little. The Grapes of Wrath and The Jungle show the brutality of this period from both urban and rural perspectives. A lot of urban dwellers in that period would have been fine with farm work. If anything, it was safer and healthier than factory work.
- Brendinooo 10y ago
  You're probably right; I'm sure there were many different reasons for urban migration. And yes, undoubtedly safer. I don't have a source handy, but I remember reading that for farmers who didn't own their land, it was really difficult when bad weather ruined the crop and you couldn't make rent as a result, not to mention the fact that you didn't have food that season either. That's what I was referring to.

oldprogrammer2 10y ago

Given that the US is large and varied, what you describe doesn't sound like where I live (Texas). Oddly enough I had that same reaction when I first visited London: life seemed worse than where I was from. I don't know anyone who works more than 40 hours a week, in tech or elsewhere. Those of us in the corporate world have 15-25 days of paid time off (not including holidays, to be clear), based on time with a company. As an employee, I would love to see this increase. As an employer, I would see it as a recruiting opportunity that many job candidates would value. Most people I know own a home, and others rent houses or apartments at relatively low cost. And probably significantly larger and nicer than European expectations. And they all have plenty to show for their hard work, though much of it may not be enriching our lives substantially. On the healthcare side, maternity leave is usually only 30 days (not very much, I know, but much better than none). While our healthcare is not "free", I feel like the higher compensation, lower taxes, and lower cost of living in the area enables my family to afford paying higher premiums for better insurance. Having said that, I still feel anxiety about the future. Losing my job doesn't just mean I lose my income, I also lose my health insurance coverage. I'm not sure how quickly I could switch to an ACA plan with an income-based discount, and I wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise if I had no job. Unfortunately, I don't think switching to a single payer system alone will address the deep issues in the US healthcare system. People are quick to blame the insurers, but much of the blame also needs to be placed on the providers who charge astronomical fees. The source of the problem, in my opinion, is lack of transparency in pricing resulting from the presence of a middleman (the insurer) and the inability to shop around for many medical services that could be commoditized. So while I agree that in many ways Europeans have it better (but not without cost in terms of lower wages, higher cost of living, or high unemployment), I don't think painting such a dismal view of the US is warranted. Based on my experiences traveling in Central and South America, a comparison to the third-world, even if limited to work/life balance, is highly inaccurate. Disclaimer: others' experiences will absolutely vary.

iamacynic 10y ago
> Central and South America, a comparison to the third-world, even if limited to work/life balance, is highly inaccurate. of course it is. calling the US as a whole, a third world country is absurd to anyone who has actually been to one. that's not even taking into account that the US is what literally defines what a first-world country is, warts and all.

FLUX-YOU 10y ago

America does look normal compared to Japan though.

magic_beans 10y ago

You think the US is bad? Try Japan, South Korea, or China.