10 ms·

The reason American workers say they can barely survive on $60k a year is that they pay out of pocket for things German workers can take for granted: * Comfort

by mapgrep 15y ago

The reason American workers say they can barely survive on $60k a year is that they pay out of pocket for things German workers can take for granted: * Comfortable retirement - 401k contributions. Yes America has social security but it's not a ton of money compared to other national pensions and if you're young you worry about it not being around at all by the time you need it. * Unemployment - You should probably have ~6 months living expenses saved up, if not a year, in case you get laid off. U.S. unemployment benefits are fairly marginal (~700 per month cap when I used them in 2002, which you owe tax on), especially compared to Germany/France. * Life insurance - If you have kids and/or a non working spouse you need to make sure they will be OK if you die, since we have such a weak social safety net. * Education for your kids - 529 and educational IRA plans allow people to save for our increasingly expensive higher education even before the child is born (I-Bonds can be used this way). Cuts to public colleges have been harsh this year so don't think those will save you. Yes many Americans blow their salaries on dumb consumerist crap, and tend to overinvest in things like real estate. But even the prudent ones will be trying to jack up their salaries because there are SO many things you are supposed to save for to be considered a responsible American adult.

chrisaycock 15y ago
And not to mention: * Healthcare - Health insurance is often a luxury in America. The elderly have Medicare, but there is (currently) no safety for most citizens. * Public transportation - Many US cities don't have adequate bus service. Just anyone who lives outside NYC or a college town will need a car.
- OstiaAntica 15y ago
  Medicaid provides a health insurance safety net for tens of millions of working and poor Americans...in fact there are more Americans in a federal health program (Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare) than the entire population Germany.
  - Maakuth 15y ago
    I've heard that Medicare + Medicaid actually cost a bigger part of your national budget than in Europe, yet it ends up creating a weaker coverage health service coverage for only part of your people, compared to covering everyone in most of the European countries. There's differences between countries here obviously, but US healthcare seems to be less efficient than the European systems.
    - camiller 15y ago
      Medical in the US cost more but there is "more" available. If I were at my doctors office right now (3:13 Central time) and he felt I needed a MRI, I could have one before 5:00. I've often heard that in a non-emergency situation there can be weeks of waiting to get an MRI in some European countries. I have also seen a comment from a guy in the UK who had to have his arm re-broken for a cast to be put on because it had already started to heal crooked while waiting several days. A few years ago I spent some time digging through official government reports on healthcare in several (well limited to English speaking) countries and found things like >8 hour wait times for emergency services, >30 day waits (in some places) for some non-emergency services, etc. Yes, we pay more, but the flip side of that is faster access even in non-critical situations. In my case in February, I was at the doctor at 11:00AM on a Friday, MRI at about 1:30PM, and by 4:00PM I was scheduling surgery for Monday for gallbladder removal. I could have probably waited, my discomfort was relatively mild at that point, but I didn't have to.
      - danssig 15y ago
        So you have some anecdotes about bad service. In reality, we have studies that conclusively show that US care is both more expensive and less effective.
- wheels 15y ago
  You guys are doing it again -- idealizing the other side of the fence as if everything was all rainbows and unicorns in Europe. In Germany and many European countries, you pay for healthcare and it costs a lot -- you simply don't have the option of not having healthcare and the cost is proportional to your income rather than your health condition. Also note that the employee caries the full cost of health insurance as opposed to the employer usually covering it in skilled professions in the US. The social security model is also somewhat similar: you pay (high) social security taxes and get money back based your contributions. Unemployment, also like in the US, is pretty sane if you're a full-time employee and are fired. You don't get it for several months if you quit on your own and if you haven't payed unemployment taxes, you get put on unemployment that's just at the edge of livable (housing costs + about $500/month). And note, those taxes come after the lower salary. A pretty common take-home salary for a European software developer would be $3000-4000/month. And really, how many 20-somethings that complain about the cost of living are doing it because they're stashing away too much in their retirement fund? Public transit is a valid one, but then, the two highest paid areas for software developers in the US, New York and San Francisco, also have quite good public transit. (Not to mention that a one-month pass costs $100-200/month depending on the area.) The truth is that I've heard people say that while they eat out every day, have a new car every couple years, live in swanky places and spend money on a constant stream of new gadgets. Americans also have a weird fetish that you don't find other places about buying homes in their 20s. While there are some valid reasons that make the total cost of living in Europe comparatively lower, I'm really not convinced that's the core of the difference. It's just that people quickly grow into their incomes and start seeing things as essential that aren't.
  - chrisaycock 15y ago
    You guys are doing it again -- idealizing the other side of the fence as if everything was all rainbows and unicorns in Europe. I used to live in Britain. After having gone to doctor a few times there, I'd rather have the customer-pays model of America. I was just pointing-out that it's (obviously) expensive over here.
    - robotresearcher 15y ago
- Mz 15y ago
  Healthcare - Health insurance is often a luxury in America. The elderly have Medicare, but there is (currently) no safety for most citizens. I get a little tired of hearing this. Study after study after study indicates that diet and lifestyle play a major role in all major deadly diseases. I was an American military wife for a couple of decades. Even after my divorce, I was entitled to free medical care at tax-payer expense. I did nothing to try to preserve that entitlement* because I was too busy making the dietary and lifestyle changes I needed to make in order to get well when I was told by some specialist that I would never get well. Eat right, exercise, don't smoke, don't drink to excess and all that other boring advice no one wants to hear and you greatly reduce the odds that you will need expensive medical care. * And I'm saving the American public quite a lot of money because my medical condition is one of the more expensive chronic incurable conditions out there. It annoys me that it's all coming out of my pocket to get well but other folks would happily pay through the nose to help me stay sick and keep me a lifelong legal drug addict. /Rant
  - chrisaycock 15y ago
    Why are you bringing up lifestyle? The discussion is insurance. And my point is that, beyond the elderly, most citizens don't qualify for any of America's public insurance plans (I certainly don't): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#Public_health_care_coverage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_...
    - Mz 15y ago
      Why are you bringing up lifestyle? The discussion is insurance. Insurance does nothing to really insure your health. It is intended to help protect your wallet. A better way to protect your health is to take care of yourself so you are healthy. The discussion in the US about "the healthcare crisis" always focuses on the financial piece of it. There are differences between Europe and the US that impact health having nothing to do with who pays the medical bills: Europe is generally more pedestrian-friendly, there is a different food culture and so on. All of those things impact health. I get tired of seeing "health insurance" held up as a) the only meaningful difference in health costs between the US and Europe and b) the only important part of "how to control medical costs" in the US debate on health care. That's why I bring it up: Because to me the two things are related.
- anamax 15y ago
  > The elderly have Medicare, but there is (currently) no safety for most citizens. Actually, there is, it's called medicaid. What? You make too much to be eligible for medicaid? That tells us that you don't need the safety net that it provides. And, even without medicaid, it's possible to get free health care for fundamentals in the US. No, "free" doesn't cover everything, but no healthcare system does.
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    Medicaid doesn't cover you unless you are disabled or have children. It's not a very good safety net.
- mahyarm 15y ago
  Seeing how caltrain is pretty much a once an hour service (23 service runs per weekday) made me realize unless you live in downtown SF or any other area of the US where car usage is extremely painful, you pretty much need a car if you want to get out of your neighborhood.
  - jquery 15y ago
    Once an hour is fine. What do you need to do that's so urgent that you can't plan ahead more than 45 minutes?
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      What happens if I told you your garage door will open for 30 seconds on the hour, every hour?
      - jquery 15y ago
        If you gave me an extra $500-1000 a month and significant extra life expectancy I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. The freedom of being able to go wherever you want in a heartbeat in a car is highly overrated. Call a taxi for those times when it's actually urgent.
        potatolicious 15y ago
        You miss my point - I don't have a car, nor do I want one, and I'm a complete proponent of urbanism and mass transit. But once-an-hour does not a transit system make. There's a false dichotomy here - the choices aren't car vs. shitty transit. We can very well have good transit (i.e., arterial mass transit with frequency of every 10 minutes or better). The problem with infrequent transit, particularly arterial routes, is that it completely wipes out the possibility of transfers. When your frequency is once an hour (with a high variance for on-time performance), people cannot rely on the transit method for making connections. Moreso, decreasing frequency increases total trip time for most people by a factor larger than the actual frequency drop (which is to say, a decrease in frequency of an arterial route results in a very large increase for most whole-trip times). A highly frequent (i.e. every 10 minutes or better) trunk line is the bed rock of any mass transit solution, and is absolutely non-optional.

by mapgrep 15y ago

chrisaycock 15y ago

And not to mention: * Healthcare - Health insurance is often a luxury in America. The elderly have Medicare, but there is (currently) no safety for most citizens. * Public transportation - Many US cities don't have adequate bus service. Just anyone who lives outside NYC or a college town will need a car.

OstiaAntica 15y ago
Medicaid provides a health insurance safety net for tens of millions of working and poor Americans...in fact there are more Americans in a federal health program (Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare) than the entire population Germany.
- Maakuth 15y ago
  I've heard that Medicare + Medicaid actually cost a bigger part of your national budget than in Europe, yet it ends up creating a weaker coverage health service coverage for only part of your people, compared to covering everyone in most of the European countries. There's differences between countries here obviously, but US healthcare seems to be less efficient than the European systems.
  - camiller 15y ago
    Medical in the US cost more but there is "more" available. If I were at my doctors office right now (3:13 Central time) and he felt I needed a MRI, I could have one before 5:00. I've often heard that in a non-emergency situation there can be weeks of waiting to get an MRI in some European countries. I have also seen a comment from a guy in the UK who had to have his arm re-broken for a cast to be put on because it had already started to heal crooked while waiting several days. A few years ago I spent some time digging through official government reports on healthcare in several (well limited to English speaking) countries and found things like >8 hour wait times for emergency services, >30 day waits (in some places) for some non-emergency services, etc. Yes, we pay more, but the flip side of that is faster access even in non-critical situations. In my case in February, I was at the doctor at 11:00AM on a Friday, MRI at about 1:30PM, and by 4:00PM I was scheduling surgery for Monday for gallbladder removal. I could have probably waited, my discomfort was relatively mild at that point, but I didn't have to.
    - danssig 15y ago
      So you have some anecdotes about bad service. In reality, we have studies that conclusively show that US care is both more expensive and less effective.
wheels 15y ago
You guys are doing it again -- idealizing the other side of the fence as if everything was all rainbows and unicorns in Europe. In Germany and many European countries, you pay for healthcare and it costs a lot -- you simply don't have the option of not having healthcare and the cost is proportional to your income rather than your health condition. Also note that the employee caries the full cost of health insurance as opposed to the employer usually covering it in skilled professions in the US. The social security model is also somewhat similar: you pay (high) social security taxes and get money back based your contributions. Unemployment, also like in the US, is pretty sane if you're a full-time employee and are fired. You don't get it for several months if you quit on your own and if you haven't payed unemployment taxes, you get put on unemployment that's just at the edge of livable (housing costs + about $500/month). And note, those taxes come after the lower salary. A pretty common take-home salary for a European software developer would be $3000-4000/month. And really, how many 20-somethings that complain about the cost of living are doing it because they're stashing away too much in their retirement fund? Public transit is a valid one, but then, the two highest paid areas for software developers in the US, New York and San Francisco, also have quite good public transit. (Not to mention that a one-month pass costs $100-200/month depending on the area.) The truth is that I've heard people say that while they eat out every day, have a new car every couple years, live in swanky places and spend money on a constant stream of new gadgets. Americans also have a weird fetish that you don't find other places about buying homes in their 20s. While there are some valid reasons that make the total cost of living in Europe comparatively lower, I'm really not convinced that's the core of the difference. It's just that people quickly grow into their incomes and start seeing things as essential that aren't.
- chrisaycock 15y ago
  You guys are doing it again -- idealizing the other side of the fence as if everything was all rainbows and unicorns in Europe. I used to live in Britain. After having gone to doctor a few times there, I'd rather have the customer-pays model of America. I was just pointing-out that it's (obviously) expensive over here.
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
Mz 15y ago
Healthcare - Health insurance is often a luxury in America. The elderly have Medicare, but there is (currently) no safety for most citizens. I get a little tired of hearing this. Study after study after study indicates that diet and lifestyle play a major role in all major deadly diseases. I was an American military wife for a couple of decades. Even after my divorce, I was entitled to free medical care at tax-payer expense. I did nothing to try to preserve that entitlement* because I was too busy making the dietary and lifestyle changes I needed to make in order to get well when I was told by some specialist that I would never get well. Eat right, exercise, don't smoke, don't drink to excess and all that other boring advice no one wants to hear and you greatly reduce the odds that you will need expensive medical care. * And I'm saving the American public quite a lot of money because my medical condition is one of the more expensive chronic incurable conditions out there. It annoys me that it's all coming out of my pocket to get well but other folks would happily pay through the nose to help me stay sick and keep me a lifelong legal drug addict. /Rant
- chrisaycock 15y ago
  Why are you bringing up lifestyle? The discussion is insurance. And my point is that, beyond the elderly, most citizens don't qualify for any of America's public insurance plans (I certainly don't): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#Public_health_care_coverage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_...
  - Mz 15y ago
    Why are you bringing up lifestyle? The discussion is insurance. Insurance does nothing to really insure your health. It is intended to help protect your wallet. A better way to protect your health is to take care of yourself so you are healthy. The discussion in the US about "the healthcare crisis" always focuses on the financial piece of it. There are differences between Europe and the US that impact health having nothing to do with who pays the medical bills: Europe is generally more pedestrian-friendly, there is a different food culture and so on. All of those things impact health. I get tired of seeing "health insurance" held up as a) the only meaningful difference in health costs between the US and Europe and b) the only important part of "how to control medical costs" in the US debate on health care. That's why I bring it up: Because to me the two things are related.
anamax 15y ago
> The elderly have Medicare, but there is (currently) no safety for most citizens. Actually, there is, it's called medicaid. What? You make too much to be eligible for medicaid? That tells us that you don't need the safety net that it provides. And, even without medicaid, it's possible to get free health care for fundamentals in the US. No, "free" doesn't cover everything, but no healthcare system does.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  Medicaid doesn't cover you unless you are disabled or have children. It's not a very good safety net.
mahyarm 15y ago
Seeing how caltrain is pretty much a once an hour service (23 service runs per weekday) made me realize unless you live in downtown SF or any other area of the US where car usage is extremely painful, you pretty much need a car if you want to get out of your neighborhood.
- jquery 15y ago
  Once an hour is fine. What do you need to do that's so urgent that you can't plan ahead more than 45 minutes?
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    What happens if I told you your garage door will open for 30 seconds on the hour, every hour?
    - jquery 15y ago
      If you gave me an extra $500-1000 a month and significant extra life expectancy I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. The freedom of being able to go wherever you want in a heartbeat in a car is highly overrated. Call a taxi for those times when it's actually urgent.
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        You miss my point - I don't have a car, nor do I want one, and I'm a complete proponent of urbanism and mass transit. But once-an-hour does not a transit system make. There's a false dichotomy here - the choices aren't car vs. shitty transit. We can very well have good transit (i.e., arterial mass transit with frequency of every 10 minutes or better). The problem with infrequent transit, particularly arterial routes, is that it completely wipes out the possibility of transfers. When your frequency is once an hour (with a high variance for on-time performance), people cannot rely on the transit method for making connections. Moreso, decreasing frequency increases total trip time for most people by a factor larger than the actual frequency drop (which is to say, a decrease in frequency of an arterial route results in a very large increase for most whole-trip times). A highly frequent (i.e. every 10 minutes or better) trunk line is the bed rock of any mass transit solution, and is absolutely non-optional.