6 ms·

Europeaners seem to think getting by is just fine. They're happy that they're hyper educated, that their kids are going to be hyper educated, that their healthc

by kodah 6y ago

Europeaners seem to think getting by is just fine. They're happy that they're hyper educated, that their kids are going to be hyper educated, that their healthcare is paid for, and they get lots of vacation. Because you can't save, you are entirely dependent, in a broader sense, on the government's stability (I am not using this sentiment in a pejorative sense like some might.) Americans want their fair share of the pie, which will always lead to certain people making more and others making less. Compensation is more than just money to us. It's vacation, stock, better healthcare, expanded education resources and benefits, buying programs, etc... This can be both good and bad. I suspect you can find an endless list of rosy and dark examples to draw from. Most Americans would like to think of themselves as quite independent from the government, whether they want to admit it or not. The value in risk and reward versus security and stability is just different. It's okay that they're different too. Personally, I believe letting people leave the US without monetary penalties so they can pursue cultures that more match their own values is the solution. I once thought that having a system setup so that people could switch places between countries might be beneficial, one that augments the current immigration system.

benrbray 6y ago
> Compensation is more than just money to us. It's vacation, stock, better healthcare, expanded education resources and benefits, buying programs, etc... This can be both good and bad. I don't think this is the right take at all. They way I see it, Americans want to get rich so they have access to the same quality of education / healthcare and leisure time / stability that the average (western) European has by default. Americans fight for scraps. For instance, look at the list of minimum annual leave by country [1], or countries by infant and under five mortality rate [2], or education rankings [3], or countries by traffic-related death rate [4]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_an... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
- refurb 6y ago
  That explains the net flow of Americans immigrating to Europe and not the reverse.
  - benrbray 6y ago
    I assume you're being glib, since it's been mentioned elsewhere that more Europeans move to America than the reverse. In which case... You're missing the point, which is that the higher baseline QoL means that it's better to be poor / middle class in Germany or UK than it is to be poor / middle class in the United States. With regard to immigration rates, there are many factors to consider: Yes, some small percentage of Americans can get lucky and make the jump from middle class to upper-middle- or upper-class, perhaps enticing Europeans who hope to get that high-paying SV job. However, moving your entire life from one country to another requires a certain amount of social and financial security. The argument might be made (whether or not it's true--I don't know) that more Europeans move because more Europeans have the financial means to move, along with a quality education that enables them to outcompete domestic American talent. It might be that many Americans want to leave, but are trapped into staying for social / political / economic reasons (e.g. "if I leave, my elderly parents will have no one to care for them due to our expensive healthcare system"). So without further investigation, the inflow/outflow rates can't really be used to support either side of the argument, even putting aside that the number of people who leave their home country is peanuts compared to the number of people who remain.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Well never know the true motivation of people who immigrate, but the type of visa can give a lot of insight (school, work, family). As someone who immigrated to the US and can give my 2 cents - it’s opportunity. Instead of staying in my home country struggling for a job, I can come to the US which is the heart of the industry and has a ton of high paying jobs working a big problems that matter. And as for US people not immigrating because of their old parents and healthcare, the US does have socialized medicine for the elderly.
ff232fffffrt 6y ago
European economy is on strong decline and no new competitive companies are founded. Compare that to US where new large companies are created all the time. All top-5 companies in US were founded in the last 40 years.
- oaiey 6y ago
  "strong decline" is a harsh statement ;)
esoterica 6y ago
A larger fraction of Americans have a tertiary degree than almost all European countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_... > Personally, I believe letting people leave the US without monetary penalties so they can pursue cultures that more match their own values is the solution. There are no monetary penalties unless you are both much wealthier than the average person and have substantial unrealized capital gains. The hard part is finding another country that will take you, not leaving.
- username90 6y ago
  > A larger fraction of Americans have a tertiary degree than almost all European countries. Not if you only count STEM degrees, then USA is far behind. https://www.businessinsider.com/most-technological-countries-lag-behind-in-science-2015-12?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/most-technological-countries... I'm not sure why American's don't study STEM, you'd think they wanted to study something that pays off. But maybe it is the other way around, with government funded education they only offer STEM degrees since that is what the government thinks will pay off hence more people study STEM?
  - Bakary 6y ago
    Most people are made miserable by studying STEM. And if it makes you miserable, you are unlikely to get good enough at it to get the purported payoff.
    - eloff 6y ago
      Doing something easy rarely pays off. The road to hell is the path of least resistance.
      - Bakary 6y ago
        In this case it won't pay off either. It's a hard job market for mediocre engineers and many STEM fields don't even pay that much better. The vast masses of people are already on the road to hell from birth no matter what choices they make in their lives so that expression ought to enter its retirement years
arp242 6y ago
> you can't save, you are entirely dependent, in a broader sense, on the government's stability (I am not using this sentiment in a pejorative sense like some might.) I managed to save about €10k/year on a €42k/year salary (and I was being woefully underpaid even by European standards for what I do, but that's a different story, I should have earned at least 60k, but ah well) which I used to fund my business. Maybe you can save more in the US – I don't know – but you can save plenty of money on tech salaries in Europe.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  Yeah. I've managed to save £12k a year just by keeping my lifestyle at a minimum. The big one to avoid is paying for a car, which is actually realistic in Europe.
  - arp242 6y ago
    I hardly lived a "minimal" lifestyle, I just did what I wanted, including paying for my holiday with my girlfriend (who earned much less) and selling my house with a loss to move country (which also wasn't cheap in itself). I could have saved more if I wanted. I also don't have a car – I don't even have a driving license – and that's indeed quite a large cost-saver. I also don't really have too expensive hobbies or need a new iPhone and macbook every year, so that helps as well.
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      Don't get me wrong, it wasn't like I was scrimping and saving every penny. My parents used to buy the very cheapest food (mostly "Tesco Value"), second hand clothes, one week of holiday per year etc. I've always had good food, never had second hand clothes, go on multiple weeks of holiday per year. I just didn't succumb to lifestyle inflation early on. I could have spent all my money on all manner of things but I just didn't want/need to because I was happy with what I had.
- ajknzhol 6y ago
  I work in big automotive supplier company in Germany and earn around €72k/year. Save upto ~€24k/year. And you can live pretty much live comfortably even with almost 33% savings.
oaiey 6y ago
> Because you can't save, you are entirely dependent, in a broader sense, on the government's stability Do not bet on your money when your government goes down. In the current situation (China raises, switching of federal reserves from the Dollar to a more diverse bucket, a US Capitol invaded), the dollar went down from its 100% safety in the 90s to a shaky 90% currently. And that can spiral quickly when something radical happens (like a coup) and the world stops trusting the US. Just saying: I do not trust my bank account.
- hobbescotch 6y ago
  I’m curious to read more about this currency safety metric. Where do you find this?
  - oaiey 6y ago
    Well, there is plenty of material on the federal reserves. The capability of the dollar to be so untouchable is because of that. And to the fact that a currency is only stable as long as the country is: Well, I would say that 80% of the world population has experienced radical changes to their currencies and assets (inflation, complete devaluation, rebranding, coupling to other currencies, stock market crashes, ...) within their lifetime (for whatever reasons). Having a multi-generation-stable currency is the privilege of only a very few countries like the US, Canada, France or Germany. Looking at the history of a country will easily reveal a significant event in the last 50 years which included something destabilizing. Even the mighty UK was crashed by a single investor (the infamous George Soros). And again, my argument is limited to the following element: currency stability > country stability.
- csomar 6y ago
  Imo, the US dollar will remain the world reserve currency and the safest thing as long as the US military remain the most powerful. Sure, EU politics could be more stable but they can't defend against threats (Russia). Also, I don't think many people, countries and businesses are going to trust China. They have a bad track record especially in crypto (detaining CEOs, freezing money, etc...). Everybody else is too small to matter (ie: New Zealand, Emirates, etc...).
brianmcc 6y ago
>> Because you can't save Sorry that's nonsense. Tech remains in Europe generally very well paid compared to national averages, albeit just not stratospherically so like some (not even all) US areas/firms. I'm sure there are of course still relatively poorly paid tech roles, but tech Europe-wide simply cannot be characterised as too ill paid to build savings!
2rsf 6y ago
> you are entirely dependent, in a broader sense, on the government's stability It's the same in the US, take for example Trump that fought the Chinese to bring more work back home. Another president can create the opposite flow of jobs. How many people lost heir jobs and homes during the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 ?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by kodah 6y ago

benrbray 6y ago

> Compensation is more than just money to us. It's vacation, stock, better healthcare, expanded education resources and benefits, buying programs, etc... This can be both good and bad. I don't think this is the right take at all. They way I see it, Americans want to get rich so they have access to the same quality of education / healthcare and leisure time / stability that the average (western) European has by default. Americans fight for scraps. For instance, look at the list of minimum annual leave by country [1], or countries by infant and under five mortality rate [2], or education rankings [3], or countries by traffic-related death rate [4]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_an... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

refurb 6y ago
That explains the net flow of Americans immigrating to Europe and not the reverse.
- benrbray 6y ago
  I assume you're being glib, since it's been mentioned elsewhere that more Europeans move to America than the reverse. In which case... You're missing the point, which is that the higher baseline QoL means that it's better to be poor / middle class in Germany or UK than it is to be poor / middle class in the United States. With regard to immigration rates, there are many factors to consider: Yes, some small percentage of Americans can get lucky and make the jump from middle class to upper-middle- or upper-class, perhaps enticing Europeans who hope to get that high-paying SV job. However, moving your entire life from one country to another requires a certain amount of social and financial security. The argument might be made (whether or not it's true--I don't know) that more Europeans move because more Europeans have the financial means to move, along with a quality education that enables them to outcompete domestic American talent. It might be that many Americans want to leave, but are trapped into staying for social / political / economic reasons (e.g. "if I leave, my elderly parents will have no one to care for them due to our expensive healthcare system"). So without further investigation, the inflow/outflow rates can't really be used to support either side of the argument, even putting aside that the number of people who leave their home country is peanuts compared to the number of people who remain.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Well never know the true motivation of people who immigrate, but the type of visa can give a lot of insight (school, work, family). As someone who immigrated to the US and can give my 2 cents - it’s opportunity. Instead of staying in my home country struggling for a job, I can come to the US which is the heart of the industry and has a ton of high paying jobs working a big problems that matter. And as for US people not immigrating because of their old parents and healthcare, the US does have socialized medicine for the elderly.

ff232fffffrt 6y ago

European economy is on strong decline and no new competitive companies are founded. Compare that to US where new large companies are created all the time. All top-5 companies in US were founded in the last 40 years.

oaiey 6y ago
"strong decline" is a harsh statement ;)

esoterica 6y ago

A larger fraction of Americans have a tertiary degree than almost all European countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_... > Personally, I believe letting people leave the US without monetary penalties so they can pursue cultures that more match their own values is the solution. There are no monetary penalties unless you are both much wealthier than the average person and have substantial unrealized capital gains. The hard part is finding another country that will take you, not leaving.

username90 6y ago
> A larger fraction of Americans have a tertiary degree than almost all European countries. Not if you only count STEM degrees, then USA is far behind. https://www.businessinsider.com/most-technological-countries-lag-behind-in-science-2015-12?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/most-technological-countries... I'm not sure why American's don't study STEM, you'd think they wanted to study something that pays off. But maybe it is the other way around, with government funded education they only offer STEM degrees since that is what the government thinks will pay off hence more people study STEM?
- Bakary 6y ago
  Most people are made miserable by studying STEM. And if it makes you miserable, you are unlikely to get good enough at it to get the purported payoff.
  - eloff 6y ago
    Doing something easy rarely pays off. The road to hell is the path of least resistance.
    - Bakary 6y ago
      In this case it won't pay off either. It's a hard job market for mediocre engineers and many STEM fields don't even pay that much better. The vast masses of people are already on the road to hell from birth no matter what choices they make in their lives so that expression ought to enter its retirement years

arp242 6y ago

> you can't save, you are entirely dependent, in a broader sense, on the government's stability (I am not using this sentiment in a pejorative sense like some might.) I managed to save about €10k/year on a €42k/year salary (and I was being woefully underpaid even by European standards for what I do, but that's a different story, I should have earned at least 60k, but ah well) which I used to fund my business. Maybe you can save more in the US – I don't know – but you can save plenty of money on tech salaries in Europe.

globular-toast 6y ago
Yeah. I've managed to save £12k a year just by keeping my lifestyle at a minimum. The big one to avoid is paying for a car, which is actually realistic in Europe.
- arp242 6y ago
  I hardly lived a "minimal" lifestyle, I just did what I wanted, including paying for my holiday with my girlfriend (who earned much less) and selling my house with a loss to move country (which also wasn't cheap in itself). I could have saved more if I wanted. I also don't have a car – I don't even have a driving license – and that's indeed quite a large cost-saver. I also don't really have too expensive hobbies or need a new iPhone and macbook every year, so that helps as well.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    Don't get me wrong, it wasn't like I was scrimping and saving every penny. My parents used to buy the very cheapest food (mostly "Tesco Value"), second hand clothes, one week of holiday per year etc. I've always had good food, never had second hand clothes, go on multiple weeks of holiday per year. I just didn't succumb to lifestyle inflation early on. I could have spent all my money on all manner of things but I just didn't want/need to because I was happy with what I had.
ajknzhol 6y ago
I work in big automotive supplier company in Germany and earn around €72k/year. Save upto ~€24k/year. And you can live pretty much live comfortably even with almost 33% savings.

oaiey 6y ago

> Because you can't save, you are entirely dependent, in a broader sense, on the government's stability Do not bet on your money when your government goes down. In the current situation (China raises, switching of federal reserves from the Dollar to a more diverse bucket, a US Capitol invaded), the dollar went down from its 100% safety in the 90s to a shaky 90% currently. And that can spiral quickly when something radical happens (like a coup) and the world stops trusting the US. Just saying: I do not trust my bank account.

hobbescotch 6y ago
I’m curious to read more about this currency safety metric. Where do you find this?
- oaiey 6y ago
  Well, there is plenty of material on the federal reserves. The capability of the dollar to be so untouchable is because of that. And to the fact that a currency is only stable as long as the country is: Well, I would say that 80% of the world population has experienced radical changes to their currencies and assets (inflation, complete devaluation, rebranding, coupling to other currencies, stock market crashes, ...) within their lifetime (for whatever reasons). Having a multi-generation-stable currency is the privilege of only a very few countries like the US, Canada, France or Germany. Looking at the history of a country will easily reveal a significant event in the last 50 years which included something destabilizing. Even the mighty UK was crashed by a single investor (the infamous George Soros). And again, my argument is limited to the following element: currency stability > country stability.
csomar 6y ago
Imo, the US dollar will remain the world reserve currency and the safest thing as long as the US military remain the most powerful. Sure, EU politics could be more stable but they can't defend against threats (Russia). Also, I don't think many people, countries and businesses are going to trust China. They have a bad track record especially in crypto (detaining CEOs, freezing money, etc...). Everybody else is too small to matter (ie: New Zealand, Emirates, etc...).

brianmcc 6y ago

>> Because you can't save Sorry that's nonsense. Tech remains in Europe generally very well paid compared to national averages, albeit just not stratospherically so like some (not even all) US areas/firms. I'm sure there are of course still relatively poorly paid tech roles, but tech Europe-wide simply cannot be characterised as too ill paid to build savings!

2rsf 6y ago

> you are entirely dependent, in a broader sense, on the government's stability It's the same in the US, take for example Trump that fought the Chinese to bring more work back home. Another president can create the opposite flow of jobs. How many people lost heir jobs and homes during the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 ?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]