5 ms·

> Hopefully we can improve at that while keeping worker protections This is how Europeans defend their system - better worker protections. But I get far better

> Hopefully we can improve at that while keeping worker protections This is how Europeans defend their system - better worker protections. But I get far better pay, conditions, and work-life balance at a North American company than I could possibly expect working for a local company. I'm not sure this defence really works anymore.

_s 5y ago
If you’re a “professional” (engineers, lawyers, doctors etc) in any capacity; you will be given more - but for the majority of the workforce in retail, hospitality, services - you are much worse off; the European social support is geared towards a more even society.
- alanbernstein 5y ago
  That aligns with the Steve jobs unicorn story; a more even society sacrifices the extreme high outliers like him. Interesting to think about it as trading social welfare for the chance at more successful moonshots. If you believe in always-increasing returns on technological progress, it probably sounds like a fair trade...
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    While it’s an easy concept, if you look at billionaires per capita, Norway and Sweden edge out the us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
    - oneplane 5y ago
      On the other hand, billionaires are just concentrations of wealth and power which hardly helps the masses. That is a general pattern in the USA anyhow, a few concentrations here and there but everyone else seems to be screwed in various ways (be it basics like healthcare, education, safety).
      - dv_dt 5y ago
        Sure, mainly I wanted to point out that, there is no conflict between providing a strong social safety net policy and having billionaires. The only reason to avoid the safety net would seem to be a myth that somehow others have to suffer for success to be possible.
        jessedhillon 5y ago
        I'm not familiar with the wealth situation in Scandinavia, but I just want to point out: what matters is the numbers of millionaires/billionaires created, not just the number existing. For example, these higher numbers could be leftover nobles or aristocracy. Also, it's a pretty unconvincing comparison to pick a small population country to benchmark the US against.
        dv_dt 5y ago
        Surveys of some eu nations rank them as friendly for business creation - Sweden Denmark and Switzerland rank pretty high. Universal healthcare at half the cost of the US and built into, but independent of your taxes is pretty nice for starting businesses. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/open-for-business-rankings https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/open-for-business...
        jessedhillon 5y ago
        All of which is an entirely separate set of points from the point you were making about the number of billionaires.
        dv_dt 5y ago
        If one is concerned about wealth creation as your reply to my original data brought up, it would seem that sentiment about friendliness of business creation would be relevant. Not necessarily accumulation of wealth from winning bets a decades ago.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      A significant share of the wealthiest individuals in Sweden are from the nobility.
Renaud 5y ago
It's not just better worker protection. It's the whole system that has more social safeties for everyone. You might be better off with better conditions working for a top American company but you are not most people, you are part of a privileged few who had the capacity (opportunity, financial, intellectual) to be part of a a select who can enjoy this position. You're also dependent on your company to provide these benefits. Having competition from company on benefits is great for everyone but there must be a minimum for anyone in a society to be protected against predatory companies and to not have to work multiple jobs to feed their family. Having a minimum of protection, knowing you will get support if you lose your job, get cared for if you get sick and when you get old, have an education that is not financially elitist, make enough to live -modestly- and feed your family on a single job,... these are worth a lot to a society. Everyone is free to argue the cost of that of course, but it's a way to reduce disparity and the risk of poverty. No system is ideal, and if you are lucky enough to have your skills in great demand then you have a chance to make a very decent life for yourself. For most people that's not really the case though and it's shouldn't be left solely to the randomness and kindness of the company you work for.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > knowing you will get support if you lose your job, get cared for if you get sick and when you get old, have an education that is not financially elitist, make enough to live -modestly- and feed your family on a single job But North American companies also outperform on this. My health insurance is better than a local company. My sick coverage is better than a local company. My educational opportunities are better than with a local company. My ability to support my family are better than a local company. Even my time off is better than a local company!
  - passerby1 5y ago
    > feed your family on a single job I think it's expected that both family partners work, at least in Sweden. Otherwise it's very tight economically, unless one has some rich inheritance
    - deleted 5y ago
michael1999 5y ago
That is true for you, but not all. Programmer compensation can scale with the total capital of the enterprise because the software can run everywhere (eg. AWS backend developer). So bigger employers can pay programmers more, almost linearly with capital. But most workers can not productively use infinite capital. So they do not reap the benefits of scale, while definitely suffering the reduced autonomy of larger firms (e.g. Amazon delivery jobbers). Social-democratic societies make different choices.

_s 5y ago

If you’re a “professional” (engineers, lawyers, doctors etc) in any capacity; you will be given more - but for the majority of the workforce in retail, hospitality, services - you are much worse off; the European social support is geared towards a more even society.

alanbernstein 5y ago
That aligns with the Steve jobs unicorn story; a more even society sacrifices the extreme high outliers like him. Interesting to think about it as trading social welfare for the chance at more successful moonshots. If you believe in always-increasing returns on technological progress, it probably sounds like a fair trade...
- dv_dt 5y ago
  While it’s an easy concept, if you look at billionaires per capita, Norway and Sweden edge out the us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
  - oneplane 5y ago
    On the other hand, billionaires are just concentrations of wealth and power which hardly helps the masses. That is a general pattern in the USA anyhow, a few concentrations here and there but everyone else seems to be screwed in various ways (be it basics like healthcare, education, safety).
    - dv_dt 5y ago
      Sure, mainly I wanted to point out that, there is no conflict between providing a strong social safety net policy and having billionaires. The only reason to avoid the safety net would seem to be a myth that somehow others have to suffer for success to be possible.
      - jessedhillon 5y ago
        I'm not familiar with the wealth situation in Scandinavia, but I just want to point out: what matters is the numbers of millionaires/billionaires created, not just the number existing. For example, these higher numbers could be leftover nobles or aristocracy. Also, it's a pretty unconvincing comparison to pick a small population country to benchmark the US against.
        dv_dt 5y ago
        Surveys of some eu nations rank them as friendly for business creation - Sweden Denmark and Switzerland rank pretty high. Universal healthcare at half the cost of the US and built into, but independent of your taxes is pretty nice for starting businesses. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/open-for-business-rankings https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/open-for-business...
        jessedhillon 5y ago
        All of which is an entirely separate set of points from the point you were making about the number of billionaires.
        dv_dt 5y ago
        If one is concerned about wealth creation as your reply to my original data brought up, it would seem that sentiment about friendliness of business creation would be relevant. Not necessarily accumulation of wealth from winning bets a decades ago.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    A significant share of the wealthiest individuals in Sweden are from the nobility.

Renaud 5y ago

It's not just better worker protection. It's the whole system that has more social safeties for everyone. You might be better off with better conditions working for a top American company but you are not most people, you are part of a privileged few who had the capacity (opportunity, financial, intellectual) to be part of a a select who can enjoy this position. You're also dependent on your company to provide these benefits. Having competition from company on benefits is great for everyone but there must be a minimum for anyone in a society to be protected against predatory companies and to not have to work multiple jobs to feed their family. Having a minimum of protection, knowing you will get support if you lose your job, get cared for if you get sick and when you get old, have an education that is not financially elitist, make enough to live -modestly- and feed your family on a single job,... these are worth a lot to a society. Everyone is free to argue the cost of that of course, but it's a way to reduce disparity and the risk of poverty. No system is ideal, and if you are lucky enough to have your skills in great demand then you have a chance to make a very decent life for yourself. For most people that's not really the case though and it's shouldn't be left solely to the randomness and kindness of the company you work for.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> knowing you will get support if you lose your job, get cared for if you get sick and when you get old, have an education that is not financially elitist, make enough to live -modestly- and feed your family on a single job But North American companies also outperform on this. My health insurance is better than a local company. My sick coverage is better than a local company. My educational opportunities are better than with a local company. My ability to support my family are better than a local company. Even my time off is better than a local company!
- passerby1 5y ago
  > feed your family on a single job I think it's expected that both family partners work, at least in Sweden. Otherwise it's very tight economically, unless one has some rich inheritance
  - deleted 5y ago

michael1999 5y ago

That is true for you, but not all. Programmer compensation can scale with the total capital of the enterprise because the software can run everywhere (eg. AWS backend developer). So bigger employers can pay programmers more, almost linearly with capital. But most workers can not productively use infinite capital. So they do not reap the benefits of scale, while definitely suffering the reduced autonomy of larger firms (e.g. Amazon delivery jobbers). Social-democratic societies make different choices.