5 ms·
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 workin
by 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[deleted]
- yoz-y 5y agoBeware of the survivorship bias. North American companies operating in the EU are those that are the most successful even in US. You would have a better everything working there compared to elsewhere disregarding of the locality. The advantage is really in working for a rich company.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> advantage is really in working for a rich company Of which America has more. For structural reasons. Per the article.
- michael1999 5y agoThe main structural reason being a unified market of 400 million people with the same language, currency, and transportation infrastructure.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> The advantage is really in working for a rich company. Which you don’t get in Europe… which was the point.
- tick_tock_tick 5y agoIf you're doing well in America pretty much every system is better for you than the European counterpart. On the other hand if you're doing poorly well you can fall very far in the US system. Of the American's on Hacker News almost all of them are in the "doing well" category so the perspective is all off.
- username90 5y agoIf you want walkable nice neighbourhoods and mass transit then USA is pretty bad even for the upper academics while even working class has that in Europe.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoThe US government spends more per capita on social welfare programs than most European countries. Any one poor is also eligible for totally free, at point of service, healthcare, via Medicaid.
- nemo44x 5y agoI think there a saying: “America is a bad place to be a stupid person.” If you have the ability to achieve then you will flourish in America - it’s why smart people flock to it from all over. And it’s true what you say - health care is better, food is better, life is better if you’re doing well. But Europe is better if you’re an idiot.
- mongol 5y agoYes buy simplified, that is like saying, if you are doing well you are doing well, and if you are doing poorly, you are doing poorly. I think it makese sense to consider, what is your disaster scenario? What would it take to go from doing well, to not do well? For example, a crippling accident that handicaps you so you can no longer make a living doing the thing you are specialized in today. How would you fare then? This counts to me as more important than whether I can afford this or that car, and so on.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sdenton4 5y agoYeah, sure, but the US is basically an Oryx and Crake LARP at this point.
- foobiekr 5y agoNot yet but I do dread this. China is a lot further along that path.
- ouchithurtsma 5y agoPeople have too much social net, there's little incentive for the lowest class to improve themselves. Sometimes they earn less after taxes taking a low paid job than just receiving government money. Social nets are bad. Nature has no social net either, works just fine. It's an unnatural system they build, no wonder its slowly crumpling and failing