4 ms·

You make a lot of good points. I agree it is a cultural problem but the other half of the problem is _Taxation_. Culturally most workers in EU markets (I am ge

You make a lot of good points. I agree it is a cultural problem but the other half of the problem is _Taxation_. Culturally most workers in EU markets (I am generalizing but lets exclude Executive, Finance, and Consulting positions) see an offer letter as the end of the recruitment process. People are not confident in negotiating an offer up because they are afraid employers will withdraw or walk-way (Which I have had happen so definitely not impossible). This also means that employers are more likely to see someone negotiating up (for a non-management position) as a 'difficult' IC. The costs per 'permanent' employee in terms of taxation/contributions is higher than in the US. The taxation on employee income is _way_ higher in most of Europe than in the US. This double stream of government income from employer and employee is needed to finance both the huge slice of government spending (Healthcare, Social Services, Infrastructure) as well as the Pension Systems that at this point are a Ponzi scheme where working taxpayers are paying for retiree income (Privatized Retirement is fairly limited in Europe and mostly optional on top of standard contributions). You see these two problems dissolve (Culture of content, and high taxation) when looking at the Contractor market, where employers are able to offer far higher rates very similar to the US market when ajusted to COL. Ultimately lower taxes for the average worker are not gonna happen in Europe because gov deficits would be rampant and nobody is willing to forsake the existing social safety nets.

skywal_l 4y ago
> Pension Systems that at this point are a Ponzi scheme where working taxpayers are paying for retiree income (Privatized Retirement is fairly limited in Europe and mostly optional on top of standard contributions) How is this a Ponzi Scheme ? Currently working people help sustain retired people the same way retired people help the retired people when they were working and the same way young people will sustain the currently working people when they retire. That's called generational solidarity. What European countries used to do at a family level, they do it at a national level now. One of the PROs of it is that if the cost of living change dramatically (which has been the case of the last 50 years) the pensions can adapt because they depend on current income instead of the pensioners relying on investments which sometimes are wiped out through no fault of their own. One of the CONs of course is the delayed effect of the baby boom. But one can expect that it was a particular historical artifact that might not occur again. You can disagree with the idea but calling it a Ponzi scheme is incorrect.
- turkeysandwich 4y ago
  It's a Ponzi scheme when it's not sustainable. Social Security in the US, for example is not financially viable in its current form. Either the retirement age will need to be raised or its obligations will need to be abandoned, probably a bit of both. Some but not all European pension schemes are facing similar problems.
  - skywal_l 4y ago
    > It's a Ponzi scheme when it's not sustainable. That's such a general and undeveloped affirmation that you probably don't even believe it yourself. Here is the real definition from Wikipedia: > is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. Pension systems are not a fraud. If you believe so, we do not live in the same reality. Taxpayers and pensioners are not investors. They are people who want to live a descent life. Not everything should be viewed as a financial market. Reducing everything in life into a spreadsheet makes you believe in fairy tales. People end up believing they are going to become millionaires by investing their hard earn dollars into actual Ponzi schemes like bitcoins and the like. Rich countries are producing many times more than what they need. There is plenty for everyone to go around, they just need to organize themselves a little better.
    - turkeysandwich 4y ago
      I wasn't claiming that they're literally ponzi schemes. Clearly they're sanctioned by law, obviously I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was simply using "ponzi scheme" in the more casual, euphemistic sense of "skeevy unsustainable scheme that will screw people over". And like I said, I don't believe all pension schemes to be dishonest/poorly executed. Some are just fine. But many are sloppy and poorly managed. A few are even so poorly managed to an extent that I'd say it borders on fraud, if not legally, at least morally. (I don't think that's common, necessarily; I think most mismanaged pension plans are entered into with the best of intentions.) > Taxpayers and pensioners are not investors. They are people who want to live a descent life. I'm not blaming them. They're victims of this poor management. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2021/09/the-state-pension-funding-gap-plans-have-stabilized-in-wake-of-pandemic https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri... This article paints a rosy outlook. And indeed, it's good news overall. But 35 state pensions meeting their goals means that 15 aren't. That's worth criticism.

skywal_l 4y ago

> Pension Systems that at this point are a Ponzi scheme where working taxpayers are paying for retiree income (Privatized Retirement is fairly limited in Europe and mostly optional on top of standard contributions) How is this a Ponzi Scheme ? Currently working people help sustain retired people the same way retired people help the retired people when they were working and the same way young people will sustain the currently working people when they retire. That's called generational solidarity. What European countries used to do at a family level, they do it at a national level now. One of the PROs of it is that if the cost of living change dramatically (which has been the case of the last 50 years) the pensions can adapt because they depend on current income instead of the pensioners relying on investments which sometimes are wiped out through no fault of their own. One of the CONs of course is the delayed effect of the baby boom. But one can expect that it was a particular historical artifact that might not occur again. You can disagree with the idea but calling it a Ponzi scheme is incorrect.

turkeysandwich 4y ago
It's a Ponzi scheme when it's not sustainable. Social Security in the US, for example is not financially viable in its current form. Either the retirement age will need to be raised or its obligations will need to be abandoned, probably a bit of both. Some but not all European pension schemes are facing similar problems.
- skywal_l 4y ago
  > It's a Ponzi scheme when it's not sustainable. That's such a general and undeveloped affirmation that you probably don't even believe it yourself. Here is the real definition from Wikipedia: > is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. Pension systems are not a fraud. If you believe so, we do not live in the same reality. Taxpayers and pensioners are not investors. They are people who want to live a descent life. Not everything should be viewed as a financial market. Reducing everything in life into a spreadsheet makes you believe in fairy tales. People end up believing they are going to become millionaires by investing their hard earn dollars into actual Ponzi schemes like bitcoins and the like. Rich countries are producing many times more than what they need. There is plenty for everyone to go around, they just need to organize themselves a little better.
  - turkeysandwich 4y ago
    I wasn't claiming that they're literally ponzi schemes. Clearly they're sanctioned by law, obviously I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was simply using "ponzi scheme" in the more casual, euphemistic sense of "skeevy unsustainable scheme that will screw people over". And like I said, I don't believe all pension schemes to be dishonest/poorly executed. Some are just fine. But many are sloppy and poorly managed. A few are even so poorly managed to an extent that I'd say it borders on fraud, if not legally, at least morally. (I don't think that's common, necessarily; I think most mismanaged pension plans are entered into with the best of intentions.) > Taxpayers and pensioners are not investors. They are people who want to live a descent life. I'm not blaming them. They're victims of this poor management. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2021/09/the-state-pension-funding-gap-plans-have-stabilized-in-wake-of-pandemic https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri... This article paints a rosy outlook. And indeed, it's good news overall. But 35 state pensions meeting their goals means that 15 aren't. That's worth criticism.