3 ms·

The distinction is that IME most Europeans (I am British for what it’s worth) - not all - but most - simply cannot fathom the concept of having any financial in

The distinction is that IME most Europeans (I am British for what it’s worth) - not all - but most - simply cannot fathom the concept of having any financial independence at all. They need paid time off and paid maternity leave and all of that stuff because they can’t conceptualise putting away the money to do this themselves. Significant savings or investment are rare outside of a property. It’s just money on the other side of the equation, government and socialised vs independent and free to use or not. At the very bottom it’s not like it matters in either case, you might have time off but no money to do anything with it.

Fokamul 2y ago
This vary between classes. Middle class people usually have enough money to live whole year without work. Also if you add social security into this equation, here in middle of EU, social security gives you certain portion of your previous paycheck as unemployment support, depends how high it is, you can also get rent support, which will pay you whole rent.
diputsmonro 2y ago
I don't think it's that simple, for at least two reasons I can immediately think of: 1) Several Americans live paycheck to paycheck with no significant savings outside of property either. One unexpected emergency is enough to empty the savings of most Americans [1](https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-emergency-away-study-shows-221950532.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-emergency-away-study-shows-22...). The idea that Americans make more money and that makes up for the difference just doesn't play out in reality for all but the richest and luckiest. 2) Taking a 30 day vacation and coming back to the same job without any threat of repercussion is much more valuable than simply 30 days worth of saved wages. The average American worker can't just take 30 days off, even as leave without pay, and expect to come back to the same job. If they want a 30 day period with no work, the vast majority of American workers will have to quit their current job and then hope to be able to find a new one later - which certainly isn't a given if you're working unskilled jobs to begin with.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Fokamul 2y ago

This vary between classes. Middle class people usually have enough money to live whole year without work. Also if you add social security into this equation, here in middle of EU, social security gives you certain portion of your previous paycheck as unemployment support, depends how high it is, you can also get rent support, which will pay you whole rent.

diputsmonro 2y ago

I don't think it's that simple, for at least two reasons I can immediately think of: 1) Several Americans live paycheck to paycheck with no significant savings outside of property either. One unexpected emergency is enough to empty the savings of most Americans [1](https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-emergency-away-study-shows-221950532.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-emergency-away-study-shows-22...). The idea that Americans make more money and that makes up for the difference just doesn't play out in reality for all but the richest and luckiest. 2) Taking a 30 day vacation and coming back to the same job without any threat of repercussion is much more valuable than simply 30 days worth of saved wages. The average American worker can't just take 30 days off, even as leave without pay, and expect to come back to the same job. If they want a 30 day period with no work, the vast majority of American workers will have to quit their current job and then hope to be able to find a new one later - which certainly isn't a given if you're working unskilled jobs to begin with.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]