5 ms·

I watched this BBC special about a British couple experiencing the German life. It was eye opening. First, German workers are forbidden to use social media or

I watched this BBC special about a British couple experiencing the German life. It was eye opening. First, German workers are forbidden to use social media or check their phones at work. So, instead of checking your text message or facebook, you interact with other workers. Second, workers are given bonuses based on team output. No competition, rather team must work together to get better bonuses. Third, German's don't ever drown themselves with a mortgage. They just rent for life, but I hear that housing condition is excellent in Germany. Fourth, German mother's are incentivized to take care of their children. The heavy taxation discourages moms seeking jobs. This is important for child's development to have a mother around. Fifth, German kindergarten is more like spending time in nature, getting dirty in the forest, climbing trees and such. Sixth, students who aren't interested in studying can go to trade schools and take up apprenticeship like the article described. For the above reasons, Germany seems to work less hours yet have greater output. They are super efficient and practical with their time. The government also places heavy emphasis in making sure the traditional familial obligations are maintained. What an awesome country.

Semaphor 12y ago
Okay, way too many generalizations. 1) No. That's, as probably in the US, a case-by-case thing. None of my friends that have a degree work under such restrictions. 2) Again, case-by-case. Though I think it might be overall more common. 4) The government is working hard on making that untrue with better and better options for working parents. Plus it's not only mothers but fathers as well.
facepalm 12y ago
Don't believe everything you see on TV. I don't think any of those points are true. Social media use is definitely not forbidden at work as a rule. Not sure if there are companies that forbid it, and if that would be legal. But it is certainly not the norm. Don't know about the bonuses. Mortgages: many Germany buy houses, but perhaps fewer than in the UK. Renting for life is certainly common. Childcare: what does "heavy taxation" have to do with it? Taxes are the same for everyone. There is a huge push to get mothers to work earlier by providing more childcare and so on (personally I think it's a stupid idea, but it's the sentiment the common media outlets want us to have). Kindergarden: nature kindergardens exist, but they are rare. Most kindergardens have their own playground.
- Tomte 12y ago
  > Not sure if there are companies that forbid it, Today probably most companies disallow any private web surfing. Inofficially it is often tolerated if you don't overdo it. > and if that would be legal. It is. > But it is certainly not the norm. Believe me, it is. The reason is simple: As soon as you're allowing private surfing you have to respect your employees' privacy. That means that you must not use software or equipment to track web use (apart from special agreements with the works council). Same goes for private email. If you allow that, you cannot have your admins look into emails anymore. You cannot easily backup mails without telling your employees all the details. You cannot simply reject mails. And so on. It's a huge hassle.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I think tracking employees is definitely illegal. I worked on a program for a larger company where employees could enter stuff into a system, and we had to take extra care to make tracking impossible or at least difficult (thinks like "how much does employee x work").
- moconnor 12y ago
  I grew up in the UK and have lived in Germany for almost ten years. When compared to the UK each of those points is broadly true.
tete 12y ago
In most of Europe a lot of these things depend a lot on the company/sector you work in. It might be more true in what people call the old economy, but there you simply go for longer smoking pauses, etc. How well you do after a trade school also depends a lot on the sector you are working it and even on companies. There are companies who love people with degrees from trade schools and others who don't like them. When you want to look at working hours in comparison to economical output there once has been a study posted here on HN showing that the richer countries (at least in Europe) tend to be those with fewer working hours and in general there seems to be a strong north-south difference, with Italy, Greece, Austria (which is the exception), etc. having many work hours and Scandinavian having fewer. As for the whole topic: I really don't think that all of this really tells you too much about what a good system for economical output is. A lot of this tells you more about the society in a country and probably its history. Of course it all affects economy, but copying Germany won't magically make you rich, same is true for US, UK, China, ... Laws and rules in general, as well as the educational systems must fit with other things like society, natural resources, population size and structure, etc. That's also why you can't just say that a libertarian (economically, not social) society will always have a wealthier society than another. There are many additional factors. China has the benefit of a large population, the US has the benefit of a great size, over many climatic zones and the UK has at the right time set a focus on institutions that act in the financial market. However also those things have to come with a society that is willing to make use of this. If you think about South America. They still struggle mostly with the problem that they in history ended up on the losing side. If that other side happened to win (could have happened, were they luckier and took different decisions at times of war) then things might have looked different, or not. I don't want to say these things depend largely on luck, but since there are multiple complex systems interacting with each other saying X is the reason for this and that everyone could have seen this coming seems like the wrong and a strongly irrational approach to me. There were lots of really tiny events throughout history that strongly affected history and thereby societies, economy, politics, etc. and thereby how well economical models end up working for certain countries.

Semaphor 12y ago

Okay, way too many generalizations. 1) No. That's, as probably in the US, a case-by-case thing. None of my friends that have a degree work under such restrictions. 2) Again, case-by-case. Though I think it might be overall more common. 4) The government is working hard on making that untrue with better and better options for working parents. Plus it's not only mothers but fathers as well.

facepalm 12y ago

Don't believe everything you see on TV. I don't think any of those points are true. Social media use is definitely not forbidden at work as a rule. Not sure if there are companies that forbid it, and if that would be legal. But it is certainly not the norm. Don't know about the bonuses. Mortgages: many Germany buy houses, but perhaps fewer than in the UK. Renting for life is certainly common. Childcare: what does "heavy taxation" have to do with it? Taxes are the same for everyone. There is a huge push to get mothers to work earlier by providing more childcare and so on (personally I think it's a stupid idea, but it's the sentiment the common media outlets want us to have). Kindergarden: nature kindergardens exist, but they are rare. Most kindergardens have their own playground.

Tomte 12y ago
> Not sure if there are companies that forbid it, Today probably most companies disallow any private web surfing. Inofficially it is often tolerated if you don't overdo it. > and if that would be legal. It is. > But it is certainly not the norm. Believe me, it is. The reason is simple: As soon as you're allowing private surfing you have to respect your employees' privacy. That means that you must not use software or equipment to track web use (apart from special agreements with the works council). Same goes for private email. If you allow that, you cannot have your admins look into emails anymore. You cannot easily backup mails without telling your employees all the details. You cannot simply reject mails. And so on. It's a huge hassle.
- facepalm 12y ago
  I think tracking employees is definitely illegal. I worked on a program for a larger company where employees could enter stuff into a system, and we had to take extra care to make tracking impossible or at least difficult (thinks like "how much does employee x work").
moconnor 12y ago
I grew up in the UK and have lived in Germany for almost ten years. When compared to the UK each of those points is broadly true.

tete 12y ago

In most of Europe a lot of these things depend a lot on the company/sector you work in. It might be more true in what people call the old economy, but there you simply go for longer smoking pauses, etc. How well you do after a trade school also depends a lot on the sector you are working it and even on companies. There are companies who love people with degrees from trade schools and others who don't like them. When you want to look at working hours in comparison to economical output there once has been a study posted here on HN showing that the richer countries (at least in Europe) tend to be those with fewer working hours and in general there seems to be a strong north-south difference, with Italy, Greece, Austria (which is the exception), etc. having many work hours and Scandinavian having fewer. As for the whole topic: I really don't think that all of this really tells you too much about what a good system for economical output is. A lot of this tells you more about the society in a country and probably its history. Of course it all affects economy, but copying Germany won't magically make you rich, same is true for US, UK, China, ... Laws and rules in general, as well as the educational systems must fit with other things like society, natural resources, population size and structure, etc. That's also why you can't just say that a libertarian (economically, not social) society will always have a wealthier society than another. There are many additional factors. China has the benefit of a large population, the US has the benefit of a great size, over many climatic zones and the UK has at the right time set a focus on institutions that act in the financial market. However also those things have to come with a society that is willing to make use of this. If you think about South America. They still struggle mostly with the problem that they in history ended up on the losing side. If that other side happened to win (could have happened, were they luckier and took different decisions at times of war) then things might have looked different, or not. I don't want to say these things depend largely on luck, but since there are multiple complex systems interacting with each other saying X is the reason for this and that everyone could have seen this coming seems like the wrong and a strongly irrational approach to me. There were lots of really tiny events throughout history that strongly affected history and thereby societies, economy, politics, etc. and thereby how well economical models end up working for certain countries.