Hacker News Reader

Comment by untog | Hacker News Reader

I've worked in both Europe and the US, and in my opinion, US workers are far worse off for it. You earn more money in the US, you can advance faster, but you have next-to-no vacation time (and even when you do, you're still often expected to be reachable by e-mail), maternity/paternity leave is pitiful, and you have to pay large health insurance premiums, amongst other things.

I know that isn't the case for everyone, but on average I'd advise someone to take Europe over the US, just for quality of life alone.

View on HN

To some extent, this is a choice many Americans intentionally make. There are many jobs that offer European-like benefits, working hours, and employment stability in the US (e.g. Federal government jobs and some companies) but these are frequently viewed as undesirable -- it is not a first choice for many people if circumstances offer something better. The tradeoffs tend to be similar to Europe if you take one of these jobs. Lower pay, less opportunity for advancement (these kinds of environments tend to have promotions that are more seniority based), and you have to work with more people that put in the minimum effort required.

The concept of "quality of life" goes beyond the hours you work to also include having the opportunity to go after your ambition, if you have one. Culturally, I think one of the ways the US and Europe differ is that Europe imposes an environment designed to limit expressible ambition to the lowest common denominator, whereas US culture allows much greater variance in ambition. Or to put it another way, if it is your nature, it is easier to be ambitious in the US and easier to be non-ambitious in Europe. But all other things being equal, I prefer having the opportunity to be ambitious. Americans are not required to be ambitious, but many Americans take the opportunity nonetheless.

> (e.g. Federal government jobs and some companies) but these are frequently viewed as undesirable

Federal and government (city, state etc.) jobs (perhaps excluding IT) are some of the most desirable jobs in US, with long waiting lines. Got try get a city job in NYC....

Are you going to back up any of your claims?

Back up claims? It is common knowledge - bus drivers for example, working for Santa Clara county transit make $35/h, bus drivers for (contracted) Google and such make less than $20.

That's not common knowledge to me, especially since I don't live in California. You have asserted certain claims and offer no evidence. "Common knowledge" isn't evidence.

I do not know how to even reply to that. Bus drivers, post delivery people, municipal construction workers etc. - all have better salaries and benefits than similar private workers. I am not sure how any adult living anywhere in US could manage to not know that.

You're talking past one another, I think. You are correct for most blue collar jobs; GP's description is accurate for most white collar workers.

Your downvotes are probably for your unnecessarily inflammatory final sentence.

> "Common knowledge" isn't evidence.

But it is. The data for public salaries generally has very good availability in the Information age.

If you're trying to participate in a discussion in an informed way, you should at least conduct the minimum due diligence to do so.

Common knowledge is by definition not evidence.

> The data for public salaries generally has very good availability in the Information age.

The salaries don't seem particularly high, and in some cases (construction workers and bus drivers, top quarter) seem particularly low. Of course a lot more goes into job satisfaction than Salary but I agree, this is not common knowledge.

http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/construction-worke...

http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/bus-driver/salary

The point that BUS DRIVERS working for GOVERNMENT make better wages than BUS DRIVER working for PRIVATE sector. Not that bus drivers in general are rich people.

Ah. I think you've misread the comment in that case. The argument wasn't that the same job was typically better in private than government sector. It was that the types of jobs typically available in government (like the ones you mentioned) are viewed as less desirable in general, despite having good benefits, shorter hours, etc.

For white collars yes, for blue collars - definitely no.

Yes, they are highly desirable to people that are non-ambitious and strongly risk averse, which includes a non-trivial percentage of the population. For a certain kind of person, those jobs are perfect; the pay and opportunity isn't great but the risk and level of effort is also low. I've worked in these organizations before; the people that take these jobs don't want much out of life, just looking to coast.

But most Americans find government jobs to be unfulfilling and stifling for exactly the same reason -- it is a dead-end. I know it is different in other countries but "government job" has mixed connotations in the US.

> the people that take these jobs don't want much out of life

I disagree - those people don't want much out of work, they still want plenty out of life. Most I've met have tremendously fulfilling family lives, or similar. Not to be discounted.

NASA and Fermilab are also government jobs.

I actually think it's easier to be ambitious in Europe. Both in absolute terms, since it's easier to access good education education and working environment, and in relative terms, since there's more room to work harder than everyone else.

    > To some extent, this is a choice many Americans
    > intentionally make.

Uhm, to what extent do they have a choice? Be super poor or work hard. Hmm..yes those are delightful "options" to get to "select".

But seriously, I don't see a realistic choice for most people. To have any decent level of security and stability in our lives, most of us have to work our asses off!

> and you have to pay large health insurance premiums

This part still bothers me after 10 years in the US. Health insurance might as well be a tax if you have a family or any ongoing health issues. Hearing people say "I don't support universal health care because my taxes would go up" drives me insane. If the proposition was higher taxes but less overall money spent on healthcare then it's a net gain for you. Of course there would still be many issues to resolve (is it 100% public or a public/private mix, how do you control costs, how to you serve the massive rural areas here, how to manage the job losses from removing insurance/billing from the industry etc) but tax increases is a shitty reason not to at least look into it. It also amazes me that the same people opposed to tax increases aren't the ones screaming to remove the burden of health insurance from employers.

There are many things I love about living in the US but I am still often amazed at how much the US accomplishes despite some of these barriers. Perhaps I am naive to assume the US would be even more dominant in the world if we could sort out basic issues that other countries seem to have already resolved.

> If the proposition was higher taxes but less overall money spent on healthcare then it's a net gain for you.

Sure it would cost less, but then I'd be on the same insurance as everyone else. That means worse quality of care for those of us who currently have something other than Medicare.

There are OECD countries that have varying degrees of public healthcare supplemented with private insurance that have excellent quality of care.

I'm not sure the US model for primary care is that great either - there have been many articles about how medical clinics are now pushing people through in 10-15 minutes instead of taking the time to fully understand the patient's needs and avoid over prescription. A routine visit for my kid at the local clinic (Allina Health) is now $150 - $190 (for a 15 minute appointment to check for something basic that a PA at Minute Clinic wouldn't touch). That same visit back in my home country cost $43 USD (non resident rates).

I'm not sure there would be a significant drop in primary care for most people?

It's not a naive assumption at all.

The US has some of the highest entrepreneurship rates in the world despite having a pretty weak government provided social safety net.

People would be far more likely to start a company if it didn't mean giving up their existing healthcare benefits and having to pay for it out of pocket.

Me too - for me the difference is early retirement isn't really feasible in Europe. The exception being maybe get a remote job in the US and then move. Haven't succeeded there yet.

some of us love work.

As long as you are working on your own stuff, that's usually fine.

I'm sure many Europeans love their work too.

And you can still do that in Europe, no one is stopping you from working more.

And even better, as you have more free time, you can use it for your own projects.

> And you can still do that in Europe, no one is stopping you from working more.

Well, unions do. But that's a good thing, it prevents a race to burnout.

Does that actually apply to every field? I've only worked briefly as a software developer in Germany and not full time, but I never got the impression that unions would realistically stop anyone in that field from working till midnight. If you are working as a factory worker for example that's of course a totally different story. However, I doubt that people in that kind of job regularly decide to put in a few extra hours on some days and are usually on the clock.

The overtime regulations vary from union to union, but generally there's an upper limit – you can work 50 hours a week (and get compensated in some form), but not 90.

If you're in management (defined as having authority to hire/fire IIRC) you're exempt from the law, same if you're self-employed.

For a regular programming job, I believe the the law applies (no more than 10h/day and (8h/weekday average over 6 months). Practically, it only matters if somebody cares about it which only happens systematically on larger companies with a union presence.

But: you're responsible for your employees and they can not waive this right. If you regularly tolerate it, you may run the risk of someone changing his mind after a few years and getting you into trouble, trouble being up to 15000 Euro in penalties and (theoretically) a year in prison if someone was harmed.

In the UK you can opt-out of the EU working time directive.

It's the EU Working Time directive.

You can work longer for yourself, but not for someone else.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intP...

But is not applied for everyone. In my country, it doesn't apply to engineers typically: the only limit is 13h/day, 6days/week, so that's a "limit" of 78h/week...

In most developed EU countries, especially the happy Denmark, mr. Taxman will make sure that you see little marginal benefit of those longer hours.

Well, for those who love work so much, they'd do so regardless of the extra monetary benefits, would they not?

You can have two jobs if you want to. They won't stop you from that.

Nobody is stopping you but why would you work 60 hours a week for some boring European company that only pays you EUR60k when you can work the same hours in SV on something interesting and make $150k+.

Because a house costs you 200k instead of 400k

So move back to Europe after five years in SV and buy the house in cash.

Not in London, or Paris, or any of those places where there is some interesting work.

Are you implying all European companies are boring? That seems like a strange assumption..

In fairness, that's a pretty privileged opinion to hold.

What % of the population do you think that applies to? I'm very glad for you that you love your work enough to dedicate all the time you have available to it, but there a hell of a lot of people out there in the US who have to, and neglect their families, mental and physical health just to get by.

I think you're confusing loving to work and loving to be at work.

When I was in my late 20s and early 30s I worked all the time - I loved it! At some point though I became disillusioned with work. There was always more of it, and it was primarily for someone else's benefit. If you're working for yourself I can see a stronger case for putting in those hours, but you still risk seeing those years go by in a haze of largely undifferentiated time sitting behind the keyboard, or what have you, with likely little reward at the end. It's possible to have a work-life balance, still enjoy your job and be productive, take vacation, etc. Work can become a soulless endeavor, just as pursuing wealth for its own sake.

nice reply, a lot better than the dictation that europe and vacation are the real way to live.

i work for myself. i generally get to my office around 5am, leave at 230pm, spend around 4 hours every weekday with my wife and kids. i ski mid-week in the winter when there's fresh powder. i'll log research hours on the weekend. i have health insurance, savings, and happiness. i like my work and consider my hours logged a little light, but closer to adequate than 26 or 22 or whatever that bloomberg article says (50 - 60 a wk).

Sorry for this small rant ....

I dont understand why everyone is so caught up with answering emails on vacation. Yes - it's not ideal, but as long as your not expected to be on your phone all day, and in my experience, you are not unless you own your own business, are a doctor, etc. then what is the big deal? 5/10 minutes of email's in the morning means Europeans have a better work/life balance ?

If you work for a small company they might need you to be available because you are an integral part of the operation. Id be surprised you are expected to answer emails on vacation if you currently work large company in the US where you are 1 of N team members where N > 50.

I work for a small company (< 20 people) and I'm an integral part of the team, yet I take 3+ week vacations with no problem. If my boss ever said the above to me, my only answer would be "Fuck you," before I left.

To properly recharge during vacation, to get rid of work stress, and actually return to work energized, you need to disconnect from work. This means you have to do absolutely nothing that's connected to work for at least three weeks straight.

Shorter vacations spoil this. Emailing or talking on the phone while on vacation spoils this.

Quick question: Have you ever taken three consecutive weeks off work?

not since college. im 34

> I dont understand why everyone is so caught up with answering emails on vacation

I'm 35, been working since I was 21, but still get a little (sometimes more) anxious each morning when coming to work and thinking that I have to open my email.

> 5/10 minutes of email's in the morning means Europeans have a better work/life balance ?

It's not "5/10" minutes. It's one or two hours before the fact, thinking "should I check my email? no, I'm sure everything is ok back at work", then another 2 or 3 hours after you actually checked your email, thinking at what you have just read and possibly replied. So, there goes half of your vacation day thinking and stressing about work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com