Europeans who keep tooting that "we don't need US salaries" tend to be the more privileged ones who will also inherit a house from their boomer parents and take it for granted, so they don't feel the stress of the rat race with skyrocketing house prices and income inequality.
So no, we DO want better paying jobs and lower taxes otherwise we'll go back to a feudalistic society where a select few own the housing and means of production through inheritance and everyone else and their offspring will forever be stuck working for the upper class so they can consume their products and pay them rent.
In most of the US, learning leet-code offers one a meritocratic lift up to the upper class while in most of Europe(except the East) it does not.
People generally don’t buy but rent and the rental market is set in such a way as not to gouge people. Still expensive but salaries are relatively high and in all other respects costs of living is very reasonable
Wait, something doesn't add up here. I see many programmers migrating from eastern to western Europe, but not the other way around.
It is true that programming as a profession will offer comparatively higher standard of living in eastern Europe (when compared to other professions), but that's because the overall standard of living is lower than it is in the west.
Even if you're talking about just software devs, people still move to the west for higher salaries, though I believe there is more movement towards the US, especially since the software industry has a lot of local branches of US companies.
But I can tell you from the ground that at least the common perception is that you are generally going to be wealthier as a software developer in western Europe than in Romania, even though in Romania software devs tend to be much better off than the majority of the workforce (and even though software devs in Romania don't pay income tax on their salaries, which is a nice 15% rebate).
You now get a fast shrinking middle class and dismal living condition in lower class.
Of course, they could have combated this with more supply. Not sure if they have done so.
It just seems weird to me. Why are people paying such high prices when there is farmland so close by that you could buy and use to build some condominiums, townhomes, duplexes or even single family homes.
[0]: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/
Rent is determined by what people with jobs can pay, property prices are determined by what international investors with deep pockets and easy credit can pay. Which one are you? If you are the former, you will be paying down a mortgage that you can barely afford. You will be a slave to the property. What if you lose the ability to pay? How secure is your paycheck really?
Keep your cash, and invest it somewhere else. You can find a new place to rent. You can leave if your community turns to shit.
The international investors with deep pockets own very, very, very few properties compared to regular people.
What if you lose the ability to pay? How secure is your paycheck really?
What if you lose the ability to pay rent? How does that make you any better off?
Keep your cash, and invest it somewhere else.
I have a mortgage with 75% of the principal left to pay, where the interest on the loan is somewhere between the third and the half of what I'd pay in rent for equivalent property. If I was renting instead of paying mortgage, I wouldn't have any cash to keep to invest elsewhere anyway.
You can find a new place to rent. You can leave if your community turns to shit.
You can also sell your house/condo and move somewhere else, at any time.
I bought my house 6 years ago. Rent prices have gone up about 30% in that time. I used to think my payment was crazy compared to renting, not I know of people renting much worse locations that are paying more, and I'm about to drop the mandated PMI because I dropped below 80% of the principal left to pay, so my payment will go down be a couple hundred more.
Doesn't matter, a rising tide raises every boat.
The point is that property prices have diverged from rental income, because low-interest credit from around the world is chasing properties, while stagnant wages imply stagnant rental income.
> What if you lose the ability to pay rent? How does that make you any better off?
I don't have to foreclose.
> I have a mortgage with 75% of the principal left to pay, where the interest on the loan is somewhere between the third and the half of what I'd pay in rent for equivalent property.
Between a third and a half? That sounds like a lot.
> If I was renting instead of paying mortgage, I wouldn't have any cash to keep to invest elsewhere anyway.
So you're saying your mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and upkeep is equal to rent? Where the hell do you live?
> You can also sell your house/condo and move somewhere else, at any time.
At any time? Yeah, good luck with that.
> Today, Munich is Germany’s most expensive city in which to buy property, with asking prices reaching €35,000 per square metre in some exclusive developments, according to Engel & Völkers. The average price per square metre in the city is €7,630, dwarfing the €2,993 in Germany as a whole. [0]
That's wild. In USD per square foot, that's $3,700/sqft, $800/sqft, and $316/sqft respectively. Meanwhile, San Francisco's median is $1,100/sqft, the metro area's is $500/sqft, and california's as a whole is $315/sqft, remarkably close to germany as a whole. America's is $123/sqft.
Thank god for SF salaries (apparently about 150% of munich salaries).
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/9ba4873a-60f3-11e9-9300-0becfc937...
Give it time though! The Dublin NIMBYs scream and shout anytime anyone tries to build anything, and then wonder why only tech workers can afford to live in the city centre.
The median salary is about $106k a year which isn’t too far from €100k a year. I am not sure if these wages include non-salary comp.