Very accurate. And even if you're making good money, you're paying significantly higher taxes, will usually not own a house etc.
Might still be worth it for the benefits, but it should be mentioned.
Might still be worth it for the benefits, but it should be mentioned.
As I mentioned: it might still be worth it, but I really dislike this whole style of "look, everything is the same, only we have X, Y and Z". It's not, there are trade-offs. If somebody likes those trade-offs (e.g. better job security for lower compensation), then they'll prefer it that way, and that's completely valid. But to pretend that there are no trade-offs (that is: to only mention one side of the trade-offs) is misleading.
It is not (only) a matter of capacity, it is (also) a matter of culture/habits.
In fact, if you look at various European countries, that's funny, because house ownership rates kind of go the opposite way of average wealth/income per capita.
If you mean to say the inequality in NL or Germany is unreasonably high - sure! But the US is even less equal.
Edit: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/ceos-see-pay-grow-1000percen... also looks at older income inequalities, and the development is pretty stark.
What? US SWE don't make significantly more money than EU-based SWEs? That's news, I'd love to see sources.
In general, high earners earn more in the US, which includes both CEO's and SWE (but the point about how easy it is to fire people and about inequality was more general, not specifically about SWE).
Even most blue collar workers I know own their house.
For much better public services, benefits, access to health, etc...
>will usually not own a house etc.
The Netherlands have a higher home ownership than the US (67.8% vs 65.3%).