As an American, I've heard some variant of this for literally my entire life.
Europe is technologically conservative in ways that the US is not. It's unclear that this has, is having, or will have any impact on the actual material wellbeing of the people who live there.
Compare life expectancy[1], or just about any self-reported QoL metric[2] (where the US doesn't perform badly, just not better!).
[1]: https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/data/euro...
I don't think it makes sense to wave away life expectancy as a demographic anomaly: there are counterbalancing anomalies that favor the US (such as tobacco and alcohol consumption), and yet Europe still averages out on top. But even if it was: obesity (and societal compromises made to accommodate it) are part of self-reported QoL metrics. Why ignore that?
The same is true for the Better Life Index: Europe is not exceeding the US in many (or even a majority) of metrics, but is consistently at par with them. The conclusion to draw is that the OECD's framing can be biased, but that bias doesn't actually appear to favor Europe.
As for income: it turns out that perception is everything. Joe Schmoe in America might have more disposable income than the average German or Italian, but he's also aware of his country's lopsided income distribution[1]. That kind of inequality permeates through QoL perceptions.
And as for AI DeepMind is HQ’d in Europe!
Supported by something also said by others [7] https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/26/europe-is-the-fr...
The underlying issue seems to be an incompatibility between egalitarianism and inspiration to individual exceptionalism.
Why be great in Europe, if the rewards to being great elsewhere are better, and you can afford to relocate?
To benefit from European social benefits? If you're that successful, you've far exceeded that standard from personal wealth!
Consequently, you're stuck in a weird middle ground with misaligned incentives papering over a fundamental incompatibility.