Hacker News Reader

Comment by sotix | Hacker News Reader

> The US cultural bias is showing here, as it's assumed that profit is above all else

I asked my Greek teacher what they biggest change she experienced moving to the US was, and she said that in Greece, her community prioritized happiness above all else, but everyone she met in the US prioritized making money.

I also asked her what the financial crisis was like in Greece, and she said that you couldn’t find an empty seat at a taverna in her village on the weekends. They barely had any money, and few around her were employed, but they had certain priorities.

Meanwhile in the US, I had a teacher condescendingly tell me that the Greeks were lazy (ignorant of the history that led to 2008). It can be hard to see through certain cultural biases. Particularly when the primary goals are so different.

View on HN

I find that people often put on rose colored glasses when talking about the "old country," myself included. It is a little ridiculous to think that Greeks don't prioritize making money over some nebulous "community happiness"'

You should have asked her why she came to the US

Pretty much every Greek that I have met (my father included) did it for a better future (money, no future with the military junta, american base left later.)

Plenty of Greeks have no interest in going back because they want the "American" life, but there's no question you ate better in the village, had more community, or had a sense of history - what you didn't have was more than ~35k euros a year, if you were lucky.

A philosophical question is whether one could have it all?

Maybe the relative poverty fosters that kind of culture, and a high earning society necessarily becomes atomized, or perhaps atomized societies fosters high earning.

Being poor fosters comradery and social connections

Everyone knows everyone in a ghetto. Gated communities often don't know their next door neighbors.

> You should have asked her why she came to the US

People sometimes have rose-colored glasses about emigrating to the US.

My dad was in the AF, and we rotated back and forth between the US and Europe. A friend of his married a British woman while stationed there, and took her back to the States when the tour was over. She endlessly complained about the US, and how Britain was so much better.

Eventually, they were rotated to Germany. As soon as they arrived, she was off to England. 6 weeks later, she was back, and did not complain about the US again.

Legend has it that Walter can smell anti-Americanism in the water, in fact all the way to Germany.

My family did two tours in Germany (tour as in being stationed there by the military). If you're a military family, the military will move you all around the world.

Yes I guessed that AF meant Air Force.

> It is a little ridiculous to think that Greeks don't prioritize making money over some nebulous "community happiness"'

She said that the people of her community prioritized happiness, not that the people prioritized community happiness. That might, for example, mean working less to enjoy more free time at the cost of maximizing profit. And, indeed, we can see in the data that the average worker in Greece takes 9 more vacation days each year as compared to their American counterparts.

According to OECD data Greece workers work the most hours in the EU, and in most years also more than American workers[1]. So by that metric they prioritize happiness less than most others?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_a...

Or, perhaps, it isn't the happiness the person was referring to. After all, it was explicitly marked as an example, not what the person said. It could be that workers in Greece choose fun, but low paying, jobs to maximize happiness. Or maybe it is something else entirely.

I'd assume that is because they take on jobs that they'll be happy with, instead of what ever job makes the most money. If you're content with what you do, you can do it sustainably for the rest of your life, if your only motivation to do your job is the money, then you'll burn out and retire early.

Not the case. People working in say fast food in Greece have 6 workday weeks (their weekends are just 1 day per week). Doubt people are more happy cleaning restaurant toilets in Greece vs the same toilets in US.

Having worked service industry jobs (US) I think there would be a dramatic increase in my quality of life had the customers been happier.

Not to mention the unrelenting psychic toll of working low wage jobs in a country with a weak social safety net.

So if they work less hours than others it's because they prioritize happiness (grandparent's post), and if they work more hours than others it's alsmo because they prioritize happiness (your post)?

The grandparent post was clearly stated as a hypothetical, so there is no expectation of it having any bearing in reality. However, what does seem to stand up to reality based on what data is available is that the people in Greece work more hours, but also take more days away from work.

Which may suggest that the "American way" is to work fewer hours per day, and then try to cram in some fun after work, whereas the Greeks allow themselves to delve into more fun over the span of entire days instead of short spurts. It is possible that more happiness is derived when one is able to enjoy themselves in larger blocks of time, even if the total quantity on a time-unit basis ends up being the same as anyone else. That would support both scenarios in the comments, even if they seem contradictory on the surface.

But, as with earlier comments, this is all based on hypotheticals for the sake of illustration. There is no indication of what the speaker from the greater thread was actually talking about.

Happiness. What hell is it even? It means nothing.

Why? Because I am the most happy when working at a high paying job with loots of interesting problems to solve.

I would be the least happy working at a high paying job with nothing to do.

Happiness is a comparator, not a number. Money on the other hand can be counted, and thus can be measured. I am 100% sure every Greek ever would be more happy with more money given nothing else changed. Only somebody who found happiness through suffering would ask for less, and be more happy with less.

>Happiness. What hell is it even? It means nothing

Money means even less.

>Why? Because I am the most happy when working at a high paying job with loots of interesting problems to solve.

Yes, people have been conditioned to be working.

I feel like your comment proves my point. On one hand I am saying what the hell is it even? And on the other hand you are telling ME my happiness is just "because I have been conditioned to work". You did zero to address what happiness is.

Money is a way to transfer resources. Resources make people happy. Somebody with no food for 3 days is happy when they finally get food. Money buys food, therefor money can buy happiness. People like to say the opposite, but they forget money can also buy unhappiness, or when talking bout the extreme cases where somebody has 20 billion, would 1 more billion have any affect on their happiness? Oh shit, we are back to WTF is even happiness. For all we know 1B more to the 20B guy might make them more happy because they are now richer than their enemy or some other happiness driven from the count of money.

We can break this down in other ways too. Some people say family is what makes them happy. I can tell you that a family of 12 with no money is less happy than a family of 12 with enough money. Its the difference between having shoes, or eating in may cases. Its clear that happiness is a compactor, and money can change the outcome.

> Money on the other hand can be counted, and thus can be measured.

Not really. "1 money" is just a promise to deliver 1 unit of value in the future. But what characterizes the unit? What is the difference between one unit of value and two units of value?

In reality, we don't really know. It's a continual quest to try and figure that out and it changes on a whim.

All of that is "I" and "me", not everyone. Happiness isn't meaningless, it just appears that you can't internalize someone else's internal state and understand how they might achieve happiness a different way than you.

Fascinating.

So "Greek are lazy" is condescending but everyone in US prioritized making money is just fact?

BTW there must be some interesting story that your Greek teacher had to move to US and deprioritize happiness.

I'm an American currently living in greece for the past month.

Both are more or less factual statements.

Ah yes, the famous “more or less factual statements”, a useful contribution to any serious thought process

> her community prioritized happiness above all else, but everyone she met in the US prioritized making money.

I'd bet that she was wealthy relative to the average Greek, but was perceived as "regular" because they are middle class relative to the rest of the west. The wealthy in the the US can prioritize happiness above all else. On average, Greeks works the longest hours in Europe, which is more than the average American.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/04/world/europe/greece-six-d...

As a Greek, a) lots of people lost their jobs during the crisis, could barely make ends meet or even committed suicide; those people certainly didn't fill the taverns. B) It is true that Greeks won't cut on food/going out as readily as others.

People in Greece certainly don't prioritize happiness instead of making money. There was a clear shift where Greeks became more and more unhappy after the (still ongoing) crisis. No1 problem is financial insecurity; as a resident (MD) I work 70-80hrs/week, for less than 7€/hour. Prices are comparable with rich EU countries.

Thanks for giving perspective from an unprivileged position. I have similar stories where people with money create national traditions of being together to celebrate festivals, family events together with friends and families and in general prioritize family over jobs. Poor people seems to have no such traditions they will stay put in whichever town/city they are stuck in their low paying jobs.

People who want to make money above all else are pursuing that because they think that will make them happy. It’s just their idea of the path that will get them to happiness. They see Mark Zuckerberg wakeboarding at his Lake Tahoe retreat and think, ‘That’s happiness — having billions of dollars, not having to worry about meeting basic needs, being able to do what you want.’

Zuckerberg doesn't get to do what he wants. He's in meetings constantly and rarely has a free moment

But that is the choice he has made. I guess he can very well afford to have a less hectic schedule or to not work too.

He could step anytime he wants to. He's not someone who is going to work to make sure him and his family have food to eat.

> Zuckerberg doesn't get to do what he wants. He's in meetings constantly and rarely has a free moment

This argument of

    Conclusion: $RichPerson doesn't get to do what they want.
    Premise: They're under constant obligation to $MoneyMachine

is both unsound and invalid.

The premise is wrong: at that levels of wealth, the obligation is not real, it's opt-in and you can opt-out at any time.

The conclusion is wrong too: At that levels of wealth, the person can do everything anyone else can do in their off-time, and they have much more off-time than the person making the argument anyway.

It's a poor argument and should not be made.

Zuckerberg is a famous person though, and famous people can't go to places which are sufficiently open to the public without causing major issues.

A random billionaire nobody knows might walk around the Colosseum undetected, but try doing that with a profile like Zuckerberg's.

Also, there is the personal security concern. If you are rich, you have a lot of ability to pay kidnappers of you and your family.

There is the story that shortly after Pichai became Google CEO, he walked around a conference and he barely got recognized, but if you stay in the limelight for long enough, people recognize you.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mathonan/searching-for-...

Disagree. To me this is like saying parents can always just abandon their children. Zuckerberg likely feels an overwhelming responsibility to show up as the CEO. Could he technically not show up? Sure. And any parent can technically not show up for their children. Both of them feel overwhelming responsibility to show up. In fact often the draw to work is stronger than children, hence so many stories of parents putting work first, not because they need the money, but, because they feel responsible for things at work.

> To me this is like saying parents can always just abandon their children. Zuckerberg likely feels an overwhelming responsibility to show up as the CEO. Could he technically not show up? Sure. And any parent can technically not show up for their children.

I strongly disagree[1]; I think it is incorrect to equivocate a non-living thing that needs no care from a particular person to a child's objective need for their parent.

If we reduce all arguments to "well, of course that person cares about $FOO, because parents care about their kids", then any $FOO is then as equally valid to kill oneself over[2].

You created a well-loved piece of art? Well then it's okay to jump in front of a n oncoming train to save it because that's what parents do for their kids!

You wrote a research paper on good UI guidelines? Well then it's okay to jump into a burning building to get the only copy because that's what a parent would do for a child.

I guess I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are few, maybe even none, "I created this thing" comparisons with the parent->child and child->parent relationships.

[1] But I see your point, so upvoted you anyway. I just think that your point is not at all comparable to a parent/child relationship.

[2] Parents will not hesitate to put their life in danger to save their child.

i heard a quote a long time ago "money won't buy you happiness but it's more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes".

Forget the Mercedes. Money won't bring you happiness and neither will a Mercedes, but in case of illness or living discomfort (not from overwork but from other stuff out of your control, like needing physiotherapy, braces, prosthetics, dental implants, or living in a rough, loud, polluted neighborhood etc) you'll have a much easier time taking care of yourself and escaping discomfort if you have money vs not having money.

Having money helps a lot in making yourself comfortable when life makes you uncomfortable.

> and she said that in Greece, her community prioritized happiness above all else, but everyone she met in the US prioritized making money.

Either they were a liar or an idiot.

Greece is the worst example as it is highly optimised for money and not social happiness/success. There is a reason that fraud is rampant and no one pays taxes unless they have to.

I wouldn't start paying attention until you got answers to the same questions for Spain and France.

Does this mean Greek Culture is better or simply different? I think that’s the real question. And also better for whom? It’s a judgement call. You can find communities (small towns) that are much closer to this style of thinking than in cities like LA or NYC.

If we're sharing anecdotes from Greek-Americans, a research advisor of mine said the biggest change he experienced was getting a driver's license without bribing anyone

> (ignorant of the history that led to 2008)

can you share your version please?

I’m not sure if it’s “my version” or simply a more macro lens at history.

Like all history, it’s tricky to pick a starting point, but an easy one is the end of 400 years of Ottoman Turk occupation leading into the 20th century with the Balkan Wars, WWI, and then WWII.

Greece successfully fought off Italy in WWII but then was quickly occupied by Nazi Germany for four years. During this time, the Nazis successfully exterminated every Greek Jew. This period created extremely radical political parties that persist to this day. Following WWII, Greece then transitioned into a dictatorship lasting until 1974. Greece presently has the youngest democracy in the EU (50 years old).

The past 500 years have been hard on Greece, and the past century was no exception. Modern Greece is a young country with tons of recent scars that have led to corruption and bribery that a healthier nation may not have developed as intensely. My grandfather fled the region with his father in the early twentieth century when the Italian army began regularly hanging people in their town square. It really traumatized him.

Anyway, 2008 wasn’t some event that happened in a vacuum. There were many events that shaped the country leading up to it. To simply claim it happened because the Greeks were lazy is itself a lazy take.

A very good book on the topic is Inside Hitler’s Greece[0].

[0]: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300089233/

If Greeks were lazy, they would not be working towards creating powerful nuclear weapons. Based on my calculations, by 2030, maximum 2035, we will have personal nuclear weapons. By we, i mean millions and billions of people on the planet, including of course Greeks.

In general, what an individual is doing with his free time, is no one's business.

"Greeks ... working towards creating powerful nuclear weapons"

Source ?

I highly, highly doubt that this is true.

Every smart person on the planet works towards nuclear weapons. It's self evident, it doesn't need source.

I am talking very about small nukes, cheap, minimal and for personal use as a self defense. Two grams of gold cheap, 1 km evaporation range and 5 km blast.

Very minimal, but as soon as millions of people have one, gather a lot of them in one place and you do some serious damage.

This lady seriously suggests that millions of Thai's will have their personal nukes, millions of Mongolians or Brazilians will have small nuclear weapons each, but Greeks will not, because Greeks are lazy somehow. I don't know where she reads that stuff, probably some comic series.

Ok, now let's assume this is correct and a deranged person in my neighborhood threatens to use their nuke, how is the police supposed to react to that? Are they supposed to detonate their personal nuke and destroy the neighbourhood?

You haven't thought through any of this.

Yeah, this is spot on. It's just that the priorities are different (even unemployed Greeks scrape enough money to have coffee with their friends), which can seem to Americans like we're lazy.

I was recently in Lisbon and was surprised that an espresso still costs 70 cents despite the influx of tourists and expats. If it's the same in Greece, I can easily see how an unemployed person can afford to hang out.

When I visited a rust belt city recently, it was amazing how many of the coffee shops and bars were still open of my preferred "sit and have a quiet conversation" variety. In my VHCOL city, where commercial rents are absurd, the only coffee shops/bars that can stay open are the ones that can drive tons of business (and thus push patrons through like cattle, with all cues pointing towards "you shouldn't be hanging out here").

My buddy lived in greece for a bit and he laughed at how he could order a one euro coffee delivered to his room or office almost anywhere. He couldn't comprehend how it works.

It used to be 2.5 EUR or so, but now it's risen due to inflation. Keep in mind that in Greece, your family will also support you if you're unemployed, so it's not uncommon for parents to share their pension or children to share their salary with the family.

>Keep in mind that in Greece, your family will also support you if you're unemployed

That's cool, if you have a family nearby or you're a in a good relationship with yours. Sucks for those who do not, which is why social safety nets are more important. You pay taxes but in case you fall down, the safety net should catch you make sure you don't end up on the streets if you don't have a family nearby.

Again, that's Us-centric thinking. If you're unemployed and don't have family nearby, you either move there to save on costs, or they send you money. There are very few people here who have a relationship with their families so bad that the family won't support them, because it's a social expectation. That's the definition of a social safety net, as it's a safety net that society institutes.

>Again, that's Us-centric thinking.

Not it isn't, I'm European from a European centric thinking. What you're talking about applies if young people choose to continue living in the same village where they were born and their family still lives, but that hasn't been the case in a long time. Young people (in Europe) move to big metro areas for university or jobs, and often, especially in Greece, they move to other EU countries.

Your family from some Greek village, won't be able to come take care of you in Amsterdam, and most likely they won't have the money to support your NL living expenses from their Greek pensions to help you out, nor will you moving from Amsterdam back to some Greek village help you out too much since there's no jobs in your niche there, or maybe even no jobs at all so now you're broke in Greece instead of broke in Amsterdam but with less job options.

Your PoV scenario is just unrealistic in the world of today and only applies in the traditionalistic tribal village lifestyle that's more or less dead nowadays and few live it. Sure, some lucked out and were born in afluent big metro areas with universities and jobs meaning they always have their family close by, but that's more the exception rather than the rule. If you look at international cities like Munich or Berlin, most people living there weren't actually born there or have family there, they just moved there for study/work. How can family help them then?

I kind of feel like you can't lecture someone from a small Greek village on what life for people from small greek villages is like unless you've lived there.

I know plenty of people who emigrated to the Netherlands, I don't know anyone who was poor and emigrated there (they don't speak enough foreign languages to have a hope) or that lived there for more than a few months while unable to get a job

Who are these people who go be unemployed in a high CoL country?

Anyway, that's my opinion, and trying to correct people from other cultures that tell me my opinions on my culture cannot be right is tiring, so I'll leave it here.

>I kind of feel like you can't lecture someone from a small Greek village on what life for people from small greek villages is like unless you've lived there.

I wasn't lecturing, I was using Greece as an example that would be familiar to you, but feel free to use any other country where people emigrate from to go to a high CoL country: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, etc.

>I don't know anyone who was poor and emigrated there (they don't speak enough foreign languages to have a hope) or that lived there for more than a few months while unable to get a job

I do. Plenty of Eastern Europeans moved to high CoL countries without knowing the language or having credentials and many found jobs, not the best jobs, but being on minimum wage in Sweden or Austria is better than being broke in Romania or Bulgaria (again, assuming you don't have a well off family to help you out and many who are in the situation of taking minimum wage jobs abroad don't, since they also come from poor or broken families unable to support them, which is why social safety nets are important to catch and help such people and prevent them from perpetuating this cycle).

>Who are these people who go be unemployed in a high CoL country?

You don't "go to be unemployed in a high CoL country", I never said that, but unemployment can find you there when you get laid off, which is why safety nets are more important than a far away family from a low CoL country who has no way of helping you out.

>Anyway, that's my opinion, and trying to correct people from other cultures that tell me my opinions on my culture cannot be right is tiring, so I'll leave it here.

Regardless of your "culture", people not having parents to help out (orphans do exist you know) or family too poor to help out, is not really something that goes against the "culture" you keep harping here. Not everyone's family, Greek culture or not, will be able to help out, hence my point of tax funded welfare social nets being important. None of what you wrote so far is an argument against that.

Yeah, one of the most notable thing about the HCOL US areas is that service employees are paid very well. By comparison, in India, 15 minute delivery at 3 AM costs relatively nothing.

It's tough to be happy when you're broke and worrying about whether you can get another loan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com