The EU is number one in quality of life and that’s all that matters to me. If we work just hard enough to maintain and maybe even improve it, other countries can do their pissing contest.
The US, UK, EU and realistically most developed countries I would say have fairly similar quality of life within margin of error. I've travelled a fair amount and everywhere is basically the same.
For an individual it's really going to come down to lifestyle and what you prefer. Some people like urban living and walkability, if that's you then you probably want Japan or old world metropolitan European cities. Some people want a house on a few acres and national parks the size of countries, if that's you then you probably want the US.
Working cultures are different but then there is no average on that either. People on HN tend to assume everyone is an office worker or something which is actually a fairly narrow slice of the middle of the spectrum.
Equally though, online (you can see it in this thread) there's sometimes a weird focus on the absolute worst outcomes which I've always found baffling. If you're planning to become a poor fentanyl addict then yeah, don't go to the US, find a country with a safety net, it'll be more fun.
Having lived in the EU (Netherlands) and the US (California), I would say the inequality in the US is much worse. Especially in larger cities. To the point where I sometimes wonder if I'm living in a "developed" country.
The thing I tend to always fall back on is the last part of my comment. You don't want to be poor in the US; there is no bottom. Whereas if you're poor in Europe usually there's a minimum standard that you'll fall to.
For most people the relevant factor I think is what the QoL in their cohort is like. I say it's a bit of a wash, because basically, if we limit the discussion to EU and US, if you're well off the US is probably better, if you're poor Europe is probably better, if you're in the middle then there are trade offs.
If I had a passport for the US, I’d move yesterday.
I'm saying as someone from Asia having lived equal number of years in both US and EU.
How do you figure? US has SNAP, Medicaid, UI, TANF (for families with children), Section 8 housing, SSD, SSI, Childcare Assistance amongst other programs.
These aren’t much of course but are something.
Ahem... Have you seen the standards in the UK get diluted year after year post-Brexit?
There's more to the story than the listed examples.
Environmental standards dictate your risk of developing various diseases later in life so are a big difference in quality of life. E.g., if you drink tap water from UK vs other countries, with high PFAS levels, where it essentially comes from a spring in the mountains - that's a huge difference.
Another difference is job security which again has a huge impact. Consider France: If you get an unlimited contract at a company you're essentially set for life (unless the company goes busy, or you mess up in a very bad way). Compare that to the scare many US dev employees hat to ensure in spring 2023 when all the big tech companies were doing layoffs. Also, France had a much shorter work week.
So, no, quality of life doesn't even compare remotely between these countries. Only perhaps for the upper 3% it is similar - if you're an average tech dev, your life will be much much nicer in Paris than in a random SF/LA suburb.
I do think that if you're going to live in a Big City(tm) then the old world just does cities better. Then again I haven't visited SF, just NYC.
Job security isn't something I've ever cared about in my life. Starting from zero (no parental wealth), beyond about age 20-22 I've always had a minimum of six months savings, who cares, just find another job. It's business, you're not married. If you're an actual adult and you need a job continuously to get by you've fucked up somewhere.
It kind of just feels like a leverage decision, anyone middle class or above has a net worth in the x00k's, it's just about whether you have anything liquid vs locked up in home value etc.
If you have 0 in the bank then unless you're in North Korea or something you have bigger issues than "which country has better QoL" in my opinion, you need to work on yourself first.
Also, for most folks here its trivial to be independent and successful financially if alone, past decades have been good in ways mankind has not experienced ever before. Get 2 or more kids into the equation of life with everything that they bring and challenge goes up tremendously. But as said, there are rewards, and most of them can't be achieved in any other way (that is coming from somebody doing fair amount of extreme sports, mostly in mountains).
Also, these matters are not within margin of error. Quality of life is way more important than cashflow once one is not poor. Also in Europe extremely expensive matters like universities for kids or more intense healthcare are simply non-topic when it comes to finances, you simply need less money to have similar quality of life and peace of mind. You are always just 1 error, often not even yours, to have quality and quantity of your remaining life massively dependent on quality of the healthcare, or just bad luck with genetic lottery. If you feel invincible now, give it a decade or two and you will reconsider.
Its also really uneven. It contained in 2016 6 of the lowest GDP per captia regions of the entire EU.
However we should of course treat GDP as a suspect measure of living standards. Whilst those people living in those areas will tend to have curtail life chances, they did at the time have access to _good_ healthcare and housing (in certain circumstances)
I may not leave her a lot of inherited wealth, but she may also not really need any to have options.
(That said, my personal frame of reference for why this is better and wonderfully stress-free is years lived in South Korea--that ultra-low fertility rate has reasons--, not so much the US.)
Folks here expect and trust the state to provide for the future, private provisions are easily dismissed as unnecessary. As a result of this the median household wealth of the area I live in is 5x lower than my home country of Australia, despite incomes (adjusted for purchasing power) not being drastically different.
Whether that trust is wisely placed we'll have to wait and see[1]. However I do need to narrow that down a bit, it's not the whole EU, mostly France/Germany. There are other nations moving ahead with private pension schemes etc and much higher household wealth (Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands).
1. My main concern is government investment is inherently slow, politically charged, and pathologically risk averse vs the private sector. This means in the aggregate, over the long term, private household investments will out perform.
Probably explains a good chunk of Germany's and the EUs anemic growth. Simply put, that's 127B EUR that can't be spent investing in the future and growing the economy.
What is a decent pension and where it will come from? I'm projected to get a decent SSA pension (bigger than a median income in top tier EU countries), but I am not counting on it. What gives you confidence that government will be able to support you through retirement?
Laws that obligate the country to do so
If Americans give up on home ownership and luxury items, they too can enjoy a European quality of life; living in an 800sqft rental and enjoying a rich social life.
Like personally I'm doing great, and so are a lot of people I know, and I'm sure you as well. But I think a lot of Americans are struggling badly with their social lives.
The largest contributor according the book's surveys and studies (and I love saying this) is television outcompeting in-person fun. Car dependency is a factor, but IIRC was factor #2 or #3. While this ranking was true at the time of publication, I would wager that time spent on "screens" is likely factor #1, #2, and #3 now.
Please read the version with the 20 year update: https://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Commu...
I would wager that many people are fleeing their hometowns to socialize in cities not because they're walkable, but because the density of people increases, allowing you to have better odds meeting real humans who haven't been lost to the allure of the indoors.
I don't think you can have a realistic conversation about American physical or mental health without centering this fact
Americans are much lonelier than their European counterparts.
In addition, lifespans in the U.S. are declining even post COVID relative to their European counterparts, largely due to increases in “deaths of despair” (drugs, suicides, etc).
The idea that Americans have a “rich social life” is not true relative to Europeans. Even the church going etc. is for most people forced upon them as opposed to something they want to do, as evidenced by the increasing number of people saying they’re faithless but onto church anyways.
That doesn’t mean that people with rich social lives don’t exist or even that the lack of such a rich social life is a problem for a majority of people.
What it means is that the U.S. broadly isn’t doing as well as Europeans and further things are getting worse.
It's easy to make a study that shows that the US has more X than some number of European countries—you just compare the entire US to all European countries and then cherry pick the ones where we do worse. But the US is a big place with a lot of variety in living conditions—even if you just broke down the results by broad geographic region rather than state, you would get dramatically different results than taking the US as a whole. What happens if you compare loneliness in the South with loneliness in Denmark? Or what about loneliness across the entire US with loneliness across the entire EU?
This is the cultural aspect.
I have a lot of friends who went the opposite direction of you, and chose a cheaper but more fulfilling life in Europe.
Instead of making 200k a year in the us, they make modest salaries and rent 100-year-old farmhouse flats that Americans would call a slum. They drive economy cars and spend their ample time socializing or outdoors.
My personal opinion is that Europeans simply place a higher priority on social interaction and incorporate it into their daily lives. Many of them have more modest financial aspirations, and don't expect to ever own a house, vacation property, or boat.
I basically explain this by comparing my life (US of A) to my sisters (EU). My sister makes great money - my sister spends ALL of this great money. she lives paycheck-to-paycheck which in US would mean she is poor, in EU she is living large (just came back from UAE, heading to Kenya in a couple of weeks, January Macedonia and Austria…). I make 789x what she does and put away 60+% - been doing this for 25 years now, almost done with working though
My take is that Americans like to make infrastructure an excuse for everything when it really boils down to priorities and preferences.
10 km is a 20 minute bike ride if you're not too obese to fit on one. 10 minutes if you pick a coffee shop, pup, or Park that is halfway. Unfortunately, most people prefer Netflix and the fridge which is even closer
e-bike ? otherwise you have to be riding race type bike with really good dedicated bike lane
However, this kind of whataboutism illustrates my point. There's a near infinite number of places humans can congregate to enjoy each other's company. It can be a park or a coffee shop or a pub or your kitchen table for tea.
The fact that none of these are suitable demonstrates that the desire to get together is not there.
downtown Denver can house minuscule part of the population of the Denver metro area - only those affluent enough to afford it. America (again) is not downtown Denver or downtown SF or downtown anything...
Also, a lot of american homes seem to need space for luxuries which are simply weird for many europeans.
A bathroom per bedroom for instance? Why not share a bathroom with the entire household,and have a seperate small toilet instead?
American kitchens also seem really large compared to most european one's i have seen, but they also seem to have a more social function then what kitchens are used for normally. (preparing food)
Why would you if you don't have to? It's great to have space.
We start with 19 + 7 days and get 1 extra day per year of service until 5 years. (We also get a 4 week contiguous block once every 5 years.)
Therefore that's 5 less weeks with the kids each year — or about 1.6 years total by the time they leave home for college.
I have 4 weeks of vacation plus 11 federal holidays, which is close to the norm in nearly every professional job I'm aware of.
I use it and make a very healthy wage when I'm at work.
I could consider going to the US to earn some money while young but never to start a family.
Raising your kids to be able to stand on their own and deal with the harshness of the world is far more important in my opinion.
The U.S. is filled with homeless people. Even Italy, which was doing economically terrible when I visited, didn’t even have a fraction of the homelessness problem as in the U.S.
Italy is much lower at 8/100k.
45/100k would be an incredible improvement.
Though looking up Paris, it is ~200/100k, which is still half of Seattle's rate!
The definition of who is homeless and how they are counted varies dramatically between countries to the point where comparing headline numbers is largely useless.
Except Finland and Danemark[0]
Interestingly, these are not unrelated. Italy's housing prices are very low because of how badly it's doing economically.
And also... no -- homelessness is one bad problem, but there are other problems. Bad economies cause a myriad, including declining healthcare availability and reductions in life expectancy.
Older kids will only have virtual needs. They'll have a job and health insurance.
Did a charity work for my money? No. They just supposedly will (but possibly not) use some of it for something aligned with my interests. Just like giving my money to my children.
If parent’s work beyond what they can spend in their lifetime is not given to the children, who would continue to choose to work? Already in Canada you can exceed 50% tax rate and many adults who could see more patients, write more books, take more cases, do more work, choose not to as the marginal benefit decreases.
If your kids appreciate your money more than your time is when you know you screwed up.
he should spend every penny he’s got to spend every minute he can with his kids - especially while they are young. and his kids will say the same.
not noble at all - naive, dangerous and downright stupid thinking
Not if you do the slightest bit of planning.
If you will have under $7M in your estate, the slightest is literally nothing. You will not owe a penny of federal estate tax.
If you have over $7M in your estate, it's worth consulting an estate planner, but the basics look like gifting and establishing trusts while you are alive (and ideally while the exclusion amounts are high).
The current exclusion is $13.61M per person, or 2x that per couple and set to drop down to $5.6M in 2017 dollars on January 1, 2026.
If there's a chance that you'll have over $7M and die in 2026, the slightest is gift some of it now [directly and/or via trusts or 529 plans] while the estate tax exclusion is still $13.61M and file form 709.
I understand why you would want higher net income to enjoy a wealthy life, but for "investing in the stock market"? I also understand why you would want to earn more so that your kids can have a better life, but why "after you die"?
If anything, the latter can be turned into an argument for the EU way. Your kids don't need you dead, they need you to be alive and caring. So you have vacations so you can spend time with them, public education so that they have the skills to help themselves, so they don't need your inheritance, and healthcare to keep you alive even if your "stock market investments" are at a low point.
The city just dismantled its gifted program for schools, so if your kid is a high achiever plan on another 40k a year for schooling.
Even swim classes have a huge waitlist and are expensive. Any type of children's activity is absurdly expensive due to the high cost of living.
Housing is absurd, if you have a couple kids plan on spending 4k a month on rent for a place in a nice neighborhood.
Most Americans have around a thousand dollars in savings and that is it. Americans are, by and large, not even able to save up for retirement, with zero hope of leaving anything to their kids.
Tech worker salaries are a small bubble in all of this.
Per the US government's own BLS, the median household has >$1,000 leftover each month after all ordinary expenses. Americans may not save much but it isn't for lack of available income.
America is full of people who are working a job and a half (with a good chance both are 30hr a week jobs that offer no benefits, and may have "flexible" scheduling where the employee is called in to work different computed selected shifts each week), and people who are working in offices earning good money.
In the middle you have some people working trades still.
We switched over from a manufacturing economy that made things and gave people stability and enough money to raise a family to a "service" economy, and then we started telling everyone working service jobs that "those jobs aren't real careers, so of course you are being treated and paid poorly!"
I would suggest, though, that if you didn't grow up in the bay area and have family property here, as a relocation target it should be considered similar to gold mining. You're moving here for work because of the amount you can save [as a result of ludicrous tech compensation] and then use elsewhere, not because it makes sense financially to actually be living here.
I'm third generation here. Although I'm remote, my wife's job is tied to a location here. We both want to live someplace with a strong international community, access to an airport with lots of overseas flights, and that is a reasonably large population center. (IMHO Seattle is still small, and we are lacking many things for it, although that has gotten better over the last decade or so.)
The only other locations that meet our criteria have either garbage politics or garbage weather. (not that I'm happy with Seattle's politics, but at least our city council is mostly incompetent and a little bit malicious, as opposed to mostly malicious and a little bit incompetent!)
Best of luck to you on your endeavor.
I don't want a super low CoL, but I realize that housing prices have gone up in excess of what they should have due to restrictive housing policies.
Seattle used to be 1/2 the price of the Bay Area, or less! Engineers here earned less than in the SF, but we were OK with it because the QoL was great at a much lower cost.
But the city and surrounding areas refused to upzone, to such a degree that the state legislature finally had to force the issue, but even then the laws passed are too little too late.
The reason for the high CoL is lack of construction, plain and simple. Getting simple residential permits can take half a year or more, environmental regulations have limited what even homeowners can do with their own houses, and the majority of the city is still zoned for only single family homes.
The high price of building means that daycares can't open (too expensive to justify), and workers in all fields demand ever higher pay just so they can afford rent, which drives up the cost of everything.
For the last decade we've built 1/2 as many houses as we've had people moving to the city, and a large percent of new dense construction is rental only, which means money leaving the city and residents not building up any equity (or long term stake) in the city.
Bad policies lead to bad outcomes.
Then, your family will have a choice as to whether to spend that money on you/your spouse or to not spend it on you and to rely on Medicaid.
No one actually pays $50k out of pocket for surgery. Most of it is covered by insurance.
I've watched both my parents go through this, with significant chronic health issues. They had good private insurance on top of Medicare, they routinely had $10-30K annual itemized deductions for health related expenses that were not covered by their insurance. And that was with a daughter who is an MD who invested a massive amount of time and effort to get insurance to cover as much as possible.
There's a special "retirement plan by actions" (PEA) with lower capital gains tax, and the reason why most French people don't invest in the stock market is mostly lack of education around it. For most, real estate is the main way of investing/saving money. The stock market is dangerous and you can lose everything, and many have personal references (their parents/themselves bought stock from efforts such as the Eurotunnel that failed, financially) to that effect.
What's the point of inheriting a life in a corporate hellscape (presuming you live in a tech city).
Probably it is time for you to learn the plight of fellow Europeans then. The society is stewing for quite some time now, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
The symbol has become "a unifying thread and call to arms" as yellow vests are common and inexpensive, easy to wear over any clothing, are associated with working-class industries, highly noticeable, and widely understood as a distress signal.
Rise of far right parties across Italy, Germany, Hungary, Poland, France and many other countries is another clear signal that EU's quality of life may not be great for everyone there.
Also, here in The Netherlands the yellow vests were mostly conspiracy theorists who would pull something to protest against out of thin air. That movement died down pretty quickly.
Protests here are almost always against (perceived) government overreach. In most countries even being able to protest is considered a luxury. That's why you don't see that many in the US.
But there are a lot of other factors in the problem and making it an economic issue really obscures some of the more important factors.
Intellectual laziness, idle brains, idle hands, toxic memes and bad actors making bad use of them.
When we look at magical thinking as one of those light schizotypical behaviors large portions of the population exhibit these symptoms.
They drink from the cup of nonsense to excess.
There should always be room for drinking from the cup of nonsense but too much and its difficult to be useful to yourself and your family.
As for the other party that fits this description they're their own worst enemy, as they're an amalgamation of groups which don't really have common interests aside from a few talking points.
All it takes is another term of pain, and they'll be back.
Case in point, America. A former president who by all counts should have lost the election a year ago, was literally begging on Truth Social for donations, facing numerous criminal trials and convictions, just retook the hot seat.
I've met their voter base. The young, educated, city-dwelling part.
Of course they'll be back, but like every political movement based on cult of personality, they have no coherent plan what to do should Kaczyński die/retire, aside from infighting. Arguably the vultures started circling already. The MAGA party will face the same predicament once their leader inevitably leaves the stage.
My take is that since both Kaczyński and Trump haven't appointed a successor, their political projects will die with them. Their opponents need only to survive until that happens.
I so wish that you are right. I am afraid you are not though. Trump is a symptom of the growing discontent in the society. If not Trump, it would be Bernie or someone else. But the tinderbox is there. Someone just needs to take a match to that.
In this case it seems that the author is pointing out that the incumbents do not in fact have any inferred or conferred ownership of these public spaces.
I decided to treat it as a minor typo and read it as 'people would be able to ignore and excuse the increased prevalence of "foreigners" on their streets' instead. Ie, the foreigners aren't really foreigners, just citizens of non-aboriginal ethnicity.
By putting the word their in quotes the poster is implying the unstated assumption that states aren't legitimate.
I don't think that the economy in general is key, though high immigration does dampen wages and that is mostly felt at the lower end of incomes. I think what we're seeing are the social and cultural consequences of very high immigration from countries of completely alien cultures and whose people do not assimilate in Europe. This has been going on for decades now but completely ignored by successive governments and that only hardens people's reaction against it. This is compounded by the apparent powerlessness to act "because whatever treaty/law" that we seem to have shackled ourselves with...
I don't fully know what's going on in Europe, but in the US we have several TV news networks dedicated to making you upset about the increased prevalence of foreigners. And they've been doing it for 30+ years, so it's working, no matter how good the age is or isn't.
I.e. people voting for Farage are not the ones living next door to asylum seekers.
Maybe it's different in the EU and US.
People see problems (mainly caused by the cost of housing) and hear people like Farage blaming it on the "small boats", and people on the other end of the spectrum blaming it on millionaire landlords.
The reality is it's not caused by the 3 asylum seekers per 10,000 people increasing demand, but instead by essential legal immigration (to perform jobs as the native workforce reduces in number) and crucially the inability to build enough houses for everyone.
This thus pushes up price thanks to the age old supply/demand curve. How else would we ration housing? Nepotism? Sexual favours? Lottery?
Sure, but if you have an inability to produce more housing, how is importing more foreigners helping with the situation of the locals who are already struggling with the housing market?
I'm not defending Farage or his voters, but don't people have a right to be pissed about this situation?
We're having some similar problems in the US, but not at the same scale. It used to be MS-13 was the big foreign crime boogeyman, now it's the Venezuelan gang "Tren de Aragua": https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/its-spreading-americas...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/migrant-population-charl...
I can't even come up with enough terror attacks in Europe to reach 100 deaths in 2024.
> I can't even come up with enough terror attacks in Europe to reach 100 deaths in 2024.
Go touch grass ffs! Your reply is infuriating to any victim of terrorism. A single death or wounded from islamic terrorism (the only that really exist) is too much already. If that's not enough for you, please line up with your family and friends and sign to be the next victims and we'll see if "not even 100 deaths" is a good thing or not.
What about pollution? Kills thousands upon thousands of people too! Why are we wasting our time and attention with 24/7 news reports about terrorism every time some nutter stabs someone in the street, when we could be directing our efforts towards eradicating coal, diesel engines, etc?
See where I'm going with this?
Many already are.
I can however name a hundred other things that affect most of their lives daily like inflation, racism, corruption of both the media and political organs by corporate interests, degrading of public infrastructure and institutions that are not aimed at churning out a profit, declining quality of the education system to systemic stress imposed on teachers, etc.
As a society we must focus our attention to those things which really matter. Terrorism is just trying to get our attention.
I also live in a town of 4m which was impacted in the last 10 years by a single terror attack. Should it affect my life? Should I be suspicious of every member of the ethnic group from which the terrorist comes? I couldn't even identify them.
However, I often think about that drawing where three people are at a table. A blue-collar worker (mine worker or construction worker), a black sad looking black person (immigrant), and a rich guy in suit.
The blue collar worker has a single cookie on his plate, the immigrant no cookies at all, and the rich guy a plate full of cookies. The rich guy with his plate full of cookies, looking at the worker, points to the immigrant. “He wants your cookie”.
It's a very difficult sociopolitical problem, and it has as much to do with psychology as it does headline statistics. Contemporary media dynamics has much to do with the psychological aspect, but it's also corrupting the way people think about these issues across the ideological spectrum.
Labour's share of wealth produced (vs capital's share) has been declining in the developed world since the 1970s, and is now well past Gilded Age levels and still getting worse.
So yes, it's both about better jobs and about distributing away from the rich and towards the working class: these are the same thing.
1) Income share is complicated: https://equitablegrowth.org/labors-share-lost/ There are structural issues, like automation and immigration, underlying those trends. Immigration isn't, per se, irrelevant, especially when you consider dynamics like volatility and displacement. (But, again, it's complicated.)
2) Throughout history vilifying the rich has not worked out well for the poor and working classes, neither in absolute nor relative terms. Where sustainable improvements have been seen, they're the result of a flattening of the social hierarchy (not necessarily in monetary terms!), but in a way that shifts norms to the type of long-term, group management that you see in the upper middle classes, not the winner-take-all, rat race rules of the poor (at least, that they see as governing inter-class conflict, not necessarily among themselves). The cookie metaphor, both in the model it presents and the devious motivations it insinuates, is rat race rules, and rat race rules favor the rich much more than cooperative, inclusive norms. What you want is for the wealthier to identify with the poorer, but that can only happen (if at all) to the extent the poorer identify with the wealthier. If some wealthy person perceives themselves as having been wholly self-made, despite what's obvious to everybody below him, good! That implies he at least values agency and work ethic, norms that in the United States can be and are shared with people below him on the ladder, and therefore a way to sell political concessions as being in his self-interest (psychologically).
3) Wealth (as opposed to income) doesn't work as implied in the cookie metaphor. Elon Musk is a trillionaire, but there's no bank vault with a trillion in gold bullion that he can go to at will. At any point in time--hour by hour, even--his nominal wealth is primarily a function of the future expectations of others, including expectations of social contentment and economic growth. You can't take half of Musk's cookies and redistribute to everyone; it's entirely non-sensical to think that way. Our intuition breaks down at scale; certainly from a process perspective (as opposed to a static context). Just like running a $30 trillion national economy isn't the same as running a small business (for one thing, nobody runs it), the cookie metaphor leads to horribly misguided ideas about the nature of our problems and the viability of remedies.
Yes, inequality of outcomes matters (at least at the margins), it just doesn't provide much if any insight into causes and solutions. Imbibing in zero sum cookie narratives is counterproductive. Like other forms of social injustice, e.g. racism, it's paradoxical--how can you fix something without identifying the effects with an intention to address them; yet, such a fixation has a tendency to solidify (reify?) the divisions undergirding them. If you look at critical theory, especially critical race theory, you can see an admission of this paradox at the core of the literature. People like Frantz Fanon and Derrick Bell came to the conclusion that it's impossible to completely overcome racism--systemic and otherwise. Their perspective is understandable given the seeming intractability of these sorts of problem, I just don't share the fundamental pessimism at the heart of how these issues are framed by contemporary social justice thinking. And it's that framing that I saw in the cookie metaphor. I don't have the right answers, but history has shown us the wrong answers.
The metaphor is not zero sum, and not about handouts.
It's about deliberate diversion of attention, obfuscating the source of inequality to those that experience it. This is something that absolutely happens, both overtly (by endlessly misrepresenting causes of poverty) and covertly (by cultural suppression of socialist ideas).
Kind of like your post.
Money is power. Elon Musk would be a cringe lord if he wasn’t rich. But because he’s rich he gets to play government.
That’s the point of taxation. It’s not to fund anything. The government doesn’t need your money to fund anything.
Or being paid more for the same jobs. Fairer than wealth distribution via taxation but has the same effect.
And those people don't have to be foreign or a different race: just see the anti-tech waves that have rolled through the Bay Area in the past, directed more based on attire and mode of transport than race. And a lot of people here would agree those new workers are to blame for a lot of Bay Area problems, but it's easier to dismiss others as bigoted than wrestle with the reality of winners and losers behind each statistic.
A fun quote for the europeans here:
"Our land is so wealthy and prosperous that we possess all things. Therefore, there is no need to exchange the produce of foreign barbarians for our own." - The emperor at the height of Qing China
You just need the right drugs, in this case, Psychedelics.
An underrated benefit of the markedly higher standard of living in the US is that people can choose to trade standard of living for quality of life if they wish. American culture seems to preference maxing standard of living but that is optional, and there are plenty of people that make other choices.
The US is an incredible place to live if you have valuable skills, and a below average place to live if you don't.
Without innovations and highly profitable industries generating well paying working class jobs, with what will you pay for that welfare and quality of life? Billionaires and corporations certainly aren't gonna pay for it out if their profits, so the working class has to. But if the working class has no more high paying wages anymore due to stagnating growth , then your welfare budget also goes bye-bye.
You can't just vote yourself more welfare and higher public sector salaries and pensions out of thin air without an economic growth to back that up. I mean, you technically can, but it doesn't end well as was proven every single time this was tried.
Innovation is important sure, but also efficient use of resources, including cramping down on negative externalities. That increases welfare and quality of life, ideally with no need to spend an extra dollar.
Yeah it's ineficient but it's the one we got right now. You're not gonna change it with your comments and beliefs. Meanwhile rent is due next month and you need to pay up by using these "ineficient" mechanisms set in place by powers higher than you.
You are welcome to point out flaws in my thinking.
So the thing about jobs is, we really need jobs that actually produce stuff. We don't just need jobs, we need somebody to create the wealth. First it has to exist, then we can worry about how it gets distributed.
So if you have a bunch of people who are not necessary, then the best thing to do is not to let them starve (which is also immoral), nor to give them pointless jobs (which is soul-destroying), but to find something useful for them to do.
This isn’t a production problem, it is a social problem.
Its because the person making the car doesn't want to make one for someone who isn't making something of equal value in return. It makes them a sucker for being the one to make the car.
You cannot legislate, policy change, indoctrinate, or force your way around this. It's why all attempts to do so always have failed. Every single time. Always.
The only way to create actual value is to put in actual work.
I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that there is no innovation whatsoever in the EU. Falling behind the US doesn't mean there is absolutely nothing. I think a lot of people in the EU would be fine with being 3rd on "productivity" if it was enough to maintain a high standard of living and decent competitiveness.
I never said that. Please follow HN rules and reply to the strongest interpretation of one's argument, not the weakest.
The EU economy was at the same level as the US economy 15-20 years ago., now it's only half the US. The EU missed out on all the major technological innovations in that time and therefore missed out on a lot of income for welfare while welfare expenses only grew due to ageing population and increasing cost of living.
>Falling behind the US doesn't mean there is absolutely nothing.
No, it means less money for welfare. Especially with an ever increasing ageing population. If you want to take care of all of those people at a high quality of life, it's gonna cost you, and we don't have that kind of money anymore.
So you either get Europeans to accept slowly sliding into poverty due to declining welfare and rising CoL, OR, you need to bring in more money to the state somehow. Previously it was done in Europe via slavery and theft through colonialism, but since that conveyor belt of free money is gone and what's left to bring in more money is innovation in highly profitable high-growth industries where EU is almost absent. No, ASML, Airbus and some struggling German mittlestand companies can't support a whole continent like they did in the 1980's.
>I think a lot of people in the EU would be fine with being 3rd on "productivity" if it was enough to maintain a high standard of living and decent competitiveness.
They would be fine, if those losses would come out of the pockets of tax dodging corporations, but they're not, they're being eaten up by the working class and the taxpayer who still expects the same welfare quality like in the good ol' days when the EU economy was as strong as the US.
Do you you see how this level of welfare is unsustainable without matching economic growth?
> Without innovations and highly profitable industries generating well paying working class jobs, with what will you pay for that welfare and quality of life
Without presumes with none, and you're saying it like it's true.
> The EU economy was at the same level as the US economy 15-20 years ago., now it's only half the US. The EU missed out on all the major technological innovations in that time
Really, all major technological innovations? Why is the leading music streaming provider Swedish (Spotify)? Leading and most advanced airplane manufacturer European (Airbus)? Why are there so many fintechs which are a decade ahead of US counterparts (Revolut, Monzo, MyPOS, SumUp, Bunq, Qonto) and why is finance-related tech so much ahead - you can pay contactless pretty much anywhere in most of the EU and UK, you can accept card payments with your phone and just an app, all banks have to have an API with Oauth to be able to aggregate accounts and whatever? Also I'd like to add advancements in nuclear fusion. Also I haven't experienced healthcare in the US, but from what I've seen it doesn't look like there's anything even close to the seamlessness of Doctolib in France.
The EU is indeed falling behind, IMO mostly due to lack of capital, risk/gambling averseness, and the much smaller individual markets. But to say it has missed all innovations, or that it has no innovation is simply untrue. We need more of them, we need to invest into more of them, because there's a lot of potential that needs to be nurtured and grow.
Only if you want to be a sticker and take things literally while deliberately ignoring the context to score a cheap shot gothca, then sure, it then means without.
> Leading and most advanced airplane manufacturer European (Airbus)?
Because of government intervention, and moat of a highly regulated and expensive to enter industry that keeps new players out. Why is SpaceX ahead of EU aerospace companies?
>Why is the leading music streaming provider Swedish (Spotify)?
Spotify wasn't even profitable until recently and only made it where it is today, due to to massive capital investments form the US, not from EU investors.
>Why are there so many fintechs which are a decade ahead of US counterparts
Are they also ahead in earnings/profits too? Because you fund welfare with taxes on profits and on wages. You can't tax innovations that bring you no money.
That's where While you keep blabbering on about Airbus, Monzo and Spotify , have a look at the top 100 companies in the world by market cap and see how many are from the EU and how many from the US and that's case closed. AIrbus, Spotify, etc are the rare exceptions, not the norm for Europe.
“A system of non-competition clauses enforced by the European Space Agency’s (ESA) workforce suppliers is allegedly trapping aerospace professionals who work at ESA’s facilities across Europe in a professional dead-end street” [1].
Europe is absolutely riddled with this crap, and it tends to come top down from the EU.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/12/esa-workers-face-a-maz...
Here is the data: https://www.voronoiapp.com/markets/-US-vs-European-Stock-Mar...
If Europe is so innovative, why is US to EU stock market cap ratio is on a consistent upward swing by since mid 2000's?
Why do so many people, especially on HN, confuse market cap or GDP growth for innovation? Surely, especially here, people can realise that innovation can come in different forms, and some do not move the needle of a stock market or won't show up in GDP graphs. Is CERN not innovative because it's not a public company whose stock is growing?
It's not confusion. It's rather an acknowledgement to the reality that to fund a generous welfare state, one needs taxes. To tax, you first need a dynamic private sector economy. Taxing public sector is like shifting money from the left pocket to the right pocket.
GDP or stock market caps are just a proxy for the size of the private economy. Europe has lagged on both. Maybe there is something else which would indicate that European private sector is growing fine and dandy. I am not aware of it. Are you?
CERN innovation is awesome but it will need to be translated into private sector economic activity in order for the society to benefit from it; either directly via products and services, or indirectly via taxation and welfare programs based on that.
I gave concrete examples of European companies being significantly better than American ones.
Arguably, Japan has been doing this for two or three generations now. Despite a crazy debt, quality of life in Japan is still pretty great.
"There are four types of economies: developed, developing, Argentina, and Japan."
One must be very careful drawing conclusions for other societies based on Japan as a sole example. I somewhat agree that Japan illustrates that massive infrastructure investment, combined with diligence in maintaining functioning societal systems, does in fact yield a high quality of life that appears sustainable even if the metrics of economic growth look terrible. That's because GDP as a measure of "quality of life" is a shitty indicator IMO, but that's a whole 'nother rabbit hole to go down...
If the US took the entire medicare/medicaid budget and split it evenly per person it would be left with more money than the UK spends on healthcare.
Its not just how much you spend, its how much you waste.
Road infrastructure in the United States might as well be a form of digging holes and then refilling it back up again. Grossly inefficient when we could invest the infrastructure money into world class public transit.
As I recall, after the Chicago suburbs you hit Rockford, Janesville, Madison, Baraboo, Tomah, Eau Claire, Menominee, and Hudson before you get to the St Paul collar communities.
So 9 stops on on a single track running between two major cities, with only 1600 more miles to Seattle. And while the distance between stops increase, the population greatly decreases as you head west.
Now road construction could be better. Because while Illinois has 300k lane-miles of road, it seems like they only have 200k of asphalt and 100k under construction at any given point in time.
Why do people trot this out every time? Driving or traveling across the US isn't particularly relevant to most people's life experience. Ok, I'll bite.
Yes, the United States is big, but some areas are more dense than other and would need good heavy investment in public transit infrastructure. For example, the north eastern corridor would in particular benefit from investment in true high speed rail.
There's also the need for investment in freight infrastructure, especially if we want to take off more trucks off the road. This is a safety benefit too. Less vehicles on the roads just mean less people risking their neck.
Now let's talk more local public transit.
Atlanta for example, really need to expand heavy rail. Traffic there is one of the worst in the country. MARTA at time outpaces cars, even with all the stops they have to make. Rather, a lot of time is eaten up just waiting for the train. A more frequent schedule would help here, but Georgia would need to actually contribute funding to make this possible. If they extend it more into the surburb, I would have less of an incentive to move. As now, I am considering moving because of how frequent I commute into Atlanta.
With the suburb architecture of many US cities, local rail is nearly irrelevant outside the city center
In a typical vehicle that's about 50kg of CO2. 100kg if it doesn't include the return leg.
Not having a dig at you, but this is a big part of our problem. We believe that because we can do something, we are entitled to do it. Not only that, but we've structured our society in such a way that it's actually necessary for people to do these harmful things just to get by like commuting distances that would have been considered absurd 100 years ago. They are still absurd.
Edit: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...
It may not have seemed that way in the 1950s, but it hasn't scaled well.
Also, having a walkable city has massive health and societal benefits.
This is not some pearl clutching moralistic argument, but a practical observation based on:
- Transfer of ownership is not necessarily possible. You can't buy a technologically sensitive company because of regulations. Even if you can buy a foreign firm, transferring the talent, operational base etc. might not be possible. A CEO can't sell off his share of stocks even if they're worth billions because the loss of investor confidence.
- Physical limitations on quantities of goods. There is a finite supply of real estate. If everybody in the world wanted a new car suddenly (and had money for it), car prices would go through the roof, and only a small fraction would actually get it.
Imo capitalism is not flawed in the way that it is incapable of handling these situations, but it is very flawed in that money is an increasingly poor proxy for the abstract concept of value.
This flawed nature of capitalism has been long since endemic (and dare I say integral) to the system, much more value has existed on paper than in reality (see banks), but I think there might be a breaking point at which the system might collapse and hyperinflation would set in.
So the fact that you think money is divorced from reality is a very normal, mundane misconception.
- I never wanted to contrast 'capitalism' and 'communism' or whatever. I merely wanted to point out that the fundamental absurdity of capitalism requiring infinite growth in a finite system has been resolved by having the growth of wealth coming from speculation on future unrealized value. Since I (or anyone else) can't predict the future, it might happen that things do not come to pass as they were expected and that future value might not be realized. Money is divorced from reality, it derives its value from the collective trust and belief by the people participating in the system that it can be exchanged for goods and services. In a system of rational and impartial actors, that belief is backed by chiefly existence of said goods (which is the real size of the economic pie) and less by the speculation of future potential that might or or might not happen. So in summary my argument is not between communism or capitalism, but a captialism that is backed by real world value and one that is backed by future speculation. Even if the former can create less economic growth, we can be certain that growth is real.
- Central planning works. Great public works certainly are dreamt up and funded by governments yet they contribute enormously to the wealth of nations and enable a lot of value to be created. The moon landing was centrally planned and executed by a country whose per capita wealth was on par with modern day Poland, yet is considered the greatest achivement in history.
- There are no real 'centrally planned' or 'free market' economies, as all countries employ both concepts to some degree. But if we were to make a argument, we could say that the US belongs to the 'free market' camp and China belongs the 'centrally planned' camp. Both countries are doing extremely well, this very discussion is about finding which one is actually doing better.
A bottle of water might be the same price as a litre of petrol, but the value is vastly different.
We don't pay for the value. We pay for the cost of acquisition (e.g. pumping the oil out of the ground).
This is happening now. Senegal are following Chad in cutting ties with French military.
[1] https://theconversation.com/cfa-franc-conditions-are-ripe-fo...
(1) Travle posted here on hn months ago, but unfortunately a Webapp that downloads so I can't give you a url
Most parts of the global economy are. If you're selling cars for example, there's a fixed amount of drivers on the road you can sell cars to, so if you're VW, you're now competing with cheaper cars from Asia for those same drivers.
You can't create new drivers out of thin air to expand the market demand for cars. Once the market is saturated, without having any moat, you enter in a race to the bottom.
And that's what Germany's economy is discovering right now and why Europe's share of global GDP has been declining for the past 20 years.
Also, we shouldn't care about Europe's share of global GDP. We should care about how the poor people in our countries are doing. Like I said, we should maintain or improve our quality of life. Producing cars is just a means to an end.
Edit: as an exercise, consider the land value of a typical office, and compare to the annual income of the part of the company based there, and the personal income of the employees who work there.
As others allude to, natural resources are zero sum, they are a finite resource, once they are gone, they are gone.
So if an imperial power is mining resources from a 'colony', that 'colony' is being stripped of economic potential with very little to show for it.
They do not both gain economically, like some allude to when maybe it is two countries sharing manufactured goods.
Having completely optimised and global logistics and value chains isn’t necessarily good for wages. We can tax the wealthy and fortunes more than we do, and we probably should, but within the current systems it wouldn’t change that much.
So in some sense many European countries are better prepared for economic downturns than the US even though European countries don’t have a lot of major corporations which don’t produce anything locally.
Obviously it’s even more complex than this. Part of what is bringing down the economies in France and Italy is workers rights. Being able to retire at 60 is great, but it was also something that was obtained when people didn’t live as long and have as few children. Though Greece seems to have managed ok without having new public management plunder their country.
Short aside this reminds me of:
In the US, my Boss's neighbor is an 85 year old woman who retired 42 years ago. And still gets a paycheck twice a month (with CoL increases) and full health insurance. She became a municipal clerk when she turned 18, worked 25 years to get a full pension, then retired at 43. The optimism (maybe pessimism?) people had back in the day was wild. I nearly fell out of my chair when he told me this.
Look at what's happening in France for proof that this is just not sustainable. The US has a massive advantage tough,their currency is the global currency accepted and needed everywhere that is backed by the US army. Much less so the Euro.
The cost of all these social programs has to come from somewhere and currently the majority of these costs are shouldered by the middle class that is being squeezed to the max and speaking as someone from the middle class, I can assure you that having a couple of extra weeks of holiday and more job safety (if you are into that sort of thing) is not worth 55% to 65% of my gross income.
Even universal healthcare is crumbling now.
At some point the EU will need to get it's productivity up and become competitive once again or all this quality of life will have to go as it won't be financially possible to continue on this path.
If the economy falls behind then quality of life will follow at some point. In fact quality of life is already not so great and decreasing.
If only Europeans would accept this truth and wake up that something has to change yesterday.
What's happening to Greece is just the mining canary for what's gonna happen in much of the rest of EU later, if there's no preventive change of course.
Noone claims that people in the third world enjoy great quality of life, for instance. You can't benefit from the advancements of others if you cannot afford them...
> I'm not even sure how this could happen.
It can always happen but it is gradual and takes time. Places like India or China were once the richest areas of the world, only to fall behind and become among the poorest later on because they stagnated while others progressed.
And please make sure to visit some of the Eastern European countries, like Romania or Bulgaria too. They are part of the EU as well.
I’m older with bit more freedom than when I just started out, but this is exactly what I’m doing. My plan is to eventually quasi retire to the house I’m currently renovating.
Did you know on GBP PPP Warsaw and Budapest are now better places to live than Madrid, Lisbon and many other Mediterranean cities?
It’s crazy. Perhaps Berlin and Copenhagen are still ok, but even France is on a completely unsustainable path that will explode in the next 10-20 years.
> Many Europeans cannot even afford proper AC in summer and heating in winter.
Basically nobody lacks heating in winter, that one is made up. The thing people lack is AC and its just because people aren't used to it so they don't see it as a need.
Edit: Saying this is like saying people can't afford shelter in USA, it is true and there are many homeless but it describes a tiny fraction.
I suspect it's just that Europe is mostly north of the US and AC is more luxury than necessity. Places in the US like Seattle, which is still south of much of Europe, only recently rose above 50% AC prevalence. It's become much more popular as the climate as grown warmer.
A lot of people don't need AC, and heating is a non-issue almost everywhere.
Besides: I'd rather put sedum/green stuff on our flat roof, which also helps insulate a little bit in winter but really really helps in summer.
But relateedly, US household energy expenditure is enormous compared to other countries and a lot of it is burning fossil fuels to run AC. There's a big money vs ethics tradeoff going the wrong way for emissions, more so from being a huge oil producer.
I'm interested in the numbers behind this. The location and timing of most air conditioning needs correlates strongly with the availability of PV. At this point I would have guessed that heating is strongly reliant on fossil fuels (and will be for many years to come) and air conditioning will be much greener.
Human Quality of life seems to flip the natural "evolutionary script" wrt to population growth. Shrinking population = shrinking landlords/bankers/labor/traders/military/scientists etc
In nature, where there is environmental instability/resource scarcity you see a Quantity over Quality reproductive survival strategy (which is similar to what we see poorer regions of the world) that fuels population growth.
On the flip side, where there is resource abundance and stability there is growth in population. But we don't see that happening in the richer/higher developed regions with humans.
Its like advanced human society/culture has worked out how to override biology.
We currently work around falling population(and the shrinking factors of production) with tech/automation, financial/military arm twisting and immigration which gives rise its own social and cultural instability.
Nature has found other population models though. Ants(Eusocial insects) have solved their population/survival issues by have a single Baby factory. There are theories that the Haplodiploidy it produces makes ant societies function smoother. While Meerkats have collective breeding model which is similar to what certain Feminists talk about when they say Make Kin not Babies.
It will take a couple generations of futzing about in unnecessary directions before we solve these issues. So patience with the people who don't know what they are doing is key.
Or you see no way out, feel defeated and see that positive change is impossible or futile. It cuts both ways. Inaction doesn't always mean a rosy life.
The CNCF approach basically says, instead of just running your software in a traditional way, you run it in containers which run in the cloud, mostly managed by k8s which is the most popular even though not the simplest container orchestration platform. So what makes them truly "cloud native" vs "AWS/GCP/Azure-native" is that you can run them on any cloud, even private.
I feel like this is only the case for a very narrow demographic - the young, bicycle-riding, sex-having mid-20s college grad still trying to figure out their calling in life while living frugally without a care.
It really sucks being 40 and still earning like 57k EUR or whatever.
Is this a joke?
60k in France means you earn more than 92% of the population.
60k in Italy means you earn more than 96% of the population.
60k in Germany means you earn more than 80% of the population.
There is no rule that life should only suck for a minority of people and that most people are happy. It may well be that the 90% of people earning <60k EUR live generally miserable lives, and for the top 10%, "the EU is number one" and they post about it on Hacker News.
Why? If that's enough money for the quality of life you want for the cost of living you have, what does the number matter?
I'd imagine that Europe is at or near the peak in terms of its quality of life.
At least some of the European lifestyle has been due to peace on the Continent. Up until now peace in Europe has been funded by US taxpayers. The situation in Georgia and in Ukraine is what you get when European affairs are left to Europeans. Without the US providing military aid to Ukraine, Ukraine would have fallen and you'd have Putin banging on your back door.
Additionally, the EU's inability to supply Ukraine with basic military equipment such as artillery shells is indicative of how Europe is devoid of industrial capacity and couldn't rally in its own defense if it had to.
What are you smoking?
>Additionally, the EU's inability to supply Ukraine with basic military equipment such as artillery shells is indicative of how Europe is devoid of industrial capacity and couldn't rally in its own defense if it had to.
https://www.president.pl/storage/image/core_files/2024/11/12...
I was talking basic equipment like: 155mm artillery shells. In that case, unfortunately, the facts are not on your side.
The majority of 155mm shells that are sent to Ukraine come from the US. The US has increased production of 155mm shells 6x this year alone. The same is true for body armor and small arms. Europe cannot ramp production in almost any category.
Then there's this. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1364467/ukraine-weapon-d...
India is not even close to replacing the huge European middle class and even if it were it has proven to be a highly unreliable partner. And so far the US exports to India are not even 15% of what is exported to the EU (2022).
The EU middle class comprises around 280 million people. Almost as many as the whole US population. And it is culturally and politically aligned with the US to a large extent. It‘s a huge market to loose.
Nobody would drop 15-20% of their exports to try to save 5% of their defense budget all while loosing influence and power.
To reverse roles in your argument: Imagine if the US put sanctions on EU companies because EU militaries aren't doing enough to help the US fight cartels in Mexico. Seem reasonable?