The first American 'scientific refugees' arrive in France
politico.eu
politico.eu
Researcher are severely under paid in France (young researcher often earn barely more than the minimum wage). I doubt she will find the salary to her expectation (though the very strong worker right, and 5 weeks vacation might compensate for that).
In general, research is severely underfunded in France. That is nice that we try to make a gesture toward researcher under threat, but how many of them will we be able to keep when they realized the struggle of getting any funding for research here...
> [...] the fact there's less money for research.
> An early-career biological anthropologist said she was still awaiting contract details from AMU before putting pen to paper because of salary discrepancies, though she took comfort in the fact that the cost of living is lower in France — especially considering that education for her two children, who she said were eager to settle in Marseille, would be free.
> The university’s president insisted that participants in the “Safe Place for Science” program would be paid the same wages as French researchers. The statement sought to appease concerns within France’s academic community that money would now be focused on drawing U.S. scientists whereas local researchers have long complained of insufficient funding.
> But the biological anthropologist said a more carefree life could compensate for a lower salary. "There’ll be a lot less stress as a whole, politically, academically," she reflected.
I don't know about the specific situation in France. In general, Europe spends more on academic research than the US, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of GDP. However, it's easier to make an academic career in the US. Because the gap between academic and industry salaries is wider in the US, Americans are more likely to leave the academia after PhD. And because employment-based immigration is particularly difficult in the US, many would-be immigrants end up doing a PhD without any intention of staying in the academia. Which means you have less competition if you stay in the academia in the US.
This statement appears to be incorrect.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d... has the EU at $380B
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24332 has the US Fed (not state) at $880B.
> earn 40k/yr
> get taxed 30% on it
As opposed to paying more out of pocket or getting denied a claim? No thank you.
What do you mean "as opposed to"—that's exactly where the entire US is at.
> According to the OECD, 'household disposable income is income available to households such as wages and salaries, income from self-employment and unincorporated enterprises, income from pensions and other social benefits, and income from financial investments (less any payments of tax, social insurance contributions and interest on financial liabilities). 'Gross' means that depreciation costs are not subtracted.'[1] This indicator also takes account of social transfers in kind 'such as health or education provided for free or at reduced prices by governments and not-for-profit organisations.'
United States: 62,300
France: 45,548
Americans need to be more grateful for what they have.
Money isn't everything. The french have better public transport, more social stability, a life expectancy that's higher by five (!) years etc etc.
By pretty much whatever standard you use, their quality of life is much higher.
Easy to high road others now, AFTER you made 7 figures in the country you now publicly despise, and wouldn't be able to where you're originally from.
Why try to emotionally pull the ladder?
- housing is expensive
- it's not cardboard boxes, it's tents
- you'd be mugged/knifed rather than shot, agreed
- public transportation is good when not on strike. However, it's dirty and you might get robbed
- the world's most creative government when it comes to taxes
- it's still beautiful though…
The parts of Paris I went to recently were quite nice, but of course, a tourists view is different from a locals.
I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near as bad as, say the SF tenderloin though.
> Disposable income is a poor metric to use though.
Hard Disagree. It's directly related to standard of living. You're also leaving out the other parts. It's adjusted for PPP, taxes, essential household costs (healthcare, shelter, etc), and social benefits.
> Money isn't everything. The french have better public transport, more social stability, a life expectancy that's higher by five (!) years etc etc.
Of course money isn't everything...but again we started off by talking about it.
> By pretty much whatever standard you use, their quality of life is much higher.
Except for household income, wealth, affordability, and others. See for yourself! This is an excellent resource: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&tm=NAAG&pg=0&snb=12...
As another random (non-definitive) data point take the homelessness rate: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/homelessn...
I stand by my statement. Too many Americans don't appreciate how good they have it. Cultural differences are real.
Because you mentioned it, I do think a lot of this comes down to cultural differences. To me (and to most Europeans!), the economic stuff just doesn't matter as much, so it's not a compelling argument to make.
I had excellent cheap pasta on a beautiful plaza in Italy yesterday, I got there via 30 euro Ryanair flight, and I booked it over my abundant PTO. At no point exploring Florence, a city of 400.000 people, did I feel unsafe at all.
That, to me, is the kind of stuff that really matters and the kind of stuff that I just can't have in the US.
It's also the kind of stuff that is hard to capture in economic stats, which is why I don't really pay as much attention to them.
I've lived in the US for almost a decade. I made a lot more money, but my life felt worse.
But maybe Americans really do just have different values and they'd rather have more money on their bank account.
I upvoted you because you argued your point well.
It's just that we're talking past each other, quality of life is so much more than that. It's the environment you live in. It's knowing that a random piece of bread you'll buy in a supermarket or in a train station will have a certain level of quality. It's cheese that doesn't taste like plastic. It's having time to spend with your loved ones. It's nobody having to worry about a medical emergency bankrupting them. It's higher education not being gated to the well-off.
Then why did you move to make more money in the US? Why are many young Europeans moving to work abroad?
People who gaslight others for chasing money, are those who already have enough money and can't empathize with those wo do not.
>I had excellent cheap pasta on a beautiful plaza in Italy yesterday, I got there via 30 euro Ryanair flight
Cherry picking personal holiday travels isn't representative of anything in this topic. Also 30 Euro flights are not the norm everywhere. You need to live in the right country/city and get lucky.
Experiences like these are just straight up impossible in the US. Believe me, I've tried. There's no nice Italian plazas anywhere and in most places in the country you wouldn't even wanna be sitting outside.
There is very few places in the US where I would like to sit outside on a plaza and have my dinner - and that is indicative of social decay and a lack of focus on building pleasant public spaces.
Europe also doesn't have grand canyons. I don't need to see a grand canyon every month though.
>- and that is indicative of social decay and a lack of focus on building pleasant public spaces.
Go to Frankfurt train station.
Feel free to address the others instead!
Benefits are expensive, healthcare is expensive, transportation is expensive, food is expensive, and on and on. It's quite hard to just compare the US to France because of that. I think a lot of this "disposable income" relies on you being an able-bodied person of young age with zero health conditions and zero risk of emergencies. As soon as that's not the case, that "disposable" income vanishes.
I think the University's president is being cheeky or directly obtuse. Sure, US refugee researchers will get the same wage as a French researcher, but that's poor comfort for the French researchers who would have otherwise gotten those positions.
I understand that the University is aiming at getting top researchers for peanuts which wouldn't be a bad deal for French science as a whole, but it is still a bad deal for the French science community.
So when they eventually have the political reigns, this policy will end and these researchers will have to start over somewhere else.
Sounds like a major benefit to French researchers
But retention is also a problem. How many of those scientists will stay in Aix-Marseille? Refugees, almost by definition, go back to their country once things calm down. And life in a country where you don't speak the language is not conducive to staying there long.
I'm not saying everything will be bad - there's a plus associated to getting great minds for cheap. But if I were a French scientist fighting for grants I would definitely feel odd about my country explicitly telling me "French need not apply".
Some may argue that the (former) US policy of attracting the world's best students and researchers was good for the country as a whole. Perhaps even lead to some industries being far superior to foreign competitors?
Unfortunately, those 'some' aren't currently setting policy.
Clearly professors or scholars in Women's studies / gender studies, critical race theory, and climate science are the ones worst hit by the current leadership in the US.
Source?? Here's the thing, as far as I know, women's studies/gender studies, crt, whatever... they're cheap, mostly phd students doing mass surveys of interviews or studying metadata. The expensive stuff is engineering, clinical trials, specialized equipment for labs... that stuff is also being hit.
Good riddance. The standards for scholarship in these fields are laughable; see how Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work accepted for publication a form of Mein Kampf, rewritten to use more modern inclusive and feminist language [0] [1].
If your field of study is so epistemically bankrupt and your systems of review so defective as to not be able to identify Nazi ideology when a few words are swapped around, and to then accept those ideas for publication, it's not clear to me that you should be receiving any funding at all - particularly when it's those same fields that are so vocally and vociferously against this ideology.
[0] http://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf
Was that a troll or a serious endeavor?
Because, as a troll, it's pretty funny...
This is offensive on so many levels, not least of which to history.
Various scientific research areas have also been the focus of extensive and frankly asinine criticism. Do you remember when the orange guy drew a hurricane with a sharpie? Or when he proposed nuking it? Or when various research funding was killed by DOGE, often with blatant misrepresentations of what the research was? What about the brain dead woman kept as an incubator?
Various media organisations have been sued on flimsy at best pretenses to silence them (like the CBS trial which was just settled).
If anyone is failing to see the similarities to other historical far right rises to and centralisation of power, they're lacking in knowledge on these, or stand to benefit.
As somebody who's history education was mostly centered around said beginnings, let me tell you, things sound real familiar right now, and not in a good way.
If you're interested, read this excerpt of a book based on post-war interviews with Germans about the rise of Nazism and see if any of it sounds familiar: https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm
That's roughly at the stages where the idiotic and fascist US administration currently is at. Ignoring the parallels serves no purpose. That's not to say they will move on the next stage (industrial extermination) like the Nazis did.