Europe has been anti-innovation for a long time, completely missing the tech wave in the 2000s. I was hopeful that Europe would learn from its past mistakes, but now it is also completely missing the AI wave and falling behind.
The politics are bad, way too user-centric (see Arthur Mensch complaining about AI regulation), and the European mentality does not help. The social safety net is strong, which is good, but perhaps too generous given the state of the economy. Without sufficient economic growth, it becomes unsustainable, leading to a lower and lower quality of social benefits.
People complain, rightly so, that things were better before, but nobody does anything or even seems to understand that innovation and economic growth are what fuel everything.
I am very bearish on the state of Europe, which, as a European, makes me sad.
Disclaimer: I have immigrated to the US.
The article is literally about ASML, the company that builds the most complex machine ever built by humans.
I can pick a couple of other companies across a wide variety of industries if you'd like.
An economy is there for the people. If that larger number of people have a higher quality of life than in the US, aren't they wealthier?
And if they do it for less money, aren't they wiser?
> They invented the Industrial Revolution.
And a lot more, my friend! You're welcome.
It's a little unclear how it shakes out there.
I've met a number of young western Europeans while traveling there who are jealous of the ability of Americans to afford cross-ocean/different-continent multi-week trips to tier-1-hotel-cost cities, while feeling like it's more out of reach to them to find a job that would let them. (Phrasing edited here because, as a reply pointed out, "international" travel in Europe is easy and common due to proximity.)
On the flip side, those people also enjoy having much more time off. But hey, at least American isn't as 996'd as China yet?
There's no single linear "better" scale.
(There are, of course, many Americans without the means to travel to Europe or Asia themselves, who could give two shits about an "innovative" company being based in the US vs anywhere else since it doesn't seem to be helping them personally, but the overall mobility is still higher for now. But that's more due to the age of the country than anything else. History suggests that as low-hanging-fruit continues to close the US will also get more and more of that social stagnation too. It's easier to become upper class when you go to a place without an upper class yet.)
The statistics tell a story different from those anecdotes: young Europeans are considerably more internationally traveled than young Americans, probably by something approaching a factor of ~2 in the likelihood of crossing national borders in a given year. But they're not necessarily twice as geographically well-traveled. Much of the difference is due to Europe's small countries, open borders, dense transportation network, and cheap short-haul international travel.
Look up what percentage of Americans between 25 - 34 have never traveled outside their own country, vs. Europeans in western or Northern European countries.
etc.
Means and using those means for any given particular end are entirely different things. It's hardly surprising that Americans are generally insular and uninterested in non-American things. (This is not a good thing IMO. But it's a thing.)
But more importantly, like you say, "interntional travel" in Europe includes, say, "going to the UK from France" vs the overseas 5-to-10hr+ flights that are required to cross the Atlantic to have these conversations in my anecdotes.
That's my bad for saying "international" instead of "cross-ocean" or such. So let me clarify that the jealousy here is being able to pay for flights and hotels to spend 2+ weeks across an ocean in cities with $100-or-equiv-per-night-to-$300+-per-night hotel costs. They didn't think they'd ever be able to afford a similar trip to SF or NY.
---
The non-anecodotal version of this story would likely be the rise in social-acceptance and popularity of the more right-wing parties in Europe. A lot of people, younger especially, feel like they're getting left behind and aren't interested in mostly-older or born-into-more-money people's generic remarks about how it's still great overall for them.
K-shaped economies + "stay in your lane" are how you get Trumps :(
Not that hard as a European.
Anecdotally, I think it’s out of reach for many young Americans in my cohort (26) but we’re insulated from that in tech
Europeans have time for traveling but not money. A third of Europeans can’t even afford a one week holiday.
It's true that most of us in Europe get more time off but we don't really get more to spend on expensive holidays. We don't have the culture of spending thousands upon thousands on holidays. Most of us think it's crazy to spend that much on travel and do it much more frugally which means we get more but at a lower level of luxury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
But no one cares about gpd per capita
Maybe. I have citizenship in Switzerland and America. I aim politically active in both. That doesn’t give me authority—but it does afford me perspective.
And no. Europe is poorer than America. Comparable measures show the effect one would expect.
> unless someone pulls up actual stats on quality of life
These exist. Individual numbers slope as one would expect.
If you’re poor, Europe is better. If you’re middle class, it’s debatably, but probably Europe. If you’re rich, by which I mean you make a few hundred thousand a year or more, America. Obviously.
This depends entirely on which USA state is being compared. Many USA states have healthcare, education, and social safety nets that rival or exceed typical European benefits. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, for example.
This is what most Quality of Life America/Europe arguments on Hacker News boil down to. Overrepresentation of rich people. America has more upward redistribution of wealth. Ergo America is better.
Anyone can take time off work and go on vacation. That is certainly more enjoyable. But it's not an economic plan for high living standards in the future.
Europe is going to have a difficult winter. You are going to see announcements of government benefit cuts, higher costs, and this will continue up until the "high standard of living" in Europe catches up with the realities of economic output.
Europe didn't choose to do that.
The top ten companies by revenue, worldwide, features zero European companies.
We in Europe cheer our meddling technocratic leadership while sneering at American risk taking and innovation. We have a fundamental cultural malaise, and those of my friends who feel the same as me have simply left Europe for a better life in the US or other dynamic economies.
At this point I feel like a stick in the mud for staying here, and quite honestly, I worry for my children's future here.
edit: In all seriousness, some numbers I'm concerned about for children are the
- % of carbon in the atmosphere
- the number of militaristic demagogues in positions of power
- the number of hours the average person spends reading propaganda on social media
- the parts per million of microplastics in drinking water
- the democracy index
The sum of dollars consumed, dollars invested, dollars spent by governments, and net exports is a weird proxy signal to obsess over
I think doing so would introduce far more risks to them. Space ain't friendly.
Beyond that I find it hard to care to drive anyone to work their ass off today for whatever humans are around 100+ years in the future. And, of course, more technological development brings more chance of mass self-inflicted die-off of humanity anyway. In 1900 it would've been much harder to kill 10%, 20%, 50%, 90% of the global population than it is today.
Everything is death eventually. And predicting the future is hard.
That’s not what I’m advocating. I’m not even proposing a global prioritization of goals. What I’m advocating is simply to not attempt to slow or halt the progress of technology.
But when such a pull exists, it's very hard to counter that. Consider the number of non-SV places in the US that have tried to replicate that environment and basically failed. Even the famously "business friendly" places like Texas or Georgia that are success stories for poaching tech companies or film production largely work by having companies move there once they've left the high-growth phase and are no longer chasing strictly the most ambitious would-be-best-and-brightest talent.
The success stories there (that aren't just resource-extraction) have come from significant protectionism, essentially forcing a country to build its own version of the mega-companies even if it's a money-loser with copycats building shoddy copies for decades at first.
There's no easy way for Europe to magically change that with "culture." There's too many already-established mega-talent-bases in other places to think you can have people just pass up on that in a fully-global-market situation.
I would ask instead: why let those foreign mega-corps be so integral to so many basic services of modern life?
Perhaps not just Europe, but the entire world, would be better off if we had fewer monoliths and more variations, with more flexibility for local markets to develop different solutions or in different directions.
> The top ten companies by revenue, worldwide, features zero European companies.
There were 17 European companies in the top 50 in 2006, 13 in 2016, 10 in 2026. Most of the remaining companies are automotive and energy (oil). None is tech. ASML isn't even in the top 100 in Europe.
Japan is the same story. There are 7 companies in the top 50 in 2006. The only remaining one in 2026 is Toyota. None is tech.
China's share has increased from 2 companies in 2006 to 12 in 2006.
In other words, China's progress and the importance of tech, along with the decline of automobile and energy accurately reflect how the global economy has changed.
(Side question: how much AI does my comment sound?)
Source: you can find plenty. Start with Fortune 500
The nominal GDP per capita of the United States is about $86,000, while China's is about $13,400. Even if China has a bunch of companies in the top 50, it is still many many many many times better to live in the US, economically speaking. Even if you switch to PPP, China will roughly double to $25,000. Still, the US is way ahead.
China and the US are continent-scale megastates. Obviously a mid-sized Atlantic island like the UK, or smallish peninsula like Italy, are not going to compete on scale.
> In 1997, ASML began studying a shift to using extreme ultraviolet.[7] Two years later, it joined a consortium, which included Intel and two other U.S. chipmakers, in order to exploit fundamental research conducted by the US Department of Energy. Because the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) it operates under is funded by the US government, licensing must be approved by Congress.[14] Furthermore, in return for being permitted to join this consortium, ASML committed to the establishment of a US-based research center and to source 55 percent of components for all machines sold in the US from American suppliers.[7] ASML collaborated with various manufacturers to obtain mirrors, including the Belgian firms IMEC and Sematech as well as Germany's Carl Zeiss.[14][15]
ed: and also to the above point, those optics companies look frightfully european...
ASML is definitely a fully globalist enterprise.
That includes the majority of the big tech companies, and why the US tends to throw money on importing expertise for these companies (for example AI frontier labs).
Yet Europe is stagnant.
- 2008 financial crisis. Somehow, the U.S. was able to spend its way out of the crisis, while Europe's strict austerity measures made things quite bad. That was followed by the 2010-2012 debt crisis, the 2013 Cyprus banking crisis, and another Greek debt and banking crisis in 2015.
- COVID: Most European countries, at least those with strong economies, had very strict restrictions and closures. The restrictions were as strict as they were in California. They did not really have any Texas or Florida style "rebellion" states. Sweden was the main exception. But borders and travel restrictions still existed.
- Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Europe was much more economically integrated with and dependent on Russia (especially for energy), than the U.S. or many other parts of the world.
So basically, the world has gone through three major crises in the last 15-20 years, and in each case the U.S. was either less directly affected or somehow managed the economic consequences better than Europe.
But there definitely seems to be a lack of ambition in business and technology. For example, the car companies seem to be more coasting on past successes vs pushing things forward. Europe is also not trying much to compete in AI.
> [T]he food was probably the worst I had anywhere in Europe.
(Btw. Last week I was in Istanbul; maybe unlucky, but I did not like kebab in Turkey, ingredients were somehow strange)
Not sure if the Seattle place is really Americanized or I need to save up and try one in Germany.
Plenty of great Turkish food btw, but obviously Doner's are not really a local thing.
There are few places I've seen that seemed as dull or boring when walking through them as the LA metro area, for example. Yes, there are also awesome looking neighborhoods, but damn, I didn't actually realize those concrete brick 1 floor no sloped roof buildings were truly universal as were those very ugly vacant lots with wire fences.
I imagine most LA residents are just used to them plus they only drive by them.
Instead the wall fell and Europe decided to go on vacation for 35 years
Did you misread the time period they suggested?
By the mid-90s we were 50 years after the end of the war. It didn't take three generations to put the cities and infrastructure back together.
Europe did itself in with intense bureaucracy and a culture of "individual wealth is bad"
Could something be done starting with 1990? Probably, though the much fragmented by natural borders (if not regulatory) markets with resulting less cash-flush companies had issues fighting against US competition being able to underprice them with politicians ensuring there were no barriers for american companies "or else".
Some of it was at worst mostly local (if with American "advisors"), like in Poland - we started technically from same position as Taiwan when it came to semiconductor manufacturing, but instead of investing "shock therapy" destroyed it. At the same time... can you mention a taiwan major business that is not TSMC, or part of semiconductor manufacturing chain? Without thinking too long or googling?
Or rather, you shouldn't appeal to authority.
The discussion here is a mess. This specific article about ASML is more about outlook, than Krugman's, which is about the current state. This will be a problem in the future. Currently, Europe's quality of life is at least on par, or probably even better in some parts of Europe, but these are signs that this won't last.
If the current positive sum game is eroding more, then there are two options. Embracing the feudal times as in America, or keep pretending. In the short and mid term, the former is better. However, in the long term, if you pretend for the following decades, then you will win. Unfortunately, there is only a slim chance that you will be able to, but all of those countries will win in the end.
For not the 1%, feudal logic is obviously not good at all, but they are still voting for them. Even in Europe. Those European countries which stay democracies will win.
Take those out of what US "builds" and Us doesnt look very exceptional
Big tech isn’t that big. Silicon Valley is $840B, while the US is $32T, so about 3%.
The US could lose all of Silicon Valley and still be much more productive than the EU.
In the top 100, there are only 8: ASML, Siemens, SAP, L'Oréal, LVMH, TotalEnergies, Santander, and Seagate Technology.
In 2005, the EU (excluding the UK) had 19 companies in the top 100.
So something is going on.
If you take out the exceptional parts then the US doesn’t look exceptional? Forgive me if I’m not convinced by this argument.
You’re also generalizing too deeply. The top companies in the US cover a lot more than ads and social media.
I think this is part of it. Growth is treated with skepticism in Europe.
Growth isn't "jobs, high salaries, innovation, cheap good/utilities, well funded military" there it's "pollution, inequality, big corporations".
It's no surprise that they aren't growing as fast as other regions: it's not their priority.
As the saying goes, if you aren't growing...
> From my American perspective it looks like they are trying to lose
How're the tarrifs going?
Is it contradicting - does it mean the tariff is "over 100%"?
A five euro package has:
€1.05 VAT
€3 duty per product category
€0.36 VAT on duty
€2 EU per package fee (per 1 November)
That is €6.41 in tax/duty/fees/tariffs whatever you may call it over a €5 value.
This is only what I have noticed as someone from a continent that is not North American or Europe. The Europeans don't seem to see a problem with their stagnation.
I’ll assume your question is genuine and benevolent and not like my social media feed full of Europe vs USA ragebait.
I believe these economies and cultures are optimized for different things. And also I’d be precise about the country as well, since UK, Norway and Italy are also optimized for different targets. More accidentally then a cunning plan around it to be honest.
Americans as a culture are more risk takers. This is normally a good thing for entrepreneurship. They are also rather tax friendly. Which is great for capital intensive businesses like the unicorns you are asking why we see less of this in Europe. Take Norway, come here with a ton of cash and make a anthropic competitor, and you are probably a fool. Taxes alone will punish such huge capital. Less so in UK though.
But what you hear less about is the huge amount of medium companies around Europe. They have their small niche in pharma, manufacturing etc. They are often highly trusted. Often highly profitable. Often keep their people longer with lower tendencies of burnout.
But would often be seen as a failure by US vcs, as they perhaps lack a giant market to grow further into. This can lead to a lower stock price then price per earning would suggest.
Nor to say that those companies don’t exist in the US. I’m just saying the entire economy is not just lifted by companies like alibaba and google.
I’m also curious sometimes how Americans kept their risk appetite so high through nearly a century. Japan went a similar lane until the 90s crash, where after they became a lot more risk averse.
Part of my speculation here is that the US could borrow their way out of the crisis in their own currencies.
- Railways and signalling equipment
- Container shipping
- Reinsurance
- Industrial machinery
- Wind turbine technology
- Luxury goods, luxury fashion and fast fashion
- Tourism
A big difference is that in Europe most companies are not big conglomerates. Yes everyone has heard of Siemens. But then you have tonnes of companies like WALDNER, based in a small German town with revenues of €350m, they make packaging equipment that can fill 100,000 yogurt pots per hour. Oh and they are a private company.
> Container shipping
> Wind turbine technology
Probably alluding to the fact that Europe owns the largest portion of the worldwide fleet.
I assume they mean the ships.
The US has ports. But they don't build civilian ships, and they don't really own ships either. The vast majority of American ocean-going shipping is floated on ships owned by Europeans and built by East Asians
But of course anyone can buy and operate ships. Europe still has large shipping companies, although they are losing marketshare to Asia now, whereas the US has never been a dominant player in this area.
The US does operate some massive logistics companies that are a bit higher in the stack.
That's why it's so crazy to see Europe sabotage its shipping industry by seizing Russian ships and banning so many oil transports. That is going to result in Russia seizing European ships and the asian shipping carriers taking even more market share.
Across the board, Europe is de-industrializing.
Not everyone can operate civilian ship fleets, managing a global shipping operation is not a "pick up and do it", it requires some build up.
Europe did not push enough in the software market, which is where the US is definitely on top. There's tons of specialized engineering companies in Europe that manufacture equipment that can't be done anywhere else. Less public coverage because it's not consumer facing, but ASML is just one example of it (who are well known publicly of course). There are obvious factors right now (e.g. war in Ukraine) that put a strain on public spending, but that's also the case for the US, and before that covid, and honestly when's the last time this has not been the case for everyone. Though the EU currently also needs to first scramble to reduce it's dependencies (especially in energy).
Something that distinguishes Europeans from Americans is the general level of economic security here. This is generally good for the mental and physical health of everyone involved, but it does mean that there's no hustling or grindset among the educated classes here.
The one in the US worked at a chip company and they had gotten a chip back and it worked without any respin.
The one in europe was working with GPS stuff and with a european chip that was on spin 400+. (it's been a while so I don't have more info, but I think maybe it was government subsidized?)
I couldn't help but think something was seriously wrong with european engineering.
The first rule of government spending, why build one when you can build two at twice the price? Sounds like the project's goal wasn't to build a successful thing, but to bilk the government for as much funding for as long as possible.
The US goverment continues puking out cash to prop up this clusterfuck. The EU governments stopped puking cash for it, which is why all the EU quantum companies moved to the US.
Quantum computing has basically zero credible commercial demand.
Timelines for anything useful are perpetually 15 years out. Even the QC boosters refuse to commit to a timeline for Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computing. But they sure love scaring everybody with it as a boogeyman.
And speaking of "a less prosperous society" -- have you been to most of the USA recently? Doesn't look very prosperous to me vs most of Europe.
If you focus only on tech the discrepancy is larger than if you include the wider economy. Even though USA is ahead economically, the EU is still the second largest player globally and the gap is probably not as wide the HN bubble makes it seem.
Even the EU is a lot of different countries. Some of them quite poor, and some of them wealthier also with high GDP per capita.
GDP per capita does also not give you the whole picture. It is a number. Other numbers are median life expectancy, shootings per capita, PPI, median income, average vacation days, average distance to nearest high-speed rail station, physicians per capita, average number of pupils in a school class. Unemployment rate. Air quality.
GDP per capita is one indicator among many that says something about the country’s or region’s inhabitants, but in itself it is just a measure of how much money is being moved around annually. And it is potentially quite misleading. You could have a high GDP per capita and a poor population, if all the money went to large cooperations and billionaires.
I am not saying that everything is rosy in the EU, but just that there are also other important indicators and that it is a lot more complicated than just looking at GDP per capita across the entire EU.
All poorer than Mississippi per-capita
Mississippi: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPCPI
Belgium: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
And that is not counting the substantial safety net that your average European has. I would MUCH rather live in Belgium than Mississippi, and I say this as an American.
Or are you basing that on what you see on social media?
The best thing about living in Mississippi is that you have absolute freedom to move to another State where the benefits of living in the US are much easier to realize.
Been there, done that, and know many others that have.
40-50% of US citizens live in a different State than the one they are native to. 4-5% of EU citizens live in a different country than the one they are native to. That is a very large disparity.
According to a recent Guardian article, the reasons are immigration and the far-right's ability to masterfully tell a story how things were better in the idealized past.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/24/nearly-quar...
Perception is reality in people's minds and therefor shapes reality, but it isn't necessarily true.
I don't get it.
Many Europeans are better off than a few decades ago. Heck, many European countries were still under authoritarian rule until a few decades ago (East Europe, Spain, Greece, etc.).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cabinets_of_the_Nether... <- note that 'liberal' in NL has a different meaning than 'liberal' in the US.
I get that people always want a simple answer and vilifying your political opponents feeds the ego.
Clearly Europeans don't feel like things are better than a few decades ago. Any politicians who ignores that or blames something like xenophobia has blinders on.
Also, GDP per capita is what pays taxes. Taxes pay for social programs and infrastructure.
The EU is going to have a lot of trouble paying for social programs if its economy is in the dumps.
Life expectancy? Infant mortality? Paid parental leave? Gun deaths? Incarceration rate? Income equality? Voter participation? Child poverty?
By any of these measures US falls far behind Europe
If you adjust for population size and limit just to high income countries, the US comes out on top.
Absolutely not, most places in Europe outside of a few rich countries like Switzerland and Liechtenstein and maybe a few flagship cities seem very low-QoL compared to similarly sized population centers in the US.
There is also really weird segregation, like neighborhoods where only African-American people live. We once walked into a large restaurant and people looked at us in shock. There were only black people in the restaurant and by the shock on their faces, a family of white people walking in must have been rare occurrence. They were super kind, but it also was very weird.
How many years ago was this? Because over the past 20 years things have gotten better in the US and worse in EU, steadily.
Last time was 15 years ago, though family has been as recent as a few years ago and havent's seen a much of a change change. Also, in many ways, the last 20 years is quite a bad example to pick, since wealth of everyone under the 90th percentile was the same in ~2017-2018 as in ~2007:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Recent years are better though.
gotten better in the US and worse in EU, steadily
Not GDP at PPP, it's same-same: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!4NLV!,f_auto,q_auto:...
Average (and probably 10th percentile) retiree is much richer in US. Yes we have higher variance but the mean is much higher too
Europe also has racial ghettos, it's just different groups
Quality of life has few objective measures beyond standard of living. One man’s “quality of life” is another man’s oppressive conformity and risk averseness. American culture places an enormous value on self-actualization and trades comfort and certainty to get it. Average Europeans demonstrably would not make this trade in many cases. Neither is objectively correct.
I think Europe may have had a comparable or better quality of life at one time allowing for the cultural differences. As someone who has spent a lot of time on both sides of the Atlantic, I don’t think that has been true for well over a decade. The slow impoverishment of Europe has become noticeable to American eyes in a way it wasn’t before.
A cheap Android phone can do all the things an iPhone can, but the experience is worse. How do you quantify that?
I would urge Europeans to visit the US and stay at an AirBNB outside of a city to see how people live. I’ve done the same in reverse. Could I have a similar lifestyle to what I have in the US? Yes. But only with my American salary. This is the point that is being made here. There is nothing that Europe lacks. The problem is the numbers and what is available to the median household.
The idea that economic growth is irrelevant is nonsense.
https://econofact.org/factbrief/fact-check-has-the-economic-...
Size of homes, yes, certainly different, but population density is also different. In super expensive places in Europe you'd pay more for less compared to the US (London comes to mind).
Charity spent - social model is different.
Agree that economic growth matters, though, but I would rather look at less cultural, political or physically linked indicators (e.g., cancer survival rates).
Have you been to Mississippi? Have you seen the middle class suburbs?
Most gun crime is limited to a small geographic area either the rest have no having low gun crime.
Let's disregard all negatives and compare to some made up boogeyman of Germany.
I’m not saying it’s terrible but to pretend it doesn’t have problems is pure fantasy
This answer is 2 seconds away from you yet you still stand by American exceptionalism.
Truth is though none of it matters if the planet goes up in flames.
If the measure of "winning" is chasing any current hype so that line goes up no matter the cost, I would rather not be in such a place.
I think that that Berlin is 100x better than Atlanta. But on the other hand, San Francisco is a million times better than Milan.
FAANG, west coast.
I firmly believe my quality of life where I live is many times better than in places like San Francisco or Seattle. In many ways, this was likely the best decision I ever made.
Not getting too specific to avoid having my HN account being in any way related to my real identity. In fact, it is about time I should create a new account and retire this one.
I am so glad that I don't have to live in the US right now. If this is loosing we should do even more of it.
That's how I see it anyway, almost everyone else wants to double down on neoliberalism ie the negation of industrial policy. Except perhaps Frank Heemskerk from the article, who mentions wanting governments to create demand for made-in-europe chips so that fabs get built to supply that demand.
I mean, Europe built ASML, for one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUV_lithography
You can read the history and learn that the technology was developed almost entirely by the US government Department of Energy, Intel, IBM, and several Japanese companies.
ASML is an important company but it is largely just an integrator of tech and process IP licensed from several different countries.
By that logic SpaceX is a German company. Liquid-fuel rocketry was researched and developed at Peenemünde, and the US brought in von Braun's team wholesale to build its program. SpaceX just integrates German IP. Or Google is Swiss. The web was invented at CERN; Google is just an integrator of European tech. Or Apple Silicon is British. ARM was designed in Cambridge; Apple just licenses it.