I can’t begin to imagine how you guys in America get through life working so much. Let alone how on Earth you raise a family, maintain a relationship and have time for yourselves while you do it.
I can’t begin to imagine how you guys in America get through life working so much. Let alone how on Earth you raise a family, maintain a relationship and have time for yourselves while you do it.
Friends of mine who moved to SE/NL/DE/DK are definitely working the full 40h/week and sometimes more since, as they say, living there is very expsensive.
From my experience, the Europeans who toot their "life is so good here, why do other people work so much?" horn are privileged enough to have a hand-me-down property bought/inherited from their (grand)parents, and since rent/mortgage is the biggest expense here, with property prices rising 8 times faster than wages, that property ownership early in life, which they take for granted, gives them the clear advantage that allows them to not bother with the rat race and could even live comfortably on minimum wage.
That of course, is not the norm for everyone and especially not if you've just emigrated here, so anyone wishing to own their own property one day has no choice but to jump in the meat grinder and join the rat race.
My wife stays at home with our 2 year old daughter.
We own an apartment in Copenhagen that we bought some 5 years ago, though we're obviously still paying a mortgage on it (0% loans definitely made that easier!). We're paying it down aggressively, though still have quite a bit of cash left to invest.
From my experience it's about priorities. We rarely go out to dinner and don't own a car - hopefully never will. Rarely buy new clothes.
While it might not be the norm, it's not something that's completely unheard of.
One major factor though is probably student loans. When my wife and I left the university we both had savings of roughly $15.000. A year later, we bought the apartment. That would have been impossible if we had debt we needed to overcome first. If your friends moved here with significant debt, they're definitely playing catch-up compared to their peers.
e.g. savings accounts with 1% interest in the EU which are government insured up to 100k. Plus mortgage debt tends to have fiscal benefits in most countries, too. That's a better idea than paying off a 0% mortgage. Especially past a certain point where there's plenty of equity in the home.
There's generally virtually no financial reason to pay off a 0% debt apart from some edge cases here and there. People do it for peace of mind, which is of course fine, but it only works because of financial illiteracy as it's not the most financially optimal decision to make. (even not the least risky).
Meanwhile, getting 1% return on a 30 year mortgage puts you in a much safer, financially cushier position, than having had 0% returns for that period in time. Would you rather have 40k saved + 10k interest saved up in savings saved up in a government-insured savings account when you lose your job, or would you rather have a 40k lower mortgage debt and slightly lower payments or a lower time-to-payoff? Particularly given that mortgage payments can be furloughed and negotiated in times of payment difficulty. The answer is very clear. Choosing 0% returns over 1% returns in this case is the riskier choice.
Loan is structured in 2 parts: Bankloan and mortgage.
Mortgage is at roughly 0% and has a fixed payment for the duration - I cannot pay it differently than the initial agreement.
The bankloan is at (I believe) 3%. I've roughly doubled my contributions to this loan, making it roughly equal to the amount I'm investing each month. I'm missing ~$10.000 on it now, so I think i'll just pay it down and have that out of the way.
Being ahead also means that I'll have a way easier time if I ever need to buy something big one month - I can just choose not to pay that loan and not invest this month and I'll have plenty of money to spend. It's nice having some free cash flow :)
I just rounded it to 0%.
I looked it up and the average work week in the Netherlands is apparently 29 hours a week [0]. The average inheritance in the Netherlands is €23K [1], and as another commenter mentioned many people don't receive an inheritance until they're in their 40s or 50s.
So many people in the Netherlands are able to live a comfortable live while working part-time, without having to rely on an inheritance.
EDIT: However, as you pointed out, rising housing costs are an increasing issue in the Netherlands. The issue is that not enough houses are being built. I hope that that's something that'll be addressed soon.
[0] https://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2013/07/10/worlds... [1] Source in Dutch: https://www.evivanlanschot.nl/kennis/geldzaken/erfenissen-fe...
This is often said but I'm not sure it's true, I'm not sure if housing costs rising is really because of too few houses being built.
There's a few things to untangle. First is housing costs. They've not actually risen so dramatically as people think. Home prices have increased, but interest rates have sharply decreased. From a peak of 13% in the 80s, to 5% prior to the 2007 crisis, to around 1% today.
To put that into perspective for a 30 year mortgage: in the 80s on a 13% interest rate, you were paying the full mortgage price every 7 years, just in interest alone. Today, you pay the full amount in interest alone just once every 100 years.
Second, nominal prices increase a lot, but nominal wages do, too.
The better approach to look at housing costs is not to look at prices (which the media and regular folks go crazy about), but a simple indicator: % of wages spent on housing. And this metric hasn't really gone up radically. It's been on the rise again recently, but it's also below historical peaks.
But then we still don't know if we simple don't have enough homes, or enough homes to satisfy new desires and cultural norms. I think it's the latter. The number of homes in the Netherlands has outpaced population growth the past 50 years. The number of households has also outpaced population growth. And the average number of people per home has decreased. And the average home size has only increased. In other words, it's not necessarily a housing problem, it's more of a luxury problem, at least when compared to the past. We've got more housing per person than ever, yet we feel as if housing is unattainable. In large part that's because we don't want to share housing as much anymore. There's a ton of people, even in relationships, who prefer to have their own home instead of share like Dutch people did much more in past generations. That's okay, I do too (and live by myself, I prefer it), but that's a choice of luxury, not some kind of human right. Home-ownership has never been higher.
Lastly, there's location. You can have a trillion square metres but if it's not in Amsterdam, we'll still have people say there's rising housing costs because they can't live in Amsterdam. There's actually a lot of affordable real estate in the Netherlands, it's just not going to be in the capital in cycling distance from work. And again, that's a choice/preference, not a human right. Living say 45m or an hour from work is seen as a lot in the Netherlands, in many countries that's quite normal. A lot of what we see as high housing-costs in the Netherlands, are considering prime locations. When talking about affordability, with Dutch public infrastructure, you'd have to look at 30-60 minutes away from work. Most of that real estate is very affordable.
That's not to say housing costs aren't on the rise or that it's all fine or without any issues... there's definitely issues. But I think a bit of nuance is important, too. People (not you necessarily) act as if the Netherlands has a housing crisis and sometimes it gets overblown.
As for your link on inheritance, I think median figures would tell a very different story. I'd guess that the bottom 50% inherits basically nothing, and the top 30% a lot. Many of my friends who went to uni have parents who own a home that's >500k, a pension fund, investments, some cash. A lot of these will at some point be getting a very large handout that basically covers their retirement goals and means they really don't have to do any kind of saving on the side (apart from the employment pension package) and can spend every penny they earn. That technically also allows people to work less.
Anyway, so much for the pedantics.... On your larger point, I fully agree. It's absolutely quite possible and quite normal too, to work parttime, even those without any inheritance. I currently work 40 but I could easily do 32, even 24, financially speaking.
Of course reducing work, comes with compromises what you can afford and is not feasible for a lot of jobs. And yes, for certain goals/timeframes there is no choice but to jump in the meat grinder, at least for a while. But there often are alternatives to stay out of it and live a comfortable live.
Also if you move to a country from abroad it will take you a while to live there efficiently. E.g. many of the expats I met in Switzerland complain about how much of their salary they spend on restaurants, services, etc. Sure it's very expensive, but they also use them like ten times more often than a Swiss would. Same for me as a Swiss living in Colombia. I regularly overspend just by being used to do things a certain way and being ignorant of the tweaks.
Most people never get any inheritance before their parents die; you're basically retired when it happens.
People with a decent job in Europe (such as engineering) have a pretty comfortable life without considering any inheritance, even if they're paid less and work less than American equivalents.
In Norway, you can "slave away" while paying the equivalent to a $1500/month rent on a small-to-medium apartment, or pay down mortgage on a $400k "starter" apartment in the city.
But if you're lucky, you can find a more rural job, where you only pay like $500/month rent, or could just buy a whole house for the same price that'll get you a small 1 bedroom apt in the city.
There's a ton of variance in the prices here. But then again , larger cities = more jobs. Especially in tech.
To an extent isn’t this because these types of benefits aren’t affordable? The pension, extra vacation, etc wouldn’t be possible without the tax revenue raised from your friends who are working more hours.
In America there is a saying “good enough for government work.” I think a lot of public sector jobs get a bad rep because they hand out middle class lifestyles (arguably maybe even upper middle class in Washington DC metro area) at the expense of the private sector.
A lot of government employees (and contractors) just got paid to sit at home for 3-4 months during the pandemic if they worked in secure areas (can’t take classified information home). That’s a benefit that the private sector just can’t provide.
I guess I don’t really agree with the article. We need hard work, it’s what keeps the system going. We have it so much better than other parts of the world and we shouldn’t take that for granted.
They actually can. Businesses have a lot of profit that they pump directly into the hands of investors in the form of dividends and stock buy backs. They have massive capital expenditure projects. Many or all of these things could be put on hold or slowed so that cash-on-hand to handle expenses can be saved.
Business practices seem to say that saving money for a rainy day is a dumb move for the business, because profit is the only goal or money saved is wasted because it’s not doing anything productive. That line of thinking is just plain wrong. So much of the recessions that impacted so many and required massive government bailouts could have been prevented by increased cash-on-hand. The implication that you’ll go out of business guaranteed if you aren’t constantly investing in growth at the highest possible level is asinine.
Rates are at historical lows, sitting on piles of cash is bad business. Those massive capital expenditure projects are as cheap as ever.. the point is to encourage spending when the economy is struggling. If you want to blame someone you should blame the fed for years of artificially lowered rates.
You seem to have a misconception that fiduciary duty must be to shareholders. Plenty of people (although it's a lot more common in Europe than the US) hold the viewpoint that companies have a duty to their employees. IMO our economy would end up a lot more balanced if companies paid higher wages rather than passing that money on to shareholders.
Fiduciary duty for a public company is to the shareholders, by definition. The board and officers of the corporation serve as the agents of its owners, their principals, without whose investment the corporation would not exist. Of course there is usually some overlap between the shareholders and the employees, and the company has other kinds of duties toward its employees in the form of contracts as well as a less formal stake in employee retention and goodwill. If you want a co-op structure where the shareholders and the employees are one and the same, that sort of thing does exist and can sometimes work out reasonably well but there are some obvious trade-offs when it comes to raising capital. In particular you can't fund growth by selling equity, only by going into debt, which means the co-op and its shareholder-employees are taking on the lion's share of the risk if the venture should fail.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-som...
As far as I'm aware fiduciary duty actually has a broad meaning as above. Of course under our current legal system, fiduciary duty is to shareholders. But there's no reason why we have to setup society like that.
Co-ops are a good way of organising things, but as you say they have downsides. But there are lots of in-betweens. For example, we could require that a proportion of the board (say 25%) are employees. The markets have shown that they are willing to invest a lot of moeny in companies like Facebook where preferential shares allow non-majority shareholders to retain control of the company.
The officers and board represent the shareholders because the shareholders own the company. The employees do not own the company. Their relationship to the company is transient at best; they have an ongoing and hopefully amicable relationship but no real stake in the company's future. Either side can terminate the employment contract at will with at most a few weeks' notice and some minor payout (or payback) of (un)accrued benefits. If a given employee wants to take an equity position in the company and obtain some influence and a portion of the profits they have only to purchase some shares, but in practice they would probably be better off investing that same money in a more diversified portfolio. I myself could hold a "democratic" share in my employer (market cap divided by number of employees) right now via my 401k if I put most or all of it in company stock, but I'd really rather not take that kind of risk.
Every dollar that is spend in the public sector flows into the private economy as well. For instance, the wages paid to civil servants and employees in the public sector ultimately gets spend in private businesses: food, clothes, entertainment, housing and so on. Public investments in public infrastructure also create wealth in the private sector: public procurement is a prime example, public funding and grants are another example. The there's the creation of value through education (schools & universities), ensuring security (law enforcement & justice), mobility (roads & bridges), health (hospitals),... which create the affordances for private enterprises to become successful (no Silicon Valley without skilled/schooled workers, right?)
Also, let's not forget that 'money' is above all a token of exchange that represents economic value, it's not the economic value proper. Government and the public sector aren't competing with the private sector: the primary goal is governing the distribution of wealth in society according to a prevailing economic framework or ideology, and managing the supply/volume of money in an economy is an important lever to do just that.
> A lot of government employees (and contractors) just got paid to sit at home for 3-4 months during the pandemic if they worked in secure areas (can’t take classified information home). That’s a benefit that the private sector just can’t provide.
No. But at the same time, unemployment benefits are in essence the public sector directly stepping in because the private sector runs out of liquidity.
> We need hard work
This is true. All of the above doesn't negate the work that happens in the private sector or private businesses. On the contrary. What we ought to remember is that value creation is equally, if note more, important as wealth creation.
Put differently, there's no point in gazing at the trillions of dollars that get shifted around if the entire discussion becomes detached from any tangible value which gets created and consumed. Whether it's the bread of the sandwich you ate for lunch, or whether it's the leather in the shoes you're wearing.
The thing that worries me more then discussing who gets an arbitrary amount of money and who doesn't, is supply chains, manufacturing, businesses,... all of that shuttering due to this health crisis. The one thing that truly drives people to the street and bloody riots is a scarcity of something as basic as wheat and bread.
Not really. My terms are actually widely available in a lot of private sector jobs, just not in software development. If I was a HR consultant in a private company, I would have basically the same rights as I do now.
It’s because the rights come from unions, and being in the public sector as a software development puts you on the same category of unionisation that any other white collar public worker. So my rights are the same as anyone else in the administration.
Software development in the private sector never really unionised in Denmark. Partly. Because there was never really a need as there were always more jobs than developers.
There are a few private companies that try to attract developers with benefits, but the vast majority of them do it with money.
They just told you that their still making 10-20% less than colleagues in the private sector - when all benefits are factored in. So obviously those benefits are basically as affordable as employing someone at private sector type wages . Of course they are in Denmark, so the benefits for the private sector are also a lot better than you get in the U.S - at least for non-FAANG (I believe for FAANG as well but haven't researched)
Individual A and B both make $200k a year. Individual A made that by giving an hour long speech. Individual B made that by working all year. On paper they are treated the same, but their reality is drastically different. You can't just tell person B "you don't need to work so much." They wouldn't be at the same level as person A without having done so.
Everyone is different. Some people are insanely smart. Incredibly efficient. Ridiculously productive. For every person out there that is making as much as you and working less there is also someone working more and making less. "We don't need to work so much" is a privilege, and in my personal opinion, is unrealistic.
Big companies are often as unproductive as the public sector, with whole departments often existing just to make some managers feel important.
In my eyes, the reason much of the public sector is unproductive is not because it is not motivated by profit. But rather that it is too similar to large companies with loads different management-levels.
I once worked in the public sector when they embraced real autonomous teams with leaders that could actually make decisions when the team needed it. It was just as efficient as the best agile teams I have worked at in the private sector.
That doesn’t mean that small companies always are more efficiently run in all aspects. I expect my local McDonalds be much more efficient than the small sushi place around the corner, which can afford being inefficient due to low rent and probably close to minimum salary for the owner.
While HUD is certainly less productive (per capita) than a small team of highly talented people, turns out that in most large organizations half the people are below average talent/motivation. And designing for this instead of pretending that all of your staff is above average allows them to have higher productivity.
That's not necessarily true. Governments frequently intervene in the running of public companies. Also, many public companies compete against privately run businesses.
Large private enterprises, publicly-traded or otherwise, that fall prey to inefficiency get disrupted. Governments do not get disrupted short of foreign invasion or revolution, so the inefficiency remains entrenched.
> Governments do not get disrupted short of foreign invasion or revolution
And also elections. This is especially true in countries that don't have a two-party system.
> And also elections.
Sure, in theory. I suppose if an election actually changed things enough to be considered "disruptive" then you could consider that a form of revolution, but disruption of that sort generally has exactly the opposite effect: Everything becomes much less efficient as the new party struggles to take control, and then gradually returns to baseline as they realize that it's the masses of unelected bureaucrats that really run things on a day-to-day basis. Even if they were explicitly running on a platform of improving the efficiency of public services, it's not as if there is any actual competition in the provision of those services. People aren't choosing between two or more proven service providers; at best they have the current entrenched system with its known issues and a bunch of vague promises regarding a half-cooked proposal for a replacement which the candidate may never see implemented and which probably wouldn't work as advertised even if it were.
Do you realize that (1) half of all government spending is at the state and local levels; and (2) many states and cities have been run by “the other party” (not the bad one) for decades? Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, etc., have been run by Democrats for longer than many posters on HN have been alive. If there was any truth to the notion that the US public sector is poorly managed because “one major party” “sabotages” it you should see a marked difference in the states run by the other party. But you don’t. Indeed, the major population trend in the US is people leaving Democrat-run states and moving to Republican-run states.
For many of the things people complain about (transit, housing, education, policing) 90% of funding and 99% of oversight authority happens at the state and local level. Republicans in national government have pretty much zero say over say affordable housing policy in California. Trying to pin California's failures in those areas on Republicans in Kansas is specious.
Second of all, even if you only take into account income taxes, Federal income taxes aren't re-distributed to other parts of the country in the way that you think.
The biggest line items in the Federal budget is (in decreasing order) are:
- Social Security
- Medicare + Medicaid
- Defense
Social Security isn't really "distributed" to other parts of the country, it's mostly concentrated in regions where retirees happen to live. Ditto Medicare.
You could argue that Medicaid is "distributed", however it is funded by both States and the Federal government[1].
The comment to which you are replying is correct: most public sector services like education, electricity, water, sewage, libraries, law enforcement, fire departments, etc are all funded predominately at the state and local level.
[1] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federalstate-sh...
But my point is, even if you think that phenomenon actually exists in practice rather than theory, shouldn’t Democrat-run state and local-level places be a counter-example? School, police, transit, etc. are all mainly state-level services. In places like Illinois and New York and California, it’s Democrats that set the taxes and Democrats that set the budgets and Democrats that oversee spending. In those places, you should see a marked difference between federal services (where big bad Republicans have a say) and state and local services (where it’s all controlled by a one-party Democratic system). But you don’t.
We’re seeing this happen with police. Police funding and administration is almost entirely a local matter. If Chicago PD is running CIA-style interrogation sites (or what’s happening in Baltimore or Atlanta or Minneapolis) you can’t blame Republicans. If schools aren’t good or transit is bad, or housing is expensive, you can’t blame Republican “sabotage.”
It’s a perverse argument. It’s saying to disregard Democrats’ obvious failures to run government services—it would all be better if you just gave Democrats more power. (That is not to say that Republicans would run things better. For the most part, they wouldn’t even claim to, and would point to that as justification for doing less. My recently-red/trending purple Maryland county has pretty good government services, but mostly because it doesn’t try to do much.)
I take your broader point that it's unproductive to pin the productivity concerns of the public sector on Republicans; especially in state government, I probably agree with you in sort of assigning good governance and management to the GOP, and expanding public employment and benefit rolls to Democrats.
But, like, I think you'll have a hard time making the argument that run amok policing isn't at least somewhat attributable to Republican voters. It's not "sabotage", in the mostly-mythical Grover Norquist sense, but it's a public policy mistake they mostly own.
I’m not sure I understand. Baltimore just revealed a new budget that contains zero cuts to the police budget.
To your point about city mayoralties, on average, Republican-led metros have lower inequality and higher cost-of-living-adjusted incomes than Democrat-led metros[1][2].
There isn't really a strong correlation between successful government and the predominant governing party. What you'll find is that things are not so simple that you can pin all of our problems on a single party in a neatly packaged way.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-are...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/upshot/red-blue-diverging...
Isn't it just that they are smaller and less successful?
> less successful?
That depends on what your criteria for "success" is. San Francisco has among the highest per capita GDP of any city in the Union as well as a thriving technology economy, but also has the highest rate of homelessness, as well as the highest percentage of people living below the poverty line. What does "success" mean?
How big is Claremont? How big is the LA metro area? How big is Elgin compared to Chicago? Provo is maybe half as big as Salt Lake.
When you're in Claremont, and you want a night out, do you stay in Claremont? Do you in Elgin? In Provo, you're more likely to stay local than go up to Salt Lake. As I said, it's geographically more distinct, but there's also a more insular mindset. "Claremont" is a legal entity, and it's a collection of colleges, but it's not much of an entity in peoples' minds. It's just part of the LA metro area, sharing LA's smog. Provo, in contrast, has a separate identity from Salt Lake, and even has separate smog.
Colorado Springs is probably the better example for the argument.
Colorado Springs does. It has a much more independent existence. It's across the Palmer Divide from Denver. It probably depends on the Air Force at least as much as it depends on Denver. In the same way, Provo probably depends on BYU as much as it depends on Salt Lake. (Whereas Elgin and Claremont are much more tied in to Chicago and LA, respectively.)
How many residents of Elgin work in Elgin? I suspect the fraction is much higher in Provo (and Colorado Springs).
And also, as another commenter pointed out, suburbs/exurbs can also be net producers themselves.
It seems to me the biggest reason people are leaving San Francisco seems to be the rent is too damn high which is a pretty straightforward effect of the city's housing policies.
I think it's pretty clear that the Republicans party doesn't have a monopoly on poorly run government at the city and state level. (At the federal level there does seem to be a large gap in the ability to govern between parties.)
Local government spending is what educates the children, paves the roads, keeps my house from burning down or getting robbed, runs the parks and libraries, etc.
A lot of established public companies are like that.
In fact, the most insanely motivated people I've ever met were in the public sector.
Someone like me would probably need to work 80hrs a week just so that my children can catch up with the level of comfort that you have.
And I'm not one of those people who tell others to "check their privilege". It's great to be where you are, and yeah, the government jobs here where I live pay double the market rate for half the work.
But if everyone worked the same way as you, then the world simply wouldn't exist.
All of the good stuff was created by people who worked overtime.
What if those creations were largely responsible to lazy people who had time to think of innovations instead of grinding away? I think it takes all types, honestly.
As for the salary, I earn twice as much. Practically, my lifestyle hasn't changed but I save all my extra income. I could work part-time and still earn more than before but I'm concerned about the future (retirement, medical expenses... all these things which are covered by the state now, but who knows where we'll be in 25 years). I'd rather earn money now when I have the chance. I'm not sure it will last.
That being said, I still have good work life balance (living in a "socialist" country).
Sometimes I program for fun.
I also work as an external examiner for CS students. Though that is only during finals, so twice a year. Mostly to keep up with what’s happening, but I’ll admit it’s a nice side income.
My former boss used his spare time to get an MBA and build a startup that he later sold before he moved on to higher management somewhere else. So you can also do that sort of thing if you’re so inclined. He didn’t have any children though. ;)
I'm afraid that it works out great for you because others are working more. Individually, that's a good decision for you, but it's not a model you can make society run on, at least not at the same level of output we're currently providing. If everybody had the same circumstances you have, we couldn't afford everything we can afford now, unless there's some explosion in productivity, which is hard to believe for the majority of jobs where it's not about "coming up with the right idea".
I think you have the impression that working longer means being more productive. I don't believe that. I am often more productive if I have a shorter work day.
Also your argument doesn't make too much sense to me because OP already says that he is paid less. So it's not like he gets the same for less work. He gets less for less work.
For me fixing his computer was easy work, not worth getting paid for at all for the time it cost me. But he insisted paying me because I was saving him evenings of work if he had to fix it himself.
This does not apply to every sector though and you will need to spend a lot of time (eg: my entire childhood "playing" with computers) to be of actual value to someone else.
> I don't think this is true. In my experience a lot of work time is just wasted time. Often nothing is accomplished. A lot of extra hours for meetings are not productive at all. A lot of extra hours looking into that bug ("so we can fix it today") is not productive at all..
So instead of having all this time wasted being "your" time wasted, try to maximize the value per hour you can bring to the right person so you can use the rest of the time to do the things you love (which might as well be chasing after that bug).
And this is not true in public sector ? :D
That just means that doing more hours won't help more.. where ever you are (there are always exceptions).
Even if time is "wasted" with breaks at work this time is between events - not at the end of the day - and I usually don't have the ability to compress it.
And also the economics of working more hours once you become a critical contributor are very different from a person staying in late for appearances - adding a person to take over the load has multiple costs - hiring risk, training and on-boarding time, extra sync and communication slowing things down.
If I have only a 4 hour workday, people(bosses) think twice about wasting my time with useless meetings. Also it gives me energy to start into a day with only 4 or 5 hours ahead instead of 8h+.
Of course having a shorter workday doesn't make it 100% productive. But my personal experience is that it is MORE productive. Sadly most of my days are 8h+.
I also want to add that a tired, worn out developer might even cost productivity by introducing flawed code into the codebase. Did you ever do a serious code review while being tired? I don't see how that works. Then others have to deal with all this stuff afterwards.
On the other hand, many private companies don't contemplate (on don't look favorably upon) employees who work part time or anything below the standard 40 hoours/week, so if you do work in the private sector you don't have much of a choice. If everyone was magically allowed to reduce his/her working hours and salary by the same percentage I wonder what would be the outcome.
That's expected, the state pays it's employees very well for a multitude of reasons, but primarily: to buy their loyalty, to make them less susceptible to bribes, and to encourage stability. It also has no reason not to, there's no competition.
I don't know the Danish situation, but e.g. a teacher in Germany will have a pension that is higher than the salary of 70-80% of the population.
I'm not arguing that teacher shouldn't be paid well, I'm saying that the state is paying it's officials very well. Not because of the jobs they do, but because of who employs them. Teachers in Germany that are not employed by the state get significantly less.
If he has a defined benefit pension and they don’t he’s probably going to come out ahead if he lives long enough. Given he’s in government and they’re not that’s a reasonable assumption.
Most of these fail but they keep us working.
Or if the historical increase in productivity would have benefited the workers instead of the capitalists. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/15558/producti...
But generally, it's a hard thing to determine that exactly. How much is that 10% gain in life expectancy worth? How comparable is the life of 1970 with that in 2020? Inflation is a difficult thing to tackle.
But sure, changing wealth distribution is an option as well. Unless that happens though, somebody else has to work more to cover what another person works less.
And software/computer economics are a story of their own.
Productivity growth is largely overstated.
About my favourite thing about Europe vs America (maybe even just SF) is how much the people I work with care about doing things. It's not even for anyone else. It's like that scene in The West Wing where Sam Seaborn is told he doesn't have to finish a speech, but he looks up and says, "I just. I just want to nail this."
I love working with people like this.
May we both be happy through our chosen methods.
It's not that simple though. There are so many assumptions in this statement, that aren't easily proven/disproven. Is two hours of kissing your partner really better than a minute of kissing? Are the circumstances also relevant? Maybe two moments aren't even comparable at all?
You seem to have (as so many people do nowadays) the assumption that all of life is completely quantifiable, measurable (as soon as we have the technology). Theory of science shows that this is a belief, which can never be proven or disproven.
Personally, I believe the opposite, that no matter how great our technology gets, there are certain things, that will never be measurable.
So I disagree with your above statement, that one of them is the quantifiably superior option. I think they can't be compared at all.
And I'm suggesting exactly what I said. I didn't make any claims about nationality or ethnicity. It isn't some racist claim that a European can't do it. It's a claim that in Europe I didn't see this as much as in SF (where way more people were like this irrespective of national origin).
But all this is a waste. The sentence structure is a classic from the '90s: Are you really saying "thing that person wasn't saying"?!! Are you really comparing "thing that no one was comparing" with "other thing"?!
Pity.