At my company, we were driven by by high code quality. We would try our best to minimize escalations, we will never release new code on Friday or late in a day because people have lives. We really made sure no one was working late or on weekends. And we were still competitive and profitable business.
Then we get bought by a Fortune 500 company. Slowly new rules come in. Deadline driven projects. Code Quality is no longer important. People are expected to release barely working code just so that we can do a press release. People are working late and on weekends. Code is released on Friday at 5PM because who cares about employee happiness.
The result is smartest people have already left the company. This has led to more escalations and less gatekeepers to prevent bad design decisions. People are constantly leaving. I am still here but I am passively looking, so are most of the remaining people. Right now, market is good, so I might see a pay raise but I have told recruiters, I can take pay cut for a great work-life balance.
Europeans often have this illusion of a working social democracy compared to the US suggesting their by default offered benefits to be superior to the offers from the US. That's not the case. In a lot of middle-income-class positions you get most of the things you described as perks. Health care support check. Additional vac days check. Plus a much bigger paycheck.
Surely I can agree with treating the workers well and in my book this equals with not exploiting them (so no excessive overtimes, phone calls, onduties etc). But this is not a universal thing in Europe you cannot really generalize this and a lot of the EU companies can be very exploitative even if it's ILLEGAL.
I am an American that found peace and happiness in Europe however because I am American you are right to say I'm biased. You don't live in a place all your life and not notice the negatives more.
I do feel incredibly lucky in this situation - I know not everyone gets the stuff I do. But I feel like maybe you might be mistaking "programming in SV/startup community" for "programming in the US". The rest of the country (for the most part) isn't as completely crazy and (sorry to say) idiotic with programming jobs and lifestyles as SV is.
Just another anecdotal rant to add to the pile :)
There are great companies all around the world, and there are crap companies all over the world.
From what people are saying (myself included) is that you can find those jobs in the US but possibly with double the salary. There's more variation.
If you don't care about brand name then work in other parts of the country, even remote. Easily pull down six figures and live like a king compared to Europeans. Typing this from Europe.
When I used to work in Netherlands, regular employees only worked 4days / week for 36 hrs. They would take a day off in the middle of the week.
Having experienced both, the European work life is much more preferable to me, especially when you have a family.
What I was trying to say is that in the US you get to get nice salary and the euro perks quiet often but in Europe you are pretty much stuck when it comes to money.
I don't care about getting it myself. Although, it should be pointed out, you don't have to 'negotiate' for health care or notify someone of your preexisting conditions or any of that crap. You just have to turn up and you'll be treated entirely for free.
But I also want to live in a country where this applies to everyone that doesn't earn as much as me too.
Case in point; my state offers a 40% tax break to manufacturing companies. No, sorry, the governor vetoed that. They offer a 40% tax break to ONE gargantuan manufacturing company. I'd have to pay full price.
I could compete from China. I could play on an even playing field in Europe if I'm gonna pay out the nose anyways. Or I could stay in the US and get bled like a stuck pig until incumbent players can pay a pittance for my operation's desiccated corpse. American dream, my ass...
Are there EU nations that give so little paid vacation? At least in the West, I think at least 3 weeks (non contiguous) is the norm...
Source (article 7):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
That is, you get at least 5W in summer (typically).
The uk for exemple I think has 28days pto as a minimum, but as bank holidays count against those 28, it's hard to get a long holiday.
I can get up to six weeks with roll over. Used up 4 weeks for my wedding, still had 2 weeks left, saved one of them up so I'd have 5 weeks in total the next year.
It is very hard to paint the US with a broad brush.
Having to use pto for sick days also doesn't happen anywhere in the EU.
Well, I ended up working with a team in Switzerland and holy crap, they work hard! Emails coming in at all hours of the night, meetings that go well past dinner time.
I didn't notice any difference in work life balance. Our office has the same vacation policy as HQ, so even that was the same.
* Long (1+ years) state funded parental leave.
* Childcare at a negligible cost.
* Free education all the way through University.But if I understand you correctly, your argument is that once my expenses are met, I might as well give the rest of my money to the government?
This is not really a controversial position since almost all jurisdictions have some version of progressive taxation.
Among other effects, it compensates somewhat for value added taxes (eg sales taxes) that consume a disproportionate fraction of the income of poor people.
I never claimed it was controversial but the consequence of this (good or bad) is that I feel more inclined to ask for more free time rather than a raise. From a government position, the good is that it potentially opens up for more people getting employment, the bad is that I will pay less taxes (because I earn less). Had the progressive tax rate hit me less hard I might instead work to increase my salary so that in the end I would pay more in absolute money with the lower margin tax rate than with the current one.
The compensation you talk about goes both ways. If you have a high income, you're more likely to have a higher education and with that accumulated student debt that needs to be paid off. It can also be seen as one incentive to push yourself through getting a university degree, which again is seen as beneficial by most governments.
I guess you can see it both ways, either from a fairness perspective or a utilitarian perspective. I'm personally quite fond of fairness but, and this is a large but, I'm convinced that too much focus on fairness can be detrimental to everyone, including those who consider themselves unfairly treated (and hope to get even by more fairness). See my example above, if I paid more in absolute money but less in relative, that would seem less fair, but it would be more beneficial for everyone. Of course it would benefit me more thus be a thorn in the eye of some.
1. Pharma companies develop drugs with US subsidies and make their profits off US citizens while European countries put price ceilings on their drugs.
2. US essentially defends the world, allowing other countries to spend money elsewhere.
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-us-subsidizes-cheap-drugs-europe-...
The US doesn't “defend the world” by any stretch of the imagination. As for what it does commit to defending, well, other countries wouldn't let the US put the forces and facilities in their countries that the US wants there for global force protection of the US didn't also make a credible commitment to mutual defense; the US doesn't “defend the world” as a charitable service, it agrees to assist with the defence of select countries in order to contain others, secure access to key resources, and be in a position to project force to advance US interests anywhere in the world.
If you're reading this and would like a concrete example of what the guy above me means, take a look at the U.S. history in major foreign bases like Okinawa. Okinawa does not exist so we can defend Japan. It serves as an Asian FOB, helps contain North Korea / China, secures our access to important shipping routes, and of course "projects force".
The "U.S. protects Europe and the rest of the world" is just some jingoist narrative with no factual basis.
You conveniently forget the European drug companies who develop drugs—and completely pay for the research—while negotiating price ceilings, and then export the same drug to the US, selling it 5x the price for pure profit (minus distribution/marketing/lobby costs).
Disclaimer: my Dad managed research at one of those large European pharma companies.
Other users have reformed themselves this way (I'm one of them), so I'm sure you can, once you internalize the value of what we're shooting for here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It isn't primarily an ethical issue, if that helps; it's about trying to avoid degradation into boredom. Flame-style comments provoke worse, both quality- and quantity-wise.
In addition, and as far as agitprop goes, this particular argument begs the question: if this is the case, why are we doing it in the first place?
This kind of juvenile ideology, claiming some pretended affront to some national interest to justify some weakly supported exceptionalism and eventually supremacism, is old as the world. As I don't want to invoke Godwin so early in the afternoon, I'll just mention this is also quite a popular theme amongst wife beaters.
A significant segment of the US population is following a well known path for all of those acquantied with early 20th century European history. It's only that the US is still catching up with all that, being such a young nation, and not having been vaccinated against fascism like pretty much most of the old world. It's gonna get rough I'm afraid.
http://www.randalolson.com/2015/03/01/design-critique-puttin...
Absolutely untrue. It's amazing how this "fact" continues to be shared even when shown to be false.
SG&A is a catch all. It included things like staplers, secretaries, etc. it's not purely marketing.
If we don't like subsidizing Pharma companies maybe it should just stop doing it. It's not like Europe is asking us to. Similarly, I'm all for closing bases. If the US wants to close bases and cut military spending, who's stopping us?
Given the strength of most European countries and their lack of natural resources, the chance of a large war being a net positive for Russia is small. Of course, sometimes there are internal reasons to start a war. Falklands and some US wars and, I think, most of Russia's small wars after the cold war come to mind.
If US stops initiated wars, I bet the world can be a safer place already...
You really think that? I mean come on
I wouldn't support the US reneging on its current security agreements, particularly with Japan, since we forced them into their current pacifist regime, but if South Korea, Japan and/or NATO wanted the US out, I wouldn't oppose it.
I'm afraid there's a point at which America's overwhelming military, cultural and political dominance itself becomes a problem. Even if one can argue that, as hegemonies go, you could do worse, superpowers and their chess games are also holding the world back.
Because of Pax Americana, most people can't even grasp the concept or seriousness of, say, a neighboring nation dropping bombs on your city just because they want your territory. The US is insulated from such concerns, Europe is rife with them :)
Because of “Pax” Americana, many people have a vivid and direct understanding of a remote nation dropping bombs on your city because they aren't satisfied with your internal politics, even though they don't want to be bothered with the general burden of governing the territory.
Why? If US does nothing for their security, then there's zero point of US spending money on it. It is like code - if the line is NOOP, then it should just go.
If the US has treaty obligations that require its military engagement, then those need to be upheld, or else the US should try to renegotiate them. Otherwise, even if the security situation is made worse, the US should respect other countries' sovereignty if they want them gone.
I find it really weird how over the ocean they are always pounding the self on the chest but they never think about how some of us need to deal with the consequences of the decisions they made in the past. You can bicker a whole day of keeping people out and travel bans but you need to ask yourself what is one of the reasons we have them in the first place.
Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet.
America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
Because they know you're a soft touch? How many 30 year old "Syrian children" from Pakistan and North Africa are you going to settle before you realize most of the people coming to Europe are coming for the free benefits and not because they're fleeing war? Shouldn't Syria be pretty much empty by now?
Besides, there was a country which kept migrants bottled up in Africa until France and the UK decided to settle old scores.
>Military spending is also not about the bill but funding the American military complex by forcing shoddy products (JSF) to other countries. I know this is the reason why this country is still debating about replacing our old F16 fleet.
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. You could buy from the Swedes, or the French, or even the Russians. And no, the JSF is not a "shoddy" product. It's just too expensive. Do you expect the US will bomb your country if you don't buy it? Don't buy it.
>America is not perfect in that regards that they only brings safety to the world or they do everything because they have high moral values.
Nobody's claiming to be perfect. All I'm saying is we're wasting money protecting Europeans who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Europeans who refuse to spend more than a token amount on defense and then expect the US to "take the lead" whenever something bad happens. If it were up to me you'd be on your own.
The majority is definitely not coming for what you call 'free benefits', and most of those who do will be sent back home in due time, if their home countries accept them back. Unfortunately it's quite common that they don't, and then there's not much left to do but allow also these people to stay. Can't really deport people when their home countries won't let them through the border control.
Those people are not leaving. You may tell yourself they're leaving. Your government may tell you they're leaving (someday), but when push comes to shove the media will be blanketed with sob stories and accusations of racism if anybody actually tries to repatriate them.
If? In the entire history of NATO, the mutual defense provisions of the treaty have been invoked exactly once, and that in response to an attack on the US, and the non-US NATO contributions were not insignificant.
that's the point
Many Europeans gave their lives in Afghanistan, responding to an attack on the U.S., and also in Iraq on a fools errand. The U.S. is the predominant power, but that doesn't make others insignificant.
The culture I found in Sweden for instance is one that is much better for the employees than the fast-paced top-gun style of programming expected in the US. Sure my peak will probably be 60k, but that 60k will also come with a much better social quality of life. That's the problem with the US that would risk brain drain in my opinion. Money attracts people, but treating them well will keep them and the US is starting to fall away from treating its workers well.
Edit: just think about this. Most Americans talk about how they have so much work to do they don't get vacation. Well in Europe you usually get your 2 weeks and in many countries you get 4 contiguous weeks without question. Couple that with better healthcare options, and yeah the US is not looking so great.