The point was about letting working class people grow into middle class, i.e. accumulate some wealth by working at these jobs. It's much more difficult to do in Europe than in the US. First the tax system that is progressive on income, but not on net worth, that makes it increasingly hard to get richer by having good income. Second property prices are high and growing faster than income normally does. And finally as you've noticed these jobs are just not as well paid as in the US - basically it's the same grade as other office jobs (except managers and lawyers, these are paid much better)

You can't always bring the lifestyle of minimum wage employees into every single discussion just as an joker card to argue that Europe is better than the US.

Yes, minimum wage immigrants have it better in Europe and skilled immigrants have better opportunities in the US.

I expected exactly this - that people that benefit from those giant companies fail to see the downsides.

> You can't always bring the lifestyle of minimum wage employees into every single discussion just as an joker card to argue that Europe is better than the US.

Why not, if it works? Are you not just confirming that the US works for a few lucky ones whereas Europe works for most?

So in your book big companies have only downsides? What about VW, Mercedes, BMW, SAP, Bayer, Siemens, etc?

Why are big US companies evil for you and not the rest?

> Why are big US companies evil for you and not the rest?

Never said any of that, so I guess you're not really reading my comments?

Shame on you.

Because it might be irrelevant? Yes, US and EU have historically different social policies, but it might not necessarily be the reason for difference in economic performance.

For me it's not "high tech companies vs working class", rather "high tech companies vs inefficient and intrusive government and old money". The obvious difference between FAANG on one side and BMW Daimler, etc. on the other side is the time when these companies have been founded.