Live data from Hacker News

U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

mercurynews.com

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#81
This article fails to understand the true costs of European economic arrangements.

Let's consider healthcare. Often touted as an example of how much "better" Europe (and Canada, etc) is than the US, consider:

1. Wait times are often much greater in countries with socialized medicine and this has serious implications: in Canada between 1993 and 2009, around 40,000 people died as a result of increased wait times due to socialized medicine. [1]

2. The US has "significantly lower rates of 30-day-stroke-induced mortality than every other OECD country aside from Japan and Korea". [1]

3. Cancer survival rates in the US are equivalent to or higher than in similarly developed nations. [1]

Furthermore, let's consider the places where innovation in medicine is most robust.

European nations do not get cheaper drugs for free. That is to say, there is a real cost for the price ceilings and controls imposed on the European healthcare sector in the form of reduced ability for European forms to produce new drugs and therapies which has real implications for future mortality rates.

The US, by contrast, has become an engine of growth for the healthcare sector owing to its free(r) market.

Among the US to France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and the UK, the US share of drug discovery (based on inventing company headquarter location) has increased from 31% from 1971-1980 to 57% from 2001-2010. This clear upward trend will likely continue for US innovation as European nations grapple with rising healthcare costs by continuing to clamp down on the free market. [2]

If the US were to adopt a European approach, it's likely that drug discovery and innovation would collapse and as a result many millions of people in the future who would have been saved by novel therapies would instead have to suffer death at the hands of the socialistic stranglehold on innovation.

This is not to say the US is perfect or that it is always better than Europe, but it is to say that discussions of the merits of US vs European healthcare often fail to capture nuanced facts and realities that cannot be ignored. European healthcare may be more available to European citizens, but it is in general of lower quality (given wait times) than comparable US healthcare. And the US, through its free market approach, has become the global engine of healthcare innovation which directly benefits other nations who have shunned free market principles in healthcare.

[1]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/if-american-he...

[2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/05/16/sure-w...

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#82

The US is one of the best places in the world to be a business owner, that's why its economy is so much more dynamic than European economies. In order to create such an environment worker protections cannot be as robust as in Europe. This biased article of course ignores that fact. Many workers are much better off in the US than in Europe as well. They get to keep a greater portion of their income, their income goes…

> They get to keep a greater portion of their income I always see this come up during discussions about how the US compares to other developed countries. I think the mentality is slightly different in the EU. If you were raised knowing that your income was going to be taxed at 50% but you also got free healthcare, education, welfare assistance, etc., you’d probably learn to value those things over buying a bigger TV…

The problem with free education is that as more people become educated, the signaling effect of education becomes diluted. So the Europeans are paying for something that decreases in real value the more that people have access to it. That's a self defeating policy, especially since it encourages people to remain in academia for significantly longer than they would otherwise, because hey, it's paid for by the taxpayer.

Someone earning a second Master's degree in Russian literature is not a productive use of taxpayer money.

In the US by contrast, people are able to make decisions for themselves about how to educate themselves because loans are widely available and are just a tax on their future income. If they want to pursue a high income career, they will take out a loan to cover educational expenses since it makes financial sense to do so. If their desired career is less lucrative, they will not take out more loans than absolutely necessary, freeing that money up to be put towards more profitable projects in the broader economy.

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#83

What I don't understand, and you may say that it's the intrenched powers keeping the status quo, is why the US picks such poor implementations of certain ideas. The article mentions low collective bargaining. Our model, as an American, is pretty much one union per vertical. There is the Teamsters. There are no unions that compete with the Teamsters. I believe that Germany has unions that fight each other for contract…

Much of this was determined by the so-called "Battle Of Detroit" of 1948. The USA had just defeated Nazi Germany and was looking to make sure that fascism would never return to Germany, so the USA encouraged the formation of strong labor unions, and supported the law that made unions automatic for large firms. The USA labor unions looked at that and wondered "If we are imposing this on Germany as a good thing, why ca…

> Although the workers got higher wages, they were denied control of the corporations

There is an interesting lesson on giving up control of your rewards in favor of an uncontrollable but larger reward. Stupid humans.

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They get to keep a greater portion of their income I always see this come up during discussions about how the US compares to other developed countries. I think the mentality is slightly different in the EU. If you were raised knowing that your income was going to be taxed at 50% but you also got free healthcare, education, welfare assistance, etc., you’d probably learn to value those things over buying a bigger TV…

The problem with free education is that as more people become educated, the signaling effect of education becomes diluted. So the Europeans are paying for something that decreases in real value the more that people have access to it. That's a self defeating policy, especially since it encourages people to remain in academia for significantly longer than they would otherwise, because hey, it's paid for by the taxpayer…

> If their desired career are less lucrative, they will not take out more loans than absolutely necessary

This is not in fact what is actually happening. Lots of people take out loans whey they are first starting college, when they are young, inexperienced and by definition uneducated. Few of them even try to calculate the expected value of college for their future income, and the ones who try don't have high quality information.

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#86
post #18

Well, virtually nobody browsing HN can say they share the pains of the workers of the US that 'suffer when compared with the rest of the world'. Sure, there are many low-income residents, high inequality, high turnover, low unemployment with low upward job mobility, etc. All those things are true for the 'disadvantaged', and engineers, technologists, computer scientists etc. are _not_ part of the population that make…

> nobody here will come to the conclusion they better leave to the EU

We don't have Trump here ;-)

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#87

What I don't understand, and you may say that it's the intrenched powers keeping the status quo, is why the US picks such poor implementations of certain ideas. The article mentions low collective bargaining. Our model, as an American, is pretty much one union per vertical. There is the Teamsters. There are no unions that compete with the Teamsters. I believe that Germany has unions that fight each other for contract…

> The party hadn't changed in 60 years. Why do they, and the US in general, allow these failures to continue? Tribalism?

Even though I completely agree with you on the policy issue: Given that the other party is literally harboring white supremacists, is it really a surprise that people in black communities reflexively vote democrat? If you think about it, some of these policies are incredibly bad for them. E.g. public unions divert money intended to help people in need to pay above-market salaries for middle class, mostly white people. Why would folks in black communities keep voting for that? Because they're worried the other side wants to take away their right to vote. When people feel attacked they'll band together with the people who aren't directly attacking them.

We just had our republican mayor in Annapolis booted in the blue wave. Larry Hogan is facing a much tighter race than he should. These guys are very moderate and very competent, but when your party is responsible for children being separated from parents, it's a tough sell.

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#88

What I don't understand, and you may say that it's the intrenched powers keeping the status quo, is why the US picks such poor implementations of certain ideas. The article mentions low collective bargaining. Our model, as an American, is pretty much one union per vertical. There is the Teamsters. There are no unions that compete with the Teamsters. I believe that Germany has unions that fight each other for contract…

One of the reasons labor unions are weak in the US is the Taft-Hartley act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act...

Although the article at the top claims it didn't have a major impact on the power of unions, if you read further down and see what the act actually does, it's easy to see how over the longer term it crippled the effectiveness of unions. In short, it made unions less capable of forcing change (by curtailing strike actions) and gave employers much more power to oppose unions (including preventing supervisors from joining or supporting the union). This means a system like that in Germany where the labor union has a seat on the board is explicitly discouraged.

Personally I'm ambivalent about unions, but my opinion is shifting a little in favor of collective action in light of how power has shifted between management and labor.

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#89

I'm glad this is being addressed but I don't feel qualified to add anything of substance to it. As many other techies I frequent message boards on reddit and other sites. A majority of users are from the US and many posts are written from a US-centric point of view. What I've observed on those message boards regarding workers rights and health has made me deeply concerned about US workers. And that's only in the tech…

As a third-world citizen, reading about US worker conditions in Reddit made me realize that working minimum-wage burger-flipping job with no benefits in US affords you a better life than working one of the rarer white-collar high-skill jobs in my country.

It really depends on your third world country.

Re: U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world

#90
post #18

Well, virtually nobody browsing HN can say they share the pains of the workers of the US that 'suffer when compared with the rest of the world'. Sure, there are many low-income residents, high inequality, high turnover, low unemployment with low upward job mobility, etc. All those things are true for the 'disadvantaged', and engineers, technologists, computer scientists etc. are _not_ part of the population that make…

"Anyway, at a _personal_ level, nobody here will come to the conclusion they better leave to the EU because they'd be better there"

Well, for what it's worth my wife and I did just that because we wanted more vacation time and nobody in the US was competitive in that regard, especially for her. I was also pretty near the start of my career and had what you might call a crappy job in LA - I've progressed quite a bit in the 5 years since I got here.

Post reply on HN