U.S. employment conditions compare poorly to the rest of the developed world • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by mnm1 » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 8:29 PM UTC

MatrixAlgebra wrote: post #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…

European healthcare is lower quality than not having healthcare, which a fairly large percentage of Americans do not? Any healthcare is better than no healthcare and no amount of waiting is going to flip that equation.

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

#132

Post by mnm1 » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

MatrixAlgebra wrote: post #82

finaliteration wrote: post #13

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…

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

How could you possibly know if this is a productive use of taxpayer money or not? Someone with a master's in Russian literature could potentially be very valuable as a spy, a diplomat, a business leader, etc. No matter the degree, having an educated population is incredibly valuable to society as a whole. Government should encourage education and provide it for as low a cost as possible or free. The idea that liberal arts, foreign language, fine arts, etc. majors do not contribute to society that I see mentioned often is frankly ludicrous and insulting to the people who work hard to achieve their education.

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

#133

Post by mmt » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 12:34 AM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #38

gota wrote: 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 because they'd be better there If not the EU, there is this fairly European country that shares timezones with the US and has a reasonable tech scene going on, and you can actually drive back and forth between the US and this country across the longest undefended border in the world. It used to be one of the US's best friends and strongest allies.…

> You're welcome here.

I don't think that's strictly true. The last time I drove across the border, I got pulled in for extra scrutiny (random, I assume). I happened to be unemployed at the time and was asked a bunch of questions that seemed very strange, since they included things like how much credit limit I had available on my credit cards. The CBSA agent was very nice and eventually explained that it was to make sure that I really was a tourist and wasn't circumventing the procedure for immigration for employment.

My understanding (perhaps incorrect?) is that this procedure is fairly stringent, even for US citizens. Getting a visa for that "reasonable tech scene" requires a degree, last I checked. That makes "education that won't bankrupt you" a bit of a catch-22, until the following generation.

More importantly, though, it's been a fairly recent topic of discussion here on HN that tech salaries in the tech hubs of Vancouver and Toronto are very low, especially considering the high cost of living (mostly land/rent) in those locales, even factoring in "socialist" benefits. It's been causing something of a "brain drain" to the US.

Perhaps less highly-paid workers in lower-cost areas would fare better, but are they being sought from South of the border? Citation needed :)

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

#134

Post by braythwayt » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 12:58 AM UTC

mmt wrote: post #133

braythwayt wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody here will come to the conclusion they better leave to the EU because they'd be better there If not the EU, there is this fairly European country that shares timezones with the US and has a reasonable tech scene going on, and you can actually drive back and forth between the US and this country across the longest undefended border in the world. It used to be one of the US's best friends and strongest allies.…

> You're welcome here. I don't think that's strictly true. The last time I drove across the border, I got pulled in for extra scrutiny (random, I assume). I happened to be unemployed at the time and was asked a bunch of questions that seemed very strange, since they included things like how much credit limit I had available on my credit cards. The CBSA agent was very nice and eventually explained that it was to make…

We have offices in both SF and Toronto, and so far people report that even with an increased salary, the standard of living is higher working in the Toronto office.

Generally, the ones who transfer to SF are young and are looking to sacrifice standard of living in exchange for "being part of the scene," which is perfectly rational.

The standard of living in Toronto is reportedly quite higher for people with kids, but that certainly doesn't apply to everyone.

Come work with us and you can conduct your own experiment: Work a year here, a year there, for as long as you need to gather data.

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

#135

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 1:06 AM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #33

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…

> defending drunk forklift drivers making north of 90k a year.

That's nothing. How about car washer making $466K? https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/money_for_nothing_... Or in the same place, somebody getting 24/7 salary (literally paying him for existing, double on weekends) up to $517K per year? That's the stories people need to hear. But try to curtail the power of these unions, and there would be cries that "poor workers need living wages" up to the sky.

> The party hadn't changed in 60 years.

Maybe in another 60 years somebody would think about introducing some competition there. Right now, why would anyone bother to do anything for those people, if their election is assured (provided the party assigns them to the place) anyway?

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

#136

Post by mmt » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 2:57 AM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #134

mmt wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're welcome here. I don't think that's strictly true. The last time I drove across the border, I got pulled in for extra scrutiny (random, I assume). I happened to be unemployed at the time and was asked a bunch of questions that seemed very strange, since they included things like how much credit limit I had available on my credit cards. The CBSA agent was very nice and eventually explained that it was to make…

We have offices in both SF and Toronto, and so far people report that even with an increased salary, the standard of living is higher working in the Toronto office. Generally, the ones who transfer to SF are young and are looking to sacrifice standard of living in exchange for "being part of the scene," which is perfectly rational. The standard of living in Toronto is reportedly quite higher for people with kids, but…

> We have offices in both SF and Toronto

I have also read that US companies (especially the big-name ones likes FAMG) who open Canadian offices pay more than purely local ones, so I wonder if merely having offices in both places helps increase the otherwise lackluster compensation.

> looking to sacrifice standard of living in exchange for "being part of the scene," which is perfectly rational.

I'd say it's only rational if that scene inclusion imparts a real benefit, rather than a perceived one. It's at least arguable that it does, other than providing greater opportunities for different, more highly-paid jobs.

> The standard of living in Toronto is reportedly quite higher for people with kids, but that certainly doesn't apply to everyone.

Is that across the industry or just for your company? Is there a difference between homeowners (who would have a high degree of immunity from rapidly rising home prices) and renters?

> Come work with us and you can conduct your own experiment: Work a year here, a year there, for as long as you need to gather data.

If only it were that easy (even if you'd hire me). I can't imagine that a year in each place, especially with only one employer, would be nearly enough data, and that's assuming two years at that particular employer would be suitable/acceptable enough not to be the biggest factor in quality-of-life.

The other big confounding factor is that you can't really compare SF-to-Toronto, if only because of weather/climate (though I'm sure there are other aspects, not the least of which is whatever lifestyle details someone has become accustomed to already). You'd probably need to do Vancouver-to-SF and Toronto-to-NYC (or maybe Boston).

It's probably a reasonable option (if it's actually on offer) for a non-homeowner, without children, just starting a career, but, otherwise, it's not a realistic ask.

I'm still not convinced there's any effort being made by Canadian companies or government to recruit employees from the US.

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

#137

Post by abritinthebay » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 5:44 AM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #103

abritinthebay wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment betrays an incredible misunderstanding or naivety of how medical insurance works in the US, and what/how it covers people. Also a completely bizarre use of 401(k)’s which are not available to most citizens and are highly volatile. Compared to the rest of the world the US spends more individually on healthcare & gets less. It’s average retirement savings are amongst the lowest in the developed world! Hand…

Why are you being downvoted? Even after employer subsidies, group rates, and tax savings from income deduction, health insurance can cost a lot of money, and you will still have routine non-covered medical expenses, as well as quite a lot of downside risk depending on your plan.

There are a lot of people kneejerk downvoting things that don’t support the idea of American exceptionalism.

It’s a shame because that attitude is what is keeping America from doing better.

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

#138

Post by braythwayt » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

mmt wrote: post #136

braythwayt wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have offices in both SF and Toronto, and so far people report that even with an increased salary, the standard of living is higher working in the Toronto office. Generally, the ones who transfer to SF are young and are looking to sacrifice standard of living in exchange for "being part of the scene," which is perfectly rational. The standard of living in Toronto is reportedly quite higher for people with kids, but…

> We have offices in both SF and Toronto I have also read that US companies (especially the big-name ones likes FAMG) who open Canadian offices pay more than purely local ones, so I wonder if merely having offices in both places helps increase the otherwise lackluster compensation. > looking to sacrifice standard of living in exchange for "being part of the scene," which is perfectly rational. I'd say it's only ratio…

I have not done a rigorous investigation, so YMMV, but what I would say is that Sturgeon's Revelation is at work here.

90% of tech companies are crud. They're froth, undercapitalized, built to flip but doomed. Which is fine, but if we try to measure the mean or median wages while including all of them, we'll get numbers that are ridiculous in any location.

I believe that if we filter down to "good" companies, by some hand-wavey definition of good—Pedigree of founders, pedigree of VCs, existence of a working revenue model, whatever—we'll get the US companies that open Canadian offices plus a bunch of decent Canadian companies. Same in SF, we'll get the obvious big companies plus lots of properly good companies.

It could well be that good SF companies out-pay good Toronto companies, it would be wrong to compare my employer to a startup operating on angel fumes in either location. We compete with companies like Amazon, Google, and Shopify for talent.

But it could also be that we do pretty well against such companies. We work hard to make sure that our pay is competitive, and we are trying our damndest to grow our Toronto office even more.

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

#139

Post by maratd » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #114

maratd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sure that much of that take-home pay is offset by higher medical costs and the need for more retirement savings This is not true. Those same workers get most or all of their insurance costs covered by the company. Same goes for retirement with 401k plans, etc. > Not to mention the fact that the American work week is longer and vacation days are rarer. This is true.

Even after employer subsidies, group rates, and tax savings from income deduction, health insurance can cost a lot of money, and you will still have routine non-covered medical expenses, as well as quite a lot of downside risk depending on your plan. Same with 401(k). Employer match is a nice bonus but it is not enough.

> but it is not enough.

Not enough for what? It's clearly enough for millions to live very comfortably.

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

#140

Post by mmt » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #138

mmt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have offices in both SF and Toronto I have also read that US companies (especially the big-name ones likes FAMG) who open Canadian offices pay more than purely local ones, so I wonder if merely having offices in both places helps increase the otherwise lackluster compensation. > looking to sacrifice standard of living in exchange for "being part of the scene," which is perfectly rational. I'd say it's only ratio…

I have not done a rigorous investigation, so YMMV, but what I would say is that Sturgeon's Revelation is at work here. 90% of tech companies are crud. They're froth, undercapitalized, built to flip but doomed. Which is fine, but if we try to measure the mean or median wages while including all of them, we'll get numbers that are ridiculous in any location. I believe that if we filter down to "good" companies, by some…

That pretty much addresses my first question, but only that, from what I can tell.

> it would be wrong to compare my employer to a startup operating on angel fumes

Only if you pre-suppose your hand-wavey definition of good, which I noticed had very little in the way of qualities that affect actual working environment.

> we are trying our damndest to grow our Toronto office even more.

Including "welcoming" US workers? That's what I have yet to see any evidence of.