Join a company based in the US (like many tech companies), and do a really good job. They will then start trying to get you to move to the US, under an L1/L2 (if you can handle management, L2 tends to be better as your partner/spouse can work). Immediately apply for a green card. Preferably be born in a small European country, so the green card comes in your lifetime.
So looks like it's not too easy, which means salaries will not get better in Europe anytime soon.
Meh, it's not impossible. You probably need to move to Ireland or the UK though, as that's where most of the larger tech companies have most of their roles.
>Why is there no increased demand-driven supply on these things? Most American states prohibit price hikes during a disaster, which prevents companies from producing more during high demand.
> Most American states prohibit price hikes during a disaster, which prevents companies from producing more during high demand. Sorry, but how exactly does that follow?
It's basic microeconomics. Firms produce widgets until the marginal profit they get from the widgets goes down to 0. The marginal profit is based on the marginal cost of producing a widget and the current price of the widget. If the price goes up, the firm can now afford to produce more widgets. If the state introduces price controls to keep the price fixed during increased demand, the company cannot afford to produce more to meet this demand and shortages will result.
Normally shortages lead to increased price in the short term and in the long term lead to increased production and movement to the price equilibrium.
Why is there most capital available in America? Why would investors choose to go there if businesses were not easier to start, grow and exit?
Because the dollar is the world reserve currency, and lots and lots of large pension funds, university endowments and family offices spend tiny proportions of their assets on VC (as it's expected to be uncorrelated with market returns). VC's tend to be look a person in the eye and judge his (almost always) character. They don't like travelling, so most of their investments are made in the Bay Area. Coupled to this, t…
You realize other countries have VCs too right? Yet hundreds of foreign billions still go to America because it's a better environment for innovation and produces bigger and more impactful companies. Your 3rd point even relies on it.
Health care is about $500 a month for someone in their 30s in the USA who is healthy. That doesn’t make up $125k.
Sending your kids to school all the way up including university costs about ~€10K per kid in Europe. How much would it cost in the US? ~$150K? I think that would make up another large chunk of price difference. And: it’s available for every parent. Not just those in nice tech jobs.
For California residents, the top state schools are ~$57k in tuition for all 4 years (total). Yes, American private universities would cost more, but that's a choice to pay more if you think it's worth it.
Correlation and causation. If you claim that lesser employee protection causes more innovation, proof it. So far, this is merely a believe.
The proof are the many valuable American companies making world-changing products used globally and constantly copied by many other nations with their own domestic clones.
That is not a proof for the question. You seem invested in your believes and either don't know or care about scientific evidence to back them up.
There is nothing more to gain here, have a good day.
Travel for current or prospective customers has some of the best ROI of nearly any expense at the company, and this is well understood. To the contrary, everyone up the chain including the CEO is even more eager to resume sales travel.
This is precisely the falsehood the present time is dispelling.
But now zoom-sales is competing with zoom-sales, no-one is traveling. I doubt zoom-sales can compete with travel-sales.
Is there a reason why risky, innovative startups tend to be formed here in the US, and not in Germany? You guys act like there's no downside to cradle-to-grave nannying of the labor force. There is.
Correlation and causation. If you claim that lesser employee protection causes more innovation, proof it. So far, this is merely a believe.
Are you sure the burden of proof isn't yours? You're making an unlikely claim, if not an extraordinary one.
If I shoot someone and they fall down dead, is "b....b....but correlation isn't causation!" a valid defense?
What is the median salary of people who were laid off? It is some how hard to believe that they will start starving within a year after a layoff (perhaps if they plan to maintain their expense levels unchanged, but still sounds very improbable) What are the calculation that lead you to this conclusion ?
Not everyone manages to negotiate the same high tech salaries even if it looks like they're working for a prestigious company It may take a very long to find new work. People have mortgages that they may struggle to afford long term - or at all if they can't find a job with the same salary, meaning they could have to sell their homes. Some people have debts for whatever reason out of their control. Some people have m…
My wife was part of this layoff, worked in their HR org and we just bought a house beginning of the year borrowing heavily from our 401(k)s. So we immediately now have to payoff this huge loan back to her 401(k) which we were paying per paycheck. 90%+ of her team were let go, so she's competing with all of them for the few roles available in other companies. Most of those 1900 people were not developers, so the next few months will have a lot of uncertainty for us. "Not everyone's got a simple life."
The proof are the many valuable American companies making world-changing products used globally and constantly copied by many other nations with their own domestic clones.
That is not a proof for the question. You seem invested in your believes and either don't know or care about scientific evidence to back them up. There is nothing more to gain here, have a good day.
Valuations, revenues, and revolutionary products are quite real. What would be proof of the contrary? What form of proof are you even looking for?