Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 238 posts

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#101

Post by rbehrends »

dauertewigkeit wrote: post #29

I know what they want to say, but I think their argument is quite weak, because essentially you have US industries that aren't tech. American workers still get higher salaries than elsewhere in the OECD and growth in such industries isn't out competing those same industries in other OECD countries. In fact many industries are lagging behind. So actually US workers are being paid more not less than elsewhere. Then you…

> American workers still get higher salaries than elsewhere in the OECD and growth in such industries isn't out competing those same industries in other OECD countries.

I used to think that also, probably because FAANG salaries had skewed my perception, but after looking at the data, this does not seem to be actually true, at least not in general.

For example, Germany has a somewhat higher annual median gross salary for full-time employees than the US (PPP-adjusted, BLS/DESTATIS salary data, OECD PPP values).

Of course, this is the median salary. America absolutely offers higher salaries at the top end (and I mean much higher, often by a factor of 2-3 for highly qualified professionals, such as software engineers and doctors). But that also means correspondingly lower salaries at the low end. And of course, labor is taxed heavily in Germany, so discretionary/disposable income may look different in the end on a case-by-case basis.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#102

Post by DarkNova6 »

roenxi wrote: post #12

> America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD The US consistently scores among the best countries in the world for paying people [0]. Is there some way I can lodge an application to be exploited in a similar manner, without having to move there? Being wealthy and having to live among really wealthy people sounds better than being poor and living among equals. They're inventing a me…

Salary alone is meaningless if you don't factor in purchase-power-parity and other quality of living aspects. E.g. a lot of people are happy to move to Denmark, and accept a paycut because they are leading with their social facilities and family support. Salary alone will not conjure good infrastructure

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#103

Post by danbruc »

logicchains wrote: post #38
throwaway27448 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth inequality itself causes a great number of ills in this country. We should absolutely aim to lower this gap as a goal in itself.

Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. Envy should be regarded as a character defect, a sin, not something to be elevated to policy. You're not poorer because someone's richer than you, and indeed policies aimed to reduce wealth inequality will actually make you poorer, that's why average European salaries are much lower than US ones.

Envy is the completely wrong framing, it is about fairness. If you design widgets and 99 people build them and everyone works the same number of hours, then the fair share is 1 % for everyone. One percent of the work, one percent of the profit. If you take 2 % [1] while everyone else only gets 0.99 %, that is unfair. And look, the difference for each individual is tiny, 0.99 % or 1 %, that makes it easy to dismiss despite being the source of the unfair inequality.

[1] 1.99 % if we want to be precise.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#104

Post by microtonal »

tempfile wrote: post #84
m4rtink wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't employer dependent healthcare basically slavery, blackmail or both ?

Only to the extent that all waged employment is basically slavery (since healthcare is even less critical than food, water and housing).

Also in the US. In many other countries, you do not only initially get unemployment benefits, but also a form of basic income if the unemployment benefits expire and you haven't found a job, plus rent compensation, etc.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#105

Post by robtherobber »

tempfile wrote: post #84
m4rtink wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't employer dependent healthcare basically slavery, blackmail or both ?

Only to the extent that all waged employment is basically slavery (since healthcare is even less critical than food, water and housing).

[flagged]

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#106

Post by DarkNova6 »

dzonga wrote: post #65
DarkNova6 wrote: post #2

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.

yeah the hostility started recently with trump and his ilk - fighting for nationalism of a bygone era. if you can afford it - the US has excellent healthcare, you can also get organic food and dare I say better housing, private infra. what the US could/should improve on is have public clinics ie for preventative and quick care. public hospitals in the long run have many problems. in the U.K for example - I used priva…

To be fair, the UK isn’t high on my list either and I’ve lived in Finland and Austria before and I know people from china and their experiences with infrastructure and healthcare.

I am mostly comparing these places to all first world countries, rather than just the anglosphere.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#107

Post by anonym29 »

inigyou wrote: post #91
anonym29 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training kids how to respond to school shootings is like training kids how to respond to dual engine failures on an airplane. It happens, it's just statistically so unlikely to ever happen to your kid, that the drill essentially serves as ideological propaganda reinforcing fear of the idea of the threat far above and beyond the statistical risk actually posed by the threat itself. And as a reminder, Europe sees more…

School shootings in America are not statistically unlikely, they are a regular occurrence.

The odds a child will be killed by an armed assailant at a school in the USA are about 1 in 5 million per year, and if you narrow down to mass shootings at schools, that drops to about 1 in 10 million.

Between 2013 and 2022, a total of 77 students in grades K-12 have been killed in 11 school mass shootings, in a country with 50 million school children.

A child in America is about 500-600x more likely to die in a car accident than a school shooting.

A child in America is about 90-120x more likely to die from a pedestrian fatality than a school shooting.

A child in America is 70-90x more likely to die from choking than a school shooting.

A child in America is 50-60x more likely to die from drowning than a school shooting.

A child in America is 40-55x more likely to die in a fire or from smoke than a school shooting.

A child in America is 10-15x more likely to die in a bicycle accident not involving a motor vehicle than from a school shooting.

Comparable risks to dying in a school shooting include a fatal sting from a bee or wasp, (about twice a likely), or dying from being struck by lightning (about half as likely).

School shootings, while tragic, do not pose nearly as much of a statistical threat as you think they do, even if they still pose more than they ought to.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#108

Post by petcat »

microtonal wrote: post #104
tempfile wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only to the extent that all waged employment is basically slavery (since healthcare is even less critical than food, water and housing).

Also in the US. In many other countries, you do not only initially get unemployment benefits, but also a form of basic income if the unemployment benefits expire and you haven't found a job, plus rent compensation, etc.

> In many other countries, you do not only initially get unemployment benefits, but also a form of basic income if the unemployment benefits expire and you haven't found a job, plus rent compensation, etc.

It's the same everywhere in the US. Colloquially called "collecting unemployment".

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#109

Post by TFYS »

roenxi wrote: post #12

> America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD The US consistently scores among the best countries in the world for paying people [0]. Is there some way I can lodge an application to be exploited in a similar manner, without having to move there? Being wealthy and having to live among really wealthy people sounds better than being poor and living among equals. They're inventing a me…

> Being wealthy and having to live among really wealthy people sounds better than being poor and living among equals.

Why? Once you pass a level of wealth where basic needs like, food, housing and healthcare are met your happiness probably depends more on how you perceive your position to be compared to people around you. Even your post suggests that, as you're comparing your position to people wealthier than you, even though you likely have your basic needs met. Once you get the US median salary, you'll just switch to comparing yourself against the really wealthy people. It's easier to be happy with what you have in a more equal society.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#110

Post by vladvasiliu »

entrope wrote: post #88
oblio wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you know that it's not dangerous based on... Gut feeling? Have you read the health warning in detail and disagree from an informed point of view or are you just generally opposed to regulation? Even better, can you link the bike model and health warning and let others take a look at it for you? Or just your neighborhood chat bot :-)

I've read the list of materials that California knows cause cancer and birth defects. It lists things that people encounter every day. Alcoholic beverages, aloe leaf extract and aspirin are some of the most notable examples from the "A" section. https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list

Well, here in France, pregnant women are also discouraged from drinking alcohol because of birth defects.

I don't know about aloe extract, but pregnant women are also discouraged from taking aspirin.

Here's a random online store selling it, with a big warning for "usage during pregnancy and breastfeeding" (French only): https://lasante.net/nos-medicaments/douleurs-et-fievres/aspi...

Post reply on HN