Slashdot Mirror


Americans Work 25% More Than Europeans, Study Finds (bloomberg.com)

Americans are addicted to their jobs. U.S. workers not only put in more hours than workers do almost anywhere else. They're also increasingly retiring later and taking fewer vacation days, reports Bloomberg. From the article: A new study tries to measure precisely how much more Americans work than Europeans do overall. The answer: The average person in Europe works 19 percent less than the average person in the U.S. That's about 258 fewer hours per year, or about an hour less each weekday. Another way to look at it: U.S. workers put in almost 25 percent more hours than Europeans. Hours worked vary a lot by country, according to the unpublished working paper by economists Alexander Bick of Arizona State University, Bettina Bruggemann of McMaster University in Ontario, and Nicola Fuchs-Schundeln of Goethe University Frankfurt. Swiss work habits are most similar to Americans', while Italians are the least likely to be at work, putting in 29 percent fewer hours per year than Americans do.

404 comments

  1. What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean bragging about our victory over socialized medicine is fun and all..

    1. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does retiring at age 50 sound? House paid off, Cars paid off, kids in college, $1.2M in bank. Of course it wasn't easy, working a minimum 65 hours per week and going home tired as death.

    2. Re:What have they got to show for it? by humanaceous · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! What did you do for a living where you could pull that many hours in?

    3. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Aren't you forgetting that the US is the primary danger to peace in most countries to begin with? Or that the countries 'protected' by the US pay protection money in the form of very unfavourable trade deals, constant meddling and having to deal with the mess the US creates around the globe by propping up dictatorships and giving terrorists funding and weapons?

    4. Re:What have they got to show for it? by ionymous · · Score: 1

      only $1.2M? whoops!

    5. Re:What have they got to show for it? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And now your life is mostly over, and the time when you were young and could have enjoyed the time off to the fullest won't come back.

    6. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does retiring at age 50 sound? House paid off, Cars paid off, kids in college, $1.2M in bank. Of course it wasn't easy, working a minimum 65 hours per week and going home tired as death.

      Retirement sounds all good and well at age 50, unless you end up dropping dead at age 55 due to the stressful work schedule you've endured for most of your life.

      Also, I can comfortably assume that at least one of the parents wasn't around much for family time and raising children when working to death at a minimum of 65 hours per week. As a parent, some sacrifices are worth it, and with $1.2M in the bank, the one thing even you can't buy back is lost time.

    7. Re:What have they got to show for it? by kwbauer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course. I forgot that Europeans were able to prevent Russia from moving in all by themselves. Oh wait. No they didn't. Russia moved in and installed puppets in all those Eastern bloc countries and the other European countries did nothing. The US was tired and left Europe to do something and Europe failed. The US left Europe to keep Ukraine safe and Europe failed.

      How much has Europe been paying the US to maintain all those bases that kept Russia at bay? Only an idiot believes that the Soviet Union/Russia would have left Europe alone had the US not maintained those bases, free of charge to the Europeans. Actually, the US was pumping money into the countries where those bases were located.

    8. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. That is not nearly enough to live decently in a place like for example silicon valley or the bay area. Your paid off house still pays property taxes that go up every year, not to mention insurance. Your $1.2M invested "in the bank" at the Fed-generous rate of 1% gets you $12K in income, not enough to pay your utilities, food, and incentives for global warming. But maybe you were clever, and invested in Yahoo and Myspace? Or, you can spend it on Teslas until you run out of money, sell your house, and then live on the street.

      No, the fact is that the only thing that is going to save you is that your kids are going to have to care for you when you run out of money.

    9. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I mean bragging about our victory over socialized medicine is fun and all..

      Saying that Americans work 25% more the Europeans is just half the story. It would be a relevant piece of data if everything else were the same, except it is not.
      Europeans workers are more productive than Americans putting in less hours. So what does that tell you ? American workers are getting screwed.

    10. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Applause and respect.

    11. Re:What have they got to show for it? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      What does that tell me?

      That you make up 'facts'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:What have they got to show for it? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      In our case it was just living the "European lifestyle" in a place that's not like a big European city. That means two working professionals. Except one pays the bills, and the other pays for the frills.

      We didn't live life to the credit limit. We saved and invested instead.

      We also didn't have to compromise too much on the fun.

      As far as vacation time goes: quality over quantity.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:What have they got to show for it? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Why do you think he didn't? I did.

      Americans really don't know how good they have it. A lot of them whine about how every other place is so much better. Except they've never bothered to actually visit those places.

      Plus there are plenty of ways to "live it up". Not all of them are terribly expensive. Otherwise European vacationers would be screwed. '-p

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:What have they got to show for it? by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      Forget about the Army. We do the same with technology and medicine. I don't mind. We can carry their candy asses. In the end we have better stuff. We benefit. Our own lives end up better.

      We survive things that might have killed us if left to the whining socialists.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:What have they got to show for it? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of an NPR article about how Barilla was going to shut down it's southern pasta factory because the southern Italians can't be bothered to come into work.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    16. Re:What have they got to show for it? by plopez · · Score: 4, Informative

      "European Lifestyle" also means single payer medicine, 4 or more weeks vacation, and an efficient mass transit system.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    17. Re:What have they got to show for it? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think he didn't?

      Oh, just the "it wasn't easy, working a minimum 65 hours per week and going home tired as death" part.

    18. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      How does retiring at age 50 sound? House paid off, Cars paid off, kids in college, $1.2M in bank. Of course it wasn't easy, working a minimum 65 hours per week and going home tired as death.

      Sounds great. Now stop suggesting that your realization of "the American Dream" is accessible to anyone. It's not. You worked hard, but you also got lucky. Yes, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that "luck" is defined as "preparation meeting opportunity". The timing and scarcity of opportunities are such that most couldn't capitalize on them even if they were prepared. And yet the Republicans are still able to hoodwink the average American into thinking that things that would make an immediate difference in his life mean giving up his shot at wealth and fame.

    19. Re:What have they got to show for it? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That is not nearly enough to live decently in a place like for example silicon valley or the bay area.

      Wow....strange you would use 2 such extreme example of high cost of living places to make your point.

      Most places in the US are not nearly that expensive. Hell in TX you can get virtual mansions for the $300K range or less....big house, big yard, etc.

      But really, with everything paid off, and $1.2 M in the bank, I could easily live my days out starting likely tomorrow.

      When you retire, you're not out buying new Tesla's or a new phone every year, you don't really need to....having things paid off and money in the bank, and with age, your "fun" needs decrease really, no kids to take care of, etc. That's pretty easy in most parts of the US.

      You're extreme examples really make no sense for the majority of Americans. Hell, you might as well have mentioned NYC in the same breath....no, unless you're VERY wealthy, no one retires to those locations, not normal people at least.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:What have they got to show for it? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Also, I can comfortably assume that at least one of the parents wasn't around much for family time and raising children

      Most people of my generation had the model of pretty much JUST the father working, which kept him away from home a lot. But with Mom there to raise you, not a problem really. Dad was there on weekends.

      I was raised this way and don't feel any harm. Heck when I was a teen and could be more on my own, my Mom joined the workforce....and still, no problem.

      You don't have to have helicopter parents like you have today on the other extreme.

      TOO much parental time is not good either, as we see today with kids that weren't raised to be allowed to start learning independence at any age levels before college.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    21. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously bizarre life approach. I was working sub 20 hr. Weeks through my 20s, took two years off at 30, and have saved tons of money and lived and travelled the world. No idea why I would've missed that for a better chance at retiring at 50.

    22. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Jason1729 · · Score: 2

      From the industrial revolution until Nixon Shock, the standard of living was on a steady rise.

      Nixon made changes to monetary policy so that ever since then the standard of living has been basically frozen and all improvements to productivity go to corporate profits.

      Even most households going to 2 income still have the same basic standard of living despite contributing twice as much to the workforce.

      In Europe, the extra productivity went to a combination of more profits and shorter hours.

      A side effect of the American system is fewer people can do the same work, the companies have less need for employment, so much higher unemployment. So not only are you profiting the rich, you're paying higher than needed taxes to support the poor who would have jobs if each person worked fewer hours.

    23. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are confused at minimum about the unemployment rates. US has much lower unemployment than UK/Europe.

    24. Re:What have they got to show for it? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      And you are better off for it. Sure I'd love to slash the military budget to 1/10th its current size and bring all our armed forces home for pure defense purposes, but Europe has done a piss poor job of showing that it is willing to fund the military presence needed to ensure stability. So we do that. You're welcome, and STFU.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    25. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      When you retire, you're not out buying new Tesla's or a new phone every year, you don't really need to....having things paid off and money in the bank, and with age, your "fun" needs decrease really, no kids to take care of, etc. That's pretty easy in most parts of the US.

      Or buying a new Tesla ever.

      The OP scrimped and saved and worked long hours until he was 50 to have enough money in the bank to have a meagre existence for the rest of his life. It's so sad it's just pathetic. What a waste of his life.

      How about start out the same way, then work until 65 without any saving after age 50. Let the extra 15 years interest turn that 1.2 million into 3+ million. And live well those 15 years with no need to save and no major expenses. Cut back on your hours and have plenty of spare income. Then retire to serious luxury with $3 million in the bank.

    26. Re:What have they got to show for it? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That is not nearly enough to live decently in a place like for example silicon valley or the bay area. Your paid off house still pays property taxes that go up every year, not to mention insurance. Your $1.2M invested "in the bank" at the Fed-generous rate of 1% gets you $12K in income, not enough to pay your utilities, food, and incentives for global warming. But maybe you were clever, and invested in Yahoo and Myspace? Or, you can spend it on Teslas until you run out of money, sell your house, and then live on the street.

      Wow. One doesn't merely retire or even live in Silicon Valley, but then, one doesn't need to. There are plenty of places in the US vastly cheaper.

      Similarly, why put your money in the bank at 1%, when you can put it in the stock market for far better return even when conservatively invested?

      Fortunately, anyone who has figured out how to accumulate $1.2 million by age 50, isn't going to destroy their lives by taking your advice.

    27. Re:What have they got to show for it? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to be Debbie Downer, 1.2MM is rarely enough to retire early on, even with zero debt or college costs, unless you live on less than $1,500 per month and plan on down-sizing the home soon to boost savings.

      Personally, I like working, so I don't mind spending 10-12 hours a day at the company I helped build. The money is good, wife and I don't have kids and like to travel, so it works. I get about 6 weeks of vacation a year, although most of it is in the form of long weekends. We cut back on our pay and proportionally reduced the stress level, so a long day isn't always long hours working.

      I look at my Scandinavian sister-in-law, and while I might envy the month of July off and zero-work weekends, I prefer what we have more. (Although I will need to retire hopefully around 50, I liked the retire early, retire often strategy more.)

    28. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, my sweet summer child...

    29. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many dictators has the US propped up that then failed?

      How's Afghanistan going? Or Iraq? How's the fight against Al Qaeda...no wait now it's ISIS....going? You fuckers created them. You fuckers trained them. You fuckers supplied them. But then you act all surprised when you lose control of them and look to the rest of the world to join you in fighting them.

    30. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We didn't live life to the credit limit. We saved and invested instead." That's exactly how I retired early. Pay off the bills 100% every month with the exception of the mortgage, which I added every dollar left over towards the principle. My 30 year mortgage was paid off in 12 years. So many people get in to credit debt that they have no way out. Not me.

    31. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course. I forgot that Europeans were able to prevent Russia from moving in all by themselves. Oh wait. No they didn't. Russia moved in and installed puppets in all those Eastern bloc countries and the other European countries did nothing. The US was tired and left Europe to do something and Europe failed

      If by "Europeans" you mean Nazi Germany, then no, they had a treaty with the Soviet Union.
      If you mean other major European powers, well, they were more concerned about Nazi Germany at the time.
      In the period of 1918 to 1940, there was no real U.S. military presence in Europe.
      I think we all agree that it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the USA into WW2 - otherwise they would have been quite content to sit it out, like they did most of WWI.

    32. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget about the Army. We do the same with technology and medicine. I don't mind. We can carry their candy asses. In the end we have better stuff. We benefit. Our own lives end up better.

      We survive things that might have killed us if left to the whining socialists.

      Oh yes, I forgot how the USA invented Penicillin, radio, sonar, the Stirling Engine, aspirin, the screw propeller...................

    33. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia IS part of Europe (the western part with all the people at least).

    34. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dad was there on weekends.

      I was raised this way and don't feel any harm.

      Why not let strangers look after your kids and work 120 hours a week?
      You obviously didn't appreciate your kids when you were working "65 hour weeks"

    35. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're extreme examples really make no sense for the majority of Americans. Hell, you might as well have mentioned NYC in the same breath....no, unless you're VERY wealthy, no one retires to those locations, not normal people at least.

      There is are reason that these "extreme" examples exist - they represent a superior combination of aspirations and quality of life over, e.g., being a comfortably middle-class Texan.

      I grew up in Northern California and left because it was too expensive and too crowded (mostly due to people crowding into California from the lesser places to live in the world). However, I am under no illusions that there are no trade-offs to living in a less-crowded, less expensive area. Its just a matter of priorities.

      I will say that if you love stuff like Walmart, chain restaurants, condos/suburban developments and spending as much time as possible watching TV and/or being on-line, living in CA makes no sense at all.

    36. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so your answer is what, force everyone else to do the same as you? Mr. Retired at 50 made his choice and is happy about it. You made yours and are happy, too... I don't see the problem here.

    37. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PRINCIPAL. One would think you'd know how to spell the single largest risk you have in your life.

    38. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to develop your customers. How else are we supposed to afford your iphones and i7?

      No, I think most reasonable Europeans are grateful to the USA for their protection.

      In the end both side do benefit. In fact, I believe the more people on earth will be at roughly the same economic level the better for everyone. Just imagine Africa could afford American technology. Huge undeveloped market.

      Also don't be misguided thinking that your military expenses are somehow lost. In fact, lost is only what is consumed or destroyed in conflict. Wages support American people working in the Army. Infrastructure and weapons support high-tech jobs in your country.
      Even if - for example - an aircraft is lost in conflict, most of the dollar value is probably labor and R&D (which is labor), not so much of it is raw materials. So that money isn't actually lost as it's going to be spent in your economy (unless you start sourcing military equipment from other countries).

    39. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You confuse "accessible" with "guaranteed". The American dream actually *IS* accessible to all - but not all will obtain their version of the dream (mainly because that's been popularly described as having yachts and private jets and...whatever else the Clintons ended up with after being "broke" when leaving the White House.)

      The alternative is a ceiling on everyone's opportunity so that the outcomes are the same for everyone despite ambition - basically, shared misery.

    40. Re:What have they got to show for it? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I will say that if you love stuff like Walmart, chain restaurants, condos/suburban developments and spending as much time as possible watching TV and/or being on-line, living in CA makes no sense at all.

      I live in the New Orleans area.....I may hit a Wal-Mart once a year tops...usually to buy something to wash car with...

      But I have so much stuff doing on around here year 'round that I only watch TV when I need a break from the outside fun world. We have some sort of music/food fest almost every weekend of the year, plus Mardi Gras (3+ weeks of parades and celebrations), and beyond that, just a ton of stuff to do, specially if you like fishing and hunting.

      Not nearly as populous as CA cities like you mention, not the gridlock traffic, and people are generally nicer here.

      That and we have "to-go" cups so you can take your drink from the bar to go...and can buy liquor, beer and wine all from a grocery store or even 7-ll...and food prices are low, and food is good.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    41. Re:What have they got to show for it? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      What. The. Fuck.
      I really hope your post was sarcastic.
      Some people need way less than 1.2M in the bank to live cozily for 30 years. Others would go through 1.2M dollars in a couple years.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    42. Re:What have they got to show for it? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but APART from single payer medicine, 4 or more weeks vacation, and an efficient mass transit system, what did the Romans do for us?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    43. Re:What have they got to show for it? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I don't see how requiring two incomes to be able to live, save for retirement have a decent lifestyle is a win.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    44. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I paid off the PRINCIPAL too! How do you think I got my HS diploma? Spell check and brain fart malfucktion.

    45. Re:What have they got to show for it? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The trick to working in the American system is to not get sick. You save a ton of money that way.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    46. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Teun · · Score: 1

      https://stats.oecd.org/Index.a...

      Yes the US puts in a lot of hours and a high productivity.
      But what do your workers get in return?
      A good quality of living is worth more than lots of money.

      http://www.usnews.com/news/bes...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    47. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying to my own post for the naysayers. No, it's not a crappy condo, it's a single family house on 1/4 acre in SoCal. I was still home by 4pm to enjoy my kids growing up. I didn't waste my time or money on partying or extravagant living, but still had time and money to have fun. Yes, it was hard back breaking work but it was fun. No, I'm not going to tell you what I did for a living, but playing the stock market did supplement my regular income. No, I didn't get a higher education, only a HS diploma. Yes, I'm smarter than the average person. No, the wife didn't work until after I retired for self fulfillment and extra splurge income. Yes, I will live happily ever after.

    48. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the Republicans are still able to hoodwink the average American into thinking that things that would make an immediate difference in his life mean giving up his shot at wealth and fame.

      The reality may be that America enjoyed a unique position in the world after World War II, resulting in an incredible rise in the standard of living, and that period of time is an unsustainable anomaly. Welcome back to the real world. Productivity increases have their limits and the rest of the world is not stagnant.

      I'd say that it's pointless to get all partisan about it. The problem is structural more than political.

    49. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Americans really don't know how good they have it.

      Hey Dillweed, I'm gonna call you out on that. For one whole year I expect you NOT to call Americans arrogant. Who the bleep told you we don't know how good we have it?! Of all the anti-American nonsense I hear, this one just really stands out as being daft. Of all the things we're good at, knowing that we've got it better has got to be right up there at the top.

      Even a random moron living in a trailer park with no health care can tell you they've got it better than some Frenchy socialist.

    50. Re:What have they got to show for it? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Oh wait. No they didn't. Russia moved in and installed puppets in all those Eastern bloc countries and the other European countries did nothing.
      You have an completely idiotic way of interpreting how WWII ended.
      I would suggest to read some books, idiot!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    51. Re:What have they got to show for it? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Yes the US puts in a lot of hours and a high productivity.
      You get it slightly wrong:
      a) lots of work hours -> less productive
      b) few work hours -> high productive

      Wow, that was easy :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    52. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.2MM is rarely enough to retire early on, even with zero debt or college costs

      Why would you retire with debt? That's really weird.
      My house will be paid off 10-15 years before I even consider retirement. Debt will be a distant memory.

    53. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I hope he wasn't a statistician.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    54. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're extreme examples

      I don't think he is.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    55. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm going to boost the economy by handing out slingshots to juvenile delinquents.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL No You put in less work and are less productive. You guys don't produce more per hour then everyone else, you just produce less overall.

    57. Re:What have they got to show for it? by khallow · · Score: 1

      One would think you'd know how to spell the single largest risk you have in your life.

      Because that was totally important.

    58. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It beats needing three...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    59. Re:What have they got to show for it? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Or saying no to a large home, and large expensive cars.

      If you adopt a more in line with the 50's house style in terms of number of vehicles and home size, you can save a lot more money.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    60. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      A 50 year old male buying a life term annuity for $1.2 million will get $47,000/year for life **NOT** geared to inflation. Enjoy living on under $4,000 per month before tax after 20 years of inflation get piled on there.

    61. Re:What have they got to show for it? by xSauronx · · Score: 2

      not with mandated insurance requirements. 10% of my income is spent on insurance--which doesnt include copays, medications and other visit or operation fees. i make a decent amount of money but that is a big, big chunk.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    62. Re:What have they got to show for it? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Honestly... with 1.2M in the bank I would completely ditch the USA and move to one of the many, many cheaper (and arguably nicer) countries out there.
      It's something that plenty Western Europeans do. They buy cheap houses in villages in Eastern European countries, and live very comfortably with less than 1K dollars a month. Hell, 500 bucks a month are more than enough, and you could buy a large house with huge courtyard, vegetable garden and an orchard for 30K dollars or less.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    63. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the cost of an ER visit to is cover those who don't have insurance. At least now that most everyone has insurance, ER prices have gone down a lot over here. ERs are required to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay and must assume the person isn't lying about their issues, even if they're repeat offender who never pay and claim to have all kinds of issues. I've talked to nurses about regulars who can't afford a $100 doctor's visit, so they go the ER claiming all kinds of issues and get a full work-over, racking up a $2500 bill that they can never pay. Mind you, these people can't afford the doctor's visit because they don't know how to budget, not because they don't make enough.

    64. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough if you have no ties to a place. Personally I don't see why I'd want to retire at 50 to move away from my family, kids, friends, etc and start over. Working until 65, having $3 million instead of $1.2 (without contributing another cent to my savings - so living a lot more luxuriously) and then staying near all the people in my life sounds a lot better to me.

    65. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      US unemployment rates refer to people actively seeking work. It doesn't include people who have given up looking and it certainly doesn't include leeches who are content to sit on their asses their entire lives.

    66. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      outside fun world

      I would not consider outside "fun". I find traveling and meeting people incredibly exhausting, unless those people are intellectually stimulating, which is incredibly rare.

    67. Re:What have they got to show for it? by gordguide · · Score: 1

      When you retire, you're not out buying new Tesla's or a new phone every year, you don't really need to....having things paid off and money in the bank, and with age, your "fun" needs decrease really, no kids to take care of, etc. That's pretty easy in most parts of the US.

        Or buying a new Tesla ever.
      </quote>

      Bingo!

      Now, I can't remember who did it or even when I read the summary, but in a survey of US millionaires, there were some consistent traits that stood out against the common practice of those who had net worth less than $1 million.

      One of those traits was the Millionaires bought (gently) used cars, the poorer Americans bought new cars.

    68. Re:What have they got to show for it? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't see why I'd want to retire at 50 to move away from my family, kids, friends, etc and start over.

      They aren't staying put either. My father came from Maine. None of his siblings, nieces, and nephews live in Maine any more. Most of his friends don't either. There wasn't much point to him staying put because so many had left, and so he didn't way back when.

      Working until 65, having $3 million instead of $1.2 (without contributing another cent to my savings - so living a lot more luxuriously) and then staying near all the people in my life sounds a lot better to me.

      I grant that working like a dog to 50 and then suddenly stopping can be lethal healthwise. Working much lighter hours for another 15 years or more would probably be a good transition to just about any retirement as well as building up funds more. But $1.2 million is a fair bit of money that a couple can retire on.

    69. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, ok. So you're the kind of snobbish asshole that makes people hate California.

      We'll all get in line and value the sort of lifestyle YOU think is important, because obviously, anything is is valueless and pathetic.

      Nah, I take that back. On second thought, you're just a fuckhead.

    70. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough if you have no ties to a place. Personally I don't see why I'd want to retire at 50 to move away from my family, kids, friends, etc and start over.

      If you live in a high cost area, moving away from it makes a lot of sense than burning through your retirement savings to pay to live there.

      As for getting away from kids and family and friends, well sometimes a "change of scenery" is want "you" want or need when you retire. It's also a matter of personal choice so don't whine about the environment you choose to live in when you retire.

      As for "starting over", well it depends on what you mean by that. Making new friends? Perhaps. Buying a new house and going through the moving hassles and "settling in" issues, again, you made the choice so I hope you knew what you were getting into.

      Working until 65, having $3 million instead of $1.2 (without contributing another cent to my savings - so living a lot more luxuriously) and then staying near all the people in my life sounds a lot better to me.

      The thought of "living in luxury" while retired is dependent upon the cost of living where you choose to live and unexpected expenses that might occur once you are retired. So you are retired. You get older every year. The human body "changes" over time; it gets "older" every year you are alive. What happens to your retirement savings if you develop some chronic disease that requires type of "constant care" that is not covered by your medical insurance? Oh, did you think to factor in the issue that all forms of insurance cost more money every year you get older, like "Obamacare" (US-specific example), or become more difficult to find doctors that accept it, like "Medicare" (US-specific example)? You know why that is? The insurance actuaries (the math geniuses that are paid to figure out how much an insurance company should charge for a policy, or it could be a computer doing the figuring based on guidelines supplied by actuarial data) have figured out that older people tend to require more health care and more expensive forms of health care. Older people, on a "per capita basis", tend to need hip and knee replacements than younger people. Older people, on a "per capita basis", are more likely than younger people to require "long term skilled nursing" or a nursing home because older people tend to "get well" slower than younger people.

      So think long and hard about "living in luxury" and "living it up" when you retire. Most retirement investment counselors will tell you that people planning to retire usually make 2 critical mistakes: (1) they underestimate what retirement will really cost them every year they are retired; (2) they base their retirement financial planning on how they live now, yet they retire and live in a way that is more costly than what they planned for. Both of those reasons are why many retired people have to return to work ... they need to pay the bills. As a retiree myself, I know very few fellow retirees that work because they want to, unless you call "volunteering for no money" a form of work.

    71. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks thou dost protest too much. Are we a little bit jealous that OP made the right moves and was able to retire to an existence he could be happy with at 50?

    72. Re:What have they got to show for it? by megamind · · Score: 1

      More like 50%.

    73. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: "Mommy and Daddy paid for my lazy ass until I was in my 30s, and then I got dropped into a cush job."

      I'm guessing you're somehow related to Trump.

    74. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...aaand the US did all that because it really liked Europeans, and not because it preferred to fight the next war in Europe and not on 'home base'. Sure. Self-interest is self-interest old chap.

    75. Re:What have they got to show for it? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There are plenty of ways to earn over 1% and still be quite secure. If you're only making 1% then you're doing something wrong. Long term, my investments have done fairly well and I held onto many of them during the '08/09 crash.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    76. Re:What have they got to show for it? by gordguide · · Score: 1



      <quote><p>Of course. I forgot that Europeans were able to prevent Russia from moving in all by themselves. Oh wait. No they didn't. Russia moved in and installed puppets in all those Eastern bloc countries and the other European countries did nothing. The US was tired and left Europe to do something and Europe failed</p></quote>

      <p>If by "Europeans" you mean Nazi Germany, then no, they had a treaty with the Soviet Union.

      If you mean other major European powers, well, they were more concerned about Nazi Germany at the time.

      In the period of 1918 to 1940, there was no real U.S. military presence in Europe.

      I think we all agree that it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the USA into WW2 - otherwise they would have been quite content to sit it out, like they did most of WWI.</p></quote>

      And the US was so reluctant to get involved in WWII that even after Pearl Harbour, wherupon the USA declared war on Japan, the vote to declare war on Germany was defeated. It was Germany whom, after waiting about a week for the US to act and realizing it wasn't going to happen, declared war on the US.

    77. Re:What have they got to show for it? by gordguide · · Score: 1

      And you are better off for it. Sure I'd love to slash the military budget to 1/10th its current size and bring all our armed forces home for pure defense purposes, but Europe has done a piss poor job of showing that it is willing to fund the military presence needed to ensure stability. So we do that. You're welcome, and STFU.



      America cannot "slash it's military budget to 1/10th" and "bring all our armed forces home" and expect to maintain it's profits from trade. No nation has ever earned money from foreign trade without a strong military presence; one goes hand in hand with the other, and a failure to maintain the military side of the equation inevitably leads to the trade income disappearing, having been taken over by a foreign rival who understood the necessity for military might abroad.

      Some might assume that the US, with a falling manufacturing base, no longer has a robust international trade to protect. They would be wrong.

      Although things like machinery or textiles or electronics may no longer be large parts of the export pie, the US has robust trading products such as agriculture, software, fast food franchises, entertainment, and even sports to offer in international trade, and in essence, all these products are equivalent to manufactured goods which, although certainly valuable commodities, are old economy products. Despite all the advantages a manufacturing export economy offers, it is important to realize there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

      Another might suggest that maybe others should step up and provide "their share" of the military resources the US has deployed internationally. Regardless of what that should involve ... allied nations do deploy troops and assets in shared geopolitical conflicts now, but the US media can't sell news of non-American troops in, say, Syria so it's little wonder the average US citizen has no idea to what extent allied nations do share objectives and absorb the consequences of being in action ... the point is it's not these short term deployments that matter when it comes to trade; it's the military bases worldwide, and the naval assets that support those bases.

      These represent long term, relatively fixed costs that cannot be reduced to any significant level without jeopardizing their very existence.

      And when one nation closes a base, or moves out of an anchored position somewhere on the planet, another nation is always eager and ready to move into the vacuum created. And that is how the world's larger trading nations grow their domestic economies.
    78. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lovely little anecdote - but you're an outlier, not typical at all, and you should keep your personal opinions to yourself. You're not contributing ANYTHING to the conversation, except LOOK AT ME!

      Just like me, in fact ...

    79. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone from Scandinavia, I would like to know what it is that you prefer more? You work 10-12 hours a day plus weekends and only have a mere 6 weeks of vacation (unpaid?). So what do you have that your sister in law does not have?

      I quit my last job working with a state owned company. 25 days of paid vacation if you're under 30, 31 days of paid vaction up till 40, and 35 i think if you're older. If you don't like having time off you can convert everything above 20 to money instead. (You acually need to take atleast 4 weeks, and the company must agree to give you 3 of these in a row if you ask for it.) And you could convert salery up to 9 extra days. So I had 40 days paid vacation. And my employer was pretty ok for me to take out unpaid leave too.

      I have affordable healthcare, and if you get sick and can't attend your job you'll get 80% of your salary.
      I don't ever feel anxious that I would lose my job, employee security is high (in my opinion too high, I would rather see a flex security system). If I would get fired the company still have to pay me for atleast one month, In many cases 2 or 3 months. After that I would get 80% from my unemployment insurance for up to 150 days, and 60% for another 150 days (you can even buy more insurance than this).
      I don't need a fancy burglar alarm in my house, I'm not afraid to walk home at night, robberies are very rare, murder is almost unheard of.

      I have the time and money to travel anywhere in the world, and scandies can travel visa free in most parts of the world.

      So please tell me what you think you have that we don't. Is it the tale called the american dream? Your dog eat dog world is so medival...

    80. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just want to clarify, the 9 extra days of vacation was a perk at my last job and is not standard.

    81. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have direct reporting employees both in Europe and in the USA. I support the grandparent poster. The Europeans get more work done in less time.

    82. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet we have a higher standard of living, much better quality of life and a trade surplus rather than a trade deficit.

    83. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really don't know what you are talking about. Read up on the 4% rule. http://www.investopedia.com/te...

      Check out www.mrmoneymustache.com

      You most likely suck at managing money. 1.2M is $48,000 per year to live on. If you can't make ends meet on that, especially with a paid off residence, you have a spending problem.

    84. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The insurance costs of healthcare potentially increase whether you retire at 50 or 65. If you retire at 50 and can't pay the costs at 65 you are in a worse position than having more to retire on at 65. At 75 the difference might be even more stark.

      If you can take a chance on savings at 50 growing sufficiently by 65 and can cover living expenses and enjoyment working part time from 50 to 65 that might be a reasonable option, as you have more time to enjoy things when less likely to be ill without risking being unable to reenter the job market full time if needs be, whilst also adding to savings.

      I only I were so lucky as to be able to afford to go part time at 50

    85. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four cars for fun, a big house, and a huge bank account I didn't lose to taxes.

    86. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check your facts:

      The US engineered a military coup against a pro-Russian, democratically elected government in the Ukraine
      The Russians responded to that by annexing Crimea when civil war resulted
      If the US hadn't meddled Russia wouldn't have annexed

      All reports (including from western sources like the BBC) also say that that annexation has overwhelming (85%+) support from the local population.
      Add in the fact that the coup we supported was done by a bunch of freaking neo-nazis
      Add in the fact that the non-annexed part of Ukraine is in the middle of rather nasty cival war
      Add in the fact that we promised Gorbatsjov that NATO would not be extend into eastern Europe

      The west doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the current situation in Ukraine

    87. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "European Lifestyle" also means single payer medicine, .. an efficient mass transit system.

      The latter part is near the truth, depending of the country, but the former is part of the great American collection of political mythology. Healthcare is partially payed from insurances, many of them and only one of them the public insurance system where your employers pay the part of your salary going into social security payments. The rest is up to you as a citizen and up to the employer's insurances and contract with a healthcare provider. If you can't pay, the society's safety net compensates unless you have some property to sell to cover the expenses.

    88. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America has the greatest mass transit system, it's called a highway. You can travel across 48 states on a US highway and it costs less than a train to travel the same distance(s) while allowing for a greater number and variety of passengers and cargo.

    89. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going great, Soviet Union was destroyed, Central Europe was freed, Taliban was destroyed, what you fail to realize is that the Taliban were created by Pakistan, the US merely provided the funding. Of course, it's all the fault of the Shah of Iran abdicating and creating the groundswell of radical Islam extremists. Afghans are safer now than they were 20 years ago.

      https://web.stanford.edu/class...

    90. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Higher rate investments are higher risk, so you'd want to be well diversified to reduce the risk, although still be somewhat exposed, or keep it in safe vehicles, or progressively move it.

      1% is real terms 0% currently (a bit less given tax) so one option might be to put 600k in a safe vehicle at 1%, and grow the other 600k, which someone was suggesting would then increase to about 1.5m (real/nominal) at 65, or say 1.8m at 70. So you could withdraw 40k per annum 50 to 70, and then buy an annuity at 70, which would be about 70k per annum at 70 (nominal?). Different balances and strategies might work better, but you'd want a margin for risk.

      Another option would be take the 40k to 70 but work part time for an extra 20k

    91. Re:What have they got to show for it? by pijokela · · Score: 1

      Sick leave with 100% compensation for about 2 weeks and a smaller pay for longer times. Complete with possibility of retiring due to health reasons at any age. (The pension from doing that is not great, but it exists.)

    92. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.2 million? Better get back to work!

    93. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My F-150 Crew Cab is a massive transit system!

    94. Re:What have they got to show for it? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      And from what I'm told, for many it means living in shitty apartments vs real houses, even outside of expensive cities like London. If we work more than Europeans, it's in large part because we *have* to in order to survive. The pathetic situation in Greece notwithstanding, do other European countries enforce the growing income disparity that we have in the US? I suspect not, that their economic systems do not enable the 1% dynamic.

    95. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We scored much higher than European countries on the Gini coefficient: http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/

      Only Turkey, Mexico, and Chile have greater income inequality.

      Suck it, Europe. Our rich people are richer than your rich people.

      Wooohooo USA USA

    96. Re:What have they got to show for it? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Pretty good with finance, actually. Tell me, what is a "safe" rate of return today? (Hint-- no where close to 4%.) What does healthcare cost for a 50-year old + family as OP indicated? What are annual property taxes on that paid off home? How much of that savings is in cash?

      My math would be as follows: greater of $200k or 5 years spending in cash, 2% safe return (but hopefully 5% some years to allow for a splurge here and there), $1,000/month for a basic health insurance policy, $250/month in property taxes. That puts basic income requirement around $20k/year, and most people like to eat and stuff, so call it a minimum of $25k for a very frugal lifestyle. $48k Makes things reasonably comfortable.

      $48k/$1MM invested requires a 5% rate of return until you are eligible for social security, when hopefully an extra $2k/month + Medicare kicks in and let's you live on 2-3% per year. BUT, you still need a separate nest egg for medical emergencies, say an extra $50k that hopefully grows by 2% per year for when you get really sick.

      Retirement is expensive even if you live frugally. Most people are better off keeping a low stress job a few extra years to cover medical and help slowly build up cash reserves. Unpleasant surprise paying capital gains tax on that cash reserve all at once. Also unpleasant surprise when you switch from a historically high-growth portfolio to a dividend based portfolio when you have a lower risk tolerance. I might have become overly conservative now though...

    97. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about. You may want to check with your dealer, i think he/she switched drugs on you.

    98. Re:What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you play your RTS games with similar turtle tactic?

    99. Re:What have they got to show for it? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Go away. Data beets anecdotes every time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    100. Re: What have they got to show for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be interesting is the relation between the income and worked hours instead. E.g. If poorer people work more?

      If you need to hold three minimum wage jobs to make ends meat, like some in the US does; Would probably scew the result in "favor" for US.

      An other interesting angle would be to include travel time too and from the work place.

  2. Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply stated...

    1. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True. It also doesn't take into account the quality of work done. It might just mean Europeans are 25% more efficient.

    2. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someone else linked this which seems to indicate that south Europeans are simply lazy sods.

      However, when measured as value added per hour worked, Norway had the highest labour productivity level per worker at $46.55, followed by the US at $43.66 and France at $42.99.

      So, if a good hardworking Nord tells me I'm doing my work wrong, I'll listen (but may ignore the advice). If a Frank criticizes me for anything, I'll pour out his wine and feed his cheese to the rats.

    3. Re:Capitalism of exploration by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Productivity and "working more" are not the same thing.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, all my friends who brag about working 10h-12h days spend much of it online social media or shooting the proverbial shit.

      I come in at 6:30-7 and I spend 4-5h on mental stuff but then I'm utterly done. Got a good boss, he knows I get the plurality of team's shit done and doesn't blink twice when I head out at lunch at noon and don't come back till 3:30 because I'm playing disc golf or some such, see if I missed anything and head home.

      Any of the seatwarmers here try that and they'd be out of work the next day. But then they take a week to solve problems it takes me a day, tops, all because they can't concentrate. Multitasking, my ass.

    5. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Productivity and "working more" are not the same thing.

      This poster was replying to a post that tried to imply that europeans were just more efficient. Also, one common thread you hear is that productivity starts to fall as hours increase. This poster was saying that for the USA, even working more than other people we still seem to have the most productivity per hour worked. I think it still wouldn't hurt to try to reduce the number of hours worked but to be working the most hours per week and still have the most productivity per hour is actually kindof impressive.

    6. Re:Capitalism of exploration by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Americans do work hard, you're right. And the productivity numbers are impressive, despite my best efforts to bring down the average.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Capitalism of exploration by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It might just mean Europeans are 25% more efficient.

      Nope. Americans not only work more, but also get more done per hour than any European countries except Luxembourgh and Norway.

    8. Re:Capitalism of exploration by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True. It also doesn't take into account the quality of work done. It might just mean Europeans are 25% more efficient.

      I think it means that Americans get less paid vacation than Europeans and they are more afraid of losing their jobs.

    9. Re: Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be if it was true; but it isn't.

    10. Re:Capitalism of exploration by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Europeans are also not one hegemon. Liberals love to whine about diversity and then actually ignore it. Or they perhaps suppress the idea that people are different because it doesn't match their simplistic notion of equality.

      Each country in Europe is distinct. They are each their own thing that's developed over thousands of years. They are not a mishmash of all ethnicities (like the US tends to be).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Capitalism of exploration by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well when productivity is measured in USD and you can print them it's not as much impressive.

    12. Re: Capitalism of exploration by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Multitasking just means you do a lot of jobs at once, poorly.

    13. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans are not one hegemon. Each state in the Union is distinct. Conservatives love to prate about "American values" without stopping to consider that Americans hold many different values. Or perhaps they suppress the idea that Americans hold many different values because it doesn't match their nationalistic notions of identity.

      Did you like that? Makes about as much sense as what you said, and is just as relevant to the article this thread is purportedly about.

    14. Re:Capitalism of exploration by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Informative

      True. It also doesn't take into account the quality of work done. It might just mean Europeans are 25% more efficient.

      European countries and cultures are just too variable to make that assumption. Norway is not the same as Germany which is not the same as France which is not the same as Italy which is not the same as Greece which is not the same as Romania and so on and so on.

    15. Re:Capitalism of exploration by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Mmm, that's productivity per worker. If that Frenchman, who manages to be within about 1.5% as productive as an American while working 20% less tells an American something about productivity, the American might want to grab a pen and take notes.

    16. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      However, if the hardworking Norwegian works 258 hours less per year, using the numbers in the OP, the productivity advantage disappears to the tune of $745 per year. Of course it's more complicated. The Norwegian may be paying higher taxes that make the situation worse but then may get better social government support during the working years and in retirement than a US worker - or even less. Whether the Norwegian has a happier existence during working years and a longer retirement needs to be figured in and putting a dollar amount on that would be hard to do. Economics is complicated.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    17. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Well when productivity is measured in USD and you can print them it's not as much impressive.

      So measure it in oil, gold, euro, whatever. USD is just a placeholder for purchasing power. There is some fluctuation between different placeholders but one of the reasons the USD is used as a default placeholder is that it tends to fluctuate less than other placeholders. Use the consumer price index or any other basket of goods (I'm assuming other countries have something similar) and you likely won't get much different results. Sure, the USA probably has some advantage to having the USD as the default placeholder but distorting calculation of value by any significant margin is not one of them nor is being able to magically print wealth.

    18. Re:Capitalism of exploration by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Oh, the beauty of statistics...
      Sadly, the page you linked is directly affected by purchasing power index (PPP).
      How about checking this link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    19. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well when productivity is measured in USD and you can print them it's not as much impressive.

      Who prints the Euro? Certainly not Americans.

    20. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Americans not only work more, but more of their money is redistributed to the .01% by the government.

    21. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, there's the problem with productivity: you are still using pens and paper while we have "computers".

    22. Re: Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's per hour worked, so on that measure a Frenchman is less productive. However, the conversion of local currency to $ may affect the figure.

      Another factor is that these are figures presumably averaged over all jobs. It might be that a French find cheese maker is more productive than one in the USA but that the scope for value add in cheese making is lower than average and if France has more cheese makers its productivity will appear lower, even if every like-for-like comparison favoured the French. Or vice-versa.

      So more detail is needed.

    23. Re:Capitalism of exploration by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is wrong.
      They get less done.

      The rest are currency conversion errors and mountain high differences in financial markets etc.

      A typical worker, earning less then lets say $50,000 per year, is not even half as productive/efficient in the US as in Europe. Otherwise all your jobs would not be outsourced to China, India or other asian countries.

      The GNP/capita is no measure at all when you can manipulate local costs, exchange rates and can invent artificial spendings or gains.

      A country that has a financial market that dominates 50% of the money flow has obviously twice the GNP versus a country that has no financial market. But: nothing was produced. There is no productivity at all

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Capitalism of exploration by gordguide · · Score: 1



      <quote><p>Productivity and "working more" are not the same thing.</p></quote>

      <p>This poster was replying to a post that tried to imply that europeans were just more efficient. Also, one common thread you hear is that productivity starts to fall as hours increase. This poster was saying that for the USA, even working more than other people we still seem to have the most productivity per hour worked. I think it still wouldn't hurt to try to reduce the number of hours worked but to be working the most hours per week and still have the most productivity per hour is actually kindof impressive.</p></quote>

      I would suggest that we don't actually know what "productivity" actually is. Not that we don't have figures to represent productivity, or that we haven't established categories of economic data that we use to generate productivity estimates ... we have and do all these things.

      But it's a measure of something that changes depending on what you are measuring, and what you choose to measure often comes down to what you do in the first place. A nation that has a large agricultural economy will choose to use different parameters than a nation that has a large automated manufacturing sector, and one that has a large fundamental industrial capacity (steel making or shipbuilding, for example) a different set again.

      The problem, of course, comes when you throw these various economies together and compare them ... the set of parameters you measure become prejudicial, benefitting one economy over another, leading to a "better" number for one compared to the other.

      So, productivity numbers are generally useful but specifically useless. You can use them to establish baselines and glean trends that are useful to a certain extent, but to compare two different economies the value becomes diluted and of dubious merit.

      Maybe Germany might find productivity values useful in making economic goals for the future, to assess where it should be putting it's assets for competitive advantages versus the rest of the world, and the US might find similar value in similar fact gathering, but comparing Germany to the US, it becomes much more difficult to come up with a set of measurable criteria that doesn't favour one over the other, because they are significantly different economies structurally.

      I remember in the 1990's if you were to compare productivity figures for various nations worldwide, they all came down to a single metric ... the adoption of computers in business and industry.

      I have no doubt that adopting computers were important factors in how efficiently work got done, but it's absurd that a single metric represented the entire picture. The result was Productivity figures that said one economy (the US) apparently became many times more productive than any other economy on Earth, overnight.

      Plus, and I say this as an Economics major in college, anything that involves an economist is tantamount to guessing.

    25. Re:Capitalism of exploration by houghi · · Score: 1

      I live in Belgium and Belgians (Flemish) are not the same as Belgians (Walloons). And the difference in working laws and mentality between Flanders and The Netherlands is so great that many companies have a hard time operating in both.
      The way you adress people (be it customers or workers) is so different that where it is polite in one place, it will be felt as an insult in the other.

      And also: it is al about being efficient. This might be great for managers and companies. Most people I know in Europe are not interested in efficiency. They are interesten in their free time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    26. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my experience overseeing operations in 14 countries, 9 in Europe, Italy really is the laziest. It could take 2-3 weeks just to get a manager to return a phone call or reply to an email, 2-3 months to get them to implement a change. Germany was the best, fiercely independent and would respond and implement changes with ruthless efficiency. Brits were the most like their American counterparts, jovial and happy to get work done but sticklers for managerial process. Netherlands was quiet and reliable, only rarely slow to respond and even then a day or two late at most. Really, it's just Italy bringing down the efficiency of Europe, if you were to exclude them from these results all the other countries would appear to be on-par.

    27. Re:Capitalism of exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a temp worker I get zero paid vacation, zero sick leave, no retirement, no health care (can't afford Obamacare, $200/month for a single white male,) no dental (which I can afford but choose not to,) and recently had my hours reduced to 5 hours a day at my current contract which just happened to put me under the minimum threshold of hours needed to have been worked per week for Holiday pay ("Holiday" as in Christmas, etc... where the office is closed and I am not allowed to work.) Sure, I make $10/hr more than my counterparts, but it still sucks.

      I miss the small company I used to work for where I had all of the above, including: bi-annual profit sharing, stock options, and discounts on things like cellular service and computer purchases through our main vendors. Too bad they got bought out by a larger corporation that "displaced" me and outsourced IT to India.

    28. Re:Capitalism of exploration by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear that, bro. :(

    29. Re:Capitalism of exploration by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I think it still wouldn't hurt to try to reduce the number of hours worked but to be working the most hours per week and still have the most productivity per hour is actually kindof impressive.

      Not really, the US economy has inherent efficiencies which make it easier to achieve greater GDP without individual workers actually being any better.

  3. me fix by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    That does it, I'm gonna troll slashdot more

  4. Misleading results by dysmal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Working more does not necessarily mean more productivity. It's especially hard to be productive when you're burning your limited PTO/vacation allotments for unplanned family illnesses rather than... you know... planned restful downtime.

    1. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In this case, though, it does. Americans have one of highest productivity per person in world.

      I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's true. Personally. I use ALL my vacation and rarely work more than my allotted time (I work in internal medicine, so I do 7 on and 7 off).

      http://www.news.com.au/nationa...

    2. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am very interested in how they defined the productivity per worker. The article does not state that. From the numbers they show, my gut feeling is that they simply divided the gross national product by the number of employees, which is a wildly inaccurate way of defining productivity. Norway is not significantly more productive than Sweden or Denmark - it just has a lot of oil and those two countries do not. The relative sizes of the financial sector in different countries adds a similar distortion and there are many more factors to consider. How much a worker actually contributes to productivity is very hard to measure objectively. The GDP per worker does not tell much of that story.

    3. Re:Misleading results by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but what has increasing worker productivity gained us?
      TL;DR - since ~1973, diddly-squat if you're a worker, pretty sweet if you own the place. Let's give those heroic jerb creators another tax break!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    4. Re:Misleading results by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We will soon find out, I fear. The UK has already been talking about which employee rights will be removed once it leaves the EU. Time off proportional to overtime looks like it will be the first thing to go, but they keep talking about making the UK more "competitive", by which they of course mean lower wages, longer hours and fewer expenses like safety equipment and adaptations for people with disabilities.

      So it is likely we will find out just what that does to productivity soon, giving us an opportunity to compare the EU and US models.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Misleading results by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Well, the stupid one is the one who is a worker, not the employer. Quit your job, and create your own company if you're smart. Having hired people to work for me, it isn't as easy as it sounds, and should pay more than simply showing up to work stoned and hungover.

      The whiners of the world will always complain, and want government to pass laws preventing successful people from being successful. Instead of asking for government to make it easier to own your own business, the idiots are making it harder and harder, and then complaining that it isn't fair that people who own businesses make more money.

      So, quit your job if you think you can do better. You're probably right, but you'll never know.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re: Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the productivity gains in the last century was automation infrastructure and factory systems rather than anything else.

      If anything, I'd say organiaztions are getting better at gaming productivity measurements rather than anything else. I'd be hard pressed to find any place in America where I get better service today than decades past despite all these "gains".

    7. Re:Misleading results by konekoniku · · Score: 2

      The standard accepted approach in economics is to use Total Factor Productivity. You can read about it here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/dcom...

    8. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot harder to quit your job and strike out on your own now that having health insurance is the law. I'm in my late 30's and can't do what i did in my 20's because i went without insurance for many years.

    9. Re:Misleading results by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      but I thought being forced to buy a financial instrument from an approved financial instrument vendor was a good thing and would save us all. At least that is what BHO and HRC tell us.

    10. Re:Misleading results by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I am very interested in how they defined the productivity per worker.

      It is GDP (usually adjusted by PPP) divided by total hours worked by all workers in the country.

      my gut feeling is that they simply divided the gross national product by the number of employees, which is a wildly inaccurate way

      No. That is NOT what productivity means.

      Norway is not significantly more productive than Sweden or Denmark - it just has a lot of oil and those two countries do not.

      Productivity does NOT mean "working hard". Offshore oil workers may not "work harder" than, say, farmers, but they are likely to contribute far more to GDP, and are thus more productive.

    11. Re:Misleading results by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The article only discusses hours worked per capita. That means countries with high unemployment rates like Italy and France have a lower hours worked metric; productivity is entirely different.

    12. Re:Misleading results by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Losers have an excuse for everything.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:Misleading results by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It's a lot harder to quit your job and strike out on your own now that having health insurance is the law.

      That is a lame excuse. But seriously, you should NOT try to start your own business. If you really think a molehill like this is a major impediment, you will never get over the mountains. Keep your day job.

    14. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's all be [business owners], that will solve things.

      After I finish laughing at your wisdom, I get to laugh at the next idiot who thinks everyone should be [X] simultaneously.

      Maybe it will be an MMO video game. "Just join a platinum-ranked arena team and you'll get access to rocketlaunchers/mithrilequipment."

    15. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The problem with that graph - and many others like it - is that it ignores increases in the quality of things we buy. Inflation-adjusted numbers don't often account for the fact that cars today are much more efficient and a lot safer than they used to be; they don't account for changes in food supply, appliances, access to information, etc. Moreover, they also ignore one of the more important reasons wages haven't been growing as much - the workforce grew a whole lot in the 70s as women got more freedom to work. More available workers puts downward pressure on salaries.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    16. Re:Misleading results by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Its not that molehill that is the problem. It is that all the molehills people like you keep piling up, increases the size of the mountain that existed from the beginning of time. The phrase "straw that broke the camels back" comes to mind.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Misleading results by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I didn't make that argument at all. I suggested those that are whining about "business owners getting rich" should quit their jobs and become one, and stop their whining.

      The other option is to not whine about people taking risks, providing jobs for whiners, who are getting rich. They should be better off than their employees, and the jealousy of people like the initial whiner should be ignored. I'm sick of the whole "punish the rich for being successful" crap the left wing peddles.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re:Misleading results by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's a fine definition of productivity, but it's a meaningless way to compare workers or work styles in different places.

    19. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The added productivity due to the presence of oil or other natural resources is irrelevant when comparing labour between countries or regions.

    20. Re:Misleading results by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      The Brits voted to "Make Britain Great Again". Let's hope it's not as bad as it looks.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    21. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggested those that are whining about "business owners getting rich" should quit their jobs and become one, and stop their whining.

      Ok, then likewise people like YOU who complain about lefties should stop whining about lefties and become one yourself. ::Darth Vader voice:: Join us, and we can rule the galaxy together!

    22. Re:Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, someone by chance stumbling over a gold nugget isn't suddenly productive.
      If you assign the full value of natural resources to the person picking it up, you don't have a measure of productivity, you have utter nonsense.
      If that's the standard in economics, that explains a lot.

    23. Re:Misleading results by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That's a fine definition of productivity, but it's a meaningless way to compare workers or work styles in different places.

      Your problem is that you have somehow conflated "more productive" with "better" or "nobler" or "more moral". Productivity inherently means none of those things.

      Higher productivity simply means more is produced per unit of labor. That's it. That is all it means. So if my farm has richer soil, or more rain, than another farm, then I will be more productive, because I can grow more crops with the same amount of labor. It doesn't matter that I didn't "earn" that extra rain, and didn't "deserve" the richer soil.

      Norway has high productivity because of their offshore oil. Luxembourg has high productivity because of their financial industry. America has higher productivity because of huge domestic demand, abundant natural resources, flexible labor policies, and deep/efficient capital markets.

      That doesn't mean we are "better" than say, French people (We are, of course, but for different reasons).

    24. Re:Misleading results by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Well, I am promoting the ideal that you are in control of your own destiny, why would I become someone who places all that control in an external ... like government? The person whining about the rich business owner, who is unwilling or unable to become one themselves will be promoting the idea that the only "fairness" comes from his sense of entitlement to the earnings of someone else, via government thuggery.

      It is that proverbial and easy road to travel, paved with good intentions. OR as my daddy used to say, "Things that are hard to attain are most valuable, things that are easy to attain, no matter how good, are not valued at all" If you work hard, and are unique (and valuable) you'll have your reward. Not everyone is special, some (most) are common, ordinary and unrefined.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    25. Re:Misleading results by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Perhaps.... but at least in your example of "safety equipment and adaptations for people with disabilities" -- I'd say those are pretty well covered here in the U.S. today. In fact, some would say we overdo the "catering to folks with disabilities" with some of our legislation. (EG. Strict rules about how many handicapped parking spots you have to make available as a percentage of the total means in some establishments, you have row after row of them, unnecessarily wasting space and going unused.) And for some small businesses, they're forced to pay out large sums of money retrofitting older buildings to be wheelchair accessible as soon as they try to do any kind of update to the property that requires an inspection or permit -- even if they have no wheelchair bound employees at all, and no need for customers to access those parts of the building.

      I'm not sure what types of safety related things you imagine the U.K. has in place that the U.S. doesn't, which they'd be eager to remove to be more competitive either? But from everything I've seen, safety is taken fairly seriously in the U.S. Organizations like OSHA impose all sorts of safety requirements, and even at the level of a person buying a used home, the homeowner's insurance often does a drive-by inspection and demands changes such as putting up railings on any outside steps, or else you risk getting your policy cancelled. The days of companies not caring at all about worker safety pretty much went out with the initial rise of the unions to power -- leading to those demands getting enshrined into Federal law of the land.

    26. Re:Misleading results by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The article only discusses hours worked per capita. That means countries with high unemployment rates like Italy and France have a lower hours worked metric; productivity is entirely different.

      One can assume that total output in such countries is lower than the full potential if their unemployment rates were lower. So I would think using total hours worked per capita would still level out (it is still inaccurate, though.)

    27. Re: Misleading results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you forgot the ruthless oppression of one race, and the almost complete extermination of another in your cute little America tirade.

      FTFY.

    28. Re:Misleading results by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The oil workers aren't more productive than the farmers, the oil field is more productive than the wheat field. That's why it's hard to measure worker productivity.

  5. Need more unions and workers rights! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Need more unions and workers rights!

    1. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe Americans need to live in a framework that allows them to walk away from hostile work environments. To put it another way, I don't think most Americans would be satisfied by the materialistic aspects of European life and due to this pursuit we're suffering for it. Until our conceptions of what it means to lead a successful and good life changes we're doomed to repeat the same cycle of consumerism. Each concept has its own pros and cons, choose wisely.

    2. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uh no. We need less government control, so people can start their own businesses. Why is the liberal solution more of what causes the problem in the first place?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. You're being fired from two of your three part-time, low-wage jobs because you needed to stay home to care for a sick child? You just need to start your own business! If you're too lazy to do that, why should we care about your problems?

    4. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > Maybe Americans need to live in a framework that allows them to walk away from hostile work environments.

      That's called self-discipline.

      Americans have more choices. They can chose to be vulnerable or not. We make more, keep more, and our currency goes farther. We just have a consumer culture that encourages blowing it all.

      Even ghetto children have this fixation on overpriced status symbols.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Nothing like Strawman and fake anecdotal evidence to prove your point!

      Everyone knows it is better to be on welfare where you get free Obamacare in that case. Duh.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by BenBoy · · Score: 1

      Actually, almost no one waits to have a child or children when they can afford to, if you factor in misfortune. I certainly couldn't have coasted through the rest of my kid's upbringing if I'd become unemployable shortly after his birth, and/or had a sick enough kid to require a million or two in medical care. Are you yourself so breathtakingly well off that you could have done that? If so, kudos (and small wonder at your remarkable lack of empathy), but I predict a pretty precipitous population drop if everyone were do be held to your (perfect, morally upright) standards.

    7. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's going to work super in a global economy. I'm sure countries with the proverbial Eye of the Tiger won't take advantage of that to further erode US jobs!

      It's hilarious some of you people think it's still 1973 and what worked in the last century will work now.

    8. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      but I predict a pretty precipitous population drop if everyone were do be held to your (perfect, morally upright) standards.

      Err...nothing "moral" to it...just common sense that you don't do shit you can't afford. And...kids are NOT cheap.

      I actually do see, that many kids today are waiting on average to later in life to have kids, and that is smart for most of them since they are not hitting the workforce at levels of income (relative to the times) that we did in the past.

      Sure you had folks having kids younger in the past, but in the past, people seemed to "grow up" a bit faster and they mostly were working jobs where they could afford kids and a house, etc....

      Times have changed and well, it is like anything.

      If you cannot afford a new car...don't buy one till you can afford it. Don't have kids if you cannot afford them. And if you do have them, be prepared to sacrifice yourself in many ways for them, give things up so you can give to them.

      I'm just saying, kids do NOT pop out of thin air and surprise you...at least they should not if you are an adult with adult level thinking and reasoning.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Brilliant! If those lazy, shiftless poors would just put off having children until they can afford it, then... well, given the increasing stratification of American culture, they'd probably never manage to have children. So we breed poorness out of the population! Win-win!

    10. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      running a small business = less time to take care of family. also it is becoming increasingly difficult for small business to thrive as big business exerts it power, as well as the fact that in many fields the regulations make it neigh impossible due to the costs.

    11. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points. Thank you for pointing out what should be blindingly obvious.

      Unfortunately, particularly on this subject, it seems that no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

    12. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

      In the US, companies are moving their operations to non-union states when they can, and to other countries when they cannot. Yeah, that's what we need more of.

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    13. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      given the increasing stratification of American culture, they'd probably never manage to have children. So we breed poorness out of the population! Win-win!

      I'd not thought of that, but it would be a nice side benefit....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Framework is exactly the issue, unemployment support consists of a fraction of a paycheck for a limited number of weeks and "fill-out this form online and look for work yourself". There is no government agent trying to place people in jobs, it is self-serve. There is financial aid for taking classes at the local city college, but that aid typically runs out within the first 2-3 months of the year and has a waiting list 2-3 years long. Even the old fallback of flipping burgers at McDonalds is no longer an option as those jobs are in high demand by illegal immigrants wanting the increased minimum wage.

    15. Re:Need more unions and workers rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant! If those lazy, shiftless poors would just put off having children until they can afford it, then... well, given the increasing stratification of American culture, they'd probably never manage to have children. So we breed poorness out of the population! Win-win!

      Not a bad plan, actually.

      Live within your means. It applies to having children just as much as buying junk.

  6. Only Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As Americans measure everything by size and not quality, I am not surprised by this. My USA counterparts are much more at the office, and producing less work than the continental ones. Make a study about effectiveness and I am your man!

    1. Re:Only Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Keep telling yourself size doesn't matter.

    2. Re:Only Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Where is the Silicon Valley of Europe? What has replaced Google, Facebook, and (dare I say it) Slashdot in Europe?

      Where is the innovation that is far outstripping American workers?

      Prove to me why you think an average European produce more than an average American, against all studies and measures of the subject and "I am your man!"

    3. Re:Only Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're so insightful then why not share these insights instead of making flippant remarks? We're all ears.

    4. Re:Only Logical by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Where is the Silicon Valley of Europe?

      Judging by all the incorporation papers, Dublin most likely.

    5. Re:Only Logical by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, that makes Dublin the Delaware of Europe.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Only Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what Americans are known for?

    7. Re:Only Logical by ravenscar · · Score: 1

      Unless you happen to be in Norway (the only European country with a higher per-hour productivity than the US) you're just spewing anecdotes. As a whole, Americans work longer AND are more productive than almost any European country - at least according to the UN. http://www.news.com.au/nationa...

      I won't say that this is necessarily a good thing. I will say that your arrogance appears misplaced.

    8. Re:Only Logical by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Where is the Silicon Valley of Europe? What has replaced Google, Facebook, and (dare I say it) Slashdot in Europe?

      Where is the innovation that is far outstripping American workers?

      Prove to me why you think an average European produce more than an average American, against all studies and measures of the subject and "I am your man!"

      Uh, Siemens is a european company. Nokia was also a pioneer in the cellular industry. Angry birds?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    9. Re:Only Logical by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Unless you happen to be in Norway (the only European country with a higher per-hour productivity than the US) you're just spewing anecdotes. As a whole, Americans work longer AND are more productive than almost any European country - at least according to the UN. http://www.news.com.au/nationa...

      I won't say that this is necessarily a good thing. I will say that your arrogance appears misplaced.

      The problem is that Norway has oil. You are in many ways measuring produce, not people working. And while significant, it is not exactly an accurate description of the efficiency of the workers.

      --
      It is what it is.
    10. Re:Only Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully nowhere. Despite the big tech companies being headquartered there, Silicon Valley is a shithole. It has no culture other than tech culture, any good hiking, camping or fishing requires driving for hours. It's too hot (granted I like living in a place where it's newsworthy when the the temp reaches 80F).

    11. Re:Only Logical by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      My USA counterparts are much more at the office, and producing less work than the continental ones.

      I work for a multinational company that has an engineering office in Europe, as well as in the US. although the company HQ and primary engineering office are in the US, i's the European office that defines the "engineering processes" that all of us in product engineering are supposed to follow.

      Here's where things get interesting. We (in the US) don't have those. The European engineering office has a larger staff, including "process engineers" who are dedicated to coordinating other engineering activities according to the processes. For a given project, the European office might estimate "1 team year" of effort. Our VP of Engineering sees nothing wrong with this. Yet, the same VP of Engineering has told our (us, in the US) project managers that our same estimate for the same project, is "Too long. I can only budget 6 months." So, we "negotiate" with the project managers, who will ultimately settle for "8 months".

      So, we do it. On time, per the negotiated schedule. And with smaller teams. But, we short cut the processes. So the VP of E, when doing reviews of randomly selected projects, will tell us (in the US) "Fantastic results, but you need to do better at following process. And improve your productivity." The people in the European are told "Awesome work!"

      Same company. Same VP of Engineering. Different expectations.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    12. Re:Only Logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your UN report is from 2007

      read more recent statistics, you will be surprised

      http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV

  7. Greed is God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greed is God.

  8. working to offset expansion of the money supply by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Informative

    Americans have to work more hours and take fewer vacation days because they are poorer at this point, given that USA is running 500,000,000,000 a year trade deficit and has been running that for 2 decades now, Americans cannot afford anything, they are completely stuck in debt and their government in concert with the Federal reserve are destroying the value of their money, value of theirs savings every days. Government spending and money printing, pushing interest rates down to keep borrowing more by doing things like 'operation twist' (the Fed buying long term bonds at negative real interest rates because nobody else would), all of this is expanding the money supply making USD less valuable all the time, thus making Americans less productive every day.

    The only way out of this insanity is to restructure the debts, an honest default on the USD denominated debt, stopping all government spending (yes, this means all wars, all SS payments, all Medicare payments, everything). You have to clear away all of your debts, allow the bond holders to lose money so that the interest rates would reset to normal levels (only real market without government intervention can set real interest rates). Get the government out of your money because otherwise you will never have vacations or retirement savings or anything.

    1. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by RichPowers · · Score: 2

      You're correct, roman_mir, but this isn't a US-specific problem. There's Japan, EU, etc. It's a rolling disaster for the so-called liberal capitalist democracies.

      What's disheartening is that public anger over the dismal outcomes of this inflationary fiscal policy manifests itself in bizarre and ineffective forms, like Trump. The Fed, meanwhile, continues as usual, while Congress ignores its constitutional responsibility to coin money and regulate its value.

    2. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget your thoughts - Donald Trump will fix everything.

    3. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by cvdwl · · Score: 1

      Oddly, the USD has risen sharply against the Euro over the last few years. Unfortunately for me, one of those slacker Americans working in Europe and enjoying my 6 weeks of vacation a year.

      --
      ... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
    4. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      #notallamericans

      Some of us save our money, take on as little debt as possible, and laugh at the Joneses.

    5. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not just the trade deficit, it's the spending we have to support as well. Even though the Federal Government took more than $10,000 per man, woman, and child (about $26,400 per worker - about $13.20 per hour worked in the US), it still spent $1,423,000,000,000 more than it took in (an additional $5.69 per hour worked). We have a LOT of Government to support - there are career politicians and crony capitalists to support after all!

      Sources: number of workers, 124.73 million. Federal revenues: $3.3 trillion. Federal debt added FY2016: $1.423 trillion

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair the printing of more dollars makes sense when running a huge deficit as it devalues dollar dominated trade imbalances. Since much international traded commodities are dollar denominated every trading nation much hold dollar reserves so any devaluation of the us dollar is moderated by the euro-dollar holdings outside of the usa. The people really hurting from the us printing dollars are it's trading partners who haven't linked their currencies to the dollar and those holding dollar reserves.

    7. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump is a perfect example of the modern American executive class who works endless hours yet doesn't produce anything of any value except bullying his employees from one financial disaster to another.

    8. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by arth1 · · Score: 1, Informative

      #notallamericans

      Some of us save our money, take on as little debt as possible, and laugh at the Joneses.

      Unfortunately, that doesn't help when the government you have chosen is so deep in debt on your behalf.

      Each US taxpayer currently owes around $165,000 in national debt, plus $870,000 in liabilities. Add state debt, at $5,000-$25,000 per taxpayer, depending on the state.

    9. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Trump knows one thing: how not to pay on his borrowed loans. That is actually the person that is needed in the government. He is not going to run a business there but he can lead the country through the restructuring of debts that it needs.

    10. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice theory, but lets say the military is de-funded (with all bases closing, all payments cease, etc.)

      1: Countries like Japan, Europe, Signapore -will- get invaded, or at least "persuaded" to have a colonial relationship with another power. It may not be China or Russia, but it could be a smaller country that has spent money on military might. Result, fewer allies and worse economic growth for the US in the future.

      2: No social programs mean that people don't get fed. This means people start rioting because they get scared. This means cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Santa Clara, LA, and Austin turn into Aleppos. Revolutionary groups form because people turn desparate.

      3: The US Dollar is the cornerstone of trade. Destroying that will make the world turn to the yuan. Do we want to trade a known master for another and assume China will look for our fiscal and economic interest?

      So, I know the parent has a love for Atlas Shrugged, but in the real world, defunding everything would cause World War 3, as powers move in to deal with the power vacuum left behind by the US. Think Iraq's sectarian violance was bad when the US left? Now imagine that globally, with Daesh-like entities emerging from those gaps.

    11. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by ADRA · · Score: 1

      *psst* lowering the value of money helps you pay back your debt *psst*

      Most of your held debt is spent on armed forces (as a whole), armed forced pensions/medicaid, interest, etc.. which one do you ever see being cut? Europe had people in pitch-forks because the only things they could realistically cut were social services, education, medical, etc.. When the US gov starts cutting veteran's pensions and health, what do you see the outcome being?

      Certainly scaling back new armed forced recruiting is a pretty good idea assuming you can life without it (very likely).

      --
      Bye!
    12. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just starve those retired fuckers in the streets. That'll make things better. No way they'll take up rifles and fix their situations.

      We'll just get us some government death panels to decide who has to go.

      We could get a long way by terminating our endless war in the middle east and billing the chickenhawks and their friends for the odious debt they ran up for personal benefit.

    13. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To whom? Other countries that are also in debt?

      The US Dollar is still the most stable currency, so that shows how little all that means.

      If you believe the dollar will crash, then you move your money into physical commodities.

    14. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by swb · · Score: 1

      If this is true, how do you account for the never ending ability to sell Treasuries denominated in US Dollars?

      If there was some concerted effort to devalue the US dollar, wouldn't that make it ridiculous to hold Treasuries which paid off in US dollars? There has always been an existential risk associated with this -- the US in theory has always had the ability to sell Treasuries, spend the money and then print money to pay them off, but has never directly done this, or at least not on a scale that deviates from expected monetary or fiscal policy.

      Any time there's a significant global financial crisis, Treasuries always seem to become more valuable as people seek to move their money into a perceived safe harbor.

      Maybe in the future the US monetary and fiscal policy will erode enough that another currency is seen as a safer harbor, but right now neither the Yuan or the Euro is seen that way, each having their own peculiar problems.

    15. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The US Dollar is still the most stable currency, so that shows how little all that means.

      That is in part because it's the only currency used for trade with certain commodities like oil. Attempts by other countries to set up non-dollar bourses have been met with hostility from the US.
      And in part because like the tulip chits, creditors cannot dare to cash in on it lest the bubble burst, but has a vested interest in inflating the value while they still hold US IOUs.
      The faith is more in those who own the US debt than it is in the US economy.

    16. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      You know, over half of the US debt is to itself in its own retirement funds.

      https://www.thebalance.com/who...

    17. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of these policies and systemic issues go back decades and can be understood via the Triffin dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma). Providing the world's reserve currency has some benefits, but also downsides.
      Once you grasp this concept (side-effects of international demand for your domestic currency) the currency war between the BRIC's (Brazil Russia India China) and the United States + Allies (Europe/Japan/English-speaking Nations etc.) begins to make a lot more sense. Proposals from the IMF to move to an SDR are a stop-gap measure that would end up in the same place in a few dacades, just with Oceania (ahem) in the same position that the United States.holds in the current system.

    18. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiight. Because private capital really wants you to have vacations, retirement savings, affordable health care, public education, roads, public parks, libraries and clean drinking water. It's only those pesky governments that are getting in the way.

    19. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There is no functioning market for US treasuries.

      A US treasury auction will never be allowed to not sell out. They aren't even being allowed to raise to a market rate.

      If the rate of US treasuries starts to rise the Federal reserve buys it all up. Which is why 'quantitative easing' is proving so hard to end. The fed doesn't control how much debt it buys at each auction. It buys _all that is leftover_, simple as that.

      This is what happens when government is the world's biggest debtor _and_ controls the mechanism for setting interest rates. If Treasury rates were 10% the US treasury would already be bankrupt.

      Everybody should borrow as much as they can to buy up any reasonably priced hard assets. Determining what constitutes 'reasonable price' in this environment is problematic.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost entirely because the USD is the most trusted currency. Why is it the most trusted currency?

      - World's largest economy (and market).

      - World's most trusted central bank.

      Creditors cannot cash in their debt because that's not how debt works. The debtor pays whenever the agreement states that it's to be paid, and not before. You don't get to call in debts whenever you feel like it. (I don't know where people get this silly idea, have they never borrowed money?)

    21. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump knows one thing: how not to pay on his borrowed loans. That is actually the person that is needed in the government. He is not going to run a business there but he can lead the country through the restructuring of debts that it needs.

      Yeah, because "restructuring" the federal debt won't cause a recession or depression.
      I mean, I know Trump wants to go back in time, but the 1930s, really?

    22. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Don't make a mistake thinking that USA will not default on its debts, it is defaulting on its debts today, which is why it keeps printing more and more money to buy the Treasuries nobody wants, which is why the USA economy is destroyed, all this money printing (money expansion = inflation) is what drove the businesses away together with the rules, laws, unions, taxes, etc.

      USA will default on its debts one way or another. One way is to do it honestly, allowing a restructuring to be organized, renegotiating the payment agreements, not paying 100% of the money borrowed, paying *some* money back.

      Seems to me that the USA will not choose that route, instead it will print its way out of this debt destroying the US dollar and bonds in the process, which is not what you want if you want a functioning economy.

    23. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not just the trade deficit, it's the spending we have to support as well. Even though the Federal Government took more than $10,000 per man, woman, and child (about $26,400 per worker - about $13.20 per hour worked in the US), it still spent $1,423,000,000,000 more than it took in (an additional $5.69 per hour worked).

      Individual income revenue was 1.541 trillions, or $12,354 per workers.
      Overall revenue is 3.25 trillions, or $10,005 per individual.
      Overall spending is 3.7 trillions, or $11,390 per individual.
      That's +14% or so, far from the 43% you show above.

      I would add that you probably spend more than 10k a year on rent.

    24. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Check my numbers and what I posted - not what you made up. Spending was $3.3 trillion and there are 125 million workers. I wrote $26,400 per worker - that number is correct. Check the US Treasury link I included - national debt rose by $1.423 trillion for FY2016 (10/1/15 to 9/30/16). The numbers are there, if you want to actually look at them. The "Obama Economy" is a farce - it's a disaster.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost entirely because the USD is the most trusted currency. Why is it the most trusted currency?

      It isn't. It is the currency that is coupled most directly to commodities, because the US effectively enforces that commodities are traded in its currency.

      - World's largest economy (and market).

      The European Union.

      - World's most trusted central bank.

      The Bundesbank.

    26. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ironic part is that in destroying the value of the dollar, you also destroy debts. "Americans can't afford anything" and other quotes are just pandering. Your actual ideas (shutting down Medicare, stop printing money) are a clear way to redistribute even more wealth to the 1% who own the debts of the other 99%. Getting the government out of money policy is just a opaque way of saying that you want to hand over full control to private banks.

    27. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "stopping all government spending (yes, this means all wars, all SS payments, all Medicare payments, everything)" :D
      It's beyond words...

      What you're proposing is Austerity. Austerity will actually *increase* debt, because:
      Debt = Deficit / GDP
      The cuts you propose will decrease GDP with a constant Deficit, causing the Debt you were wanting to reduce in the 1st place, to actually rise. ...ever heard of the Euro Crisis?

      On a strictly business perspective (let's not speak of the Humanitarian),
      if you were consulting for me, I would fire you on the spot. And most likely sue.

      I suggest you educate yourself. Here's a good book to start:
      https://goo.gl/45rrBT

      I usually try to observe Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, but you don't deserve it.
      You should know that despite the "bloodless/just a statistic" economic hardship, people actually DIED in Europe from the rise of things like, say, preventable hospital infections.

    28. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump is a perfect example of the modern American executive class who works endless hours yet doesn't produce anything of any value except bullying his employees from one financial disaster to another.

      Mod parents up. I'm going to make this a sig.

    29. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between the OP's stop funding all wars and your defunding the military.

      No (federal) social programs means a number of things. Lazy but capable people will have the choice of work or die. Truly incapable people will have to rely on charity and state and local programs. Charitable giving will increase because the end of social programs will mean that working people have more money, and more working people means more available goods. As people realize they are responsible for their own well-being, troublemakers like rioters and Soros-funded protesters will get less respect and will be more likely to be shot when they try to steal from honest folk. This will tend to put a lid on rioting.

      The US dollar is already destroyed, having lost about 98% of its value over the last century. Other countries' governments and people in responsible positions in large financial institutions recognize that fact. Making the fact public will hurt short term public confidence, but if it results in US finances being put on a sound basis (a political decision) then the dollar will become a stable standard at perhaps 50% of its current value.

      With regard to Atlas Shrugged, the book acknowledges the necessity of a military. Some libertarians are fools who think that minimal government means almost no government.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    30. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I believe this is intentional. The US is inflating its way towards global parity and in doing so is devaluing its debt to keep the word economies and US economies churning.

      The reason the US does what it does is because the USD is looked at as the international currency, partly because it does what it does. Everyone rushes to the USD in times of crisis because the USA has shown in the past and committed in the future to stabilizing the currency even if hurts the US economy. Its a extremely odd chicken-and-egg scenario at the moment, and until it changes, the USD will continue to be the status quo until either a radical political upheaval or US influence erodes to parity with other superpowers who show similar level-headed fiscal policy.

    31. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      End corporate welfare. Stop handouts to telecom carriers that have not resulted in improvements. Most of all decimate the USDA, which is a thinly-veiled front for factory agribusiness. They are responsible for the decline in food safety and quality as well as wiping out family farms, at the same time contributing to chronic disease with their bogus dietary programs.

    32. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is a massive massive massive bureaucracy. I seriously don't know how you get anything done.

    33. Re:working to offset expansion of the money supply by DarenN · · Score: 1

      Creditors cannot cash in their debt because that's not how debt works. The debtor pays whenever the agreement states that it's to be paid, and not before. You don't get to call in debts whenever you feel like it. (I don't know where people get this silly idea, have they never borrowed money?)

      While this is technically true, there is a secondary market for bonds, and if people start dumping bonds on the secondary market it puts upward pressure on the rates that investors will demand for bonds during the next bond issue.
      A lot of institutional investors dumped bonds in places like Ireland in 2008-2010, forcing bond rates to ~8% (not that we sold bonds at that rate) which was the reason we were pushed over the edge into bailout (upon which the IMF and the EU hit us for ~6% on those loans while refusing either buy, or to let us buy, the discounted bonds on the secondary market with those funds). Some US funds made billions on this by buying Irish bonds for 40-60 cents on the euro, and getting the whole whack back.

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
  9. We get vacation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wage slave here. Recently changed jobs (moved) and new company gives only 8 days a year vacation+Personal Holiday+mandatory holiday. I would love to work less... My wife and I are still discussing if we could afford for me to be Mr. Mom and her to work (she does make 2x what I make)... Lately I have been working the actual hours I get paid for, and have even been taking all of the breaks I am entitled to, but nobody ever takes, and my life satisfaction has gone way up. It's not that most americans are addicted to their job, it's that they are made to feel that if they don't work 120% of the hours they are "paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go.

    1. Re:We get vacation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this 100%. I get the stinkeye all the time because I don't work overtime.

    2. Re:We get vacation?? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Exact opposite here. For a general 9-5 if you turn up more than 10-15mins early it's suspicious and everyone is ready to rush out the door at 5 sharp.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re: We get vacation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have IMed you my profile. Kindly share with HR. Thanks.

    4. Re:We get vacation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not move somewhere with a less brutal work culture? There is more to life than work, even if you like the job.

    5. Re:We get vacation?? by avandesande · · Score: 2

      It's a regional thing too... on the east coast many of us wouldn't leave until 6 or 7. Live in southwest now and people work a straight eight.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:We get vacation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm salaried and if we work anything LESS than 43 hours, we get a nasty-gram and are expected to burn vacation/PTO to get up to that minimum. If you work 45 hours, some people start watching what you're doing for lunch and assuming you're taking 5 x 1 hour lunches every day.

      Never seen a place where there so many people "worked" +50 hours but only managed to get 40 hours worth of work done.

    7. Re:We get vacation?? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Managers get whatever they base their rewards on.

      Your managers are so stupid they can't come up with a performance metric better than 'face time'.

      Either learn to game it, or find a new job. It's one of the worst signs for a workplace. Says everything you need to know about the clue status of management. Everything else will suck too.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:We get vacation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that most americans are addicted to their job, it's that they are made to feel that if they don't work 120% of the hours they are "paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go.

      In other words, the employers creates debt at 20% of the pay every day which all of you Americans have the right to call in with interests at the two weeks notice, payable no later than the last weekday before the due date. Oh wait, wrong continent.

    9. Re:We get vacation?? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      '"paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go'

      The total losers attitude. I've always been at least as competent as the average in my groups and I've never shed a tear working the exact time (or less) than I'm supposed to. I get my work done and my reviews are as glowing as always. I get promoted, get raises, and if I'm not I find new companies that do.

      Certainly if you've been over-promoted into a position you aren't qualified / competent in, you may have to work your ass off to maintain it, but IMHO that's the worst possible outcome of my life. I'd rather quit and get a new job in a lesser position and live a much more enjoyable life.

      --
      Bye!
    10. Re:We get vacation?? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      '"paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go'

      The total losers attitude. I've always been at least as competent as the average in my groups and I've never shed a tear working the exact time (or less) than I'm supposed to. I get my work done and my reviews are as glowing as always. I get promoted, get raises, and if I'm not I find new companies that do.

      Certainly if you've been over-promoted into a position you aren't qualified / competent in, you may have to work your ass off to maintain it, but IMHO that's the worst possible outcome of my life. I'd rather quit and get a new job in a lesser position and live a much more enjoyable life.

      Where I work, I put in my 40 every week, take all my vacations and only work OT when I need extra money (salaried position with paid OT, woot!), which I haven't done for three years. I've always had top marks on yearly reviews and gotten as good of raises as anyone else. I just work my ass off when I'm working (even though I take breaks to slashdot).

    11. Re:We get vacation?? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I've had both.

      I've been in a situation where I was labeled a "keener" (and I suspect not hired back as a result of other staff input) because I was at work at least 30min or more early every day. However this was not by choice. Fact was all the other staff had cars and could show up whenever. At that point in my life I did not, and the only bus that would get me there on time (and not hours late) was early. I didn't do a whole lot, but when you're the only one there a lot you can get board and will do work simply to keep yourself occupied.

      I've been in another situation at the other end of the spectrum, where a lot of the senior guys would get in daily pissing match about how late at night they stayed and how much they came in over the weekend to work. I did none of this. Was criticized a few times, where my response was if you want to pay me like you get paid (i.e. x2+) then sure I'll stay late and work weekends, until then I'll enjoy my evening and weekends thanks...

    12. Re:We get vacation?? by Sparowl · · Score: 1

      I've found it to be related to the work and pay, honestly.

      I make less then I could in the area, but in return I also have decent time off, as well as taking longer breaks and lunches. If I decide to show up late or go home early every once in awhile, it doesn't get discussed. Honestly, it doesn't even get noticed most of the time.

      But I also make less then I could in this area. I know it, my employer knows it, the headhunters in the area certainly know it. I've had discussions with other companies who offer more, but the expectations are also much, much more strict regarding the work schedule, and so far the money hasn't been worth the extra hassle.

    13. Re:We get vacation?? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Come to Europe.

      In most countries minimum vacation per year is by law 30 days. And no, you can not be forced by contract to give up days on that.

      Most countries have free or partly public funded kinder gardens etc. public transport for school kids low crime rates. Chances are you never meet one who ever witnessed or suffered from a crime.

      Bottom line you have less hassle with your life ... best places are of course Denmark, Netherlands or other nordic countries, Germany and France and depending on your touch for weather Spain and Italy and of course the baltic countries.

      If you or your wife are into software development you an get a job here with a snipp of a finger.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:We get vacation?? by sad_ · · Score: 1

      that's 30 days of PAID vacation, i watched 'Where to invade next' and aparently this is not obvious.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    15. Re:We get vacation?? by Tesen · · Score: 1

      Wage slave here. Recently changed jobs (moved) and new company gives only 8 days a year vacation+Personal Holiday+mandatory holiday. I would love to work less... My wife and I are still discussing if we could afford for me to be Mr. Mom and her to work (she does make 2x what I make)... Lately I have been working the actual hours I get paid for, and have even been taking all of the breaks I am entitled to, but nobody ever takes, and my life satisfaction has gone way up. It's not that most americans are addicted to their job, it's that they are made to feel that if they don't work 120% of the hours they are "paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go.

      Exactly. My company just changed its performance evaluations (i.e. read: we want to screw you on bonus potential and salary increase). If you get exceeds expectations two years in a row, that becomes your new "meets" expectations. Or to put another way, our job description has a clause, "Requires the occasional overtime.", so if you are being forced to work a lot of OT to meet unrealistic project demands and you meet them and your quality is excellent, but the only way you accomplished that was long hours at work? Guess what, you better hope you do not exceed expectations two years in a row, else do not expect a bonus or raise the following year and if your productivity drops, you will get "does not meet expectations."

      This of course has been sold under the, "We want employees to strive for excellence and be challenged and not get bored." right after telling us that last year due to salary increases and bonuses, our labor costs have gone up a million... yup. Either our CIO is an idiot and let stuff slipped, or our CIO is brilliant and just planted the seeds of discontent so more people senior people with families leave (no severance paid out.) so they can bring in cheaper college grads or offshore.

      Welcome to America, where no body gives a fuck about anyone else... and you know what? My attitude over the last year or so has been going down hill, I used to care about my job and other people, but right now I do not care about my career (there is always another job out there) and only care about my family. I've come to the conclusion that, this is the way our elites want it... divided and miserable.

    16. Re:We get vacation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that most americans are addicted to their job, it's that they are made to feel that if they don't work 120% of the hours they are "paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go.

      The interesting thing about this is, according to OHSA: "Under federal law, you are entitled to a safe workplace. Your employer must provide a workplace free of known health and safety hazards."

      Stress has been known to be a health hazard since the 1950's, and tons of research since then has only found more and more health problems associated with long term stress. Stress has negative physiological consequences. It is also known that long work hours are stressful - whether people realize it or not (older workers tend to be better educated about this than their younger counterparts). This means that employers - in expecting people to work long hours - are not complying with US law (compliance not just with the letter of the law, but also the intent, arises as a consequence of rights under the 9th Amendment).

      This is a big problem for society in general, and for the health system in particular, especially given the amount of public funding that healthcare has now, and the likely increased funding it will have in the future. It's not just older people, also - stress induced problems such as fatigue can lead to fatal or crippling accidents with machines at work or at home or on the highway, and this can affect younger people, even children.

      I've heard some EU countries disallow working long hours, a sensible policy.

      It seems less surprising that government agencies such as the NSA and the FBI would routinely violate the Bill of Rights, given that US employers are also violating the law on a routine basis. It seems that the USA has a culture which encourages this sort of thing, or at least permits it. Stupid.

  10. That's definitely not accurate... by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's highly unlikely that we're addicted to our jobs. It's not usually by any choice that someone will work more and get less vacation. This is a cultural issue that's being pushed on the working classes by employers. I'd love to have a mandatory month of vacation and see everyone work less than 40 hours per week, as they tend to do in Europe.

    --
    Bite my shiny metal ass!
    1. Re:That's definitely not accurate... by gfxguy · · Score: 0

      Yet more advocacy for government intervention? I work in the U.S. and enjoy 28 paid days off per year. That's well over a month when you count weekends, and doesn't count holidays. Some of the people where I work (television) have 24/7 schedules - meaning they don't get holidays (because we're still broadcasting), so they get like 35 PTO days. No government intervention required. Competition is good - both for employees and the company.

      At the same time, some small start up isn't going to have the resources to give people that much time off; they need the opportunity to grow into a larger company that can. What that typically means for employees is they get to be in on the ground floor of an emerging company, and if it works then they will be the executives of the larger company in the future - for that possibility they are trading benefits for those ground floor opportunities. The free-er the free market is, the better it has been for employees and consumers - the only government intervention required is to keep it free (fighting price fixing and collusion). As Milton Friedman put it - no other system yet tried has ever done more for the common man than the free market. It's not perfect - but nothing else has ever had the track record of raising the levels of the average person than free market capitalism.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  11. That's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do they have to show for it? That depends on whether you fit in.

    If you fit in, you've got money to show for it.

    If you don't fit in, you've got nothing to show for it.

    1. Re:That's easy by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the end result of the Prosperity Gospel.

      Those on the "outside" are conditioned to believe that, with enough hard work and effort, they'll eventually be on the "inside". However, those on the inside create policies to keep those on the outside, *outside*. Despite this, people still make decisions (i.e., voting) with the belief that they *might* become part o that inside group, ignoring the present (or even future) realities.

      It's fantastic social propaganda, though. The economy exploits the increased productivity (assuming, of course, more work hours equates to comparable economic gains; we all know that person that does 3 hours of work in an 8 hour shift), while kindling hope in a population that prosperity is just around the corner if they just keep working harder.

    2. Re: That's easy by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Have any proof?

      People not successful always quote this and blame others and not themselves for not being wealthy.

      But fact is the so called inside doesn't care. They got theirs and that's all that matters. Go create a business or work like they do for the same results.

    3. Re:That's easy by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      My father grew up in an orphanage.
      My mother grew up in a housing project.

      I am college educated and own my home. Their hard work elevated us into the middle class. I have access to resources that my parents didn't and it's because they took part in the process of moving from the 'outside' to the 'inside'.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  12. Which is a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is only so much time in the week in which you can work at full productivity. After that you spend much more time to accomplish the same work and become exhausted, which also drags down your performance for the rest of the week. Same for vacations, sickdays and job security: If you can recharge properly and do not have to worry, then your better productivity more than makes up for the time not spent at work (not necessarily working).

    Other interesting questions: Is retiring later a disservice to young people looking for work? For the above reasons putting in 25% more time does not give 25% more results but just more time spent (otherwise, who would hire anyone but Americans?). So why are the working hours still that different?

    1. Re:Which is a bad thing by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I found that I was most productive in the morning. Afternoon is mostly for "busy work". It was a waste of time to stay at work later in the day.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  13. Work != Worked hours by Oxygen99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pfft. Get back to me when hours worked equals productivity.

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    1. Re:Work != Worked hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why does that matter?

    2. Re:Work != Worked hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right! You put in time to read the headline and make up your mind while many others used that same time to read the article and find that it is mentioning a comparison on productivity. You get part of a gold star for trying! Bye! I've got to cut my lunch short and get back to work.

    3. Re:Work != Worked hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right! You put in time to read the headline and make up your mind while many others used that same time to read the article and find that it is mentioning a comparison on productivity. You get part of a gold star for trying! Bye! I've got to cut my lunch short and get back to work.

      It is not a comparison on productitivy but on working hours. The US has one of the lowest levels of productivity in the western world and one of the highest in the world, one is per hour the other is per year.

  14. ADDICTED? Or indebted? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Americans don't like to work. We're trying to survive with rising costs, leaps in inflation of everyday goods.

    And this only scrapes the surface, I wager Americans also spend a significant greater amount of time commuting to work than their western European counterparts.

    1. Re:ADDICTED? Or indebted? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      We're trying to survive with rising costs, leaps in inflation of everyday goods.

      There haven't been "leaps" in inflation of "everyday goods" since Rocky II was in theaters and the Apple II was in stores.

      http://www.inflation.eu/inflat...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:ADDICTED? Or indebted? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Ask yourself why the commuting? Take a gander at the cities - particularly on the East Coast and in the Midwest, but LA, Houston and New Orleans do not escape this net - and you'll understand why instantly. Who would really want to live there, aside from tiny gentrified enclaves?

      The gentrified enclaves in DC are particularly laughable. One block is swanky, next block is crack houses.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:ADDICTED? Or indebted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans don't like to work.

      Speak for yourself. I like my job and don't mind putting in extra hours. I am doing challenging work, and have great co-workers that are also my friends. Maybe you chose the wrong career.

  15. Problems with the American Employment Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These seven issues need attention by the federal government. (Which is unlikely to act due to corporate lobbying efforts)

    1. Employment At Will

    Replace with the "Just Cause" model.

    2. Contingent (Temporary) Employees

    Enact rules to make sure that contingent employees are treated the same as regular employees.

    3. H-1B visa's

    Cut back on the number of H-1B visas, and make sure that they are paid the same as US citizens.

    4. Binding arbitration in Employment Agreements

    Prohibit the use of binding arbitration in employment agreements, or at least make it optional.

    5. Noncompete Agreements

    Ban Noncompetes at the federal level.

    6. Lack of statutory vacation and sick leave at the federal level.

    Enact a minimum federal standard for vacation and sick leave days.

    7. Abuse of Exempt employees with regard to overtime.

    Limit the use of overtime to 48 hours averaged over a 6 week period (Like the European Working Time Directive)

    1. Re:Problems with the American Employment Model by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Prohibit the use of binding arbitration in employment agreements, or at least make it optional.

      This is the problem with almost all unilateral contracts in the US. This needs to be outlawed in a large percentage of the places it's currently used.

    2. Re:Problems with the American Employment Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ This.

      I've always felt "binding arbitration" to be an obscure way of saying "You agree not to hold us to the same standard of law that everyone else (including you) is held to."

      When it becomes a requirement in order to get a job, or even buy a cellular telephone plan, there is something deeply wrong. One should never be forced to sign away their rights to sue someone under the law, and those who try to enforce such things should be jailed.

      Of course, it would also help if people wouldn't be unnecessarily litigious in general; this is what gives them the excuse. The idea that our legal system can serve as some twisted form of lottery is just... wrong, and it's one I hear people joking about all too often.

      JMHO.

  16. Conventional wisdom by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Conventional wisdom says that everything about Europeans is always better than everything about Americans. You get socially rewarded by high-social-status people for saying so. So not working is better than working in this case, regardless of whether that makes sense or not.

    1. Re:Conventional wisdom by Nunya666 · · Score: 2

      Conventional wisdom says that everything about Europeans is always better than everything about Americans. You get socially rewarded by high-social-status people for saying so. So not working is better than working in this case, regardless of whether that makes sense or not.

      Conventional wisdom also states that absolutes are absolutely wrong.

    2. Re:Conventional wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could having more free time (all else being equal) ever be a bad thing?

    3. Re:Conventional wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this get up to +5? I have no idea what it means. Or is it some kind of obscure reference?

    4. Re:Conventional wisdom by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If it was Americans who had more free time and Europeans who had less. Then less free time would be considered better.

    5. Re:Conventional wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like nonsense to me.

    6. Re:Conventional wisdom by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why I said "...regardless of whether this makes sense" up above.

    7. Re:Conventional wisdom by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Are you a robot? It's ok if you are. We welcome newcomers like you. It will take time and effort for you to gain an understanding of the popular culture.

      No, it's not a reference.

    8. Re:Conventional wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conventional wisdom says that everything about Europeans is always better than everything about Americans.

      Only Americans say that who also have the certain political leanings. It's a mythology like the way it was always better in the olden days, or the place of our ancestors must have been better. They keep forgetting the reasons their ancestors immigrated: hunger, lack of inherited land, war, oppression and hope for discovering cold and riches in a new place of new opportunities. What is better is whatever we (the Europeans) and you (the Americans) make as such right now due to knowledge of the mistakes of the past, of the world and the behaviour of a man, and the visions of a better future.

    9. Re:Conventional wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How European of you.

    10. Re:Conventional wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a reference to Slashdotters being lemmings... except, ironically, it says more about the OP being a lemming than anything else.

    11. Re:Conventional wisdom by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Thanks?

  17. Get a government job... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I work in government IT. My contract prohibits me from working more than 40 hours a week. I get paid federal holidays, 20 Paid Time Off (PTO) days and five unpaid day offs. No gold-plated pension and/or watch, however. I also make 50% less than my Silicon Valley counterparts in the public sector. But I'm well rested. ;)

  18. Quoth the study: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The U.S.’s shift from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans makes it harder for Americans to know when it’s safe to retire."

    I'm completely in this boat. I'm 50 and have saved approximately $2M USD. Is that enough? My father turns 90 this year, so I'm essentially trying to do 40 years worth of economic prognostication. What will health care cost in the year 2050? Food? Energy? If I had a defined pension benefit that was linked to some kind of COLA, it could make my retirement a lot more certain.

    1. Re:Quoth the study: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had a defined pension benefit that was linked to some kind of COLA, it could make my retirement a lot more certain.

      Except for all the pension plans that are woefully unfunded/underfunded and or reduced benefits or folded...

    2. Re:Quoth the study: by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      This is pretty simple, really.

      Look at your cost of living for the last 30 years. Find the trend. Extend that out the next fifty. Now go and find investments for your $2M that pay enough in interest and/or dividends to cover it.

      Can't find it? You need more money in the bank.

      Found it? Go ahead and retire.

      Don't touch the principal; leave that to your kids so they can be considered "old money" when they grow up.

      Simple.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  19. No discussion on relative productivity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So an analysis on number of hours worked without a corresponding analysis on the relative productivity?

    Entries like this appear biased and to promote an agenda of "one of these is better" rather than an objective "resulting in the expected greater productivity" or "productivity is does not scale linearly showing a diminishing return".

  20. Alas, The US Is Not Productive by segedunum · · Score: 1

    Which is why a lot of people have two jobs, and two jobs is almost becoming a requirement. That certainly doesn't mean better productivity, and when you consider the US has the dollar, which is the world's reserve currency, a future where that is no longer the case is pretty alarming.

    1. Re:Alas, The US Is Not Productive by sjames · · Score: 1

      That says nothing about productivity. It says a lot about where the benefits of that productivity accrue (hint, not to the people working 2 jobs).

    2. Re:Alas, The US Is Not Productive by segedunum · · Score: 1

      It's the article that says nothing about productivity I'm afraid.......

  21. Trump = avatar? [Re:Greed is God] by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Could be. We may be a simulation, and the server owner(s) sell "interference time" to the highest bidders. "Q" and Trump are customers who come to screw around in the "ant farm" as avatars. (Hillary doesn't give the vibe of a vacationer.)

    We are toys, analogous to Toy Story, except we don't know, like Buzz.

    1. Re:Trump = avatar? [Re:Greed is God] by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Hillary doesn't give the vibe of a vacationer.

      Just for the record, I don't like either one of them but to me Hillary gives the vibe of a badly programmed AI. She appears unemotional, robotic, calculating, and amoral. She is likely a sociopath but when you seen things like her tape on the 12 year old rape victim, her testimonies before congress where she flat out lies, etc.. it makes me think of the computer in wargames or spock. I'm not even saying that a robotic overload would be a bad thing. There are several stories in Asimov's world where robots who can look at things objectively without emotion can make great leaders.

    2. Re:Trump = avatar? [Re:Greed is God] by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Hillary is a professional "gamer". She isn't playing because it is fun, she does it for the money.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Trump = avatar? [Re:Greed is God] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      She is likely a sociopath but when you seen things like her tape on the 12 year old rape victim,

      The background of that tape is more involved and nuanced than Fox and Friends make it out to be. Spin meme.

      her testimonies before congress where she flat out lies, etc..

      I never get a straight answer: how is she supposed to know material sent to her by S.D. staff is classified? I've asked dozens of conservatives, ZERO real answers.

      The "c" marker? It appears S.D. forgot to send her to the proper class. The culprit is probably the class manager/scheduler, not Hillary. It's not her job to schedule school. Hang the right person. (And no, a "briefing" is not class. A real class is not "brief".)

    4. Re:Trump = avatar? [Re:Greed is God] by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The background of that tape is more involved and nuanced than Fox and Friends make it out to be. Spin meme.

      I don't watch fox. I don't even have tv. I did listen to the original audio though. The nuance your referring too is probably that like most lawyers she thinks it's a game. They don't give a rip whether the person is guilty or innocent, they want to win their case. It's not even a "we know he's guilty but let's give good reasons for him to get a lighter sentence", it's a "he's completely guilty, we know it, but let's do everything in our power to get him off scott free. Who cares about justice as long as I win my case"

      how is she supposed to know material sent to her by S.D. staff is classified? I've asked dozens of conservatives, ZERO real answers.

      I wasn't even referring to that situation. (Honestly I didn't even know she did have to testify for that). but she's had to testify in dozens of other situations where she flat out lies and then thinks the situation is funny. It could just be a nervous laugh but it's still unnerving when she smirks during serious situations.
      And this is not mentioning the debates or other situations where Clinton is asked a direct question and still can't give a straight answer.
      I actually try to mostly avoid politics. I tried to watch the second debate but decided I had better things to do when neither candidate answered the first question and instead both went off onto completely unrelated tangents.

  22. World domination has a cost by Framboise · · Score: 0

    The USA spend about as much for "defense" than the rest of the world. This is a huge cost (of order 1T$/yr) that the main superpower is unable to let other countries cover in a way or another (say by buying USD for free). In the end being US citizen has a cost that translates in more work time, lower life quality than a couple of other countries.

    1. Re:World domination has a cost by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      The USA spend about as much for "defense" than the rest of the world. This is a huge cost (of order 1T$/yr) that the main superpower is unable to let other countries cover in a way or another (say by buying USD for free). In the end being US citizen has a cost that translates in more work time, lower life quality than a couple of other countries.

      Let's rephrase that. A huge part of the government's spending goes directly into the pockets of the boards of companies like Halliburton so that they can spend it in the middle east on ridiculous opulence like a hotel with a water filled lobby.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  23. If their statistics are are poor as their maths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If "one hour per weekday" is 25% extra, then that implies that Europeans have a 4-hour working day. Bzzzzzt!

    More like 12.5% (or "pieces of eighth" as the Parrot in the Diskworld is implying when it squawks "12.5%" repeatedly)

    But what matters is productivity not hours. I mean, screw hours. I'm judged on what I produce not how long it took me to do it.

  24. Participation rate and unemployment by tomhath · · Score: 0

    The study was designed to make it easier to compare countries to each other, by capturing the overall hours per person, not just for people with jobs. That incorporates not just the length of the typical workweek but also retirement, vacation, unemployment, and other time spent out of the workforce.

    What the report is really showing is that there are more people working per capita in the US than in Europe. That's what you can expect from socialism, and would be exacerbated by the oft discussed UBI.

    1. Re:Participation rate and unemployment by ADRA · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and most of those extra people are 65+'s who can't afford to retire. Nice life.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:Participation rate and unemployment by tomhath · · Score: 1
      Citation needed. Based on what I see here the story is not what you claim; less than half the people in France who could work have permanent jobs:

      In the three months to June 2016, the employment rate of the population aged 15-64 years stood at 64.7 percent, up 0.1 percentage points compared to the first quarter. Permanent employment rate for people aged 15-64 came in at 48.8 percent in the second quarter, unchanged from thr preceding quarter but up by 0.2 percentage points year-on-year.

    3. Re:Participation rate and unemployment by ADRA · · Score: 2

      Flat unemployment rates:
      US unemployment: 6.1
      France unemployment: 10.4
      https://data.oecd.org/unemp/un...

      These are people who are seeking work of course. If you 'give up' searching for work, you fall off the board.

      For raw employment rates:
      US: 68.2
      France: 63.6
      https://data.oecd.org/emp/empl...

      Assuming you subtract the difference, you're left with roughly the same number of people 'not seeking employment' in either country:
      US: 25.7%
      France: 26%

      --
      Bye!
  25. the real reasons for this by nimbius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. no real work week. a plurality of americans work in the service sector, which is far different than an office job. theyre intentionally scheduled to work 39 hours, or some subset below 40, to avoid insurance from their employer which is mandated by law. This has become less of an issue lately due to the affordable care act, however it doesnt excuse the fact that most service sector does not have a set schedule.
    2. no schedules. service sector and manufacturing often have mandatory overtime requirements. You cant be fired, by law, for refusing overtime however in almost all states you can simply fire the worker for no reason at all. Hence, it pays to work overtimes to stay in the good grace of the employer. finally
    3. low wages. if youre only working for ten dollars an hour at 20 hours a week, youre working 2-3 jobs to maintain an apartment and a car (a car is generally required in america.) if you have kids or a family, or are a single parent, the burden requires you to pick up far more than 40 hours of work at a low pay grade. this isnt likely to change as the united states has the unique approach of using children as punishment for sex. contraception, abortion, and even simple reproductive education in the United states are inconsistent and wraught with urban legends, religious overtones, and outright pseudoscience.
    4. predatory culture of consumption. everything here is offered on credit, with unlimited financing and relatively lax regulation (especially in subprime markets) of terms. In the US its not uncommon for a security guard making $13 an hour to drive a Lexus or Acura luxury sedan, because the terms and conditions of her credit never take into account the fact that a $48,000 touring sedan isnt in their budget. US check caching companies can charge more than 50% interest with impunity, and many do. The average US citizen carries more than ten thousand dollars in debt at any given time.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the real reasons for this by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      more than ten thousand dollars in debt at any given time.

      I used to look at figures like that and think it wasn't really that much. Now as Sterling plummets further I realize it's starting to become a significant amount. After Theresa May invokes Article 50 it'll probably equate to £50,000 Sterling.

    2. Re:the real reasons for this by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      ... 4. predatory culture of consumption. ... In the US its not uncommon for a security guard making $13 an hour to drive a Lexus or Acura luxury sedan...

      So, that is part of the problem. People living beyond their means. I make a lot more than that security guard and we drive a 10 year old Toyota. Works well. No debt. No major concerns.

    3. Re:the real reasons for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...
      4. predatory culture of consumption. ... In the US its not uncommon for a security guard making $13 an hour to drive a Lexus or Acura luxury sedan...

      So, that is part of the problem. People living beyond their means. I make a lot more than that security guard and we drive a 10 year old Toyota. Works well. No debt. No major concerns.

      The problem is that in America you can work yourself to death, have no savings, be buried in debt and drive a 10 year old Toyota. Or you can work yourself to death, have no savings, be buried in debt and lease a brand new Lexus every 2 years.

      If you own everything you use outright including your house, congratulations, you are debt free and I am duly impressed. You are truly the 1% (wasn't what you hoped, huh?).

      If you have a mortgage, you are buried in debt like 99% of people.

    4. Re:the real reasons for this by tomhath · · Score: 1

      If you have a mortgage, you are buried in debt like 99% of people.

      Owing a mortgage is not necessarily bad. If the price you paid for the house was reasonable then your net worth isn't effected by the debt.

    5. Re:the real reasons for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was well below my means 3 years ago. I make good money. Changes far beyond my control decided I need to feel my "fair share" of health care costs have put me at my means even after 3 raises and spending 2 of those years only contributing the 4% I need to get my company match for retirement. Buying directly out of market is still more expensive than what my company offers and competing companies are all offering similar packages. We drive our cars into the dirt. The only "luxury" goals that I have are paying for my childrens' education and retirement. Maybe you were lucky enough to miss the line being moved, but people who aren't living in their means weren't necessarily irresponsible with the portion of wealth they managed to have before.

    6. Re:the real reasons for this by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      European here:
      1: 35-40 IS a work week. And if you work half time, you are still insured for that period. For the company having somebody work full time or two people half time will cost about the same. Part time might even cost more. The reason to get part time people is
      a) Because people want to. e.g. moms who want to work part time and still have time for the kids
      b) You have hours that need it.
      There will be people who are willing work 4/5th (4 day week) or 9/10th (e.g. every wednesday afternoon off) or other situations were they decide to work less in agreement with the employer

      2. If by schedules you mean fixed hour weeks, then yes. Working overtime in Belgium is just not worth it. The taxes on your over time are about 85% or more. So you would be stupid to do it. So how do they deal with situations where overtime can not be avoided? You get paid in extra days off. e.g. working 1 (unplanned) Saturday will get you 1.5 or 2 days off. Sunday will be 2-3, depending on where you work. As a company you will learn very fast that most unforseen days are not really unforseen. It is just bad planning. And the situations will suddenly happen less.
      And yes, there wwhere situations where I did a lot of extra work one month and had 2 weeks vacation extra.

      3. It is about living wages. Where I work and in many other places, public transport is not only an option, it is paid for by the company. Imagine if you would not need to pay for your car. No taxes, no payment, no maintenance, no fuel. Look at it financially, not practically, because that is not possible. For me that was 200-300EUR difference per month, easy. If you are at the low end of earning, that will be a HUGE difference. So all of a sudden, I make 200EUR more per month.

      4.. Credit is obviously available in Belgium and other countries as well. And some people fall into that trap. However top get a credit (in Belgium) the credit company will be forced to look how much other credits you have, how much you make and how much you need to live. Give credit to somebody who should not get a credit and he does not even need to pay it back. Not ever. Not when he starts making money. Just no pay back at all. Complete write off for the credit company. So how does this work?
      a) You need a minimal income to get a credit. Below 1100EUR per month netto and no credit.
      b) Deduct from you income a standard for living. e.g. food, rent and such. Not sure what the amounts are, but say 750. That leaves 250 per month. Now look at every other credit. Not: a credit (card) is calculated as if iut where maxed out, because that is what you would have to pay back in the worst case scenario. So a CC for 2000EUR would be 100EUR as there is a minimal payback of 5% per month. That leaves you 150EUR to buy a car.
      So many people will say: If I ditch the card, I can buy a bigger car. Many will even have to ditch their cards to be able to buy a house.
      So you do not build credit, you get it when you work and things are not added, but deducted.
      Interest rates are fixed by law. Charge more and they will close you down without blinking and good luck trying to get your money back.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:the real reasons for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a mortgage, you are buried in debt like 99% of people.

      Owing a mortgage is not necessarily bad. If the price you paid for the house was reasonable then your net worth isn't effected by the debt.

      Nor is it necessarily good. That's not my point.

      My point is that, like many things in the US, conversation about debt is quickly skewed by pseudo-moralistic value judgements.

      Thus, living a dull and constrained but debt-free life is superior to traveling the world on credit. In the end, you are dead either way. It is also debatable which lifestyle is more beneficial to the economy and society as a whole. If everyone were to pursue either one or the other, nobody would be better off.

    8. Re:the real reasons for this by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      I own my home 100%, own 2 toyotas 100% (one is 10 years old, the other is 18 years old). Don't belong to the 1% in terms of income, but still managed to travel to 25 countries, travel every year to Europe, every year to South America (escape winter!). So...

    9. Re:the real reasons for this by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      I am debt free AND have traveled the world in the limited time I have (about 1.5 months available each year).

  26. Sure we WORK more, but our maths are better by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    I mean, if you think adding 1 hour more a day (8 becomes 9) is a 25% increase in hours, you need to go back and do a little recalculating...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Sure we WORK more, but our maths are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not if you also factor in the difference in holiday days.

    2. Re:Sure we WORK more, but our maths are better by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Those are not numbers from the study, so maybe you need to go back do a little reading....

  27. there is a word for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mugs.

  28. Relevance? by kamakazi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Buried in all the statisics abuse in the summaries there is a paper of significance only to historians. This paper is based on numbers for 2005-2007, before the financial crisis.

    It also does not reflect work per person, but work for a theoretical average person age 15-64. Employment rate is a component of this person, so as employment rate drops so does the hours this average person works.

    Actually, that feels intuitively wrong, the ~25 hours per week in the US seems way too high when employment rate is factored in, but I am not interested enough in how much we all worked 10 years ago to read the paper more carefully.

    Besides, I don't have time for this, I have to get back to work.

    --
    "Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
  29. And Asians work twice as much as Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So according to my math they must be at least 1000% more productive than Europeans.

  30. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Europeans are lazy?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No - they just enjoy their sweet free time.
      Even without countless hours extra work time, they have a decent standard of living.
      They simply don't need to work that hard to have a comfortable life, or run deep in debt..

      Now - if you LIKE to work hard and long, just to get your rent and other basic living stuff payed, I guess you love the American way of life. Nothing wrong with that. I guess the employers love that kind of ethos.

      Me? I think I know what I like...

  31. Not an EU problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    EU overall trades at a *profit*. There may be some of the smaller countries struggling (notably Greece) but overall EU does not have to internally inflates its economy with QE.

    This is a problem with a few key economies that run at huge deficits and go the easy short-term route of internally inflating their economies. Japan had it for decades, US followed, UK joined them.

    1. Re:Not an EU problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China most of all, by far.

  32. Re: working to offset expansion of the money suppl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans can afford plenty, they just buy a bunch of stupid shit that has no resell value for when they're eventually broke.

    Americans choose to live month-to-month because they need to have all the latest crap.

    People on /. whine that they're in their 50s and can't find a job blah blah blah. What were you doing the 30 years prior? Obviously not saving money, that's for sure.

  33. addicted ? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Americans are addicted to their jobs. U.S. workers not only put in more hours than workers do almost anywhere else. They're also increasingly retiring later and taking fewer vacation days, ...

    Perhaps we're just afraid of being unemployed and destitute. Employers show little loyalty to their employees (Pro Tip: If your company says "employees are our most valuable asset" start looking for another job.), the social safety net is not as strong as in Europe and it's clear that our politicians don't really care about the poor and (arguably) middle class -- look at the various budgets, including the latest Republican House budget which gets 62% from low/moderate income programs while also including tax cuts for the wealthy. (see below).

    House GOP Budget Gets 62 Percent of Budget Cuts From Low- and Moderate-Income Programs

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:addicted ? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Pro Tip: If your company says "employees are our most valuable asset" start looking for another job.

      Super pro. I wish I had some mod points for you.

  34. Flimsy excuses by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It's a lot harder to quit your job and strike out on your own now that having health insurance is the law. I'm in my late 30's and can't do what i did in my 20's because i went without insurance for many years.

    If a few hundred dollars a month for health insurance is the difference between you starting a business vs not bothering you probably were doomed to failure from the start. That's a flimsy excuse to not try. It's no harder to start your own business than it ever was and in a lot of ways it's easier today than in years gone by. There certainly are more resources available to help a budding entrepreneur.

    1. Re:Flimsy excuses by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      a few hundred dollars a month? minimalized numbers aren't a logical arguemnt, though I am sure it helps you win some with people who don't actually know what things actually cost.

      FYI, here is the best resource on how much it costs https://www.thebalance.com/how...

      Unless you're going for virtually "no coverage" (aka "Bronze"), it gets expensive, really quickly. I hope you don't get sick.

      And for "There certainly are more resources available to help a budding entrepreneur." I am sure you're ignoring the licenses, fees and all the regulations (some quite stupid) you'll have to follow too.

      For all the left's talk about "big business" and targeting them for abusive taxation and regulation policies, those also affect the smallest of mom n pop corporations. And all of that builds up barriers to entry to market. Here is a good article explaining how that hurts small businesses.

      https://smallbiztrends.com/201...

      Not that facts matter to most people, vain emotionalism is the ruling factor in decision making these days.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  35. No, We're Not Addicted to Our Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We are NOT addicted to our jobs. We HAVE to work 25% more than everyone else to KEEP our jobs, because workers in the US have ZERO protection against anti-competitive, inhumane, and employment practices that are ILLEGAL in Europe.

    We have to compete with workers in countries where there are no labor laws, no environmental standards, no minimum wages, no nothing. We have to compete with people who are essentially state-owned slaves. We're trying to break out in the lead in the race to the bottom, because if we don't, we lose our jobs to one of those people.

    And, our own government is leading the charge. So-called "liberals" and their banker buddies have been trying to make indentured servants of middle class America for ages - ever since the New Deal, all while claiming to want to "help."

    Help us how, exactly? By making it prohibitively expensive to do things in the US? By imposing onerous and overbearing regulations that don't make sense? By telling me that slinging burgers at McDonalds is economically equivalent to the job I do that I spend $100K on a degree for? Please.

    Some regulation is necessary, of course. There is a "right" amount that makes working safe and effective, and that levels the playing field. But, we surpassed that long ago. Today it is an active assault by government on entrepreneurship and individual success.

    I've voted for Democrats all my life. As a black man I took it as my duty, having been told by my father who grew up during the Civil Rights Movement that Democrats were the only ones who fought for minority rights. I now know that my father was hoodwinked, and I refuse to be hoodwinked as well.

    1. Re:No, We're Not Addicted to Our Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was raised Democrat. I don't think that hollowing out the middle class is a liberal conspiracy. They believe that taxing the wealthy and spending on the poor is the ideal and any failures to acheive the ideal is through conservative interference. Here in the real world, the wealthy and large companies spend a lot of money to pay the least amount of taxes that they can. I don't blame them, if that was an investment that would pay off for me then I would do it too. They rant and rave about how trickle down economics is such BS (granted that it is) but they turn a blind eye to how taxes actually do trickle down to the point where they reach an income where it is cheaper to pay the tax than pay to avoid them. Eventually, the Republican party will collapse and this selective blindness will destroy the Democrats in their wake. Their rhetorical attacks won't find purchase against a party without the historical baggage of the Republicans and they fully believe their recent electablility means that there exists no valid conservative voter concern that could shift momentum from their party.

    2. Re:No, We're Not Addicted to Our Jobs by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute here. You start your rant basically saying "there's not enough regulation; we need protection!", and end it with "They're assaulting us with onerous regulation!"

      What on earth do you actually want?

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    3. Re:No, We're Not Addicted to Our Jobs by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      Wait a minute here. You start your rant basically saying "there's not enough regulation; we need protection!", and end it with "They're assaulting us with onerous regulation!"

      What on earth do you actually want?

      To have his cake and eat it too. Meet the electorate, and understand why we're fucked.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    4. Re:No, We're Not Addicted to Our Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are NOT addicted to our jobs. We HAVE to work 25% more than everyone else to KEEP our jobs, because workers in the US have ZERO protection against anti-competitive, inhumane, and employment practices that are ILLEGAL in Europe.

      We have to compete with workers in countries where there are no labor laws, no environmental standards, no minimum wages, no nothing. We have to compete with people who are essentially state-owned slaves.

      Do you realize your first two points contradicted each other?

      If no labor protection makes a country competitive (your 2nd point), then all Europeans would be out of work already (contradicts your 1st point).

      If having more labor protection makes a country competitive (your 1st point), then you wouldn't have to worry about other countries with no labor protection (your 2nd point).

    5. Re: No, We're Not Addicted to Our Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a stupid fucking dickhead man.

      What he means is that the US isnt a developed high wage place (Europe) , nor is it an undeveloped low wage shithole ( Africa) , but its somewhere in between.

      Its a First World ( kind of) nation with a Developing World outlook on most things.

  36. There are two words for what Americans are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wage Slaves

    F-U corporate 'Mer'ka.

  37. Livable minimum wage makes a difference by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that a lot of people in the US have multiple jobs working many hours just to be able to buy food and pay rent is not something you should be proud of.

    1. Re:Livable minimum wage makes a difference by geek · · Score: 1

      The fact that a lot of people in the US have multiple jobs working many hours just to be able to buy food and pay rent is not something you should be proud of.

      Those people already collect EBT and welfare. Frankly if they have the tenacity to work multiple jobs then I really don't worry about them. The ones I worry about are the 95 million people presently out of work entirely.

  38. She makes 8 to 11 percent less, haven't you been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    listening to the feminist crowd. Man up and admit you make more than she does. Don't let silly things like numbers or figures get in the way of oppressing women!

  39. That's the effect of socialism and no mobility. by DatbeDank · · Score: 0

    These problems are really systemic of a socialist culture and governmental system. After living in Europe for almost a decade now, it's obvious that people who are born into their class stay there indefinitely. This is especially so in Spain and other Med countries where children end up living with their parents until their mid 30s. Onerous government meddling in business and regulations that destroy job creation (the real wealth distributors) are keeping people from moving into the next stages of life.

    It's only a matter of time before the infamous "European" social nets collapse due to the lack of growth in population and economics. Between tenth of a percent GDP growth, terrible demographics from educated people, an astounding increase in welfare recipients from migrants (northern Africans are NOT refugees), and negative interest rates from the European Central Bank Europe is on a precipice. If the dollar increases strongly in value, Europe along with the rest of the world will face a damning dollar shortage and sovereign debt defaults making their welfare states collapse.

    Europeans will face this reality soon enough. Personally, I expect civil war within Europe as folks get fed up with the lack of economic opportunities in the face of increasing taxes to support the over burdened welfare and pension systems.

    I'll get modded negatively for this, but it's the truth and it's time the music gets heard.

    1. Re:That's the effect of socialism and no mobility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you speak badly about Socialist policies, use logic, and cite experience. Argentina is very Socialist as well and they're doing fine!

      Wait, what? What about toilet paper?

      Yes, socialist policies lead to stagnation and eventual crisis/collapse. The only variable is when. Educated people don't let others do socialism.

    2. Re:That's the effect of socialism and no mobility. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Everybody with ambition moves to America. Soon all that will be left is old money and bums.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:That's the effect of socialism and no mobility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone with ambition move to a country with a lower quality of life?

    4. Re:That's the effect of socialism and no mobility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why they move to the US

    5. Re:That's the effect of socialism and no mobility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They move to a crappy country because someone asks why they would do that?

  40. Title wrong by aepervius · · Score: 1

    It should read "American spend 25% more time at work than worker Europe". My experience working and watching various type of environment, is that at the end of the day, your average US worker did the same work as your average Europe worker, just in a longer time.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Title wrong by skam240 · · Score: 1

      US workers are behind only Norway and Luxemburg in terms of productivity so your observation doesnt seem to line up with the big picture. We are getting more work done.

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  41. Re:Only Logical (and irresponsible) by gosand · · Score: 1

    I think it is interesting to see and note. It's data. More data gives you more things to compare. We aren't exactly comparing like for like here. The US is huge. Yet it is compared to European countries, some of which are tiny. Look, we're different. So that we work more is just a data point, and judgement shouldn't be passed down on that data alone. The type of work is relevant as well.

    Moreover, how do other places like Japan or China or Australia compare? We likely won't have comparable data, so it makes coming to conclusions more tricky.

    I get that this is a simple generalized comparison. Jumping to conclusions based on it is quite irresponsible, IMO.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  42. Look at the historical data by TheSync · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From Work and Leisure in the U.S. and Europe: Why So Different?, hours worked by Europeans and Americans were about the same in the 1960's, although the number of hours were dropping for all every year. In about 1980, the US and Europe diverged, with hours continuing to drop in Europe, but the US plateauing.

    Two reasons have been explored. The first is due to tax differences, and indeed labor taxes have been rising in the EU since the end of the 1960's. The other is differences in labor regulations, such as the requirement for contracts, limitations in legal working hours (such as the 35 hour workweek established in 2000 in France).

    1. Re:Look at the historical data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, compare the study findings to what the OECD publishes: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

  43. I run a trade deficit with my cleaning lady by Brannon · · Score: 1

    I guess that means I'm way worse off.

  44. I like working. People are different. by Brannon · · Score: 2

    Please don't force me to work less just so that you don't feel peer pressure to work more.

    1. Re:I like working. People are different. by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you have to work less. I'm saying that many companies are the reason for the long hours and low vacation time. Many people put in 50+ hours of work every week, not because they want to, but because they're required to by their management. It has nothing to do with peer pressure. It's the culture of management these days. It's no wonder why employees aren't loyal to their companies anymore, when their companies don't seem to find them very valuable anymore. If you enjoy working, that's great. More power to you. But most people don't enjoy their job, and would rather spend time with family and friends or traveling instead of working so much. Consider yourself fortunate that you'll spend a large chunk of your life doing something you actually like.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    2. Re:I like working. People are different. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I think one of the sad things is that relatively few companies manage to make the work environment pleasant enough so people actually like (or at least don't dislike) working.

      There are always going to be jobs to do that practically nobody enjoys.... But that's also part of the beauty of Capitalism. There will be people who do them anyway because they aren't skilled enough to move up to something better, and that may motivate them to learn those new skills. Others will be ok doing work they dislike because for them, it's still acceptable to them to spend that portion of their lives doing things they dislike so they have the income to do things they DO like when they're not working there.

      But in general, I think MOST jobs can be made much more pleasant than they are. This is one of the things good management can help accomplish. It's often a matter of changing around a few rules to allow some of the "little things".... Let people listen to music while working, maybe? Or relax the dress code so jeans are acceptable, if that makes some of your workers happier. Organize small blocks of social time, perhaps? (One of my jobs was in a tall building, so they worked something out with the building management to let us have the rooftop area once a month to do a rooftop lunch.) Personally, I've never accepted a job for any length of time at a place where I hated going in. Even if the only thing a place had going for it was a group of co-workers I liked talking to, it had to offer at least something like that of value. Otherwise, no ... just quit and find a place that's a better fit for you.

    3. Re:I like working. People are different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a matter of wages. Get paid more if you work more, let others get paid less if they work less.
      But yeah, it's also about overcoming peer pressure. I always let the zealots work overtime while they get paid less because they can't negotiate properly.

  45. Well, 10 million of us live in NYC. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    And, depending on how you count, >60% of the people in the country live in urban areas. I guess we're all idiots.

    Or maybe you're such a narcissist that you can't imagine a different way of life than your own.

    1. Re:Well, 10 million of us live in NYC. by HBI · · Score: 1

      I can imagine it just fine, I lived it for several years. And if you think all the 8 million people in NYC live there by choice...as stated, maybe the tiny gentrified minority loves it, but that's not everyone for sure.

      Whole family moved to the suburbs to get away from the tax burden, pollution and crime. It's not gotten much better over the years, particularly the first.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  46. Greeks are Lazy Fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it just means that the greeks are lazy fucks, the itallians not much better, and good luck getting a Spaniard to show up at all. Remember that Europe has 3 failed economies.

    1. Re:Greeks are Lazy Fucks by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've known some Greeks outside Greece. They, at least, are not particularly lazy. Says nothing about Greek government employees either, those people are lazy as fuck worldwide.

      Greece's economy is mostly underground. They learned that under the Ottomans. The problem is getting Greeks to pay taxes, even Greek government employees don't pay their taxes with impunity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Greeks are Lazy Fucks by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just realize that there's more to life than breaking your back for rich cunt who will throw you to the wolves when you hit 40.

    3. Re: Greeks are Lazy Fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Greeks work more hours per year than the European average.

    4. Re:Greeks are Lazy Fucks by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The problem is getting Greeks to pay taxes, even Greek government employees don't pay their taxes with impunity.

      That is nonsense. Like in any other country taxes on wages are deduced before payout and transferred to the government at wage payout. And usually you get deduced more than you actually own them, so you have an incentive to make a tax declaration to get the to much payed tax back.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re: Greeks are Lazy Fucks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      the Greeks spend more hours at work per year than the European average.

      FTFY.

      The problem is that half of the time they're smoking or gossiping. Absolute shower, the lot of 'em.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Greeks are Lazy Fucks by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      24% VAT in greece, much less on some islands. Good luck making that 'automatic'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  47. Not me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always seem to work myself out of a job. I'm in the office like 5 hours a day and I'd be surprised if I'm actually working for 30 minutes a day. Yay for automation!

  48. Do they? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Or is it what they claim? Staying at the office long hours is not necessarily correlated with working. Many stay at the office long hours because they can't stand going home, in this country where being divorced multiple times is commonplace.

  49. Religion by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0

    This what's so destructive about religion (work yourself to death / blow yourself up, Protestants / Muslims, and we promise you paradise in the **next** life!!).

    And where is religion waning? Oh, look at that: the same place where work / life balance is far healthier: Western Europe.

  50. Re: working to offset expansion of the money suppl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that may be a problem in the future, but there is no downside to having a lot of US dollars right now, and diversifying your savings. You can't put it all in commodities because you'll lose in inflation, and you can't put it all in stocks because that'll crash at some point.

    However, if you're poor and entering 50s, you're fucked, there's no way around it. Pray for UBI and dragging down the middle class so you won't feel quite as poor.

  51. I would if I could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would take more if I had them. I don't think this is as much a problem of "Americans overwork themselves" as much as "companies work Americans like dogs".

    They should do a study.

  52. Vacation by Kartu · · Score: 1

    Europe, required min - 26 working days, typical 30 days.
    US, required min - ? , typical working 10 days.

    Sure americans work more by that metric alone.

  53. How much of this is productive time? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    One thing I could see contributing to this difference is the amount of time _wasted_ at work. Now that I'm a dad whose wife also works, as soon as I'm in the office the proverbial clock starts ticking. If I don't want to be stuck doing stuff after the kids go to bed at night, I have to get my work done in that narrow window of time. Lots of tech employers, especially Silicon Valley type companies operate on the college campus model, where long hours in the office are encouraged and part of the culture. Google serves 3 meals a day to their employees, and expects you to be there long before/long after those meals to make up for it. Your workplace becomes your extended family, and you are expected to put in time accordingly. If you want to see an extreme of this, look at Japanese work culture, where salarymen work massive amounts of hours _and_ have to go drinking with the boss when they're done.

    If more employers would adopt the "get your stuff done when you want, as long as it gets done" mentality, I think most people would choose to be at work fewer hours. This may not be true for recent college grads who have no commitments at home, but I think it's very true for anyone wanting to maintain some sort of home life. You could say that in the traditional family, the father was the one working all the time and that was all that mattered, but I think priorities and society are shifting away from that.

    1. Re:How much of this is productive time? by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Google serves 3 meals a day to their employees, and expects you to be there long before/long after those meals to make up for it

      And then they give you your 20% "work on whatever you want" time in the hope that you'll produce the Next Big Thing, which they can then appropriate because you came up with it on "work hours" and on "work property".

      Anyone smart does not perform true for-hire invention for the company that hires them unless they have a very well negotiated contract up front that allocates them a portion of the revenues.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  54. Saying that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You live to work, while we work to live.
    -- European saying to American counterparts

  55. I wouldn't call it addicted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more like Stockholm Syndrome...

  56. Longer work weeks by plopez · · Score: 1

    less vacation, worse health care, and less job security (Google up 2016 layoffs).
    USA! USA! We're number 1
    USA! USA! We're number 1

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Longer work weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like we got exactly the sort of system we wanted. Nobody owes me anything that I didn't earn. I work my ass off until 65, then hopefully I die suddenly so illness and disability doesn't drain my family's savings. It's a wonderful system.

  57. Its savings, not debt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is not the real problem. The real problem is that when an economy stops growing due to demographics, you get (a) a whole lot more people trying to save and (b) fewer and fewer places where investing those savings will provide a positive return.

    This is what has happened. It is why asset prices are ridiculous, and it is why the fed is doing its very best to destroy savings. Most of the savings people are making are never going to be redeemable, and the fed wants the destruction process to happen gradually. If they don't then people will get one hell of a surprise when they attempt to spend their 'savings' during the coming retirement bulge.

    What we need to be doing is investing in producing more of the things that retired people will need - mostly medical care. If we don't increase the supply of those services, then saving becomes a zero-sums game where only those at the very top will have enough wheel barrows of cash to get that hip operation or coronary bypass.

    But politicians for as long as I remember don't want to talk about the retirement entitlement problem. So they left it to the banking sector which just paper over everything by making people believe that worthless pieces of paper will be their ticket to the hard goods and services they will need as they age.

    We need to have a proper intergenerational debate about this, and broker a compromise. I won't enjoy seeing old people suffering in the future anymore than I enjoy seeing the dreams of so many young people being destroyed right now.

  58. Europeans do not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europaeische ubermensch machen untermensch arbeiten in arbeitlager und gaszimmer. Heil Europa!

  59. Prioductivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is Sweden doing abuot this difference? They are planning the six-hour working day.

    It appears that the productivity per hour worked actually goes up (in constrast to the productivity per worker per year). It also means more jobs.

  60. Statistics and reality by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    I would agree, considering

    1. I have a scary choice as an American worker;
    2. If I elect NOT to choose freedom and 40-hour weeks, the employer will get every bit they can out of me without nearing the cost of another worker;
    3. If I elect to enforce a choice, there are others that will happily take my place and work for less compensation, and there are plenty available*. This is about fear, not about what WILL happen for sure. Uncertainty is the biggest part of the fear, IMHO.

    * That's not even taking into account contracted or off-shored labor.

    Yes, Americans work more. More out of fear of loss, and the fear of loss comes from what there is to be lost. e.g. Billy Bob gets a job with Cyberdynetics as a systems engineer. He works more than 40 hours per week because his employer lets him, and he gets more income that way. Once a threshold is reached, the employer converts him to salary. On a salary, Billy knows what he can afford in his lifestyle and how to save enough to at least have a glimmering hope of there being a decent livable life after the floating age of retirement. He works more and more to ensure his job won't be given to "some kid" who costs 1/4 of what he does and is fresh out of college. By working more, he's showing his value and ability. The company makes the decision they were going to make with or without his traits - offshoring (for instance) can save 15% over a year's time and reduces liability (worker's comp, potential lawsuits) along with not giving a crap what "vacation time" is for the offshore company - they manage that crud. Total savings, more than 15%. All Company pays for is people (or something, somewhere) getting work done.

    Most people in the position of "Billy" opt to increase their work hours to help them internally ensure themselves that when decisions are made of who to get rid of, he will be near the bottom of the list. Companies have wind of ideas and costs of those ideas passing around internally, occasionally, and people in the Billy spot tend to be in a fearful position and don't have much of a way to compensate for that fear other than using drugs/alcohol (which can definitely get you canned and on the bottom of any potential hire-me lists in the future), or working extra hours to ensure the employer sees and feels his worth. That leaves him in a position of a possibility of success that outweighs using substances to quash the fear. It's a downward spiral. Unless you're a C?O, your hair will most likely grey from stress in your late 30s to early 40s.

    I could be completely wrong, but I've observed the center point of the "work more in USA" issue being an attempt to stay on top when there are so many young'uns available for low cost and being influenced to follow the Company's position on things because, you know, they're young. Less life experience. Easier to believe whatever you hear, if you want to, and feel invincible. That lowers with age and experience; repeat process. That's all I've got from observing those around me in different places at different ages, under different socio-economic conditions at the given time. There seems to be a constant. ...."and that's all I got ta say about that."

  61. Vacations by gx5000 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't that just simply point out how little guaranteed vacation time the US has compared to most European Nations ? Work + Quality of life = Europe.

    --
    End of Line.
  62. And they're doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My washing machine works hard. The important thing for humans is to work smart. Folks in the EU are doing just fine not killing themselves at work, getting burned out less that... others. Heed this.

  63. work ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We,so does this mean that Americans are really 20% more productive than Europeans or just that they are at their place of work longer ?
    I would suggest that they spend li her at work,but are no more productive,they just like to look as if their keen for their bosses...
    If that's the case,then they are LESS productive than Europeans,the working week in the UK was cut back in the 1970's after the series of national strikes,including power and it turned out afterwards that productivity had actualy gone UP,when everyone was only allowed to work a three day week !!
    Turned out it was the same problem,lots of time put in at work,but not actually doing anything productive...

    1. Re:work ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Turns out US workers as about as productive per hour as the best of European countries - with the notable exception of Norway which kicks everyone's ass in productivity per hour. So it sure does look like the US is that 20% or so more productive due to those extra hours.

  64. It's also about one's mentality though .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    When you talk to some of these people who work full time for low wages, yet buy something like a high-end automobile on credit? You discover something interesting. Most of the time, it's not about them being so unable to do basic math that they don't realize they're "living above their means".

    Rather, they're taking the attitude of, "Screw it.... If some lender is willing to let me get this, why not do it? Then I can drive something around I'm proud to be seen in and enjoy driving. If something happens and I can't make the monthly payment anymore? Oh well... let them come take it back from me. At least I got to enjoy using it while I had it."

    In other words, they'd see YOU as the sucker for working as hard as they do, and still settling for driving around some 10 year old Toyota. I mean, YOU'RE the one playing into the hands of the bankers and the "system" -- all worried about hurting your credit score, instead of realizing that in the worst case scenario, you can just file bankruptcy, wipe away all the debts while hanging onto most of what you amassed up until then. Wait for 7 years and you're right back to where you were before with those scores and levels of "credit risk".

    1. Re:It's also about one's mentality though .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight!

      And how many of these good little citizens would be out in the cold if all those irresponsible people were spending other people's money to drive our consumer-dependent economy?

  65. Spent working on getting windows 10 working by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    Yea we spend all that "Extra" work time fighting with the windows 10 machine,

  66. Re:Eurotrash more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, if only I had mod points. And Luxemburg is more like a group of buddies that decided to hang out on some land than a country. Norway is only so high because of oil combined with being a modern Western democracy. Norway is pretty cool, I will give them that.

    The rest of you primitive screwhead Europeans should zip your nonsense-emitter about how productive you are.

  67. Difference Between Europe and USA by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    "European Lifestyle" also means single payer medicine, 4 or more weeks vacation, and an efficient mass transit system.

    Reminds me of when I went to Germany for a week to attend a music festival in Leipzig. I was talking to the Germans and the typical reaction was along the lines of "You rich Americans who can afford to fly to a different continent for a week to attend a music festival." My answer was "you rich Europeans that can afford to take more than a week off of work. I have to get back to pay for all this." There is certainly a difference in vacation idealologies that I observed. Europeans cut costs, stay in hostels, camp even in major cities, etc. They'll take their several weeks and backpack around Europe with barely enough money to buy food and beer. This seems because they have lots of vacation time and somewhat less money. Americans work a lot, as evidenced by this article, and get just a fraction of a European's vacation. In such a case, the American idea of a vacation is typically "money is no object" so while they are vacation, they splurge because although they'll have to work hard to pay it all back, they'll probably do so before they get another vacation. This probably contributes some of the American image abroad.

    1. Re:Difference Between Europe and USA by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Australia is an expensive holiday destination for both EU and US tourists. The number of EU tourists far outweighs the number of US tourists here in Oz. Having said that, I've been here for more than 5 decades and I cannot recall spotting a US tourist outside the big cities/resorts, which is a shame since they don't get to see the real Australia, just the sterile Americanised bits.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Difference Between Europe and USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but the "real Australia" wants to kill people! all those stingy bitey creatures?

    3. Re: Difference Between Europe and USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the drop bears *shudder*

    4. Re:Difference Between Europe and USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't conclude that has anything to do with money. As an American, I never hear anyone talk about going to Australia for vacation. Perhaps it is just lack of interest?

  68. Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I spend 100% doing my normal job and another 25% fixing the offshore screw-ups.

  69. suxors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More hours and less pay, less social benefits, less job security, no five week vacations, no paid maternity leave, yeah we like it when we don't know how bad it it really is. Ignorance is bliss.

  70. Lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europeans are lazy. America has to work more to help support European's social programs.

    Or maybe Europeans just don't care about their jobs.

  71. Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember all you Americans. When you die early, all the money you paid into SSN disappears. Even if you don't die early and you paid into another retirement system, you don't get any SSN. My grandma is a victim. What a great fucking country.

  72. Re:Livable... European to USian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *** You're *** a peon!

    American English: in a historical and legal sense, peon generally referred to someone working in an unfree labor system (known as peonage). The word often implied debt bondage and/or indentured servitude.

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

  73. The Second Shoe Drops by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Yes, many Europeans work less than folks in the US and they also have a higher standard of living in some nations. Looks like socialism is kicking capitalism square in the rear end to me.

  74. tasks accomplished by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    They might find that during said time the Parisian Frenchman will have written several copies of his letter of resignation as well.

    note extreme use of sarcasm

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  75. Math fail by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

    The study quotes a 19% difference. So why inflate that by 31% to 25%? And even worse, use that inflated number in the headline?

  76. Lazy europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch all the lazy Europeans lash out, instead of working.

  77. Incorrect summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Americans are addicted to their jobs. U.S. workers not only put in more hours than workers do almost anywhere else. They're also increasingly retiring later and taking fewer vacation days, reports Bloomberg. "

    TRY:

    Americans are working longer hours to maintain satisfaction with their employers. U.S. workers put in more hours than anywhere else to avoid being replaced by someone that will do it for less, from another country. They also don't get much over 10 days or vacation time to use per year, and they only get to take that if they're very lucky and their primary manager allows it. Sick days or time out for sickness is a pipe dream.

    FTFY.

  78. Americans have never really ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .......gotten over the whole slavery "thing".

    It's in the DNA.

    They're still doing it, although now the slaves pay for their own food and shelter and medical, and fight each other to clap on heavier chains.

    Yeehaww...

  79. Re: Eurotrash more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that like the fucking peasant Americans that don't even go to the dentist because they can't afford it ? About 200 million of them I believe. Is that what you mean peasant ?

    Don't get sick now, or want more than a day at one time away from your battery hen wage cage. If something unfortunate was to happen to you it'd break my fucking heart.

  80. Whats all this "socialism" crap ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe isn't socialist. Last time I looked BMW and M&S and Bosch were doing just fine in their respective countries.

    They are all capitalist market economies.

    Anyone who says Europe is "socialist" is a fucking idiot pleb who's just a replaceable bitch for their corporate overlord.

    No wonder they find it so easy to control the peasants in the US. They're kept stupid and brainwashed.

  81. Re: Eurotrash more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like I pissed off another butter toothed Eurotrash bitch. I actually have what is considered a Cadillac health plan in America you knob gobbling dip shit. You stick with your shitty Eurotrash Maybama Care and I'll make sure I can see real physicians and dentists you snaggle toothed mother fucker.

  82. Need more data by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Seems to be Europe as a whole. What about France? They could drag the entire continent down. What about these new migrants, almost all young men with no skill. You know, like an invading force. I'm seeing pictures of Europe and I'm not seeing women and children. I'm seeing soldier aged men.

  83. Americans do not love their jobs by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    They just don't have a voice.
    Unlike the heavily unionized Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain.

  84. Enjoyment? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    Maybe some people have found jobs that they enjoy doing?

    Maybe they retire, get bored in a month or two, and go back to work as a "consultant"?

    One thing: People that work at something, even volunteer work, tend to live longer...