6 ms·

56% of GDP in public spending in no rush to become more efficient. In fact, quite the contrary. Compare this with the cut throat competition in Sillicon Valley

56% of GDP in public spending in no rush to become more efficient. In fact, quite the contrary. Compare this with the cut throat competition in Sillicon Valley or the international arena. That's how you end up with non existent tech offerings in Europe.

legulere 5y ago
The amount spent does not say anything about efficiency if you don't consider what is provided with that money. Lack of free healthcare and education are some of the biggest complaints about the US after all. Europe is also doing pretty well in several fields and you don't explain at all how tech in particular is affected by public spending.
- test0account 5y ago
  56% of GDP amounts to around 20k euro per person and year Would you rather get the public health and education, or keep the 20k euro and find a solution for yourself? I reckon that my health expenditures are 1000 per year, and I am self-taught, so I don't need the government for anything. What we need is to make the public services Opt-in/Opt-out, so people who find it competitive like yourself can keep enjoying it.
  - raphaelj 5y ago
    Well, you will pay these 20k only the 40-ish years you'll work, while you'll pay your US health care insurance until you die. The average American pays more for healthcare over their live than the average European, and the outcomes are objectively worse. Also, EU governments provide retirement benefits while the US's doesn't. This is the main expenditure for these governments. Not saying that your argument has not some truth in it, but it's definitively wrong in the case of healthcare.
    - test0account 5y ago
      20k of GDP per capita means in any year of your life, even after 65. People migrate to the US before the EU. Besides, US lifestyle (also a high tax country btw) is not the only possible alternative to european style quasi socialism (56% on the way there)
      - jokethrowaway 5y ago
        The EU is not anymore quasi socialist than the US. Incidentally I'd say most western countries are way too close to socialism, I'd rather see more private entities taking over security, healthcare and law making. It's just that there is no money, so private EU companies suck so there is no money. The lack of strong companies doesn't imply socialism. Most people in Europe has most of their trade interactions with other individuals and private businesses.
    - nostrebored 5y ago
      The outcomes are definitely not objectively worse, to the point that the U.S. is a huge medical tourism destination. The US population not taking care of themselves is a public health problem not a medical care quality issue.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Re-read what you replied to: they were talking about "the average American", not the richest ones. The total societal outcome -- spending vs outcome -- and therefore the average outcome too, for the USA as compared to most other developed countries... Pretty much sucks.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > to the point that the U.S. is a huge medical tourism destination. Of course, if you have the money to fly to the US, stay in the US and pay out-of-pocket for a medical procedure in the US, then yes, the US is a good destination. Which translates into: if you're rich, medicine in the US is great. However, not all of us are rich. And definitely not all Americans are rich.
        nostrebored 5y ago
        Well that’s not the OPs value judgment at all is it? Sifted goalposts
        dmitriid 5y ago
        This: > The average American pays more for healthcare over their live than the average European, and the outcomes are objectively worse. remains true. No matter how you want to spin it and pretend that medical tourism affects this in any way. Edit: For 2015, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/chambers_health-related_travel_final.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/c... - Medical tourism to US: between 100k and 200k per year - Medical tourism from US to other countries: 150k to 350k per year Europe is ~500 million people US is ~ 360 million people Medical tourism is a drop in the bucket.
    - jandrewrogers 5y ago
      The US government provides extensive retirement benefits similar to the EU in both type and dollar value. These are some of the biggest spending line items in the US budget: Social Security, Medicare, etc. My US government provided pension will be something like $3500/month when I reach retirement age. This is in addition to any personal retirement savings.
  - Gigamo 5y ago
    Society and the world at large doesn't revolve around individuals. Despite not having had any major health expenditures myself (for now), I have absolutely no problem with supporting a system that allows for those less fortunate to not have to worry about it, among other things. Frankly, anything else is simply barbaric.
    - test0account 5y ago
    - test0account 5y ago
    - killerjoe22 5y ago
      The majority (or easily over 80%) of the EU's high taxation incomes are not being spent solely to support the people who can't afford their own healthcare or on those who are truly in need of that money, so that argument is pointless. Unless you are a millionaire you can't live well in EU. If you are just a regular tech worker advancing in your career can actually reduce your salary because of the tax brackets.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > If you are just a regular tech worker advancing in your career can actually reduce your salary because of the tax brackets. How does that work?
- jcfrei 5y ago
  Public spending is not the biggest issue. The problem is that having lots of government employees in cushy jobs starves the labor market of talent. Why take on a risky job at a flimsy startup when you can have a nearly guaranteed income till retirement in a 9-5 job?
  - drekk 5y ago
    We have those in the US too, it's called the "defense" industry. Our permanent wartime economy isn't for the good of most Americans or our talent pool—free education and healthcare (the largest discrepancy in public funding between the US and EU) would increase available talent but is considered authoritarian despotic socialism/communism within the American Overton Window. Why take on a risky career path like being a doctor if best case you're half a million in debt and that's assuming you don't get weeded out at any point? It's no surprise we have shortages of engineers, doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. Even a bachelor's degree is on average 32k for in-state at public colleges assuming you graduate in 4 years. Contrast that with my German peers who didn't pay anything and yeah, maybe I wouldn't have been a software engineer if everything else wasn't so volatile. I certainly don't feel as essential as doctors or nurses, especially now. Sure it's cheaper to start a LLC in the US and you can hire/fire on a whim practically, but 63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency. Doesn't exactly leave a lot of wiggle room unless your parents have a basement for your MVP and some seed money.
  - jpetso 5y ago
    I might take a risky job if the upside justifies the risk. But even in the US, the amount of stock options granted to employees (apart from the very earliest ones) will only result in a big pay-offs for the most successful of startups, and even then requires a lot of risk and/or sticking it out. EU startup culture appears less generous with equity and growth potential but doesn't make up for it with higher salaries.
photochemsyn 5y ago
Military-industrial contracting in the United States seems to suck up a vast amount of developer talent, and that's all public spending. I'm not sure how you're distinguishing developers working in the fields of public health care, public education, public infrastructure etc. from those working under the secrecy umbrella of the military-industrial contracting system in this argument?

legulere 5y ago

The amount spent does not say anything about efficiency if you don't consider what is provided with that money. Lack of free healthcare and education are some of the biggest complaints about the US after all. Europe is also doing pretty well in several fields and you don't explain at all how tech in particular is affected by public spending.

test0account 5y ago
56% of GDP amounts to around 20k euro per person and year Would you rather get the public health and education, or keep the 20k euro and find a solution for yourself? I reckon that my health expenditures are 1000 per year, and I am self-taught, so I don't need the government for anything. What we need is to make the public services Opt-in/Opt-out, so people who find it competitive like yourself can keep enjoying it.
- raphaelj 5y ago
  Well, you will pay these 20k only the 40-ish years you'll work, while you'll pay your US health care insurance until you die. The average American pays more for healthcare over their live than the average European, and the outcomes are objectively worse. Also, EU governments provide retirement benefits while the US's doesn't. This is the main expenditure for these governments. Not saying that your argument has not some truth in it, but it's definitively wrong in the case of healthcare.
  - test0account 5y ago
    20k of GDP per capita means in any year of your life, even after 65. People migrate to the US before the EU. Besides, US lifestyle (also a high tax country btw) is not the only possible alternative to european style quasi socialism (56% on the way there)
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      The EU is not anymore quasi socialist than the US. Incidentally I'd say most western countries are way too close to socialism, I'd rather see more private entities taking over security, healthcare and law making. It's just that there is no money, so private EU companies suck so there is no money. The lack of strong companies doesn't imply socialism. Most people in Europe has most of their trade interactions with other individuals and private businesses.
  - nostrebored 5y ago
    The outcomes are definitely not objectively worse, to the point that the U.S. is a huge medical tourism destination. The US population not taking care of themselves is a public health problem not a medical care quality issue.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Re-read what you replied to: they were talking about "the average American", not the richest ones. The total societal outcome -- spending vs outcome -- and therefore the average outcome too, for the USA as compared to most other developed countries... Pretty much sucks.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > to the point that the U.S. is a huge medical tourism destination. Of course, if you have the money to fly to the US, stay in the US and pay out-of-pocket for a medical procedure in the US, then yes, the US is a good destination. Which translates into: if you're rich, medicine in the US is great. However, not all of us are rich. And definitely not all Americans are rich.
      - nostrebored 5y ago
        Well that’s not the OPs value judgment at all is it? Sifted goalposts
        dmitriid 5y ago
        This: > The average American pays more for healthcare over their live than the average European, and the outcomes are objectively worse. remains true. No matter how you want to spin it and pretend that medical tourism affects this in any way. Edit: For 2015, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/chambers_health-related_travel_final.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/c... - Medical tourism to US: between 100k and 200k per year - Medical tourism from US to other countries: 150k to 350k per year Europe is ~500 million people US is ~ 360 million people Medical tourism is a drop in the bucket.
  - jandrewrogers 5y ago
    The US government provides extensive retirement benefits similar to the EU in both type and dollar value. These are some of the biggest spending line items in the US budget: Social Security, Medicare, etc. My US government provided pension will be something like $3500/month when I reach retirement age. This is in addition to any personal retirement savings.
- Gigamo 5y ago
  Society and the world at large doesn't revolve around individuals. Despite not having had any major health expenditures myself (for now), I have absolutely no problem with supporting a system that allows for those less fortunate to not have to worry about it, among other things. Frankly, anything else is simply barbaric.
  - test0account 5y ago
  - test0account 5y ago
  - killerjoe22 5y ago
    The majority (or easily over 80%) of the EU's high taxation incomes are not being spent solely to support the people who can't afford their own healthcare or on those who are truly in need of that money, so that argument is pointless. Unless you are a millionaire you can't live well in EU. If you are just a regular tech worker advancing in your career can actually reduce your salary because of the tax brackets.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > If you are just a regular tech worker advancing in your career can actually reduce your salary because of the tax brackets. How does that work?
jcfrei 5y ago
Public spending is not the biggest issue. The problem is that having lots of government employees in cushy jobs starves the labor market of talent. Why take on a risky job at a flimsy startup when you can have a nearly guaranteed income till retirement in a 9-5 job?
- drekk 5y ago
  We have those in the US too, it's called the "defense" industry. Our permanent wartime economy isn't for the good of most Americans or our talent pool—free education and healthcare (the largest discrepancy in public funding between the US and EU) would increase available talent but is considered authoritarian despotic socialism/communism within the American Overton Window. Why take on a risky career path like being a doctor if best case you're half a million in debt and that's assuming you don't get weeded out at any point? It's no surprise we have shortages of engineers, doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. Even a bachelor's degree is on average 32k for in-state at public colleges assuming you graduate in 4 years. Contrast that with my German peers who didn't pay anything and yeah, maybe I wouldn't have been a software engineer if everything else wasn't so volatile. I certainly don't feel as essential as doctors or nurses, especially now. Sure it's cheaper to start a LLC in the US and you can hire/fire on a whim practically, but 63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency. Doesn't exactly leave a lot of wiggle room unless your parents have a basement for your MVP and some seed money.
- jpetso 5y ago
  I might take a risky job if the upside justifies the risk. But even in the US, the amount of stock options granted to employees (apart from the very earliest ones) will only result in a big pay-offs for the most successful of startups, and even then requires a lot of risk and/or sticking it out. EU startup culture appears less generous with equity and growth potential but doesn't make up for it with higher salaries.

photochemsyn 5y ago

Military-industrial contracting in the United States seems to suck up a vast amount of developer talent, and that's all public spending. I'm not sure how you're distinguishing developers working in the fields of public health care, public education, public infrastructure etc. from those working under the secrecy umbrella of the military-industrial contracting system in this argument?