5 ms·

In the Twitter thread folks mention it is after taxes. Looking at income alone and not other benefits is also pretty misleading. I’m not here to say I know how

In the Twitter thread folks mention it is after taxes. Looking at income alone and not other benefits is also pretty misleading. I’m not here to say I know how much better/worse it is in France, just that this doesn’t seem like a good argument.

blfr 4y ago
This is before employee's taxes but after employer's taxes. OP explains > Net in France means after the taxes your employer pays but before the taxes you pay on your income. I know it's confusing! https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564875547792080898 https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564875547792080898 The benefits would have to be really, really sweet to consider making half as much a "worker's paradise."
- slively 4y ago
  Please keep going, it’s worth trying to compare all compensation and benefits, and we both might learn something.
- Klinky 4y ago
  You really do need to look at the whole picture of cost of living & quality of life. Sure someone in the Bay Area could make 5x that, but that doesn't mean they're living 5x better or things aren't 5x more expensive.
  - KronisLV 4y ago
    > ...or things aren't 5x more expensive. While I agree with you in regards to things like quality of life, health care, food, housing and many services, in a globalized economy certain goods that one might want to purchase don't scale that much depending on where one lives. For example, consider an iPhone 13, in this case a black one with 256 GB of storage and not bound to any particular carrier: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-13 https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-13 It costs 929$. Now here's the same model in a local store here in Latvia, also an iPhone 13, black color, 256 GB of memory: https://www.1a.lv/p/mobilais-telefons-apple-iphone-13-melna-4gb-256gb/cs5d?cat=7nh&index=8 https://www.1a.lv/p/mobilais-telefons-apple-iphone-13-melna-... It costs 939€ or around 934$. You hear a lot about people in US making over 100k$ (with varying taxes) per year, over here this year I'll probably make around 36k$ before taxes and 24k$ after taxes. So essentially when the cost of goods in a globalized economy (for these products that cannot be produced locally) remains consistent across different nations, someone in the US will realistically have a purchasing power that is many times larger than mine. Actually I wrote about my personal finances on my blog a while ago "On finances and savings": https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings Note: I don't consider myself as someone who can actually afford Apple devices, just using them as one example of that kind of a good; nobody is going to give you a car 2-3x cheaper just because you're from Latvia either, or a computer, or many other goods. Of course, your argument does hold true for other things, for example it's possible to rent a studio apartment here for around 300-400$ per month. Also my university degrees were free (though people with worse grades might have to pay if there are not enough budget places allocated) and I haven't had any significant healthcare expenses myself as of yet.
    - jerojero 4y ago
      People need food, housing, education and health more than they need iPhones. Everyone needs these, not everyone needs an iPhone. Which means a country where everyone has their basic needs covered but no one has an iPhone, I would say, is a better country to live in (on average) than a country where half of the people have iPhones and houses and the other half doesn't have either houses or iPhones. I think a lot of people fall into a trap of looking at their own circumstances and virtually move themselves to the other country, of course, as a software developer living in the bay area it's very unlikely you'll find a better place to live. You already have everything. But if you were to think "which country would you rather have been born in" the equation changes. Because in a country like the USA the chance of being poor or marginalised (think being born a woman or LGBT in a red state) is much higher than, say, France. Of course if you look at developing countries like Latvia the equation might change. So, really, I think it's important to think about how much of our basic are covered for how much of the population.
      - KronisLV 4y ago
        > So, really, I think it's important to think about how much of our basic are covered for how much of the population. This is fair, it's just that I feel like focusing on PPP often makes people miss out on certain aspects of the greater picture. For example, why many might choose to work for either US companies if possible, or even travel to US to work and build as much capital as they can, before settling down either back home with a substantial amount of money, or alternatively choosing another country. Of course, at that point one also cannot disregard how good or bad any given country is from a social standpoint, like human rights issues and so on.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        Is Latvia really a developing country?
    - djbusby 4y ago
      Maybe compare things people buy monthly like bread, milk, cheese, etc - not an every three year purchase like an overpriced phone.
conviencefee999 4y ago
Nope, it's just as bad. The hours of work along with afterhours. Unions themselves are not necessarily good and often act as blockers for minorities. And often force you to socialize with people you don't want any business with. Not to mention the gaps for women in the workforce, most unions are male dominant and extremely unwelcoming to women. Not to mention that they often fail at adequately increasing wages if at all. Strikes are often meaningless as they can easily by diverted by importing the section the workers who are striking from are not doing, basically in a sense unions are an outdated model for helping people in general.

blfr 4y ago

This is before employee's taxes but after employer's taxes. OP explains > Net in France means after the taxes your employer pays but before the taxes you pay on your income. I know it's confusing! https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564875547792080898 https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1564875547792080898 The benefits would have to be really, really sweet to consider making half as much a "worker's paradise."

slively 4y ago
Please keep going, it’s worth trying to compare all compensation and benefits, and we both might learn something.
Klinky 4y ago
You really do need to look at the whole picture of cost of living & quality of life. Sure someone in the Bay Area could make 5x that, but that doesn't mean they're living 5x better or things aren't 5x more expensive.
- KronisLV 4y ago
  > ...or things aren't 5x more expensive. While I agree with you in regards to things like quality of life, health care, food, housing and many services, in a globalized economy certain goods that one might want to purchase don't scale that much depending on where one lives. For example, consider an iPhone 13, in this case a black one with 256 GB of storage and not bound to any particular carrier: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-13 https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-13 It costs 929$. Now here's the same model in a local store here in Latvia, also an iPhone 13, black color, 256 GB of memory: https://www.1a.lv/p/mobilais-telefons-apple-iphone-13-melna-4gb-256gb/cs5d?cat=7nh&index=8 https://www.1a.lv/p/mobilais-telefons-apple-iphone-13-melna-... It costs 939€ or around 934$. You hear a lot about people in US making over 100k$ (with varying taxes) per year, over here this year I'll probably make around 36k$ before taxes and 24k$ after taxes. So essentially when the cost of goods in a globalized economy (for these products that cannot be produced locally) remains consistent across different nations, someone in the US will realistically have a purchasing power that is many times larger than mine. Actually I wrote about my personal finances on my blog a while ago "On finances and savings": https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings Note: I don't consider myself as someone who can actually afford Apple devices, just using them as one example of that kind of a good; nobody is going to give you a car 2-3x cheaper just because you're from Latvia either, or a computer, or many other goods. Of course, your argument does hold true for other things, for example it's possible to rent a studio apartment here for around 300-400$ per month. Also my university degrees were free (though people with worse grades might have to pay if there are not enough budget places allocated) and I haven't had any significant healthcare expenses myself as of yet.
  - jerojero 4y ago
    People need food, housing, education and health more than they need iPhones. Everyone needs these, not everyone needs an iPhone. Which means a country where everyone has their basic needs covered but no one has an iPhone, I would say, is a better country to live in (on average) than a country where half of the people have iPhones and houses and the other half doesn't have either houses or iPhones. I think a lot of people fall into a trap of looking at their own circumstances and virtually move themselves to the other country, of course, as a software developer living in the bay area it's very unlikely you'll find a better place to live. You already have everything. But if you were to think "which country would you rather have been born in" the equation changes. Because in a country like the USA the chance of being poor or marginalised (think being born a woman or LGBT in a red state) is much higher than, say, France. Of course if you look at developing countries like Latvia the equation might change. So, really, I think it's important to think about how much of our basic are covered for how much of the population.
    - KronisLV 4y ago
      > So, really, I think it's important to think about how much of our basic are covered for how much of the population. This is fair, it's just that I feel like focusing on PPP often makes people miss out on certain aspects of the greater picture. For example, why many might choose to work for either US companies if possible, or even travel to US to work and build as much capital as they can, before settling down either back home with a substantial amount of money, or alternatively choosing another country. Of course, at that point one also cannot disregard how good or bad any given country is from a social standpoint, like human rights issues and so on.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      Is Latvia really a developing country?
  - djbusby 4y ago
    Maybe compare things people buy monthly like bread, milk, cheese, etc - not an every three year purchase like an overpriced phone.

conviencefee999 4y ago

Nope, it's just as bad. The hours of work along with afterhours. Unions themselves are not necessarily good and often act as blockers for minorities. And often force you to socialize with people you don't want any business with. Not to mention the gaps for women in the workforce, most unions are male dominant and extremely unwelcoming to women. Not to mention that they often fail at adequately increasing wages if at all. Strikes are often meaningless as they can easily by diverted by importing the section the workers who are striking from are not doing, basically in a sense unions are an outdated model for helping people in general.