For example it is pretty common in the Nordic countries to have a vacation home where you spend summers and holidays with friends and family. And between saved parental leave, standardized vacation periods and public holidays there is time available to do so. There are certainly people who do have that in the US, but once you or your family relocates it gets a lot more tricky.
In general I just think it is a lot easier in, at least some, European countries to set yourself up for a good life. Day to day, year to year, to not endure a long commute or stressful work environment. Having time to spend with your kids while they are young, your parents before they get too old and your friends so you don't lose touch. Not having to worry about the future, managing your kids lives, the financial losses of getting sick or your career.
Once you start wanting to do things that aren't universal or the default in any country, and especially with other people in your life, you can end up paying a large premium to do so.
> For example it is pretty common in the Nordic countries to have a vacation home where you spend summers and holidays with friends and family. And between saved parental leave, standardized vacation periods and public holidays there is time available to do so. There are certainly people who do have that in the US, but once you or your family relocates it gets a lot more tricky.
That's also common in the United States or at least in the Upper Midwest. Just here in Minnesota there are around 124,000 seasonal properties and the average household income for the owners of these properties is $58,000 which is not rich in the United States. It's also a similar story in Wisconsin next door and other Upper Midwest states like Michigan.
I don't think being able to a own vacation home in the Midwest is relevant in this context: the increase in income going from France to the Midwest is almost certainly going to be much lower than the increase going from France to the Bay Area, while the loss of social benefits would still be the same (or worse.)
Why? I make almost twice the average salary of a Software Engineer in Paris here in Minneapolis. I could move to the bay area and make an extra $20-$30K but my rent and cost of living would sky rocket. I pay about $680 a month for rent in an excellent neighborhood of Minneapolis. Getting rent that cheap in the bay area would be impossible. Plus my friends working in Chicago have salaries equivalent to the bay area but their cost of living is almost half of the bay. Even though I make less in the Upper Midwest, the cost of living is so low that I can save more than if I lived in the bay.
Shh don't tell them. ;) In Kansas City I rent a _house_ with a large back yard within walking distance from a lot of neat things. I've built a metal working shop in my basement and a forge out back. My rent is 700$ a month. Work the first day of the month pays that if I take a long lunch.
Every SF salary range I see is significantly below what I made last year. I'm not even taking cost of living into consideration here. Just absolute terms. I interviewed at Amazon a few years ago when they were doing some game design stuff and didn't make the cut. I learned that I'm not ambitious enough to make less.
Because midwest tech, I have no debt. In fact, I can crunch for a month, take the money and go buy a few acres to shoot my .50 caliber anti material rifle. Few SF residents will know how expensive it is to buy match 750 grain ammo, or know the pain and suffering of putting a clean hole through an engine block you tore out of a mercury tracer from 1000m away on a tuesday at 11am. It's terrible.
The central limit theorem corroborates the fact that the 500,000 people in KC basically don't exist and it's just one big cornfield. The 800,000 people in San Francisco are burdened with the knowledge that everything east of them til' the coast is flyover country. I feel for them.
> I've built a metal working shop in my basement and a forge out back. My rent is 700$ a month.
Making major capital investments in the property is actually something I would consider a reason to purchase rather than renting. Can you say more about your thought process there?
Why do you assume that? I spent almost a month camping this year and I'm planning a 2 week snowboarding trip in the Rockies. As well as a climbing slash canoeing trip in the boundary waters area in the spring.
And yet me an American is on track for 40 days of paid vacation time this year, also a coworker of mine just got back from 13 weeks paid paternity leave.
> Not having to worry about the future, managing your kids lives, the financial losses of getting sick or your career.
How does this encourage anything but complacency? Who wants to start anything when everything is a utopia with no consequences? I’m not even being facetious because that is basically what you’re describing. This is why Europe barely innovates: extreme comfort and security. These aren’t bad things. But it’s odd to me that people look for more complicated answers when this is plain as day.
