Notice how the USA is the top country in the world for getting ahead. If you want to work hard and become rich, that's your spot. Places with "robust workers rights"? Not-so-much.
I disagree with this actually - the effective savings rate is generally lower in the US compared to a lot of countries with "robust workers rights" if you're working in the US you end up losing a lot of wealth to problems that are generally societally insured elsewhere in the world.
I would look into stats on social mobility by country.
Social mobility in the US is still pretty good last time I checked. Most European countries have have lower income income inequality, but less mobility. Eg, the difference between the bottom and top 25‰ is smaller, but your birth class is more predictive of your future income.
Unfortunately, no data on social mobility was used in the making of this ranking.
The authors picked several factors like which they assume lead to improved social mobility (like births/woman), score countries out of 100, then perform a simple numerical average them to form the mobility index. Look at page 205 of the report for the list. They don't validate that the factors are actually related in any way to mobility outcomes.
Sure, it takes other things than income into consideration as well, but it's probably better that way if you really want to understand how easy it is to improve your life in each country. They do consider income as well: "In Denmark or Finland, for example, if one’s parent earns 100% more than another, it is estimated that the impact on a child’s future income is around 15%, compared to about 50% in the United States...".
>Sure, it takes other things than income into consideration as well.
In fact, mean income feeds 0% into the index ranking. Intergenerational change in income feeds 0% into the index. Income inequality (fixed in time), feeds in 10% to the index.
> They do consider income as well: "In Denmark or Finland, for example, if one’s parent earns 100% more than another, it is estimated that the impact on a child’s future income is around 15%, compared to about 50% in the United States...".
That is a reference to another study in the section explaining "why social mobility matters". It was NOT included in the Index ranking. That line data isn't sourced well, so it is hard to follow up on what exactly they are comparing and how.
That's quite possible. Americans also lose a lot of money unnecessarily to utilities (the cellphone bills are ridiculous) and keeping-up-with-the-joneses expenses like a starbucks a day. I think it's pretty hard to distinguish those costs as we can see similar or higher standards of living elsewhere - but I do think the out of pocket expenses hurt a lot (and they hurt even more when you stop drawing an income - retiring in the states is a huge gamble).
Starbucks and fastfood, etc, I don't see it as keeping-up-with-the-joneses expenses.
I feel in the US there is a lot of subconscious decision making that's essentially about buying more time with money, but in an actual monetary transaction as opposed to some implicit trade off. They seem to be chronically starved for time.
> If you want to work hard and become rich, that's your spot.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd argue there are far more who tried and failed than who succeeded, but I don't know if that ratio of success is better or worse than in other countries today (yes, today - not when the US economy was booming relative to other countries, or when immigration was easy, or in the early days of Silicon Valley, or back during the Gold Rush(es) etc).
In any case, though, I would argue this argument applies to a narrow slice of the population, namely those whose main goal is to get rich. Not everybody wants to "work hard and become rich". Not everybody wants life to be a competition to get ahead. Plenty of people are not deeply invested in a career and simply want to work 40h/week for a decent salary and still be able to afford a decent life.
Others feel a calling to a profession that will generally not make you rich, but is still valuable to society. Case in point: teachers. Extremely valuable to society and extremely badly compensated in the US. If I wanted to be a teacher, I'd much rather be in most European countries than in the US.
> Switzerland and Luxembourg are way WAY richer per capita than the US, and have much robust employee rights.
When you say per capita, are you referring to median or mean figures?
Hong Kong is richer per capita than Switzerland at the median and does not have nearly as robust of employee rights.
The US is richer at the median than Germany and does not have nearly the worker protections. The US also has vastly more low skill labor immigration (for 40+ years now), which persistently debases its median figures. Why are German workers so relatively poor, if the claims about worker rights is accurate? Surely the dynamo of Europe, the German economy, combined with such potent worker protections, should lead to enormous median wealth.
Luxembourg has 613,000 people. That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. You're comparing a giant country of 330 million to a modest size city like San Francisco.
germany is only 10% or so behind the US in terms of PPP. They also have more vacation, fewer layoffs, cheaper housing, generally lower cost of living (by more than 10%), and many other things.
Perhaps they made a different trade off, more leisure, less work?
I've only brought up the two most obvious examples (there many others) that negate entirely that silly notion that somehow human rights are incompatible with technological advancement, which borders on hate speech.
I mean, should we really go back to slavery to become space-faring species? Not the kind of future I want to live in.
Could it be that NYC is simply garbage to begin with?
Norway (lets ignore because oil, but really it's not oil), Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland - also better? Longer vacations, better transit, definitely less hobos from what I remember, and no pervasive urine odour.
And bigger median annual incomes.
The weather is brutal in some parts of Nordics, I'll give you that. Not sure if I'd trade cold weather for urine vapours though. Very very difficult question, so I guess NYC isn't entirely hopeless just yet.
Interesting, because this sounds like wild speculation - yet you've stated it as if it is a cold hard fact. Do you have any sources or statistics to back this up?
In 2018 the Swiss financial sector accounted for 9.1% of GDP. For comparison, in 2018 the US financial sector accounted for 7.4% of US GDP. To claim that it is _entirely_ banking is just plain wrong. To insinuate that there is no innovation elsewhere, (but there sure is in good ol' America), is just insulting.
>Financial markets in the United States ... In 2018, finance and insurance represented 7.4 percent (or $1.5 trillion) of U.S. gross domestic product[0]
>Switzerland’s financial sector ... as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). In 2018, it represented 9.1%[1]
Somewhat more true of Luxembourg than of Switzerland.
> Luxembourg remains a financial powerhouse – the financial sector accounts for more than 35% of GDP - because of the exponential growth of the investment fund sector through the launch and development of cross-border funds (UCITS) in the 1990s. Luxembourg is the world’s second-largest investment fund asset domicile, after the US, with $4 trillion of assets in custody in financial institutions.
3rd most globally competitive economy in the world.
Sure, yeah. no innovation at all at Sandoz, Nestle, Novartis and Roche, and ~200 other companies in life sciences and another 300 in precision manufacturing.
Many are simply legal predators using their enormous funds for legal lobbying. Selling repackaged water, sweetened water, sparkling sweetened water, coloured sweetened water.