[socialdemocrat]

Many have reached US levels of economic output per hour. The key difference is that while Europeans have opted for better work-life balance, Americans are increasingly worked to the bone. There seems to be no end to stories about people working 3 job, never having vacation, sometimes not even weekends.

The other challenge is that many other countries are more aggressive about keeping resource usage to a minimal. Compare e.g. usage or resources, water, land and energy per dollar of GDP and the US is really high.

European countries, Korea and Japan may not have as high GDP but is often on a far more sustainable path.

[smegma2]

Japan has better WLB than the US? Are you sure? This sounds very anecdotal.

> Americans are increasingly worked to the bone. There seems to be no end to stories about people working 3 job, never having vacation, sometimes not even weekends.

My counter: I don't know a single person working like this

[Spooky23]

There’s two americas.

You have the people upset that their big tech employer won’t do their laundry anymore. Then you have the underclass of people who can lose everything if they get hurt or show up late for work a few times.

[bluGill]

I've heard a few like that. They are in the early years of founding a business, their day job is unpaid, the 2nd job is so they can eat, and theweekend job is more money to invest in the main one. The plan is in a few years the first job makes money and they quit the others.

Or sometimes someone who is laid off in a downturn and works like that for a year while waiting for things to improve so they can return to their previous high spending lifestyle with lots of vacation to enjoy the toys they are now just able to make payments on.

[lupire]

"Early years of founding a business" is not a substitantial part of the population.

[bluGill]

Exactly. Most people only work one job. You hear stories, they are true, but they are the exception. Or they are about a problem unrelated to poverty. (Child support is a big one, courts are sexist in many cases)

[whimsicalism]

Jesus christ, it's like large parts of HN don't even realize people exist outside of their affluent west coast bubble.

[bluGill]

I know some poor people. They live in poor neighborhoods, and have little. However the vast majority are not working two jobs.

Or maybe it doesn't occur to you that in the middle of the country it is possible to afford a (small!) apartment on minimum wage jobs. We hear stories about how high the cost of living is in CA, but it isn't that bad here.

[arvinsim]

Do you think it is because they need it?

Or is it because hustle culture has become so normalized that people could not conceive of the alternatives?

[bluGill]

I am not passing judgement on people's life choices. I'm just observing what I see them do.

[ClumsyPilot]

Is GDP per capita appropriate metric? Japan has higher median salaries than US does.

How much of thay GDP is down to US being a global center of finance and location of corporate HQ of most gl9bal firms, pulling in wealth from across the world?

Also how much of that GDP remains if you remove the top 0.1% of richest people?

You may argue those things shouls not be remoced from GDP, but if we are discussing working life on an average person, this GDP number might not be reflective of it

[chii]

> Also how much of that GDP remains if you remove the top 0.1% of richest people?

those richest people don't personally contribute that much to GDP (their companies they own do). Removing them would make not much difference - their spending might be 10x or may be even 100x the average person, but there's so few of them that barely worth mentioning. It's not like they eat more food than normal people, nor wear out cars more than normal people. A few yachts and fancy cars notwithstanding, GDP is a measure of output, not wealth accumulation.

[ClumsyPilot]

Fair enough, but how is this discrepancy between wages and GDP explainable?

[chii]

Wages are the minimum people accept for their labour. GDP is a measure of productivity, which can increase with investment in plant and equipment (and tech via R&D).

If a worker is more efficient, but every worker is also made more efficient (because of the equipment or tech), then their bargaining power doesn't grow with their productivity increase!

The exceptions are where their individual output is higher - aka, skill. Tech workers getting higher wages is evidence of this. At some point, the number of tech workers would saturate as it is such a lucrative profession compared to many others - it's just the 2000 dot-com pop caused a huge drop in enrollments in universities and the lack of graduates is still felt today imho.

Meanwhile, a services industry worker still outputs the same amount of "work" as they've done before in yester-century (not much tech can improve their output). The pay for them have not really grown, because there's no room to grow. Only mandates like minimum wage increases cause it to grow, and those hardly come by.

[mrep]

> Japan has higher median salaries than US does.

Where do you see that? Wikipedia says the US has 2x the median income PPP than Japan [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

[systemvoltage]

I'd honestly prefer the hard working ethic of Americans over lassie-faire hierarchical orthodoxy in EU. No one works to the bone, hard work is also rewarded. They choose to do it. The ease of business is amazing.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I lived in the USA for 32 years, after growing up in the UK for 24. I don't see a "hard working ethic" in the USA. What I do see is a relentless, frequently unrealistic optimism that both diverts people from taking coherent political change seriously and also empowers them to believe that their lives will be better tomorrow than today.

Lots of people in the USA work to the bone. Maybe you don't work with them, or see them when and where they work, but many books and articles have been written by people who've been deep inside this phenomenon. "Nickel & Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich is a great example.

Yes, entrepeneurialism is easy here, and that's a good thing. However, I refuse to believe that this requires the rest of the system to remain as it is, or that by itself it justifies the suffering of the majority of people who do not "make it".

I should perhaps note that I did "make it" here in the USA. I have tried hard to to allow that to blind me to the fact that it was mostly luck, nor to the immense, unnecessary suffering that our economic and political system imposes on millions of people (even just within the country).

[systemvoltage]

> What I do see is a relentless, frequently unrealistic optimism that both diverts people from taking coherent political change seriously and also empowers them to believe that their lives will be better tomorrow than today.

I disagree with your premises. I love the way things are. I do not agree with current progressive agenda, I stand by the old liberal values.

> I should perhaps note that I did "make it" here in the USA.

Sorry about your situation. I am an immigrant that came from a place I never want to go back, this land has given everything I asked for in return of honest, good day's work.

Most importantly, I enjoy the freedoms that other nations do not grant.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Sorry about your situation

I think you misread what I said. If you look back up up the thread, you'll find there is absolutely no reason to pity my situation at all.

Sure, I got a LOT back from the USA, much more than anyone deserves really. And even without that stroke of good luck (sure, maybe it favored my prepared mind), a lot of people can live "like kings" in the USA compared to the life they would have led elsewhere.

But I do not believe that the suffering of those who lead much worse lives in the USA can justify my own comfort (or that of anyone else's). Nor the opposite. The fact that it is possible to succeed here in ways that might never have worked "back home" does not justify the oppression that continues to affect millions of Americans.

[grog454]

What is the difference between a "hard working ethic" and "work[ing] to the bone"?

[I-M-S]

One is a choice the other is not

[seibelj]

I’ve met quite a few executives at US companies who emigrated from Europe. At the high end, America kicks the shit out of Europe in every regard. The high end people create the new companies, and thus America has far more equity value than Europe, and new innovative companies, and cutting edge research, etc. etc. Europe might be better for the average person but the hyper successful generally opt to leave.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

We don't need the hyper-successful, certainly not the way you're defining them.

In a society of 350 millions people that is vaguely capitalistic, there will always be people who "win big". The "high end" people are just the living manifestation of serendipidity. If it wasn't Bezos, it would have been someone else.

Also, "the high-end people create the new companies" is almost complete BS. The mythology of the exceptional individual that dominates the USA promotes this story, but the reality is that successful companies are the result of the collaborative, cooperative efforts of many different people (many of them not "high-end"). A company like Amazon was created by a constellation of people with very different backgrounds, socio-economic status and intent.

[jokethrowaway]

You could have been #2 at Amazon but I've seen plenty of companies to fail because their founders screw up the company.

Saying Bezos just won is simply dishonest. His ideas and approach had an impact.

[sangnoir]

> Saying Bezos just won is simply dishonest. His ideas and approach had an impact.

If Bezos never existed, or chose to become a theoretical physicist,there would have been another company filling the niche(s) with some other founder who didn't screw up the company.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

"Not screwing up the company" is a necessary but insufficient condition for startup success.

I did not say that "Bezos just won" nor that his ideas and approach had no impact. As has been noted by others in this sub-thread, the point is that if it had not been Bezos (because he stayed at D.E. Shaw, or fucked up early Amazon) it would have been someone else. Capitalism abhors a vacuum.

[seibelj]

I just find your logic so defeatist. “Someone will win”. It’s like saying “someone is the fastest runner, so why bother trying”.

Yes, someone will always be the best at something. But you can be better than the best. That’s the whole point of human striving.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

(1) by definition you cannot be better than the best.

(2) "someone will win" is a description of a competition. If it was a marathon, and your goal was to win, and you knew that there were 500 runners capable of running more than 30 minutes faster than you, why would you enter the marathon. You will NOT win.

(3) there are other goals in life besides winning (for example, what i've done since leaving amazon after just over a year). you can pour almost unlimited amounts of energy, time and love into something without the need to be declared "the winner", and indeed, this is what most people do with most of their lives. you may choose to run a marathon despite knowing that you cannot possibly win the race. you may even choose to run a marathon knowing you will be slower than the last time you tried. running is not a good metaphor or analogy for business "competition".

(4) there are lots of contexts that are nothing like a marathon. you don't know who will be participating. you don't know how good they are. you don't know how good you are. you may not even fully understand what the criteria for "winning" are. nevertheless, you will still be "competing" with others, and you may choose to participate in that for reasons that are much more complicated than "i want to win" (though that might be one of them).

(5) if you do not have intrinsic motivation, you will likely be unable to show sufficient dedication to succeed in a competitive business environment. so you'd better have at least that. maybe it comes because your arrogance makes you want to prove to the world how good you are. maybe it comes because you're really, deeply convinced that your idea will make the world a better place. but it had better be some sort of motivation beyond "i just want to win" - that's almost never enough to succeed.

(6) so let's assume that you do have an excellent level of intrinsic motivation. let's say you have an excellent idea. let's say you have excellent ideas about to build a company and a product/service. these are all necessary ingredients for success. but will any of them guarantee it? no, they will not.

(7) if you're the kind of person who matches (6) but believes the success is purely a result of what you (and perhaps others) bring to the effort, you're likely to be rather surprised. the chances are that despite your motivation, excellent ideas and management, you will fail. you will fail in a very ordinary way: the way that most people fail - a combination of bad luck, perhaps a handful of minor errors, maybe one or two major ones. if you're aware of this, and it stops you from even starting, that's probably for the best in the contemporary US economy. not wanting to do something without a guaranteed win is likely negatively correlated with actual success.

(8) on the other hand, if you're aware of this, but your intrinsic motivation is still high enough to make a go of it, then go for it. this will not change your chances of success (at least not much) - chances are you will fail. but you're the type of person who is OK with this. you know that every once in a while, someone (probably someone like you) will succeed beyond anyone's expectations, and that adds to your own intrinsic motivation sufficiently to make it worth the risk - the likelihood - of failure.

(9) people like the ones who match (8) are why we have amazon and its ilk.

The problem is [ EDIT: NOT ] that people like this exist, nor that they behave as they do. The problem is believing that:

(a) the results of their own self-belief and efforts to validate that are always good for society

(b) good things only arise from this sort of person

(c) the corrollary of (b), that people who are not like this can not create things that are good for society

a, b and c are all demonstrably provably false, both in modern times, and throughout the span of human history.

[seibelj]

Disagree entirely. Yes, a company is an assemblage of people. No, the guy working the warehouse couldn’t have built Amazon. Bezos is special talent.

[giantrobot]

> Bezos is special talent.

Having family wealthy enough to invest in his early business is a kind of talent I guess. As is being in the right place at the right time. If Bezos lost all of his money tomorrow he could never make it a second time.

[jokethrowaway]

Having followed what Bezos did and pushed as company culture, I disagree completely.

I wouldn't want to work at Amazon (there are certainly better pay / stress jobs out there), but I believe the way their individual teams work is the key to success and what most large organisations get wrong. I just think the teams should get more bonuses / equity tied in their team success in order for it to be fair for team members. It's basically build-your-startup level of stress but you're working for Bezos.

Similarly the general strategy of reinvesting in Amazon and spinning off AWS was just pure genius.

There's a lot to learn from Bezos.

[seibelj]

Plenty of people can get investment. There is only one Amazon. If things are so easy, go do it yourself.

Starting a company and growing it to the size of Amazon is extremely difficult. It doesn’t happen by luck or happenstance. It takes highly skilled management in addition to market timing.

Luck isn’t what makes people successful. Hard working people put themselves out there and increase the opportunities for lucky events, but without the hard work and effort the luck wouldn’t be able to happen.

Looking at successful people and pointing out some advantage they have is just a coping mechanism. Assuming you don’t have some disability, no one is stopping you from succeeding except yourself.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Starting a company and growing it to the size of Amazon is extremely difficult.

That is almost certainly true. But what you don't get is that there are dozens (maybe many more) constantly striving to do just that. When some of them of succeed, why would you be surprised? Why would it be surprising or special when a system designed to cause people to strive for this kind of success actually results in it happening to some of them, and not to most of them? There's nothing remarkable about the fact of a particular corporation's success: there was always going to be a corporate success, just as there were always going to be way more corporate failures. That's how the system is designed. That's what it is there to do. It's not a reason to idolize or even respect those who happened to be on the winning team.

Before you say much more, you should probably be aware that I was the #2 employee at Amazon.

[giantrobot]

> It doesn’t happen by luck or happenstance. It takes highly skilled management in addition to market timing.

Market timing is just a euphemism for luck.

> Luck isn’t what makes people successful. Hard working people put themselves out there and increase the opportunities for lucky events, but without the hard work and effort the luck wouldn’t be able to happen.

Bullshit. Hard work without luck is often just hard work.

> Looking at successful people and pointing out some advantage they have is just a coping mechanism. Assuming you don’t have some disability, no one is stopping you from succeeding except yourself.

This just sounds like self-help seminar platitudes. I'm recognizing Bezos had advantages lots of other people did not have. He's was a well off white male with connections in the US. He would be notable if he didn't have some manner of success.

Discounting the luck of circumstances is foolish. Idolize Bezos for his business acumen but there's no need to white knight for him if someone points out he started off on second base when you're claiming he hit a home run.

[lupire]

USAmerica's great successes are largely in wealth transfer from lower class to upper class, and selling vices. That's why GDP is so much higher than quality of life -- the economy is largely people paying each other to hurt each other.

[seibelj]

America’s greatest success is the rule of law, stable republican government, and the protection of private property. America continues to outdo the rest of the world because it is better.

[oblio]

It's greatest success was in killing or driving off native populations or smaller groups of other settlers (French, Spanish, Mexican) to get 7 million sqkm of prime real estate only found to the same scale in Europe (where it's divided among 40+ countries) and China (surprise-surprise, the main rival).

A place like Germany, for example, I find in no way inferior to the US, population wise, but it's geographically much more constrained and in much less defensible position.

[seibelj]

Plenty of native empires, such as the Aztecs and Mayans, enslaved, murdered, and worked to death numerous other groups of people, which are well documented in primary sources.

The US did evil, as did the Germans in Africa during their colonial period, and so did African empires that sold their enemies into slavery.

Nothing is black and white. Although many on HN like to pretend so.

[ncmncm]

America’s greatest success used to be the rule of law, stable republican government, and the protection of private property.

Now, the US has the greatest degree of high-level corruption in the world, second perhaps only to China. In China, corruption is technically still illegal, but permitted to the Party faithful. In the US, it has all been made explicitly legal.

[seibelj]

Source?