[mrtksn]

Completely agree, the problem in Europe is not regulations or anything like that - it is a mindset issue. It is one of things that europeans can learn from Americans.

My hypothesis is that this is a combination of old money and class consciousness. In other words, the rich are risk averse because all they care is preserving their wealth and the working class don’t believe and can’t even imagine that more is possible.

[tirant]

Regulations often stem from a particular mindset. However, they also serve to perpetuate that mindset.

As a member of the working class, I find there’s little incentive to build something new or innovate because the effort required to navigate through all the burdensome regulations is overwhelming. On top of that, any additional income I might generate from bringing my ideas or initiatives to market would be taxed at more than 50%. For many people like me, the effort simply isn’t worth it. Instead, we focus our energy on other pursuits, such as family, sports, or friendships.

This shift in focus isn’t inherently bad—a life balanced between family, friends, work, and leisure is often a recipe for happiness. However, societal progress relies heavily on the efforts of a small minority of individuals who are bold (or perhaps crazy) enough to pursue their ideas. When 90% of those individuals are discouraged from taking entrepreneurial risks, society’s capacity for innovation is severely stifled.

In short, it’s clear that excessive regulations and high taxes are holding Europe back from achieving its full potential for growth and innovation.

[mrtksn]

Which regulations exactly you find burdensome or overwhelming and stopping you from attempting the become wealthy, change your life and the world maybe?

Why would you skip having 1 billion Euros just because you could have had 2 Billion but the government took the rest? Up until 1960's rich Americans payed %91 tax, and yet they kept their entrepreneurial spirit - why you can't do the same at the stated %50?

When Apple was founded, the tax rates were %70.

[cdnthrownawy39]

Canadian here.

It's not so much any single regulation, as it is there's so many little ones that seem reasonable on the face of it. But it's also that what makes the ruling Canadian class so is the authority to bypass those regulations.

I can give one personal example; I was able to secure some public funding application for a non profit I'm affiliated with. But the only reason I was able to do that was because my parents were university classmates of the elected official that was able to pressure the staff that was handling the paperwork to prioritize and approve our application ahead of probably the hundreds in front of us. The official's going to get a nice thank you dinner out of it, but I also had to offer some information that the official could financially benefit from for him to even consider it, and a promise of some future favors.

For better or worst that's how a lot of Canadian system works. Grant applications, personal tax work, personal and business banking, etc. Anyone can get through it eventually for anything. But if you want it done quickly and in a way probably won't get tied up in the system itself, you better know someone that owes you a favor.

[mrtksn]

This is very interesting anecdote because it resonates with something that a friend of mine said when I pressured him to explain which regulations exactly are causing him problems in EU.

As it turns out, he also complained about excessive documentation he needs to get public funds for his project.

So both of you are actually complaining about accessing public funds and not actually doing private investment or starting a private company with private funds.

this is not what most of the Americans do and this is not what they mean by startups or business. Mostly.

[cdnthrownawy39]

Sort of. Accessing private Canadian financing is a lot harder for the most part, our financial sector is notoriously risk averse for any sort of personal or business loans unless there's a path of guaranteed returns and you have a track record of getting those returns. Last time one of my bosses tried to get something like $2 million in raising funds with Canadian investors, they said that we needed to show I think at least $2 million in net profits for 4 or 5 years at least.

Public funding is easier to access in part because the people that are overseeing it usually don't understand or care to understand what it is they're overseeing. My boss in 2015 or so was presenting my regular IT work as research and development and somehow it worked.

It's not just in new business either. Canada has the lowest investments in business machinery like computers to improve productivity. I don't know what the friction in that regard but just to give you an example; the big name company I was working in 2023 retired the DLink Fast Ethernet switches that we were using as core networking for one of our labs. $200 to upgrade the component that was bottle necking 20+ employees was not worth it and I had to buy it out of my own pocket to demonstrate just how badly it was hampering. And this was after showing fancy power points on the financial impact of 20+ employees doing file transfers at 1/10th the speed they could be (not so much that they didn't have the money, they just didn't believe that an engineer could understand finances. Go figure).

I gotta run, but there's more I can comment on.

[indeedmug]

> Sort of. Accessing private Canadian financing is a lot harder for the most part, our financial sector is notoriously risk averse for any sort of personal or business loans unless there's a path of guaranteed returns and you have a track record of getting those returns. Last time one of my bosses tried to get something like $2 million in raising funds with Canadian investors, they said that we needed to show I think at least $2 million in net profits for 4 or 5 years at least.

If someone's businesses is already working, then why would they go and get investment money?

It seems like the investors don't realize that if someone does have that much net profit, they actually don't have that much leverage over them to get good equity deals. So they are essentially just paying high and selling low later.

[robertlagrant]

> Why would you skip having 1 billion Euros just because you could have had 2 Billion but the government took the rest?

No one's making that choice. Most businesses fail, even in somewhere entrepreneur-friendly like America. Why not just work for someone else, given the rewards are capped even at relatively low level of success? Why take the risk, when taxation has failed to price risk into reward?

[flask_manager]

We have global commerce; you are not only working on the creation part of something new, but also competing with similarly skilled people working with different more advantageous start conditions.

Nobody is talking about the difference between 1 and 2 billion, they are talking about the difference between 50 and 100 thousand, while competing.

[_t9ow]

The highest marginal tax brackets tend to kick in very, very early in Europe. That makes a huge difference.

[mrtksn]

Does it? How many people skipped getting rich because they could have been richer? Any factual examples?

BTW, rich don't actually pay much taxes. The luxury life they live is usually not taxed, most of the things they do is considered business expense.

When a worker flies to Ibiza they first pay social security and income taxes, then they pay consumption taxes like VAT.

When a businessman flies to Ibiza they deduct whatever they can as an expense so they don't pay income tax and VAT. For whatever they can't claim that it is a business expense they will pay with a cheap loan against their assets and avoid paying income taxes. Since they still have those assents, they pay just the interest later when the assents increase in value. If their business fails those assets fail, the bank takes the assets and no taxation happens.

[paganel]

What the OP is trying to say is that to grow from 50k euros earned per year to 1 million euros earned per year is very, very cumbersome and, yes, mentally challenging and very stressful, and that a lot of people actively choose to stay/remain at the 50k euros per year level and they'll not take the risks of trying to get to more than 1 million per year.

Once you're at more than 1 million per year there are other challenges and you can probably afford to hire someone to take part of that burden off your shoulders, but until you get to that point you're on your own and it's very damn stressful (and by stressful I mean that that includes the possible inflated but all to real fear of getting to prison because of that tax-thingie that you didn't fill the 100% correct way or because some work your company did broke some municipal regulations or whatever and now you're on the hook for damages and, yes, personal liability).

Actually your VAT-skimming thing at the end is a very good example of that mentality, i.e. the innovators here having to have the Tax man front and center in their minds, before innovation and trying to build something useful off the ground, because if you don't know how to play the Tax man (at the limit of legality, as your example is) then you're toast. That "playing the Tax-man" thing consumes a lot of people's energy in the early stages, energy that would have been way better spent trying to actually make something new and innovative.

[the 50k and 1 million figures are just used as examples, maybe it's not 50k but 70k or 80k and maybe it's not 1 million but 5 to 10 million, but the idea stays the same]

[brewdad]

Those problems are universal. Or do you honestly think that American startups don't need to hire an accountant and consult with lawyers? You either find the risk/reward proposition worthwhile or you don't. There's nothing wrong with not pursuing the riskier avenue but don't pretend the US makes it easy.

[fxtentacle]

For a married couple in Germany, they reach 40% in effective tax rate somewhere above 600,000€ in combined annual income.

My take would be that once people have 100k€ in net annual income per person, they just do other things and work less because it brings them more happiness than the additional money would.

[rpep]

I’m 33, in the U.K. and my marginal tax rate is currently 66.7%, because the support you get for having children gets withdrawn between £60000 and £80000. If a promotion came up I would take it but it’s also at a point where I’m considering already dropping down to four days a week because of this. I don’t live in London so my life is very affordable. Save myself money on children’s nursery for a few years too…

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/03/10/infographic_marginal_rat...

[inglor_cz]

Nominal tax rates were 70 or 90 per cent, but no one really paid them. The tax code was full of loopholes for that purpose.

You can't rely on such paper figures to determine real tax burden in the past.

[mrtksn]

Which is still the case. No one is skipping getting rich because of taxes, they end up paying very little anyway.

[hdougie]

What makes you think anything has changed here? Certainly in the UK, there are plenty of "loopholes". Outside of PAYE, there are plenty of ways to legally lower your tax burden, and plenty of wealthy business owners and shareholders make full use of those loopholes.

[inglor_cz]

This is true and I believe it doesn't make sense to compare tax burdens of the people who are already wealthy.

It makes sense to compare tax burdens of well-paid employees, a favorite cash cow of most governments. These are the people who sometimes start new businesses, and use their savings to do so.

And there is a meaningful difference to the volume of their savings if their top tax bracket is 30 per cent or 55 per cent.

[marcinzm]

You've fallen into the classic trap of thinking about the very very very tiny of people who are billionaires. Very few people are billionaires. Very few startup founders will ever be even if they succeed.

Life changing money is going from $50k/year to $1m/year. Not from $1b to $2b.

The vast majority of tax burden and complexity hits the middle class.

> When Apple was founded, the tax rates were %70.

It was 35% on capital gains.

[mrtksn]

In Europe the capital gain tax ranges from %37 in Norway, %34 in France, %26 in Germany and Italy, %10 in Bulgaria and %0 with conditions in many other places. Tax heavens are a European invention anyway.

And no, millionaire or billionaire doesn't matter much. Europe lacks Billionaires not Millionaires. Europe is full of small businesses and by small I mean millions in profits and revenues.

In Europe %99 of the companies are small or medium sized enterprises, which is not different than the USA. In USA however, large companies have slightly higher number of employees which is an indicative of concentration of power and that's how you get your "USA has 5 unicorns in top 10 but EU has only 1" lists.

Contrary to the narrative, Europe has much more small and medium sized enterprises per capita: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr...

[marcinzm]

> Europe lacks Billionaires not Millionaires.

It lacks both.

The US has 8.5% millionaires. Germany has 4.1. France has 5.6. Norway has 5.9. The UK has 5.8. Once you include the rest of the EU it goes even lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...

edit: And in the US there's no need to start a business to be a millionaire. You can become one by just working a regular job. Sales, consulting, tech, finance, etc. jobs can even pay you $1m per year.

[myrmidon]

Thats not an entirely fair comparison because GDP/capita is different, and the base assumption would be that millionaires/capita increases with GDP.

That assumption appears to hold in general (Luxembourg and Switzerland have higher GDP and significantly higher millionaire percentages than the US), but there are a LOT of exceptions, like Ireland/Norway (way less millionaires than you would expect from GDP).

This is very interesting, I would not have expected to see such significant differences between countries...

[brewdad]

EU has pensions. US has 401k plans. There may be more millionaires in the US but that, in and of itself, doesn't prove anyone is better off there.

[mrtksn]

With enough inflation the millionaires supply will increase, but that's not the point. Toplists and arbitrary round numbers doesn't mean anything. Let's stick with stuff that matter, like concentration of wealth.

[wertqgd]

The 50% tax being a roadblock is exactly what the lack of ambition is about. There's an implicit assumption you're only ever achieve just over the tax limit rather than hundreds of thousands or milllions over with share options etc.

[netdevphoenix]

I think this is a combination of a lack of supportive environment and a risk averse mindset. Employers will likely scoff at a CV with one or more entrepreneurial stints. The way I see it is this: if the prohibition era was implemented in the UK, people would still acquire alcohol against any and all barriers. The same drive doesn't exist for entrepreneurial goals. Regulations make things difficult but the critical problem is that the entrepreneurial mindset is not there

[vladms]

> As a member of the working class, I find there’s little incentive to build something new or innovate because the effort required to navigate through all the burdensome regulations is overwhelming. On top of that, any additional income I might generate from bringing my ideas or initiatives to market would be taxed at more than 50%. For many people like me, the effort simply isn’t worth it.

I find it ironic you mention "classes" (regarding "as a member of the working class"). There are problems everywhere (either as an employee or as an entrepreneur). Feeling overwhelmed is just a feeling, does not say anything about how much you can do or if you get a reasonable workload.

I think what is holding Europe back is the people not trying and understanding various things without having lots of fears (of being overwhelmed, of large tax, of what people will say, etc.).

A balance must be stricken also between what you can do (leisure, family) and how many resource you produce/consume. The purpose should be for more of leisure/family but that is ONLY IF we (I am also European) produce/consume enough. Too many smart and capable people want to "just be an employee", which results in gaps in other places (entrepreneurs, politicians, etc.).

[turbojerry]

EU drone regulations ban autonomous drones from being flown. This made me stop work on them, this is not a mindset problem. It's actually a corruption problem as Google wanted to sell their software to coordinate drone flights and the EU people were "persuaded" to enact regulations to make this happen.

[mrtksn]

This is interesting, can you give a bit more details maybe? Which regulations are not allowing you to do what? I wasn’t able to find the ban, is it maybe more about safety and privacy requirements rather than outright ban?

[turbojerry]

It's a case of what is not explicitly allowed is banned, that is the difference between European continental law and English law where things are allowed unless explicitly banned. Here is a quote from the email I had from the CAA -

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"At present the CAA do not allow for these types of flights as there has to be some degree of collision avoidance in that the aircraft must be kept in visual line of sight at all times to avoid a collision.

The CAA does not regulate the use of drones indoors and there is a short section on indoor use at the following web page, about ½ way down the page.

https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Recreation..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As if a search and rescue, or crop monitoring drone would be useful inside a building, complete madness.

[bowsamic]

Well it’s not necessarily a good thing. In Europe we are traditionalists and we retain a lot of spirit (Geist) by not striving for pure progress

[mrtksn]

Yes, there are advantages of a stable and well functioning systems that don't have disruptors and we indeed benefit of it as having good lives but unfortunately this can't last as those who go hard on progress and tear down everything and rebuilding again will eventually get ahead on everything and won't let us just be as we now see with US billionaires having impact over Europe.

Americans feel more pain but are also rewarded, Europe has no option but to become progressive - otherwise tere will be no more Europe and the Americans and Chinese will make us adopt their ways.

Oh, BTW, America is also struggling. The latest political developments are an attempt to change course - they are trying to become a bit more like Europe with the race and class based politics holding roots. They say they are anti-regulation anti-discrimination(of whites specifically) but the core MAGA movement is all about putting barriers and preserving old ways for the benefit of a subset of people. Americans are too in soul searching. Their MAGA literally means fixing what is no longer great but their demands are actually quite conservative and they already begin falling off with their accelerations partners.

[nonrandomstring]

> unfortunately this can't last as those who go hard on progress and tear down everything and rebuilding again

A notion of "bare progress" is the elephant in the room. Progress is a vector. It has magnitude and direction. People talk of moving "forward or back", but science also has a steering wheel.

> and the Americans and Chinese will make us adopt their ways.

This very notion of "progress" as a totalitarian force is also dangerous. The boot is on the other foot from 80 years ago. When Europe was starting a 1000 year technological master-race, more measured minds had to extinguish that fire. I see many similarities today - people seeing "progress" simply as dominance.

I liked the brain-dump in TFA, but I think it's over-complex and too tied to a contemporary interpretation of capital investment.

We've been spooging away our talent for generations here. Look at how we treated Turing. We mismanage or sell-off everything cool we invent.

What Britain still suffers from is class disloyalty. We still have a strong but invisible class system which is now international financiers. Those sorts "float above" the ordinary economy, they are disconnected from UK interests and don't give a toss about engineering, science, knowledge, education...

[robertlagrant]

> When Europe was starting a 1000 year technological master-race, more measured minds had to extinguish that fire

A lot of the measured minds were saying eugenics was a good idea. It took the horror of seeing experiments and concentration camps to make it so deeply unfashionable the idea couldn't even survive in academia.

[nonrandomstring]

I believe you're right. Edwin Black's "IBM and the Holocaust" and Kazuo Ishiguro's "The Remains of the Day" both played their part in revising my naive ideas about simple narratives of WW2.

But look at this post made here a couple of days ago [0]. It's absolutely back in fashion. I think technofascism really is a thing now - you can feel certain people getting quite giddy with thoughts of power.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42735539

[robertlagrant]

Power's always in fashion. Academics seem to love socialism, because it (in practice) centralises decision-making nationally to a group of smart people (and the academics might imagine themselves to be these insanely powerful people).

Eugenics was the same. It was a Progressive way of thinking, if I remember correctly.

[Cumpiler69]

>Yes, there are advantages of a stable and well functioning systems

Current EU is definitely not a stable and well functioning system. Look at economic conditions, political outcomes, illegal immigration, wealth inequality, societal and political trust, homelessness rates, birth rates, free speech suppression, welfare austerity, etc Everything has been going downhill since the 2008 crash. It's a powder keg.

>they are trying to become a bit more like Europe with the race and class based politics holding roots.

What are you on about? Europe doesn't have much race based politics, that's a thing America keeps pushing.

[piltdownman]

That's quite the conservative talk-radio shopping list.

Illegal immigration is a metric of the EUs economic success and social stability compared with North Africa, Eastern European Accession States, and the war-torn middle east. If America shared land borders and direct migration routes with Islamic caliphates and the like, they'd know all about it.

Economic Conditions and Political Outcomes are pretty sane and tolerable for all but a select group of (surprise surprise) US backed agitators like Hungary. You have to remember that the EU is run as a society rather than an economy, and must be judged on this ethos. People are very fond of using the comparable GDPs of Bavaria and Mississippi in this conversation - forgetting to mention the life expectancy is 10 years less and infant mortality 400% higher on the US side.

Societal and Political trust is still quite high - despite much fearmongering, the far-right are not gaining the political capital necessary to instigate significant change outside of Hungary.

Homelessness rates are a factor of illegal migration - and are laughably low compared to the US on a per capita basis; ditto whatever warped contention you have regarding 'welfare austerity'. We just call it social security. During Covid and in the period afterwards it was hugely ramped up across Europe - and not in a giveaway budget with a check personally signed by an Oligarch.

Re 'free speech suppression' I'm really not sure what you're aiming at. The current cultural friction regarding things like gender-identification and pronoun usage are uniquely american exports. On basically all other counts other than venue-shopping defamation cases, it's a moot point for any normal person.

Finally re birth rates - they tend to go down in wealthy and advanced societies outside of select religious groupings (looking at you Salt Lake City) so I'm not sure what your point is there.

[GasVeteran]

It isn't a "conservative talk-radio shopping list". It is reality in quite a few areas in Europe and the UK.

> Economic Conditions and Political Outcomes are pretty sane and tolerable for all but a select group of (surprise surprise) US backed agitators like Hungary. You have to remember that the EU is run as a society rather than an economy, and must be judged on this ethos. People are very fond of using the comparable GDPs of Bavaria and Mississippi in this conversation - forgetting to mention the life expectancy is 10 years less and infant mortality 400% higher on the US side.

This isn't true. I know many people that have moved from Spain to Hungary. Most of these people where politically fairly normal e.g. either centre-left right or centre-left. I speak to people from all over Europe regularly and many of them do not feel the way that you are describing.

> Societal and Political trust is still quite high - despite much fearmongering, the far-right are not gaining the political capital necessary to instigate significant change outside of Hungary.

That isn't true. I know many areas of Europe where the electorate keep on voting for further right parties. The same is happening in the UK. Labour only won because the Conservatives lost and the Reform party did extremely well for what is a relatively new party. I know the same is happening in Belgium (I speak regularly with Belgian nationals). Areas of Spain that are most affected by immigration have voted for further right parties. So I know this isn't true.

> Re 'free speech suppression' I'm really not sure what you're aiming at.

Just look up the hate speech laws enacted throughout Europe and in the UK and some of the cases that have been prosecuted. We do not have a right to the free speech in the UK and the majority of Europe doesn't either.

[piltdownman]

>>This isn't true. I know many people that have moved from Spain to Hungary. Most of these people where politically fairly normal e.g. either centre-left right or centre-left. I speak to people from all over Europe regularly and many of them do not feel the way that you are describing.

The plural of anecdotes is not data, nor does your select social circle represent a cogent sample group.

Orbans stated position is to pivot Hungary from a democracy into an illiberal state, modeled after Putin's Russia. At the EU summit in mid-December, for example, he refused to agree to the extension of the Russia sanctions that expire at the end of January.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/02/europe/hungary-election-v...

Hungary are on the brink of being kicked out of the Schengen Zone, have about 12 billion in EU funds frozen because of their stupidity, and are now getting loans off China like some sort of tinpot African dictatorship in order to bridge funding gaps.

The next biggest right-wing rise is - surprise surprise - bordering them and the ex-Soviet Bloc in Poland. That waned so quickly with the escalation of War in Ukraine that, even if they joined forces, Konfederacja + PiS could still not form a majority coalition for seat of the Polish Government.

>>That isn't true. I know many areas of Europe where the electorate keep on voting for further right parties. The same is happening in the UK.

You missed my key qualifier 'necessary to instigate significant change'. The Overton window shifts when society is impacted by War and mass refugee immigration, particularly in a period of high-taxes following high social spend (lockdown).

>> Just look up the hate speech laws enacted throughout Europe and in the UK and some of the cases that have been prosecuted.

Citations needed.

>> We do not have a right to the free speech in the UK and the majority of Europe doesn't either.

Well no, not explicitly, as they have a different legal and basis for law as the US - e.g. they don't have a codified constitution either as they came from a common law system based on the French Courts. Instead they hold the same proportional right as a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.

Its a moot point anyway as since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights across Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...

[mrtksn]

Yeah right, Reform AFD Rassemblement national Fratelli d'Italia and other risings stars have nothing to do with race and even if they do it's Americans behind it.

Everyone knows that Europeans are much more racist than Americans, it's just that we are much less explicit about it and its issues are different than the issues in the USA.

[Cumpiler69]

You might want to look more at why people are against the waves of illegal immigration and less on the color of their skin.

[nobodywillobsrv]

Even legal migration is bad now.

The governments of Europe no longer hold a monopoly of violence. Terror groups and MENAPT groups have brought a diverse range of violent threats to people.

Building a robot army to solve this is one viable solution that is hardware and software based.

[mrtksn]

Illegal immigration is a BS term, make immigration legal if you don't want illegal immigrants. It's not like people choose the hard, dangerous and expensive ways instead of buying a Ryanair ticket. When the illegal immigrants BS doesn't hold they all start complaining about legal immigrants as with the UK and their core Brexit reason.

[ttoinou]

What is this spirit we retain that US looses ?

[bowsamic]

Leisure, that is, truly retaining time to encourage and develop the spirit that is not just work

> There is an Indian savagery, a savagery peculiar to the Indian blood, in the manner in which the Americans strive after gold: and the breathless hurry of their work - the characteristic vice of the New World - already begins to infect old Europe, and makes it savage also, spreading over it a strange loss of spirit (Geistlosigkeit). One is now ashamed of repose: even long reflection almost causes remorse of conscience. Thinking is done with a stop-watch, as dining is done with the eyes fixed on the financial newspaper; we live like men who are continually "afraid of letting opportunities slip." "Better do anything whatever, than nothing" - this principle also is a noose with which all culture and all higher taste may be strangled. And just as all form obviously disappears in this hurry of workers, so the sense for form itself, the ear and the eye for the melody of movement, also disappear.

Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §329

[jajko]

Quality of life, if you define an actual proper life as something happening outside of work hours and sleep.

We don't worry whether my insurance will cover the next health issue that will happen to me, be it broken leg or lifelong costly treatment. I don't have to desperately try to save maybe 1.5 million $ to put my kids through decent university, if they desire to do so. I am not brutally tossed on the sidewalk when I am fired, both employer and state gives a LOT of support to not fall off the societal cliff and end up as typical US homeless person. We have way more resting time to recharge via holidays (this fellow from 1.1. is running on 90% corporate work contract and thus sporting 50 vacations days per year - now thats QOL improvement, I've already planned 6 week+ vacations for this year). We have on average simply healthier lifestyles and it shows literally massively.

I could go on for a long time. But you can ignore that - compare usage of mental health medication, from what I've seen its much more massive in US, manifesting the additional stress that US population is cca exposed to.

Its a balance - you add more money, you remove more 'humanity', and the additional stress is there and very real. Everybody has different ideal spot, and this also changes a lot during life. Isn't it better to have 2 systems next to each other, and everybody can pick how they want to live your life? Focus purely on money is stupid, their added value in life quickly diminishes once a person is not poor, then other aspects of life become much more important. The complete opposite is same, 0 progress. Something in between, as always, is the best road for most.

[robertlagrant]

You also get your defence and healthcare advancements mostly paid for by Americans, either as taxes or healthcare costs that funnel into R&D spend. It's easy to give things away when you mostly only have maintenance costs to bear, and not very much risk.

(Not an American.)

[Cumpiler69]

>thus sporting 50 vacations days per year

Where and how do you get 50 vacation days/year.

[geraldhh]

humanism

[nicoburns]

> don’t believe and can’t even imagine that more is possible.

And/or don't think that more is better/desirable. I wouldn't consider myself working class, but I was definitely raised with the idea that making obscene amounts of money is actually pretty selfish/immoral and not something one ought to strive for. That doesn't preclude going into business. But it is pretty antithetical to the VC funding model and the creation of billion dollar businesses.

In general, it seems that the culture in America is that wealth is virtuous and confers status, whereas in Europe that at least isn't so universal and some circles it is even seen as shameful (consider that variants on socialism are still mainstream political ideologies in Europe).

[anonzzzies]

Yeah, I was raised with that idea. I did make some nice businesses, but I don't care for growing because of growing. If I catch a few 100k a year for everyone in the company (yep, it is the reason I like tiny companies: we can just decide to all make the same), I don't really care about the rest. Doing that for 10 years (even shorter but he) is enough for anyone to live out their life in comfort out of the (etfs etc) interest here. I keep on doing making new things as I like it, but need no more money, so that helps.

[nobodywillobsrv]

Exactly. Half the population are saboteurs and vote to suppress success

[ktallett]

Success is viewed differently by some. Being educated, having healthy lives, having access to many public servicesnare seen as a successful healthy life by many.

[robertlagrant]

> it seems that the culture in America is that wealth is virtuous

I don't think I've ever seen this claimed anywhere except as a criticism.

[foldr]

It’s not something that Americans in general explicitly believe, but you can see it in their attitudes and behavior towards the rich and successful. For example, HN (being somewhat weighted towards American cultural norms) collectively believes that people who have made lots of money are especially wise and hard working, and therefore have special insights to offer to the rest of us. True or not, this is a culturally specific belief.

[robertlagrant]

I think this is just a bias. I've not seen much that makes me think Americans think rich people are more virtuous, at all. Certainly not enough to create a stereotype out of, even if I thought stereotypes were a good idea.

[CalRobert]

But we're not talking about obscene amounts of money. Just making enough to have some savings so you can do things like a career break or retire early is discouraged (and mostly impossible). Europe wants you to work, and keep working, forever.

[vladms]

Considering the differences in living prices in major capitals and other cities, I would claim you can do that (career break/retire early) even today in multiple countries in Europe.

But that would mostly mean changing places. If you go and work 10-15 years in an expensive/high pay city, you could retire in a less expensive city.

On the other hand if you expect that everything will be as when you were working (place, expenses, etc.), I am not sure it is the case even in the US for early retirements ...

[mrtksn]

> it seems that the culture in America is that wealth is virtuous and confers status, whereas in Europe that at least isn't so universal and some circles it is even seen as shameful

Isn't this due to different types of Christian traditions? AFAIK In some, it is considered that the wealth is given by the God to the virtuous ones and they are merely guardians of it and responsible to use use the wealth in a virtuous ways and therefore getting rich is encouraged and the rich are treated with respect?

There's something similar among some Muslim sects too, in Muslim majority countries it is not uncommon to believe that the God chose someone to be rich and there's more to that person that the eye can see therefore must be respected. Some religious communities even get so obscenely rich and you can see poor servants having a religious experience when their leader arrives with an a luxury car.

[vladvasiliu]

The way I see it, at least in France, it's not really a question of religion. "The rich" are thought to have acquired their wealth doing dubious things, mostly by "exploiting the poor".

There's also a very strongly egalitarian way of thinking, as in pretty much everybody is interchangeable. So, if someone does better than somebody else, it's likely because of something "unfair" (or luck) and not thanks to being more competent.

[zimpenfish]

> "The rich" are thought to have acquired their wealth doing dubious things, mostly by "exploiting the poor".

To be fair, that's probably true in the vast majority of cases.

[vladvasiliu]

I've never personally known any "very rich" people so I can't comment on them.

But the perception I'm talking about applies even to "reasonably confortable" people. Think your random engineer making 100k a year (which is a "good" salary in these parts). Basically, someone with some form of STEM degree.

I doubt most of these people are doing anything shady. Plus, this kind of income doesn't really give them any kind of financial independence: they wouldn't be able to afford not having a job.

[zimpenfish]

> I doubt most of these people [random engineer making 100k a year] are doing anything shady.

I guess it depends what your level of "shady" is - I know a bunch of people in that kind of range who were all about "optimising their tax" (which I would consider to be "tax evasion" - morally wrong even if it is legal at the time.)

[teamonkey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie

[fxtentacle]

In Germany, you can typically finance the first 1-3 years of your start-up through government gifts like "EXIST". That's why you don't need early seed investors.

[HotHotLava]

EXIST is very narrowly tailored to technology start-ups founded by graduates based on their research.

Out of curiosity I was spot-checking the the founders of the latest YC 24 Winter batch at https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?batch=W24 , and the requirements would exclude at least 90% of them from EXIST if they lived in Germany.

[Aldipower]

Your sentence is not true as you present it. There are _a lot_ of constraints. Time wise, topic wise, biased wise. No typicality start-up will ever get the EXIST "gift".

[kleiba]

EXIST in particular targets universities, though, so not every founder is eligible.

[fxtentacle]

Correct, that was meant as an example. There's also "Existenzgründungszuschuss" for the unemployed and various other EU funds for craftsmen and others:

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/running-business/start...

[constantcrying]

Great that the German government makes some of the most start up unfriendly employment laws and funds these doomed start ups at the same time.

This is really ridiculously and needs to stop.

[CalRobert]

Do you know any equivalent for the Netherlands by any chance? Everything I see is tiny amounts.

[sofixa]

Idk about the Netherlands, but in France you can take your unemployment benefits for 3 years upfront as a capital investment in a new business. And there are various grants and aid you can apply for.

[CalRobert]

Can you get unemployment if you quit?

Annoyingly, in 20 years of working I've never been fired or laid off.

[Beretta_Vexee]

In CAC40 company, It is possible to take unpaid leave with the possibility of returning to the company to set up a new business. The idea is that if the project fails, the original company recovers an employee who has learned a lot (free MBA).

If you're already unemployed, it's possible to keep your allowance longer for a business start-up or takeover.

It's also possible to sign a “rupture conventionée”, which entitles you to unemployment benefits.

But no, if the employee resigns, he or she is not entitled to unemployment benefits, nor to business start-up assistance.

the French system is generous, but not as generous.

[psini]

I see this misconception a lot for resigning France.

First, there are some "protected classes" of resigning that allow you to be eligible for unemployment right after you resign, for example: moving to follow your spouse, resigning less than 3 months after having been laid off, going back to study or... creating a company!![1] :).

Second, you are entitled to unemployment benefits even if you resign without "a good reason". The issue is that you can only request your benefits 4 months after having resigned. This leads to many people believing that you just do not get anything if you resign; because who wants to eat the 4 months of no income?

This 4 months waiting period is not advertised at all, and my complotist self believes it might be on purpose; if you don't know about it and don't request it, that's less money for the government to spend :^).

[1] Conditions apply (having worked uninterrupted for the last 5 years)

[sofixa]

> In CAC40 company, It is possible to take unpaid leave with the possibility of returning to the company to set up a new business

It's not only CAC40, it's part of some collective bargaining agreements which apply to whole sectors (e.g. SYNTEC which applies to all consulting and most IT companies).

[vladvasiliu]

I think recently there's been a change which says that you can if you start a new company right away. But do check with an accountant for the inevitable pitfalls.

[sandermvanvliet]

There is the SeedCapital route: https://english.rvo.nl/subsidies-financing/seed-capital

[papichulo2023]

Isnt this just a private loan?

[CalRobert]

Thanks!

[menaerus]

"The grant covers personal living, material, and coaching expenses over 12 months, allowing founders to focus on developing their founding idea. While graduates receive personal funding of 2.500€, students can receive 1.000€ a month, additionally up to 30.000€ material and 5.000€ coaching budget that can be used to develop the founding project further."

So, 30k EUR (gross) with a maximum funding period of one year? Laughable. Also probably a little bit tragicomic.

Early seed rounds are usually measured in couple of USD millions. I wonder how these brilliant minds in the EU think they will attract the industry talent to leave their ~5x salary (outside FAANG) for such a pocket money.

[coastermug]

People need examples of success in their network. Most people have frankly never met or heard of anyone who founded a successful startup- and therefore would never think of taking on such a risk. I agree that in some places there is a sense of malaise, but if we are to believe founders are a 1-2% outlier of the population, I don’t see why America’s 1-2% should be so much more ambitious than the UKs. I think it’s more a cycle induced by lack of funding.

[ahoka]

Should individuals routinely risk their own livelihood to benefit a select few capitalist? Does this improve the life of the average American? Seeing how they vote it seems generally it does not?

[cylemons]

Havent FAANG companies improved the lives of the average American? They definitely did, and all these companies were created by ambitious individuals with a bold vision and prospect of making lots of money!

By taking big risks, one might ascend to this capitalist class if they succeed.

[o11c]

"FAANG improved average lives" is by no means a safe assumption. It needs to be very carefully demonstrated for each individual company, with consideration of the worsenings as well. The forgotten sixth, Microsoft, is probably easier to make a case for.

[Cumpiler69]

>Completely agree, the problem in Europe is not regulations or anything like that - it is a mindset issue.

You can change mindsets with regulations that reward taking risks in new businesses/innovations, and punish rent seeking and sitting on inherited real estate for example.

But as long as EUrope is focused on maintaining the status quo of boomers and gentrified dynasties of billionaires that you probably played against in Assassins' Creed, nothing will change.

[cladopa]

Let's make simple calculations. In California, near the start of the 20th century there were more than 34 million native Americans living in what was their land. Now there are in California 300-700.000 native Americans.

They were exterminated and replaced by a very small European population. Like sterilising a Petri dish and letting bacteria grow, the opportunities that population experienced were the biggest any population in the world ever had. Just look at a graph of the population growth of US OR California in the last century and compare it to others.

Now there is in California a population of near 40 million people.

That is not a "mindset", this is real growth that they could experience and the rest of the world could not.

[nobodywillobsrv]

These numbers are at least two orders of magnitude higher than typical estimates. What are you talking about? It's even higher than the typical all time max which is on the order of 10 million.

[bagels]

Do you have a source for 34 million Native Americans?

[xcv123]

California is only 34% European/white https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/