[latexr]

Thank you for providing sources. Though you’re focused solely on money, which I think is a pretty poor measure for how “better off” one is (and was my original criticism of the article). Especially when you’re ignoring the percentage of people living in poverty and massive income inequality.

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

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

Furthermore, making more money can be offset by having to spend more money for basic things like healthcare.

I’d say happiness is a much better indicator of how “better off” one is than how much money one earns. The happiness index takes a much broader view with several indicators (of which GPD per capita is but one).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#Interna...

You’re entitled to valuing different things. But the whole point of my original comment is that I find the focus on money over people to not be something to celebrate. Clearly you (and the author) disagree.

> High-skill professionals, entrepreneurs, specialized trades, creative workers, young people, immigrants...

Despite the ellipsis, that doesn’t really answer the question. Those definitions are so vague, they could all together describe a single person.

> immigrants

Are you really arguing, with the current state of the USA, that immigrants are “better off”? I’m somehow doubt the ones who are being grabbed and sent to jail without due process every day would agree with you.

> If you make nebulous complaints

It’s not “nebulous”. Read the article. It’s in context.

> so expect that kind of rebuttal

If you think someone made a bad argument, do better. That’s what the HN guidelines explicitly ask of us. Responding with a bad answer because you think that’s what someone did does not benefit the discussion.

Again, if your objective with a discussion is to “win”, there are other forums better suited for that.

[Akranazon]

I would argue that unemployment isn't solely about "money", but fair enough. I'm not sure how to respond overall. Because every time I debate this topic (which isn't a lot), a Europe defender will basically diminish the importance income numbers. Because "money is a poor measure of being better-off". In fact, money is quite a good measure of being better-off, and there is a lot of evidence for this. Europe has better public transportation, Europe has better healthcare, people are happier in Europe, etc etc... There is always more things. But the original discussion was specifically in the context of labor economics. Whether or not the US has single-player healthcare, that has a different topic. Average self-reported happiness numbers is obviously subjective and influenced by an infinitude of different things that are going on in one's life, which may or may not be related to labor. I also didn't find the other wikipedia articles very convincing. They show that ~2.0% of the US population is living below even the most generous measure of absolute poverty. I only see income inequality numbers as useful insofar as they give to average income number. I had cited median income so that the typical worker could be represented.

I don't consider "who is better off" to be a very good question. The answer is, the average worker is better off. My answer is therefore going to be vague. Of course, there are differences by industry, but do you have a point about that? Also, I am really arguing that with the current state of the USA, immigrants make higher incomes than immigrants to other countries. Saying that immigrants are treated poorly in other ways is just bringing up a political issue unrelated to labor economics.

[latexr]

> I don't consider "who is better off" to be a very good question.

Your entire argument in the original response was “the American worker is much better off than the European worker”. That’s the only reason we’re discussing what that means. If “who is better off” isn’t a good question, then “X is better off than Y” isn’t a good argument.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494890

> Saying that immigrants are treated poorly in other ways is just bringing up a political issue unrelated to labor economics.

They are not separate. Saying “it doesn’t matter that you could be wrongfully imprisoned and separated from your children without recourse for committing no crime, but that’s OK because if it doesn’t happen you’ll make a bit more money” is detached from the reality of what matters. Most individuals aren’t money-hungry ghouls who care for wealth above all, including their own personal safety and liberty.

[Akranazon]

> If “who is better off” isn’t a good question...

I said the American worker is better off in general. The only question I don't consider is good is, "which types of workers?" Unless your point is that some kinds of workers are better off than others? In which case, make that argument.

> “it doesn’t matter that you could be wrongfully imprisoned and separated from your children without recourse for committing no crime, but that’s OK because if it doesn’t happen you’ll make a bit more money” is detached from the reality of what matters.

You put that in quotes, but my comments have nothing whatsoever to do with that. Can you clarify what this has to do with whether a country should enact regulations which make it difficult for firms to lay off employees?

> Most individuals aren’t money-hungry ghouls who care for wealth above all, including their own personal safety and liberty.

Great. Again, what does this have to do with labor market regulations? I am not interested in debating "what matters" generally, in a "meaning of life" sort of way, unless you can connect it to labor market regulations, the discussion you entered.

[senordevnyc]

To be fair, while Europe dominates the top ten happiness scores, those countries at the top of the list are mostly all some of the richest countries in the world.

And there are 20+ European countries with lower happiness scores than the US, including France, Spain, and Italy. So living in Europe means you’re about as happy as Americans but also poorer…

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’re indicating.

[latexr]

> I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’re indicating.

I’m not saying it’s clear cut. On the contrary, I’m saying it’s not. Unlike the person who responded to me, who claimed “the American worker is much better off than the European worker”, I am not claiming “every worker in every European country is better off than the US American worker”.