[zemvpferreira]

European who has travelled/lived extensively in China and the US. I don't believe our problem is idleness. It's instead a pernicious belief in peace. There's no sense of geopolitical competition in society at large. We generate a lot of wealth in those 36 hours, but an immense amount of it is syphoned into areas that don't help us get ahead. We are too invested in tides that lift all boats. Being well-rested is not the issue.

Edit: I’ve recently started spending a lot of time in Switzerland and the contrast in mindset (and wealth) with the EU is staggering. There is a healthy amount of communal paranoia. They don’t work any harder either, if anything it’s the contrary.

[embedding-shape]

> We are too invested in tides that lift all boats.

Why is that a problem? Yes, it means less "amazing individuals who own N% of the economy", but it also means that none of my neighbors are starving or can't afford healthcare, definitively a tradeoff I (and most people I'm proud to call friends) are willing to make, even if it makes our own lives a small percentage less comfortable.

I'd say that why I personally prefer the (European) country over other places I've lived in the world, or could live. I don't want to live in a place where people don't help lifting all the boats, but instead are just interested in lifting their own boat, or want to lift a small amount of boats.

[gambiting]

>>but it also means that none of my neighbors are starving or can't afford healthcare

And that's amazing, and as an European I would never want to get rid of that. It's a cornerstone of our societies, a core belief if you want to call it that.

But I do think that there is a pervasive feeling of people being "ostracized" for wanting to do better than their neighbours. Like when someone says they are going to run a company the reaction is usually "why, isn't a normal job good enough for you?". Obviously this isn't universal, EU is far too big and diverse for this to be true everywhere. But I've met with this kind of attitude a lot personally, where people have directly asked me if I think I'm better than them by trying to do something good for myself and grow. So now I just don't tell people, or just say I work in software or something, there's no point. It's not even that tide lifts all boats, it's that "we're all in the same boat"(and don't you dare leave it) is a thing that exists.

[embedding-shape]

That's definitively true in some parts of Europe, more so in some parts than others. Growing up in Sweden, I for sure felt the effects of that, it's very much "Sit down in the boat and do your part" with any sentiments outside of that being relatively uncommon, unless you happen to live in one of the bubbles of the metropolitan areas. But essentially any rural area I've visited either in my mother country or any other country in Europe had that mindset or hints of it.

But to be fair, I haven't really experienced that so much in other larger countries like Spain, France or Italy, at least not to that extent. Still I'd say it's different than the typical American Individual Exceptionalism, but probably a good difference, we don't to make the same mistake.

Probably a balance between the two is the right approach, you don't want to completely lack either sides, but also not be too dogmatic about it. But it's also hard for politicians to get votes on "You know, both sides have good points, lets figure out a balance", strong emotions sell votes and so on...

[graemep]

Its complacency, at least in Western Europe. Centuries of being the world's leading powers have left an underlying sense of being at the top is just normal and is a position that does not need work to maintain.

Even those who might accept this is no longer true intellectually find it hard to internalise.

[ben_w]

I don't think that's the current problem. It was up to, perhaps, the Suez crisis or up until decolonisation, but since then I think we've mostly internalised that America (and more recently China) have been the leading powers.

The current complacency, one which we are currently still in the process of unwinding from (it will take years) is that of trade turning violent enemies into mutually beneficial growth opportunities. Russia was the first wake-up call there (but even then for the current situation not for Crimea), and over the last year also the USA. China is, I think, currently mostly seen as opportunity rather than threat.

War is expensive, and not doing it is good when possible. It is bad for everyone that we now feel the need to put 5% or whatever of our GDP into defence when it could have been spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, or even startup grants.

[kakacik]

War is very expensive, but it also creates tons of jobs in supply. In ideal world its a fools errand, in reality if you dont have a mighty force to defend yourself and deter enemy, you can be easily taken over. Even a big well funded military is a paper tiger at best if it never experienced complex combat, maintaining supply lines etc.

Thats the only thing that works for the likes of russia (or anybody really) who is by far the biggest threat to Europe and would love to see it subjugated.

That was also the only reason Switzerland wasnt taken over by nazi Germany like Austria was, they mustered up to 800k voluntees/draftees in a country of 5 million, fortified and made it clear that Germany would bleed hard to gain that territory (they would invade anyway after defeating russia that was clear also from hitler&himmler's writings, top german brass hated Switzerland, what it represented and considered it a mortal enemy to 3rd reich but I am going off topic here).

5% is nothing if there is enough motivation. Overbuilt bureaucracy for nothing juse employing tons of rather useless paper pushers, ineffective social systems that are abused hard by those really not deserving it, bad budget management by politicians, corruption in megaprojects and ao on. Its really nothing.

[graemep]

While Europe internalised that the US was the super power, it did not internationalise that the West was no longer dominant. It has also not understood its diminishing importance to the US in the world in which its economy is proportionately so much smaller, and the rival superpower is in Asia, not Europe.

Spending on defence is expensive, but its a lot cheaper than an actual war - "if you want peace, prepare for war"

[ben_w]

> it did not internationalise that the West was no longer dominant

Given "the West" means so many different things (sometimes including Australia), I'm not sure what you're aiming for here? Rise of China? Certainly this has been recognised. If you mean all of Asia, in the same way that the UK is in Europe but not part of the EU, then I agree: I don't think many have fully internalised how important India, let alone Pakistan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, have become.

> It has also not understood its diminishing importance to the US in the world in which its economy is proportionately so much smaller, and the rival superpower is in Asia, not Europe.

The phrase "when America sneezes, the world catches a cold" comes to mind. I'm told that dates to 1929. More recently, my understanding of the Suez crisis was that the US convinced the UK to back down just by threatening to flex one economic muscle; by some measures, that point represents the end of British dominance on the world stage.

But I would say that here, it is America rather than Europe which does not understand its ranking in the world: two of the common ways of measuring economies are nominal-GDP and PPP-GDP, by the former the EU is comparable to China with the US way ahead, by the latter the EU is comparable to the USA with China way ahead. In both cases, the EU knows it's not #1.

That said, during Brexit, there did seem to be a lot of unrealistic exuberance from Leave voters, so perhaps the lack of awareness runs deeper than I perceive…

[zozbot234]

Why should we care to be "at the top"? The average person gets no benefit from this; on the contrary, they would do a lot better if underperforming countries in Europe's neighborhood raised their standards of living.

[graemep]

I agree with you about "at the top" in terms of being a global power. It does people little good.

The problems are security, sovereignty and economic stagnation. Being dependent on super powers and vulnerable to their whims is not good. Weak supply chains are not good. Neither are worsening standards of living.

[ernst_klim]

> The average person gets no benefit from this

You are proving the point. The avg. person gets an enormous benefit from it, even in countries like USA, Japan or Korea with far less generous welfare. The gap in standards of living of somebody in the US and somebody in Georgia or Vietnam are ridiculous.

[vinaigrette]

Poverty levels are roughly the same between Vietnam and the US from a quick search. Mean standard of living is a poor way to calculate inequality. If you have a link to a median one it would help to compare.

[joe_mamba]

>Poverty levels are roughly the same between Vietnam and the US from a quick search.

How is this an argument? A poor person in the US has a massively better standard of living than a poor person in Vietnam.

Poverty is relative. If you have a small apartment in a city of McMansions, you're poor, but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich.

[nisegami]

I always found it interesting that homeless folks in the US seem to live in tents a lot of the time, but in my country they rarely have more than a piece of cardboard. I don't know if my perception is incorrect, or if I'm ready too much into this, but my conclusion has been basically what you said: at every socio-economic level, the people at that level have higher standards of living in developed countries than in developing countries.

[TeMPOraL]

> Poverty is relative. If you have a small apartment in a city of McMansions, you're poor, but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich.

That worked before globalization. Nowadays, having a small apartment in a city of McMansions means you're upper middle class. Poor people in the west have no apartments and no goats.

[hhlevnjak2]

Not sure if up to date anymore, but if you look at some samples like here, at equivalent adjusted income levels, people across the world have similar standards of living regardless of where they live.

https://www.gapminder.org/dollar-street

[thaumasiotes]

> but if you have a goat in a village of no goats, you're rich

No, you need more than one goat if you want to be rich, regardless of what other people have. Really, you need a few dozen.

One goat can't do anything but age and die.

[graemep]

Relative poverty is real, but absolute poverty is a whole lot worse.

I choose to live in a richer country where I am relatively a lot poorer, but overall the advantages of a rich country outweigh the disadvantages.

[ernst_klim]

> Poverty levels

Poverty levels are measured relative to median. Poverty in US and poverty in Bangladesh, Russia or Vietnam are completely different things.

In the US poverty line is about $16k, while in Russia for example it is $2300. Even considering the PPP it's like 4 times the difference in living standards. I guess Vietnam or Bangladesh are far worse.

Upd: downvotes with no counterargument. Orange site is becomming more and more a reddit.

[jiriknesl]

"The average person gets no benefit from this" this is a very bad take.

In Europe, innovation in the end help everyone. Better healthcare starts with the rich, and ends distributed to everyone. The same is true for everything else.

[bregma]

Ah, the good old "trickle down" theory of Thatcher and Reagan. Remember how much better off we became when we gave more to the wealthy?

[marcosdumay]

Do you have any evidence that new products don't start expensive and become accessible when they mature?

[plastic-enjoyer]

> Its complacency, at least in Western Europe. Centuries of being the world's leading powers have left an underlying sense of being at the top is just normal and is a position that does not need work to maintain.

I wouldn't say it's a matter of complacency, but rather a convergence of problems. To solve those problems, there need to be radical changes, but radical changes are not popular. Politicians win elections by promising stability, not by disrupting lives. The politicians that rise to the top are the ones that don't have any visions for a better future nor the desire to make a difference, because the system does not reward that.

[graemep]

I think a lot of people would welcome some disruption. This is why there has been a rise in populist parties which appeal because they promise something different.

[nnevod]

For a long time I haven't thought of Switzerland anything more than "expensive mountain Germany", until a couple years ago I've reconnected with an university friend who happens to live there. I've got to know a bit more about CH and lately I see it quite often mentioned here on HN, though that's probably more of my frequency illusion.

From all what I've seen, it feels like Switzerland is a country that pretty much made no serious mistakes in any field. Maybe not perfect, but certainly nothing is clearly wrong.

Thus your comment was also of interest to me. What do you mean by communal paranoia? As in they're (as a whole nation) afraid of falling from their mountain of success and do strive to remain successful? Perhaps not by hard work - it is hard to motivate oneself to apply really hard if everything's good - but by smart and meaningful work?

Or it is everyone's personal paranoia of falling behind the average of the CH society, which is not very keen on social support, as far as I understand, so every person is not complacent?

Also, by tides that lift all boats - you mean social support or some global-scale investiments?

Thanks!

[zemvpferreira]

Paranoia as in fear of losing sovereignty. The average Swiss is not a cleverer or more productive person than the average European. However like you said they make outstanding communal decisions because they at their core believe Switzerland must stay strong to stay independent. To the point of paranoia. No one does bunkers like the Swiss. EU does not do bunkers. Or much of anything material for itself these days.

[nnevod]

Building bunkers doesn't help well-being, and you did state that wealth difference is also staggering, Albania did a ton of bunkers in their time, didn't really help them much. I'm personally more interested in Swiss economic and social decisions and how they manage to, at least seemingly, do correct decisions on a long timescale wihtout blunders.

A couple months ago in a some post here on HN on, IIRC, something like using personal solar panels to provide power to the grid, I've seen a comment stating that in Switzerland, the bueracracy doesn't churn out regulations and laws, everything is very thoroughly reviewed, thought out, and-re-reviewed again if any objections arise. There was a response to that comment that was along the lines "As, that's the case when the more bueracracy, the better! While they're busy with paperwork, we do practical stuff under the radar."

And, as far as I understand from what I've heard or read about CH, that's not the case here. In US, the opposing parties can fight over issue endlessly to not let an inch of ground to opponent and to gain more for themselves. In Germany, discussions could be deadlocked by rules. In Russia, both things happen, more of former when there is political will from above, more of latter if it's some issue not cared for from above. But in Switzerland, they do actually converge on the real result because that's what they focus on, and the arguing between different viewpoints is not for the sake of itself, but a means to distill the optimal or at least compromise solution. What you've said explains their motivation, that everyone understands that they can't play tug of war endlessly, they have to do real thing. And perhaps that does say that average Swiss may be more clever than average European. Or at least in a more productive state of mind. Or that the Swiss decision-makers are smarter than others - so they are somehow better selected.

However, that's not all, besides motivation, there's also quality of decisions. USSR was also very motivated for independence, but did not decide well. Though average Soviet citizen wasn't really worried about losing independence indeed.

Returning back to bunkers vs economic well-being - perhaps, economic strive to be strong can't exist without strive for political resilience, one needs specific state of mind to be focused on economical sovereignity, that state of mind goes with political and militaty sovereignity as well. Also exacerbated by that Switzerland is a small country and absolutely not an autarky, so they have to stay significantly ahead in what makes them irreplaceable for the other countries, otherwise they would be prone to external coercion.

[HPsquared]

I'm reminded of the somewhat derogatory term "carebear" from the EVE Online community, for players who focus on PvE and profit, while avoiding PvP.

[ivell]

> We are too invested in tides that lift all boats.

These boats may contain Tesla, Ramanujam, Röntgen and other talent people with poor circumstances.

Good social security is also investment in potential talent that could contribute to economy.

[joe_mamba]

>I don't believe our problem is idleness. It's instead a pernicious belief in peace. There's no sense of geopolitical competition in society at large.

I disagree entirely. It's because most EU workers(at least in the richer most developed countries) don't get a proportional slice of the fruits of their labor, but only breadcrumbs after taxes. Working harder as an EU employee just means your boss/company gets to be richer and your government gets more of your taxes, while you get nothing more in return, just taking home a few extra bucks at the end of the month, making the juice not worth the squeeze, causing everyone to optimize for doing the bare minimum because why bother.

Especially when the big city CoL rises higher than your salary anyway, what's the point of working harder? You'll be more tired now and still won't be able to buy a nice house, ending up on the same standard of living and housing affordability as someone who optimized his life around extracting the most amount of welfare and benefits from the government while dodging work. So then why wouldn't you do the same?

Same story around entrepreneurship and VC funding or lack thereof. The taxes, risk and responsibilities of being a business owner with employees on your payroll are far higher that in other places on the planet like the US, making it a better deal to just not bother with all that and choose the cushy life of an employee in a old dinosaur company in an ageing and declining industry, rather than the stress of being the employer/innovator.

Geopolitical competition will not fix this because the monetary incentive structure around hard work still remains messed up. You can fix this by changing the tax laws to reward those working harder instead of punishing them with higher taxes and no gains to pay for the lifestyles of those who contribute the least in society.

Simply look at what Poland or Czechia did to become economic powerhouses in a short amount of time, and just do stuff like that. And you'll find out they didn't start off by giving their workers Scandinavian style of income taxes, welfare and benefits, that I can tell you, but more like cutthroat capitalism and the harder you work the more you can earn tax structures.

[KptMarchewa]

If you somehow imagine our companies in Poland (which are mostly western companies) are somehow giving workers here a bigger slice of pie, you are fed some weird propaganda. Our taxation is even worse if you look at exactly the same salaries.

Our success story is the same as recent India one - we're just much smaller. We have educated population that was underemployed and poor, and western companies jumped at opportunity of replacing entry and mid level positions with cheaper workers, across both factory and office work.

[_puk]

My understanding was that the tax situation is not good for salaried work, but Tech workers primarily use limited companies to make it much more comfortable; many of the loopholes that have been closed in e.g. the UK with IR35 are still open.

At least that's the reason I've been given every time I've tried to take a contractor permanent!

[zozbot234]

The taxation may be worse, but the cost of living is still uniquely low. So the same market salaries will actually go a lot further on a purchasing power basis.

Calling India a success story feels like a bit of a stretch compared to the better known Chinese case, or indeed Eastern Europe itself. They still have huge scope for further improvement.

[gzread]

But that's how it works in America and China as well. And in Russia. And basically everywhere. Since it's the same in all of these places, it fails to explain the differences.

[joe_mamba]

In China, Russia and America the government doesn't pay you generously in welfare to not contribute to society.

[gzread]

Yeah, they send you to die in dumb wars instead and if you survive then you get your welfare (a military paycheck). So you think dumb wars keep countries great?

[zozbot234]

> Especially when the big city CoL rises higher than your salary anyway, what's the point of working harder?

If anything, big city CoL is the flip side of higher productivity inside the big city. If you're going to have an "idle" lifestyle, you'll be vastly better off moving to a small rural town where prices are a lot lower by default - same if you work fully remote. (Connectivity used to be a key barrier for the latter case, but fast mobile and sat-based connections have changed this quite dramatically.)

[joe_mamba]

>If anything, big city CoL is the flip side of higher productivity inside the big city.

Productivity is only one of the smaller reasons. The other bigger ones are landlord rent seeking, nimbyism, mass migration, interest rates and real estate speculation, all of which aren't connected to your income progress. That's how productivity and employment in a city can stagnate or even decline while real estate prices can keep climbing.

[sheiyei]

Urbanization is a problem and not enough people acknowledge it.

[Telemakhos]

The urban-rural distinction is one of the oldest ideological divides in human history, and that has built immense and unexamined prejudice. We have words like “urbane” and “polite” on the one hand and “pagan,” “villain” and “heathen” on the other, and nobody stops to think about how this is a one-way street of city-dwellers condemning their rustic relations. A lot of modern political decisions boil down to “everyone should live in cities” when cities are historically demographic sinks (lower birthrate), largely because the people who make political decisions live in cities.

[paganel]

> We generate a lot of wealth in those 36 hours,

You don't, (Western) Europe is just a rentier-place at this point, living on other people's backs. For example look at Maersk, from the much-beloved and relaxed Denmark, their business would crumble over night if it weren't for the Americans keeping the seas open for them.

[watwut]

Americans seems to be intent to cause as much damage to everyone including themselves.

USA is the only country that ever triggered article 5 of NATO and got military help out of it. And now acts like victims when others don't rush to help them with absurd badly planned war where they are clear aggressors.

The second real use of NATO was to send armies to greenland to discourage USA to attack it just 2 months ago. So, now is really not the time for America to pretend ever do something that is not primary for itself.

[paganel]

> NATO and got military help out of it

That was token help (the Brits excluded), let's be serious here, we're all grown-up men.

[watwut]

It was not token help, that part is complete lie. It was real help and real European soldiers died. Including the ones from Denmark which was threatened by Trump. Or especially from Denmark, Denmark had the highest loss per capita within the coalition forces.

Lets be serious here.

[zozbot234]

The Americans are keeping the seas open for their own self-interest, and this is great. Other countries in the broader West do also chip in with their own military assets. Why should Maersk have a problem with this?

[atwrk]

Bad timing with that example - currently the US is the reason for an important part of the seas being closed :)