Like most articles on this topic, this one makes the implicit assumption that Europe not having grown huge tech corporations that rule over people's lives is a problem, rather than an accomplishment.
Kind of like assuming that there must be something wrong with urban planning in Paris or Berlin, because there aren't any skyscrapers in those cities.
The first and foremost purpose of a state is to enable (all of) its people to live safe, prosperous, and dignified lives. Europe is light years ahead of the United States in that regard. Until proven otherwise, I treat every cultural and regulatory difference between the two places as a contributing factor to that, rather than an obstacle to be overcome. The US is a nightmarish country to live in, unless of course your wealth is significantly above average.
> Europe is light years ahead of the United States in that regard.
The available data doesn't support your conclusions:
> Until proven otherwise, I treat every cultural and regulatory difference between the two places as a contributing factor to that, rather than an obstacle to be overcome. The US is a nightmarish country to live in, unless of course your wealth is significantly above average.
Their richest country is slightly richer than our poorest state, even if comparing GDP per capita.
> Kind of like assuming that there must be something wrong with urban planning in Paris or Berlin, because there aren't any skyscrapers in those cities.
Skyscrapers are expansive, while Europe growth over the last 20 years has been only a fraction of ours.
> The US is a nightmarish country to live in, unless of course your wealth is significantly above average.
Then why do we have a net immigration from Europe, instead of a net emigration?
What extra evidence do you need to recognize that poorer countries, with fewer opportunities than we have, less infrastructure (skyscaper...), and an active immigration to the US are maybe not good places to live?
People voting with their feet is the only indicator I'd trust.
> Their richest country is slightly richer than our poorest state, even if comparing GDP per capita.
I consider such economic figures to be at best a very loose correlate to quality of life, and thus essentially irrelevant.
> Then why do we have a net immigration from Europe, instead of a net emigration?
Because the vast majority of Americans have no idea how much better life can be in Europe, especially for average people.
> What extra evidence do you need to recognize that poorer countries, with fewer opportunities than we have, less infrastructure (skyscaper...), and an active immigration to the US are maybe not good places to live?
I don't need any external evidence. I have personal experience living in both places.
> I consider such economic figures to be at best a very loose correlate to quality of life, and thus essentially irrelevant.
I don't know any better proxy. The correlation may be loose, but there isn't any better or simpler alternative.
>Because the vast majority of Americans have no idea how much better life can be in Europe, especially for average people.
For fun vacations? Yes, because it's cheap, like Mexico.
Good living and working conditions? No, we have it better. The "average people" care they can grab some cheap yet tasty food at anytime, have objects they order delivered quickly for cheap, work some not-too-awful job during the day to save for their children, and sleep safe at night, far from wars.
The unemployment rate in Europe is concerning: even with a generous social safety net, people may grow unhappy if they can't find meaning in life.
I'm not concerned about Europeans who can post on HN (they may be in the top percentiles of their country) I'm concerned about those who can't, and can't even have the American dream.
> I don't need any external evidence. I have personal experience living in both places.
Then It's a good thing you don't need external evidence, because it all goes against your personal anecdotal experience!
> And for that one must be innovative, open for new things.
Nonsense. Innovation has nothing to do with "safe, prosperous, and dignified lives". In fact, I'd argue that it is often an obstacle to those things.
> The world ows you shit..
That's a great way to highlight the difference between Europe and the US: The idea that "the world" (i.e., society and the state) does owe a lot to each individual is pretty fundamental to European thought. In the US, it's live or die, nobody owes you anything.
Kind of like assuming that there must be something wrong with urban planning in Paris or Berlin, because there aren't any skyscrapers in those cities.
The first and foremost purpose of a state is to enable (all of) its people to live safe, prosperous, and dignified lives. Europe is light years ahead of the United States in that regard. Until proven otherwise, I treat every cultural and regulatory difference between the two places as a contributing factor to that, rather than an obstacle to be overcome. The US is a nightmarish country to live in, unless of course your wealth is significantly above average.