American engineers are lucky to earn enough to be able to save up and do stuff like this, like on $200k you can save enough to really try a start-up for a year or two.
Whereas in Europe we're lucky to get $80k in the same jobs, and then the state steals half of that :/
I'm not paying the premium for health insurance, no. But I am paying 200 a month to upgrade to "platinum", I'm paying 400 a month because Blue Shield lists a lifesaving medicine I've been on for 2 decades as a tier 3 drug, so I had to battle with them for 3 weeks to get them to "cover" it at 400 a month out of my pocket. I then have a 4k per family deductible we need to reach on top of the drug co-pays. So when my wife thought she broke her toe it cost is 1500 out of pocket. This is the absolute best, top tier platinum" insurance afforded me administered by a "non profit" that was stripped of much of its non profit status for making billions in profit.
All that adds up to 7204 out of our pocket per year before any sort of catastrophic or even regular event like childbirth.
This is the big thing. The bigger salary more than covers the difference. And it's not just tech. Nurses in the UK make 25,000 pounds per year, nurses in the US make $85k or more.
I would rather have the higher salary with student loans, my own health insurance, and no subsidized childcare than make 25K GBP (at a higher tax rate!)
Exactly, it's not unheard of for police officers to make up to 300k a year, including overtime, here in the bay area. Starting pay for many "regular" jobs is well over 6 figures here
Fine as long as you're able to keep earning said salary. It's the state you end up in when you're not for whatever reason that's arguably the big difference. My own partner's a nurse and has gone through extensive periods where her income has been low or non-existent and while it wasn't really an issue given the presence of my salary to fall back on it's not hard to see how difficult things might become esp. if there were no/limited government subsidized healthcare and high levels of student debt (again, thankfully not such a problem in Australia - even as a foreign student, as she was, there are measures in place to ensure they don't saddle themselves with unreasonable debt. Citizens can often pay off higher education fees within a few years of graduating, and no repayments are required in years your salary is below a certain threshold)
Even with best-in-class health insurance in the US, one "gotcha" leaves you with an unpayable bill. Usually, your company provides health insurance. Health insurance != health care. Larger companies (I assume this translates to tech) will also usually have a clinic on-site for smaller things and it's heavily subsidized or free.
None of this prevents you from 6-figure debt for something like a difficult, but largely by-the-book, birthing experience or a car accident.
Generally it's out of pocket maximum to a point, like $250k. Then it's normally split, something like 80-20, where you have to cover 20% of the bill. That seems like a lot until you have something like cancer, where you need surgery plus chemo in the same year, which adds up quite fast.
> Generally it's out of pocket maximum to a point, like $250k. Then it's normally split, something like 80-20, where you have to cover 20% of the bill.
Not since the Affordable Care Act of 2010. It got rid of benefit maximums and implemented out of pocket maximum. An out of pocket maximum up to a limit is a contradiction. The situation works exactly opposite, you first pay 100% up to deductible, then you pay a proportion according to your copay, then you pay 0% after the out of pocket maximum.
Annual out of pocket maximums are typically $5k to $10k for individual/family at any half decent employer.
Yes, but it can be tens of thousands in many cases, and it does not cover many things that it should, insurance companies put deliberate effort into screwing people put of their claims.
It is next to unheard of to have an extremely large bill if you have good health insurance. Even if you do, at tech levels of salary, if you were to effectively save the extra money, you should have no problems covering it.
I wish. My wife and I both work at different big tech companies as developers and the only thing health insurance does is guarantee we won't go bankrupt in the event of an emergency. Last month on top of spending several hundred on the monthly insurance cost, I spent $300 on rather mundane pediatrician appointments for my two kids who had ear infections. Ironically I had much better healthcare coverage when I worked at a steel mill.
Depending on the plan, you may still be on the hook for part of your premium. And if you have any dependents (kids, spouse, etc.) the cost of their premiums is fully your responsibility.
Is $160/week just for your coverage? I've worked at small startups and medium sized public companies, and my healthcare coverage costs have been far less than that.
It depends. I work at a tech company as an engineer and insurance eats about $1K/month. My employer contributes only about $400 to the plan.The total plan cost is $1.4K. Keep in mind, while I pay this just for insurance, I am waiting to get a $3,000 dollar bill from the hospital (still!) for when my daughter had to go to the ER in December.
Dental coverage is not available in many places with nationalized healthcare, such as Canada, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and de facto uncovered in the UK. You must pay with a private plan or out of pocket. Only a portion of costs is covered in France, Denmark, and Belgium while the patient must pay the entire amount upfront.
Germany has a situation similar to the US where basic care is fully covered, but more complicated care is not fully covered.
Yeah, dental plans are honestly kind of stupid. They typically have a MAXIMUM amount they will cover, after which you have to pay out of pocket. Which.. is not what I purchase insurance for. I purchase insurance to cover me for the huge bills I can't afford that would destroy me.
That said, if my employer is going to subsidize it, I'm going to take the free money.
My manager moved from the US to Sweden, said he got about 60% in Sweden. His Wife isn't working in Sweden yet and they still have more money on pocket. Very anecdotal and might be inflated one way or the other. But I'm not so sure it's as clear-cut as some might think. Unless you're the top X % raking in the biggest $$
You don't have to be top X%. If you are single and graduating college, you will absolutely net more money in US in the tech sector, way more if you are exceptionally skilled.
After that, it depends on your living situation and family situation. Of course 200k in California with 3 kids and a house is likely going to be less than what you could make in EU.
For anyone working in big tech it is very clear cut from a financial perspective. That isn’t the only consideration for sure, but it’s wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
In countries with socialised health insurance systems any political party that threatens to take it away (or defund it) tends not to get chosen at election time, strangely enough.
Visas, different languages, and family mean that people often don't really have a choice. Likewise, most employers only provide insurance from a single provider.
In France, apparently you can go on unemployment for 2, up to 3 years to start a startup. With up to 80% pay.
In Germany you can get 6 months of unemployment insurance when starting a startup out of unemployment. Or get 6 months paid when starting a startup out of Uni. Then you could get various public funding opportunities like a startup bonus (for example 50K public funding for 50K private investment in an innovative company in Berlin).
- the culture is not the same as the US. French people tend to be very financially risk-averse
- the VC eco-system in France exists but it is trash
- people who have the skills to create startups in France tend to do it outside of France because they will have access to better capital/labor markets (for example, DataDog and Docker both have french founders)
> - people who have the skills to create startups in France tend to do it outside of France because they will have access to better capital/labor markets
There are a lot of French people here in the bay area.
From what they told me, it's actually easier to come to the bay area, navigate through the US immigration system and get funded than get funded at home. Not only that, some startups got funding from VC funds with LPs... from France!
Also, how easy is it to fire people in France? If it’s difficult then startups will be much more reluctant to hire in the first place, and founders to embark on the whole startup adventure which necessarily implies a lot of hiring/firing.
There is no such claim. Id claim that a system that helps all of of society by providing health, employment, income, childcare, housing and transportation security isn’t necessarily completely toxic for a small number of Startup founders, as a system. Since it also may help founders to an extent. Its about individual risks that are possible.
The problem in Germany and France is the VC and business culture, but thats not primarily a result of income taxes.
Because in France, in order to hire someone you need to have a shit ton of cash on hand... and then if they suck, you can't just fire them. It's too expensive to start a venture, so the folks that are willing to risk it leave in order to do so.
Because tech talent is cheap for the amount of productivity in US with ability to fire at will.Ease of fooling and swindling people if you have the right connections.
In Europe shit that gets you into jail is a just a small monetary fine in USA.
Not to mention that in Germany many University students not only get free schooling, but also housing AND a monthly stipend. Essentially UBI for students!
Definitely not really true. Under 15% of students receive BAFÖG [1]. No idea where you got the idea that German students get free housing at many Universities as that couldn't be further from the truth considering that there are only enough rooms for around 10% of all students [2] and those are definietly not free, although pretty cheap. However many struggle to find an Apartment, especially in bigger Cities like Berlin or Munich.
I said many, not all :). You're right, housing isn't free, but if you get student housing it's usually less than the monthly stipend thus free for the student.
not really. The average monthly stipend (that only 15% even get) is 579€, which is arguable not enough for rent in most bigger Cities (and that is ignoring that you also need to eat).
The vast majority of students are either financed by their parents (the stipend is dependent on their income and if they earn more than a certain amount they a legally obligated to help their child) or by themselves. In Germany the university is mostly free (a couple hundred euros a semester), but most definitely don't live for "free".
IMHO it is the worse time to start a startup. You should do it while still in the uni so that you can get all kinds of help. Equally good seems some actual experience(?) People have been writing software and running businesses for a good while. Maybe they know something?
Just to add a non-snarky reply: I agree, we are lucky, but I fear (especially based on the replies to your statement), the majority of American engineers would prefer things to be more like they are in Europe.
"There are dozens of us!" that are aware of how lucky we are!
Sure. But if you want to complain that europeans don't build these sorts of products as some sort of reason why they should expect lower pay, you need to engage with the fact that people living and working in europe are building these products.
I live in a high cost of living city. Texas has no capital gains tax, no income tax, and I don't own a property (obviously I see this through higher rent at $1450 for a 1x1. I pay the 8.25% sales tax and my highest income tax bracket is 23%. I am nowhere near 50%.
On the flipside, we have no health insurance when we're laid off, and even getting the sniffles costs a fortune. As for layoffs, last I checked Europe has meaningful worker protections. Neither do we get six weeks of vacation over here. Parental leave (unless you're FAANG) is iffy. Unless you happen to conform to a demographic shape, you'll get treated pretty shittily by everybody, including the state.
But if you like living without a net in exchange for high pay, by all means, come over here.
On an income of $200k in California, for example, your tax rate is something like 8% (marginal). If you total it up with federal taxes, it's something like a 27% tax rate.
Most likely your parent misunderstands the _marginal_ income tax rates.
That said, income tax is not the only kind of tax. In the US, federated government entities mean a mesh of taxes accumulate. Income tax + Payroll Tax + Social Security + Medicare + Property Tax + Sales Tax aggregate. CA and NY are a little higher than other competing states, but not by much.
While the overall isn't as high as 50%, at $200k, your marginal income tax rate is 42.75%, a sales tax rate of 10%, and a property tax rate of 1.25%.
So, after $185k, while you've probably already paid 7% ($14k prop) on your home, and probably another 1% (2k sales), leading to what could be considered 50.75% tax.
Wow and you have an appreciating asset(not really) and are buying stuff. It's way lower if you have a corp/LLC and just expense stuff along with reloc and depretiation.
That said having a job sucks anywhere as you are the tax base.
That appears to be the effective rate for income tax, but there are also sales taxes, "stamp" tax on things like houses and cars, excise taxes (especially on fuel), property tax, and inflation. I'm pretty confident you can get above half at a high income in California, New York, or especially Massachusetts.
You do get something for that, but it is surprising (to me anyway) for example how similar the percentages of GDP spent on social welfare are between the blue U.S. states and Australia, and how much more the Australians seem to get for the money.
> You do get something for that, but it is surprising (to me anyway) for example how similar the percentages of GDP spent on social welfare are between the blue U.S. states and Australia, and how much more the Australians seem to get for the money.
Most social welfare programs that people can get in NY are niche. You generally have to meet certain demographic requirements. It also takes years of paperwork and waiting to get into anything if you aren't a single/battered mother.
I paid well over 40% of my income in taxes and had no hope of ever accumulating any assets or meaningful retirement and zero safety net if anything went south for me. My friends in Denmark and Sweden only paid a little bit more for what is effectively a cradle-to-grave nanny state. And they all manage to own their apartments.
That's a bunch of stereotyping. I work in the telecom industry and live in a place without bay area or Seattle type cost of living. I get 15-days caregiver leave, 12 weeks paternity leave and 20 days of vacation. A sr sw engineer where I am at will get about $175k with bonus. A staff engineer will make about $300k with RSU. It's not Big Tech but definitely better than what Europe has. Again not being in the bay area helps. I have a very flexible work schedule and a pretty awesome work life balance.
Don't go by what the media portrays. Your comment makes it sound like Tech workers can never take vacation or have kids. It couldn't be furthest from the truth.
There is no great source on the details across the nation, but there are a hodgepodge of municipal-level studies that shed a light.
There were roughly 20k gun homicides in the US in 2021[0]. It's been fluctuating between 10k and 20k over the past five decades or so, with the last few years seeing a quick increase and seeing a (hopefully) local peak in rates.
In one study in San Francisco, ~70% of gun homicide victims had a criminal record, and three quarters of that figure knew the suspect[1]. A similar study in Milwaukee found that ~90% of both victims and suspects of gun homicides had a criminal record[2], and the top two reasons identified of the circumstances behind the homicide were arguments/fights and robberies. There are other studies done at local levels in many other places with similar results.
A DOJ study notes that three quarters of all gun homicides were during the commission of a (different) felony[3]. And you can query the CDC WONDER mortality database[4] yourself to see that gun homicide rates in "large central metro" areas are twice as high as those in medium, small, or non-metro areas, and that men 15-34 years of age comprise the majority of gun homicide victims.
So, perhaps my "gang-on-gang" statement wasn't really accurate (since a "gang-related" incident is loosely defined), and I'll leave the "vast majority" determination to you; but the point is that most gun homicides occur among the "criminal element" in "bad parts of town", and is not really relevant to life as a software engineer.
Exactly, the reason "active shooter" situations frighten ordinary folks is because they're the rare type of shooting that can victimize you even if you're law-abiding and don't live in a very high crime area.
In 2020, 687 people were killed in railway accidents in the EU, being Poland the country with the highest number with 148 fatalities, followed closely by Germany with 137.
Trains are really unpredictable. Even in the middle of a forest two rails can appear out of nowhere, and a 1.5-mile fully loaded coal drag, heading east out of the low-sulfur mines of the PRB, will be right on your ass the next moment.
there's a lot more than I would have thought in the US.
Railroad deaths totaled 893 in 2021, a 20% increase from the 2020 revised total of 744 and the highest since 2007. Nonfatal injuries totaled 5,781, a 4% increase from the 2020 revised total of 5,544.
wow, I guess mass shootings are no problem at all and when they happen we should be like, "so what? 3000 people died of cancer today, who cares if some kids got their faces blown to pieces". thanks for clearing that up! problem solved
It's possible to think it's not ok but also so vanishingly unlikely to happen that it's not a useful comparison point for quality of life in Europe vs America.
For me, "never get sick or have any kids or anything" is a much stronger point against life the US - these are issues almost everyone has to confront.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I promise you I have never thought that HN was "sophisticated". This is an internet forum.
> I'll keep matching the energy I see here
The problem here is in the "I see". People don't see their own negative contributions clearly. We overestimate the bad that others are bringing and underestimate our own by 10x or more. This is why it always feels like the other started it and did worse [1], while we are merely reacting, defending ourselves, or (to use your word) matching. We all have this bias, which means that if all you do is match what you see, you'll in fact be escalating and worsening a downward spiral [2].
What you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) should instead do is consciously adjust for objects in the mirror being closer than they appear [3]. That is, if you make a point of responding with less negativity than what you see others as bringing, it may be possible to partly compensate for that bias. In that case this crude and unsophisticated blob of internet humanity may at least manage not to burn itself to a crisp [4].
(I'm sorry for footnoting my own past comments - it's an embarrassing practice but it's the only easy way I have to link people to past explanations. Such links are helpful for clarifying and also for depersonalizing; they quickly make it clear that all of these issues are systemic and have been the same for years.)
Whereas in Europe we're lucky to get $80k in the same jobs, and then the state steals half of that :/