Some people are motivated by a sure thing for less reward while others are motivated by risk and greater reward. In my view America caters to the risk takers while much of the EU caters to the play-it-safe crowd.
There’s nothing wrong with either approach. We need both types of people to keep a healthy and balanced world.
To /really/ extrapolate I’ve wondered the same about economic systems. Is this solution A vs. B or are some individuals motivated differently? If so, can we create a world where different motivation systems can peacefully interact?
And the opposite group in each region suffers. They live in hell. In the US you are left to die on the street if you don't hustle. In the EU its evidently clear that you will not be in good company if you are a risk taker.
I grew up in a rural area, and different people will of course have had contrary experiences, but I recall people having more "free time" (which I understand to be time we choose how to use). That time wasn't always used in the most constructive of ways, perhaps, but the choice was there. People were busy, but how they were busy was largely (not always) a reflection of choice.
I don't recall ever seeing someone manifest the adage "hurry up so you can wait" until I moved to urban settings (including Manhattan). It was a huge weirdness to me then, and is now as well. Is waiting a choice? Perhaps, but only to some degree as the necessities of life are in more demand and queued. I moved to cities for the most commonly expressed reason: opportunity. Or, plainly, money. And it worked.
I moved away from cities to my current rural oasis to gain space and time (and greenery), having become tired of the constant need to be on time, and in the right place, competing with masses of other people at every turn -- that is, not having a choice about my time. This move also worked.
Not sure I have a point other than it isn't always obvious when time is traded for money and vise versa, perhaps be intentional about it if the opportunity presents itself (and respect those that choose differently).
Now that America is more scut jobs at impersonal chains or other far off companies, or being lost in some small sector of the massive organizational chain of command, I truly fear for Americans. The advantage of being work based comes with none of the fulfilment, leads to far far fewer people becoming community role models. We've been swallowed by the beast, are in the belly of the giants, many go which we have created (and let endlessly consolidate/amass in size).
The question supposes an individual balance, of what's better for a person. But what's good for a society, what happens to a society over time: I think there's an interesting and very strong virtue America used to get, that helped grow our people, helped keep us agentic, that kept us engaged with & shaping the world about us in a really powerful & amazing way. And losing that fire, and now just being anonymous & low agency in a huge grind, that's a brutal & scary new path for us, one where yeah of course if this is so pointless we'd pick time & leisure.
Silly article.
I think it's questionable whether theres a valid point in there somewhere.
we can also discuss the causes for this lacking. it's probably a mix of coasting and entitlement but lately I just think it's due to the mud, the institutional and social swamp that EUrope has become. you can observe paralysis at all levels.
to the question: which is better? my view: the one that lets you have more of the other.
> due to the mud, the institutional and social swamp that EUrope has become
But this, I'd like to know what you're talking about. I've lived in the US, the US gov is worse than the average EU government at least from the pov of a citizen having to interact with it. When people complain about EU institutions I wonder if they're just regurgitating talking points they've heard somewhere. And don't tell me about gov efficiency either - how many hundreds of billions does the Pentagon "misplace" every year?
For all of them? You met them all?
The actual question would be "would this answer be different if Europe did not have access to cheap labor that have come out of Asia, South Americas and Africa" or "To what extent is more time “enabled” by externalising many costs?". And consequentially "to what extent is America’s money enabled by having access to cheap labor, cheap manufacturing and externalising costs to Asian, South American and African markets".
https://klinger.io/images/eu-acc-work-times-1024w.png
TLDR: America is about the median hours worked.
Unless you can't easily find a job. Ever been unemployed?
>how exactly do I get time with the money I now have
By quitting it once you saved enough.
2. Give someone money to do it for you.
3. You have more time.
What's your point, that Europe is a horrible place to live like the USSR was? Make a point.
Is it a superiority complex? Why does it seems more prevalent now than 10 years ago? Even back when forums were a thing and that people trolled the "PC vs Mac" boards, this smugness weren't as prevalent.
People should go back and see the "smug alert" South park episode to understand what they sound like to random observers.
What is "enough" and how much guarantee is there that I'll reach that?
It's rather similar to what investing calls the DCF - but with time: time I have today is worth more than time I might have in future. For several reasons:
Time I have today is guaranteed. The future is unknown. But rather known, is that in the future I'll be older, my health and energy lower and therefore my options limited. The quality of "time" is potentially much higher when you are 20 than when you are 83. And then there's the risk that I don't even make it far beyond my 70ies.
(*To anyone who wants to reply with big akschually energy, call it crony capitalism or captured capitalism or financialization or whatever the fuck you want, I'm not having this stupid argument because it's quibbling over a technicality.)
