Living in Switzerland ruined me for America and its lousy work culture - <AUTHOR> https://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/living-in-switzerland-ruined-me-for-america-and-its-lousy-work-culture/ <comment><USER3> "Driving Bentleys ruined me for BMWs and their poor make quality"

Switzerland is one of... three maybe (Luxemburg, Norway) countries with higher standard of living than the US. Not even Switzerland's neighbours (Italy, France, Germany) with people coming from the same populations can reproduce it.

All these great states are tiny (8M people) outliers. There are more people enjoying work-life balance in America than alive in Switzerland. You could carve out multiple Switzerlands of the US if you broke it up and tightened immigration (as the Swiss are doing right now).

<comment><USER4> Reading this as a European, it's fun and telling that you focused on salary differences, whereas what mattered to me were the other quality-of-life elements (I assume you're living in the US).

To sum up, what matters to me, in what she described, were the consequences of the belief that one shouldn't be ashamed of having a life outside of work, and needing some time and peace of mind to actually enjoy it.

More money won't make me happier if I don't have holidays, week-ends, and some time during workdays to actually enjoy spending it, without being chronically on the verge of a burn-out. This is common sense in Europe, whereas it seems to be considered leftist heresy in the US.

<comment><USER5> More money would make me happier. I'd give up a few Saturdays for it. One day a week is enough rest. Besides, few pleasures compare to productively working.

<comment><USER5> I'm a little surprised by the negative reaction. You people don't derive pleasure from working... from the process of building things, from molding reality? I damn sure do. But then again... I'm an American.

<comment><USER6> It's not contradictory at all. One can derive pleasure from working, and still enjoy their free time. The good thing about _free_ time is that you can use it to build things if that's what you want.

And don't forget that most people don't have the luxury of an enjoyable job.

<comment><USER7> That last point is debatable in the Western world but yes it holds globally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This appears to be copy and pasted straight from [http://www.vox.com/2015/7/21/8974435/switzerland-work- life-b...](http://www.vox.com/2015/7/21/8974435/switzerland-work-life-balance) \- this link should point there instead.

<comment><USER9> Not only that but they[1] didn't bother to copy and paste the author's name. It's seems extra obnoxious to copy the _entire_ article but not the author's name and two sentence bio.

[1] [https://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/living-i...](https://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/living- in-switzerland-ruined-me-for-america-and-its-lousy-work-culture/)

(I'm mentioning the original link--so this comment makes sense--in case the HN moderators later change the link to the real article on Vox.)

<comment><USER10> And that's why I also look at the comments before the actual link.

Or maybe not THE only, but it is a fine excuse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I grew up very poor in the U.S. Poor as in, my single mom earned $6000 / year with little federal benefits to raise four kids. But, now, I'm in my late 30s and very successful. So, in that regard, I love the U.S. For the upper middle class and wealthy, the U.S. is like an adult playground. And, I don't mind the long hours of work; I still get plenty of work-life balance.

But, honestly, the only way that this occurs (unless born rich) is if one is smart, ambitious, hard-working, cunning, and lucky. If one is poor and doesn't have those attributes, they'll have a very hard time here. For instance, intelligence will not get one very far, alone. I grew up gifted and talented. All of my siblings were also gifted and talented. But, of my family and classmates, only 20% made it out of poverty. In that way, the U.S. is quite horrible.

<comment><USER12> This is what I liked about my upbringing; my parents weren't rich either, but at the same time my quality of life was decent. Thanks to government funding, I was able to get a decent education (bachelor's degree, I could go for a master's but I couldn't be arsed) and as a result a very good job (I've got the best job of anyone I know besides my colleagues). Upward mobility is very good here, unlike in the US where as far as I know you either need to have your parents save up half a house worth of college funding, or some magic college fund that only kids in movies get by playing in bands or being good at sports, or however that thing works. It's an equal opportunities system.

Which unfortunately has been cut / downsized thanks to the economic crisis and probably capitalist goals, so the generation after me has less opportunities and can't, for example, do a master's after they do a bachelor's without working alongside it or taking out a big loan.

<comment><USER13> You can also shackle yourself for decades by borrowing money on student loans, some of which you can't discharge in a bankruptcy thanks to legislators who thought the student lending industry needed a handout.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The frustrating part about living in America is that the solutions to problems are not only known, they're achievable. Yet because of a combination of stupidity amongst regular people and corruption amongst officials, people continue to suffer needlessly. There isn't a single thing in this article that wouldn't work if adopted in America, especially taxing the rich and having mandated time off. Yet it's not just the people that run the oligopoly that are understandably against such changes for the better, but also the average poor American who votes for the representative that is guaranteed to make life worse, not better for regular people.

</comment><comment><USER15> > Instead of taxing salaries at high percentages — a practice that puts most > of the tax burden on the middle class, where most income comes from wages > and not from capital gains — Switzerland immediately taxes dividends at a > maximum of 35 percent and also has a wealth-based tax.

That's the secret. The Swiss are _brave enough_ to tax the wealth. They are not afraid to do so. They also are extremely respectful of their electorate: They do referendums often and for any reason (building a bridge or allowing foreigners to work in their country). There is a sort of just distribution of social responsibility which unfortunately lacks elsewhere.

If you look for the city with highest living standard in the world though, it's not in Switzerland but right next to it, the beautiful Vienna :-)

<comment><USER16> Where is this coming from? I got a dividend in Switzerland, and it isn't taxed at 35%. What they do is they keep 35% until the next year, at which time you can have it. Dividend tax is a much lower amount.

<comment><USER15> Here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland#Federa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland#Federal_withholding_tax)

[http://www.lawyersswitzerland.com/dividend-tax-in- switzerlan...](http://www.lawyersswitzerland.com/dividend-tax-in-switzerland)

ps. Is there any change you're tax-evading? :-) j/k probably to get taxed at 35% you need to be pass a specific amount or something (not sure though).

<comment><USER16> It says it can be deducted in full. That's not really a tax now, is it?

<comment><USER15> Depends on the specifics, I don't know how easily and under what circumstances you get the refund. But you have a point there, sure.

On the other hand, their tax system seems to work wonders and gives you the impression that there is a strong justice estate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a French living in the US, I share your sentiment. Western Europe's quality of life is ridiculously high, I am not sure if that is reflected very much in the way we measure QoL but that's my experience.

I thought that public transportations in Paris sucked, that was before I had to ride BART. Same goes for homelessness, crimes etc... I love SF, there is a ton of amazing places to hang out at etc.. but damn, I do miss Paris.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think living anywhere other than your home country for a while is a valuable experience. You learn to not only recognise the flaws in your own country (which you can then push to improve), but you also learn to appreciate what you previously took for granted.

<comment><USER19> That's one of the most pernicious things about the US tax system though. Because citizens get taxed by both the USA _and_ the country they're in, it strongly disincentivises people from ever moving abroad (unless they revoke their US citizenship).

This leads to Americans never really discovering, en masse, what life in foreign countries can be like. They're just tourist destinations.

<comment><USER20> not totally true, you are not taxed up to 100k while working abroad. see "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion".

<comment><USER21> This and unless your country of residence has lower tax rates than the US you merely end up filing, not paying the US. If the tax rate is lower, then the tax hit is what you'd pay in the US less the foreign tax credit. Only thing would be tax free income in your country of residence that is taxable in the US...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Currently an estimated 28 percent of all funds held outside the country of origin (sometimes called "offshore" funds) are kept in Switzerland."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland#Banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland#Banking)

It's cute that she even provides numbers and leaves this out. This is the only number you need to know. Everything else is the direct result of this.

You know who else does awesome? A closed community of multi-millionaires in the USA. Except you're not a part of that elite. Somehow, you got to be part of the European elite (anyone who lives in Switzerland) and feel like the rest of the world can magically live like that. No, that lifestyle is at the expense of the rest of the world.

<comment><USER23> Exactly. The reason Switzerland can live like this is because of the political environment in Europe that allows specialized, regional industries to keep their wealth instead of transferring it to poorer regions through cross- continental benefit programs. Vox, where this was originally posted, posted multiple times about how this is one of the causes of the Greek crisis, but never mentioned Switzerland or the other Nordic countries, just Germany and France. Switzerland's situation is similar to if New York were its own country, and didn't have to pay any federal taxes. Instead, New Yorkers would pay high taxes from their high salaries, mainly from Wall Street, to lift the living standards of only New Yorkers, which costs significantly less than paying for an entire country.

<comment><USER24> > The reason Switzerland can live like this

Oh bullshit, all of the points enumerated in the article save for average salary (which clearly isn't the article's focus) are equally applicable throughout western and northern europe, except maybe in the UK.

<comment><USER23> So you're essentially agreeing with the point that the rich countries (western and northern Europe) can afford to live like this, while the poor countries of Europe suffer through crisis after crisis because they can't afford the social programs their richer neighbors have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In Europe, many, many people were essentially slaves. They were property of a small class of landed gentry who ruled over them with, at best, patriarchal indifference and at worst homicidal, spiteful authoritarianism.

They were peasants.

Then, over the course of about 200 years, some of these gentry got their heads chopped off or were stripped of their papal lands or were rounded up and put in front of a firing squad and thrown down a well.

But there were still plenty of gentry left, and so a deal was struck: we (the peasants) get old age pensions and some trifling property ownership and a handful of other "benefits" and protections, and you get to retain the landed class privileges you've constructed and ... we promise not to chop your heads off.

Ok, deal.

The european social model is not the result of sophisticated empathy and communalism. It's a deal made fair and square - you stop treating us like cattle, and we won't revolt and murder you and your children.

But there's a converse to all of this ...

What if a population was not systematically enslaved and disenfranchised for, oh, say, 2000 years ? What if there is not an intricate system of landed class and privilege and you build the social and welfare state _first_ ?

The deal still gets made, it just gets made in reverse.

You want cradle to grave welfare and benefits ? Fine. These folks over here will give it to you (the money has to come from somewhere, after all) but they will absolutely assert a system of privilege and class benefits. You won't like it. It's "unamerican". Those consequences will be unintended, but there's no way to leave that equation out of balance.

After all, a deals a deal.

<comment><USER26> what? America had an _actual_ slave class. Also indentured servants.

<comment><USER25> Nobody would dispute or ignore that - of course that occurred to me when writing the original comment.

I stand by my analysis since American slaves were (at the time) a small minority of the country that existed in a fraction of the geography and lasted for less than 90 years after 1776.

No portion of americans were "systematically enslaved and disenfranchised for ... 2000 years" and no majority (or even large plurality) of americans were ever enslaved at all.

<comment><USER27> Sweden, Norway, and Finland did not have serfdom.

If your analysis is correct, shouldn't there be a large difference in the social welfare systems between those them and the Nordic countries with serfdom-like systems; the Danish stavnsbånd, from 1733 to 1788, and the Icelandic vistarband, from 1490 until 1894?, or between the Nordic countries and, say, The Netherlands?

<comment><USER25> False.

Sweden, Norway and Finland all had monarchies, a landed gentry, and a peasant class. If you'd like to make a subtle (and perhaps useful) distinction between "peasant" and "serf" then I suppose that's worth talking about, but my generalizations about Europe _include_ the nordic countries.

"The peasant proprietors, who, under the name of the "Lantmanna" party, formed a compact majority in the Second Chamber, pursued a consistent policy of class interests in the matter of the taxes and burdens that had, as they urged, so long oppressed the Swedish peasantry;"[1]

"Outside the political sphere, however, the peasants were considered at the bottom of the social order—just above vagabonds. The upper classes looked down on them as excessively prone to drunkenness and laziness, as clannish and untrustworthy, and especially as lacking honor and a sense of national spirit."[2]

"The difference from serfs elsewhere was that the farmer did not directly own the life and property of the homesteader (Husmann), _but in most cases, he practically did._ "

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_the_late_19th_ce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_the_late_19th_century)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Peasants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Peasants)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_serfdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_serfdom)

<comment><USER27> You said "What if a population was not systematically enslaved and disenfranchised for, oh, say, 2000 years". You used the terms "systematically enslaved" and "They were property". Those are terms applied to _serfs_. They do not apply to all peasants.

You therefore cannot be referring to Sweden's relatively recent and short period of absolute monarchy when you talk about 1000+ years of time. See for example [https://www.quora.com/Sweden/In-Swedish-history-why-did- most...](https://www.quora.com/Sweden/In-Swedish-history-why-did-most-of-the- peasants-own-land-and-why-did-they-ally-with-the-king-against-the- nobility?share=1) "In Swedish history, why did most of the peasants own land, and why did they ally with the king against the nobility? This is substantially different from the rest of Europe, and I wonder why it developed this way?" Quoting from it:

> The Swedes retained that almost primordial, archaic concept of individual > liberties and rights when other Germanic tribes had been subsumed into other > legal or property concepts, such as what happened in the Holy Roman Empire.

You second link, for Finland after it was conquered by Sweden, says:

> In contrast to serfdom in Germany and Russia, the Finnish peasant was > typically a freeholder who owned and controlled his small plot of land. > There was no serfdom in which peasants were permanently attached to specific > lands, and were ruled by the owners of that land. In Finland (and Sweden) > the peasants formed one of the four estates and were represented in the > parliament.

These are not "systematically enslaved and disenfranchised" peasants who were "property".

As your third link says, the "Norwegian serfdom" social system for Norwegian lower class farmers 1) started in 1750, so well after slavery was firmly established in the American colonies, and ended in 1860, that is, before the US abolished slavery, and 2) was "not actually in serfdom by European standards". This isn't the 2000 years or even 200 years you alluded to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think article skips anything negative.

For start "lunch hour" is mandatory and in reality it means you spend extra hour at work. I would rather spend a hour with my kid than eating with my boss.

Second the taxation leaves various compulsory "contributions": social, pension, wealth, tv, petrol etc. It is not 5% but more likely 50% of average salary.

And third, I have totally different experience with american companies. All american corporations I worked for had strong life-work balance, holidays etc.

<comment><USER29> There's one thing I'm interested in since this is on HN... How easy is it to start a venture over there?

Also, my old roommate from college works at CERN now as a researcher. He tells me that he can't afford to go out and eat since it's so expensive. Is this true?

<comment><USER16> Since I live in Switzerland, I'll try to address these issues for you.

>There's one thing I'm interested in since this is on HN... How easy is it to start a venture over there?

On paper, it's easy. You go to a bank, deposit either 20K or 50K depending on your corporation type, and they give you a letter. You take the letter to a notary, and the bank gets a doc from him. They put your money in your new company's account. Whole process may cost you 2.5K in notary fees and a few hundred more in government fees.

Of course, there's some more things a company needs than mere existence. If you're looking for capital, it isn't SV. But they do have government programs to help startups and that sort of networking thing. There's contests. What I mostly see though is high-tech university type stuff rather than "guys hacking in a garage".

There's also a number of designated venture parks where you can find cheap office space and infrastructure. A friend of mine rents one in Luzern, and my wife went to see some in the one in Zurich. They're reasonably large buildings, but not entire towns like in SF.

>Also, my old roommate from college works at CERN now as a researcher. He tells me that he can't afford to go out and eat since it's so expensive. Is this true?

It is ridiculously expensive to eat out in this country, and your friend is probably not exaggerating. A pizza can easily cost 25 CHF. You can't do a meal at a middling restaurant for less than 100CHF. And the food is not great for the price. I've been to Michelin star places that cost less money than an ordinary meal at a Swiss restaurant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> While I agree with many of the sentiments in the article, I don't think a comparison of wages is entirely fair. Some small nations have an out-sized GDP per capita such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Singapore because of their large financial industries. These industries are possible because the countries attract wealth and the wealthy through very low taxes(like Singapore) or very strong banking secrecy laws. And while bringing in a large amount of wealth can lead to a GDP per capita for boost small countries its not reproducible when a country is the size of the United States.[0]

[0] - Because if every billionaire in the world moved to the U.S. it would barely move the needle on wealth per capita unlike Singapore, Switzerland, and Luxembourg.

<comment><USER31> The US also has a skewed GDP per capita. Large financial industry, various economic bubbles (housing, stock market, ...), printing money, huge debt financed consumption, huge military expenses. The trillion dollar Iraq war costs are increasing the GDP.

<comment><USER32> The trillion dollar iraq war cost harmed US economic performance massively in fact.

It stole productive capital and put it toward destruction. The debt cost then goes on perpetually in the form of interest (currently at $430 billion per year), making it even worse over time. Instead of investing into factory production, business expansion, R&D, science, healthcare, infrastructure, long-term economic growth in general, you accumulate a trillion dollars in long-term veteran care costs, and perhaps destroy hundreds of billions worth of equipment, and run up the price of oil, gasoline and commodities in general by devaluing the dollar and destabilizing the middle east - for absolutely zero real benefit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Although Switzerland and America may have very different work cultures and social support policies, that's not the most obvious difference. Consider our per-capita GDPs (2013, nominal dollars)[1]:

       Switzerland    84,748
       United States  53,042

So even if the US passed new employment laws and embraced work-life balance, we would still have only 63% of Switzerland's money to spend on each person. I'm not saying that the US couldn't improve its working conditions, but its unavoidable that a wealthier nation will have resources to treat its working class well.

[1] [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=switzerland+vs+united+s...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=switzerland+vs+united+states+per+capita+gdp)

<comment><USER34> The picture looks _very_ different if you use purchasing power parity; per Wikipedia, which cites roughly the same nominal per-capita GDPs, in PPP dollars:

      Switzerland     58,731
      United States   54,596

If you then factor in the demographics....

<comment><USER35> Just to make comparison even more complicated, I assume in Switzerland you don't need to pay as much for health insurance, and put as much money aside for retirement, and people in US do. And I know college fees in Switzerland are around 1000 to 3000 per year, not 10 000 to 40 000 like in US. So if you have kids, you don't need to save for their college. (...But then you can only send them to European universities. If you want to send them to a US university, you still need to save money for that.)

<comment><USER36> On the other hand you have to pay a lot more in taxes.

<comment><USER37> Switzerland has considerably lower taxes than the u.s. (I'm an american living in switzerland)

<comment><USER38> Incomes taxes or all taxes?

<comment><USER37> Income taxes.

As for sales tax, it's 7% here. Lower than most of Europe, and lower than some parts of the u.s., but not all parts of the u.s. But the low taxes more than make up for it. (about 1/2 compared to the u.s., but depends on your income level)

<comment><USER34> There's also a Value Added Tax (VAT), which probably makes comparing the Swiss and US systems difficult: [https://www.ch.ch/en/vat-rates- switzerland/](https://www.ch.ch/en/vat-rates-switzerland/)

<comment><USER37> I was writing about vat. That's basically sales tax. It looks like it's 8% now.

<comment><USER34> Hmmm, OK, although I note a VAT imposes higher compliance costs on an economy, and is harder to evade. And still, comparing to the US is very difficult, seeing as we have 50 state wide taxing regimes with much more complexity in what's taxed how much, many many many more local ones (the small-medium sized city I live just outside of has at least 3), and it's generally ignored on out of state mail order purchases.

Hard to compare, but probably not grossly larger in Switzerland.

I wonder how property taxes compare.

Ah, here we go, taxation as a % of GDP: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tax-Revenues-As-GDP- Perce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tax-Revenues-As-GDP- Percentage-\(75-05\).JPG) Overall we, the US and Switzerland, track very well.

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland) which I'm just starting to look at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Switzerland is the closest to paradise a state can get. Much more libertarian on the business side than its European neighbours, much more welfare than USA and most other countries that are business friendly. All that with having the most democratic system in the world. Did you know that the 4 major political parties are all in the government together - by mutual agreement? Do you know that all three months they vote on whatever they think is important? That is why that country is so stable. All that with a clean superb environment, beautiful countryside and diversity baked into every citizen (4 official languages in one country...). Switzerland never seizes to amaze me. Hope to move there next year (and yes, the salaries are enormous... while rents are high in absolute money, they are low relative to the salaries paid).

<comment><USER40> > Did you know that the 4 major political parties are all in the government > together - by mutual agreement?

It's actually 5 different parties (with only 7 seats in the federal council).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council#Members_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council#Members_of_Council)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Switzerland is the world's most successful parasite. So it's hard to recreate their 'success' unless you have lots of host countries to feed from

[https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Switzerland:_A_parasite_feeding_o...](https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Switzerland:_A_parasite_feeding_on_developing_world%3F)

<comment><USER42> The nordic countries have similar quality of life. Granted, a bit less purchasing power and much higher taxes, but even better work/life deal (longer holidays, more parental leave) etc. And apart from norway it's not oil. And none is a parasite I think.

<comment><USER43> I guess we all have different definitions of "quality of life". IMHO, the salary may be very high in the nordic countries, but with the weather the have, I wouldn't consider that a high quality of life.

<comment><USER42> That is true. I specifically meant work/life balance. Where life is considered life even with 1h daylight and -20C outside (and I agree that might be stretching it).

<comment><USER44> You don't have to live in the polar circle to enjoy Scandinavian laws...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Nobody here mentions anying about the very _peculiar_ banking system that let the swiss economy get a huge chunk of the illegaly made money of the world?

Of course, you can have a very generous social security system and a great transport infrastructure when you've been financed by crime for decades.

It's probably not the only reason of course, and we surely have many smart things to learn from this country.

<comment><USER42> The discussion, quite correctly, isn't about Switzerland vs. the U.S. but about northern/Western Europe vs the U.S. since everything in the article applies pretty generally (sometimes even more) also e.g in the Nordic countries.

Some outliers (Norway, Switzerland) have weird economies, but others such as Finland don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Can someone here elucidate the downsides to living in Switzerland, over the US, particularly for those in the HN crowd?

<comment><USER47> I hardly "lived" there, but I found the culture to be lacking a sense of silliness and in general less personable. It's like what they say about German comedy, it's no laughing matter.

I still really like Switzerland.

<comment><USER48> It's important to note that there are 3 different regions (German, French and Italian) which all have their own 'sub-culture'.

Behaviors can be quite different ;)

<comment><USER49> Plus the Romansh area in Graubünden: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romansh_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romansh_language) .

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm Swiss and I have been working in the US for a few years and some prejudices resonate with me. However, there are also some explanations for this: Xenophobia: Swiss are probably less xenophobic than other countries I have experienced (including the US where I was mildly surprised about some things. Of course you shouldn't tell it loudly at your work-place). About one third of the population in Switzerland are foreigners and the number has been strongly increasing in the last few years. I think Swiss are fed up about "soldiers" (aka expats) and other foreigners that don't want to integrate. I had some bosses that didn't speak German and also didn't understand that some things are socially unacceptable. Unlike other countries, there is rarely violence towards foreigners. Banks: I worked in banking. Other countries do the same as Switzerland. When you go to a German bank just over the border as a Swiss until recently, they will tell you that you can hide your money there and tax authorities in Switzerland won't know. I won't speak of Delaware, Miami, Singapore, Hong Kong and all these other places. The US is well-know for having ambiguous policies. Bankers in Miami are specialized in taking money from Latin America. Prices: Prices are a lot higher for certain things. You can go shopping in Germany to save money. Some other items, e.g. electronics, are cheaper except for the US. Expect to pay high prices for rent, meat, vegetable, other fixed costs (health insurance, electricity etc.). However, the money left after your fixed costs is a lot more than the average person in another country. And to revert back to xenophobia, there are foreigners that somehow are unaware of the prices and accept low offers. Swiss don't like them very much. Working: I worked in New York (not the US I know). I worked on a fixed two-year contract, so I couldn't be terminated. My US colleagues had an at-will contract. I always thought it crazy what my colleagues were willing to put up with. When they got a better offer, they just disappeared within a few days. But I had to adapt because I was the foreigner and the Swiss nowadays also expect you better adapt and integrate (see xenophobia) or you better leave Switzerland. Although I lived in the US for some time, I'm a strong supporter of limiting the number of foreigners in Switzerland. It's not in Switzerland's interest but more in the interest of employers who try to take advantage of it.

<comment><USER51> So which country do you prefer?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> _60% work time_

Oh man, I've been asking for this at almost every company. "Hey, can I work 4 days a week for 80% of the salary?" "WHAT? NO! Think of all the synergy collaboration meeting time you'll miss you won't be able to communicate without being present all of the time what if someone needs to talk to you during the week you must have the same schedule to maximise the convergence serendipity" "Oh well... what about work hours?" "We have a flexible system. We have people coming in as early as 7 and ones arriving as late as 12, both are fine as long as you do 8 hours"

I didn't have the heart to tell them.

</comment><comment><USER53> On the flip side, living in China for nine years made me appreciate many of the good things in the US.

</comment><comment><USER54> "Now that I'm back, I'm angry that my own country isn't providing more for its people."

If you want Switzerland in the U.S. there is only one option: break the U.S. up into distinct, smaller countries that are able to foster a common culture that can be relied upon to solve the prisoners dilemma inherent in all social welfare schemes.

A side benefit for our friends abroad: maybe we'll stop bombing the shit out of the rest of the world.

<comment><USER55> The US was like this some years earlier. Those were the prosperous years where everyone was capable of achieving the American dream. Then the tax cuts for industries came into effect and the middle class bore the blunt of it and dwindled. The wealthy are able to avoid this since they can afford to pay an army of lawyers to channel their wealth through loopholes. A social safety net is essential for progress. There are quite a few examples of entrepreneurs who were able to make it because they were not starving to death. Also going bankrupt due to ailments is ridiculous! The tension brewing up in various parts of the country is a sign of the inequality and corruptness in the system. And the solution is not to split the country but to fix the broken system.

<comment><USER54> _And the solution is not to split the country but to fix the broken system._

Leaving aside the preposterous rewriting of U.S. history in your comment (the US was never like modern Switzerland, even when it was significantly more homogenous), your goal is not possible with the current size and cultural diversity of the US.

If you want social safety nets, you need a homogeneous culture that stresses (irrationally) not taking advantage of them, thereby making them sustainable.

I know this is not a happy thought for you. It was not for me, as well, for quite some time.

<comment><USER55> I came from the other end wherein I believed social safety net and welfares breeds parasitic behavior. But now I've come to believe the benefits of those programs outweigh the negative aspect where a section may starts taking undue advantage of it.

In the absence of such safety nets, I think people will go for more safer bets which make them financially stable as opposed to riskier bets which may bring innovation but could also endanger their livelihood.

<comment><USER54> Irrelevant and historically dubious.

Without a strong common culture that solves the prisoners dilemma of social safety-nets, they will collapse. If you want Switzerland, you need Swiss.

<comment><USER55> The "prisoners dilemma" arises from politicians & the people in power playing society for their benefits. Homogeneity is not a necessary condition.

<comment><USER54> Historically incorrect. Thanks for playing, kid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I had a similar experience to the author. Despite earning tons of money in the Bay Area, life quality here just doesn't compare to Europe.

<comment><USER57> Can you tell us more about that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Interesting read but I think the author makes a false conclusion that taxes on wealth is better than taxes on income. If the US income-based tax system really _were_ progressive in practice, then you could compare apples to apples. A wealth-based system could be just as non-progressive if there were similar ways around paying your fair share like there is in the US.

Given systems that are equally difficult to circumvent, the type of taxes that would be most beneficial are those that don't punish earning income and saving and investing money. Things like sales taxes, consumption taxes, and transaction taxes discourage consumption and also discourage financial system manipulation by the super-wealthy.

But I think the Swiss succeed despite this because they have a much more compassionate view towards their fellow citizens and are willing to pay higher taxes if it's used for things that genuinely make people lives better rather than line the pockets of big business and cronies. Also, US workers have a terrible work ethic and an adversarial relationship with their employers. If you feel you should get more out an employer than you give them, you're not really understanding how the system works. If you provide high productivity and there is mutual interest in the company succeeding, then taking time off or working a normal work schedule is not anything an employer would need to argue about. A company has to make money in order to hire people. They aren't a public service. If you're not productive, then you are probably going to have to work longer hours so that the company can succeed enough to keep your job.

And in general, Americans are greedy. It's what brought people here as a young country and it's in our DNA. What works in Switzerland probably can't really work here. But what actually could work is to use economic incentives to try to encourage a healthier economy. Instead, we waste our time thinking that taxing the rich more is the solution to everything. Sure, they should pay more than lower income people do, but it's a multi-layered problem.

<comment><USER59> > But I think the Swiss succeed despite this because they have a much more > compassionate view towards their fellow citizens

From what I've heard, that is predominately only true so long as their fellow citizens are sufficiently "like them".

<comment><USER60> It's a human thing, not a Swiss thing. Which is why homogenous countries have more sane political systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> > Switzerland immediately taxes dividends at a maximum of 35 percent [...]

This is not quite true. They do impose a 35% tax on all dividends and interest of bank accounts (if the amount is over 200 Swiss Francs) but you get that back when filing your tax return. However you will have to pay income tax on dividends and interest. The goal is to ensure people don't commit tax evasion by not declaring some of their wealth. [1]

[1]: [https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified- compilation/19650189/...](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified- compilation/19650189/index.html) (in German)

</comment><comment><USER62> Living in Switzerland ruined me for America, too. Depending on where you grow up, it's like being put in a box full of old, silly stuff, whirring through a giant universe of interesting things. Breaking out of it can be very hard.

</comment><comment><USER63> Thanks to the way my industry is structured a bunch of my peers went overseas for a couple of months to various countries. I paid careful attention to the feedback & reached the same conclusion - USA is very far down on my list of countries I'd like to work in. Something about their work/life balance culture doesn't sit right with me. Its not that I mind hard work - I've done my fair share of 20 hour work days...but there is a dissonance there that I just can't quite place.

</comment><comment><USER64> Article taken down to DMCA. Heres a mirror link: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150801183904/https://ukiahcomm...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150801183904/https://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/living- in-switzerland-ruined-me-for-america-and-its-lousy-work-culture/)

</comment><comment><USER65> How about no commute because you're working remotely from anywhere in the world, awesome pay, the best health care coverage, dental,options (even with a great base pay package), 401k, relaxed work culture and a company that goes out of it's way to spoil the team. Our company and team are all US based. Sounds like the author picked a nasty US company for her article.

<comment><USER66> And you're picking an unusually great company.

I think her point is more that the benefits she's talking about are average for the Swiss, they're to be expected wherever you work by default and they're not just for tech industry workers.

In the US, they're something so unusual that you feel lucky for having them, even if you work in the tech industry.

<comment><USER65> And my point is that hers is very one-sided and there's some serious selection bias going on. Living in Switzerland can actually suck. It's expensive - <USER2> 2+ times the rest of Europe and there is some serious xenophobia. Benefits in the US are not unusual and are pretty darn good by world standards. But hey, everyone loves a grass-is-greener post.

<comment><USER66> I'm sure it _can_ suck but compared to the US I think it's far better for the majority of citizens.

I'm saying this not as a European or an American with a particular bias either way but as an Australian who's been in both countries and frequently interacts with their citizens. I'm also someone who's worked in "low" positions (cooked fries at McDonald's) as well as someone who's worked in "high" positions (Software Engineer at a rather large company) and the conditions I've noticed in the US are just straight out bad.

I got more vacation time as a McDonald's fry cook than I do as an engineer at one of the world's largest tech companies (20 days McDonald's, 15 in US tech). And that company is one that's celebrated for being one of the "best" places to work in the US for its revolutionary benefits. The majority of those benefits are statutory back home or in the more affluent European countries.

Just have a look at some of the numbers:

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_empl...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country)

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Americas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Americas)

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_leave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_leave)

\- [http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/](http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/) (adjust by work life balance and watch it fall even further)

The US has no statutory parental leave, vacation time, very limited sick leave and a minimum wage that in many cases leaves full time workers living paycheck to paycheck. Switzerland by comparison has 4 weeks statutory leave, 14 weeks at 80% pay maternal leave, 3 weeks sick leave and while it has no government mandated minimum wage, most of the population are covered by union agreements giving them a minimum of $15k/year PPP adjusted ([http://www.therichest.com/business/the-top-10-countries- with...](http://www.therichest.com/business/the-top-10-countries-with-the- highest-minimum-wages/?view=all)), one of the highest in the world.

Sure there are some people who have it better in the US than Switzerland but the people right at the bottom get a lot more benefits from Switzerland than they do from America.

<comment><USER65> And I think that's where we differ. Your focus is on the people 'right at the bottom', as is the focus of many who engage in this kind of debate. I tend to look at the whole picture: Those at the bottom, working class salarymen and women in the middle, innovators at the top, middle-class employees who want to become entrepreneurs and job creators and those at the bottom who want to do the same.

I'm a South African immigrant to the United States. I've lived in the UK and worked there for 5 years. I've also lived in France for a year, spent 8 months in Brazil and have family there, lived in the US for over a decade and been an employee, startup founder and now executive. I've traveled extensively. My first real job was scraping a harbor crane boom down to the metal and painting it while covered in metal dust, paint and solvent - and for a wage that makes minimum wage in the USA look like a kings ransom.

So I have been at the bottom, I've been a low level techie in a laser printer repair company, I've been a top tier developer and I've starved while starting a company. I've also created a company that creates jobs for others and that is continuing to do so.

I think you and I and the rest of the readers see that click-baity blog post for what it is. At least I hope you do. It's a sample of one and is rather opinionated.

The Swiss have their issues too - I've already mentioned xenophobia - add to that harboring tax evaders, banning the building of mosques (minaret controversy), banning asylum seekers from entering public places in certain towns, and a long complicated history of putting money before morals. But the Swiss and their country are not what I take issue with.

My issue is that I'm tired of the constant whining drum beat that the USA is so bloody awful and we should look at place X, Y or Z as a shining light of how amazing things could be.

I'm 41 and I've been around the World and around the block a few times. Trust me when I tell you that the difference between developing countries and the USA is staggering in terms of personal security, quality of life, healthcare (Yup. Just look at the number of CT/PET scan machines and speed of diagnosis of fast moving diseases like cancer) and opportunity. What this means is that the USA is doing a hell of a lot better at creating an awesome quality of life than most of the rest of the World. So cherry picking a prosperous country and suggesting that the USA is a disaster is absurd.

Sure, you want cake instead of bread, but both do a really great job of feeding you and most of your brethren around the World have neither. So lets cut the debate, enjoy your bread, open a bakery, employ your brothers and sisters and then do it all over again.

This country really is the land of the free because we get to publicly and loudly speak our minds and explore new ideas without persecution. [I grew up under horrible censorship during Apartheid]. It's the land of the brave because it's filled with innovators who go broke multiple times (like I did) before they earn the privilege of creating jobs, paying more tax and creating useful things. And believe it or not, many of the 1% that are so hated by such a small but very vocal minority in the USA take huge risks with their own money to help fund other entrepreneurs who want to bet everything on creating a business. And those investors do it with incredible empathy and generosity in my experience.

So I say again: I'm tired of these vitriolic attacks on this country, the so called 'one percent' and on businesses who are run by real human beings. Damn right we're far from perfect and there is a lot we can improve upon. But framing this country as a disaster and using that as a departure point for discussing how to improve things is getting really old.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Fwiw, this article contains a graphic summarizing vacation days in different EU and non-EU countries. Surprisingly, Portugal and Austria lead the pack: [http://m.welt.de/wirtschaft/article144702793/Der-Mann-der- se...](http://m.welt.de/wirtschaft/article144702793/Der-Mann-der-sechs-Monate- im-Jahr-Urlaub-macht.html) There's another graphic where people were asked how much vacation they prefer. Not surprisingly, many want more than what they have... The article, by the way, is about an American who works for only six months per year. That's all possible unless you want to get some financial security (sickness, age, family) or if you are lucky and have a nicely paid seasonal job. I do know examples of people like that - the operators of a sailing/surf school/café, for example, who only work between March and September, but then often 12 hour days.

</comment><comment><USER16> I live in Switzerland, and have lived in two other countries. Also have lots of connections in the US. Here's my take:

1) You have work-life balance, but it is forced on you. Especially women. If you go out around noon, you will see loads of school kids walking home to get their lunch. Full time childcare is CHF30K at my local nursery. School is free, but lunch will cost you extra. And the nursery has holidays, btw. So if you're working you need to either find someone to take the kid, or you have to spend your holiday when the nursery is on holiday. When it comes to school, the kids will probably have more holiday than you, so I don't know wtf people do. Relatives seem to play a big part, especially grandparents.

2) Stuff is expensive here. Everyday stuff just costs a silly amount compared to across the border in Germany or France. Local builders cost a fortune to hire, again compared to across the border. And they're not even local, just foreign guys getting arbed by the local cartel.

3) Sure, you get 80% of salary, for two years, up to a max insured salary of CHF10500, not bad. But you pay for that, too. Or your employer does, so you are paying too. It's about 20%, according to my accountant. And when you do go on unemployment, there's a guy who treats you with much suspicion handling your case. And they still have the same circus of sending you on mandatory courses of zero benefit that they have in other countries.

4) Tax is reasonable. I should say you don't get to keep 95% of the salary. There's a good 10% or so that's a sort of forced saving that goes into a pension pot. It's your money though. And wealth tax isn't crazy, just a fraction of a percent most places, progressive so most people won't feel it.

5) Vacation is very different between the US and Europe. I've never been in need of more due to being self-employed most of my life. But if I were to move to the US as an employee, that would be one of my big marks against.

6) Sure public transport is good. But if you live outside of the big towns it's useful to drive. And there's plenty of parking, too. Road taxes are sensible, and car insurance is cheap.

7) I went with my wife to a birthing course for first-timers. The other couples we met told me it was standard for paternity leave to be 2 days. And 14 weeks is on the low side in Europe, especially compared to Scandinavia. I can't imagine what it's like in the US if she thinks Switzerland is good for parental leave. On the plus side, the birth experience is amazing. You can get a single room (or just upgrade if you got cheap insurance, costs a couple grand) and the father can stay there as well, for a week. Well, that's when we got bored. Until then it was basically like a hotel where they bring you 3 meals a day and clean the baby for you.

\- Other things to note: The job market feels rigid. There's almost no unemployment, but as a foreigner with a foreign degree and a foreign accent, it feels like employers are not keen to take a chance on you. The education system seems to be a sort of silo, where every degree course has certain jobs they send people into. In Angloland any degree will suffice for most jobs, which is liberating. As an employer, it's hard to get people to change jobs. I chatted with the CTO of a startup the other day, and he found far fewer good developers here than Scandinavia, and many people didn't want to take the chance. Going around the Zurich startup scene, you get the feeling the startup guys are a whole other world, separate in ethos and outlook from the rest of society.

\- There's a social awkwardness quite unlike any other society I've lived in or known people from. Hard to describe, but people behave in strange ways here. There's a lady across the street who comes to stare at us from her window when we park the car. Instead of asking someone in person to move an impractically parked car you get a note saying police will be called (she could see us the whole time). It's generally harder to strike up a conversation with people here (the USA is the best for this btw).

\- People don't seem to be afraid of treating foreigners differently to everyone else. The other day my wife's car stopped working at a light and a bus driver got out and told her this doesn't happen in Switzerland. Also hard not to feel targeted when doing one home renovation causes two lawsuits from guys who are clearly just chancing.

<comment><USER68> RE: car parking story, I see you have not been to Sweden before, we have mastered the art of passive-aggressive notes here.

<comment><USER16> I'm not surprised. The Germanic countries have the weirdest people in terms of social awkwardness. And I grew up in one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think average wage is a bad metric.

I can't find any source ATM but I think the median salary is around $75k.

</comment><comment><USER69> I think there are variations in American culture that are not covered here. For example, when somebody asks "what do you do" in Boulder, Colorado, they might be asking which outdoor sport do you do when you're not working. When somebody asks the same question in a city like Boston or NYC, they're asking about your job.

I'm not judging here, that's not to say Boulderites are slackers or East Coasters only care about work, just saying that I think the comparisons made in this article don't apply to the whole country.

</comment><comment><USER20> The author claims she was double taxed by the Swiss and American governments. I doubt that she actually paid the U.S. taxes, as up to 100K earned abroad is exempt. It's called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, [http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International- Taxpayers/Forei...](http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International- Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion)

<comment><USER38> There are plenty of errors in her article. Like when she used Romney as an example of low taxes for the rich. She conviently failed to mention it was because he gave a HUGE chunk of it to charity.

<comment><USER20> technically she was right though about his tax rate, it was low because most of his income came from long term cap gains investments

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> While I agree with the her general message, I don't see how "The Swiss work hard, but they have a strong work-life balance." is demonstrated in the article. Judging by the article you work half as much as an American an earn the more, which sound amazing, but hard? I doubt the "produce" of an average worker in Switzerland is more then or even equal to that of an American. (PS I am not an American)

</comment><comment><USER51> I am currently studying in the US on a visa. I WAS considering trying the H1B route. However, the longer I am here the more I see what the "real" America is like. Due to my European citizenship I can work in most (if not all) European countries without the hassle I'd have here (visa application). Yes, the pay might be lower, and yes I might not be in the start up mecca, but I never cared about start ups.

</comment><comment><USER71> It's nice living in Switzerland but the OP is like works in some ad agency and earning like 120k? How do I get a job in Swiss if I'm not from the Europe but a third world country? Yeah Swiss life is great if coming from the US or something. Swiss are asking for American works, they don't give a shit to skilled labour from third world country.

<comment><USER37> $120K is pretty average in Switzerland.

As for getting a job here, I know a handful of people from 'third-world' countries here although the term doesn't mean as much these days (India, China, and Brazil) and they all have MDs or PHDs.

The only other way is as a refugee, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Switzerland does give a small benefit to Americans and Canadians - we get our C permit after just five years. But that's all as far as the benefits go. The system is quiet rule based.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Ok, I have some perspective on this.

I'm Australian, lived there most of my life. I've also lived in London (3 years), Cologne (9 months), Zurich (almost 1 year) and now New York (coming up on 5 years).

There's a lot of good things about Switzerland but there's one part of this post I think is misleading: taxes.

The poster mentions the low rate of federal tax on the average wage. This is only part of the story. I forget all the specifics but you had to pay:

\- federal tax

\- cantonal tax

\- tax for what part of the canton you lived in (I forget what this one is called)

\- 3-6 mandatory insurances covering health, retirement, unemployment and so on

Now I still think it works out rather well but don't be under any illusions it ends at 5% federal. It does not.

In a way it's good because the other way to do this is just to tax you at a higher rate and decide what to do with the money after the tax. The Swiss system is definitely more transparent. You also have choice. You can choose health insurance with a higher deductible to have lower costs. Swiss law mandates the minimum coverage required.

Switzerland is also very expensive for day to day expenses. I seem to recall seeing steak in Migros for 60+ CHF/kg. This was 10 years ago however.

I do remember reading about a supermarket chain in Germany that opened a store just across the border from Basel (about an hour from Zurich) and it had the highest turnover of any of their stores because all the Swiss went there to shop. There were limits on imports of various products like meat into Switzerland.

It's true that the public transportation in Switzerland is simply amazing. If you live in a city there's really no reason to own a car. I can't speak for more rural lifestyles.

Culturally however I think the German side of Switzerland (I have no experience with the French or Italian sides) was difficult for expats. Honestly I found Swiss Germans to be _incredibly_ rude and insular.

Now bear in mind I've lived in Germany (Cologne). Cologne I consider to be one of the friendliest places I've ever been. Like I'd be at the train station and someone would arrive and ask "Wie spaet ist es?" (what time is it?). I'd reply and they'd know immediately I was a foreigner (Auslander) and strike up a conversation. This happened _routinely_.

So whatever experiences you may have about German culture from Germany (and even Germany is a very different place in the Northwest vs the more conservative South vs the old East vs Berlin), Swiss Germans are something else.

Housing is interesting. They have (or had at least when I was there) low interest rates (~3.5%) but owning a house then deemed you with the income that house would get if you rented it out but that was offset by the interest you paid. So no one paid off their mortgages.

Also, Switzerland punitively taxes capital gains on real estate. The idea I think is to not create a speculative market in real estate as they consider that bad. So there weren't the huge swings in property values you might see in the US or Australia. That's probably good.

Still there are criticisms. Like the richest areas have the lowest taxes. This could apply in Zurich (the Gold Coast I think it was called along the east bank of Lake Zurich) or some even stayed out of the canton and, say, lived in Zug, choosing to commute each day (it's about 30-45 minutes to central Zurich).

The details may have changed but when I was there when you got a work permit (a B residence permit) it was basically a work visa. After 3 years it automatically converted to a C permit, which was essentially a residence permit, and you could stay as long as you kept renewing it.

This is in stark contrast to the US system with H1B lotteries and the gruelling torture that is the green card process.

One other thing worth noting was that unless you married someone Swiss it's almost impossible to get Swiss citizenship. I seem to recall reading about families that have lived there for 3 generations since the 1920s and were still residents.

You'll note that after being there 10 years the poster still said they had a residence permit. That won't change.

I'm a little surprised they got residence permits at all actually. One consequence of the tighter integration into Europe (it's much easier to get a work permit as an EU citizen now than it was 15 years ago) is that it became more difficult for non-EU citizens to get one. I'd be curious to know what her husband does/did.

As for the US, I live in New York and as others have said to me New York isn't the US. Not really. I like it here and I'm probably going to stay. As much as I like Switzerland (and everywhere you go really is a postcard) I'm not sure I could live there permanently.

I'd be wary of saying the Swiss way of doing things is better because, to me, the Swiss system probably isn't sustainable in the general case.

Switzerland prospered as a center of banking and of being ostensibly neutral (eg being spared the horrors of WW2). It's a bit like Monaco. I hear Monaco is amazing but Monaco is a haven for the wealthy that essentially cherrypicks its residents. Switzerland isn't quite that but it's similar.

In Geneva for example you have many workers who live in France and commute every day (there's a special work permit for this).

<comment><USER73> I am not American nor Swiss but have lived for multiple years in both countries and can echo your sentiment.

> The poster mentions the low rate of federal tax on the average wage. This is > only part of the story.

In my experience, when considering EVERYTHING (e.g. remaining net monthly salary) the overall tax rate in the US (California) and Switzerland ended up being similar and around 30%. However, in the surrounding countries from the Eurozone, tax rates for similar income brackets tend to be significantly higher.

To be honest, I did like living in Switzerland, but my feeling is that a lot of the benefits they enjoy arise from arbitrage situations with neighboring countries. Taking your example from shopping at Marktkauf [1] (right across the German border in Basel), people living in Switzerland massively go there for multiple reasons:

       1) prices are generally much cheaper, and on top of it
       2) being from outside the EU you can get the 18% tax rate back, so essentially you can shop tax free and bring it over the border for no fees up to 300 chf/day.

Similarly, there's a tonne of P.O. box services in the same town allowing you to buy stuff from EU Amazon sites at lower prices and ship it to the P.O. box address in Germany, pick it up and take it over the border.

In general, probably Switzerland has opened up in the last few years, but it still feels like a very traditional (even old-fashioned) country deeply rooted in its own ways of doing things, in spite of a very large foreign population, e.g. around 23% of its population (from [2] and [3]) are foreign residents, who live there but have NO right to vote.

[1]: [https://email@example.com,7.59...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,7.5920321,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xd8076ee8f0965e6)

[2]: [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL)

[3]: [http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/07/bla...](http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/07/blank/key/01/01.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Oh, poor you....You should come work in Romania (where i am ) and see how it is.

</comment><comment><USER75> Can anyone explain if this holds true for international companies, say for example Facebook, Google or Amazon? Are the Swiss offices, if any, this different than the States offices?

</comment><comment><USER76> What surprised me - average salary of $90k+. Does someone have any insight what this country produce to be able to pull of such pretty significant wages?

<comment><USER76> It also appears that this $90k+ is less than GDP per capita - [https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:CHE:NOR:DEU&hl=en&dl=en) which is really weird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> I had the same feeling when I moved from India to US. May be its Swiss time, and I dont have to pay big portion of my income to US.

</comment><comment><USER78> tl;dr: America sucks for work when you don't have a college degree.

Too bad OP doesn't realize that this applies outside of America too.

</comment><comment><USER79> The reason American's benefits are so stingy is because of racism. White people do not want any benefits going to blacks.

</comment><comment><USER80> How is all of that sustainable? Are us Americans just being massively lied to?

<comment> vezzy-fnord Not necessarily. The United States just harbors an enormous amount of path dependence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Size matters. Switzerland shall be compared to Singapore etc instead of US.

</comment><comment><USER82> This was just painful to read about how little the author understands about basic economics and the privileges afforded to that ONE tiny nation.

<comment><USER83> Yeah, only it's mostly true for the rest of EU as well which means that similar privileges are enjoyed by some 400M people, not so tiny nation now, eh?

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> i pay 45% tax in the usa. time to move ;)

<comment><USER51> Moving won't help you if you are a US citizen.

<comment><USER84> im not, thats part of why i pay 45%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> As is always the case, these comparisons are almost always ideologically biased nonsense.

What I am saying is that you can't compare two countries with such dissimilar profiles without examining and making sense of a lot of data. And you certainly can't conclude that one has a great work culture and the other does not.

Just a few data points...

        Population
        US 320,000,000
        CH   8,000,000

        Employment among 15 to 65 year old population:
        US  67%
        CH  80%

        Tourism (arrivals):
        US 60,000,000
        CH  8,600,000 (yes, more people visit than live there)

        Employment
        US 123 million
        CH 4.2 million

        Number of businesses
        US  18,200,000
        CH     160,000

        Number of billionaires
        US  615
        CH   29

        Foreign aid (given to other countries)
        US  30,154,000,000 (it's actually double this number if grants and loans included)
        CH   2,295,000,000

        GDP
        US 18,125,000,000,000
        CH    688,000,000,000

        Tax revenue:
        US  3,001,721,000
        CH    217,900,000

        Deficit/Surplus
        US -648,805,000
        CH    3,400,000

        National Debt
        US  18,540,448,667,000  (58,437 per capita; 106% of GDP)
        CH   1,610,897,000,000  (154,063 per capita; 229% of GDP)

It's interesting to see that the debt to gdp ratio is CH is astronomically high. Three times that of the US with a GDP that is 26 TIMES smaller. While the budget is balanced right now it seems that a huge amount of debt has been piled-up, perhaps to support the standard of living? This is conjecture on my part, I don't know.

Clearly in the US we can do a lot better. And we do this by voting the right people into office. We are at a point where fiscal responsibility isn't an interesting concept but rather a requirement for survival. What we have been doing is not sustainable in the long term, not even close. So, tax and spend needs to go out the window. And no, we can't fix it by taxing the rich.

The differences are huge and, while it might feels good to write a blog post trashing the US, the reality is that nobody --blog post writers and people posting comments on HN-- ever seems to want to take a few hours to throw numbers up on a spreadsheet, build some economic models and try to understand the underlying data. That's where the truth lies. Not in how we feel. That's all bullshit. Everybody feels great just before a tsunami. Yet, the earthquake that triggers it has been building-up underground for years, for decades or centuries. What matters are the numbers. Most everything else is complete nonsense.

I'd like someone to explain the impact of a per-capita debt of over $150K and 229% of GDP on the People's Republic of Switzerland. A house of cards looks great until the reality that is happens to be a house of cards has to be confronted.

Don't argue with me with feelings or ideology. Put numbers up on a spreadsheet and figure it first.

In the end, we are all bailing water in one way or the other. And a lot of what's going on points very solidly at China, in more ways than one.

<comment><USER86> > I'd like someone to explain the impact of a per-capita debt of over $150K > and 229% of GDP on the People's Republic of Switzerland.

The explanation is simply that you're using the wrong data. Kind of embarrassing for someone who is complaining about how nobody else understands the importance of numbers and spreadsheets.

The number you've marked as "national debt" is actually "external debt", which is a totally irrelevant statistic. It's the amount of debt owed to entities in different countries by business, invididuals and the the government. It's particularly meaningless because it's only looking at debts rather than both debts and credits. Switzerland is in fact a net international creditor.

The number you should be using is the government debt. Unfortunately it's going to be pretty bad for your incredibly insulting "People's Republic of Switzerland" narrative. That'd be 34% of GDP for CH, 102% for USA.

<comment><USER85> The statistics came from a European government website where they listed US and European nation government debt. Since the US number was right I had no reason to doubt the veracity of the other numbers.

The greater point here isn't the accuracy of numbers I quickly pulled out of a few websites. I simply wanted to point out that saying "I lived in <insert country> for <years> and <this other country> is lousy" is nonsense without engaging a serious study of the numbers.

I wasn't about to spend a whole day writing a research paper because, well, I am not the one making the claim that Switzerland's shit don't stink.

Is the US perfect? Nope. We are as fucked as can be. And, at the same time, we still remain the land of opportunity and the place from where vast amounts of innovation continue to come from. A simply comparison of the tech startup ecosystem alone shows there are huge differences that need to be evaluated and accounted for.

In other words, if the utopia of Switzerland is so remarkably better than the crap we have here in the US, why is it that Silicon Valley hasn't migrated to Switzerland or that most of the major science and tech companies aren't founded and based out of Switzerland?

To me Switzerland is an aberration. Either it is a house of cards or it is the luckiest 8 million people on the planet. Time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> She works almost seven days a week and blames the US for that? Never in my life have I worked seven days in a week, and I own my own business! (Granted, I did when we started up for a few months.)

And then she claims her $30,000 salary, at seven days a week, turns out to be the equivalent of minimum wage? On which planet? At $7.25 an hour, times 56 hours (7 days at 8 hours per day) times 52 weeks (though she got 10 days off) equals $21,112.

This article is of ill repute.

</comment><comment><USER88> Reminds me of a local recruiter from a while back who wouldn't stop calling, emailing and then resorted to sending messages on twitter (creeped me out) asking if I was interested in a 1~3 month contract with a fairly esoteric stack with no overtime pay and a generous minimum wage, no lunch, 4 hour commute. I told him no and he asked if I knew anyone else that would be interested.

</comment><comment><USER37> Happy Swiss National Day Switzerland!

You've been a democracy since 1292(?). Good luck and hopefully you'll be independent and free for another 800 years.

<comment><USER89> Nope, about 160years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> From now on, we should call it "The Swiss Dream" and let go of any preconceptions that America is the land of opportunity and the proof is in the pudding by the much higher average annual income earned by the Swiss over their US peers despite the longer hours they put in and the jobs that enslaved them for eternity.

</comment><comment><USER91> Yesterday I finished a job in Cheltenham, England. The post was 50 weeks long. The commute to and back from work came to around two and a half to three hours. Often I would feel physically sick on the bus due to insufficient rest. I would go to work even though I felt unwell. This includes dealing with a trapped ulnar nerve which means my arm and shoulder ache all day, and is aggravated by using a laptop.

I pushed myself too hard, but this can occur when you are expected to work till you drop dead from exhaustion. This is what my first supervisor expected of me, because she thought I was a low life piece of shit. I had hardly any experience in insurance, especially claims which a lot of people in the building considered to be the sharp end of the business. Administration on a new claim was estimated on average to take around 90 minutes, it took me a day and a half. I was furnished with written procedure notes (about 40 pages worth), a laptop with no mouse and told to get on with it. I didn't consider this to be unfair, because this is the attitude I have experienced in most of my jobs. I had been in my new role for two days when I was given this task. All the thanks I got was a casual remark from my supervisor "Well, that's our Christmas bonus gone isn't it."

I was often shouted at in the office. Being an open plan space this behaviour was witnessed by about 80 other people. If my queries were not understood at first, the response I would get is "WHAT?!". When the day ended and the office was mostly empty, my supervisor's behaviour became very hostile.

The experience was incredibly stressful. My ulnar nerve issue worsened, so now it feels like I have a knife stuck in my little finger. Also I became so nervous about making a mistake (because my mistakes were over emphasised) that I worked at a rate about 4 times slower than my colleagues. Trust in my proof reading ability was lost, so I would check every single lexicon in a letter of correspondence and rereading my work nearly a dozen times. Some people would recognise this as OCD. I was considered incapable of performing my role, a bit offensive I might add.

I have a suspicion that I was treated like this partially because I am genetically male. My hope is to get a new job in the company's call center, and occasionally I would dress as a woman (or most of the time). I would like to see how I am treated by my ex supervisor/torturer while wearing a skirt, and how someone who is quite religious reacts to someone slowly coming out as transgender. I recently referred to her as a "fucking bitch" in a conversation with one of my other work colleagues. I regret that a lot, because (s)he isn't a real woman, and I'm more of a woman than she'll ever be.</comment>


Ask HN: What were you guys doing during the outage? - <AUTHOR>

What were you guys doing during the outage? You had more time because you could not lurk at HN.<p>I was doing some administrative stuff. <comment><USER2> Working.</comment>


Haskell and the Software Design Process - <AUTHOR> http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-May/077154.html <comment><USER2> Really, quite a few of these hold outside of Haskell as well.

* "reduce the interactions between components by relying on pure interfaces"

* use purely functional data structures to model key parts of the world you're talking to. Model-driven design with easy to verify logic

* Avoid partial functions

Pure interfaces require you to declare _all_ context, and it's arguably all the context implicit in typical OO software that kills reusability. As Joe Armstrong put it, "...the problem with object-oriented languages is they've got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle."

* use types to encode the design into a machine checkable form

* picking a good data type (like a zipper) will make hundreds of unit tests meaningless -- improving productivity.

The point of static typing is to structure code in a way that more assumptions can be expressed and _automatically checked_. A well-chosen data structure brings with it all of its expected behavior.

* ensure components have 'axiomatic' interfaces -- reduce complexity by avoiding redundancy

* if at all possible ensure your core algorithms and logic are referentially transparent -- this will dramatically simplify maintainanace and QA effort

"Declarative programming clears the mind." - Sterling & Shapiro, _The Art of Prolog_

<comment> loup-vaillant Sarcasm: Now we just have to convince those C++ programmers that they _might_ want to change their programming style a bit. Resignation: Alas, most C++ code is done with premature optimization in mind, which throws many of those good principles out the window.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> People have referred me to Real World Haskell as such a book. Lovely though it is (I learned a lot of Haskell), it wasn't teaching software design in Haskell exactly. Hopefully someone will write a book like that.</comment>


Show HN: Host a worthwhile full featured Cloud Drive from home - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zelon88/HRCloud2 <comment><AUTHOR> YouTube playlist of development: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVbKN4o8V_4OSXI0SGGBM...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVbKN4o8V_4OSXI0SGGBMxRvXTZJT3YM_)

Hello there! HRCloud2 is a home-hosted personal Cloud storage platform and personal assistant with built-in application layer load balancing that is capable of running on almost nay ARM or x86 CPU. This application is similar to ownCloud except it is far more capable in how it can manipulate your files. For example, if you take a picture of your McDonalds receipt and upload it to your HRCloud drive, HRCloud2 can take the .jpg image and convert it into .txt, .doc, or any other document format with formatting preserved. Same with non- OCR'd .pdf files. Currently my goals are to make user color schemes and to complete media playlist functionality, which would make HRCloud2 competitive with applications like AudioStreamer, Plex, and Kodi.)

HRCloud2 was written in vanilla PHP (no frameworks), HTML, JScript, JQuery, CSS, and uses Ajax and CuRL. It's fairly easy to create your own scripts using API's, although the docs for API implementation are incomplete. Regardless it would not be hard to create your own GUI's for specific screen sizes, which is something I hope to tackle in the future,

I am aware that I lack experience. That is why I am asking for development guidance and support, to make this project as capable and competitive as possible. I appreciate any advice, guidance, or support (especially in regards to development). Thanks in advance!

</comment><comment><USER2> I pressed the browser back button after I read WordPress.

<comment><USER3> Using WordPress for implementing a necessary function for something to claim cloudiness seems the essence of what it means to hack.

<comment><AUTHOR> I disagree. WordPress is a dependency of the platform. By your logic a project which requires CakePHP or Laravel should automatically be considered a "hack."</comment></comment></comment>


Google's Version of AirDrop for Android - <AUTHOR> https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/228747/this-is-googles-version-of-airdrop-for-android <comment><USER2> sad to hear they're dropping plans for compatibility with iPhone in the new iteration of Nearby Sharing</comment>


Ask HN: What are the fastest "open" CDN algorithms out there? - <AUTHOR>

I'm curious to know what are considered the fastest "open" CDN algorithms (across infrastructure) out there right now. Not from the perspective of CDN marketing teams tied to the big guns like EdgeCast or Akamai, but from the industry professional perspective.
I just finished reading a textbook on CDN technology (full of examples of hundreds of patented algorithms and software solutions) and it led me to wonder what work is being done outside the patent lifecycle. It would be nice to be able to do similar CDN architecture building as a FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) project without concern some patent is being infringed upon.
From performance, P2P streaming, wireless CDN, or multi-CDN QoS, I think having a handle on building a business without software and algorithm patents would be a great step in the direction in building CDNs in under-serviced communities. <comment><USER2> What textbook were you reading?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a Wiley book, Advanced Content Delivery, Streaming, and Cloud Services:

[http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-111857521...](http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118575210.html)

Quite a packed volume and probably a solid read for anyone thinking of pursuing a career in CDN tech.</comment></comment>


Silicon Valley frets over foreign worker crackdown - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/b42f40c2-a6df-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1 <comment><USER2> Does SV really rely on undocumented workers for their skilled labor force? As far as I can tell Trump wants to thwart illegal immigration but wants to make hiring skilled foreign workers easier -i.e., if it's apparent we have a skills deficit, the administration would increase quotas to accommodate the demand. Examining demand/need and adjusting accordingly and cracking down on abuse of the system, if it does occur, would seem reasonable.

Of course, that remains to be seen but, at the same time, I don't believe the intention is to cut off all immigration, only illegal unregulated immigration, the way most advanced economies do.

<comment><USER3> There's one issue in Trump's current ideas: That he wants to "punish" countries that don't take back illegal immigrants by limiting visa access to their citizens.

So if the Trump administration at some point considers Liechtenstein to be not in compliance with Trump's ideas of handling illegal immigrants, fully compliant H1-Bs from Liechtenstein might get in trouble the next time they need to renew their paperwork.

<comment><USER4> Is that really an issue? Why would Liechtenstein refuse to take back one of their citizens?

<comment><USER5> I believe Liechtenstein was chosen for rhetorical purposes.

<comment><USER4> Yes, fill in whatever country name you want. Most H-1Bs go to India, so use that as an example. Why wouldn't India take back deported citizens?

<comment><USER6> I'd say that _most_ countries would be happy to not have to take back their nationals that have committed violent felonies.

For a specific example, Vietnam refuses to take back their nationals who entered after 12 July 1995. We recently had a case regarding Viet national in the US illegally who, upon serving that sentence, was released among the US public because he had originally entered the US illegally before that 1995 date, and Vietnam refused to allow him back in.

He went on to commit another homicide this year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's the full Kenneth Galbraith reference:

 _He ridiculed the Reaganite trickle-down theory of wealth distribution, preferring the earthier phrase "the horse-and-sparrow theory" \- "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."_

From this interesting (long) overview of Galbraith's life and work: [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/apr/06/socialscie...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/apr/06/socialsciences.highereducation)

</comment><comment><USER8> Here's a disruptive idea for SV, open field offices in tech hubs that are all over the country, pay lower salary, get the same employees you would have moved out to SV anyway.

(I know more than one person who works in SF/SV and works literally in the same department as half a dozen other people from their home cities, all moved out to SF and given enormous pay differentials to live there).

</comment><comment><USER9> Silicon Valley companies are s small percentage of the H1-B pool.

Focusing on the 10-15% of H1B's is not doing this issue justice, in my opinion. Wipro, Cognizant, Infosys and TCS are not Silicon Valley startups.

<comment><USER10> Case in point, his stated policy is the "Intel yes, Infosys no" one.

However, how much do Silicon Valley startups eventually hire from the Infosys etc. pool of H1-Bs?

Old line Silicon Valley companies like HP are notorious for doing this, although as I recall they've been cluefull enough to avoid the "train your own replacement" PR debacles that are most recently driving this, those are in companies where "IT" is a cost center, like that California electrical company and Disney.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh look, yet another article talking about how our leading tech companies (aka "Silicon Valley") can't hire fast enough with an infographic clearly showing that the "highly skilled guest worker" visas are predominantly going to IT body shops (aka "not Silicon Valley"), the "H1-Bs on average make less" mostly being due to the same body shops, and no mention at all within the body of the article that this is the case. It should be obvious to anyone with even limited reasoning ability that the system is is not being used in the spirit* it was created in and that there are possible fixes that don't land at one of the extremes of close it down or leave it (mostly) wide open.

(*or for the cynically inclined, replace "spirit" with "stated purpose")

<comment><USER12> In fact cracking down on H1-B should be GOOD for silicon valley. As it will open a lot more slots for legit companies applying for real talent.

<comment><USER13> I'm confused, how is a company who hires H1-B visa holders "illegitimate"? Maybe I'm taking this too literally...

<comment><USER14> Not the OP, but I read it meaning "companies applying with a legitimate need for talent". Here are few examples from the past few months where this was not the case:

[https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/couple-pleads- guilty-20...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/couple-pleads- guilty-20-million-visa-fraud-involving-indian-workers)

[https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/virginia-immigration- atto...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/virginia-immigration-attorney- admits-visa-fraud-obstruction-justice)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't have a problem with hiring workers from outside the country. My problem is when you lay off American workers and replace them with cheap foreign labor, while claiming you're doing so because you can't find qualified workers. That smacks of Silicon Valley doublespeak, and it's grossly unfair.

<comment><USER16> Increasing the supply of workers will ALWAYS drive down cost. So you can debate the minutia, but that is the trade off we make.

Lawyers and doctors have strong "guild" protections to stop overseas labor competing. Software devs do not.

<comment><USER17> > Lawyers and doctors have strong "guild" protections to stop overseas labor > competing.

I'd be interested in reading more about this if you have a link handy.

<comment><USER18> It really isn't that complicated. To be a lawyer or a doctor you need to be licensed. The number of people who are licensed is restricted because of the limited numbers of spots in medical and law schools and the high cost of attending. On the already trained immigrant side, you can't just show up from India and start practicing law or medicine in the US. Even if you did it in your home country and are unquestionably qualified there is a long process you have to go through.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long- slog...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog-for- foreign-doctors-to-practice-in-us.html)

Professional associations like the AMA (American Medical Association) for doctors and American Bar Association for Lawyers act as de facto unions w/o drawing the negative connotations that unions sometimes do in modern politics. The AMA even lobbies the government which sets the rates doctors get paid for medicare procedures and medicare is the largest payer in the healthcare system.

<comment><USER19> > The number of people who are licensed is restricted because of the limited > numbers of spots in medical and law schools and the high cost of attending

For medicine, this is wrong. The bottleneck is residency programs, not medical school. We graduate more medical students each year than we have residency spots available.

And for residency programs, the limit isn't artificial - it's funding-driven. Residency programs run at a loss for hospitals, so most residency programs are funded through Medicare.

> Even if you did it in your home country and are unquestionably qualified > there is a long process you have to go through.

Yes, and that's not to artificially limit the supply, but because training differs by country, and just because you're qualified by one country's standards doesn't mean you're qualified by another. And for what it's worth, the residency process is oftentimes much shorter for people who are licensed to practice in other countries, so it's not like they're starting from scratch.

> Professional associations like the AMA (American Medical Association)... act > as de facto unions w/o drawing the negative connotations that unions > sometimes do in modern politics.

The AMA may be the most-hated organization in the medical field. People who don't practice medicine hate the AMA, largely because they aren't clear on what the AMA is and is not responsible for, and often misattibute things to the AMA[0]. And practitioners hate the AMA because they are _actually_ aware of what it does, and because the AMA has a long history of siding with payers (insurers) over practitioners.

> The AMA even lobbies the government which sets the rates doctors get paid > for medicare procedures and medicare is the largest payer in the healthcare > system.

If you think the role of the AMA is to ensure doctors get paid well by Medicare, then they're clearly not doing their job. Medicare reimburses, in the aggregate, 7% _less_ than COGS. This means that, in effect, for every Medicare patient a private practitioner treats, they would end up having to provide their services for free, and then _still_ pay an additional 7% out-of- pocket for each Medicare patient they treat, to cover the costs that Medicare doesn't.

This is the reason that private practices are a dying breed, and why it's actually very difficult to find small practices which will accept "vanilla" Medicare.

[0] For example, people often blame the AMA for limiting the number of medical school spots that are available, which is wrong on three counts: (1) The AAMC was responsible for this, not the AMA, (2) The AAMC has changed their policy and is now aggressively lifting this cap year upon year for a long time now, and (3) as I explained above, the number of medical school graduates isn't the bottleneck, so the AAMC's policy has no effect on the supply of doctors entering the market each year.

<comment><USER18> Whether or not the intent was to artificially limit the supply the effect is the same. Barriers to entry prevent an influx of labor from pushing the price down.

Here is an article from fortune on the AMA...

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the- docto...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-doctors- union/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There may be a paywall issue. Can someone please post another related story?

<comment><USER21> Paste the URL into Google and enter from there.

<comment><USER22> And in the Google search results, open it in an incognito/private window. This gets asked in comments for pretty much every FT/WSJ/whatever article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A bad choice. A more appropriate choice would be a hellhole like Mexico.

<comment><USER24> Slurs like this are a bannable offense on Hacker News. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12940754](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12940754) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If there is wage manipulation via H1-Bs, it's because there's a pressure on the candidate to accept a lower salary, knowing it's the only way to get into the US to work. As I see it, raising that cap removes the employer's leverage to push for a lower wage.

<comment><USER26> You think the pool of available talent to replace all those H1Bs is large enough to do it before many tech companies implode or start outsourcing?

<comment><USER4> The best argument for the H-1B is that the jobs would go to the same employee anyway, just back in their home country, but there is probably a sweet spot where you aren't actually incentivizing dumping current US workers and replacing them with H-1Bs.</comment></comment></comment>