> • £25,000 starting salaries at traditional engineering firms
> • Exodus to consulting or finance just because it's compensated better
This is _exactly_ my career so far.
The key thing about the British economy is that while most things operate in a free market, construction is centrally planned by councillors who are incentivised to block most development. So the whole economy is struggling, but industries that need physical space are especially hard hit. Your local council can't block you from writing more code, but can stop you from building lab space near where people want to live and work.
My first job out of uni was in a wonderful small engineering firm in Cambridge. Lab space there is eye-wateringly expensive because it's illegal to build enough, so we were based in a makeshift lab in an attic next to the sewage works. I loved working there, but it shows that we're restricting our small businesses unnecessarily through our planning system.
The solution is frustratingly simple, but politically suicidal for any government that tried to implement it: just legalise development subject to basic design codes. I hope we see some planning reform before it's too late for our struggling innovation industries.
I used to live and work in Cambridge. In many ways it's a victim of its own success; people will, not unreasonably, argue that it's a beautiful little town of historic buildings, embedded in a primarily agricultural county of either prime agricultural land or protected wetland. They're not going to let you build Shenzen in Shelford no matter what the economic benefit might be. Meanwhile it's close enough to London that the property prices tick upwards to London commuter weighting.
(This is also why we have expensive electricity, because people oppose building any infrastructure. I'm coming round to the idea that there should just be county-by-county referendums where people have to pick either blanket allowing energy development or having a bill surcharge.)
The wiki editor(s) who wrote the boosterish Economy subsection of the wiki page on Peterborough [1] (thirty miles away, same county) make it sound as though it is a growing area that does want to grow more.
From the vantage point of Cambridge it has a reputation as a shithole, but I haven't been there either so would also like to know.
The county council covering the Cambridge area is actually based in Peterborough, and so effectively controls a lot of the countryside around Cambridge, as it is in charge of transport. So arguably the lack of development could be their fault as well.
Supposedly the government is plan is to reduce everywhere to one layer of local government (currently Cambridge is covered by both a county and district council). TBH the areas which are currently unitary seem to work a bit better but there's still massive opposition to building.
Only if you place no value on the land simply existing as it does now and providing aesthetic value. Most people privileged enough to sit on a planning council coincidentally also trend towards valuing peace and quiet and are hesitant to approve projects that may disrupt their assumed way of life.
From the outside looking in, rural UK council politics seems like the epitome of “I got mine so bug off”. I think this is one reason why London is becoming a super hub (among other reasons). London broke the ice and now they are trying to keep progressing but physical distance is becoming a limiting factor. Other municipalities will need to embrace change if they want to keep developing into a place where people want to live and work.
All of the UK's cities - apart from museums like Oxford and Cambridge - are full of real estate investment sprawl. There is no reason some of those spaces couldn't be used as labs and light factories. In fact there are plenty of brown field conversion projects turning old mills (etc) into new light industry hubs.
The bigger problems in the UK are business rates (extortionate), profiteering by landlords and land owners, insanely expensive utilities, crumbling physical infrastructure, and Brexit.
We could have had a government that invested/fixed in all of those things, but the big landords and land owners decided they didn't like that idea. They'd prefer to keep the country struggling and backward, because it appeals to their sense of aristocratic self-importance.
Cambridge(shire) has also been forced to allow more real estate; Northstowe, Waterbeach New Town, the Eddington neighbourhood within Cambridge city limits, Springstead Village, even been a few noticeable changes around Cottenham.
This is a disease that has infected the entire West. It's just become impossible to do anything that requires space. Even industrial giants like Germany are now de-industrializing because it's just too hard to get permits for building anything new. Sure, labor costs, energy costs, environmental regulations, etc. are all bothersome, but what really makes German industry emigrate is how hard it is to get permission to change anything. It's such a self-inflicted wound.
Do you have any sources that you would recommend? So far, you're throwing out "got a source for that?" left and right and when you get a source you've nothing to say.
Just curious if you have knowledge about this subject or if you're just trying to block the conversation from going in directions you don't like
My response was to a post that did not provide a source, and at the time it was made, no source had been provided.
[EDIT: Having now reviewed the source that was provided, it certainly supports a drop in industrial production, but I'd be skeptical that it indicates "de-industrialization" ]
We'll see. Taking away local control over land development is going to be controversial. A lot of rich and politically connected people are not going to like this. The last three decades in the west has been an endless series of victories for landowners. It's hard to imagine that this time really is different.
The problem always ends up being that it's extremely local (read: NIMBY).
Everyone wants more Z, Y, X. Nobody wants to change where they are to support it. This is why even areas that redevelop in places that are friendly to it, take decades.
The "old" solution was to just build a whole new factory town elsewhere, but that doesn't work as well, and especially doesn't work when you're not building megafactories that employ entire cities.
It would be better if we just change the immigration policy. Last time I checked there was 400,000 leaving the country each year and somewhere between a million and 1.4 million entering.
I live in the countryside (I live in a small flat btw so I don't care about property prices) and I don't want everywhere in the country built over, which seems to be something here everyone wants for some bonkers reason. If you want to live in a concrete jungle that is fine, I and many others don't. I moved out of Manchester because I hated it there.
It's actually around 750,000, mostly third world, and around half of those are students.
Importing cheap foreign labour from the third world was always one of the goals of Brexit. This game gets played over and over - import cheap labour to keep wages down, lament about how the country is being invaded, and then blame immigrants for lack of investment, corporate profiteering, and other structural policy problems.
No, Brexit was about returning such decisions from Brussels to Westminster.
The UK may decide less immigration, or skill-weighted immigration, or lots more indiscriminate immigration - but the vote should be in the Mother of Parliaments, where else?
Whether it is part of the "goals of brexit" or not, is kinda irrelevant. The point is that we cannot build more homes easily, even if we could that has issues with other infrastructure and utilities. The easiest way is to at least maybe try to decrease demand and reducing immigration would be an obvious way to help with that.
Given whose muscle actually builds the houses (before I left the UK, the meme was all the builders were Polish), and what happened to the exchange rate (initially; it's harder to separate the increasing number of influences the more time passes), the UK could have build a lot more homes more easily in the EU than it can now it's out of the EU.
Again, the utilities cannot be scaled as easily. There are problems with building houses right now because there just isn't enough supply in some areas of the nation grid. That isn't something being in the EU would magically fix.
It's not magic, it's qualified workers already familiar with the necessary standards because the standards were (somewhat) unified by the EU specifically so that labour had an easier time moving.
That does also make utilities easier, but it's not magic… well, you could say it is but only in the sense of Penn and Teller: lots of effort that most people don't ever think of that already happened before the audience started watching.
It is amazing when it comes to any topic that is constantly thorny people will constantly twist your words. When I say "magically solve", I specifically mean that it wouldn't have solved the issue. The issue would still exist in some capacity.
There was problems with houses becoming to expensive (there are multitude of reasons for this) while we were still in the EU. Part of this was also do with the monetary policy of central banks after the 2008. Part of this is there is a shortage of housing. There was problems with utilities well before we left the EU, because of mismanagement.
This is all a deflection anyway from the point that high levels of immigration increase demand. Unless you don't believe in supply and demand, which is basic economics. BTW I don't believe that immigration is the only reason there is high demand, there are others. But it certainly doesn't help that we have record numbers of people entering the UK.
> This is all a deflection anyway from the point that high levels of immigration increase demand. Unless you don't believe in supply and demand, which is basic economics.
*Supply* and demand.
Immigrants supply, they don't just demand.
Immigrants (everywhere, not just to the UK) have a slightly higher supply-to-demand ratio than locals, owing to many of them not starting at age 0; likewise emigration tends to means supply going down faster than demand.
> Supply and demand. Immigrants supply, they don't just demand.
Why is there a massive shortfall then when we've had the largest amount of immigration then?
Why was there a shortfall previously when we were still in the EU?
> Immigrants (everywhere, not just to the UK) have a slightly higher supply-to-demand ratio than locals, owing to many of them not starting at age 0; likewise emigration tends to means supply going down faster than demand.
You can assert this but I don't believe it for a second. It is pretty much accepted by anyone that is doing any stats on this that demand is increased by immigration.
Almost everything says that immigration has raised prices on rent and buying (which is a proxy for demand). It depends on the area because each area has different rates of immigration.
> Why is there a massive shortfall then when we've had the largest amount of immigration then?
Of housing and public infrastructure in the UK? Politics: Green belt and similar planning restrictions, austerity, Thatcherism, privatisation, restricting local councils' ability to own and supply council housing.
> You can assert this but I don't believe it for a second. It is pretty much accepted by anyone that is doing any stats on this that demand is increased by immigration.
And supply. Not at the expense of supply.
The figures here show that in 2011 (when it was measured as "country of birth" rather than "nationality") were 9:1 ratio of locals to migrants in construction. The overall ratio for the entire population in that year was 8.4 to one.
Both have changed since then, of course; between the statistical value being measured (nationality vs country of birth, Brexit, Covid, austerity), this is just to give a flavour for a specific date when the numbers were easier to compare.
> Not sure what this has to do with anything.
You don't understand that keeping people from leaving was because of the economic catastrophe that the people in charge knew would have happened if they didn't keep people from leaving?
> Of housing and public infrastructure in the UK? Politics: Green belt and similar planning restrictions, austerity, Thatcherism, privatisation, restricting local councils' ability to own and supply council housing.
So you don't know. All you have done is provide a list of grievances with previous governments.
Even if I accepted all of this being true, then having more migrant construction workers wouldn't solve these problems anyway.
> And supply. Not at the expense of supply.
Yet the sources I cited indicated the opposite. You constantly assert that but there is no data I've seen that proves that. Supply of labour != supply of houses. It can certainly help, but they may not be directly proportional.
I also don't care whether it does increase supply. I don't think we should keep on constantly importing people at the expense of everything else to get the GDP numbers up a few percent.
There are other problems with high amounts of immigration that I have seen up close because I've lived in poorer areas. There is a lack of integration in the communities, language barriers and it causes tensions.
I used to be an expat. So you tend to actually notice this a lot more because you see your own country with a fresh set of eyes.
Additionally none of this matters now. The UK has left the EU. The situation has changed. If we can't import labour now (there is no reason we can't issue temporary visas), then demand has to be decreased. Like it or not, however much you want to dodge it, immigration has to be curbed to help lower demand.
> You don't understand that keeping people from leaving was because of the economic catastrophe that the people in charge knew would have happened if they didn't keep people from leaving?
Are you suggesting we should have kept people from leaving by force?
> So you don't know. All you have done is provide a list of grievances with previous governments
Thinking of "surely this is obvious" on the other thread, to me it seemed obvious that this is a list of things which caused the results, i.e. they are the why.
> Yet the sources I cited indicated the opposite
You seem to have difficulty understanding what I'm saying here, and I don't know why.
Your citations were about demand. Demand is not what I am disputing. You said yourself "supply and demand", but seem to be blind to half the equation.
> I also don't care whether it does increase supply.
> I don't want everywhere in the country built over, which seems to be something here everyone wants for some bonkers reason. If you want to live in a concrete jungle that is fine, I and many others don't. I moved out of Manchester because I hated it there.
Scale issue here: if "everywhere in the country" were build up to the population density of Manchester city, the UK would house 1.2 billion people.
I'm fairly confident there are not 1.2 billion people who currently want to live in the UK.
> Reform our planning rules to build the railways, roads, labs and 1.5 million homes we need and develop a new 10-year infrastructure strategy.
They could do this is one fell swoop with a single bill by the Parliament that dissolves these local councils, and land owners the right (and freedom) to build whatever they want on land they own.
Building safety codes would still apply; but zoning permitting could be erased in one fell swoop with a single bill.
A younger me would see this as too radical. After seeing some of this up close, now I tend to support this course of action. It would be a shame, but I think we’ve all collectively proven ourselves to be shortsighted and cheap with the great privileges we’ve been afforded.
Sure, let’s check in on this in 4 years time and see if they’ve made any significant progress on that. Many, if not most of our problems have obvious solutions, it’s actually executing on them that’s the problem.
United States 11,855 KWH
China 5,474
Germany 6,483
Australia 7,000 (approximate based on recent trends)
Singapore 9,000 (approximate based on recent trends)
United Kingdom 4,701
Energy consumption of the uK is that of a poor developing country.
people will cite the size of uk homes due to lack of land as if you can't build houses with a lot of sq/ft - sq/m vertically ?
the only thing keeping uk afloat at the moment is the friendly immigration policy.
money doesn't move in capital markets but people would rather pump money into property.
As someone said recently, abundant energy is the basis of prosperity. There are no poor countries that use a lot of energy per capita, and no rich countries that use little. (China is a "middle income" country, not a poor one.)
...that's not really an illustration of that. When you actually consider population and land size, the numbers don't seem so strange.
Just looking at wikipedia population and area (and a very simple scaling)
% area housing = area_house * population
So...
aus 0.08%
nz 0.42%
us 1.82%
can 0.08%
uk 2.14%
The UK has comparably _more_ of it's land covered with housing than the other nations mentioned.
When you consider population density, UK >> US >> NZ > Canada > Australia.
You would _expect_ countries with much more wide open space to have bigger homes, and the other nations homes aren't so big _when you consider their countries' size and population_.
it's not only the area of land but the material's used in the housing, as well as when the housing where built.
The stagnation in other countries housing markets like the us is interesting, I don't know the answer but have they ever had social housing on the scale of the uk?
> [The TCPA] moved Britain from a system where almost any development was permitted anywhere, to one where development was nearly always prohibited. Since [it] was introduced in 1947, private housebuilding has never reached Victorian levels, let alone the record progress achieved just before the Second World War.
> Today, local authorities still have robust powers to reject new developments, and little incentive to accept them. Historically, local governments encouraged development because their tax bases grew in line with the extra value created, but this incentive has been eroded by successive reforms that have centralised and capped local governments’ tax-raising powers.
You might find that interesting. It's from the Adam smith institute. Central planning has been seriously damaging the UK since after ww2. Thatcher is blamed for destroying British industry. It started long before her.
I like Sam Bowman a lot, but are you sure the construction issue is central to this issue in particular? I suspect that access to capital is equally important: the UK is very finance-centric. I wonder how many VCs have engineering expertise, for instance.
I remember seeing tons of shipping containers repurposed as offices all over london last year. Was that a way to ease/get-around this real estate issue?
That isn't what I mean. The moral hazard is caused by the bailouts. It isn't about the sum itself. Merely the guarantee that the tab for large gambling losses will be taken by the taxpayers.
Thankyou for this comment. The GFC is a complicated subject; there WAS a lot of reprehensible behavior, but it's often not correctly identified because people like simple problems with clear villains.
The history of Anglo-Irish Bank is an even more interesting story; Sean Quinn is one of the few bankers who was actually jailed, even if only for a short time.
As a Brit, when I was raising the seed round for my startup, UK and European VCs would consistently try to haggle you down on price while the American VC's were exclusively focussed on trying to figure out whether this could be a billion dollar business or not (in the end we raised a $5m seed led by Spark, and have done extremely well and raised more since).
The UK lost Deep Mind - which could have been OpenAI!! -- to Google. I think part of the issue is cultural - the level of ambition in the UK is just small compared to the US. Individual founders like Demis or Tom Blomfield may have it but recruiting enough talent with the ambition levels of early Palantir or OpenAI employees is so hard because there are so few. Instead, a lot of extremely smart people in the UK would rather get the 'safe' job at Google, or McKinsey than the 'this will never work but can you imagine how cool it would be if it did' job at a startup.
There are probably political reasons as well. Unfortunately the UK has not been well governed for 20 years or so, and hence economic outcomes as a whole have been abysmal.
> As a Brit, when I was raising the seed round for my startup, UK and European VCs would consistently try to haggle you down on price while the American VC's were exclusively focussed on trying to figure out whether this could be a billion dollar business or not (
Yes we have many comments on HN talking about how harmful the US VCs attitude is because they force good businesses into choosing between being unicorns and not getting funding.
I do not know the truth of it, but clearly its not obvious.
> Unfortunately the UK has not been well governed for 20 years or so, and hence economic outcomes as a whole have been abysmal.
I commented on this earlier. The UK's economic outcomes have been similar to comparable European economies (like Germany) and better than some (like France). Whatever the problem is, its not unique to the UK: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42766107
I do not think the UK is well run, but I think the west in general is badly run. Poorly thought out regulation, short termism in both politics and business, a focus on metrics subject to Goodhart's and Campbell's laws, and a poor understanding of the rest of the work (leading to bad foreign policy).
For the last 20 or 25 years the UK has been coasting on the North Sea oil&gas money, I'd say that worked up until the early 2010s, and then on the almost complete financialization of its economy and on selling out whatever pieces of the economy could still be sold out (that includes part of their beloved NHS).
But that can only work for so long and is beneficial in the medium to long-term for a very limited number of people (basically the owners of said financial capital), at some point you have to produce some real wealth, wealth produced from real stuff via resources of the Earth + human ingenuity and, yes, + human work.
I agree, but my point is that the France, Germany, and other comparable European economies have the same or similar problems. The UK is not some exception, it is a typical western economy. The US is an outlier (doing better).
> that includes part of their beloved NHS
A more severe problem is that the NHS was debt funded (mostly through off balance sheet debt) in the 2000s. The government kept their promise not to increase national debt by disguising running up disguised debt in the NHS
Its also worth noting that a large chuck of NHS services, GP services in particular, were always subcontracted to private providers.
Germany was quite fine until a couple of years ago, mostly thanks to very cheap Russian gas. About France I agree, they have the same problems as the Brits do, maybe because they lost access to cheap African mineral resources as a result of Francafrique [1] ending? I couldn't tell, to be honest.
But at the end of the day the point remains that if you want to have a world-beating economy you need to have access to relatively cheap inputs (which includes energy), in large enough amounts, otherwise your economy will just not make it. The Americans have that (people forget how much of an economic boom gas fracking brought with it), the Chinese have that (thanks to its very large population and access to natural resources that is reasonable enough, they're no 1930s Japan), India has that (thanks to its very large and young population), even Russia has that (thanks to its natural resources), meanwhile Europe has almost no demographic advantage and almost no natural resources left to exploit. "Innovation" (which is also lacking) and financialization alone can get you only so far.
Germany's number one economic problem is energy costs. Blaming the increase on Russian gas hits only a tiny slice of the problem.
The real problem is a completely botched "energy transition", which deprecated very important energy sectors, which were still absolutely needed.
To be clear, I am in favor of renewables. One benefit is that they create independence from the whims of the US and Russia. Nevertheless the transition has been completely botched, driving up energy costs and making certain industries essentially non-viable.
The government focused on two things, increasing renewable peak production and deprecating nuclear. What they completely neglected is how to actually have a sustainable grid, which can cheaply deliver energy even with little sunshine and little wind. What was needed was easily regulated power (e.g. nuclear) and sufficient storage. Nuclear was completely abandoned and most government incentives were focused on increasing peak production, neglecting the storage of energy.
This is obviously harmful to the German industry, which is electricity heavy. This problem has also been consistently ignored and actively made worse in recent years, by continuing to shut down nuclear plants, even if it was clear that more energy production was needed.
While legislation restricting innovation is a problem, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, all have the same bigger problem of expecting smaller and smaller working populations to support bigger and bigger non working populations.
In the long term, the level of wealth transfer in these countries is not sustainable, and each year it incentivizes those who produce to seek greener pastures where they get more rewards.
You could outgrow the problem, by increasing individual productivity or you can stop the wealth transfer. It will stop sooner or later anyway.
I made some comments elsewhere about the long term. It is delusional to think that it is possible to continually have jobs that pay significantly more than identical jobs elsewhere in the world.
Yes, but the two are related because increasing earned income tax and other taxes to fund non workers on people who do work sap the incentive to work in a manner that increases productivity (either via working more hours or working on hard problems).
Absolutely, definitely those two problems can only be solved together. Although right now I see very little effort going in that direction. If anything social benefits and taxes are increasing.
Germany's progressive tax system also directly incentivizes working fewer hours, as the more you work the smaller your hourly wage becomes.
It's not a surprise that EU countries perform similarly as they have to abide by the same laws and therefore are all restricted in the same ways. For example EU drone regulations prohibit the flying of autonomous drones therefore killing innovation in that area.
Under-rated comment. This is basically the whole explanation. 2008 did a huge amount of damage, not just immediately but to long-term mindsets. Ironically I think it's even entrenched the meme that the only real way to make money in the UK is property. We're all Georgists now.
(this includes property as an export industry! Leaving increasing areas of the UK owned by overseas absentee landlords.)
The problem is that people think property is a risk free way of making money - even if they borrow heavily to invest. Maybe what we need is a property price crash.
I'm not sure a property price crash would achieve this goal.
You will have to decide for yourself if I'm speaking from experience or have motivated reasoning, as I'm saying this as an overseas absentee landlord who bought a UK apartment around the tail end of the previous price crash, initially as a place to live in until I decided the UK wasn't for me any more, and was rich enough to do so without a mortgage.
(I left the UK in 2018 due to a mix of Brexit and technological incompetence in the form of the Investigatory Powers Act. Would have left UK sooner but for parent with Alzheimer's).
Reason being: the income from housing doesn't have to come from reselling houses (which a price crash would impact) — I'm collecting rent, not flipping property. Forecasts future increases to rental rates suggests it won't keep getting worse (relative to general inflation) than it already is for renters, but it's already obviously quite bad.
In 2018 the UK had not officially completed the process of leaving, so I found a spare room in Berlin, got on a plane and flew, did the initial paperwork for registering with the various things that need to be registered in Germany, and went job hunting.
Just before the actual cut-off date for customs controls, I had the stuff that had been in storage (loft of family house) shipped over.
In the UK it more or less is a risk free way to make money. The government's hand is always seen when a danger to the property market prices hoves into sight.
What is needed is a steady decrease in demand or an increase in supply.
The cost of living crisis is directly caused by the huge bureaucracy needed to build new housing. And speculators are benefiting from that. As long as governments are unwilling to let go of regulations housing costs will only increase.
In Germany lifelong renting is seen as a normal and acceptable thing to do, not a temporary stepping stone which will hinder you from achieving your life goals.
The Conservative party used austerity rhetoric as a way to win votes, but they did not cut spending other than reversion to the mean after the high spending around 2008.
See here for international comparison of government spending as % of GDP (the second figure showing trends over time), UK is not an outlier:
> Yes we have many comments on HN talking about how harmful the US VCs attitude is because they force good businesses into choosing between being unicorns and not getting funding.
HN has a very wide range of economic opinions, and some people are extremely uninformed about what it takes to do hard things that can't be grown organically, and what it takes to maintain a business running when it's done the hard thing in the face of competition.
Most of the issues here relate to scale and actual quality of the idea/business in the first place. Hard things can really be split into, challenging but a problem to solve, or this never should have become a business. The former will work well with the right sort of investors. The latter will eventually sink, the investors simply provide money and poor ideas such as trying to incorporate AI into every business model.
> Yes we have many comments on HN talking about how harmful the US VCs attitude is because they force good businesses into choosing between being unicorns and not getting funding.
Most of those are people complaining about a business having to make changes because it took $50+m in funding and now needs to justify it. The business was only "good" because it got $50m and didn't need to do things like charge enough money. If it hadn't gotten that $50m then those people wouldn't consider it such a good business or even know about it.
Completely agree, the problem in Europe is not regulations or anything like that - it is a mindset issue. It is one of things that europeans can learn from Americans.
My hypothesis is that this is a combination of old money and class consciousness. In other words, the rich are risk averse because all they care is preserving their wealth and the working class don’t believe and can’t even imagine that more is possible.
Regulations often stem from a particular mindset. However, they also serve to perpetuate that mindset.
As a member of the working class, I find there’s little incentive to build something new or innovate because the effort required to navigate through all the burdensome regulations is overwhelming. On top of that, any additional income I might generate from bringing my ideas or initiatives to market would be taxed at more than 50%. For many people like me, the effort simply isn’t worth it. Instead, we focus our energy on other pursuits, such as family, sports, or friendships.
This shift in focus isn’t inherently bad—a life balanced between family, friends, work, and leisure is often a recipe for happiness. However, societal progress relies heavily on the efforts of a small minority of individuals who are bold (or perhaps crazy) enough to pursue their ideas. When 90% of those individuals are discouraged from taking entrepreneurial risks, society’s capacity for innovation is severely stifled.
In short, it’s clear that excessive regulations and high taxes are holding Europe back from achieving its full potential for growth and innovation.
Which regulations exactly you find burdensome or overwhelming and stopping you from attempting the become wealthy, change your life and the world maybe?
Why would you skip having 1 billion Euros just because you could have had 2 Billion but the government took the rest? Up until 1960's rich Americans payed %91 tax, and yet they kept their entrepreneurial spirit - why you can't do the same at the stated %50?
It's not so much any single regulation, as it is there's so many little ones that seem reasonable on the face of it. But it's also that what makes the ruling Canadian class so is the authority to bypass those regulations.
I can give one personal example; I was able to secure some public funding application for a non profit I'm affiliated with. But the only reason I was able to do that was because my parents were university classmates of the elected official that was able to pressure the staff that was handling the paperwork to prioritize and approve our application ahead of probably the hundreds in front of us. The official's going to get a nice thank you dinner out of it, but I also had to offer some information that the official could financially benefit from for him to even consider it, and a promise of some future favors.
For better or worst that's how a lot of Canadian system works. Grant applications, personal tax work, personal and business banking, etc. Anyone can get through it eventually for anything. But if you want it done quickly and in a way probably won't get tied up in the system itself, you better know someone that owes you a favor.
This is very interesting anecdote because it resonates with something that a friend of mine said when I pressured him to explain which regulations exactly are causing him problems in EU.
As it turns out, he also complained about excessive documentation he needs to get public funds for his project.
So both of you are actually complaining about accessing public funds and not actually doing private investment or starting a private company with private funds.
this is not what most of the Americans do and this is not what they mean by startups or business. Mostly.
Sort of. Accessing private Canadian financing is a lot harder for the most part, our financial sector is notoriously risk averse for any sort of personal or business loans unless there's a path of guaranteed returns and you have a track record of getting those returns. Last time one of my bosses tried to get something like $2 million in raising funds with Canadian investors, they said that we needed to show I think at least $2 million in net profits for 4 or 5 years at least.
Public funding is easier to access in part because the people that are overseeing it usually don't understand or care to understand what it is they're overseeing. My boss in 2015 or so was presenting my regular IT work as research and development and somehow it worked.
It's not just in new business either. Canada has the lowest investments in business machinery like computers to improve productivity. I don't know what the friction in that regard but just to give you an example; the big name company I was working in 2023 retired the DLink Fast Ethernet switches that we were using as core networking for one of our labs. $200 to upgrade the component that was bottle necking 20+ employees was not worth it and I had to buy it out of my own pocket to demonstrate just how badly it was hampering. And this was after showing fancy power points on the financial impact of 20+ employees doing file transfers at 1/10th the speed they could be (not so much that they didn't have the money, they just didn't believe that an engineer could understand finances. Go figure).
> Sort of. Accessing private Canadian financing is a lot harder for the most part, our financial sector is notoriously risk averse for any sort of personal or business loans unless there's a path of guaranteed returns and you have a track record of getting those returns. Last time one of my bosses tried to get something like $2 million in raising funds with Canadian investors, they said that we needed to show I think at least $2 million in net profits for 4 or 5 years at least.
If someone's businesses is already working, then why would they go and get investment money?
It seems like the investors don't realize that if someone does have that much net profit, they actually don't have that much leverage over them to get good equity deals. So they are essentially just paying high and selling low later.
> Why would you skip having 1 billion Euros just because you could have had 2 Billion but the government took the rest?
No one's making that choice. Most businesses fail, even in somewhere entrepreneur-friendly like America. Why not just work for someone else, given the rewards are capped even at relatively low level of success? Why take the risk, when taxation has failed to price risk into reward?
We have global commerce; you are not only working on the creation part of something new, but also competing with similarly skilled people working with different more advantageous start conditions.
Nobody is talking about the difference between 1 and 2 billion, they are talking about the difference between 50 and 100 thousand, while competing.
Does it? How many people skipped getting rich because they could have been richer? Any factual examples?
BTW, rich don't actually pay much taxes. The luxury life they live is usually not taxed, most of the things they do is considered business expense.
When a worker flies to Ibiza they first pay social security and income taxes, then they pay consumption taxes like VAT.
When a businessman flies to Ibiza they deduct whatever they can as an expense so they don't pay income tax and VAT. For whatever they can't claim that it is a business expense they will pay with a cheap loan against their assets and avoid paying income taxes. Since they still have those assents, they pay just the interest later when the assents increase in value. If their business fails those assets fail, the bank takes the assets and no taxation happens.
What the OP is trying to say is that to grow from 50k euros earned per year to 1 million euros earned per year is very, very cumbersome and, yes, mentally challenging and very stressful, and that a lot of people actively choose to stay/remain at the 50k euros per year level and they'll not take the risks of trying to get to more than 1 million per year.
Once you're at more than 1 million per year there are other challenges and you can probably afford to hire someone to take part of that burden off your shoulders, but until you get to that point you're on your own and it's very damn stressful (and by stressful I mean that that includes the possible inflated but all to real fear of getting to prison because of that tax-thingie that you didn't fill the 100% correct way or because some work your company did broke some municipal regulations or whatever and now you're on the hook for damages and, yes, personal liability).
Actually your VAT-skimming thing at the end is a very good example of that mentality, i.e. the innovators here having to have the Tax man front and center in their minds, before innovation and trying to build something useful off the ground, because if you don't know how to play the Tax man (at the limit of legality, as your example is) then you're toast. That "playing the Tax-man" thing consumes a lot of people's energy in the early stages, energy that would have been way better spent trying to actually make something new and innovative.
[the 50k and 1 million figures are just used as examples, maybe it's not 50k but 70k or 80k and maybe it's not 1 million but 5 to 10 million, but the idea stays the same]
Those problems are universal. Or do you honestly think that American startups don't need to hire an accountant and consult with lawyers? You either find the risk/reward proposition worthwhile or you don't. There's nothing wrong with not pursuing the riskier avenue but don't pretend the US makes it easy.
There are levels and levels of enforcement, and, yes, from the across the pond it does look like the IRS is not breathing as menacingly each and every time you may want to do something different.
For example a company like Uber could have never taken off here in Europe because the tax authorities (and not only) would have never let that happened, i.e. Uber (the company) playing the "they're not real employees" game with the authorities. Yes, Uber eventually made it into Europe, but only because by that time it already was a big and established company in the States so it had lots of money to spend on lobby activities.
For a married couple in Germany, they reach 40% in effective tax rate somewhere above 600,000€ in combined annual income.
My take would be that once people have 100k€ in net annual income per person, they just do other things and work less because it brings them more happiness than the additional money would.
I’m 33, in the U.K. and my marginal tax rate is currently 66.7%, because the support you get for having children gets withdrawn between £60000 and £80000. If a promotion came up I would take it but it’s also at a point where I’m considering already dropping down to four days a week because of this. I don’t live in London so my life is very affordable. Save myself money on children’s nursery for a few years too…
What makes you think anything has changed here? Certainly in the UK, there are plenty of "loopholes". Outside of PAYE, there are plenty of ways to legally lower your tax burden, and plenty of wealthy business owners and shareholders make full use of those loopholes.
This is true and I believe it doesn't make sense to compare tax burdens of the people who are already wealthy.
It makes sense to compare tax burdens of well-paid employees, a favorite cash cow of most governments. These are the people who sometimes start new businesses, and use their savings to do so.
And there is a meaningful difference to the volume of their savings if their top tax bracket is 30 per cent or 55 per cent.
You've fallen into the classic trap of thinking about the very very very tiny of people who are billionaires. Very few people are billionaires. Very few startup founders will ever be even if they succeed.
Life changing money is going from $50k/year to $1m/year. Not from $1b to $2b.
The vast majority of tax burden and complexity hits the middle class.
In Europe the capital gain tax ranges from %37 in Norway, %34 in France, %26 in Germany and Italy, %10 in Bulgaria and %0 with conditions in many other places. Tax heavens are a European invention anyway.
And no, millionaire or billionaire doesn't matter much. Europe lacks Billionaires not Millionaires. Europe is full of small businesses and by small I mean millions in profits and revenues.
In Europe %99 of the companies are small or medium sized enterprises, which is not different than the USA. In USA however, large companies have slightly higher number of employees which is an indicative of concentration of power and that's how you get your "USA has 5 unicorns in top 10 but EU has only 1" lists.
edit: And in the US there's no need to start a business to be a millionaire. You can become one by just working a regular job. Sales, consulting, tech, finance, etc. jobs can even pay you $1m per year.
Thats not an entirely fair comparison because GDP/capita is different, and the base assumption would be that millionaires/capita increases with GDP.
That assumption appears to hold in general (Luxembourg and Switzerland have higher GDP and significantly higher millionaire percentages than the US), but there are a LOT of exceptions, like Ireland/Norway (way less millionaires than you would expect from GDP).
This is very interesting, I would not have expected to see such significant differences between countries...
From what I can tell the millionaire discrepancy existed in 2010 as well when the per capita GDPs between Germany/France/UK and the US were fairly close. The gini index for the US is much higher so it's not surprising that there's more millionaires per capita. And a lot more poor people per capita as well (once you account for the US's weaker standard for what constitutes poverty).
The US has a pension, it is called Social Security, and it is relatively generous among developed countries. 401k is in addition to, not a replacement for.
I never said people were better off in one or the other nor is this a discussion about that. This is a discussion of the societal differences driving startups and risky investments.
With enough inflation the millionaires supply will increase, but that's not the point. Toplists and arbitrary round numbers doesn't mean anything. Let's stick with stuff that matter, like concentration of wealth.
Having less is different than lacking of. Europe lacks billionaires that can make large scale investments at whim like Elon Musk does. A more equal society has its positives but negatives too.
The 50% tax being a roadblock is exactly what the lack of ambition is about. There's an implicit assumption you're only ever achieve just over the tax limit rather than hundreds of thousands or milllions over with share options etc.
I think this is a combination of a lack of supportive environment and a risk averse mindset. Employers will likely scoff at a CV with one or more entrepreneurial stints. The way I see it is this: if the prohibition era was implemented in the UK, people would still acquire alcohol against any and all barriers. The same drive doesn't exist for entrepreneurial goals. Regulations make things difficult but the critical problem is that the entrepreneurial mindset is not there
> As a member of the working class, I find there’s little incentive to build something new or innovate because the effort required to navigate through all the burdensome regulations is overwhelming. On top of that, any additional income I might generate from bringing my ideas or initiatives to market would be taxed at more than 50%. For many people like me, the effort simply isn’t worth it.
I find it ironic you mention "classes" (regarding "as a member of the working class"). There are problems everywhere (either as an employee or as an entrepreneur). Feeling overwhelmed is just a feeling, does not say anything about how much you can do or if you get a reasonable workload.
I think what is holding Europe back is the people not trying and understanding various things without having lots of fears (of being overwhelmed, of large tax, of what people will say, etc.).
A balance must be stricken also between what you can do (leisure, family) and how many resource you produce/consume. The purpose should be for more of leisure/family but that is ONLY IF we (I am also European) produce/consume enough. Too many smart and capable people want to "just be an employee", which results in gaps in other places (entrepreneurs, politicians, etc.).
EU drone regulations ban autonomous drones from being flown. This made me stop work on them, this is not a mindset problem. It's actually a corruption problem as Google wanted to sell their software to coordinate drone flights and the EU people were "persuaded" to enact regulations to make this happen.
This is interesting, can you give a bit more details maybe? Which regulations are not allowing you to do what? I wasn’t able to find the ban, is it maybe more about safety and privacy requirements rather than outright ban?
It's a case of what is not explicitly allowed is banned, that is the difference between European continental law and English law where things are allowed unless explicitly banned. Here is a quote from the email I had from the CAA -
"At present the CAA do not allow for these types of flights as there has to be some degree of collision avoidance in that the aircraft must be kept in visual line of sight at all times to avoid a collision.
The CAA does not regulate the use of drones indoors and there is a short section on indoor use at the following web page, about ½ way down the page.
Yes, there are advantages of a stable and well functioning systems that don't have disruptors and we indeed benefit of it as having good lives but unfortunately this can't last as those who go hard on progress and tear down everything and rebuilding again will eventually get ahead on everything and won't let us just be as we now see with US billionaires having impact over Europe.
Americans feel more pain but are also rewarded, Europe has no option but to become progressive - otherwise tere will be no more Europe and the Americans and Chinese will make us adopt their ways.
Oh, BTW, America is also struggling. The latest political developments are an attempt to change course - they are trying to become a bit more like Europe with the race and class based politics holding roots. They say they are anti-regulation anti-discrimination(of whites specifically) but the core MAGA movement is all about putting barriers and preserving old ways for the benefit of a subset of people. Americans are too in soul searching. Their MAGA literally means fixing what is no longer great but their demands are actually quite conservative and they already begin falling off with their accelerations partners.
> unfortunately this can't last as those who go hard on progress and
tear down everything and rebuilding again
A notion of "bare progress" is the elephant in the room. Progress is a
vector. It has magnitude and direction. People talk of moving "forward
or back", but science also has a steering wheel.
> and the Americans and Chinese will make us adopt their ways.
This very notion of "progress" as a totalitarian force is also
dangerous. The boot is on the other foot from 80 years ago. When
Europe was starting a 1000 year technological master-race, more
measured minds had to extinguish that fire. I see many similarities
today - people seeing "progress" simply as dominance.
I liked the brain-dump in TFA, but I think it's over-complex and too
tied to a contemporary interpretation of capital investment.
We've been spooging away our talent for generations here. Look at how
we treated Turing. We mismanage or sell-off everything cool we invent.
What Britain still suffers from is class disloyalty. We still have a
strong but invisible class system which is now international
financiers. Those sorts "float above" the ordinary economy, they are
disconnected from UK interests and don't give a toss about
engineering, science, knowledge, education...
> When Europe was starting a 1000 year technological master-race, more measured minds had to extinguish that fire
A lot of the measured minds were saying eugenics was a good idea. It took the horror of seeing experiments and concentration camps to make it so deeply unfashionable the idea couldn't even survive in academia.
I believe you're right. Edwin Black's "IBM and the Holocaust" and
Kazuo Ishiguro's "The Remains of the Day" both played their part in
revising my naive ideas about simple narratives of WW2.
But look at this post made here a couple of days ago [0]. It's
absolutely back in fashion. I think technofascism really is a thing
now - you can feel certain people getting quite giddy with thoughts of
power.
Power's always in fashion. Academics seem to love socialism, because it (in practice) centralises decision-making nationally to a group of smart people (and the academics might imagine themselves to be these insanely powerful people).
Eugenics was the same. It was a Progressive way of thinking, if I remember correctly.
> Everyone wants to imagine themselves "insanely powerful people" now. It's part of the sell.
I'm not sure this is true. Socialism does have a surprising foothold, but I think that's largely due to the larger number of people flowing through academia.
>Yes, there are advantages of a stable and well functioning systems
Current EU is definitely not a stable and well functioning system. Look at economic conditions, political outcomes, illegal immigration, wealth inequality, societal and political trust, homelessness rates, birth rates, free speech suppression, welfare austerity, etc Everything has been going downhill since the 2008 crash. It's a powder keg.
>they are trying to become a bit more like Europe with the race and class based politics holding roots.
What are you on about? Europe doesn't have much race based politics, that's a thing America keeps pushing.
That's quite the conservative talk-radio shopping list.
Illegal immigration is a metric of the EUs economic success and social stability compared with North Africa, Eastern European Accession States, and the war-torn middle east. If America shared land borders and direct migration routes with Islamic caliphates and the like, they'd know all about it.
Economic Conditions and Political Outcomes are pretty sane and tolerable for all but a select group of (surprise surprise) US backed agitators like Hungary. You have to remember that the EU is run as a society rather than an economy, and must be judged on this ethos. People are very fond of using the comparable GDPs of Bavaria and Mississippi in this conversation - forgetting to mention the life expectancy is 10 years less and infant mortality 400% higher on the US side.
Societal and Political trust is still quite high - despite much fearmongering, the far-right are not gaining the political capital necessary to instigate significant change outside of Hungary.
Homelessness rates are a factor of illegal migration - and are laughably low compared to the US on a per capita basis; ditto whatever warped contention you have regarding 'welfare austerity'. We just call it social security. During Covid and in the period afterwards it was hugely ramped up across Europe - and not in a giveaway budget with a check personally signed by an Oligarch.
Re 'free speech suppression' I'm really not sure what you're aiming at. The current cultural friction regarding things like gender-identification and pronoun usage are uniquely american exports. On basically all other counts other than venue-shopping defamation cases, it's a moot point for any normal person.
Finally re birth rates - they tend to go down in wealthy and advanced societies outside of select religious groupings (looking at you Salt Lake City) so I'm not sure what your point is there.
It isn't a "conservative talk-radio shopping list". It is reality in quite a few areas in Europe and the UK.
> Economic Conditions and Political Outcomes are pretty sane and tolerable for all but a select group of (surprise surprise) US backed agitators like Hungary. You have to remember that the EU is run as a society rather than an economy, and must be judged on this ethos. People are very fond of using the comparable GDPs of Bavaria and Mississippi in this conversation - forgetting to mention the life expectancy is 10 years less and infant mortality 400% higher on the US side.
This isn't true. I know many people that have moved from Spain to Hungary. Most of these people where politically fairly normal e.g. either centre-left right or centre-left. I speak to people from all over Europe regularly and many of them do not feel the way that you are describing.
> Societal and Political trust is still quite high - despite much fearmongering, the far-right are not gaining the political capital necessary to instigate significant change outside of Hungary.
That isn't true. I know many areas of Europe where the electorate keep on voting for further right parties. The same is happening in the UK. Labour only won because the Conservatives lost and the Reform party did extremely well for what is a relatively new party. I know the same is happening in Belgium (I speak regularly with Belgian nationals). Areas of Spain that are most affected by immigration have voted for further right parties. So I know this isn't true.
> Re 'free speech suppression' I'm really not sure what you're aiming at.
Just look up the hate speech laws enacted throughout Europe and in the UK and some of the cases that have been prosecuted. We do not have a right to the free speech in the UK and the majority of Europe doesn't either.
>>This isn't true. I know many people that have moved from Spain to Hungary. Most of these people where politically fairly normal e.g. either centre-left right or centre-left. I speak to people from all over Europe regularly and many of them do not feel the way that you are describing.
The plural of anecdotes is not data, nor does your select social circle represent a cogent sample group.
Orbans stated position is to pivot Hungary from a democracy into an illiberal state, modeled after Putin's Russia. At the EU summit in mid-December, for example, he refused to agree to the extension of the Russia sanctions that expire at the end of January.
Hungary are on the brink of being kicked out of the Schengen Zone, have about 12 billion in EU funds frozen because of their stupidity, and are now getting loans off China like some sort of tinpot African dictatorship in order to bridge funding gaps.
The next biggest right-wing rise is - surprise surprise - bordering them and the ex-Soviet Bloc in Poland. That waned so quickly with the escalation of War in Ukraine that, even if they joined forces, Konfederacja + PiS could still not form a majority coalition for seat of the Polish Government.
>>That isn't true. I know many areas of Europe where the electorate keep on voting for further right parties. The same is happening in the UK.
You missed my key qualifier 'necessary to instigate significant change'. The Overton window shifts when society is impacted by War and mass refugee immigration, particularly in a period of high-taxes following high social spend (lockdown).
>> Just look up the hate speech laws enacted throughout Europe and in the UK and some of the cases that have been prosecuted.
Citations needed.
>> We do not have a right to the free speech in the UK and the majority of Europe doesn't either.
Well no, not explicitly, as they have a different legal and basis for law as the US - e.g. they don't have a codified constitution either as they came from a common law system based on the French Courts. Instead they hold the same proportional right as a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.
Its a moot point anyway as since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights across Europe.
Freedom o expression does not guarantee you freedom of consequence in Europe. If you make fun of a politicians they or the state can come back after you for it.
Political satire is one of the oldest and grandest cultural traditions in Europe. Hell, most European countries even have some variant of a political satire show like Spitting Image:
Eva Glawishnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland is a defamation case. Look up venue-shopping in London for American defamation cases if you want a counterpoint. The CJEU later clarified hosting providers’ obligations to remove defamatory content
Despite being acquitted, the Michael Much case was fairly understandable - the public prosecutor said freedom of expression had to be weighed against human dignity...(and) that propaganda does not fall under freedom of expression. No arguments here. 1A Rights aren't going to save you either, unless you call someone a 'pedo-guy'.
The reason I specifically brought up Spitting Image is that I knew you'd cite this case - with this point specifically argued in court.
"Partsch also pointed to popular TV-shows doing, he said, that did the same. If the court found against Much, it would mean a ban on creating political caricatures."
> Police searched Much’s house and removed and confiscated the posters. The public prosecutor imposed a penalty order of €6,000 for “criminal insult to politicians”.
The guy had his house searched by police, a €6000 fine and had to go challenge it in court. The fact that it happened at all is the problem.
NGL, I can't really argue with that. Thankfully it's not the same across Europe - Germany is just a basketcase when it comes to laws. It's like getting fined in Switzerland for falling off your bicycle. They're not even remotely consistent in how or why they're applying them.
"In Hamburg, a man (59) who had called Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck (54, Green Party) a “complete idiot” on “X” (formerly Twitter) went unpunished. In Wunsiedel, Bavaria, the district court has now imposed a hefty penalty on someone who called Habeck an “idiot.”
"P. feels he has been treated unfairly and claims: "My Facebook post was meant to be satirical." His role model: the ZDF satire magazine "heute-show" . It regularly awards the "Golden Idiot" prize, for example to Winfried Kretschmann (75, Green Party), Sigmar Gabriel (64, SPD) or Björn Höcke (51, AfD)."
> The plural of anecdotes is not data, nor does your select social circle represent a cogent sample group.
When something isn't easily quantifiable there is no data. OK sure then, but there wouldn't be anyway.
The fact is that people are talking about moving either out of Western Europe / UK to somewhere else and it is a common sentiment amongst many professionals.
> Orbans stated position is to pivot Hungary from a democracy into an illiberal state, modeled after Putin's Russia. At the EU summit in mid-December, for example, he refused to agree to the extension of the Russia sanctions that expire at the end of January.
Can you point me to a translated policy document or a more credible news source from like Hungary that I can translate? I don't take American news sources seriously for European issues as they frequently get basic things incorrect.
> Citations needed.
You can look up the laws yourself and the cases. They can easily be found. They are numerous. The law around speech is quite easy to find on the .gov websites.
> Well no, not explicitly, as they have a different legal and basis for law as the US - e.g. they don't have a codified constitution either as they came from a common law system based on the French Courts. Instead they hold the same proportional right as a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.
In the UK we literally don't have the right to free speech. I have actually read the law on this issue several years ago. Only in Parliament are you allowed to speak freely. There is nowhere where it says we have these rights, there are no cases that have decided that has ruled we have these rights. This is neither explicitly or implicitly.
> Its a moot point anyway as since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights across Europe.
Freedom of expression != Free speech. They are not the same thing and that is why hate speech laws exist in the majority of EU countries and in the UK. Time and time again people erroneously equate free-speech with free-expression. The UK government have themselves come out and said something to the effect of "You have the right to free expression, but not saying things we don't like" essentially.
You either are being wilfully ignorant or you are horrendously naive. Go and read the law yourself if you don't believe me.
>>The fact is that people are talking about moving either out of Western Europe / UK to somewhere else and it is a common sentiment amongst many professionals.
2022 and 2023 were the highest years on record for net migration into the UK. The only reason 2024 wasn't even higher was due to the new Conservative government's policy stopping international students from bringing dependents to the UK.
Migration to Ireland is at the highest level since 2007. It represents a 3.5 per cent increase in population - which in a given year would be one of the highest ever recorded for a single country.
>>Can you point me to a translated policy document or a more credible news source from like Hungary that I can translate? I don't take American news sources seriously for European issues as they frequently get basic things incorrect.
Wildly bad faith wasting of my time as it's one of the most famous speeches made in a Western Democracy in the 21st Century, but since I have to lead a horse to water... here's a translated transcript from the website of the HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT.
>>You can look up the laws yourself and the cases. They can easily be found. They are numerous. The law around speech is quite easy to find on the .gov websites.
But of course the rules are different for your opponent in debate. Laughable.
>> In the UK we literally don't have the right to free speech...Freedom of expression != Free speech. They are not the same thing and that is why hate speech laws exist in the majority of EU countries and in the UK
I think you're conflating two issues here - Hate Speech and 'Freedom' of Speech.
Hate speech receives substantial protection under the First Amendment and is specifically covered under 1A as per Matal v. Tam (2017). But there are several carve-outs. The most famous is the fighting words doctrine; a well known limitation to freedom of speech under 1A - enshrined in a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).
More to the point, the First Amendment prohibits defamation actions based on “loose, figurative language that no reasonable person would believe presented facts". Not actions like when Donald Trump defamed E Jean Carroll by denying her allegation of sexual assault to the tune of $80m+ in damages.
That said, this didn't stop ABC News paying $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape" as opposed to liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law. This is despite the substantial-truth doctrine which many jurisdictions adopted, which protects a defamation defendant as long as the “gist” of the story is true.
> 2022 and 2023 were the highest years on record for net migration into the UK. The only reason 2024 wasn't even higher was due to the new Conservative government's policy stopping international students from bringing dependents to the UK.
These aren't the same people as the people wanting to migrate away. I am talking about people that were born in their home countries wanting too leave. You are quite well aware of this you are being disingenuous.
Also there is 400,000 going out of the country last time I checked (and that was a good few years ago). Why are those people leaving?
> Migration to Ireland is at the highest level since 2007. It represents a 3.5 per cent increase in population - which in a given year would be one of the highest ever recorded for a single country.
Again this the same thing.
> Wildly bad faith wasting of my time as it's one of the most famous speeches made in a Western Democracy in the 21st Century, but since I have to lead a horse to water... here's a translated transcript from the website of the HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT.
I don't follow Hungarian politics. I also don't trust American news sources. Thank you for the link though.
> But of course the rules are different for your opponent in debate. Laughable.
While they numerous and frequently get buried on major search engines. It been an issue for years now in the UK.
There are literally countless cases now. Last time I checked there were 7 cases a day prosecuted and that was way back in 2018.
> I think you're conflating two issues here - Hate Speech and 'Freedom' of Speech.
Hate speech is a made up term to limit freedom of speech.
I am put in the unenviable position of defending people that I dislike because I think people should have the right to speak their mind.
> The most famous is the fighting words doctrine; a well known limitation to freedom of speech under 1A - enshrined in a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).
Firstly I am talking about the UK not the US. So why you are talking about the 1A in the US is beyond me.
Also I know Fighting words is not anything like the hate speech laws in the UK. So this is irrelevant.
> More to the point, the First Amendment prohibits defamation actions based on “loose, figurative language that no reasonable person would believe presented facts".
You are now conflating defamation with hate speech. These are not the same thing. Again this isn't irrelevant.
> Something something wilfully ignorant.
Yes you are being wilfully ignorant about UK hate speech laws. There are loads of cases in the UK where people have been prosecuted for Hate Speech, There is also non crime hate incidents which can show up on background checks when you go for a job.
Yeah right, Reform AFD Rassemblement national Fratelli d'Italia and other risings stars have nothing to do with race and even if they do it's Americans behind it.
Everyone knows that Europeans are much more racist than Americans, it's just that we are much less explicit about it and its issues are different than the issues in the USA.
The governments of Europe no longer hold a monopoly of violence. Terror groups and MENAPT groups have brought a diverse range of violent threats to people.
Building a robot army to solve this is one viable solution that is hardware and software based.
The efficient & practical way is to stop renewing residence and work visas, making acquisition of visas harder through complex demands of high language proficiency, and a high amount of money as proof-of-funds, perhaps requiring a local referral too. It's what countries that don't want immigrants but don't want to say it out loud do.
Illegal immigration is a BS term, make immigration legal if you don't want illegal immigrants. It's not like people choose the hard, dangerous and expensive ways instead of buying a Ryanair ticket. When the illegal immigrants BS doesn't hold they all start complaining about legal immigrants as with the UK and their core Brexit reason.
That's a ridiculous way of thinking about it. Anyone who says they don't want illegal immigrants isn't objecting simply because of the legal status, they think the process should be upheld which prevented those people from immigrating legally.
It's the same reason we don't seek to improve crime rates by legalising theft. Sure, there'd be fewer people labelled as "criminal", but the original problem would remain (and in all probability would become worse).
And why the process of immigrating legally is more than buying a ticket and a security check at the border?
Obviously, it is the reason that matters and the reason is not benign.
People want other people to like people in certain way they and then castrate Alan Turing for illegal love. People want to have slaves then they have illegally free slaves problem.
Well no, its not. Specifically in relation to Asylum Seekers contravening the EU Dublin Regulation and tearing up their passports on an intra-EU flight so they can claim Asylum and the associated social welfare in Ireland rather than France or Germany due to our much higher rates.
Basically economic migrants - predominately young men from the middle east - disguising themselves as Refugees and taking social supports away from the families fleeing warzones.
That is one subset of immigration crime that is rightly frown upon and can be completely avoided abolition of the country borders concept that was introduced in the last 100 years or less. Want to help people in need? Instead of confining them into areas and then impose restriction on those and give some of them some money, help those in need. Or don't help, but at least don't pretend that you are bringing justice to the world without addressing the core problems.
In other words, this is actually welfare fraud that happens to have a travel component.
I don't support illegal immigration, I say that people traveling and seeking better lives should not be illegal.
I think we are done here since I don't feel spending time for positions I never claimed. I despise this type of argumentation, its a known fallacy and its useless.
You can count yourself as won an arguments if you feel like that.
I can understand this might make sense if race (or ethnicity) were the only factor in the world to consider, but since it's not, is there value in thinking as though it is?
What makes me think that it's about race(loosely speaking. IMHO it's more about xenophobia and feeling like losing privilege o identity as a nation etc) is that once you make the immigration legal they start complaining about numbers like in Britain.
BTW I don't disagree with the people who don't want everyone be welcome, I just think that their solution ideas and demands are misguided. My observation is that people from various ethnicities can function in cohesion and are about the same when they are from a similar educational background and rarely have ethnical or racial issues among themselves and IMHO all the problems will be resolved if you let people naturally find their appropriate group they belong to instead of having BS like country borders and visas and DEI or race based positive discrimination etc.
Thanks for your reply. I think I agree with at least some of it, but it is still solely talking about race.
The worries people have, especially in somewhere like Britain, is it's a country with a relatively small population compared to the level of immigration, and housing is an enormous problem. One outcome that I think can be to a considerable extent[0] attributed to high net immigration is that housing has become smaller (many houses divided into flats), and housing has become much more expensive. So anyone who already owned a house is sitting fairly pretty, as they get bouyed up by the housing market, but anyone looking to buy for the first time, or buy into a new market for the first time (e.g. moving to near schools for kids) is going to have a massive problem, as the competitive pressure has up-bidded housing and made it worthwhile to subdivide and sell/rent smaller dwellings.
This could be all white people doing it (somewhere like Cornwall in the UK is mostly annoyed because other Brits buy holiday homes there, driving up prices for locals and their kids who are coming up) - it doesn't matter. The housing costs are what matter. And they, a bit like fuel, drive up everything else: NHS workers need higher salaries to just be able to live in many places, which drives up taxes.
This isn't to avoid actual race/ethnicity-related tensions. But there's a giant clump of people who are just fed up with their money going far less far than their parents' and grandparents' money did when it comes to one of the fundamentals of life: housing yourself and your family. And their parents and grandparents are equally upset that their kids/grandkids have in a major sense a harder life than they did.
[0] definitely not fully; there are multiple factors. But if you net import the equivalent of the population of Liverpool each year, and you aren't building a Liverpool each your to house them, it's obvious that prices will start shooting up.
Leisure, that is, truly retaining time to encourage and develop the spirit that is not just work
> There is an Indian savagery, a savagery peculiar to the Indian blood, in the manner in which the Americans strive after gold: and the breathless hurry of their work - the characteristic vice of the New World - already begins to infect old Europe, and makes it savage also, spreading over it a strange loss of spirit (Geistlosigkeit). One is now ashamed of repose: even long reflection almost causes remorse of conscience. Thinking is done with a stop-watch, as dining is done with the eyes fixed on the financial newspaper; we live like men who are continually "afraid of letting opportunities slip." "Better do anything whatever, than nothing" - this principle also is a noose with which all culture and all higher taste may be strangled. And just as all form obviously disappears in this hurry of workers, so the sense for form itself, the ear and the eye for the melody of movement, also disappear.
Quality of life, if you define an actual proper life as something happening outside of work hours and sleep.
We don't worry whether my insurance will cover the next health issue that will happen to me, be it broken leg or lifelong costly treatment. I don't have to desperately try to save maybe 1.5 million $ to put my kids through decent university, if they desire to do so. I am not brutally tossed on the sidewalk when I am fired, both employer and state gives a LOT of support to not fall off the societal cliff and end up as typical US homeless person. We have way more resting time to recharge via holidays (this fellow from 1.1. is running on 90% corporate work contract and thus sporting 50 vacations days per year - now thats QOL improvement, I've already planned 6 week+ vacations for this year). We have on average simply healthier lifestyles and it shows literally massively.
I could go on for a long time. But you can ignore that - compare usage of mental health medication, from what I've seen its much more massive in US, manifesting the additional stress that US population is cca exposed to.
Its a balance - you add more money, you remove more 'humanity', and the additional stress is there and very real. Everybody has different ideal spot, and this also changes a lot during life. Isn't it better to have 2 systems next to each other, and everybody can pick how they want to live your life? Focus purely on money is stupid, their added value in life quickly diminishes once a person is not poor, then other aspects of life become much more important. The complete opposite is same, 0 progress. Something in between, as always, is the best road for most.
You also get your defence and healthcare advancements mostly paid for by Americans, either as taxes or healthcare costs that funnel into R&D spend. It's easy to give things away when you mostly only have maintenance costs to bear, and not very much risk.
> don’t believe and can’t even imagine that more is possible.
And/or don't think that more is better/desirable. I wouldn't consider myself working class, but I was definitely raised with the idea that making obscene amounts of money is actually pretty selfish/immoral and not something one ought to strive for. That doesn't preclude going into business. But it is pretty antithetical to the VC funding model and the creation of billion dollar businesses.
In general, it seems that the culture in America is that wealth is virtuous and confers status, whereas in Europe that at least isn't so universal and some circles it is even seen as shameful (consider that variants on socialism are still mainstream political ideologies in Europe).
Yeah, I was raised with that idea. I did make some nice businesses, but I don't care for growing because of growing. If I catch a few 100k a year for everyone in the company (yep, it is the reason I like tiny companies: we can just decide to all make the same), I don't really care about the rest. Doing that for 10 years (even shorter but he) is enough for anyone to live out their life in comfort out of the (etfs etc) interest here. I keep on doing making new things as I like it, but need no more money, so that helps.
Success is viewed differently by some. Being educated, having healthy lives, having access to many public servicesnare seen as a successful healthy life by many.
It’s not something that Americans in general explicitly believe, but you can see it in their attitudes and behavior towards the rich and successful. For example, HN (being somewhat weighted towards American cultural norms) collectively believes that people who have made lots of money are especially wise and hard working, and therefore have special insights to offer to the rest of us. True or not, this is a culturally specific belief.
I think this is just a bias. I've not seen much that makes me think Americans think rich people are more virtuous, at all. Certainly not enough to create a stereotype out of, even if I thought stereotypes were a good idea.
But we're not talking about obscene amounts of money. Just making enough to have some savings so you can do things like a career break or retire early is discouraged (and mostly impossible). Europe wants you to work, and keep working, forever.
Considering the differences in living prices in major capitals and other cities, I would claim you can do that (career break/retire early) even today in multiple countries in Europe.
But that would mostly mean changing places. If you go and work 10-15 years in an expensive/high pay city, you could retire in a less expensive city.
On the other hand if you expect that everything will be as when you were working (place, expenses, etc.), I am not sure it is the case even in the US for early retirements ...
> it seems that the culture in America is that wealth is virtuous and confers status, whereas in Europe that at least isn't so universal and some circles it is even seen as shameful
Isn't this due to different types of Christian traditions? AFAIK In some, it is considered that the wealth is given by the God to the virtuous ones and they are merely guardians of it and responsible to use use the wealth in a virtuous ways and therefore getting rich is encouraged and the rich are treated with respect?
There's something similar among some Muslim sects too, in Muslim majority countries it is not uncommon to believe that the God chose someone to be rich and there's more to that person that the eye can see therefore must be respected. Some religious communities even get so obscenely rich and you can see poor servants having a religious experience when their leader arrives with an a luxury car.
The way I see it, at least in France, it's not really a question of religion. "The rich" are thought to have acquired their wealth doing dubious things, mostly by "exploiting the poor".
There's also a very strongly egalitarian way of thinking, as in pretty much everybody is interchangeable. So, if someone does better than somebody else, it's likely because of something "unfair" (or luck) and not thanks to being more competent.
I've never personally known any "very rich" people so I can't comment on them.
But the perception I'm talking about applies even to "reasonably confortable" people. Think your random engineer making 100k a year (which is a "good" salary in these parts). Basically, someone with some form of STEM degree.
I doubt most of these people are doing anything shady. Plus, this kind of income doesn't really give them any kind of financial independence: they wouldn't be able to afford not having a job.
> I doubt most of these people [random engineer making 100k a year] are doing anything shady.
I guess it depends what your level of "shady" is - I know a bunch of people in that kind of range who were all about "optimising their tax" (which I would consider to be "tax evasion" - morally wrong even if it is legal at the time.)
You know "optimizing" means different things for different people.
For example: France offers specific saving deposits with guaranteed interest rate and non-taxed. If a normal saving deposit would be taxed and has similar interest rate, "optimizing their tax" means just using the that specific deposit.
There are many other schemes that I can't believe they exist (example: in France if you create an investment account, after 5 years of the account existence you are not taxed on the gains! So what you can do is "create account with 100 euro", "wait 5 years", "invest more / potentially do gains" - and you will not be taxed!!!)
You will tell me "that is morally wrong!". I could agree with you, but I see nobody demanding better laws/regulations, probably because they don't know/care about details.
No, I think the investment account with no tax on gains is fine. I'm talking about things like "create a company, take a salary that's just over the lowest tax threshold, get 0% infinite term company loans from yourself" - things that your average person wouldn't be doing (unlike the free-gains-account.)
My experience is that "common people" try (or were trying) as much to "game the system" as "rich people". Examples (not from UK): shops not giving a receipt (this improved probably with cards), people avoiding paying fines for small things, people asking for benefits they were not entitled too (this improves with digitalisation) etc.
So, my opinion is that splitting people by class/income/whatever does not help a lot. You need rules/systems to avoid as much as possible cheating schemes, and compared to like 30 years ago things might already be better, but as nobody can check every news many can end with the impression "the system is bad".
In Germany, you can typically finance the first 1-3 years of your start-up through government gifts like "EXIST". That's why you don't need early seed investors.
EXIST is very narrowly tailored to technology start-ups founded by graduates based on their research.
Out of curiosity I was spot-checking the the founders of the latest YC 24 Winter batch at https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?batch=W24 , and the requirements would exclude at least 90% of them from EXIST if they lived in Germany.
Your sentence is not true as you present it. There are _a lot_ of constraints. Time wise, topic wise, biased wise. No typicality start-up will ever get the EXIST "gift".
Correct, that was meant as an example. There's also "Existenzgründungszuschuss" for the unemployed and various other EU funds for craftsmen and others:
Idk about the Netherlands, but in France you can take your unemployment benefits for 3 years upfront as a capital investment in a new business. And there are various grants and aid you can apply for.
In CAC40 company, It is possible to take unpaid leave with the possibility of returning to the company to set up a new business. The idea is that if the project fails, the original company recovers an employee who has learned a lot (free MBA).
If you're already unemployed, it's possible to keep your allowance longer for a business start-up or takeover.
It's also possible to sign a “rupture conventionée”, which entitles you to unemployment benefits.
But no, if the employee resigns, he or she is not entitled to unemployment benefits, nor to business start-up assistance.
the French system is generous, but not as generous.
I see this misconception a lot for resigning France.
First, there are some "protected classes" of resigning that allow you to be eligible for unemployment right after you resign, for example: moving to follow your spouse, resigning less than 3 months after having been laid off, going back to study or... creating a company!![1] :).
Second, you are entitled to unemployment benefits even if you resign without "a good reason". The issue is that you can only request your benefits 4 months after having resigned. This leads to many people believing that you just do not get anything if you resign; because who wants to eat the 4 months of no income?
This 4 months waiting period is not advertised at all, and my complotist self believes it might be on purpose; if you don't know about it and don't request it, that's less money for the government to spend :^).
[1] Conditions apply (having worked uninterrupted for the last 5 years)
It's more complicated than that [0]. The fact that you have the right to claim unemployment benefit does not mean that it will be accepted, that it will be accepted quickly or that the benefit will correspond to what you would have had if you had been laid off.
This is true; I can only speak from my experience and that of my peers but the hardest part every time was the "accepted quickly" section of your comment. I am also thinking the process is cryptic and uncertain on purpose to discourage people from even trying. Even though I have not personally seen requests get outright rejected, just drawn out to months.
> In CAC40 company, It is possible to take unpaid leave with the possibility of returning to the company to set up a new business
It's not only CAC40, it's part of some collective bargaining agreements which apply to whole sectors (e.g. SYNTEC which applies to all consulting and most IT companies).
I think recently there's been a change which says that you can if you start a new company right away. But do check with an accountant for the inevitable pitfalls.
"The grant covers personal living, material, and coaching expenses over 12 months, allowing founders to focus on developing their founding idea. While graduates receive personal funding of 2.500€, students can receive 1.000€ a month, additionally up to 30.000€ material and 5.000€ coaching budget that can be used to develop the founding project further."
So, 30k EUR (gross) with a maximum funding period of one year? Laughable. Also probably a little bit tragicomic.
Early seed rounds are usually measured in couple of USD millions. I wonder how these brilliant minds in the EU think they will attract the industry talent to leave their ~5x salary (outside FAANG) for such a pocket money.
People need examples of success in their network. Most people have frankly never met or heard of anyone who founded a successful startup- and therefore would never think of taking on such a risk. I agree that in some places there is a sense of malaise, but if we are to believe founders are a 1-2% outlier of the population, I don’t see why America’s 1-2% should be so much more ambitious than the UKs. I think it’s more a cycle induced by lack of funding.
Should individuals routinely risk their own livelihood to benefit a select few capitalist? Does this improve the life of the average American? Seeing how they vote it seems generally it does not?
Havent FAANG companies improved the lives of the average American? They definitely did, and all these companies were created by ambitious individuals with a bold vision and prospect of making lots of money!
By taking big risks, one might ascend to this capitalist class if they succeed.
"FAANG improved average lives" is by no means a safe assumption. It needs to be very carefully demonstrated for each individual company, with consideration of the worsenings as well. The forgotten sixth, Microsoft, is probably easier to make a case for.
>Completely agree, the problem in Europe is not regulations or anything like that - it is a mindset issue.
You can change mindsets with regulations that reward taking risks in new businesses/innovations, and punish rent seeking and sitting on inherited real estate for example.
But as long as EUrope is focused on maintaining the status quo of boomers and gentrified dynasties of billionaires that you probably played against in Assassins' Creed, nothing will change.
Let's make simple calculations. In California, near the start of the 20th century there were more than 34 million native Americans living in what was their land. Now there are in California 300-700.000 native Americans.
They were exterminated and replaced by a very small European population. Like sterilising a Petri dish and letting bacteria grow, the opportunities that population experienced were the biggest any population in the world ever had. Just look at a graph of the population growth of US OR California in the last century and compare it to others.
Now there is in California a population of near 40 million people.
That is not a "mindset", this is real growth that they could experience and the rest of the world could not.
These numbers are at least two orders of magnitude higher than typical estimates. What are you talking about? It's even higher than the typical all time max which is on the order of 10 million.
I'm from EU and would be totally open to move to UK if there was an opportunity to make more there while working on something cool. But there simply isn't?
Then there are US startups where I could likely make 2 or 3x what I make in EU or UK.
So why would talent every consider moving to the UK to build a startup in 2025 anyway?
Something not talked about - you probably won't be able to lease suitable property if you are doing anything other than apps.
Doing soldering of prototypes? Good luck finding a landlord that would let you do it. The moment they hear "fumes" is a nope, fire hazard, safety risk and won't let you...
He means a safe wage job pays a third less in the UK than Germany.
Not sure if it's true so let's look at some stats:
Germany median for software engineer: €66,000
United kingdom median: €58,000
Note depending on source, these numbers both vary broadly within the same range, but with Germany salaries being about 10-15% higher on most sources, so nowhere near the figure claimed.
You said that UK's salaries are 2/3 of the Germany ones, but this doesn't mean that the Germany ones are 1/3 more, they are 1/2 (or 50%) more. That's pretty far from 10-15%.
10-15% in the opposite direction. That is I stated they earn 10-15% more.
33% less equates to them earning roughly 50% more. The difference between 10-15% and 50% is huge!
(trivial example, if someone is earning £100,000, then someone earning 33% less makes £66,666. But Someone earning £100,000 makes 50% more than someone making £66,666)
Consider just how far the UK's place in the world fell between 1911 (George V ascended to the throne of the global superpower; his Royal Navy was launching 2 to 4 new capital ships per year) and 1948 (3 years after "winning" WWII - and basics such as food, clothing, and gasoline were still strictly rationed).
Very true, although I suppose a significant fraction of the decline at that time might be a result of the end of the Empire, which given that there are simply no such successful Empires anywhere in the world anymore was almost certainly inevitable.
By comparison, the performance of the UK in the last 20 years vs the US or the Nordics is a singular tragedy.
> there are simply no such successful Empires anywhere in the world anymore
There is the US not-an-Empire [0] though, that'll probably count when the history books reflect on the present era. WWI/II can very easily be interpreted as a transition of power away from incompetent British leadership (indeed, European monarchies - the change pre- post- WWI is striking) towards more capable US-based leadership.
It isn't clear UK public ever really grappled how insufficient their leadership theory is. Their acceptance of poor performers over the last 20+ years has been striking although it is mirrored by low standards in the US.
I think it was more about economics than competency.
By the end of WW2 the UK was bankrupt and completely ruined economically, while the US had become the industrial powerhouse of the world thanks to abundant resources, manpower, and the fact that the war largely took place far from its borders (a few tiny islands notwithstanding). By the end of WW2 the US owned nearly all the gold that Europe previously owned which led to the US Dollar the worldwide reserve currency.
If the UK wants to pretend that WW2 (or, indeed, WW1) happened like a shock storm, unforseen and unforseeable, with no involvement from them they are welcome to do that. The result of that attitude was that the UK parliament was only allowed to govern a small and increasingly irrelevant island with lousy weather and steadily worsening economic prospects instead of a global empire.
There is a lesson for people governing global empires here - don't allow major wars to blow up on your borders. Or, ideally, anywhere. Maybe spend some time promoting peace and prosperity. Train the diplomats in diplomacy.
You'll notice that the US solution at the end of WWII was completely different to the European settlement at the end of WWI. And the US approach to warring was a lot more staid than the UK's. These are basic matters of competence.
Some fair points, but remember that the US had the benefit of knowing that post-WW1 settlement was a failure. Of course, Wilson did object to the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, so it's fair to say the US had a better perspective from the start -- though one can argue that the US' own failure to ratify the League of Nations was a contributing factor to WW2.
Another key factor is that the US had no empire to hold together, and, to its credit, wisely did not seek to expand its territory after WW2 in order to create one (which it could have easily done, and which the UK had done many times before).
British weather is great. Enough rain to keep the land green and pleasant, temperatures that don't get too hot nor too cold - the very definition of temperate.
We aren't without our annoying and extreme weather though. Eg in the north of England last week it was -10c for a few nights and a week of 0/1c daytime temperatures with a biting wind chill. Before that was heavy snow and ice.
Heat waves up to 35-38c aren't unheard of. Our houses aren't built for this so a heatwave is quite uncomfortable as houses stay 20-25c overnight
Plenty of flooding in various parts
This autumn and winter has seen a lot of storms
The south fares much better of course and without as much flooding
Nothing important Sudetenland, nothing important in Austria, nothing important in Poland. They tried your strategy in the 30s and it was not a success.
Also, family ties. European monarchs were a really tight bunch. For instance, the tzar of Russia and the king of the British Empire at the time of WWI were brothers.
> Their acceptance of poor performers over the last 20+ years has been striking
How many PMs has the UK been though in that time? _Way_ more than the average Western country. We don't accept poor oerformers more than anywhere else, we kick them out of office - but the talent pipeline is abysmal so the next one is usually awful too.
It's interesting that incompetence ... Fabians started in 1884 and a lot of insanely destructive ideas seem to defend from those circles. We don't have the great leap forward it's slower but something as bad on a longer timescale
Yep. UK had post-war rationing longer than Germany did! Fabians were largely to blame for this state of affairs. UK caught back up, just about, in the 1980s, but the Conservatives went to seed at the start of the 90s and never really got fixed. It's the oldest political party in the world so it took a long time for people to give up on them but that's now finally happening.
Unfortunately the smear tactics against Farage over the years have been quite successful especially against the older generation that relies more heavily on TV for news. UK might face another election where the right splits their vote and Labour walk in again. Many decades of decline would be compounded at that point, putting the UK into more of a second world position.
I'd say ruin - in great part from the costs of two World Wars - came before the end of the Empire. Wikipedia notes of WWII - "Britain was left essentially bankrupt, with insolvency only averted in 1946 after the negotiation of a US$3.75 billion loan from the United States". Vs. the Partition and dissolution of the British Raj were in 1947.
Most of the world's gold was in the US by the end of the war.
The flow of gold into the US starting in 1933 is thought to be why the Great Depression was moderating so much there and then: the money supply was inflating.
That is a better graph, but the conclusion I would draw is much the same.
The EU gets a boost from the inclusion of Eastern European economies that have been fast growing from a lower base.
If you compare the US and the UK to the four biggest EU economies, the US is doing best by far, and the UK is doing better than three and worse than one:
If that's adjusted for cost of living and inflation then isn't that hiding the actual economic changes? If GDP falls then cost of living would likely go down and vice versa.
Yes, "winning" as in not being completely destroyed, occupied, and maybe even enslaved. Check out what Poland looked like in 1940 when it lost, or what Germany looked like in 1945, or, well, 1949.
USSR was also terribly battered by WWII, and its leadership was not highly competent either; I'd say both parameters were much worse than UK's. But it managed to remain a large empire with a high economic potential, and UK could not.
>USSR was also terribly battered by WWII, and its leadership was not highly competent either
The USSR moved all its industry eastward, as the German army advanced, waiting for the very last moment to do so. Quite an incredible feat that allowed them to beat Germany at industrial efficiency and secure victory.
Here's an analysis of the mechanisms underpinning this kind of achievement according to a Russian mathematician:
>One of the fathers of synergetics, G. Haken, in his article [9], recalls the following story from the Ancient Testament: “It was the custom in a certain community for the guests to bring their own wine to weddings, and all the wines were mixed before drinking. Then one guest thought that if all the other guests would bring wine, he would not notice when drinking if he brought water instead. Then the other guests did the same, and as the result they all drank water.”
>In this example, two situations are possible. In the first, everyone contributes his share, giving his equal part, and everyone will equally profit. In the second, each strives for the most advantageous conditions for himself. And this can lead to the kind of result mentioned in the story.
>Two different arithmetics correspond to these two situations. One arithmetic is the usual one, the one accepted in society, ensuring “equal rights,” and based on the principle “the same for everyone,” for instance in the social utopia described by Owen. In a more paradoxal form, this principle is expressed in M. Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita by Sharikov: “Grab everything and divide it up.”
>The aspiration to this arithmetic is quite natural for mankind, but if society is numerous and non-homogeneous, then it can hardly be ruled according to this principle. The ideology of complete equality and equal rights, which unites people and inspires to perform heroic deeds, can effectively work only in extremal situations and for short periods of time. During these periods such an organization of society can be very effective. An example is our own country, which, after the destructions and huge losses of World War II, rapidly became stronger than before the war.
>One of the authors personally witnessed such an atmosphere of psychological unity when he was working on the construction of the sarcophagus after the catastrophe of the Chernobyl nuclear facility. The forces of the scientists involved were so strongly polarized 2 that the output of each of them was increased tenfold as compared to that in normal times. During that period it was not unusual for us to call each other in the middle of the night.
>Nevertheless such heroism, self-denial, and altruism, when each wants to give (and not to take) as much as possible, is an extremal situation, a system that can function only for short intervals of time. Here the psychological aspect is crucial, everyone is possessed by the same idea — to save whatever may be saved at any cost. But the psychology of the masses, which was studied by the outstanding Russian emigr´e sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, is presently studied only outside of Russia.
The USSR also gained de facto control over relatively developed places like the Baltics, Czechoslovakia and East Germany, and exploited them.
Czechoslovak industry in the early 1950s was producing a shitton of products sold under their real price to the Soviets, or bargained for cheap agricultural products.
A truck without a driver has no value in a war. Lend lease was important but the ambition and drive to defeat Germany required huge sacrifices on all sides that are impossible without shared cultural ideals.
Those "shared cultural ideals" amounted to very little beyond "conquer the Nazis, before they conquer us" - as late-war and post-war relations between the USSR and the Western Allies showed. Or, as pre-'39 Western policies showed. The '30's saw the Nazis as an evil...but a useful and "not too" evil, that would (mostly, in effect) protect the West from the greater evil of Soviet Communism.
You’ve watched too many Hollywood movies. Yes, Lend-Lease was very helpful - but only about 5% of Soviet GDP. For example, the Soviets produced more tanks than all other allies combined, and that was while under massive active attack and invasion - even moved entire factories.
The real myth is that the Soviets just threw meat waves and would have lost without Uncle Sam. Most of that was anti communist propaganda and any serious (ie non-narrative driven) historian knows the truth about the industrial and military achievements of the Soviets in that war.
Lend lease included food and industrial equipment which was critical for Russia through the war not just tanks, aircraft, and ships. The value was more in covering what their economy struggled with than simply total output.
“In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to other Allies.” ~12x that when counting for inflation.
As pointed out by a sibling poster Russia produced more of them than the US but not more than US + England. But the context was tanks are relatively difficult to ship, so America focused on other areas.
"the Soviets produced more tanks than all other allies combined"
For such feats, factory equipment mattered. So did trucks. Studebakers were relatively cheap and probably wouldn't move the needle on your GDP-based meter, but they were very important to Soviet logistics.
Exactly this. Great Britain colonized huge parts of the globe and had an empire. They were kings of trade and the world. Now they are just a surveillance nanny state and hollow shell of their former self.
I regularly see opinion pieces in the British Press advising young Brits to get out. In 2022 one writer wrote 'Britain is fed up, bitter, and practically broke – and it’s all going to get worse' and indeed it still is and getting worse. One basic problem: an unsustainable welfare and health system and overwrought bureaucracy. Today I learn that one major bank is considering leaving the UK in view of excessive 'red tape'.
Interestingly people, especially poor people, were better nourished during the WW 2 rationing than before the war. Also e.g. universal healthcare was establised post-war.
Is number of war ships, or billionaires, a good measure for a country?
I have not drilled down into the data, but I think it highly likely poor people did not benefit.
I have read that the Empire was a fiscal net negative. That was offset by it being a free market area with policies that favoured the UK, the benefits from that went primarily to a small minority.
Just so everyone is clear, the Nazi plan for what to do with an occupied Britain was to enslave large parts of population, to completely erase Britain as a country, and they also considered mass deportations of the native population. "Better off losing" is not really supportable under any reading of the historical evidence.
The safe job earns much much more unless you are the founder. Equity pay for start-ups in the UK for devs is very poor, or non-existent, and the base salary also very poor (and not even guaranteed to be paid if they go under). You can instead work for a company like nvidia, google or meta and get a huge base, and nice equity on top.
If UK startups paid equity to their devs, I would work a lot harder when I've worked at them, but startups require working hard and long hours and if I've got no skin in the game, what incetive do I have to make sure the company is successful.
I've been shocked in my career in the UK by just how much founders will rip people off on equity
In basically every UK startup I've worked at they've done 1 or all of the below:
1. Offered options in numbers with no valuation/percentage of ownership. "We offer you 40000 stock options!". When asked to clarify numbers, they delay and never tell you. Inevitably they have a value of a few pence each
2. Withdraw options unilaterally when you leave the company with no option to exercise
3. Never get round to filling in the paperwork so you never actually receive them
I was _shocked_ when i worked for my first US startup and they just...gave me the options. And I could exercise them whenever I wanted. And they expired 10 years after I left the company
> Instead, a lot of extremely smart people in the UK would rather get the 'safe' job at Google, or McKinsey than the 'this will never work but can you imagine how cool it would be if it did' job at a startup.
This isn't just an EU thing, for what it's worth. The US is the outlier.
Correct, but the tail of VC being fat is unique to the US. Pretty much the rest of the world is like the UK in all but a miniscule percentage preferring stability rather than moonshots.
Yeah but if it's not a moonshot SaaS factory they don't want to hear the reality.
For example, Ireland's state VC - Enterprise Ireland - ranked first in the world of venture capital investors by deal count in 2020 by Pitchbook. The average size of the deal compared to a Series A was laughable in context, but the ethos is there.
False. Even good jobs with American companies and what not are subject to ridiculous tax problems in the UK. You give you employees equity but then they have to raise vast sums of capital just to hold on to it to afford their taxes when there is virtually no real liquidity pre IPO.
It's anti success. And there is garbage everywhere, people keep voting for antisocial housing and bad cultures. It's a failing state.
Same. I grew up in Canada and my country didn't fund my dreams. The US did. It is a shame and the amount of loss that Canada has every single year because the dumb VCs who exist in Canada cannot look at that big picture.
For example, right now there is not a single VC in Canada who does large pre seed / seed investments based on an idea and the founding team.
In the US you can get a 1 million cheque within a week.
That is the real reason Canada is failing on a macro scale.
Circa 80% of world trade is done in USD, and the US literally creates it out of thin air, and it will all bleed into the economy somehow, someway.
Without sovereign protection you just can not compete with that, ever. It's really that simple.
Simply look at China they may export loads of goods but it's predominantly priced in USD, and what do they do with all that excise USD, the only thing they can do, buy US debt. It's truly perverse.
Or look at every UK company that was bought up with those very same magic dollars.
There are definitely political - and ultimately, military-industrial - reasons for this. The UK is deeply, deeply embedded in the Anglo-centric 5-eyes criminal superstructure, and plays a huge part in the subversion of human rights at immense scale around the world, that this criminal entity commits every second of the day.
The spook factor bleeds into every technological advancement which occurs in the UK, from GCHQ outwards, like a kraken with deep, deep tentacles.
I've worked with multiple UK-based startups which, as soon as they start to gain traction in international waters/markets, immediately becomes the target for GCHQ embedding/plants. This kills the startup.
Until the British people start prosecuting their war criminals and seeks justice for the immense human rights abuses that occur, every millisecond of every day, as a result of their out of control military-industrial oppression apparatus, there is simply no hope for UK technological industry.
The world sees this, even if the people of the UK do not - and routes around it, accordingly.
Nobody really wants to work with UK-based technology groups, knowing that they are liable for immediate corruption the moment their technology becomes relevant to, say, the people of Brazil, or Africa, or China.
My view is that the US startup culture exists because of wealth inequality at the $1-$20m net worth level. Wealth inequality is socially incentivized at that level because of the lack of a decent social safety net. If you don't save money then at 50 you may end up homeless on the street due to bad luck. But if you don't get bad luck then you end up at 50 with a large amount of money that you don't have much to do with. So you start investing some in riskier things because who cares.
US founders not from wealthy backgrounds can often get $500k from friends and family. I doubt those in the UK can do so.
There's massive massive social costs due to this in the US so be careful what you wish for.
Not just in startups. Feels like Arm lost almost their whole software division over a few years. This was an extremely stable high-profit-margin business, and it was obvious that it was uncompetitive on the labour market. But something in the culture stopped management from increasing salaries, so everyone buggered off to foreign companies.
I hear they fixed it eventually but seems like an unnecessary loss.
> The UK lost Deep Mind - which could have been OpenAI!! -- to Google.
Deepmind is still in the UK. And more, including foreign, bidders driving up prices for acquisitions and investments, will lead to more people making the jump.
Profit goes out of the country, reducing investment and rich UK people to invest in new UK companies. It's the same problem with many of our companies being sold to foreign investors: profits are taken outside the country (as we did to other countries in the 19th century and earlier) so our labour enriches other countries while our country gets poorer.
> labour enriches other countries while our country gets poorer.
in reality, the UK isn't poorer than before. It is about the same - no growth. It is only poorer when compared to the US's growth.
One's labour, when being paid market rates, does not make one's country poorer. And those profits from said labour was paid for by the acquitition of the capital - money was invested.
So in essense, the "poorness" that the UK feels right now is not a result of these companies getting foreign ownership, but the UK gov't lack of industrial policy and investment. Brexit is the last straw probably.
> [...] but the UK gov't lack of industrial policy and investment.
That's a weird conclusion to draw.
Governments aren't generally known for their ability to pick winners ahead of time. How about instead of trying industrial policy (again), the UK could try to remove roadblocks that keep them from having successful companies?
They could also try to leave more money in the hands of taxpayers, so they can invest.
I lived in Ireland for 10 years. It's not the same as the UK but there _is_ cultural overlap. Every time you shared a new idea with _anyone_, even things as simple as "I want to buy a site and build a house on it", the first thing you hear is how that's a bad idea, you will fail, it will never work, and you need to leave it to "professionals".
Not to mention the whole idea that trying to be successful is "notions" and should be sneered at.
Edit: To compare -
Me: "I want to build a house"
Irish friends: "That's a bad idea, you'll never make it work, you'll go bankrupt and it will kill you..."
California/Oregon friends: "Fuck yeah I'll bring a nailgun"
(UK resident, born and bread) Yes this drives me absolutely mad. I'm a poor risk taker and can come up with all those reasons something's a bad idea, but when I've made up my mind to take the risk I want supportive people around not people who would rather you never tried anything outside their "comfort zone".
And the problem runs in families. This is not therapy but every time I talked to my parents about an idea it would be dammed with faint praise or I'd be told I'm wasting my time. It's taken 20 years to work out that the more they dissed an idea is the better it actually was.
I don't know what the regulations are in the UK, but in many European countries, building a house isn't just about knowing how to build a house, it's also about knowing all the DIN requirements. These are necessary for insurance to pay out if something happens to your house. Let's take a simple example: You're wiring your house. Because of a mistake, the house burns down.
Insurance: “Okay sir, who did the electrical wiring?
you: “Me”.
Insurance: “Are you a professional?
you: “No"
Insurance: “Have you had your work certified by a third party?"
you: “Do my buddies count?”
insurance: "Have a good day sir"
There may never be a problem and you may have figured out everything that's required to get your butt covered (good for you in this case), but the fact is that a lot of people don't know about these things, do their own thing and get royally screwed if there's a problem and, God forbid, someone gets hurt.
I suspect that in any of the big cities in America you can't just buy a plot and start building, for exactly the same reasons. See also the complexities of CA fire insurance.
Going through our pre-seed round atm and it is incredibly frustrating. I haven't raised in the US so it may be similar there, but the amount of time wasted for a relatively small amount of money is painful.
I'm also not sure what the government can do. SEIS/EIS is a great scheme, but the SEIS limit of £250k feels almost too small to do anything meaningful, and EIS funds are generally later stage or re-investment from SEIS.
As a former founder (formerly living in London) trying to raise VC funding in London this is exactly what my experience.
I once did a pitch contest and they required we put together a business plan with financials. You want me to...what? Who on earth can read a pro forma for a pre-revenue SaaS business and say "ah yes this is worth of investment because this pro forma looks great".
> The UK lost Deep Mind - which could have been OpenAI!! -- to Google.
You're focusing on one success story out of thousands.
90%, or more, of US startups only exist to be sold to the highest bidder or to coast indefinitely long in infinite investor money, and never turn a profit.
There's still expectation in Europe at large that your company should have an actual business plan and a path to profitability.
I was also trying to raise recently. It's interesting to me that the UK has an absolutely incredibly generous startup investment scheme (SEIS)[0], and still hasn't managed to make this work. SEIS is ludicrously generous, and should make getting funding a breeze in the UK, and yet ... somehow it isn't.
0: If a few hurdles are jumped through, then an investor who gives you £250k can get £125k relief on their income tax (not what they'd have paid on £125k, literally the whole £125k), and then claim a further 50% back of the remainder from the government if you go bust.
Set UK/EU tech salaries at maybe 30%-50% of US, and factor in higher taxes. Then integrate over 40 years, resulting in a number from which investments can be drawn. Add to the corresponding US number all the profitable exits from previous ventures. There's just so much more US investment capital available.
It can be argued that a responsibility falls on EU equity companies, pension funds, and so on, but they do not make seed investments.
Quite frankly, it's cultural and the thing I hear a lot is simply: fuck that for a job!
I could quite happily get on fine at one of those big American style startups but I don't get excited about hype, I don't have the work culture it demands and I don't have a price on my soul. I'd rather earn a lot less, have extreme stability, have better family time and balance. On top of that there's something tasteless and unethical about a lot of the big startups. Do they really bring good things to society? Do I really want to be part of that?
If I can walk away with half the money, live a modest life and stand with my principles intact, I will take that over twice the money.
I don't think this is political at all. It's not a race either and we have no innate responsibility to build things like this.
The part about that plan that worries me is the ageism in software. I'm mid-forties and it's something I think about a lot for when I have to get a new job.
Anyone young should go make as much money as possible, as early as possible, so they can have the same outlook you do in later life.
Not really had any problems with that and I'm older than you are. And quite frankly I didn't have any money really until I hit about 35. I just lived within my means.
In the UK’s case, feudalism is alive and well. The entire tax system is designed so parasites descended from thugs like the Duke of Westminster or Charles of Battenberg-Saxe-Coburg und Gotha never have to pay property taxes on their extensive land holdings.
That was worse in the 18th and 19th century, and yet people were willing to ground new corporations back then.
I think the answer is something the left won't like - we (Europe) are killing ourselves with bureaucracy, often environmental bureaucracy. A road to hell paved with good intentions.
The documentation to the Lower Thames Crossing, a planned highway tunnel, already exceeds 360 000 pages. This is just crazy.
Since Europe is to the left of the US, whatever the US is doing right (pun intended) is bound to be something the Left won't like.
The US also has plenty of bureaucracy, and what's worse, a lot of it stems from Common Law and capricious courts that interpret it, which is partly why large civil engineering projects like upgrading the NYC subway cost 4x more than the equivalents in Western Europe (minus the UK) or Japan.
I think the biggest factor is the sheer size of the unified US market and its economies of scale, and a second one the fact the US Social Security is limited compared to European retirement systems, and thus people have to save in their pension funds, freeing up a huge amount of capital for investment, while at the same time creating enough competition that they don't have the sense of entitlement that British feudals or continental bankers have, leaving entrepreneurs with crumbs.
Source: I'm from France but I moved to San Francisco to found my two startups, because I'm not a glutton for punishment. Then again I moved to the UK (for family reasons), so I guess I am a masochist after all.
I think the second part of your second point is the critical one. Europe has also a lot of free capital, but if it’s invested it flows to the US. Why? Because returns are outsized. But I wonder why?
Yeah, when you think of it, the US economies of scale are huge.
In the European single market, you still don't have, for example, an affordable parcel service. For a Czech e-shop to send a package to France, as I did a few days ago, is something around 12 eur postage fee. It would be 4 eur within Czechia.
American e-shops can send packages from Florida to Alaska for peanuts, and they don't have to bother with translations into 20 languages.
It is often accomplished enterpreneurs who complain of bureaucracy.
I remember reading a German enterpreneur's complaint that he was unable to build an extra electric connection between his two industrial buildings in Germany in less than a year, due to endless rounds of permiting for that single cable.
He contrasted the situation to Poland, where his application on a similar site was processed in two weeks and it took two more weeks to actually build the connection.
If you think complaints of bureacracy have no merit, maybe you never faced any. It now takes about 10 years to get all permits for a regular block of flats in Prague, Czechia. It used to be 3 years or so back in 2000, and it takes only about 9 months in Denmark.
These are experienced developers, and they are still stuck.
That's because risk-aversion and laziness are the smart things to do. Yes, it would be cool to come up with the next Facebook, but most financial advisors will tell you that the actually best thing you can do is some form of "SP500 and hold 20 years" because from the perspective of an individual, the safe option provides the best expected outcome.
Similarly, why work yourself to the bone for a miniscule chance of success, if you can... just chill instead? I used to be a highly-motivated go-getter, but then I realized, this shit ain't bringing happiness, and I turned into a work-avoider who spends time in the office mostly talking to coworkers and playing games in the toilet. My overall life satisfaction skyrocketed.
Yes, the society at large does need people to do the needful, but this ain't gonna be me.
The us generally would do 95% in the safe s&p500 and the other 5% in high risk things. The exact numbers varry of course but that is a good rule of thumb for good future growth.
I agree and it's a real shame, we used to spearhead some of the most initiative companies in technology (Acorn, Arm, Sinclair, Sage, Deepmind). Now it's just a shadow, while places like Silicon Valley or Stockholm have jetted ahead the UK just sort of stagnated - it's kind of embarrassing.
Brit / American checking in and agreeing. My first startup was a B2B SaaS and hiring in the UK was fantastic - the arbitrage was just silly. Experienced software developers (10+ years) @ GBP 70k / year - and that was close to non-finance full-market pay. The same people were averaging $250k in NYC / SF.
And yet, the UK hires were often better off after all expenses than the US hires.
Largely due to housing being slightly cheaper (other posters have pointed out, London is on par with SF / NY - the big difference being London expands, NYC and SF are both "islands" - yes SF is a peninsula, but commuting up 280 or 101 is not a pleasant experienced).
Also, even offering private healthcare (BUPA) - the UK hires were cheaper. I'm in my late 30s and reasonably healthy - my all-in, gold-plated UK policy was GBP 2k / year - I was at $2,000 / month in the US.
*However* - salaries in the UK are unsustainably low.
Three reasons:
[1] BOMAD - The Bank of Mom and Dad (parents paying / lending the deposit for a house so the mortgage is at a low rate) is effectively exhausted. This means that current entrants into the housing market are either renting (which is nearly as expensive as NYC, especially after the inflationary / interest rate jump), or saving to "buy" a house (I enclose in quotes because at a 95% mortgage you don't own much of your house).
[2]
Professional salaries outside of finance are way too low. My fiancee works in a highly skilled, professional field and her salary in 2024 was, in nominal terms the same as my starting salary in NYC 17 years ago working for a large investment bank IN THE BACK OFFICE - where salaries were decidedly blue-collar. My unproven hypothesis is that the UK professional world is still largely geared towards those with alternative assets, private incomes (especially high-prestige non-professional jobs, especially around politics). This makes it impossible to compete with US venture backed startups, even post-ZIRP, because the offer is always going to be better. And yet that private-income driven base has largely been eroded through capital gains, inheritance tax and general downward social mobility (or, perhaps, less doom-and-gloom - averaging towards the center. The difference in wealth and income between the upper-middle class and the lower-middle class has narrowed significantly).
[3] There has been over the last 5-7 years significant negative messaging and tax policy against economic success. A confiscatory top-tax band, an erosion of a "job perks" friendly tax regime and a political climate that is very anti-success, even prior to the labour govt (largely started at the same time, though perhaps not by, Theresa May's 2015 speech and focus on "Just about managing").
VC in the UK is hard, largely because the majority (though by no means all) VCs are focused on aping mid-market pension managers. Their ambition is limited to businesses that already work (and yet anything transformative by definition does not work yet) - and are interested mostly in post-revenue companies with linear or lightly superlinear growth.
This, IMNSHO, is largely caused by the fact that, given state expenditure and the corp and personal tax burden, there simply isn't enough capital for US style VC - the portfolio approach requires capital to absorb failures. Most VCs here cannot afford failure.
The closest we get is the EIS / SEIS tax policy, which allows the offsetting of losses in failed businesses (by the equivalent of Accredited Investors) - as well as a friendly Cap Gains treatment of successes. But these are largely made as common stock investments by individuals - and limited to a very small scale.
Which brings me to my final point - the SAFE note is not only not ubiquitous here, it's rare. Even pre-seed investments are either common stock or (more rarely) convertible notes. This requires a level of diligence (even on small tickets) that make capital formation incredibly burdensome.
There's absolutely a path to resolving this - but the UK first has to make a political and cultural decision to embrace startup-led GDP growth, which is has not yet made.
This is spot on. All the smart and ambitious people I know who studied (non-software) Engineering at university in the UK have ended up going into software engineering via self-teaching or finance/consulting because the only hardware engineering career paths seem to be working for Rolls Royce in the middle of nowhere with terrible pay, or alternatively working at Jaguar Land Rover in the middle of nowhere with terrible pay
Was a MechE for 10 years here in the US and now I’m a SWE. Even here, no one cares about hardware engineers. Don’t get me wrong, you can make enough to be “comfortable”. But anecdotally, maybe 10% of MechE do design. 10% of that are paid handsomely to be in tech and are “Product Designers”. Even then, almost every tech company want to be a predominantly software company. They just happen to need hardware to execute their product. Admittedly, it’s really hard to do hardware in this economy when one country has 60% of the global manufacturing output and can copy your design, make it cheaper, and make it better. Ironically, the biggest dividing line that makes a hardware product better is good software.
That's what happens when there is not much manufacturing in the country anymore, and everyone is encouraged to go to college. I don't know why the software industry hasn't suffered more along the same lines. Maybe the profit margins for software are higher.
Production of software is nearly 100% R&D. Making a million copies of a software product has a trivial cost. There are no assembly line workers in software (and the very word "assembly" means a different thing). A software engineer very often brings in revenue many times their salary.
Production of hardware is some R&D, and then actual manufacturing. Production of each physical item costs you. Production of every physical item has a chance to go wrong. Production of each physical item requires a number of humans (often a large number) to do repetitive, high-precision, high-skill work, as fast as practical. You can augment or replace some of them with robots but it also costs you, and you can't replace all the humans with satisfactory results.
So, with hardware, the cost of the workforce plays a major role, while with software it does much less. To produce physical things, you need a lot of people who are not well-off, and for whom factory work is an upgrade of their financial and social standing. A "developing country", with huge swaths of population leaving rural life for a better city life and factory work, is best in this regard. Ideally you sell your product to richer folks, maybe outside the country of production.
Of course there can be situations where the workers are highly paid, and produce very valuable things through their skilled work. Ford in 1950s famously paid the assembly line workers very well, so that they could buy the cars they produce, and valued their employment. But this does not always occur; people doing work that does not add a lot of resale value also want to live well, especially if the society does not want a flood of immigrants who are willing to work for much less. Check out how much the work of a plumber costs in Switzerland. So only high-precision, high-margin, low-volume manufacturing remains in Switzerland, such as precision optics, precision industrial and medical equipment, or premium mechanical Swiss watches. The US is in a somehow similar situation.
>So, with hardware, the cost of the workforce plays a major role, while with software it does much less. To produce physical things, you need a lot of people who are not well-off, and for whom factory work is an upgrade of their financial and social standing. A "developing country", with huge swaths of population leaving rural life for a better city life and factory work, is best in this regard. Ideally you sell your product to richer folks, maybe outside the country of production.
You don't need a lot of people who are not well-off. You can automate the entire process. The problem with automation and labor saving technology is that it is capital intensive. The higher the capital investment per job (higher capital intensity), the bigger the chunk of money that flows to capital rather than labor.
This means that the cost of the workforce in a software company plays a bigger role than in a hardware company, where financing costs to pay for labor saving technology play a bigger role.
There are mining companies in Africa, who have nothing but an army of people equipped with shovels digging a small scale open pit mine. There is no way the labor cost here is the biggest constraint. An excavator and wheel loader could accomplish more with less people, but it would mean getting a USD loan to import foreign equipment and then selling for export to pay the foreign debts, rather than local production.
This all resonates very strongly with me. We have tons of automation - the proverbial "economies of scale", but we haven't managed to solve the last mile.
Auto assembly seems like a poster child. There's wild automation going on, but the typical plant still requires thousands of employees doing things by hand. Musk tried to automate a lot more of this away with newer/better robotics, but failed. (Tesla has still achieved a lot here, but it's been more towards creating designs that are more amenable to the current state of robotics).
IMO, this problem should be solvable now. I.E. we don't need "new physics" to reach another step-function in automation. We need more investment. We're still largely in the mindset of "special-purpose" automation.
> Production of software is nearly 100% R&D. Making a million copies of a software product has a trivial cost.
> Production of hardware is some R&D, and then actual manufacturing
Totally. And if you think deployment errors are bad, wait until you see how many production errors exist and how many items out of your line come out working and within spec
For a PCB it’s called a rework, and it’s very common for first spins of boards to have to do one.
Also common is to patch around issues, when possible, in firmware. This is often lower cost/effort, but can’t fix everything.
There are similar kinds of fixes for purely mechanical parts. Depending on the part and problem, mechanical can be easier than a PCB rework (eg: modify a part in CAD and 3D print or get your local machine shop to do a run).
Or require a particular type of motor oil with a particular type of metal-based lubricant additive when you realise 100,000 cam shafts have shipped made of metal you’d assumed was to a higher spec but isn’t, just so the engine will make it through warranty period with insanely long service intervals.
I briefly looked at a couple used vehicles just outside of warranty and one within warranty that had literally had two oil changers in 100,000k, that’s 60,000 miles for the uninitiated.
> You cannot release a patch for a mechanical part
In NATO, this is frequent and normal. Many, many "recalls" are issued by military manfacturers, then local support staff spend X hours to replace the defective part. It is not so different from automobile recalls.
Yeah I remember one of my friends working for a German auto company during the 2008 financial crisis and having insane stuff routinely happen like an auto manufacturer having to buy truckloads of sensors from a subcontractor that had nowhere to go as car manufacturing lines were stopped.
Failing to do so would have meant these manufacturers would go under, (along with their own subcontractors) and once demand shot back up, cars would be literally impossible to manufacture as key suppliers went out of business.
The U.S. is still the second largest manufacturer in the world by a large margin [1][2]
Like, yes, manufacturing's % of US GDP is low (and has been decreasing for a long time) and manufacturing employment is flat or slowly increasing but we're still making a lot of stuff.
I don't think we make a lot of stuff but we do make some of the most expensive stuff. So a lot of stats really don't reflect how unbalanced our trade is in real terms.
Interesting that you say that, my understand of the data is that manufacturing output has never been higher - ignoring lingering Covid shocks - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IPMANSICS
But because productivity is higher https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0100CUSM070NNBR - which doesn’t mean the workers are working harder: a man with a shovel can work as hard as he likes, but he’s never going to compete with the business owner who invested in productivity and gave his worker an excavator.
Therefore employment in the sector is down due to increased productivity, not decreased output.
But increased productivity is a radically different thing from decreased output. A claim that manufacturing should employ more, in the face of increased productivity, That’s a claim that manufacturing should replace other endeavours in the economy which, is a complex claim at the very least.
Eh, well, this is a bit embarrassing! On mobile, I can’t local a chart that covers the post war until now, best I can find is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS which shows late 80s onwards BUT shows a drop at 2008 onwards which goes against my argument (notwithstanding the big gap between both charts)
The nominal value of highly automated processes has never been higher. Meanwhile, ordinary people are not able to find as many good jobs as they once did. Wages in almost every industry are stagnant at best, at least when adjusted for inflation.
>A claim that manufacturing should employ more, in the face of increased productivity, That’s a claim that manufacturing should replace other endeavours in the economy which, is a complex claim at the very least.
It is a complex claim but I'll make it really simple. We import most of the things we rely on. Everything from plastic toys to car parts to critical medicines are all imported. Letting yourself become totally dependent on other countries while our STEM grads are underemployed, and would-be manufacturing line workers are forced to do bullshit like driving for Uber, is no way to run a country. It is going to backfire one day unless there is a major reversal in the trend.
You can't have so many engineer jobs unless you have manufacturing, and if you did have manufacturing then there would be "common man" manufacturing jobs too. It's all connected. Every job market that is really critical for national security is depressed by this outsourcing and importation of cheaper goods and labor.
Sure, but when you don't even have the automated process within your country then there are approximately zero jobs created of any kind. The Chinese own their own factories and make much of their own manufacturing equipment, even exporting some of it. We should be producing more of our own stuff and creating meaningful jobs for our citizens. Working on an assembly line or as a maintenance worker in a factory might strike some people as menial, but the alternatives for people with the same level of education are mostly worse.
I’ve drove a laser cutter for ten years, I wouldn’t call it engineering, more glorified dump truck driver, with a temperamental dumb truck that is more art than science to operate.
The technology has got a shinier interface since I started, but the fundamental problems are the same.
When it breaks, you call the service technician, unless your the one in a thousand employee who happens to be a boilermaker by trade, an IT service technician and software neonate, also handy with a soldering iron, can install and repair refraction systems, work on live mains safely, research and install additional power supply protection devices, lighting suppression, UPS, knows there way around layers 1 through 7…
And that company treated me like I was some kind of freak.
But yeah, generally a laser cutter operator pushes buttons, and empties catch trays if they’re lucky.
Engineers design the things, the operators are largely meat for the grinder.
>Maybe the profit margins for software are higher.
This is easily confirmed by checking public financials of publicly listed companies. The profit margins are much higher, and the liability is much lower. The only exception is for those hardware manufacturers at the cutting edge whose products cannot be commodified, such as TSMC and ASML and the ilk.
I've been told that acceptable software margins are around 75%. Hardware focused yields closer to 20%-40%. Hence why there is such a strong push towards software-only.
Preach. My friend is a gifted passionate Aerospace engineer (top in his specific stream at Cambridge) and basically is withering away working for the above 2 firms. The location is grim being far from others and generally far from other young exciting people. Additionally in his org, there just isn't a sense of excitement/ urgency which leaves him with little to do. Prioritising career for a career that's not there
Whilst others working in software (myself included) can have a far greater quality of life and salary working in London.
motorsport is similarly low salary, at least specifically F1. It is like game-dev in software in that there are far more people who want to do it than the number of jobs available so they can afford to pay you in the cool experience of working on F1 rather than in cash terms.
Absolutely. No public transport, almost no culture, and housing anywhere nice is even less available than in London. For a young person working at one of these firms, where can you live? Where could you meet someone to date? What can you even do at the weekend?
JLR is based in the metro area of Britain's second city. It's not exactly the middle of nowhere. Rolls Royce is in Derby, on the edge of the Peak District with much to offer. Much cheaper housing with more space available. And unlike in London, driving a car isn't hounded by terminal congestion.
JLR Gaydon is not in the metro area of Birmingham. It's in nice countryside and near a motorway which helps, but it's a fair commute out of Birmingham at rush hour to there. The nice surrounding towns/villages are expensive, and even the shitty ones aren't cheap (hello Banbury) as they're on the edge of commuter distance to London.
Derby I haven't lived in but know people who have. It's an old manufacturing town and hasn't much to offer graduates. Or anyone really. The Peak District is great, and if you can live out that way and commute in then do it. But again, you won't have similar people for local friends.
UK people are so god damned spoiled. Sometimes I will pull up street view imagery of a random town in scotland or wherever in the UK that I see locals from there on reddit make a seething comment about. Then I will look at the town center and its basically greenwich village: walkable, pubs and shops all over the place, bus network goes everywhere, actual regional rail potentially, everything the american urbanist dreams about. You know where you actually meet people on a date in 2025? On an app, which they have users on all over the UK.
Sure, but at that point you're having to buy a car (which is much harder as a young person - car prices have gone up, insurance has gone up faster, the driving test is harder than it was and lessons cost more...), you'll need somewhere to park it which adds to your housing costs, you still can't go drinking, and in general you're cut off from a lot of what young people are doing.
Even tiny UK towns have excellent walkable mainstreets and are small enough to walk from field to field on the other end in no time. It is a far cry from the american obligatory car experience where it might be a 2 hour walk to your nearest grocery store even in a city suburb.
It would be very expensive to take a taxi (of any sort) out of London to a scenic place, but it's easy to take a train to plenty of them, or hire a car for the day through an app.
There is a culture there. I am not sure what people mean when they say there isn't a culture outside of the London. If you mean things like events, art exhibs etc. We have those here. If you mean bars, pubs and restaurants we have those here to.
Is it as glitzy as London. No. But saying there is "no culture" is just absolutely asinine.
I lived there as a graduate student and then as a non-finance software engineer for about fifteen years. I liked it, as did dozens of my friends. It's absolute fantasy to call it a shitshow.
Been here for nearly 8, not working in finance and still quite liking it. Housing is expensive, but that's about it. Everything else (jobs, amenities, transport, people) is fantastic.
The UK is two countries, you can either live in/around the prosperous one with high cultural capital, good quality public services inc transport, or you can live in the other one.
Depends what you mean by "Quality of Life". I literally won't go to see friends because that would mean travelling to London. I hate the place. It is expensive, hostile, dirty and everyone is rude.
I live on the outskirts of the peak district. I can walk/cycle less than 30 minutes out of town and be walking along the old canals, through old villages and get amazing views of the countryside.
To be fair I live in Zone 2 and I can be on old canals and villages (albeit now subsumed into London) in ~20 minutes walking. I grew up in rural Wales, and as nice an upbringing it was, there's a reason I have a single family member left, who's trying to move away!
Or maybe he’s just tired of a specific kind of life which might be fun in your early twenties but is less appealing when you’ve got kids and can’t enjoy the nightlife and culture anyway.
Granted it's not the only city with those, the problem the UK has is that its small, desirable cities are unable to grow or reinvent themselves. Cambridge and Bristol should be ideal for hardware startups, but the cost of both housing and working space is insane for small, provincial cities, partly because NIMBYism and partly because building infrastructure is absurdly expensive when you're constantly having to work around 200 year old buildings and 800yo city plans.
you’ve got kids and can’t enjoy the nightlife and culture anyway
Having kids while living in the centre of a large city is great, as there is so much culture that is aimed at parents and children. When my kid was small we went to museums and concerts and events all the time that were aimed at kids. There were also several different parks, playgrounds, pools and similar activities to choose from all within easy access. Plus once the kids get slightly older they can use public transport to get around and you don't have to drive them anywhere near as much as if you live in the suburbs.
You have to earn (much) more to have the same standard of living as outside of it. Therefore you pay more income tax and the cost of living is higher anyway.
To some extent, this also applies to software. Except for DeepMind and a few other select places like Altos Labs, getting past £100k is hard, especially outside London. Unless you go into finance, of course. But then, you have to stick to London. Finance is like a black hole that sucks a big chunk of the mathematical, CS and statistical UK talent. They have very proactive recruiters trying to e.g. connect with Oxbridge students when they are approaching graduation.
It’s shocking. Software engineers in the UK are treated like engineers in the US were in the 1960s. Low respect, low pay, while city boys strutting around in shiny suits snapping their fingers to get anything they want.
That's a weird statement considering I'd have guess the greatest amount of respect
and adoration (not necessarily money) (non-software) engineers have gotten in the US would've been during the Space Race and Cold War years.
It was real respect for the trade as well, not some secondhand respect that people who make a lot of money and wield a lot of social influence get.
It was respected in the sense that there was a need then in american manufacturing for engineering. But the compensation was nowhere near other professional class jobs. So really the respect seemed a bit false: to get people into the door pigeonholed so they can’t leave for higher compensation. Then when manufacturing was outsourced after the 1960s, many of these jobs disappeared. Now people in Guanzhou are designing the factories and process controls.
This isn't my experience at all, and I've been in London tech for 8 years now. I'm not entirely sure what "low respect" means here, but anywhere I've worked the company is pretty wary of knarking of their developers because we can just up and find another job basically immediately. We get paid a fair bit too - not sure compared to finance, but not hard to hit the 95th percentile or so.
Glad to hear it’s working out for you. I’ve talked to too many UK devs who feel handcuffed when they get even 50% of the US equivalent, because it’s a pay cut to go elsewhere. But, as you say, it’s all relative.
I know plenty of engineers (web application developers) making over £100-£150k outside of London, usually in fairly low-stress remote jobs.
The pay is clearly nothing compared to the US, but I wouldn’t say it was massively hard for them to get where they are. They all have 5+ years experience at a senior level, and are otherwise just reliable, capable, low-maintenance employees, but maybe that’s rare!
That is indeed very rare. A simple sanity check you can look at how many people earn about 100k in the UK, we know the figure for above 125k is 500,000 [1]. We can subtract the number of other jobs that we know for sure pay above this for example lawyers at magic circle firms which start on >150k for newly qualified lawyers, consultants in the NHS, directors of large corportaions, and we end up with a very small amount of people in other industries that earn these figures. Even before that we know the median is about £50k, and I can tell you from experience you can hire very very good software people on those wages, even in London.
From personal experience, I also know of software guys making that, but I also know far far more people earning below that, and these are oxford/cambridge/imperial/UCL grads....
> and these are oxford/cambridge/imperial/UCL grads.
There are many bad things we can say about software hiring, but one of the good things is that (outside the US at least), it's much more concerned with what you can do than the name recognition of the institution where you studied.
Just want to echo the other replies and say i think this is rare. It happens, but it's rare. I have >15 years experience, and currently work in finance making plenty. A while ago, i spoke to a recruiter about opportunities outside finance; everything he had topped out at ~90k for engineers, a bit higher for team leads.
But then, i also have friends working at a few non-finance companies on 100-150k. Small places, willing to pay for quality. Seems to be unusual though!
Then they are very few and far between. Generally the absolute limit is £90k. I've never seen any role for more than 90K unless it was a company in London and those are typically hybrid and not remote.
I only have the figures for end of 2018[1], but meta employed around 2300 people in the UK, if we assume the same distribution of jobs as elsewhere in the world about half will be engineers, so 1150 engineers. There aren't that many of these jobs. At goldman its a lot higher, aboutn 10,000[2] globally, but they only have around 3,300 employees in the Uk so if its the same ratio as global (25% tech), then that means around 800 developers. Again you'll note this is a very small number compared to the number of top graduates a year, with class sizes of 100-200 per university.
So like I said originally these jobs are few and far between. The point is that in the UK the salaries are much lower than those in the US and this is across all experience ranges.
That bad? Huh. Last time I was a permanent employee in the UK was nearly a decade ago now, and I think I was on something like £37k, I think some of my friends (Cambridge graduates and slightly older than me), even back then, were on £65-75k.
I kinda assumed inflation would have raised all of those by about 50% since then.
I am not a top software engineer( (otherwise I'd be working fang tbh) and I earn 85k up north. Hybrid role that's local as well.
I know people that earn a lot more than me.
It's just the recruiters are a joke and advertise silly salaries from local companies that are out touch. You have to know what companies are serious or not, and just apply direct or via recommendations.
Those are government, so probably have even better pensions than private sector.
And there was job advertised for lead software engineer by computer futures(probably an agency) for 80k
I didn't even look deep. I know there are even better jobs.
There are jobs that pay more than 65k. Just have to know where to look.
If you're working for undercapitalized local private companies, then yeah not going pay very much.
I'd also recommend looking at remote jobs. My really smart friends who can beat the competition got 100k+ jobs working remote that are officially based in London but they work up north. Then come down for meeting once or twice every few months.
A lot of the fintechs allow for fully remote and pay well.
We are comparing salaries of Software Engineers between the US and the UK. A Senior Developer position won't pay more than 90K in the UK outside of London. In the US I see well over that for a Senior Developer position.
Even in your examples (which are higher position than what was being discussed) they didn't top out past 90K (just like I said). Whereas in the US you can earn much more quite easily.
> You've moved the goal posts. You said 60k if your lucky.
No I didn't. I suggest you re-read the thread. I said 75K-90K max.
> I just found multiple jobs that pay more than that easily.
There are always certainly outliers. However most of those places usually have a bunch of iffy things going on e.g. you have to live at your workstation/laptop, or they are in the middle of no where. Enforced pair programming (fuck that btw), or have a stupid interview process (no I won't go through the humiliation rituals anymore).
However the vast majority of positions are paying max 65-70K for a Senior Dev.
I am glad that you managed to find something. But the rest of us haven't been as lucky.
I am a former Mech Eng who trod this path. Started at JLR, moved by self teaching into software. Engineering in the UK felt like it moved at a glacial pace that only made sense in the days of final salary pension schemes. Senior management really struggled to get their heads around why young people were so impatient, but we were not competing for the same rewards.
It seems like the salaries quoted here haven't changed much in the past couple of decades. It's a shame. I know in the past there was a brain drain of talent from the UK to Canada due to the salary disparity. Here's an example:
> Isn't JLR in Solihull? That's two hours from London.
Not 100% sure, I'm from the middle of nowhere, sorry, Derby - where Rolls Royce is primarily based. I know there's peak-time, non-stop, trains between London/Derby that take about an hour. I know this because when I got my first job in London, I still hadn't found a place to stay, so I was commuting from Derby to London every day. And when I finally moved to London it took me almost as long to get to work even though I was living in the city!
I just assumed with JLR being around Birmingham that travel to/from London would be about the same (because Birmingham is very close to Derby).
EDIT: Just checked with trainline.com, there's several morning trains from London Euston to Birmingham (New Street) that take 1hr 17mins.
Fair enough, looks like the non-stop train doesn't exist any more. Shame, it was 1hr and 5mins when it existed! Still, 1hr 29mins is still not 'middle of nowhere' territory, so I'll stick with my original point ;)
Been there, done that. I still frequently get sent Linkedin specs for companies where the hardware team lead is earning junior SWE money. UK junior SWE money.
> working for Rolls Royce in the middle of nowhere
Most people I know who ended up at RR live in Nottingham or the Peak District and commute in to Derby. Appreciate that’s perhaps not as exciting as London but it’s hardly a shit hole up here.
Agree on pay though. I work for a different engineering conglomerate (foreign owned) and I applied for a HPC role at RR a couple of years ago and the salary was £20k lower. The disparity would be even more now.
Here's a story I tell from time to time. When I was at uni, we had an internship as part of the course. The course was a joint course between Engineering and Econ/Management, so you could choose from a very wide variety of industries to satisfy the thesis requirement. The business school would coordinate the internships.
So I went interviewing in the engineering firms to the west of the country. Aerospace, materials, that kind of thing. Someone offered me £12K/year. Even for a student, that seems kind of low as I'd be looking for a short term accommodation somewhere. I kept it secret from the business school because I knew they'd pressure me to take it.
A couple of weeks later, I got an offer from Intel. Not in engineering, but in marketing. £15k, just about enough to pay rent and eat. But a lot more than engineering. I took the job and has a great time, and I still know people there. Turned down the return offer, due to the firm itself seeming a bit complacent, but also...
During the internship I went to see my friend in central London. He had landed the coveted Goldman's internship. Fully paid apartment for the period, with a view of the river, plus money. £37k/year if you include the free rent.
So when I went back to university for the final part of the degree, it was clear where I was going to look for work.
I got a job at a prop trading shop, and in the first week a guy told me about his story. He had originally taken one of the jobs in the west country, some sort of aerospace engineering. He had accidentally seen his boss's paycheck, and that made him start looking for work in finance.
These days, what are your options realistically in this country? Particularly if you want to hang around your family in the south?
Finance, big law, consultancy, certain US tech businesses. I don't even understand how doctors live here.
The job of secondary financial markets is to redirect areas of surplus unproductive wealth (that makes no return), to productive areas. By the magic of markets, sustained profitability = productive use of resources.
The problem with labourers who work in these secondary markets however, is the same as the guards who watch the gate: they can extract large tolls for being in the right place at the right time.
People in finance are rich because they're well-placed to skim highly productive traffic. However, it is -- in the vast majority of cases -- only skimming. The system functions very well to take unproductive surplus and allocate it effectively.
Though admittedly today, the larger beneficiaries are increasingly monpolies, and so on. But this isnt a side effect of the finance industry, but of the state.
This...but a twisted, bloated, incompetent, and malevolently self-serving version of it.
Actual efficiency would dictate that there be only a relative handful of finance jobs, let alone very well-paid finance jobs. And that the vast majority of the money go to actually productive industries. And that the financial markets understand the principles and timescales of other industries, so they don't screw everything up with decisions equivalent to "Fiscal quarter ends in June, and Farmer Jones says he can harvest zero corn by then. Shut him down."
But also, profit margins of major industries; amount of wealth held liquid; and so on.
You might have a moral idea of 'effective' in mind, which may not be realised. I mean only that one does not find cash lying around the vautls of the ritch -- as in pre-modern times. People do not bury gold as jesus advised. Rather they dont keep gold, it is a line item held by a business doing something with it.
> Though admittedly today, the larger beneficiaries are increasingly monpolies, and so on. But this isnt a side effect of the finance industry, but of the state.
For markets to exist, monopolies must be avoided. As you can't expect large companies to police themselves, this was generally the role of the state. The states must strike a balance between keeping large companies happy (that want monopolies and have cash today) and true markets (which are efficient on the long run).
The finance industry is probably just a side effect of everybody focusing on short term (both public traded companies and politicians/states)
In much of the developed world, economic productivity seems to correlate strongly with availability of free capital (I don't have a source but I imagine it's fairly straightforward to cook one up). Even US vs Europe, kind of similar economies, but with capital so much easier to come by in the US, and US productivity per capita is flying compared to Europe.
Availability of free capital is a function of both just general wealth of a society, and how well lubricated the wheels of finance are.
I don't think this is a controversial theory, even if it comes with unpleasant side effects (white collar crime, inequality etc). Just as having a buoyant defence industry that can churn out a lot of boom is great for a country's war fighting potential.
It's essentially the willingness of a society to fund what looks like and could actually be a complete waste of time and money.
In the US there's plenty of money to throw on seemingly frivolous pursuits, because stagnant money is generally considered wasted money. It's considered better to have that money "working for you" invested in something, anything. You could lose out, you could also win big, at least you tried. Can't have omelets without cracking eggs, as the saying goes.
Another Europe-like example is Japan: A rich society with lots of money, but society doesn't want to waste it. So most of the money is stagnant, stored in deposit accounts or in a bedroom drawer (literally, see: Tansu Yokin[1]) instead of being invested in something consequently leading to a stagnant economy.
Money in a drawer doesn't really detract from any national investment. It's just paper.
It's the allocation of capital that matters. Land, machinery, and so on.
The extent of this is that if money sits in drawers not being spent, it represents diminished demand, which suppresses prices; the government can then print a corresponding amount of money to allocate capital towards other purposes. Leaving money in the drawer means delaying until another day your vote for how national resources should be allocated.
Finance jobs in London / New York (partially) can afford those pay rates because they extract wealth from the rest of the world.
Whether they do so in return for services rendered or are extracting rents by acting as gatekeepers is a question that never quite gets resolved. A little of each I suspect, depending on the context.
It's actually Pretty Bloody Hard(tm) to store or move money/wealth safely and properly, not the least because most of us are all highwaymen when given the opportunity. Banks exist to try and bring some civility to that madness, with the cost being (ideally) a pittance skimmed from the top to keep their highwaymen tendencies at bay.
If you want to call them a protection racket akin to the mafia... you're probably right.
Of course, banks these days are much more than that and there's plenty to rightfully crucify them for. But even still, there's a reason being called a third-rate bank clerk is an insult among the highest order.
It's called capitalism because we use capital to allocate value creation. So obviously finance extracts wealth, that's their job in a capitalist system.
Decision of where to allocate money creates value. Imagine you have 500k to allocate. You can choose to invest in A or B, after analysis you realize A is a failing business, but B with 500k invested will create enormous value by producing product C. If you didn't allocate in B this company wouldn't have had enough money to produce C and succeed.
Yes, but this can still be true if the system works in a perverted way.
In your example, you should include how many $ go to the entity doing the allocation. If this is an insane amount of money, then maybe we are better off without finance and just figure out the optimal allocation in some other way.
But who will do that other way of optimally allocating?
To take a simple extreme edge case, let's imagine that there's a business that requires 500k to truly flourish, but if it gets that 500k, it will become $10B company within 5 years. If it doesn't get the 500k it will likely fail.
Only 1 person has noticed and believes that this business would have that potential. And let's say they either have 500k or they manage to convince others to get the 500k, how much of that $10B would they deserve?
Fundholding GPs don't do badly. A lot get 6 figures if they are partners in a surgery.
I think most Doctors etc need to wait until they're consultants until they make decent money.
But I'm like you - fell into banking due to being a Lotus Notes developer when it was flavour of the month and have never left. I reckon I'm on over double what I would be if I'd ended up working for IBM or Cap Gemini or similar.
[And I should say I ended up in project/programme/change management. I'm not still a Notes Developer]
I don't know, the doctor route seems like a lot of work for the money. My FIL told his kids not to do it, and he was a surgeon who ran a department. They messed around with the doctors' pensions, and it made a lot of them quit. Conditions are also awful, he started the department in a temporary building and retired with it still there.
A doctor is also a kid who got full A grades as a high school graduate. They'd have the pick of what university course to do, and then they end up doing this thing that takes until you're 30, with insane nighttime hours. It just makes no sense to me that there are still kids who think this is worthwhile. It's not even as if you are guaranteed to be allowed to specialize in what you want either, that's a battle with all the other top students.
>>A doctor is also a kid who got full A grades as a high school graduate.
Yes, because the number of med school places in the UK is limited by the government (because they have to fund the extra cost of the course over what students pay in tuition fees). You don't really need to be that smart to be a doctor.
To be fair though, they work for it. A consultant I saw recently did a full day with the NHS and they 3 - 4 hours of appointments in the evenings privately at a different hospital.
The pound is slightly heavier than the dollar and overall UK wages are lower. But truth is in most of the world being a doctor is a good career but not something you can build outstanding wealth on. Hence Europeans are often puzzled with "I want my kid become a doctor" cliche from American media.
That's just not true. Being a doctor still ranks among the top professions by wage in the UK at least, especially since the wage is largely the same regardless of area, and making six figures in an area where you can buy a house for under six figures allows you to live a very very nice life.
I have noticed this anecdotally as well in costal areas of the United States.
It’s like textbook Baumol’s cost disease[0], except housing is rising fastest while
the cost of labor nearly not at all, because buyers (hiring firms) just don’t buy
The Baumol effect is paying more for the same productivity, which can feel like a disease when you have to pay more and more for the same in some area for services relative to goods to the point where you end up pathologically preferring goods over services.
The JFK-popularized term defending a special interest project trickling down benefits to a wider community isn’t really what it feels like to someone in a coastal US city and who is trying to hire an electrician or baby sitter and finding they are priced out of the market.
The Baumol effect means that as society gets richer and GDP goes up, orchestral musicians or wait staff or any other profession whose productivity which which enjoy but whose productivity largely hasn't changed since the 19th century get paid more.
The "disease" is equivalent to a rising tide raising all boats or the lack of commodification of certain forms of human labor.
The "cure" for baumol's "cost disease" would be an explosion in income inequality.
But if we had robotic wait staff then that would be a net benefit for society, and the human former wait staff would go and do something else that's slightly more valuable for an amount of pay that's either slightly less or slightly more depending on the effect of automation on the whole economy, probably slightly more in the long run. This is the story of industrialisation!
Thought experiment: would it be good if we replaced mass transit by individual taxi drivers, because there would be so much demand for those taxi drivers that their boats would be lifted?
No, coz people like to be served in restaurants by humans.
Horn and Hardart pioneered the automated restaurant concept and while they were popular during the great depression when belt tightening was a sheer necessity, once growth and good jobs returned they died out.
Now that wealth inequality is back with a vengeance wait-staff automation is back with a vengeance.
Personally I'd prefer it if good quality healthcare were cheaply available to all without having to be bottleneck on expensive-and-time-consuming-to-train human labour, even if it did mean that the 0.5% of the population that are doctors might end up working differently (and not necessarily for less -- it's not as though the industrial revolution has impoverished society).
A waiter from the early 19th century will have much the same productivity as now. Doctors (we would hope) could be more productive by, say, not using bloodletting and leeches to heal people.
It is the same issue. The reason that medical care is so expensive is that it's bottlenecked on a small number of people who are qualified and licensed to provide it. If it weren't bottlenecked on them then it would be a massive boon to society overall, and it's not clear that it would be particularly detrimental to those people.
>It is the same issue. The reason that medical care is so expensive is that it's bottlenecked on a small number of people who are qualified and licensed to provide it. If it weren't bottlenecked on them
That bottleneck is unrelated to the baumol effect.
The bottleneck is the cause of the Baumol effect. If medicine didn't require qualified and licensed human labour to provide then we wouldn't have such high healthcare costs.
Now admittedly, there is a gap between the increase in labour productivity of wait-staff and the labour productivity of healthcare providers over the period since, say, the industrial revolution, but both are outstripped by orders of magnitude by the increase in productivity in the manufacturing and IT sectors. Manufacturing is no longer bottlenecked, because we offshore it, and IT is not bottlenecked because new technology is continuing to rapidly increase labour productivity.
I think, my layman’s understanding is the Baumol effect can be basically thought of as paying people to not be the next highest productivity gaining job.
So say bond market traders and computer programmers got more productive relative to doctors, then baumol effects would be paying doctors to not quit and get jobs at google or some bond desk. It’d be much less pronounced/related than say, trade school electricians who haven’t become much more productive with the advent of computers but are still needed. Doctors have a lot of other effects limiting their supply by things the licensing practices
Right, I think that's a valid way of seeing it, and you pay them not to do the next highest productivity gaining job because their current job is productive, particularly in price inelastic sectors like healthcare.
The reason I think it's valid to call it a disease is because you want it to be higher productivity yet, and more price elastic. Increasing healthcare provider productivity would not lower their boats, it would either shift them into the next highest productivity job, or better all round, shift them into new roles within the healthcare system opened up by the increased productivity (for example, personalised healthcare).
From the point of view of "the alternative is people earn less", "disease" does seem a misnomer. I was thinking from the point of view of "the alternative is sectors become more productive", so "disease" doesn't seem to fit as well.
Senior doctors are paid OK actually. Consultants are paid between 105-140k [1] with a big pension contribution too. That's not Goldman pay, but also quite secure and a big pension contribution from the employer which isn't included in the salaey. Also scope for very nice NHS/private combo. Also at this point, to have any medical care in the UK, you basically need to know a doctor...
Now, sure, that salary might be too low, and working for the NHS seems like hell but it would seem the money isn't the main obstacle. Maybe not right now for 2 years ago that was a very good pay.
There are other pay-related issues. Marginal tax between 100 and 150 or so is incredibly high, around 60-70%. This is because many nasty things kick in there. Tax free allowance shrinking for example. Doctors are double screwed in some cases, as by law they have to contribute a lot of their salary to pension, and in this threshold often exceed their allowance - which is a real kick in the nuts, seeing how they can't reduce it, and anyway, pension saving should always be seen favourably in a place like UK. These are by the way some of the reasons for doctor shortages in the UK, senior doctors have little incentive to work harder, many cut their hours with little difference to their net pay.
But these aren't strictly linked to their headline salary.
> These days, what are your options realistically in this country? Particularly if you want to hang around your family in the south?
In 2013 I was working as a CTO in London, managing a team of 40, and I could just about afford a run-down 2-bedroom in a just-ok part of Zone 1, assuming I wanted to make some savings too. My salary wasn't bad for the role, outside of banking. Anyway, that was pretty much the end of living in the UK for me.
90% of the problems in the UK come down to the cost of housing in London (and maybe a couple of other key cities, but mainly London)
This cost is driven by relatively high wages in London, so people on good salaries can afford more, so prices go up as supply is constrained and demand increases.
The rest of the western world is starting to see this, and before London had the issue, city states in the far east like Hong Kong and Singapore had the same problem.
> This cost is driven by relatively high wages in London
I disagree on this cause, FWIW, and would say the cost is driven entirely by the constrained supply you mention. It's a very, very politically difficult problem to fix, because if you increase the housing supply, people who already own houses see their net-worth decrease. I am sure there are some smart solutions, but most MPs and many voters already own homes and don't have much of an interest in fixing it yet.
The UK is over educated so everyone who walks into an interview has a degree so it just isn’t worth anything and puts you at the starting line, internships are there to mold nothing into something and if that values too low for you there is a queue of people behind you also with degrees who would be happy for the opportunity.
If your focus is money then higher education is the wrong path anyway, it’s oversubscribed.
In ~2006 I had a similar experience arranging my work placement during university, although I was earning a bit more — £16k for software development in the South East, just outside London. The banks were certainly offering a lot more, £30-something-k.
The university careers person said five banks would each take all fifty of us, just on the basis of us being Imperial College students, so we should apply them and forget anything else we were interested in as it wouldn't pay well. She couldn't understand the person who wanted to work at a computer game company.
We complained to the head of department, who was furious. A short time later there was a new careers person.
I wonder if we ever crossed over, i also worked for Intel in the west country (Swindon) and now whore myself out to aerospace/defence in the same area.
I see what our engineers are paid and its genuinely concerning.
Is the UK more in line with the norm though and the US is the outlier? I would say the UK, Europe, and Japan all have similar wages (although Japan has worse benefits and on the whole a larger expectation of workers so it's not like for like.)
It feels like it's got more expensive though, and worse quality. A lot of the garlic I've had this year has been in a sorry state to use a random example, and as well as food you buy to cook things like fish and chips which used to be a cheap takeaway meal cost a fortune now.
The depressing thing is that it'd rise a lot more if supermarkets weren't using their weight to squeeze farmers.
That's a boring, played-out stereotype that wasn't even true 30 years ago, let alone now. If you've never set foot in a UK supermarket I could see you perhaps still languishing under this delusion.
I literally just came back from a month in Poland, and UK food prices in supermarkets are just as low if not lower. Certainly Aldi prices easily beat Polish supermarket prices on nearly everything, maybe with the exception of baked goods.
Don't get me wrong - M&S and Sainsburys are very expensive places to shop. But I don't see the quality at Morrisons or Asda or yes, even Aldi as being any worse and the prices are very low. Go to France or Germany and try to compare, I can bet that for your average buyer groceries will be cheaper.
Its true i can't eat steak 4 nights a week as god intended but we manage to scratch cook 3 meals a day for 2 people for £70 a week, £85 with a wine pairing.
If you want to forgo eight different vegetables and four different proteins im sure you can do it for less.
I know too many people complaining "food is expensive" when all they live off is gas mark 6 / 25 mins beige rubbish.
>Unfortunately, UK property prices, food prices, utilities etc make Silicon Valley look cheep.
That's not true - UK food is _very_ cheap, and overall living costs are quite a lot less than the UK. Property is the real killer in the UK (and eating out I suppose).
Eating out is entirely optional, it's property that's the killer, and as everyones wages increase, so does rent, because there's more money chasing the same number of properties.
Did you at least get to play with the demo computers? Some of the most fun times before everyone had a super powerful machine were when we got to borrow the top-of-the-line demo machines to play on all weekend. Set up in one of those conference rooms, pizza for everyone.
If you are only doing it for the money, your point is fair - but there are many of us for whom - beyond reasonable necessities - that is at best a secondary consideration.
Anybody who moves from engineering to finance doesn't have their heart in engineering - which is fine, but its not like they had no choice.
Agree though that London and parts of the South place extra pressures on people looking to build a life and home.
> Anybody who moves from engineering to finance doesn't have their heart in engineering - which is fine, but its not like they had no choice.
Ahhh, the classic no true engineer / scotsman argument ... I couldn't possible be an Engineer because I like hard software projects with smart people, good budgets, and tight deadlines.
I also had a similar experience in Northern Italy. I did an unpaid internship for 2 months during my bachelor (you don't really have a choice here) and then remained working part-time from time to time while getting my master. When I graduated they offered me €17k, meanwhile I got a €65k internship offer in Milan...
I don’t think it’s just a UK thing, or that it’s much easier to start a hardware startup in the USA.
I think it’s more that the bar for getting a hardware startup off the ground is much higher than a software startup - everywhere in the world.
Personally I’ve been trying to self-fund and bootstrap a hardware startup (based in Australia but I’m reasonably well connected in Silicon Valley as I’m a YC alum). I’ve had plenty of early success and validation of all my market theses, but it’s super hard to get any investors interested. Plenty say “exciting” and want to chat. All lose interest when you start talking funding needs and path to market.
In a world in which investors and other startup industry contacts are accustomed to seeing a bootstrapped SaaS app showing signs of growth and revenue just a few months in, with a hardware startup it’s just impossible to avoid looking like a failure by comparison - due to all the costs, delays and complications involved with getting an MVP to market. And because successful hardware startups are so scarce relative to software ones, it’s hard even to get any good advice; there’s just barely anyone around with good, relevant experience to share (and I already know many of the people who have built companies in this vertical in past decades, none of whom are in SV).
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to make it work is to start by achieving success as a software startup, then transition into hardware to later - but even then you’d have to convince investors that it’s worth the risk.
In short, the whole tech industry has been spoiled by easy SaaS wins over the past decade, and that’s all that most investors are willing to even consider.
The exceptions are “start-big and-get-huge-fast” plays like Groq - but the founders of that company were already highly credentialed and connected when they started, and even then vanishingly few investors are willing/able to fund new companies like that. That’s not the kind of thing young, unproven founders can pull off, anywhere.
>I’ve had plenty of early success and validation of all my market theses, but it’s super hard to get any investors interested. Plenty say “exciting” and want to chat. All lose interest when you start talking funding needs and path to market.
I started a non-tech food product company, and have found the exact same thing to be true in my line of work. It's odd.
Here's a conversation I recently had with a potential investor.
"You've got a years worth of sales to convince me you have found ideal PMF?"
Yes.
"You've found the resources you need to scale to the degree that I'd get a good return if sales continue to grow?"
Yes.
"You've built a small team with some industry vets, and have some great talent on your advisory board who know the ups and downs of building a brand and product in your chosen space?"
Yes.
"You've boostrapped your way to $100k in revenue, have developed a cult-like following in your local market and are seeking a small amount to be able to grow the product to a state-wide or nation-wide scale?"
Yes.
"How much do are you looking to raise?"
Not a lot by modern standards. A million dollars would last us several years
"Why should I invest in you? Your industry's traditional exit valuation isn't triple digit. Sorry"
Why the fuck did you come to me and ask for this meeting?
>In short, the whole tech industry has been spoiled by easy SaaS wins over the past decade, and that’s all that most investors are willing to even consider.
This needs to be echoed from the rooftops. And seen by a whole bunch of investors/VCs whose hubris has prevented them from investing in anything else.
> Alex: Developed AI drone swarms for disaster relief at 18. Graduated with top honours from Imperial. His job? Tweaking a single button's ergonomics on home appliances.
>These aren't outliers. They're a generation of engineering prodigies whose talents are being squandered.
Just the opposite can still be like a mirror image :\
When I was younger than that in the land of the dollar bill I had already made millions for our clients in financial services.
At the time of course the dollar and the pound sterling were still backed in a non-fiat way at about $2.5/£1 which people could count on for the long term.
Once everything went fiat, nobody could afford anything physical like they could before.
I didn't get out of high school until after 1971 so it was already far too late.
Then I went to the University to study hardware type things so I would have something to sell where concrete value was being added, not merely shuffled around or gradually extracted. The business school had a ridiculous cheating scandal and they weren't as good at math as I would have liked anyway.
But manufacturing momentum continued to dwindle with skyrocketing inflation and labor costs.
Regardless, I'm still not finished improving my abilities to create and/or make all kinds of things from mechanical hardware, electronics, chemicals and more, but only sold one physical product for a limited number of years in my employers' or my own company, which was a side product within a pure service provider. You can be prepared your whole life and still not get up to launching hardware as easily as you can with something having much less raw material cost.
Which is naturally the way it always was, but one day the costs just skyrocketed out of sight and beyond the reach of millions more technologists in a most insidious way, so no more manufacturing for you. And millions is a lot, that grew to include today's big slice containing almost all of the promising creatives who are capable of earth-shaking physical inventions who were fortunately not previously confined to such an exclusive (never be able to afford it again) club. If past progress would have been limited the same way, Bell Labs or NASA could never have even gotten off the ground in the 20th century. Does anybody today have any idea what places like this were supposed to be like in the 21st century? Hint; not less-capable of putting every other contender to shame, and certainly not smaller or non-existent. While still being dwarfed in size by the combined power of industrial research labs supporting domestic manufacturing.
I guess it's just remaining momentum continuing to slow from an era that was already bygone before I got out of college. Once inflation kicked in, average people couldn't afford to buy US-made products any more, manufacturers couldn't afford to keep making them, and it never got better. Reagan came along and it got even worse. Remember, the great mothballing of factories in the 20th century is only temporary until the value of the currency in average peoples' pockets comes back :\
If you want to be able to make anything you could possibly need, you need to already be making everything you already need.
Inflation in the 70s was caused by oil price shocks. Much of the physical economy relies on oil in an unhealthy way.
If you're looking for a culprit, I'd suggest a closer look at that.
Meanwhile industrialisation has been off-shored to China, which is now the tech and industrial powerhouse the US was in the 50s and 60s.
The former industrial centres in the US and UK were largely left to rot, because the people doing the offshoring simply didn't care about former workers. (In fact - in Thatcher's case, and probably Reagan's too - they actively hated them.)
Once you lose an industrial culture it's very hard to rebuild it. It's not just the factories, it's the investment, infrastructure, and education pipelines that feed them at all levels.
That's one thing I have been doing in real-time since the 1960's, you should have seen how bad it already was before the oil shock.
Oil shock was just the nail in the coffin.
I made sure I could do a lot of unique things with oil & gas ever since.
Would never have done that if things hadn't gotten so bad, I was into alternative energy.
Still spent most of my time with chemicals anyway, for one thing they aren't cheap enough to burn for fuel and that makes a big difference, even if many of them are more toxic than petroleum itself.
There's always been more money in oil though, because there's so god damned much of it :\
The largest problem I see is shipping times. If I need to download a new software "part" (library or other), the shipping time is the download time, nearly instant.
If I need new hardware pieces, its either next day shipping, a few days by air-freight or three weeks on a boat from china.
This limits prototype turnover time, and means iterating quick is much harder.
Finally you have the problem that hardware is expensive and an additional cost. A hardware startup has all the same costs as a software company but with the addition of hardware.
Parts are pretty much instant, pcb turn around times are 3 to 15 days depending on how complex they are.
Even in the bad old days of punch cards and priesthoods the turn around for software was faster.
I have a little pcb mill in the garage that I use for prototypes.
To this day I've not met another EE that knows what a voronoi mapping is, or why you'd want one. In a previous startup where I was the software engineer I got through more prototypes for the analogue signal paths in an afternoon than the two other EEs had in the previous week.
Only for simple pcb. If you are making multi-layer pcb with complex stacks, pcb manufacturing and soldering (with associated tooling setup, validation and so) are easily 2 months of turnaround
That’s a big part of it. But mostly it’s that your dev+deploy+evaluate cycle is so much slower. With web software you can write a feature or bug-fix and push to prod in minutes - and repeat that many times a day. With hardware each equivalent cycle is weeks or months (especially in my vertical - farms).
Some of us write software for embedded devices where a mistake in programning means a critical machine in a remote area needs someone to physically go there and thus spend months in test before we dare deploy. Some of us care about quality and won't allow a customer to see bugs thus even though we can deploy in seconds our reputation won't allow it. There is also software that bugs can kill people so again we won't deploy without evtensive testing - much of this is regulated and we would go to prison for deploying at will even if it works.
those who work in any of the above react in horror to stories of how the web deploys to production so fast. we know we are not perfect and don't understand how you would risk it.
In some shops this is solved by staggering scheduling so people work on several projects. Some aspects of HW can be simulated (think analog with SPICE-likes, or logic level like the chip designers and FPGA users do) so this reduce the need to iterate every time in hardware.
A lot of the iteration work can also be done on the board you received. You don't have to wait for your new board to see if those additional decoupling capacitors will do something, you add them on your current board by hand... You would be amazed at how far rewiring can go, sometimes entire BGAs are removed, installed dead-bug style and each pin wired by hand.
It's because hardware developers don't take the software side seriously and either assume they can just do it themselves or don't think it's worth a decent salary
It's always somebody's fault, and I haven't analyzed it that closely. But empirically, the priority of software is to finish the previous project, while hardware moves ahead. We don't touch production code. Some of us (myself) write our own test scripts. Very little hardware runs without some kind of computation happening. When one of my designs goes on the shelf, I want it to be provably reproducible and tested.
We definitely value software, and the devs are our friends. It's not such a huge place that we're totally isolated from one another.
The pace is not really parts supply constrained in my experience. It just takes much longer to build and validate even relatively modest design changes.
Investors are generally wanting to see little existing competition so that’s not really the issue.
They’re more concerned with factors that will cause the company to self-destruct. Running out of money before hitting PMF and growth is the most common failure mode for any startup, and is much more likely with any hardware startup, due to the dramatically slower iteration times.
There's very good simulation tools available but scrappy startups can rarely afford them. You also need to people who know how to use the tools appropriately.
UK ignited the First Industrial Revolution. It's sad to see that UK has slipped to number 16 or lower when it came to the market share of global manufacturing. And the problem is not to just UK, but to pretty much all the developed countries. Many nations and people have benefited greatly from globalization, but I have to ask: is it worth it if the cost is forfeiting my own country's manufacturing know-how and supply chains? And yes, I'm fully aware of the theory of comparative advantages, but in the meantime, but manufacturing can still bring great income to many families and nations still compete and even go to wars with each other, right?
When I was a kid (80s) I knew old boys with lathes and mills and pillar drills at the bottom of the garden. They were the last generation, I think, of a tradition rooted in the Victorian era which informally transferred a lot of knowledge from one generation to the next.
My pet theory is that their disappearance is tied closely to the cost of land. I see US-based hardware hobbyists' shops on YouTube, and I think "I couldn't even afford to build a shed that big". The tools themselves are often actually pretty cheap second hand at auction, because the demand is so low, but I live on the back of a postage stamp in comparison with those guys.
(Another possibility is simply that software ate the world.)
Blame the Thatcher Revolution and the sell-off of the council housing estates. Councils used to actually make money from housing, however, the revenue went back into building more homes, so more revenue. Rents were not extortionate or subsidised, however, if you were on benefits then you would get your rent covered.
The council housing provided an option at a base price, private landlords could not compete if they also had to pay for the mortgage, at a time when interest rates were a lot higher.
Once the council housing was sold off, there was no longer this base price, unless you wanted to spend five years on the list for a housing association, as in the privatised council housing estate.
This change meant that the best place for your money was in property. Property was no longer a near-depreciating asset, house price inflation went through the roof, but was not part of the inflation index.
Since then the economy has been that of rent-seeking. There is no point making stuff as you might as well sell the premises to a developer to convert into luxury flats, which then get bought by rent-seekers and rented out to people that would have had a full-feature council house in previous times.
When a rent-seeker has income from one property, they can remortgage to buy another, then use leverage to buy more and more.
Rent-seeking is not adding anything to the economy, no product is made. However, rent-seekers vote Conservative.
In an economy where everyone has to pay more for the parasites that are the rent-seekers, the cost of labour goes up. This is just because people need more money to pay to have a roof over their head, not because they want gold taps.
This is the root cause of the decline of the West, you are probably old enough to remember how this capital from rent-seeking spread out from London to even the slowest seaside town. Wherever it went, businesses stopped making stuff and started importing instead. Once that business of making stuff has gone, it never comes back.
The real value is in making stuff even though there is plenty of profit in retail, 'no product is made'. Furthermore, it is not possible to stop someone from doing the same as you, buying widgets from China, marking them up and flogging them with an English manual.
In the USA the situation is the same in the big cities. In the flyover states there is a different Ponzi scheme afoot, with vast tracts of suburbia built but without the long-term tax base to maintain the roads and other infrastructure indefinitely. So long as there is cheap oil and the dollar is the reserve currency, it all works with printing money, with the world taking the inflation hit, not the USA.
The sheds you see full of toys are not in New York, they will be somewhere such as Florida or Texas.
The US outsourced its manufacturing to China in the name of comparative advantage. Bob bakes bread, Alice grow apples. Everyone is better off because of specialization.
In Thomas Friedman's latest nyt column, he refers to China's manufacturing dominance as a play to de-industrializing other countries. It may just be globalization is incompatible with political realities.
Or… Bob makes bread, Alice grows flowers. Alice needs bread; Bob likes flowers but can go without if he wants to. Who’s going to come off worse if they have an argument?
On the other hand, long-term planning is susceptible to disruption and unforeseen events, and when we have long-term government plans they have a way of taking on a life of their own and defending themselves even if they have outlived their usefulness.
> These populations are more than large enough to specialize in everything.
My impression is that population size is not very relevant in the math of trade specialization profit. It's still more profitable to play on relative strengths and weaknesses. You can find other things to worry about like security (from droughts and earthquakes perhaps), or political or strategic desires. In particular, trade is likely beneficial even when local production would be cheaper than remote production - just because there are other things that can be done localy and even stronger (like phone games or advertising-oriented browser feature destruction /s).
Why would European population of almost a billion people need to specialize on anything? What would it even specialize on. What does that world need that there need to be 10% or the world working on it?
>In particular, trade is likely beneficial even when local production would be cheaper than remote production - just because there are other things that can be done localy and even stronger
This only matters if you can not do both. If your population is large the amount of things which it can do especially good can easily be exhausted before you run out of people.
I don't even see how you can specialize. What does China specialize in? (Before answering, think about the things which China is not trying to produce or the services it is not trying to perform. Can you name even one?)
"Specialize" is not quite the right word. In trade economics (from the very crudest level), trade is beneficial to BOTH parties EVEN when etc etc etc. i.e. higher profit. It's really hard to beat trade.
It's not that anyone needs to specialize as in "otherwise it won't work". It's that it's more profitable and so people will tend to prefer that plus some extra money in their pocket.
And it's not specialize as in only do wine, cheese and perfume and nothing else. It's systematically favor some things that you are relatively better at than others, and trade for the others (not even 100%, you can export some plastic parts and import some similar plastic parts at the same time). Even if the other country could themselves be better at it. So for France, engineering of all kinds, wine, cheese, perfume, meds, etc but also any manufacturing that by chance has gotten and remained strong (say, like airplanes, some electrical equipment, whatever else that really any other country also could possibly manufacture).
I do not think that Europe or the US even could specialize in anything. The population is so large that for every good and service needed there is a group of people who are specializing in it right now.
What single good/service is not at all produced in Europe. Which single good/service is not produced in China?
At the scale of 1B people specialization becomes meaningless. You can't even accomplish it if you wanted to. All you could do is letting one of your industries get out competed by some other power.
I feel we are talking past each other so I will leave it at that.
The specialization you ... expect? is irrelevant.
Business jets are not produced in China, large efficient passenger jets are not produced in China, printed silk scarves branded Hermes, silent diesel electric submarines for export are not produced in China. (See what I did there?) And that's irrelevant to why trade exists.
Even an up-to-the-minute super competitive manufacturer has no incentive (except political and some risk-aversion) to do everything in-house or in one country. It does have incentives to trade with other countries and other companies. Even if it possibly had the machines and low cost employees on hand and already trained to do that, from an economics point of view it should (in the long term), sell some production units, focus on the others and trade for the difference.
>Business jets are not produced in China, large efficient passenger jets are not produced in China, printed silk scarves branded Hermes, silent diesel electric submarines for export are not produced in China. (See what I did there?) And that's irrelevant to why trade exists.
Literally every single one of these is false. China is producing every single one of these things.
Ironically to UK probably make that mistake first. A lot of manufacturing moved to Hong Kong, which was a British Territory until 1997. During the reform of the Chinese economy, Hong Kong invested in factories on the mainland. Then of course it was handed back to their jurisdiction.
UK probably made that mistake first by moving lots of manufacturing to their colonies, like North America and later the US. The UK said the same thing the western world said about China: they built low-level low-quality stuff, and we focused on the high-value manufacturing. But guess what? Smart people are everywhere, and ambitious people will not build "low-quality stuff" forever. Sooner or later, those who sweat on factory floors will have more know-how than those who enjoy draw boxes in a cushy office. Indeed, those who know only how to draw boxes will soon find that even their boxes, no matter how pretty, will not be relevant.
comparative advantage is disproven at this point, because economists are failed math majors who don't account for the innovation flywheel effect and general network effects. Silicon Valley software industry happened because of the proximity to the existing hardware industry there. Same thing for other forms of manufacturing and the US gave it away in the name of short term profits
Even the Americans can't manage economic isolation. It takes a global civilisation to build a smartphone. We might have been able to get closer to it by being in the EU, but now we're on our own on that one.
Realistically in order to prosper the UK needs to join up as part of a "greater NAFTA" trade bloc. But the UK no longer has anything that the USA needs so they'll have to make major concessions to get a deal done.
I realize it's an outdated stereotype but man it says nothing good about America when the UK won't join up because it would compromise the quality of available foods.
When you're starving you eat what's available regardless of how appetizing it looks. The UK isn't starving yet, but how long can they hold out? And has NAFTA ruined Canadian or Mexican food?
Apparently I was being a little too subtle. I meant starving for free trade relationships and participation in a larger economic bloc, not literally starving from lack of food. The point is that UK will have to join up with someone else eventually; they lack the scale to go it alone.
That's not entirely true (about global civilization being needed). Any nominally developped but not too wasteful country or even just California could do it. It's just that that ship has sailed and we collectively decided a long time ago NOT to go that way. Recovering from these choices would take a lot of time and a lot of money that we would rather spend on railroads to and from nowhere (California). Sarcasm aside, americans, europeans, japan in particular are not ready to pay the price for that - even while they could totally afford it. They are busy paying the price for lots of other things and can't be bothered.
Yeah, I do recognize that. I just wish that the US could have a healthy mixture of light and heavy industry, so that the cost building any mission critical systems will not go through the roof, and so that we will be able t build anything domestically if we want. Even though it's likely a pipe dream now, but at least the US can do so for the WW II and after WW II for quite some time.
That ship sailed. It's like the other comment said - China embraces manufacturing to make other countries inept at it. It's not only that American precision engineering is mostly at parity with China, it's that manufacturing anywhere else is a waste of money. When unibody aluminum Macbook cases are machined, they never are machined in America. They're sold to Americans, marketed as an American company, but your device (even at the markup Apple charges) cannot be made economically in America, period.
In a broader sense, I'd say that America is headed down the same road the UK is too. We expect people to pay hand-over-fist for our tech talent that isn't any better than what you can get in Pakistan or China. Our hard markets are getting bearish, our leadership wants to de-globalize, and American tech wants to maintain global control without acquiescing to local governance.
America had the economic lead before WWI and after WWII, but now we've bet the farm on our ability to market bullshit. America's national economy cannot survive if the App Store and ChatGPT are our premier exports.
This to me is a super interesting example. Nobody but nobody NEEDS a unibody aluminum anything. But it's cool, light, beautiful - and sells great - so it's what gets produced even when the only place that makes sense for that is China. The Macbook could temporarily return to more manageable production - like plastic - and the world would not end.
It's a commercialized and well-distributed example. You could replace it with any other machined commodity - engine blocks, turbojets, ablative shielding, toilet seats, you name it. The industries have all moved in the same direction and have no hope of ever coming back. Capitalism fought authoritarian subsidy, and capitalism lost.
> Capitalism fought authoritarian subsidy, and capitalism lost.
If we are going to blame something I would think it's the chinese enthusiasm for capitalist business development.
It's not the chinese State Owned Enterprises that earn american contracts, mostly. Not to mention Foxconn being a taiwanese company that earned that business in the US to begin with (and only later moved it to mainland china.)
> That’s not the kind of thing young, unproven founders can pull off, anywhere.
The UK, with a comprehensive social safety net, should be more willing to take small risks. I know it's now what happens, but it'd be important to understand why something that should be actually isn't.
I think that needs to be qualified heavily — salaries in the UK are much lower both in nominal and PPP terms, so there's much less opportunity to build one's own safety net, and the NHS is overwhelmingly focused on providing care for the elderly. To a young(ish) startup founder, the presence of the NHS and UC makes little to no difference.
The startup founder in the UK needn't worry about a bad cycling accident (happened to a friend in his thirties), an early cancer (colleague in her thirties) or losing their job just before a baby is born (friend in his thirties).
Why not? If you are a startup founder you might have significant capital invested and be in debt. The government will not pay your companies bills while you are unable to work.
I think a VC funding you is a much better security against any of these events than health insurance being forcibly deducted from your pay.
>Those 3 events can easily saddle someone with 100k of debt. Surely you can understand how that might hamper an up and coming entrepreneur.
That is the case in the UK as well. If you have a start up in which you have invested capital and suddenly can't work anymore that is a huge financial disaster. The state is not going to fund your business while you recover in hospital.
Also the medical debt is something you would only have if you weren't insured. Both US and UK have health insurance, the only difference is that in the UK you have to pay for it, in the US you don't.
In any case having a well funded startup is a far better safety net than a forced insurance.
This is true. People associate a safety net with healthcare, but young and healthy startup founders are more worried about making rent or mortgage payments if their startup should fail.
Maybe a good way to incentivize more risky entrepreneurs is to provide a better safety net. I would, however, caution against making it too perfect (and I hate myself for saying that, because I would prefer people worked on whatever brings them happiness, not money) - part of the drive for Americans (and the reason they risk so much on it) is the need to accumulate as much capital as possible as soon as possible, because they know they won't enjoy any sort of safety net when they grow old.
Let me rephrase — in the UK we have a generous and expanding safety net, for the elderly, voted for by the elderly, and paid for at great expense by the working population.
Maybe there are talking about the "triple lock" in the UK. The triple lock mean the pensions will rise to ether match the rate of inflation, average earnings or 2.%, whichever is the highest so eventually it will be unsustainable.
Just to chime in and say that bootstrapping does work in this domain, I say that as someone who's had a few friends go down that route, but yes, it's really tough.
There's also people I know who built small scale solutions and then managed to push that into funding and funnily enough a Kickstarter as well though I don't think he'd recommend anyone follow that route.
Interested in your opinion on crowd-funding as a way of raising initial capital - ie cut out professional investors and go direct to potential customers?
I've seen it work once, but it was hard over the long term: LIFX (smart light globes) [1], which was launched on Kickstarter in 2012 by people working from the same co-working space and accelerator I was involved with then (so I kinda had a backstage view on it).
Products like that work if there's natural consumer appeal built into the product, that you can convey in a video that gets people excited imagining how much better their life would be. That's what motivates pre-purchasing and also sharing/virality. That's why the LIFX Kickstarter campaign worked. But even with the $1.3M crowdfunding, they needed a lot more funds from investors; the crowdfunding just helped with initial funding and to prove demand.
Still, that company didn't turn out to be a big success. It was hard/slow to get the product into production and shipped to consumers – it took 2-3 years I think. Established lighting vendors like Phillips were quick to get competing products into major retail stores. Along the way the company seemed to have a lot of internal drama, and investors became disenchanted. The company was acquired in about 2019 [2], then that company went bust, then the LIFX assets were acquired again in 2022 [3].
So, from its early signs of huge potential success, it ends up being a cautionary tale and another case study that investors can look at as a reason not to invest in hardware startups.
Another cautionary tale is the "Coolest Cooler" [4], which ended up in a lawsuit [5]. I heard someone mention that a factory they engaged in China held them to ransom (staff went "on strike" in the middle of production) but I don't know details beyond what's been reported.
These cases demonstrate all the ways these kinds of projects can go wrong, and are much harder to turn around than a software project in which you can be building your product to maintain customer satisfaction and growth day-by-day.
And even still, this approach only works for gimmicky consumer products, not B2B products that are more likely to work commercially in the long term.
Edit: Also remember Pebble (watch) which was a huge Kickstarter hit and seemed like a successful company for a few years after that, then suddenly went bust.
I guess the worry for startup's there is if you too close then they might 'steal' - however big companies are typically quite keen on upholding IP laws - they use their venture arms to spread their bets - partial stakes ( and inside knowledge ) on a whole array of startups.
The worry is not so much that they’ll steal your IP (good legal protection can prevent that), but those kinds of corporate VC funds are generally looking to invest in things that fit in with their own corporate strategy and plan. The investment is a bit of a “try before you buy” before eventually acquiring the company and making the product part of their own offering.
That can be a good path if you’re making something that one of these companies would want to acquire and an acquisition by such a company is an appealing outcome for you.
But it’s not going to help you if you want to be an independent company and brand that can do things the way you want long term.
Would it be fair to say that the "unicorn" effect is a lot harder to achieve as well? If VC rely on 1 out of N startups doing well then that 1 success needs to achieve over N-fold returns just to break even.
On the other hand I have no trouble coming up with examples of hardware companies that did well: Apple, Nvidia, Intel... but those time scales are titanic.
Not sure they are great examples. Intel is going through a lot of pain now (but it's been very successful in the past). Apple was in a terrible situation before its reverse acquisition by NeXT (NeXT paid one Steve Jobs for all of Apple and got $400 million in change). Nvidia got insanely lucky with Bitcoin, then with AI. Its original plan was to make 3D accelerators for gamers and, maybe, engineering workstations.
All of them were a couple wrong decisions away from doom multiple times.
Think Commodore, who made one of the most popular computers ever, only to be mismanaged into the ground.
Luck and timing obviously play huge roles. But I like to think that as an industry we no longer frequently make mistakes quite as outright stupid as Commodore management did. There are at least some generally understood tech industry best practices which prevent decisions like that when there is serious money at stake.
Nvidia outsourced their manufacturing, as did a lot of similar startups from the 90s. Even back then, VCs didn't want to invest in hardware companies that were going to actually build their own hardware because that's expensive, they wanted companies that designed their products in the USA and had them manufactured by other fabs.
Nvidia got lucky by building a product that just happened to be amazingly well suited to a technology that would emerge 20 years after they were founded. Credit where it's due, they developed CUDA and gave universities gobs of cash/hardware to train students to leverage CUDA for machine learning and later, AI. But if not for AI, Nvidia would still be a video card designer with a market cap of maybe 5% of its current valuation.
It's difficult to call them a hardware company in the sense that Intel is. They only do designs of hardware, and a lot of their value comes from the software they designed to leverage their hardware in ways beyond their initial purpose.
It's funny that you didn't mention Dell, Lenovo, Sony, or even Microsoft and Nintendo which both make their money off the software than the hardware, but are also companies that produce and selling hardware.
They also all got started several decades ago when there were huge new blue ocean opportunities to pursue and much less competition for capital. And other many competitors have failed along the way. (Remember Amiga, Wang, Gateway, many others from the 80s and 90s).
The main issue now is competition for capital: the majority of tech investors regard software startups as much safer paths to huge returns. Whether they’re right or wrong in any individual case is a separate issue; they’re playing the percentages.
Yep, look at RISC-V, the most promising hardware is from the USA. It is not yet on the latest silicon process, but with the latest GPU, I guess we could run the latest games, until the game devs recompile and QA a bit their games (obviously on elf/linux)
Most promising by what definition? And what subset of applications/markets are you considering?
In the microcontroller space, China is leading on RISC-V. EspressIf, WCH, et.c are already shipping units at scale. Of course these are low value chips, but the volumes are large. The combined shipments for microcontrollers are in tens of billions of units annually. The technology choices in the space changes slowly (32 bit over 8/16bit is quite recent...), but over the next 10 years RISC-V looks poised to take a decent chunk.
I don't know much about the details about how it got started (i.e., how much Palmer Luckey self-funded it in the early stages) but the fact that he'd already built/sold Oculus was always going to make it easier to open doors and close funding deals (even if the politics/FB drama was a complication).
Also, building tech for the US military has some advantages. You have one customer with very high stakes and very deep pockets. Obviously it's hard to get started and you need to be building something that's uniquely useful and valuable for defence purposes, but once you achieve that, once you're in the door of the military industry, you're on pretty solid ground, and that's attractive to investors. The one hardware company i know in Australia that's doing well is also making defence tech.
It's much harder if all your potential customers (in my case, farmers) are small family businesses spread thinly in non-urban areas all over the world. Investors know that makes distrubuition much more challenging.
It's not just in the hardware sector, it's across the board.
My (American) wife moved to London years ago and was a manager in a prestigious London museum overseeing 60 people.
She has over 20 years experience in some of our top museums and her salary in 2023 was a paltry £30k.
We just moved to the US and within a couple of months she has a job in museums here but now paying 2.3x the salary (converted back to £) and only managing a team of 20 people.
Less stress, more resources for uniforms and initiatives and annual salary increases here way above inflation.
As a Londoner I feel quite aggrieved by the situation. It's one thing to increase your salary 50% as a lot of engineers do moving to the US. But to 230% increase your salary is just nuts.
Only London's financial sector pay was globally competitive - but now with Brexit's rules fully locked in even that sector is slowly losing its talent and customers to Europe and beyond.
The culture sector in London is notoriously badly paid. Mostly staffed by the intellectual trophy husbands and wives of the financial sector.
Even similar sized public sector organisations (thinking education) pay far better. A senior headteacher with 50 or 100 staff will do a lot better than a cultural manager.
> Mostly staffed by the intellectual trophy husbands and wives of the financial sector.
Oh so true. Which helps to explain the number of levels of management in UK cultural institutions, because in London there are enough of these people who want a (poorly paid) role that it's better to have 3 layers of management when 1 would do.
The UK pays terribly in a lot of areas when compared to the US, Canada and Australia. In software, the only way to keep up is contracting, preferably in London, preferably in finance.
But my partner also pretty much doubled her pay in retail management when we moved to Australia.
The London financial sector may be losing talent to Europe, but from what I can tell European pay in fintech is not comparable.
Museum jobs are hideously badly paid. In many cases the real work is done for free by "volunteers" (really poor saps on a 2-5 year job interview) before finding out the actual job went to a buddy of the museum director who doesn't even need to show up most of the time.
Software engineers can usually expect to at least 2x their earnings, the median in the uk is £50k and in the US it is £100k, and that is not acounting for the significantly lower tax burden. (That pay excludes medical benefits, if you include the dollar value of that and bonuses and equity the difference rises).
>> Only London's financial sector pay was globally competitive - but now with Brexit's rules fully locked in even that sector is slowly losing its talent and customers to Europe and beyond.
Citation needed. No-one wants to live in Frankfurt.
What do you expect the Lord Mayor to say? "Yes we think Brexit was great and that the government is going a good job." They're a lobby, they want to lobby for more concessions.
Feels the same. Moved to UK a couple of years ago, can’t find a £25k job. Found some outsourced work at American companies and now suddenly I’m going to hit the higher tax bracket
If your wife used to manage 60 people and now manages a third of that, it seems like her talent is being wasted NOW, not when she was in the UK.
I'll add that 70K is nothing to write home about in the US, especially if you're not in a low COL state.
The article is about people not going in the field that they're talented at, because it's low paid. Clearly it doesn't apply to your wife which is talented and went in the low paid field.
I left the UK after graduating at 21, fully intending to come back within a couple of years. Its weird watching it from the outside for 10 years waiting for a "good time" to move back and realizing that time isn't coming more and more each year.
The salaries in Japan arent great honestly, but mine, the quality of life and how far my money goes is so much better than if I lived back at the UK. Every time I go back it seems more and more people are struggling to pay for basic expenses - and even if I moved back it seems get a great salary I'd have to live in London, which I dislike.
I imagine lots of people far more talented than me must also be feeling the pull to not stay in the country too. Its festering politically and economically. Besides family there really is no benefit to remaining.
The UK cannot just "be Singapore". What happened in Singapore was a specific, unrepeatable combination of its geography, the needs of the region, the size of the country, and the culture.
To maintain its wealth today, Singapore relies on a large underclass of underpaid non-citizens. Around 40% of the country are non-citizens.
In addition, London sort of has its own Singapore(s) in the form of the City and Canary Wharf. That's great for those who work there, but it's not feasible for a country of nearly 70 million for everyone to just work in finance.
Final comment:
> Singapore did not depend on neighboring countries to climb out of 3rd world poverty
Singapore's wealth is built on trade and foreign investment. To assume that without other countries it would be equally successful is absurd.
This is true but there are many policies that the UK could copy from other countries like Singapore that would work much better than what they are currently doing
From the top of my head, might be incorrect but this is what I remember from reading about it:
1. Some of the least bureaucracy in the world to start a business. Simple + fast.
2. Some of the simplest/least laws in the world (law in general) to allow for business to succeed/be efficient. They actually started out with British law and then modified it where necessary to get to where they are now.
3. Some of the least political corruption in the world, due to a deliberately designed system against it: paying politicians very high salaries from taxes (on par with industry) instead of from bribes/lobbying (or legalized insider trading like in the US) + a dedicated secret service department tasked with keeping an eye on politicians and their corruption. Very high fines/imprisonment if caught. There's other stuff they do that could be copied.
4. Simple tax laws and low taxes in general.
5. Relatively simple worker protection laws (easy to hire and fire).
6. The best public transportation system in the world (based on my own experience and extensive travel around the world, I'm from EU).
7. Some of the best public housing in the world. Basically similar to what the UK used to have (based on a legacy UK system) before Tatcher killed it, except better thought out. It's all connected to their "central provided fund" (CPF) where everybody can save tax-free for housing, healthcare and other important stuff.
8. Tons of trade agreements with other countries. UK choses to just follow EU, which is relatively complex and limited (Brexit never happened in any practical real sense). "fort Europa"
9. Access to highly educated talent. Both local (some of the best uni's in the world) as well as from students all over (South East) Asia who can't wait to come to Singapore (highest income in the region).
This is some very general examples, the TLDR is that they went from third world country to first world within 1 generation thanks to the best leadership there can probably be.
I often hear the same non-explanations repeated about how Singapore got to wealth. "they use cheap labor" (literally every country in SEA does), "oh it's their location", "they just got lucky", "it's because they're an Island", "it's because they're on a trade route", "it's because other countries helped them", "it's because they're small". None of these make sense to me and don't explain anything. There are tons of regions and countries around Singapore who fit (some of) those criteria. All of the countries around Singapore started out as 3rd world countries when Singapore was a 3rd world country and all of them still are now that Singapore is not. The difference is leadership IMO.
Thanks for being fair-minded and giving credit where credit is due. I'm so tired of reading comments trivializing Singapore's achievements and mischaracterising it as a country.
> it's because other countries helped them
Also, this is not true. Singapore never received any handouts, save a meagre sum from Japan as compensation for occupying Singapore during World War 2. Singapore's first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, understood that such monetary gifts always came with strings attached, and that accepting them would increase Singapore's vulnerability to the caprices of its benefactors. He was adamant to avoid having Singapore held hostage.
> Singapore relies on a large underclass of underpaid non-citizens. Around 40% of the country are non-citizens.
There is nothing stopping other wealthy countries from doing this besides egalitarian values, it could take the place of illegal immigrants in agriculture in the US for example
It's a political issue. There are things the UK is good at - finance, culture/media, software and yes hardware innovation, legal services, tourism. But since the GFC especially, none of these things are considered "right" by the electorate.
Instead we romanticise unproductive legacy stuff, and an NHS which, while its staff are in many cases heroic, spends most of its vast budget cleaning up the mess of a population who thinks eating a sensible diet and enacting basic public health policy is "woke".
It's a good thing we banned indoor smoking in public buildings in the early aughts, there's no way you'd get that through in today's political climate.
Vast majority of NHS expense is keeping an aging population alive. A lot of the rest of government spending (nearly 80% of my council tax for example) goes on social care for that same aging population.
The NHS spends less per capita than the US spends on medicaid. Not less per person covered, less overall.
It’s a black hole money-pit everywhere. There is no return on spending money for people who will never be productive again.
The only way that kind of wealth transfer works is with a growing proportion of workers, but that has long not been the case in many developed countries.
The solution for all these countries (even the US) is to dismantle all wealth transfer to old people. It might be the only way to incentivize production of families that raise productive children. Or tell old people to expect declining quality of life (faster than it already is).
The west is caught in a web of its own creation. We have basically incentivized the countries to get older by taxing the young to subsidize the rich.
Unfortunately, there's no easy way for democracy to correct this. older people vote and are wealthier. Both of those mean they have large political power.
Doesn't this create a situation where the old rely on their own younger generation to support them?
And therefore inequality between older people who have families (or have families that care about them) and those that don't?
I can see this particularly being a problem for countries like the UK which has long encouraged "upwardly-mobile" people to move away from their towns of origin in pursuit of economic opportunity, leading to families being widely dispersed across a country which, despite its fairly small size, is not especially fast to travel around.
That is, if someone goes out for work instead of caring for relatives, not only do we count their work as GDP, we also count the person who has to stand in for them.
So that's a large increase in paid work done, but a minimal amount of extra wellbeing generated. Especially if, say, each of them now has to drive 45 minutes each way.
If, as you say, care is paid for by other people working, are there interventions - either state or individual - to reduce the need to consume it? Obviously some people are just unlucky, and live a long time in a state of total incapacity (hence the "dementia tax" rhetoric), is it possible to incentivise people to do things that mean they need less of it - by spending a greater proportion of their lifespan in good health, say?
Not necessarily on that last point as it's something other than a linear relationship.
There are people aged 90 who've needed 0 years of care, and others who've needed 30.
That was kind of what I meant by greater proportion.. we're all mortal, but for me personally, the idea of being utterly dependent for a long period of my later years is, to put it mildly, not something I want. As in I would literally rather be dead. I'm not saying other people should feel the same, but that's how I feel about it.
Two, three, perhaps five years at the end? Sure, that's rather to be expected. Even then, there are huge differences in quality of life enjoyed by different eldercare residents. I had one older relative in a home for his last four years, who basically had good quality of life up until the final couple of weeks. Another who was in a home for a decade+, and had almost zero quality of life from the day she went in. Not because it was a bad home, she was just too far gone.
You're not thinking like an economist :) Here's something I saw on Twitter (no source):
The bicycle is the slow death of the planet.
General Director of Euro Exim Bank Ltd. got economists thinking when he said:
"A cyclist is a disaster for the country's economy: he does not buy cars and does not borrow money to buy. He does not pay for insurance policies. He does not buy fuel, does not pay for the necessary maintenance and repairs. He does not use paid parking. He does not cause serious accidents. He does not require multi-lane highways. He does not get fat. Healthy people are neither needed nor useful for the economy. They don't buy medicine. They do not go to hospitals or doctors. Nothing is added to the country's GDP (gross domestic product). On the contrary, every new McDonald's restaurant creates at least 30 jobs: 10 cardiologists, 10 dentists, 10 dietary experts and nutritionists, and obviously, people who work at the restaurant itself." Choose carefully: cyclist or McDonald's? It is worth considering.
P.S. Walking is even worse. Pedestrians don't even buy bicycles.
>The salaries in Japan arent great honestly, but mine, the quality of life and how far my money goes is so much better than if I lived back at the UK.
In a similar situation to you apparently. Every couple of years I'll take a look at UK as well as NZ and Aus (all places I can legally work) and Japan is still the better option. Even with the yen situation and despite all the doom and gloom others write online, life is still pretty nice here.
As an NZer, jobs in Australia pay wayyyy better and everyone here seems to agree that the lifestyle is better there. Lots of NZers move to Oz to improve their life and opportunities.
The NZ economy isn't doing great.
I'm personally worried that demographics and an incoming Labour government will mean that if you have saved for your retirement our next government will simply tax your savings until you have nothing (they keep talking of a 2% wealth tax: if we go back to a 4% annual return environment that's 50% tax of your savings over time). Plus they are slowly introducing means testing or equivalents.
In the meantime, it seems your parliament is quabbling over (the limitation of) Maori rights and so on. I guess the end goal is to improve the economy but is the chaos worth it?
Not worth it. Maori rights are an intractable problem - the only way to win is to avoid the topic and punt it to a future government. I'm sure you've worked on projects sunk by a non-technical distraction so you surely understand the mechanics.
National says they (and ACT) are the business party but they seem to be mostly windbags. The NZ government traditionally screws over businesses and founders - they certainly fail to encourage businesses while producing a lot of ineffectual programmes.
I don't recommend anyone try and start a business here. Plus NZ society generally cuts down tall poppies - especially capitalists (sportspeople is the main way to achieve without approbation). Be an employee or leech on the welfare state are the usual alternatives.
God, this place is such a sh*thole (literally if you count the sewage in the water). It's depressing. Every week, X is going downhill, Y is failing, we're out of money. I am so hopeless about my country's future. I feel that this is our century of humiliation.
This seems to be the case for most European countries, particularly here in France. We’re experiencing stagnation, or perhaps even a decline. Launching a product in Europe is significantly more challenging due to the market’s high fragmentation.
I don’t have much hope for the future of tech companies in Europe.
It’s exhausting trying to explain this to American leftists. They believe the UK / EU is rich, their healthcare is amazing and “free”, and no one has to work more than 35 hours a week. They visit London and Paris once in 10 years for vacation and think they understand the economic order.
European corporations and political class are rich and benefit from high GDP stimulated by mass migration and foreign funds cornering the housing market.
But European salaries are stagnating and job security is dropping like a stone, while the cost of living is steadily rising. And public healthcare is getting terrible with months of wait for an appointment.
Spain is now used as example of a growing economy in EU but youth unemployment is high and rising and wages are peanuts compared to housing. A lot of native Spanish kids are just checking out. I guess the Spanish corporations and foreign investors are having a blast. And the boomers with their fat pensions and renting their real estate portfolio.
Of note, the same is happening even in China. I feel really bad for Gen Z.
American leftist discourse about Europe is always hilarious. Apparently someone forgot to tell them that the "free" healthcare just means that it is forcibly deducted from your pay and only "free" if you don't work (Free meaning the people who work pay for you). Also they forget to mention that the actual health care system is chronically understaffed and that you should avoid the hospital if at all possible and that you might wait months to see a specialist.
Car discourse is another very good one. Apparently Europeans just really hate cars and take bikes/busses everywhere. They seem to genuinely believe that the US is the only country in the world with a car culture.
You should understand that the American situation is, in fact, much worse than ours in many ways. For instance, the average American pays a 40% tax rate compared to our 25% once you account for healthcare.
Sounds like the non-existent British NHS where getting an appointment to see a doctor is about as likely as meeting the Loch Ness Monster for a spot of tea and crumpets.
Ironically when we were living in Ireland and my daughter was going to have to wait 16 months to get a suspicious growth checked for cancer it was the UK that made it possible for us to go to a private clinic near Belfast and have her checked in a week. And it still wasn't even expensive. Free healthcare isn't actually free if you die waiting.
It used to be the jewel in the crown of empire though.
Thatcher and the more recent 14 years of UK Conservative government seemed to have kicked it bloody and senseless like Alex and his droogs from the Korova Milkbar.
The NHS and the Empire don't really overlap. It was founded right at the end of the war, shortly before the UK started having to divest from its colonies, and of course it was never a thing in any of the non-UK colonies!
I often think the NHS was only founded as a result of the war, as an extension of the military and civilian healthcare needs for injury care. German bombers didn't respect the British class system.
Only the Conservatives? You think Blair, Brown, and now Starmer did great things for the country? Give me a break. The whole political class is rotten. And the upcoming "Reform UK" is a joke, to say the least.
> You think Blair, Brown, and now Starmer did great things for the country?
No, but apparently you think that I think that. Perhaps you might like to work through that again ...
Leaving the state of the UK as a whole to one side, the NHS was actively kicked like a dog prior to Blair who did at least stop kicking it and attempt to reverse the decline with some, albeit limited, success.
The problem is policy is oriented to growing GDP and not GDP per capita. Large corporations benefit from GDP growth and lower wages, so they incentivize the political class to grow the population artificially (wink-wink).
The other problem is the welfare state or just the state. So much graft and just living off printed money. It pushes out success. What percent of the UK is effectively civil servants or people receiving benefits? What percent are net takers? A lot
> The other problem is the welfare state or just the state. So much graft and just living off printed money. It pushes out success.
I see these uninformed comments all the time, and to be they suggest that the person in question has an intense ideological bent, but an aversion to evidence. As another commenter pointed out, a large amount of UK benefits spending (~£100bn) is on the state pension (the single largest benefit).
You are correct that there are a large number of economically inactive people in the UK (something like 20% of working-age people). We have had at least 50 years of government presupposing that the problem here is that these people are lazy, and a little stick will motivate them back to work. The mere fact that this has not worked (and we have tried it repeatedly) might suggest that the problem is a bit more complex than this.
One issue is that the general health of the population is very poor. Unfortunately, improving this is a very hard problem. I think people underestimate just how hard. If you could solve this, you would create hundreds of billions of pounds in value (I am not underestimating). Presumably some starting points would be working out how to lower the costs of fruit and vegetables and increase the cost of ultra-processed fast food. Not sure what else helps here. I would give this a read: https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=61595
The other problem is that there are no jobs for the people in question, so even if they want to work (or are heavily incentivised to do so) they are not able to. The government can create some employment for these people, but a better vocational training system might help here.
The graft and living off printed money I do see is mostly in housing – people in the UK love to own and rent out houses. This means that (compared to e.g. Germany/Switzerland/Austria) there are very weak protections for renters. Additionally, when house prices are really high it makes it very challenging to build industries on top of this.
> Presumably some starting points would be working out how to lower the costs of fruit and vegetables and increase the cost of ultra-processed fast food.
Britain has implemented a sugar tax, but I despair when even a right-wing governments attempt to make walking and cycling easier falls victim to culture war nonsense.
Most of the benefits bill in the UK is paid to people who receive the the state pension
Of the others it's split between those who don't earn enough from work i.e. their employers don't pay them enough to live on so those benefits are essentially subsidising companies
And the other large chunk is people who aren't fit to work, this increased as a result of Covid but also the underfunding of health / social care by the previous government
The civil service isn't that big but the largest influx of people was caused by Brexit and the need to duplicate many of the things that didn't need to be separate when part of the EU
The people who've been living off printed money as those with assets, almost all the gains from the cheap money supply over the last 15 or so years has gone to the well off
Well specifically for engineering-related products (both software and hardware).
How can you thrive and be competitive when your competitors in the far-east work for >60 hours per week with a solid ecosystem and generous support from the government?
I am specifically worried about the future of European engineering, unlike US you have much smaller capitals and moats. Many of the products are sustained mainly by legacy built by your predecessors.
If nothing changes then by next-generation most if not all would be devoured by chaebols, Asian Sovereign Wealth Funds, or American PEs. You'll have to work for >60 hours but they not you will enjoy the surplus. Take your poison.
A few here have commented on different aspects, and they have their part to play but I agree with you, market fragmentation is the scale killer.
From an outside perspective it might appear like Europe is a true single market like the US but it isn't. Scaling to a European level isn't impossible but it is difficult. Some of that will just be difficult to do anything about, language, different cultures, etc.
On the political side I'm sure there is plenty more the EU can do but I don't see the will.
Market fragmentation is a measurable phenomenon, as far as a language goes. The language barrier is just the cost of a translator. Is that cost prohibitively high in Europe? I hear a lot of explanations of why Europe has fewer tech companies than America, but they are almost never backed by statistics. The most obvious answer continues to be the Bretton Woods system, by which large amounts of money are funnelled into America, seemingly without reason. China inverts this flow by debasing its currency, and Europe does not.
> The language barrier is just the cost of a translator.
Is it?
> Market fragmentation is a measurable phenomenon, as far as a language goes.
Market fragmentation isn't about language fragmentation – the EU has no single market for services currently, which means if you want to launch a product EU-wide you are effectively launching a product in 27 different countries. There is some harmonization, but not much. If you launch a product in the US you have a large fully harmonized single market.
The most bizarre thing is that the loudest critics of EUs market fragmentation are usually the most aggressive blockers of integration that would mitigate these issues.
The good news is that a relatively small amount of aggressive planning reform (namely, firing everyone involved and never calling it "planning" ever again) will fix most of the (fixable...) worst aspects of modern Britain.
The problem isn't building stuff, it's building stuff where stuff needs to be.
We built plenty of out-of-town shopping centres, business parks and industrial estates in the 70s, 80s, 90s. We stopped because it turns out they're, for the most part, shit. Given the choice, people will WFH and order off Amazon rather than go within a mile of these places.
What we need is to tackle the vested interests in the towns and cities themselves, as an example you can't grow most of our university cities at the edges without much better transit through the centres (trams at least, maybe metro rail). But the very suggestion and the preservation crowd as well as the existing suburbanites lose their shit.
And this is against a backdrop of rural and less educated people mistrusting anything going on in the growth cities, and I don't just mean London.
Like Brexit, there's a huge overhang of misinformed old people who hate change, but have no vested interest in the real economy because their pensions stay the same even if they block growth.
> against a backdrop of rural and less educated people mistrusting anything going on in the growth cities, and I don't just mean London.
Quite. It's time for a campaign of bigging up the second and third cities. Of course, this immediately fell to a victory of Starmer Labour keeping HS2 cuts instead of Burnham Labour (who has done great things for Manchester).
This. London can't grow much more - it can densify up to a point, but you can't build much more on the edges of town without some enormously expensive infrastructure upgrades through the middle. Which they should probably do anyway, a tube line, a Crossrail line and a new HS line every decade or so, but neither Labour nor Tories are into that politically, because of London-envy in the rest of the country.
Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and the larger university cities on the other hand, masses of scope, and on a much smaller budget and shorter timescale.
It's also the quality of the build… most new build houses are shit because the house building companies are more interested in their profit than the quality of the product
If we made cars like we make houses there'd be a long queue outside every car dealer as people returned them to get their money back
Much of it was destroyed during or immediately after WWII, or extensively - and expensively - renovated at the tail end of the 20th century. Some of it muddles on in not-really-fit-for-purpose condition: terraced houses with lath-and-plaster walls between units, street plans that can't accommodate modern requirements for recycling bins, parking and so on, homes that are difficult to insulate or retrofit with modern heating.
It's a bit like software that's been in use for 20 years. Most of the bugs have been worked out, and all the mid-tier stuff that was written at the same time has been abandoned and forgotten.
Meanwhile, a lot of those beautiful-from-the-outside Georgian and Regency townhouses that dominate the streets of much of inner London? In many cases they're really not that great to live in, unless you gut them and rebuild the entire inside.
I'm not saying all new-builds are great, mind. Some of what I've seen seems particularly mean - small and high-density, despite being in the middle of nowhere - all the cons of density without any of the pros. You'd think we'd have learned by now, but no.
I think the new builds also highlight the problem in that we're mostly obsessed with building these weird not-quite-a-town clumps of houses rather than actually growing patterns that we know work.
That and people have no taste. I like Poundbury, but I would also accept some modernist Foster-ville if someone actually did it and was prepared to put their foot down to make it consistent.
Oh, I’m not saying old houses are better (although many of them have more generous sized rooms and plots)
I’m saying as an absolute that the quality of most new build houses in the UK is shit from both design and construction perspectives
A key test for me is look at the back of a new build house and see how ugly many of them are - they literally design them to have curb appeal but no appeal when you’re sitting in the back garden.
They fit them with smaller windows so they don’t have to add as much insulation… the list of shitty things the major housebuilders do is pretty long
The garden thing feels like a cultural bug. Sort of, everyone thinks they ought to have a garden, but most people don't actually, in practice, want to do the work to maintain one, nor do they want to pay the extra for the amount of space that makes a good and useful one.
Most of those new-builds with tiny, astroturf-and-slabs gardens and wooden fence panels would be better built as apartment blocks with a shared park. Or, if your cultural aversion to apartments is too strong, as seems to be the case in much of Anglo culture ("my own roof over my own head"), row/terrace-style housing again with outdoor space provided in the form of a shared public or private park.
It seems to work well in parts of Inner London anyway, the Georgian garden squares are way nicer than a garden almost any individual resident would have time to maintain. I don't know why we can't have more of that.
Yes, so destroy the current system, then we can do all that. All we basically need is a system that can properly facilitate "Yes, but" rather than "No" and has a mechanism for bartering.
Also I don't think you're right about university cities. Taking Cambridge for example, it's completely strangled, and not by a need for buses. The causality is backwards.
BUUUT MuHHH PAAARRRKiiiiNNNGGGG!! (And house values). And we can't _possibly_ make the town look different than it did in 1972 because "heritage".
We're talking about a bunch of crusty old church biddies who will literally force you to put the most godawful, hideous house covering in the history of man BACK on your house because they're terrified of being reminded it's not the 70's.
In fact, the only post 1972 thing you ARE allowed to do is pave over your front garden and park two Jeep Cherokees (neither of which actually fit in the available space) on it.
Ah yes, it's a delight that the pavements are now covered in SUV's too because they're too big to park legally. Very in keeping with the distinct cultural heritage of the area.
But build a bike lane or even a bike shed, and they'll drag the city council all the way to the EU Supreme Court, even though half of that demographic voted Brexit.
Hold on though, that's not 1970s pebble dash, that's 1920s pebble dash, that was on the house when it was built (ish - seems that area was built up between 184 and 1914). The house is in a conservation area, which means you've got to keep it looking original. If you don't want to do that, just don't move to a conservation area!
Yes there are ridiculous rules like that are enforced. However tbh she should have checked first.
Rules around how the area should look, should be decided by people that live there. There are many better examples where it makes a lot of sense for the locals to be strict about rules about what can be erected.
I used to live near the Village of Corfe Castle. Generally the argument is that the place would lose its character and it won't be the same place anymore if it didn't keep its distinctive look.
If you would just start building places that don't fit in with the rest of the village. The village wouldn't have it character and thus it wouldn't have its tourism in the Summer as a result.
There countless towns and village with a bunch of heritage that literally goes back maybe a millennia and the argument that we should throw this away to build a load of crap houses (new houses BTW are awful, I've looked at many in the last few years) is completely asinine.
But it's _good_ when houses look different. Growing up my family would drive around new developments and say "ugg, these cookie-cutter houses all look the same, I miss when you we built unique and individual houses" and then it's jarring to move somewhere where people value conformity above all else and being different is considered bad. God forbid your house has eaves.
Explains a lot, actually.
I'm not talking about knocking down thousand-year old houses. I note that your example doesn't seem to have a problem putting car parks in, incidentally. But "locals" (aka old people with enormous amounts of time on their hands who bizarrely feel the right to tell other people what their home should look like) insisting that everything stay mediocre forever because they grew up with it this way is a bit much.
I think it is perfectly fine that people that actually live in an area get to decide what it looks like. If people don't involve themselves in that process and it is monopolized by people "with too much time on their hands" that is their fault. If they don't like the busy bodies then they should make time and actually go to the meetings.
You decide you own level of involvement in the community.
> I note that your example doesn't seem to have a problem putting car parks in, incidentally.
It is very interesting that whenever you bring up an example where it illustrates a particular point well, they will try to find anything they can point to so they can dismiss the general point being made. Guess what, a place in rural England that you can only travel easily to via car or coach will prioritise parking.
BTW I suspect knowing that area, you probably couldn't build anything other than parking in those places.
The challenge is that the people who live in an area use the rules in such a way as to make building new homes very expensive or outright impossible. The people who would like to live in that area have no say, and lack representation.
The bigger picture here is that it means even two rational people can inadvertently make the situation worse for themselves.
Person A lives in City A, but wants to move to City B
Person B lives in City B, but wants to move to City A
Person A votes to make it hard to build new homes in city A, because it makes their own home worth more.
Person B votes to make it hard to build new homes in City B, because it makes their own home worth more.
It makes sense in a self-interested way but both wind up worse off.
And I just meant that the car park is butt-ugly and shows the council's true priorities. They could at least put it on the edge of the village.
> The challenge is that the people who live in an area use the rules in such a way as to make building new homes very expensive or outright impossible. The people who would like to live in that area have no say, and lack representation.
Okay so what? I think that is perfectly fine. It isn't necessary for everyplace to cater for everyone.
> The bigger picture here is that it means even two rational people can inadvertently make the situation worse for themselves.
>
> Person A lives in City A, but wants to move to City B
>
> Person B lives in City B, but wants to move to City A
>
> Person A votes to make it hard to build new homes in city A, because it makes their own home worth more.
>
> Person B votes to make it hard to build new homes in City B, because it makes their own home worth more.
>
> It makes sense in a self-interested way but both wind up worse off.
These seems like a fantasy scenario to me. Typically people are either moving to a particular area, or out of a particular area, not swapping one nice affluent area for another equally affluent area (which is somewhat assumed in your scenario).
The reason btw housing is expensive is because housing became an investment vehicle isn't because of nimby's and we have about 600,000 (net) people entering the UK every year.
Not at all. It is quite clear that you are doing the "lets take this to the logical extreme". That might be fine in some sort of debate club tactic but it isn't what I was suggesting should happen at all and you know it. So I think we will leave it there.
That's fair when it comes to villages, but it's mostly the edge of small cities, and within larger ones, that growth needs to happen - because that's where infrastructure exists or can be added on.
Let the Cotswolds and Kent Weald be chocolate-box nimbyland, but keep it out of places that are trying to get work done.
The usual suggestion is to build cities more like Berlin (for example) which has an inner city with many 4-6 storey buildings — much denser than London's terraced houses, but without the isolation of skyscrapers.
These are all solutions that ignore the main problem. They literally cannot build enough properties (whatever they are) to fill current demand. Even if they relax the regulations that we currently have in place. Even there were enough properties built the infrastructure for utilities can't be scaled easily. There are issues building new properties right now because the electric grid cannot handle the combination of that and large data centres.
Since supply of house cannot be increased to solve this problem, you need to lessen the demand. The most obvious way to do this that I can see is to put a cap on immigration that is much lower than the number of people leaving (about 400,000 people leave the UK each year). However for various reasons this is seen as absolute verboten.
BTW, I know exactly the type of buildings you are talking about (we have them in Manchester) and they are typically look awful and usually start falling apart after shortly after construction. They are also not very nice to live in (I have lived in one for short amount of time).
Despite what you might read in the news, occupancy per household is LOWER than it has been for a long time.
Partly changing social customs - and you could, legitimately I think, argue some of this is down to immigration/multiculturalism - the old landlady/boarding house model, for example, which provided a LOT of cheap and relatively comfortable roofs over heads, was based on higher trust and cultural commonality than exists today.
But a lot of demand is driven by people living alone, either due to family breakdown, old age, or just out of personal choice.
On that basis if you wanted to increase supply, levers you could pull are an even more favourable tax treatment of rent-a-room schemes (although it's already pretty generous - people just don't want to), land value taxes to encourage under-occupiers to downsize, inheritance tax changes for the same (no more favourable "family home" treatment relative to cash or pension assets) and, more difficult this, legal and planning instruments to encourage suburban densification, get streets that are largely full of decaying HMOs knocked down and replaced by mid-rise which is fit for purpose.
> Despite what you might read in the news, occupancy per household is LOWER than it has been for a long time.
It has nothing to do with what I read on the news. It is simply numbers. You can come up with all these crazy schemes to increase supply which probably won't happen, or you could reduce demand that could literally be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
The problem is the institutions are unaccountable and can't be easily made controllable by the electorate again. Bank of England, the judiciary etc. These control the country not the MPs. Blair onward
Judicial review at the moment is just completely insane.
If you want to do anything it takes the best part of a decade of planning and environmental review, in large part because there are a small army of charitable organisations (often with their fees capped) waiting to challenge absolutely everything.
A government consultation was recently blocked! A consultation!
We need to completely destroy this system, they can do something useful instead. Angels sing whenever a Quango dies.
It's not, its just that you are swept into the news cycle of doomerism where engagement is established with FUD. The UK is fine compared to many of its peer nations in many areas.
It's not quite that bad - the news obviously makes it seem like it's worse than it is. Also we finally got rid of the Tories, so at least things are heading in the right direction. I made a list of some positive changes Labour have made already:
* Allow onshore wind
* Means tested winter fuel allowance
* Inheritance tax for farms
* Assisted dying bill (controversial but I think generally people are in favour of this)
* Scrapping the public footpath registration deadline
The only stupid thing I think they've done is the porn site age testing thing, but that was also a Tory policy.
IMO the big problem is the right-wing media. Take something like the winter fuel allowance. Very obviously the right thing to do, and even pensioners were generally in favour (check this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gegy4r9ndo ), yet it still somehow a huge controversy with disingenuous articles even on the BBC like this one fuelling the faux outrage: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80l9lde5yjo
How can we make any improvements if such obviously good changes meet such an irrational reaction?
Exactly. It's not merely the Fabian state, being ruled by lawyers, by socialist agitators, it is the vast swathes of proles who cheer every time they crush success or do wealth appropriations. It feels like you are always just two steps away from being rounded up in a pogrom for merely having savings.
The PM himself defines working class as people with no savings. It's horrid.
How much savings do you have? Is it used for rent-seeking behaviour? I think that's the key issue the country is facing.
If you have a little padding no-one will be coming for you.
Everyone in power is desparately trying dance around tax reform. When you tax productive work much more heavily than unproductive work (looking at our etf holdings grow and crowding out home/business owners with buy-to-lets), you are going to get stagnation.
If engineering isn't near the factory, it's not as effective.
Here's one of the most generic electronic components - a 1K resistor.[1] These sell for about US$0.0015 each. DigiKey has a list of many suppliers.
There are a few old-line US resistor makers in there, including Bourns and Ohmite.
They're price competitive with Chinese companies.
But when you look up their engineering job locations, none are in the US or UK.[2]
Plants are in Mexico, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Hungary.
To get prices down, engineers have to be very familiar with what goes on in manufacturing. If you separate engineering from manufacturing, you get overpriced designs.
Not that many people who went to a good engineering school in a first-world country today want to spend their lives inside a big factory in a low-wage country. But that's what it takes to make stuff.
Being an engineer means mastering your production tool. For everything to do with physical production, you need to be close to the means of production to gather essential information on quality, capacity, operator feedback (machine and quality operators are invaluable sources of information.), etc.
Most information is not digital or hardly digitizable.
I don't completely agree with the article's classification of ARM as a hardware company. ARM produces VHDL and resells licenses, but does not produce any chips. It's closer to a software company than a TSMC.
I'd go one further and say you have to be at least a journeyman in whatever tools your process is using.
The difference between someone designing a part in cad and someone designing the tool paths for the machine that makes the part in cam is night and day.
We could discuss this at length, but I completely share your point of view. Anyone can design a part that's impossible to produce.
The real added value is knowing how something is actually going to be made, in how many stages, with what tools, what controls will be carried out, with what tools, what the acceptance and rejection criteria are, and how these criteria have been determined, are essential points.
> The difference between someone designing a part in cad and someone designing the tool paths for the machine that makes the part in cam is night and day.
I remember, in a CNC programming class, the instructor calling out one of the students on a lathe program: "One millimeter increments?! What material do you think you are using? Styrofoam?!".
That class is where I feel in love with the ASR-33 teletype and its cadenced hum. It was punching the tapes we feed into the CNC machines. I wish I could have bought that machine when it was retired not too long after my class.
> "One millimeter increments?! What material do you think you are using? Styrofoam?!"
I'm an EE not a MechE but I'd be truly curious to know if there are any MechE programs where a fresh graduate would have ever heard the term "feeds & speeds".
In a similar vein, I learned to solder in EE but not because of any of my course work. We were lucky enough to have an aerospace electronics manufacturer situated on the north edge of campus. The IEEE Student Society worked out a deal with them where EE students who wanted to learn could come and do a 3-hour crash course with the techs. I could solder before I did the course, but my ability to solder well improved dramatically as a result of those 3 hours of training. And, even more importantly than learning to solder, I learned a ton of things about solderability: what makes a circuit board easy to solder and what makes it hard to solder under different manual and automated manufacturing techniques (wave soldering, paste + pick & place, etc).
>I'd be truly curious to know if there are any MechE programs where a fresh graduate would have ever heard the term "feeds & speeds".
Germany has dual degrees where you both learn a trade and get a degree. If you are doing this for Mechanical Engineering you definitely will learn this.
Degree programs also have required internships and there are definitely courses which you can take during your degree. I would be surprised if there weren't a majority of mech eng graduates who would know the basics of milling.
My brother, who graduated 2024 in MechE is aware of the term “feeds & speeds”.
Mechanical engineering is a pretty broad discipline covering everything from micro fluidics to structural requirements of sky scrapers. It’s a good skill to have but I’m not sure that awareness of operating a milling machine is critical for success after graduation.
> if there are any MechE programs where a fresh graduate would have ever heard the term "feeds & speeds".
This was an extracurricular activity, and the MechE's were in their fifth year or so. I was in my first year (semester, really) and I was suggested I take the course because I was already a reasonable programmer and there was very little materials in the course, but it was more about programming the machines (simple loops, no real decisions, etc).
I was doing 0.1mm increments in my code because I "felt" steel wouldn't be soft enough for more, but I never got any real training on that before second year.
For a while, we had the "maker movement" and "maker spaces", and people were learning that stuff. But that all tanked when TechShop went bankrupt.
There are still maker spaces around, but most of them are now more into sewing, paper folding, and hot glue than CNC machining. Few go beyond a 3D printer.
The ones that do tend to have some kind of subsidy from a larger educational institution.
What about using simulation(or estimation using software) to understand the manufacturing process well enough to design for it, without being in the factory?
Simulation is a tool. Determining whether the results of a simulation are consistent and valid requires a great deal of experience.
Almost anyone can use fluid mechanics simulation software and obtain beautiful multicolor images. Only an expert will be able to determine whether they're worth anything, and when it's time to run a mock-up to validate calculations.
Simulation can help train new engineers, helping them to understand complex physical phenomena, but it cannot replace field experience.
The organization of the production site, the employees and the quality culture are an integral part of the production tool, and cannot be simulated.
Totally anecdotal but to your point, the engineering jobs in my hometown followed the manufacturing jobs in leaving town in the 1990s after NAFTA.
Engineering seems to be returning as domestic manufacturing increases thanks to foreign auto companies setting up shop across the state, replacing what the US companies left behind.
I spent a decade in a low-wage country and the number of people who were "glad" to spend even half that much time there -- paid handsomely! -- could probably be counted on one hand. Virtually the only people who stay longer than 3-5 years are ones who end up founding their own businesses there.
Raising children away from your native culture isn't the deal breaker you imply. There are international schools (though, with eye-watering fees) and expat enclaves in most places I've been.
But very few (effectively zero, though I did come across a handful of exceptions) companies treat these employees the same way as the ones back in the home country. If you don't rotate back to HQ in ~3 years then you're in a career dead-end. So you've got this situation where you need people who are ultra-ambitious -- willing to throw away all their existing social networks to go work in a foreign country for years on end! -- but that means those same people aren't going to want to stay past their expiration date. And companies know that, too. A lot of them make it an explicit part of the deal. I met one high-level guy (regional CTO I think?) at Coca-Cola who was Indian and the deal with corporate was he'd do 3-years in a low-income country (not India) but then he'd get transferred to the US. Met some people in the oil industry who had similar deals. Do 2 years in Vietnam then you get to go to Malaysia or whatever.
You should probably recommend them to Apple recruiters, since they regularly have shortages of bilingual top tier talent willing to work full time at major factories.
Even with extremely generous FAANG salaries in areas with cost of living less than a quarter of Cupertino.
The fact that it exists doesn’t mean it’s the best. You see it all the time that businesses do something just because everyone does it too. For example, the current AI investments, collatoral debt obligations in the 2000s, and conglomerates in the 1960s.
Very weird comment. Article talks about hardware talent in UK. Your comment tries to prove "engineering jobs" are not in the US by providing the job listing of a single supplier, when everybody knows that there are a huge amount of hardware talent in the US working at great companies that deliver amazing products. Your comment seems to equate "manufacturing jobs" to "hardware engineering jobs" which apparently isn't correct.
I wonder this is also what doomed some, but not all, of meta's hardware efforts like its watch from 2023 (Portal was successful and a solid build but that was more pacakging than manufacturing and died for a different reason: Priorities).
In general though it seems where design/code<->hardware feedback loop needs to be very fast in some cases, it is a non trivial separation of concerns.
Many of the legacy component vendors retain domestic US manufacturing to supply military parts. They come with a premium price and aren't usually worth using commercially but that is one of the last backstops preventing all knowledge from disappearing.
This is interesting, but as other commenters have noted, the general point applies more broadly than hardware versus software, or UK versus the US - if you're only trying to optimise for income, 'go work in the US and/or the financial industry' is solid advice for many people, and the macroeconomic incentives driving this are not easy to shift. I also make much less than my counterparts in the US - but here in South Africa moving to the UK to work in the finance industry is considered a major win for many people, because the salaries are better and is considered higher 'prestige' for some reason.
Eleven years ago during my MSc. in theoretical physics I was writing Fortran code to solve scattering equations to serve as input into quantum field theory calculations. Since then I've worked for a bunch of startups, alternating between writing boring backend services and doing 'data science' that is often no more complicated than linear regression or writing SQL queries. The continual hype, toxic positivity, and unhinged growth expectations has made me essentially tap out mentally. I also consider this a 'waste of my talent' (not that I was ever really a great physicist!), but as I get older I am no longer sure what would have satisfied me in that regard (is this bad or good? - I honestly don't know). More money would be nice I guess. I typically get bored/frustrated and change companies every few years - I'm currently 3 years in at a fintech (elixir backend).
Similar background here although I stayed on in academia a bit longer. I find the same, I'm working on not very challenging problems a lot of the time. I found a decent compromise in working on engineering software with some physics and maths involved, but it's not world beating in terms of salaries.
I agree with this call to action. Sadly, I think there are more fundamental issues in the UK economy.
For all intents and purposes, Venture Capital is dead in the UK.
While companies do get funded in the UK and are technically "UK domiciled" - in action most of their Engineering and Product teams are located in Eastern Europe or India, or are startups from those markets (and China) who domiciled in the UK to raise from foreign investors.
There just isn't enough liquid capital to invest in the UK compared to other investment classes available.
When management decides to launch a new product, they bring in an UK-based 'analyst' who usually does a piss poor job of gathering requirements/docs/building up the project, so you have to step in and 'shadow manage' the whole thing, from producing architecture diagrams to talking to customers, writing specs, writing Jira tickets, besides actually doing the job you're supposed to do.
The only thing they do do is act as an interface layer to upper management and giving each other reacharounds.
But when it comes to handshakes and glitzy product announcement galas, they're all over the place and you are not even invited, the best you can get is having your (usually misspelled) name show up in context of 5 other high-ranking ne-er-do-wells, who they want to suck up to.
Then they leave for a higher paying position to another UK company, and post on linkedin about leadership and inspiring teams.
You are forgotten, but not for long, since people actually start using the stuff you wrote and support tickets start rolling in.
Poor poor UK people having to sit in all those executive positions while contributing nothing.
It also doesn't help that for most West Europeans, places like Romania is synonimous with the Shadow Realm.
The funny thing is, having them spit in your face like this is actually a privileged position, since that means you're usually out of the trenches, where you only see the Jira tickets that you need to solve.
> The UK has the 3rd largest tech VC sector worldwide - only after the US and China
And as I mentioned before, most startups tend to only be UK domiciled for funding reasons, but majority of their operations and leadership are located outside the UK.
Foreign (read: American) VCs tend to conduct transactions in a handful of very well regulated markets, so a Chinese, Indian, or Romanian startup will often have to make a domiciled corporation in a financial hub like the UK or Singapore in order to raise.
For example, Revolut has around 16,000 employees, but barely 2k in the UK and around 7k in Poland+India - and most of these roles are engineering AND strategy roles.
> London also has the largest software sector outside the US, after the Bay Area, Boston, and NYC
Source? Boston is nowhere near a top software hub - both Seattle and Austin are much larger in the software space than Boston.
And I would be shocked if the net amount of SWE roles in London is higher than Tel Aviv or Bangalore.
I think the large software sector here might actually be part of the problem. If you're smart, want to stay in London (expensive), but don't want to work in finance then it's going to be software. There's no interesting hardware jobs here (FPGA trading platforms do not qualify). These jobs do exist in other European countries so I think the parent was correct.
It's because the UK is so good at financial services.
It's fairly easy to deploy capital in the UK in mainland Europe, the US, India, China, ASEAN, and Middle East, which means there isn't much of an incentive to deploy it within the UK in industries that the UK cannot compete directly in.
For example, Dyson has almost entirely shifted operations to ASEAN (Phillipines and Malaysia primarily).
And AugustaWestland/Leonardo, Rolls Royce, AstraZeneca, GSK, BT Group, JLR, and BAE have largely shifted operations to the US and India.
The UK could make it harder to offshore, but then that also destroys the UK's entire financial and services industry, because most of the capital in the UK exists because it's a connector for global markets and would leave if that is ended.
I think "capital" is the wrong word for it. We've got a lot of money lying around, but capital implies something productive can be done with it. We can't eat money, and we can't tax it or else they'll screw off. Perhaps if we stopped acting as the worlds fixer for tax dodging we would end up being better off. I can't help but view the City as a kind of tumour, sucking the life out of the rest of the country to enlarge itself.
I think most folks when say Capital they mean “Finance Capital” which UK is really good at. Even historically speaking UK was at the forefront of financial engineering which complimented their physical engineering and enabled to spread their empire and colonize so much.
But UK post WW-2 and specifically post Thatcher stopped investing in physical engineering and overindexed on financial services the results are for all to see now.
But you are right. I think the financial engineering has reached its limits and we see China’s investment in physical engineering over last couple of decades beginning to pay off.
Rent, taxes and industrial regulation plays a big part. As does power costs. Then there is political costs, it’s hard to rely on UK politicians not doing foolish things and tanking your company on a whim.
Not really. UK salaries are largely comparable to those for a similar caliber of talent in China or India ($30-50k mid-career is doable in both markets).
The difference is countries like India, Czechia, Poland, Israel, Romania, etc all provide competitive tax incentives or subsidizes for R&D work, so you can hire competitive talent AND get preferential tax treatment.
> I don't understand why it's so bad in a country that's supposedly amazing at financial services.
Because it's focused on predatory finance: funds cornering housing markets, money laundering, debt markets (think public debt and CDS), currency/rates speculation, etc.
It's not about predatory or non-predatory finance.
In order to become a major financial hub, UK has very favorable foreign transaction laws.
A significant amount of British-domiciled capital is foreign originated but only parked in the UK because of strong contracts law and linkages to just about every major investable market.
This is both a boon and a curse, because why would you finance a $1M seed in London when you can deploy that same capital for a similar sized seed in Tel Aviv or New York and get a better return on investment by exiting or funding additional rounds.
There is no innovation ecosystem in the UK, and it's too late to build one because other markets are just too competitive at this point - India, Israel, Czechia, Poland, etc provide very competitive tax incentives and subsidizes for foreign R&D investment and have done so for decades now.
You might assume the answer is to add additional roadblocks, but that makes British financial services extremely non-competitive, and puts 2.5 million jobs (and voters) at risk.
This is the exact same trap that Singapore and Hong Kong has fallen into, and both are trying to minimize it by becoming the goto financial hubs for target startup scenes (China for Hong Kong, India+ASEAN for Singapore) and investing in foreign startups (eg. Temasek Holdings in Singapore).
The UK needs to do something similar - it needs to give up ambitions of being a peer of the "big boys" in innovation, and concentrate on becoming competitive in international dealmaking, maybe by making a public-private international VC fund like Temasek.
Baillie Gifford (HQed in Edinburgh) and Index Ventures (HQed in London) are competitive in Tech Growth Equity globally (and especially in the Bay). There's no reason there can't be more Baillie Giffords or Index Ventures in the UK.
> Consider:
Dyson: From a Wiltshire barn to a global technology powerhouse, now innovating in Singapore and Malaysia.
The founder of Dyson is a Brexit proponent who enjoys outsourcing and playing games with tax havens. I doubt he's doing any "innovating" in those places.
Does OP think CS prodigies are building world changing stuff? 90% of the top 1% are building SaaS. Perhaps the 0.01% get to work on actual foundation model ML research or cutting edge theoretical CS. Everybody else will optimize buttons in CSS to pay their bills. Software just pays more, it isn't an exception to economic forces.
Implementation is what takes that raw R&D and uses it to solve problems real problems, which is where it derives it value. Armies of people slightly modifying slightly different saas is how those foundational ML models end up in the everymans workflow.
I'm a Brit who has worked in finance and AI. I honestly want to move into building hardware. My background is physics, I want to build things that make the world better. But the businesses just seem absent. One of the UK's most exciting hardware projects was Reaction Engines, and they went bankrupt recently.
I really want to know what we can do to fix this. As a country, we aren't building things that people want. Which means we are less powerful.
Same. I'm in the UK, I've been a software dev for a long time (with forays into physical consumer products, not electronics/hardware).
I tinker with robotics, rpis, embedded tools, and the potential _power_ there is huge. But I never hear or see of jobs or opportunities (in the ballpark compensation of software).
> As a country, we aren't building things that people want.
The key distinction is between "what people want", "what people are prepared to pay for", and "what the people with all the money really want to buy".
The huge success of gatcha games which understand the economic inequality among their audience is important. Most of the free users are effectively there as an audience for the few whales who pay for the whole thing.
Similarly, startups are not so much about serving unmet needs as about fishing for whale VCs, of which there are very few and all searching in the same pond of Silicon Valley. They in turn want whale companies: a mere profitable business isn't enough, it has to be world-dominating.
The financial sector makes a lot of money because it serves the customers who have the money.
> Sarah: Built a fusion reactor at 16. Now? Debugging fintech payment systems.
It's striking to imagine a fully functional fusion reactor that could benefit humanity, yet its creator now focuses on fintech payment systems. This highlights the importance of a strong middle class, which seems to be declining globally. A thriving middle class, with disposable income and free time, creates the conditions for innovation. Without it, even brilliant minds like Einstein might spend their entire careers working on immediate economic needs rather than pursuing breakthrough discoveries.
What you are saying is essentially true. I just don't want people to come away with the notion that building a fusion reactor and yielding net energy from said reactor is equivalent. They are very very very far away from each other in terms of complexity.
They seem believable to me, as a graduate of the same university.
I have friends from Imperial College who now work at ESA, Los Alamos, quantum computer research etc, but also others working in banks, hedge funds or adtech.
Top of my computer science class is working at a hedge fund, number two is working at a fintech startup.
It's on their website, even specifically for electrical engineers (since that's the topic)
Probably what was built was a Fusor. There's tons of instructions how to build one (https://fusor.net/board/) and seemingly there's a lot of focus on how "young" the builders of such are. Just google: fusion reactor teenager. In some of the stories it become apparent the fusor was never actually even finished but just along the way.
Yeah that really stood out to me. Like obviously she just put paper mache on a lamp and said it’s a model reactor, so why pretend it’s a serious achievement.
Same with using a 3D printer to print a rigid arm, or saying “imagine if I built a swarm, that would be so cool”
There’s definitely a delusion among rich children that they are geniuses. Poor schools can’t afford participation awards.
Things are tough all over. I’m based in Sheffield, and we have an Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and obviously a rich history of manufacturing and engineering across the city that pioneered chrome steel. But the process for new enterprises always seems the same, you get some small, timid spinout from one of the universities, that spends years iterating through various crumbs of grant money, and maybe finds a corporate partner to commercialise some tech. Everyone’s excited about Northern Gritstone, the new regional VC which has raised £300m and deployed about £40m so far, but even that is itself basically a university spinout.
I was at an event recently where everyone was excited about a programme to create thousands of new apprenticeships in the steel industry in the region, and sat at the one table of tech people I couldn’t help feel they’d probably do better if you just taught them to code, even in this job market. Or alternatively if we actually want a steel industry to challenge China let’s do that. But no half measures.
The UK has vanishingly little risk capital compared to the US. It has very few exits and almost no secondary, so what angel money exists is often tied up long term. The British Business Bank are trying to convince more pension funds to expose their assets to the risk/return of VC funds but that’s a long and controversial battle. Startup investing is largely driven by income tax breaks rather than dreams of outsized returns. And of course property is such a reliable investment in the UK that it sucks up most of the free money anyway.
A lot of this is (the lack of) network effects and we get grumpy if you say it’s a cultural thing. But just once I’d love to hear someone saying they’re investing in their local ecosystem, or creating an accelerator, or whatever, because they want to make loads of money. That isn’t something you can comfortably say out loud at most startup events in the UK. Lots of talk of Impact Investing, an endless merry-go-round of gobshites wanting to give advice and mentoring, or “do you have any “SEIS left?” Lots of tech agencies working on making other people’s ideas go big, selling reliable hours instead of unreliable equity. And a good enough quality of life that all this is fine!
But it can be really hard to find somewhere to plug into and get the energy from. Kudos to those that are making/have made the slog here.
>a programme to create thousands of new apprenticeships in the steel industry in the region
It seems very cruel to put people into a job market where the entire industry is undercut by China and has very little reason to exist, besides a nominal interest by the government in security.
If you want to challenge China, you have to embrace Chinese poverty, how else are you going to make profitable steel? You have higher energy prices, higher labor cost, higher construction cost and more bureaucracy and you want to compete?
>I couldn’t help feel they’d probably do better if you just taught them to code, even in this job market
Seems very cruel to put people into a job market where the entire industry is undercut by India.
Not to disagree with the thrust of the article, but I think they're wrong on
> Hardware is riskier than software: No longer true
If you're building hardware you need to source materials for the thing, manufacture the thing somewhere, store the thing somewhere and distribute the thing. All steps that either don't exist with software or are orders of magnitude easier. All this stuff costs money and adds risk, making hardware inherently harder and riskier than software.
Obviously building stuff is still possible, but if you're going in with a VC "how do we scale this to 100 million users in 2 years" mindset then there's a lot of logistics in there for hardware.
Interestingly, the 3 British designers who made up Flare Technology, had a big influence on console and computer designs in the 80s/90s:
They were responsible for the ZX Spectrum (partly), Konix Multisystem, Atari Falcon, ATW (and Blossom graphics card), Atari Jaguar, Super FX chip, Nuon
Just a note - 100k jobs aren't that common in software in the UK. Perhaps they're there in finance but there are a lot of people looking for software jobs now who accept much less. I've managed to avoid the finance sector my whole career in the UK by working for telcos, since I felt that, for me personally, finance was intensely boring and motivated by all the worst and most short term values.
IMO the whole attitude to finance here is difficult because not enough people have become rich through software/electronics to be angel investors. It's still a place where the big old money comes from people in banking. The arts are respected, being rich is respected, but the rest of us are still "techies" and that's an attitude prevalent throughout the population. The person who fixes your washing machine gets called an "engineer."
It's a matter of who has the power.
Success breeds success and we have had some great ones - it's just that the whole economy is still skewed towards finance. People want the pound to have a high value. Investment comes here to seek "safety". Costs are high. Everything is short term. We have "spaffed billions" on leaving our local trading bloc but moan a lot about investing in HS2. In other words we're not really united and trying to build a future. The population is aging and some of it thinks "only a few more years for me" and "I'm alright jack".
Do I really know? This is all just the bullshit whirling around in my head.
There's a chance with net-zero. It will require huge investments. If you want to do hardware then I suggest you think about that. Octopus Energy's Kraken system, heat pumps that work together to spread out demand over the day, home energy controllers, battery chargers ...who knows. One word of warning though: I'm actually from Africa and any idea that ends with "....for disaster relief in Africa" is a mistake. If your idea only works in poor countries then I think you'll never make any money. Nobody really cares significantly about disaster relief, especially the potentates of those countries who have allowed the disastrous situations to occur through their own mismanagement.
Exactly what he means by not common, meta employs only around 1000 software devs in london, same for goldman. If you only have 1000 devs you can bet they aren't hiring that many per year. There aren't that many $BIGCO jobs in London, but yes they do pay very very well.
I didn't mean FAANG companies - these days I work for a boring 500 person SaaS company (outside London) and we have at least 50-100 engineers at £100k+, excluding equity.
I get a lot of recruiter spam on Linkedin for roles at retail banks, outsourcers, consultancies, SaaS companies, startups, etc. etc. in the £90-110k bracket. I do also get a lot of recruiter spam for laughably underpaid jobs, in particular hardware/embedded roles, which is why I switched out of embedded.
I see this in the USA too - electrical engineers fiddling with css to make buttons dance, published computer scientists working on trivial systems for massive data centers billing systems - the tech market does always seem inefficient, and yet, at some point the market is going to have more knowledge and expertise than it needs, especially if AI predictions play out. What happens then?
sure - I don’t personally believe AI will, but, if hardware becomes a commodity, rather than how software has traditionally been, this is an inevitable outcome anyway. It isn’t a dramatic statement, we’ve already been seeing the effects.
You'd need to change the basis of JV and IPO in the UK, the nature of chartered engineering, and probably the laws on being declared bankrupt. America has a financial regulatory environment which is somewhat unique, and encourages this kind of innovation. The UK has a different view both of the financial risk management, and of the consequences of engineering.
The history of canals, bridges, roads, railroads and lighthouses in the UK is littered with people blowing wads of money up. Speculation was rife. I think it led to caution which has stayed with us across the victorian era into the modern day.
If you want an object lesson in "god, could we do this better" -I was told Australia had world-class optics industry, at the end of WWII due to the need to diversify the supply chain and get away from European sources now in the Axis. Russia and Japan seized the day, while Australia basically _shut itself down_ and gave away any market lead. People laugh at russian cameras but the glass was excellent, they got half of German tech at wars end.
The job market is not prepared to fulfill the promises the talent expects, and in places like SV, what you get is the STEAM version of Hollywood, where every waiter dreams of being the next movie star, and there can only be so much.
Except that not so long ago the dream mostly came true. For many decades an engineering degree was a golden ticket to middle class financial stability and job security. Both in Europe and the US.
Nowadays that is no longer the case. Mostly because of international competition. People are still completely in denial, that there are people in China who do just as good of a job as they do, but for half the wage. Even more striking in software, where outsourcing to India is very common.
Contracting rates in Paris seem to be much higher - €700-€1000 a day seems common from what I’ve seen.
I suspect a big part of it is labour laws. The UK is similar. Companies don’t want to take on the legal commitment of a high salary person, so they take on contractors instead.
This will depend enormously on the company: a consulting and IT services company like Capgemini will employ Moroccan university graduates at 32K€/year. Apple will recruit the best engineers from telecoms companies, arms manufacturers, research institutes and intelligence services for 120K€/year and the same in share, equity.
France knows how to train excellent engineers and give them responsibilities in major government bodies, but doesn't know how to keep them in France. A glass ceiling is rapidly forming for engineers. French companies only value management.
There's also this constant desire on the part of French companies to go low-cost.
The speed run of the French engineer is to be admitted to a good engineering school, to be recruited on diploma in a large state body, to spend 3-5 years there with a low salary but great responsibility, to be recruited by a Swiss or American company, profit.
> The speed run of the French engineer is to be admitted to a good engineering school, to be recruited on diploma in a large state body, to spend 3-5 years there with a low salary but great responsibility, to be recruited by a Swiss or American company, profit.
Your comment is on point, though I’d slightly adjust the part about French engineers career goal. From my experience, many French engineering peers were not even aware that companies in France (Big Tech or Fortune 500) could offer six-figure salaries. They also often have never heard of leetcode/system design/behavioral interviews. They assume their career trajectory depends almost entirely on the ranking/prestige of their engineering school (which is true for french companies), but in practice, most U.S. recruiters/companies don’t even know what a French engineering school is. A bachelor/master degree and a good grind on leetcode is enough for them.
For most students I studied with, the dream is to secure a 45K~50k salary right after graduation, and target 80k as an end-of-career goal, by following this path:
> French engineering peers were not even aware that companies in France (Big Tech or Fortune 500) could offer six-figure salaries.
I know senior engineer at Airbus who don't earn six-figure salaries.
French human resources are cowards and hide behind diplomas to justify pay scales and recruitment. “Nobody gets fired for buying IBM“/”Nobody gets fired for recruiting a polytechnicien”.
I trained as a mechanical/nuclear engineer. It took destroying all the other competitors at my company's internal hackathon, Master Dev France and a project involving several thousand lines of python, for HR at my company to admit that I knew how to code without a software dev diploma.
The problem I see in the UK is a lack of hubs. I wrote to the Department for Levelling Up when it was a thing.
Finance has done well in the UK due to London and having a significant number of firms in a single place. I can get a new job for a different company, doing a similar thing, in the same building.
How does that work for any other industry in the UK?
Its no wonder that wages haven't risen when moving job also requires you to move house/schools/away from friends and family.
We need the government to get involved and create regional hubs for different industries and really facilitate giving them everything they need. Address transport, power concerns, housing, labour and education requirements. The government is in a far better place to be able to influence across all these requirements.
> How does that work for any other industry in the UK?
I don't know about other industries but in silicon there are a few hubs - especially Cambridge, Bristol and London.
When I lived in London there was a big start-up scene around Hoxton.
It's not going to happen for consumer product type things (think Dyson) though because none of the manufacturing is in the UK. Who gets injection moulding done in the UK? Nobody. Dyson is a rare exception and even then it's only R&D that happens in the UK - manufacturing is all in Malaysia.
This is really not a UK-only thing, it's a thing everywhere.
The US has some defense jobs that pay well (but are immoral IMO), and there are some gambling-machine related jobs that pay well, but otherwise engineering pays really poorly.
I used to work as an embedded engineer in Slovenia, in the automotive industry, and wanted to potentially move to Germany or Austria or Switzerland to do something similar. After interviewing with some really prominent companies, household names if you will, and seeing their offers - I bushed up on my CS and switched to finance.
Not that I disagree that Brexit was an awful idea, but this was a problem even before Brexit. The reach of European companies just isn't what it used to be in the face of American and Chinese giants, and the EU is failing to be a truly single market where companies can grow to that scale.
I left the UK for the USA in 2020. It was only last week that another HN commenter finally opened my eyes to the fact that since I have left the UK, I have become someone with the ability to take things from 0 to 1.[1]
I do not believe I could have achieved what I have in the last half-decade if I had stayed in the UK. There is something deeply rooted in the UK's contemporary culture (which I cannot yet fully explain in words) that serves to crush the individual ambitions of the working and middle classes.
So good to read this and feel...validated, somehow. The UK is culturally a very difficult place to start and run a business. There's a crabs in the bucket mentality that I didnt have words for before I'd left the UK for a few years, but now when I visit or do business there is absolutely everywhere.
One business thing that really strikes me is that people in the UK treat bankruptcy as a moral failing, as if you cheated your investors, and not a strictly financial one, as in, you ran out of cash before achieving product market fit. It seems rooted in an unusually Victorian ethis, which is ironic, because in that era, businesses started and folded all the time.
Depends on the bankruptcy. Nobody is going to shed tears over investors losing out. Speculate to accumulate, risk and reward.
But IDK how it works in other countries, UK bankruptcies also means customers, unsecured creditors (often other small businesses), and the State (payroll taxes) also lose out.
And it leaves a bad taste when a company run at high risk of bankruptcy ("oh but we're a Start Up") screws over their suppliers which are often more traditional businesses (whether that's print designers, lawyers or tradespeople) by carrying on trading far into insolvency.
That implies a kind of arrogance ("You just have a business which pays it's bills, I have a vision) which UK culture is allergic to.
In the US, most of those suppliers understand the nature of startups and are accustomed to working with them, fully aware they are likely to fail. The deals are structured appropriate for those realities and some suppliers specialize in or have a preference for startups.
In the UK, many suppliers still treat startups like an exotic beast, or worse, a corner shop. US business has a familiarity and comfort with startups, due in no small part from being an increasingly prominent part of the American business landscape since the Second World War. It is the water they swim in.
Here, failing to pay your bills is both a breach of fair play, and what "dodgy" people i.e. criminals and con-artists do.
But equally it means we can operate a bit more of an honour system in terms of lines of credit. Small businesses typically allow one another at least some amount of credit terms, which they would not offer a private individual.
Anecdotally, the British people I have interacted with in a business setting seem to have a dearth of ambition. These people weren’t depressed, but I sensed a kind of defeatist cynicism.
As an American I realize our culture encourages taking risks and we are remarkably forgiving of failure. In fact, we seem to congratulate people for the fact that they tried in addition to overlooking the failure. I’m not sure if this comes from “the frontier spirit” or if this mindset used to exist throughout the Anglosphere. In any event, I do feel bad for the UK as a whole. It just seems like things keep getting worse and at some point the national mood becomes a self fulfilling cycle.
American parents:
"You can do anything you set your mind to! Anyone can be president! If you fail, pick yourself back up and try again! Your cousin with the big house started out washing cars and built an amazing success from nothing!"
British (and Irish) parents:
"The whole system is rigged so don't even try, the guy in the big house up the road got it through shady government contracts, my uncle can get you a job at the council so you'll never, ever get fired, the only reason to ever save money is for retirement or a house, your cousin who tried to start a company thinks he's better than us...."
I remember playing (my) football (your soccer) in school and my neighbourhood as a kid.
If you were going to strike you needed to be pretty sure that you can score or that you can take the heat from your team mates if you fail.
In contrast watching kids play sports in the US, everyone is constantly trying to lift each other up after failure.
These small cultural differences easily add up in how you carry yourself in business.
Negativity seems to be culturally frowned upon in the US (what a downer). Positivity seems to be culturity frowned in Europe (naive 'happy go lucky' kind of guy).
Spot on. I’ve met several foreign exchange students during my time at university. A simple observation from one of them really stuck with me: “You Americans really like to help strangers.”
The “happy go lucky” observation squares with what I have been told by my Eastern European friend. Any stranger, or mere acquaintance, who is friendly and offering help is likely trying to obligate you into repaying the favor later on. People who for fall for this are naïve or simpletons. There’s definitely a level of trust that needs to be earned before you experience the same kind of positivity and goodwill that Americans seem to dole out to “randos” they just met.
Right after that “like to help” comment he followed it up with: “It is like you are all Golden Retrievers”. Which I found both hilarious and fitting.
A theory I've heard of why this happens is that Europeans are generally suspicious because there is a lot of international trauma considering Europe was the center of two World Wars, both relatively recently. The US on the other hand didn't have that imprinted in its collective memory.
It's the UK's aristocracy, most likely. They own nearly everything in the UK, haven't earned any of it, and the last thing they need is the invasion of rich self-made entrepreneurs.
Fair enough, I'll add some nuance. The government that I am a citizen of is a special case of a non-human entity, they do have entitlement to my property (which includes my attention).
Traffic signs put up by my government are different than billboards put up by a company. The former is to protect me, the latter is to exploit me.
I think a lot of this is exactly right - but one tiny caveat I'd add is that comparing the UK to the USA is sometimes a misnomer. On a size basic, the UK is much more comparible to a US state that the USA as a whole, and a lot of the observations made here are probably equally true of some US states like Colorado where talent is moved out to California.
The UK is almost twice the size of the largest US state--California. And that comparison doesn't fare well for the UK. The UK is below the US' poorest state in terms of GDP per capita.
> UK is almost twice the size of the largest US state--California
You mean by landmass? Looks like the UK is quite a bit smaller than California and I presume is a middle-sized state in size terms:
If my salary had been my only or even my main objective, I would have taken a very different route in my career. Sure, for some people it is, but there are other factors as well. But if you're from the UK, young and independent, and money is your main drive, what's keeping you from moving to the US, at least for a couple of years?
Getting a visa is incredibly difficult, with the easiest route being working for a US firm in the UK and transfering to their US offices, but at which point you're already one of the lucky few to score a US job in the UK and are probably paid well enought that uprooting your life doesn't seem worth it.
As a former hardware engineer and a lover of all things hardware, the only country that isn't currently wasting its hardware talent is China. The rest of the world has been spoiled by the easy money in software.
Only China has produced a stable flow of hardware startups, and they have generally been very impressive.
The common European tragedy, if I could go back in time I would've never majored in CS. The salaries are just not worth the effort and struggle required to get there.
Much better to have partied and taken a lightweight major. Those extra 400-500 euros simply don't make up for the wasted youth reading Tannenbaum.
The cost of living thing is debunked very quickly, but I think it's missing some aspects. I'm not in UK, but just on Europe main land, but I can easily pay for my flat, don't need a car for anything, while still living pretty much in the city center, should I lose my job I still get payed while looking for another job, should I get sick I can also just go to a doctor or the hospital and pay up to nothing, my kids just go to kindergarten and school also with paying up to nothing. At the very least most of that is not true for the US. So earning less is okish. Of course I'd also love to get more. But it's not as much needed as it might be in the US.
Too little, too late. The list of reasons to stay in the UK are slim; and there’s very little the UK can do about it (other than begging people to stay out of national pride). Even the strong arguments a decade ago, like the NHS, are cracking.
Eventually the hardware comes back from the factory and somebody has to do bringup. It doesn't need constant in office presence, but it does need to happen some days. Sometimes you even need to go to the factory itself.
While it's a shame so few hardware engineers have the opportunity to build hardware, I wouldn't say they are being wasted. I am a hardware engineer. I invented a couple hardware devices, but I transitioned to software very early in my career and I don't regret that. I don't feel my talents or education has been wasted - my understanding of how a computer works down to the transistors (planar CMOS, I'm from the 80's) is handy when I have to predict how software will behave (and how it'll ultimately break).
Engineers are, ultimately, problem solvers. Some problems are hardware - electronics, mechanical, electrical, production, and so on, but the space of problems we've been trained to solve is a lot bigger than that - If you can see feedback loops, you have a future in commodities, banking and finance. And, as we recently learned the hard way, in politics as well. We are all trained to identify sub-optimal solutions and to have an almost irresistible itch to solve them.
One quote I love is that "scientists see the world as it is, while engineers see the world as it could be".
Finding it tough in Ireland too. Though salaries are higher, access to machines, tools, etc. is significantly harder. We have the talent, but capex is just too tough for startups. I tried to help solve this with saltharbour.org but it flopped during fundraising (who knew making no money isn't appealing, still going for sponsorship though).
That said, setting up a new thing in Cambridge, offering £40k starting salary (with intention for it to go much higher) has shown: 1) exceptional talent on my doorstep, 2) plenty of people to choose from, 3) immediate impact.
The downsides are real though - industrial space, while cheaper, is hard to find and significantly out of the way. There's also a lower ambition level and a lot of red tape.
I really think compared to other places in Europe the UK is in a far better place to start to excel. Things like aria, works in progress, renphil and more have such a presecence and it feels like people are excited about reasearch, progress and hardware.
The U.K is not doing anything innovative that creates jobs and wealth. Instead the U.K. focuses mostly on housing wealth and building a property empire. This is evident with a govt that’s hell bent on stoking demand…after so many years they’ve only just stopped “right to buy”!!
If we want higher salaries then the uk needs to start creating meaningful and impactful products that other countries want…
Back when he was still considered quotable, Dominic Cummings often mused about the UK's future post-Brexit. I seem to remember his blog mentioning data science and drug research as possible areas where UK could build a global advantage.
I can't be bothered to wade through it all but if you're interested his (old) stuff is here: https://dominiccummings.com
The same can be said almost anywhere. The big issue is that businesses often offshore work to save on labor costs rather than to improve the quality of their products.
This problem is significant, and here’s why: consider yourself of average intelligence. Now think about how many people are below that level. Then consider those above your level of intelligence and start dividing them further by demographics, age, profession, interests, and so on. What you’re left with is an alarming realization—only about 0.1–0.2% of the global population may truly excel in your skilled profession. Education helps, but it doesn’t define one’s ability.
Unfortunately, this also means that many people end up in professions they are not suited for, including CEOs who shouldn’t be in those roles. It’s a sobering thought, and when you really consider it, it’s a bit crazy to think about.
Sometimes that talent pools in different part of the world too.
Reading all this negativity about the UK made me wonder: is it possible that the UK throwing in the towel and asking to become part of the US could actually become reality? It's an admittedly outlandish idea, but suddenly it didn't seem entirely preposterous.
Why would the US want the UK? The UK does not seem to have natural resources that the US would want. The main resource is intellectual talent, which is already free for the US to obtain via immigration and a common language.
Possibly the UK's worldwide military bases / islands to build bases on or mine the oil and some restricted technology. Maybe a 'Hong Kong' style outpost in Europe.
No way. There would be a much bigger loss of "sovrinty" than people were prepared to put up with in the EU and that's in the miraculous case that the US wanted it.
> I think it’s more that the bar for getting a hardware startup off the ground is much higher than a software startup - everywhere in the world.
I hear ya on this, and it's not just the setup costs, or the testing or the certification... It's a non trivial task to run a hardware company. Even the stuff you don't expect. For instance, a good friend of mine founded a health startup that makes wearables, and they were almost torpedoed in the first year of operation by some mouthy influencer who went about publicly calling their beta release product a fraud. This is despite the fact it worked and did what it should.
All economic development initiatives face an uphill challenge if the underlying macro conditions aren't right.
The solution for the UK, the EU and Canada is simple but politically anathema: cut taxes
A 2018 study shows tax increases significantly reduce innovation. A 1% increase in the top marginal income tax rate leads to a 2% reduction in patents and inventors, while a similar increase in corporate taxes causes even larger declines.
As brought up through the thread, it sounds more plausible that the hardware talent is most useful near the factories, and due to globalisation and pay discrepancy, fewer factories are being built in UK.
With compensation catching up in developing economies, it will make less and less sense to move production outside a "wealthy" country, and you'll see resurrection of domestic hardware companies.
Right?
How far away are we from the tipping point is beyond me, though (and there are always "cheaper" countries still, even if it's mostly due to lacking legislation and environment protection rules).
Talent everywhere is being wasted because we’re all trapped working for oligopolistic companies or the mediocre-talented leadership of the rich and connected.
This is a direct consequence of the housing theory of everything [1]. When land is scarce landlords can eat up any surplus produced by both labor and capital!
Firstly I would not go back to London unless I had the protection level of a government Minister. My life is not worth any amount of money and violence is out of control.
Secondly the government acts as an economic terrorist by stopping innovation. Search engines and social media are a classic example by treating them as publishers so the owners are liable for any copyright infraction. No one is going to build a company with the threat of being prosecuted over the actions of one of their users. This goes for hardware as well, e.g. the government brought in the EU regulations on drones, which bans the flight of autonomous drones and thus stops innovation. This means people like myself who were working on autonomous drones had to stop, causing me to lose out on millions in revenue and the government missed out on the taxes I would have paid.
Short of a revolution or an economic collapse nothing will change. The latter is baked in at this point, when and how bad it will be I do not know, I'm hoping for the best and planning for the worst.
> Firstly I would not go back to London unless I had the protection level of a government Minister. My life is not worth any amount of money and violence is out of control.
I feel like there's heavy observation bias here. Maybe you had a bad experience or two, but I've been living in London for the past 4 years and haven't had any such encounter(s) so far. You make it sound like London's some third world warzone; I personally felt that New York, SF, and LA were far more unsafe when I was living there with the amount of homeless people and fentanyl addicts walking around.
Ironically, other countries (former British colonies) have more access to US "specialty occupation" working visas than the UK does -- none of these are H1-B.
Canadians and Mexicans have TN, Australians have E3, Singapore and Chile have H-1B1 (a subcategory of H1-B but with its own quotas).
I have to correct myself slightly -- the Brit engineers I do meet in the US often come here on an L1A/L1B intra-company transfer from a British subsidiary. So that's one path.
But yes, the visa path for UK citizen to accept a direct job offer is much more limited.
I'm a British-American hardware engineer, I've lived in the UK nearly all my life. I've a home, and a family with kids here, I'm very settled. I've had plenty opportunity to move to the US, even before I had a family (with my current employer or under my own steam as a citizen) and I've no interest. I visit the US every few years and by the end of the trip I'm very much done with it all. Other than the much larger job market, I don't think there's a single US thing I want. Everything we have here is either better, or I'm sufficiently used to it. American is an unappealing place to live for many social reasons, I'd much rather move to France or Germany if I had to leave (and wasn't worried about the language barriers).
It's practically very difficult to move to the US. Getting a visa is hard even in the best case (with a helpful sponsor). And if you're in any way settled in the UK (partner, house, possessions, etc) then you've got multiple other problems to solve.
I'm under the impression that tech people working in the US on visas are exploited. The end of year review / firing round which is so popular in the US means you can lose your job, which means you lose your visa, and you get something like 4 weeks to land a replacement or have to move out of the country.
At 20? Sure, who cares. If you've got a house, kids in a local school? The level of stress about being abruptly thrown out of the country seems untenable.
I would expect that dynamic to suppress wages for immigrants (as you have fear to keep them in line instead). Healthcare seems to be similarly set up to frighten people into staying in their current employment.
This perspective might not be accurate, but it's why this British engineer is unwilling to move to the US.
You're not wrong, but immigrants from other places are willing to take that risk with their families. This insecurity, for better or for worse, selects for a type of hungry immigrant who are also risk-takers, for whom the push of their own country overrides the risks.
(Don't get me wrong -- I'm not condoning it -- US immigration is really wanting. I'm just remarking on its 2nd order effects).
If you grew up with European norms, it might feel like exploitation. But for others seeking opportunity or fleeing poverty, it's a good trade off.
I've been studying the history of early emigration lately. Seems to me that outside of those who didn't have the means to leave, the Brits who were more upper class stayed home because they were happy enough with the status quo. It's the more blue collar Brits who had less to lose that went over to the new world. And America was built by the latter group.
(Canada OTOH was initially populated by the Brits who went over to the new world, but were happy with the status quo of being Brits i.e. the United Empire Loyalists. That's why Canadians today are just a little more risk-averse than Americans. Source: I'm Canadian).
Immigrating to USA is hard, probably one of the hardest because competition is so high. Tbh I'd recommend going someplace like Hong Kong whose government is starved for talent and pays similar when balancing for tax but similar social services.
Hardware engineer here, from a qualification perspective. I worked for a large American defence company and was invited to work in the US. I declined.
The work culture, social and economic stability are terrible. Education is expensive or poor. Regulation and standards are poor. Not a good place to bring up a family.
My cousin (an American living and working in France) married a guy originally from Morocco. After eventually realizing that they might want to move to the US, they couldn't, because he couldn't get a visa.
It would have taken quite a bit of time- my cousin would have had to move back to the US first, established residence, and gotten a job and some other requirements. Only then could they have qualified to apply, and the wait time for the application to be approved would be in the 9-14 months range.
Once they applied, he could have moved here with her, but not gotten a job, I think, until the application for the visa was approved.
> It would have taken quite a bit of time- my cousin would have had to move back to the US first, established residence, and gotten a job and some other requirements.
That's strange. A spouse green card doesn't require the residence and there is no wait time for the spouses of US Citizens. However, the processing time (especially via consular processing) is ridiculous, around 2 years now.
Some people don’t focus primarily on the money. When that’s the case, many things (love, pride, comfort, dreams, fears, etc) might keep someone from moving.
The hardware is good. It's fairly horrendous to program but comparable to other specialised chips and the lowering from XLA / onnx etc worked well enough.
The 20x performance lead over Nvidia's Pascal looked great. Volta beating Pascal by 10x did unrecoverable damage to Graphcore's marketing slides. I think they got the later generations running a bit faster but it was never the order of magnitude over nvidia they started from.
I'm not sure what they're doing these days. The exit to softbank valued the employee shares at $0 so the engineers that had already left got burned. Most of the engineers I knew there have left but there still seems to be a large headcount.
They made a bad bet on the structure of their designs. They were bought by SoftBank last year; they have a new design in the works, but might have trouble delivering it as apparently there's been a bit of a talent exodus. There are several newer companies trying their luck in the area.
they didn't transition to transformers and I focussed mainly on CNN's, which whilst still popular don't have the same financial draw, and weren't easily re-purposable for transformers.
This problem isn't limited to hardware engineers, nor to UK. All across Europe, a massive brain drain is occurring, and the way it's going we'll become developing countries in a couple of decades at most.
I’ve seen this exact trajectory play out with several friends. Get a good degree in robotics engineering or the like, options are working for civil servant pay at a defense subcontractor, or Ocado. Pretty much it.
Completely wrong on the root causes. Britain used to have a large hardware industry, where these people would actually get to do proper engineering.
The difference between Germany and Britain is that Germany still has large, successful and innovative hardware companies and it still has decent engineering jobs. Britain has lost them, together with the companies which once offered them.
But these jobs didn't vanish into thin air, they vanished to India and China, which now control the companies making "British" cars (MG, Lotus, Jaguar, Landrover, etc.).
There is the delusion in many Western people that e.g. China just can not do proper engineering and that outsourcing jobs there will not work. This is false. Most engineering jobs people do can be done just as well by people on the other side of the world for half the pay. The only reason you get paid twice the money for the same thing is institutional inertia, a company can not move it's development all at once to there other side of the world, so there need to be people locally to do engineering, even if it is more expensive. This is not something which will remain true forever.
These Hardware jobs are paid terribly because they well paid for the global market rate.
It is not geography, or lack of innovation or VCs. It is outsourcing.
I don't disagree with anything in particular here but I'm not sure your latter paragraphs do anything to explain why Germany is different. Or are you saying it's also institutional inertia and it's just a matter of time for them to end up the same?
>Or are you saying it's also institutional inertia and it's just a matter of time for them to end up the same?
Exactly. Britain has lost its industry long ago, while Germany did not. The situation right now is different, but I do not believe the trajectory is.
Especially when it comes to software, even the largest corporations in Germany just outsource to India. And justifying hiring people for 2x/3x//4x the cost at "home" becomes increasingly hard.
The answer here can be found if you just "follow the money" and realize that while some investments follow international boundaries, other types of investments are highly mobile.
The lack of UK hardware startups is due to the lack of local VC appetite and the unwillingness of US VCs to fund a non-Delaware incorporated company. Therefore the investment from a VC to a startup is generally "bounded" by geography.
The lack of UK VC appetite is due to the fact that there are just not that many LPs that want to give their money to a UK VC given their choice internationally. The LP investment to VC is "unbounded" - meaning it just follows exactly where the returns are highest.
What we really need is for UK startups to break the international border between silicon valley and the UK (or anywhere else for that matter). This means setting up a Delaware C corp, selling to the US, but keeping most of the talent in the UK.
Not completely true. Our engineers take hardware home, and I have a mini-lab at home for developing hardware. If COVID2.0 kicked off tomorrow, we would be robust against this.
> Venture Capital: European VCs, mostly bullish on fintech and SaaS, remain wary of hardware. Result? A feedback loop of underinvestment and missed opportunities.
Extremely true. I cannot overstate how wary of hardware investors are. As with software, you have two types of hardware: research-based and engineering-based. Engineering-based hardware is actually quite low risk if the risks are well understood.
> Innovation Stagnation: We're not just losing salary differences; we're missing out on the next ARM or Tesla.
100%. Even when the UK accidentally creates the likes of ARM, it always fails to stop it being purchased by other Countries.
> False. London is around the same as NYC and more expensive than most parts of California and definitely Texas. This also ignores:
I'll put some numbers to it. If you want a house share (one bedroom, shared common rooms and utilities), at a £1600 budget you will struggle to find somewhere. On a £25k salary, losing £5k to pension, etc, your ENTIRE salary goes on accommodation. If you are one of those pesky eating humans who sometimes requires clothes, travels to work, etc, it's literally impossible.
> "UK's small market limits growth."
In any situation you have to realise the opportunity. As the article points out, the hardware engineers are 25%-50% of their US counterparts at the same quality.
> Your next unicorn isn't code. It's cobalt and circuits. Back the tangible.
It's actually a mixture of the two. Software and hardware working in tangent. The barrier to entry with software is very low, it's difficult to compete there. The barrier to entry to hardware is higher due to time and costs, you can work there and have less concern about competitors.
The profit margins are also far higher, as there is a tangible thing, there is a greater perception of value. You buy <Software> and it takes a year to develop. You spend another year writing <Update>, people expect to get it for free, despite the same resources being applied. When you buy <Hardware>, the next iteration which is a year of <Update> can be sold at full price, and people will pay it.
One bedroom house shares in london (Zone 2 or further) are closer to £1-1.2k a room currently btw. They maybe get that high in Zone 1, but there's almost no reason to live in euston or kings cross over living in camden/kentish town for example in the northern direction.
That is equivalent to half of [all the electricity consumed by the United States](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect....) - from a country with five times fewer people, a GDP one-eighth the size and a total land area 39 times smaller.
Not only would developing this sector be an industrial driver in itself, but the sheer excess of carbon-free power could be used to power the growth of other sectors - from energy-intensive data centers to heavy industry. Needless to say it would also act as some protection given geopolitical risks with fossil fuel supplies.
A lot of these complaints are not about an industry, but about late stage capitalism. About a failing society that privileges profits over social progress and material productivity because oligarchs and aristocracy own the institutions and are running this thing into the ground on base class instinct.
All these cool "save the world" school projects exist because the current people running the world are deciding what is and isn't a priority and haven't fixed the problem in question; When these students grow up and go on to work for those same people, we are shocked, shocked that it isn't to do more unprofitable school engineering projects.
Instead: Finance industry stuff. What we really need, and by we I mean the people in charge who are obsessively keeping score of imaginary numbers in an account.
Putting more layers of privatisation between the government and the service it provides will decrease the quality and increase the costs. Sewage is now in our rivers and we pay more for water. Trains are obscenely expensive compared to Europe. Energy is expensive. All of these things cost boatloads because we sold them off and drag the rest of the economy down with them. We wouldn't be spending so much today if we'd invested more in the past.
Capitalism is not the problem so much as policies that promote trade imbalances and outsourcing of jobs. If there are people somewhere willing to work for much less than you are, there are far fewer opportunities to do anything. It is not normal to get a ton of cheap imports forever, and a reversion to the mean is not a sign that capitalism is failing.
Unless the whole world was to demand the same standard of living (which is impossible), or global trade is limited, there will be nations where the wealth of the average person is on the decline.
What we are seeing is a great levelling out of living standards across the world. Poor countries are unquestionably getting richer, while rich countries are stagnating and decaying. It's a period of readjustment, but self-limiting.
There's no need for the West to stagnate like this. We could let the rest of the world develop itself while we continue to be self-sufficient. That requires tough decisions like choosing to limit imports of foreign goods and labor. But that is unfortunately not how it's going. Some people have been selling out their own countries for decades to make a quick buck, or perhaps to defend some economic theory that the plan with the highest cost efficiency is always the best.
Yeah, yeah, the meme copy-paste problem diagnosis, but what’s the solution?
Rebuild into socialism?
Rebuild into communism?
Reset into early stage capitalism (lack of regulation and all)?
How do you know that those systems won’t also have their own late stage failure? Case in point, the NHS right now.
(Edit, posting too fast: To the person below who suggested 90% tax rates; the US never had those rates. On paper they did, but they had more and larger exceptions than now, to the point the effective rate never exceeded 45% anyway. This is also why the massive cut was politically palatable - it was cutting the rates to closer reflect the reality. At no point did the US ever have anything close, or even half close, to 90% effective rates.)
The NHS is not dying an entirely natural death. Murder most foul.
Your question is coupling a matter of our policy preference, our tactical planning to arrive at that preference, and a hypothetical predictive model. If like some supervillain I had come up with a satisfactory answer to all those questions I would have enacted it twenty minutes ago.
Cracking down on monopolies and rentierism would be a good start. Followed by tying pension rises to worker's salaries. None of that is actually going to happen because of who votes combined with a government that's scared of its own shadow.
Combined with the fact that those solutions just listed are short term and a surefire way to ensure nobody gets a pension.
You also can’t act against monopolies when China happily won’t act against their own state owned monopolies, which are in an arm’s race trying to surpass us. Falling behind to China is a great way to cause a tech investment collapse.
Well everytime somebody wants to build high density housing or really anything to alleviate the housing crisis we get the usual NIMBY screaming similar to OP about evil corporations coming to destroy the character of their local neighborhood.
Returning by right development to the UK is very possibly the single largest policy measure that might enable a way forward, not because it's so intimately tied to the financialization of the economy, but because it's such an enormous capital concentration that its limitations overshadow a lot of other issues.
It may be hard to see it from where we're standing, but the current housing situation is one extreme of a catastrophic ongoing crisis.
"Reasonably" is doing a lot of work there. It sounds an awful like you're defining the boundaries of reasonability at "Exactly what is built right now and using the exact borders of current municipalities", which is a tautology. Even if we limit ourselves to the current municipal boundaries of London, population density is ~6000 people per square kilometer. Kowloon Walled City survived with 3,000,000 people per square kilometer, Manhattan has 75,000, Dhaka 23,000, San Francisco 19,000.
Their system is a much better one than we tend to have in the US, but "All-in on public transit" looks more like Trantor than London. A majority of the TFL system was constructed more than a century ago.
Nope. London is reasonably full already. The problem is that it's already 9 million people, and the high-paying jobs are focused in a fairly small area.
So if you increase the population density, the transit to that focused area will have to carry more people. And it's already at capacity.
If you want to increase the density, then London will have to create new business areas outside of Canary Wharf, City, and Westminster. At which point, the question becomes "why even bother with London?"
Yeah.. no. Have you been to Asian cities? It's rows and rows of 100 floor apartments, it's urban centers consolidated into high density malls and commercial centers. We're talking about dozens of high rises where every floor contains restaurants and shops. I daresay there is more to eat and shop in the 1km Radius around Ikebukuro Station then entire borough of Westminster!
Nobody wants to work in some backwater in the middle of nowhere either, especially if you are young and want to meet new people.
I strongly suspect it's a variant on capitalism that:
1. Recognises that some industries (utilities, healthcare, etc) are not well suited to market provision and are state funded. i.e. the sort social provisions that many of the nordic countries have.
2. Recognises that extreme wealth inequalities invalidate the key principle that capitalist economics is premised on (that the market value of a good or service closely approximates it's societal value) and therefore imposes much stronger progressive taxes on very high earners to effective cap how much wealth a single individual can control.
> early stage capitalism (lack of regulation and all)
The 'Laffer Curve' concept is treated at first glance as some kind of complex model created by experts that Explains A Lot, at second glance as something a bunch of drunk political operatives scrawled on a cocktail napkin in 1974 that doesn't necessarily have any relation to reality, and at third glance as a tautology whose dishonest core is the labelling of the x axis.
Academic attempts to identify the optimal maxima of tax receipts, which conservative political operatives will always implicitly assume is "half whatever the current rate is", suggest something on the order of 60%.
> In economics, the Laffer curve illustrates a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of the government's tax revenue.
I would dispute the premise of the Laffer Curve: that the goal of setting a (high) taxation rate is to maximise government revenue. I think that reducing wealth inequality is a good in and of itself. And especially under a capitalist system that depends on it's citizens having vaguely equal purchasing power to function efficiently.
Assuming that our starting point is our current situation where wealth is very unequally distributed, that is. I would agree with the suggestion that things being too equal, and there being no reward for hard work and/or ingenuity also leads to problems.
Optimisation that tries to balance that trade-off would interest me greatly.
Point 1 tends to fall apart when the government can't control its own coffers and after a few decades of mismanagement decides that privatisation is the main way to reduce their debt burden. So I think this one ebbs and flows over time generally.
See South Africa for an example. Power production is slowly opening up to market forces as an alleviation to the extreme mismanagement and corruption of the last 2-3 decades.
On the other hand, there are also some alternatives, like "devolution" of state services to the provincial or municipal level. The local Cape Town government is busy trying to gain control over the city's train lines from the government org that owns them, to provide better service.
There's no substitute for competence and integrity, but private entities are just as capable of being inept and corrupt. Look at companies like Enron or Comcast.
In the case of the UK the solution in effect since the mid 2010s is increase taxation, replace the natives completely with someone more desperate, and suppress wages.
Socialism isn't the solution, it's the problem. People deserve to be paid for work and the better the work that they do, the more they deserve to be paid, even though that can be much more than the average person earns.
Capitalism seeks rent from having capital, so the obvious optimization is to squash the ability to demand higher wages (original Marxist argument about "ownership of means of production" was how big capitalist controlled access to machines you needed to the work, thus being able to depress the wages)
I don't think you understand socialism and capitalism.
Suppression of wages is very much a feature of capitalism (the company's mission is to acquire capital for shareholders; technology that lowers costs by reducing the need for labor, or reducing the payment for labor, is a goal); whereas socialism holds that those who do the work should benefit from their labor (workers should own the means of production).
A "socialist" company in the U.S. would be an employee-owned company or a co-op (like REI) though they would never call themselves that because Americans don't understand what socialism is (and have been taught that it's "evil").
A lot of these comments tell me that most commenters haven't actually worked in the EU or attempted to build wealth here.
I come from an unprivileged background, my father joked that he might leave me an empty bottle of whisky when he died. I went from making 20k USD at my first job to over 800k per year.
Taxation never particularly blunted my avarice or desire to advance further, and I never minded paying my taxes either. Frankly, only two things ever really slowed me down: the good old boys clubs in Europe, where if you haven't gone to the right schools, they treat you like you're supposed to be a slave rather than expect a slice of the pie... and the good old boys clubs in the US, where unless you're in CA/NY, well, again, how dare you expect a slice of the pie.
If I could, I'd gladly try to get richer than Musk, and honestly, fuck the taxes. Having miserable poor people around me sucks more than paying taxes. I'd rather they enjoy some of my success too. That way I can hire fewer bodyguards.
I moved from Silicon Valley to London -- a funny thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the tax rates on RSUs are absolutely awful (extra NI can push rates to nearly 60%).
That is a large disincentive for working in a tech company versus finance. Tech companies especially start-ups largely pay in stock which could be mispriced and you make more (or less) money than could be predicted. But versus finance paying pure cash, less (equity) risk, and a lower tax rate the incentives are clear.
HMRC I don't think should be underrated in their effects on answering the question -- "should I start my start-up in the US or the UK?"
Not that bad. Engineers in "flyover country" where I am seem to easily exceed six figures.
My town has, ironically, a formerly British-owned firm (since bought out Berkshire Hathaway) that not only has six-figure engineering jobs, but shop floor jobs that are union and starting pay is $25/hr for unskilled - electrician and so on start higher, $30/hr, and only go up from there. The UK operations are still going, but engineering has largely moved to the U.S. (which is a bit of a puzzle, since apparently engineers in the UK can be had much more cheaply).
New "software" grads? Easily? Today? In flyover country? I'm not seeing it. Salaries got a nice bump over the last few years, but hiring has slowed down and new grads are the first to suffer. (and some of what you see when people on forums like this one talk about what they're paid is bullshit, for some reason)
Maybe? If you're in the area - would it be fair to characterize entry level software development jobs in Des Moines as "easily exceeding six figures?" I took a quick and lazy peek at a job site and I didn't feel like there were enough jobs to even make a judgment. (my filter brought up some Epic Systems jobs with no salary listings and some other stuff that is well below six figures)
> Venture Capital: European VCs, mostly bullish on fintech and SaaS, remain wary of hardware. Result? A feedback loop of underinvestment and missed opportunities.
Um? We're pretty crap at SaaS too here in Europe.
The problem is just that venture capital is simply not really around in Europe. Part of that is better labour protections, you can't just start a firm and dump all your staff if it doesn't work out. I think that's a good thing too.
And really hardware is a China thing these days. The "designed in" is just a small part.
But Britain also has the Brexit problem. I'm glad I'm not British.
Germany has multiple successful and innovative engineering companies, where engineers work for good wages.
>Where is it? Did she really accomplish something?
Building a fusion reactor is not that hard, although that example is probably hyperbole. Note that a fusion reactor is something totally different than a fusion reactor which outputs net energy.
Author missed that due to low wages in engineering in particular, people will stop study that, because it requires more effort and is more expensive to learn than stacking shelves - that pays very much the same.
It's a problem of class warfare - government hates working class, including the current Labour government - that despises the working class in particular. They don't want ordinary people to develop skills, start businesses. They want them to slave away in foreign big corporations.
You don't have to look hard for evidence - PM jets around the world asking foreign big corporations to hire British slave workers, instead of spending time home and creating environment for local business to thrive.
Gotta love how the folks spinning slick pitches make bank, while the engineers actually building our world are left pinching pennies. But hey, that’s capitalism for you.
The UK as a society doesn’t care about anything related to industrial production because it is ideologically opposed to anything resembling an industrial working class.
Skilled jobs are anathema to the ethos of the people in charge of the UK’s industrial policy - who have never held a skilled job in their life - as they would prefer everyone to be a backbiting, striving social climber like them, either moving money around of gumming up the system with endless bureaucracy.
This trend is exhibited in many of the ‘developed’ economies but it is particularly strong in the UK, a country fooling itself with delusions of grandeur while, like Wilde’s picture, its foundations gnarl and ossify and crumble, like dust into the dustpan of history. Next…
I'm not sure I agree with the tone of this, but imho it's definitely true that British culture views STEM people as just a bunch of nerds ('boffins') to be told what to do, and not really trusted, wheras the 'important' serious people are all 'media' types; politics, sales and marketing, people-people.
Probably true to some extent the world over, but especially malignant in UK, as you say. It wouldn't be so bad if the UK's executives had a track record of excellence, but they are generally abysmal.
I don't think the UK is allergic to industry, it just got worse and worse at manufacturing relative to other countries after WW2.
Just look at the UK's automobile industry... terrible quality.. terrible reliability, particularly in electrical components until the whole thing collapsed.
The general attitude that manufacturing is only for people who suck at school is the driving force behind this decline. You are indeed left with mostly not-that-bright guys who don't even consider themselves skilled workers, and definitely don't go the extra mile to produce quality stuff. A guy half-assing his work earns just as much as the guy who puts his heart to it, that's the harsh reality of modern industrial work. If anything the guy who cares too much is ridiculed and considered weird.
The exceptional craftsmen still exist but they mostly work for themselves, for obvious reasons. They really don't want to be "managed" and bossed around like cattle.
Ad services, once it was monopolized by Google and Facebook really warped the value of the software engineering profession over other areas.
Software is incredibly valuable, but there are other technology areas that are much harder and equally as valuable (if not more so when augmented with good software).
A lot of software engineers who only know the last 20 years have inflated egos as results.
How many technology experts suddenly became public health experts overnight when COVID-19 hit? And how many of these same people continue to parrot the same bullshit after over 1 million American deaths?
To be fair, a lot of European countries and localities do not treat their water with fluoride at all. Some have better dental health purely due to better healthcare/dental coverage.
The onset of anti-vaccine sentiment will do far more damage and shouldn't be bracketed in that same category.
As a British person, I only discovered that water fluoridation was a thing a few months ago. We usually have chlorine in our water, but almost no fluoride - we get that in our toothpaste.
Keep importing skilled workers. I'm sure it will work out for you eventually. /s
Seriously, I feel bad for our British bretheren. The UK government is seemingly out of control and actively working against the people. There are also long-running geopolitical trends like outsourcing to contend with. Talk too much about these things and you're probably getting sent to prison. It's time for the US to bring some democracy to the UK lol.
UK has long pursued a strategy of "social mobility", which is shorthand for: some places will be shit, and if you're hardworking or clever you can and should leave.
So the bright, capable people from white working-class towns either joined the middle classes or skipped the country entirely a generation or two ago.
Leaving behind a bunch of people for whom no wage will tempt them to London to do the hard, menial work needed to keep the city running. So on that front we have no choice but to import.
The people left behind either have caring responsibilities that means they can't move, long term health problems and disabilities, or just lack the basic work ethic, motivation and so on to get on in life.
Ultimately who's going to mop the floors at City banks and so on? It won't be the bright, ambitious kids of second and third generation immigrant families, not if they can at all help it, nor the sons and daughters of white middle classes, whether that's metropolitan elites or the trades and services people.
(This, btw, is why immigrants are generally hard working: "people willing to relocate their lives halfway around the world to an often hostile culture where they'll never truly be at home" is a strong filter for people with drive and motivation. Those lacking it stay home, regardless of which host and guest culture we're talking about).
There is a constant narrative that is pushed on everyone that immigration is necessary because people won't do the menial jobs. There is a huge number of problems with this this narrative.
* Menial jobs were/are normally done in the past by younger more inexperienced people. These were usually done part time while in education. This allows younger people to build basic competency and money management skills. They aren't supposed to be jobs for life and everyone knew this in the past. By constantly importing people from to do these jobs, you stop younger people from building up this basic competency. This stuff is important btw, as I know many people who never had these jobs and had the bank of Mum and Dad pay for them for far too long, they don't know how to manage money.
* A lot of more menial jobs are done by people that are part retired. When I was younger I worked with many part retired people that had a stressful job and moved away and part retired and were on the checkouts out the supermarket, cleaning, pushing trolleys or delivering things.
* A lot of immigrants seem to do jobs like Uber Eats, Deliveroo and other zero hour contract food delivery jobs. If you don't believe me, go to your local McDonalds at 8am on a Saturday morning and every driver picking up food will be a immigrant of one sort or another. These are jobs where people are literally too lazy to drive 5 minutes to the McDonalds drive through on a Saturday morning. I am normally very pro-free market however do we really need to immigrants to do these jobs? I don't use Uber Eats and I have no idea how much it costs, but I think the guy up the road that has a small mansion a Jag and Two Teslas can probably afford to pay a bit more for delivery.
* I am from the South of the UK. If you aren't from London or another big city, London is one of the most horrid places to visit, work. I spent maybe a 4 months working as a freelancer in London (travelling in). People are downright rude, everything is a ripoff. I'd rather be slightly worse off and live here than be "better" off an live in London.
Menial routine work for juniors has been eliminated or automated to the margins, that much is true. No office-boys and far fewer supermarket cashiers. For those with people skills, there's plenty of café work, but that's about it.
On the flip side though, the educational/academic landscape for the upper quartile of young adults is hugely more competitive. Nobody is making it to a Russell Group uni on cruise control, and getting top grades AND having a part time job AND hobbies and a social life isn't easy.
Then you have menial work that's actually fairly skilled. Social care, childcare and so on. That's not something a student is going to do for a couple of years on the way to something better.
And a shift, for various reasons, to the contracted-out agency model for cleaning. Mostly done by immigrants, but they work harder than most semi-retired Brits would be willing to. Even if they're less flexible than the old boy who'd fix a bad door or window as well as sweeping the floor, and have none of his loyalty.
UberEats on the other hand is taking the mick. A lot of their workers are undocumented, the self-employed contractor status allows the operator to avoid the normally stringent penalties for immigration law breaches. I don't know if they lobbied for the law to be that way, but it's a massive loophole. So this is illegal work and maybe shouldn't be conflated with legit immigration. How much it's a problem I'm not sure.. the actual numbers are quite small, but like the loudspeakers on the bus thing, it's a very visible breach of the norms and rules, so there's an argument that it's bad for society on that basis. And like I say, the operator is blatantly exploiting it, they can't be blind to what's going on. I'm pretty liberal on immigration, miss the positive contribution the former Eastern Bloc countries made prior to Brexit, but the whole food delivery sector is overdue a clean out.
Not really. I am talking generally about this notion that we need to keep importing people.
> Menial routine work for juniors has been eliminated or automated to the margins, that much is true. No office-boys and far fewer supermarket cashiers. For those with people skills, there's plenty of café work, but that's about it.
That is often repeated but I don't think that is quite as true as people make out. There aren't robots yet (or likely to be) stacking the supermarket shelves. Yes self service has taken most of the cashier jobs (not all btw).
> And a shift, for various reasons, to the contracted-out agency model for cleaning. Mostly done by immigrants, but they work harder than most semi-retired Brits would be willing to. Even if they're less flexible than the old boy who'd fix a bad door or window as well as sweeping the floor, and have none of his loyalty.
In other countries to emigrate there you need to have skills they need. When I moved abroad previously the company had to justify looking outside of the country to employ me. I don't understand how it can be justified that they can't find cleaning staff. BTW I employ a cleaner so I know roughly how much they cost.
> UberEats on the other hand is taking the mick. A lot of their workers are undocumented, the self-employed contractor status allows the operator to avoid the normally stringent penalties for immigration law breaches. I don't know if they lobbied for the law to be that way, but it's a massive loophole. So this is illegal work and maybe shouldn't be conflated with legit immigration. How much it's a problem I'm not sure.. the actual numbers are quite small, but like the loudspeakers on the bus thing, it's a very visible breach of the norms and rules, so there's an argument that it's bad for society on that basis. And like I say, the operator is blatantly exploiting it, they can't be blind to what's going on. I'm pretty liberal on immigration, miss the positive contribution the former Eastern Bloc countries made prior to Brexit, but the whole food delivery sector is overdue a clean out.
It doesn't matter whether it is small or not (I don't think it as small as you are making out). It shouldn't be happening. Also just because you don't like the people that are highlighting this issue, doesn't mean that the issue isn't important.
The reason why things are a mess is that nothing gets sorted out properly in the UK. We have had leadership failures now for years.
On the cashier jobs - the thing is that they can rely on fewer and more trained/experienced staff. This may not be a bad outcome for those in the jobs, but it means less availability of casual work.
Which is not the same thing as no availability, but there used to be plenty of this kind of work to go around, such that it was the norm that 17/18 year olds could get it without particularly trying. That is not the case now.
Trying to bring skilled labour into the UK, or trying to get residence as an apparently useful and self-sufficient person, is actually quite difficult, so I'm not sure how all the low-skilled labour ends up here, other than large agencies in areas (social care, farm work) with known skill shortages.. being large agencies, the bureaucratic overhead isn't too bad for them, whereas for an individual or small company, it's more trouble than it's worth. There's no way you can just bring a cleaner over from abroad because you want someone to clean your house/office.
As to shouldn't be happening. Yes. But as for so many other things in the UK and its gradual slide towards a low-trust society. So it becomes a case of figuring out which battles to pick, which ones are genuinely impacting peoples' day to day. And I think collectively (not particularly a left vs right thing), the country has forgotten how to prioritise that.
> Trying to bring skilled labour into the UK, or trying to get residence as an apparently useful and self-sufficient person, is actually quite difficult, so I'm not sure how all the low-skilled labour ends up here, other than large agencies in areas (social care, farm work) with known skill shortages.. being large agencies, the bureaucratic overhead isn't too bad for them, whereas for an individual or small company, it's more trouble than it's worth.
Most of the skilled labour that I've encountered in the UK from immigration was Indians etc. that Accenture brought over. It is a gold ticket for the Indian developers and it is cheaper than paying people like me. So they do the same thing from the most skilled to the least skilled if the company is large enough.
> There's no way you can just bring a cleaner over from abroad because you want someone to clean your house/office.
I wasn't claiming to. I was saying that I know roughly what the costs are.
> As to shouldn't be happening. Yes. But as for so many other things in the UK and its gradual slide towards a low-trust society. So it becomes a case of figuring out which battles to pick, which ones are genuinely impacting peoples' day to day. And I think collectively (not particularly a left vs right thing), the country has forgotten how to prioritise that.
This feels like a false dichotomy. Many things can be done quickly if the bureaucracy wills it. The fact is that they don't.
If you are opening your job market to the entire world, the average salary for your workers will become the global average salary.
It is pretty trivial to see that this is exactly what is going to happen and the weighted average of UK and Indian wages are pretty close to Indian wages.
Could you elaborate further? I am a skilled immigrant in the UK. I pay my taxes and have not used any benefits. I even pay for my medication; the only free service I have used is a GP appointment or a hospital scan, which was likely covered by the IHS (Immigration Health Surcharge).
It's nothing against you personally. I'm sure many immigrants are good people and some scarce skilled workers must be imported. But there seems to be a desire from the top to import too many foreign workers across the West. This contributes to the low wages and lack of opportunities described in the article.
The UK also has outsourced a lot of manufacturing, which further worsens the job market. I don't know how many hardware engineers are imported unnecessarily or else part of "offshoring," but by all indications I've seen personally the number may be significant. This is from an outside US perspective, so take it with a grain of salt.
> Talk too much about these things and you're probably getting sent to prison.
This trope is getting a bit ridiculous. For the record, the event that inspired the notion that complaining online could get you sent to person involved individuals encouraging the public to burn down council offices[1] and a hotel[2].
Conspiracy to commit arson has been one of the most serious offences in English law for centuries, and that's even before you add the murder part to it.
>VERDICT Missing context. The clip shows a June 2024 arrest, according to Devon and Cornwall Police, and predates the Southport knife attack by around a month.
Hence not debunked (a strategy we're used too).
Times article on the subject: https://archive.ph/3OkeG Police arresting nine people a day in fight against web trolls
>More than 3,300 people were detained and questioned last year over so-called trolling on social media and other online forums, a rise of nearly 50 per cent in two years, according to figures obtained by The Times.
>About half of the investigations were dropped before prosecutions were brought, however, leading to criticism from civil liberties campaigners that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech.
>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said the Crown Prosecution Service emphasised section 127 was to be used only in “extreme circumstances”. “But the problem is ‘grossly offensive’ is not something you should normally be prosecuted for. It’s not showing harm to other people. It’s not showing that somebody is being harassed ... attacked or threatened.”
This gaslighting is getting a bit ridiculous. The oppression did not start in the wake of Southport, it has been in place for years. But I'm going to talk about Southport first. People were arrested for pointing out that the Southport murderer was a Muslim terrorist. Well guess what, he was: https://news.sky.com/story/southport-stabbings-suspect-faces... The media said it was all disinformation and put forth many straw man claims to smear people who are fed up with their government covering for the crimes for immigrants.
>Conspiracy to commit arson has been one of the most serious offences in English law for centuries, and that's even before you add the murder part to it.
I'm not defending conspiracy to commit arson. It is a fact that people have been jailed for far less serious things. I heard some reports that people were jailed for recording the riots or even posting about the existence of the riots.
As the article says, "section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, [...] makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”" and that can be and regularly is used to punch down on people expressing simple grievances. It is entirely subjective what causes "annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety" or is intended to do so. Our mere existence probably causes annoyance and inconvenience to some people. Got a problem with immigrants who don't respect your culture and disproportionately commit all the crimes? Well, it is going to cause some brown people to be anxious if you talk about it, so off to the slammer you go. That is truly how it goes, unless you're in a good position to fend off political attacks.
Just because someone was "brought up as a Christian" doesn't mean they are one. And he WAS a terrorist or wannabe terrorist, as evidenced by everything said in that article. You're over here whining about Breitbart as your neighbors are being jailed for merely talking about these issues in a way that displeases your overlords.
He was at least Muslim-adjacent, I think we can agree. Does it matter? Immigrant with ties to Al Qaida plots terror attack and actually murders people, comment section screaming "Ackshually he was not proven to be a Muslim" for real...
>The people who were jailed were generally jailed for rioting and incitement to riot
And I'm sure that given that officials gave many of them a year in prison, just a week after arrest, and after letting real criminals out to make room in the prisons, and after promising to make examples of them, means justice was served. Give me a break. Obviously the authorities can claim that anything calmly painting immigrants or even known criminals in a bad light is inciting a riot. It means nothing when laws are as screwed up as they are in the UK.
>And he wasn't an immigrant, he was born in Cardiff!
Minor children of immigrants count as immigrants as well IMO.
>Rather than casting vague assertions about the role of the authorities you can go read why people were jailed as it's public record
I've seen enough examples of BS to not trust your system, the reporting, or even most court records. I also don't have time to go read a ton of legal transcripts in other countries. The fact that many people that have been arrested for being perceived as rude online or in person is all I need to prove my point.
I'm not making up new definitions, I'm merely pointing out that first generation offspring of immigrants are likely to not be fully assimilated. In fact, the Southport event more or less proves that. Try to understand what I'm saying instead of being so pedantic.
I don't need to live in Britain to have a clue what's going on there. In fact, given the censorship your people are subject to, I think I could plausibly know more about what is going on than you do. There is approximately zero risk of me going to a British prison for calling it like I see it.
>And when challenged you decide to produce your own definitions of things… when are you deporting Melina and Barron?
It should go without saying that these people are legally entitled to be here for many reasons and also well-adjusted citizens. They are fluent in English, which is more than can be said of a lot of other immigrants. Most importantly of all, they aren't taking anyone's jobs or welfare benefits, or committing any crimes whatsoever. Even if they were, you can't revoke someone's citizenship even for being a criminal. That's why people need to be carefully vetted before letting them into the country. If someone is from a place that is radically different from your country, maybe they need to be scrutinized a bit more.
Bruh I've seen videos of people being arrested for merely insulting other people in Britain, or for carrying simple knives. Perhaps it is you that has very wrong ideas about the degree of freedom you actually have in Britain.
Carrying a knife in a public place without a lawful excuse is a crime in the UK so it’s not surprising you’ve seen videos of people being arrested for carrying knives
As for your interpretation of insulting they’ve probably been arrested for breach of the peace or aggravation of some form
Those are all fair… and about safe and civil societies
At least we can’t be arrested for crossing the road in the wrong place and we can drink at a reasonable age
Yeah I know carrying a knife is a crime in the UK. It's stupid as fuck. You can carry a knife, sword, or full on rifle down the sidewalk the US. You might get harassed by curious cops but it's legal nearly everywhere.
>Those are all fair… and about safe and civil societies
Nothing safe and civil about denying people the only means possible for them to fend off a group of attackers, or denying free speech to people.
>At least we can’t be arrested for crossing the road in the wrong place and we can drink at a reasonable age
Haha yeah the drinking thing is stupid in the US. Jaywalking is rarely enforced unless you are suspected of a serious crime, or else running across a high-speed road in plain view of cops.
that’s like a US election, eh? you drunk at 2:00am and there’s two of the ugliest people on Earth at the bar but you know you taking one of the home :) I’d still pick MSM over fucking Elon :)
“cool but somewhat flawed” is interesting way to describe a person who was balding in his 20’s and could not get laid and who now has more complexes than just about any human that ever lived…
yea, give me fucking CNN every day of the week and twice on sunday
That dude who was balding in his 20s has had more kids and screwed more supermodels than you can shake a stick at. He is overseeing R&D on some of the coolest products of our time as well. Everyone was cool with Elon until he dared be a little bit conservative, and they thought they could bully him into going with the Democrat program. He single-handedly demolished the propaganda empire that was in place before, ushering in a return to sanity.
I can hardly watch any MSM now because they are all obvious propagandists. What really surprises me is that anyone takes them seriously after all the banana republic stunts they tried to pull on Trump and the rest of us over the last 12-15 years (or more).
I graduated ~15 years ago with a degree from a decent UK university, and the job situation for an electronics engineer who could program and was willing to move anywhere in the country was essentially:
* Electronics graduate job, salary £25,000
* Programming graduate job, salary £40,000
Programming jobs think their competition is London fintech companies and Google with its free food.
Jobs designing switch mode power supplies think their competition is Chinese OEMs who pay experienced engineers £15k
So a lot of the electronic engineering graduates get diverted into software. They'd like to be able to own a house some day, after all.
SWE comp will remain elevated as long as there are marginal returns to software development. The capital structure of turing machine programming allows most of revenue to be spent on salaries. The pay is higher because the marginal cost of a new software customer is essentially zero. It's not because programming is way higher skilled than hardware engineering.
You deserve the wages you can command in the market. If the labor pool is limited companies will have to pay more. Maybe AI will change the dynamics. But otherwise hardware will always struggle to compete on pay.
Outside of finance, I generally find UK software and hardware comp to be abysmal. Especially when contrasted to the US, and even Germany.
For reference, I hold a doctorate in Engineering and a Class 1 MEng both at Oxford. I was offered £40k to work as an engineer in my niche (photonics).
My lab partner who went to Germany sits on a ~€90k salary doing similar to what I would have done.
Due to the limitations of hardware career options in London, I opted for software engineering post-DPhil, but I ended up earning £42k. After two years of work, I am sitting on £52k. I don't regard myself as an "under achiever", I own a significant proportion of the product I work on and am a top contributor.
I don't think that level of comp is appropriate given the amount of work I put myself through / how much I contribute, and I think it's reflective of the UK as a whole.
Irrespective of your self perception of value, I am not sure you are fully grasping the disconnect between the growth in cost of living and the (lack of) growth in wages of the past 50 years for the average human in western economies.
By many standards we actually need that 125k just to live what we would consider a middle class life in the 1980's.
UK's pay is extremely low. And you know that it is VERY difficult to earn beyond £80k/yr as a SWE outside of top foreign employers in the UK like Google or Citadel. More likely, you'll stagnate at £50-60k.
And when factoring the UK's CoL being comparable to some of the more expensive American cities (SF, NYC, Boston) yet salaries being a fraction of those available there, it makes sense why engineering isn't well regarded, and plenty of people either switch to finance or immigrates to the States, Australia, or Canada.
New Grad SWE London salary is more realistically 35k to 60k, Small Companies and Consultants are around 35k, Big Banks do 50k, and the bigger startups do like 55 to 60k.
The 100k is pretty much the elite prop trading, that's the whole LC hard grilling that 99.9% of candidates aren't going past.
Low relative to the US Tier 1 cities only. Just based on a cursory look at levels.fyi London median comp is £96k [1] while e.g. Houston is £103k [2] Toronto is £80k [3]. In fact, the only location I could find outside the US that was higher was Zurich at £126k [4]
First, CoL is miles lower in Houston and other tier 2 cities in America - you can buy a detached house for around $500k/£400k in a posh neighborhood. Not happpening in inner ring London.
Secondly, I've noticed issues with Levels.fyi ranges outside US/Canada and top tech hubs like Tel Aviv and Bangalore. Most markets don't have the same awareness of the tool, so salaries tend to be overestimated.
I don't think they'd relocate, but that doesn't matter.
They most likely will pull an ARM and hire almost entirely in the US and India instead of in the UK, because competitive British engineers would immigrate to the States, and you can get top tier Indian chip design talent across the spectrum for $30-60k.
It is impossible to immigrate to the US unless your employer is willing to go through the time-consuming and expensive process of sponsoring a visa + green card, which they have little reason to do since they can pay you less over here. I've been designing chips for years in the UK at ARM and elsewhere, haven't encountered anyone moving to the States
> Founders: Stop fleeing to the US. London can be the hardware capital of the world. We have the talent. We have the creativity. What we need is your audacity.
Easier said than done, Europe doesn't have the money for that (partially because all the exit money circulates in American VCs).
> • £25,000 starting salaries at traditional engineering firms
> • Exodus to consulting or finance just because it's compensated better
This is _exactly_ my career so far.
The key thing about the British economy is that while most things operate in a free market, construction is centrally planned by councillors who are incentivised to block most development. So the whole economy is struggling, but industries that need physical space are especially hard hit. Your local council can't block you from writing more code, but can stop you from building lab space near where people want to live and work.
My first job out of uni was in a wonderful small engineering firm in Cambridge. Lab space there is eye-wateringly expensive because it's illegal to build enough, so we were based in a makeshift lab in an attic next to the sewage works. I loved working there, but it shows that we're restricting our small businesses unnecessarily through our planning system.
The solution is frustratingly simple, but politically suicidal for any government that tried to implement it: just legalise development subject to basic design codes. I hope we see some planning reform before it's too late for our struggling innovation industries.