Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> An early-career biological anthropologist said she was still awaiting contract details from AMU before putting pen to paper because of salary discrepancies, though she took comfort in the fact that the cost of living is lower in France — especially considering that education for her two children, who she said were eager to settle in Marseille, would be free.

Researcher are severely under paid in France (young researcher often earn barely more than the minimum wage). I doubt she will find the salary to her expectation (though the very strong worker right, and 5 weeks vacation might compensate for that).

In general, research is severely underfunded in France. That is nice that we try to make a gesture toward researcher under threat, but how many of them will we be able to keep when they realized the struggle of getting any funding for research here...



Researchers are underpaid and research is underfunded everywhere. Like most jobs that people find inherently interesting.

I don't know about the specific situation in France. In general, Europe spends more on academic research than the US, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of GDP. However, it's easier to make an academic career in the US. Because the gap between academic and industry salaries is wider in the US, Americans are more likely to leave the academia after PhD. And because employment-based immigration is particularly difficult in the US, many would-be immigrants end up doing a PhD without any intention of staying in the academia. Which means you have less competition if you stay in the academia in the US.


> In general, Europe spends more on academic research than the US, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of GDP.

This statement appears to be incorrect.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d... has the EU at $380B

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24332 has the US Fed (not state) at $880B.


I was talking about academic research, where the total spending is ~$100 billion/year in both blocks. See, for example, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25313 and https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202326/academic-r-d-internatio...


This is addressed in TFA:

> [...] the fact there's less money for research.

> An early-career biological anthropologist said she was still awaiting contract details from AMU before putting pen to paper because of salary discrepancies, though she took comfort in the fact that the cost of living is lower in France — especially considering that education for her two children, who she said were eager to settle in Marseille, would be free.

> The university’s president insisted that participants in the “Safe Place for Science” program would be paid the same wages as French researchers. The statement sought to appease concerns within France’s academic community that money would now be focused on drawing U.S. scientists whereas local researchers have long complained of insufficient funding.

> But the biological anthropologist said a more carefree life could compensate for a lower salary. "There’ll be a lot less stress as a whole, politically, academically," she reflected.


The underfunding is not addressed, and it is not even a subject in France right now. This specific researcher might be fine with a more carefree life (that is, what she thinks might be a more carefree life), but the general issue remains.


At least it beats being attacked by your government daily for having the audacity to become a scientist. Especially if you publish science that isn’t politically convenient.


you get to live in France, have free health care and school for your kids (and I bet these underpaid researchers in france actually get completely unheard of in the US things like modest pensions). How much do you actually need to be paid? Most Americans would materially benefit from such an exchange


The data on this is very clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c....

> According to the OECD, 'household disposable income is income available to households such as wages and salaries, income from self-employment and unincorporated enterprises, income from pensions and other social benefits, and income from financial investments (less any payments of tax, social insurance contributions and interest on financial liabilities). 'Gross' means that depreciation costs are not subtracted.'[1] This indicator also takes account of social transfers in kind 'such as health or education provided for free or at reduced prices by governments and not-for-profit organisations.'

United States: 62,300

France: 45,548

Americans need to be more grateful for what they have.


Disposable income is a poor metric to use though.

Money isn't everything. The french have better public transport, more social stability, a life expectancy that's higher by five (!) years etc etc.

By pretty much whatever standard you use, their quality of life is much higher.


Look, I am not saying life is inherently better in America vs France. This thread started as a debate about wages and social benefits. If you're truly interested in a good faith discussion on that topic, the metrics I'm highlighting are essential. If you've already cemented your opinion and just have a bone to pick with the United States there's probably not much common ground we can find.

> Disposable income is a poor metric to use though.

Hard Disagree. It's directly related to standard of living. You're also leaving out the other parts. It's adjusted for PPP, taxes, essential household costs (healthcare, shelter, etc), and social benefits.

> Money isn't everything. The french have better public transport, more social stability, a life expectancy that's higher by five (!) years etc etc.

Of course money isn't everything...but again we started off by talking about it.

> By pretty much whatever standard you use, their quality of life is much higher.

Except for household income, wealth, affordability, and others. See for yourself! This is an excellent resource: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&tm=NAAG&pg=0&snb=12...

As another random (non-definitive) data point take the homelessness rate: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/homelessn...

I stand by my statement. Too many Americans don't appreciate how good they have it. Cultural differences are real.


I think if you're a person that is primarily focused on economic indicators, I can see your point.

Because you mentioned it, I do think a lot of this comes down to cultural differences. To me (and to most Europeans!), the economic stuff just doesn't matter as much, so it's not a compelling argument to make.

I had excellent cheap pasta on a beautiful plaza in Italy yesterday, I got there via 30 euro Ryanair flight, and I booked it over my abundant PTO. At no point exploring Florence, a city of 400.000 people, did I feel unsafe at all.

That, to me, is the kind of stuff that really matters and the kind of stuff that I just can't have in the US.

It's also the kind of stuff that is hard to capture in economic stats, which is why I don't really pay as much attention to them.

I've lived in the US for almost a decade. I made a lot more money, but my life felt worse.

But maybe Americans really do just have different values and they'd rather have more money on their bank account.

I upvoted you because you argued your point well.

It's just that we're talking past each other, quality of life is so much more than that. It's the environment you live in. It's knowing that a random piece of bread you'll buy in a supermarket or in a train station will have a certain level of quality. It's cheese that doesn't taste like plastic. It's having time to spend with your loved ones. It's nobody having to worry about a medical emergency bankrupting them. It's higher education not being gated to the well-off.


>To me (and to most Europeans!), the economic stuff just doesn't matter as much

Then why did you move to make more money in the US? Why are many young Europeans moving to work abroad?

People who gaslight others for chasing money, are those who already have enough money and can't empathize with those wo do not.

>I had excellent cheap pasta on a beautiful plaza in Italy yesterday, I got there via 30 euro Ryanair flight

Cherry picking personal holiday travels isn't representative of anything in this topic. Also 30 Euro flights are not the norm everywhere. You need to live in the right country/city and get lucky.


It's just to illustrate a point regarding quality of life.

Experiences like these are just straight up impossible in the US. Believe me, I've tried. There's no nice Italian plazas anywhere and in most places in the country you wouldn't even wanna be sitting outside.


Is it possible for you drive over the border to Mexico and have best Mexican food costing almost nothing. Can you fly to Caribbean or Hawaii over the weekend? Can you camp in Grand Canyon, Yosemite or Yellowstone? Your view is in no way representative of a typical European who cares a lot more about money then you. Money, which you ironically made in the states.


Exactly He was being such a hypocrite with that pov.


Touristic spots are taste dependent subjective, not indicative of objective quality of life metrics.


But Florence is a real city, where real people live. As is the city I live in and it, too, has plenty such spots.

There is very few places in the US where I would like to sit outside on a plaza and have my dinner - and that is indicative of social decay and a lack of focus on building pleasant public spaces.


A lot of people don't care about having Italian plazas on daily basis, like my German ex-boss who just moved to the US, and probably also Italians who move abroad for jobs. You keep harping on about one point that matters to you personally but even you don't live in Italy. Why is that?

Europe also doesn't have grand canyons. I don't need to see a grand canyon every month though.

>- and that is indicative of social decay and a lack of focus on building pleasant public spaces.

Go to Frankfurt train station.


It is not I who keeps harping on about this point. I listed a whole number of points in the post you cherry-picked this one from.

Feel free to address the others instead!


[flagged]


Ah I see, you edited your comment post-discussion to disingenuously distort the conversation. That's foul play.


[flagged]


You add new points after I addressed your only point, only to then accuse me of harping on about said point.

I do not appreciate the dishonesty or the tone. Please do better.


It's important to note as someone living in the US, most of our cost of living is completely invisible. We have thousands of "small" invisible taxes tacked on to everything we do.

Benefits are expensive, healthcare is expensive, transportation is expensive, food is expensive, and on and on. It's quite hard to just compare the US to France because of that. I think a lot of this "disposable income" relies on you being an able-bodied person of young age with zero health conditions and zero risk of emergencies. As soon as that's not the case, that "disposable" income vanishes.


From my anecdotal evidence (so it proves nothing), it seems like being poor / middle class in France is better than in the U.S. But being high-middle class / rich / in the owner class, is better in the U.S, since you already don't need the socialized healthcare, you actively seek segregated places to live, you do not take the public transport (or at least that often), etc, but you do get to enjoy all the amenities for rich people that the U.S offer, which is way more than France since it has a higher volume of rich people.


That is, if you don't mind higher crime numbers, literal shit on the streets, a traffic system that is fundamentally broken due to overreliance on cars, a persistent chance of getting shot, a lack of pleasant third spaces to hang out in and a general bad conscience due to the reality of living in a near-palace while your fellow citizens live in cardboard boxes on the street.

I've lived in the US for a while and while I'm not incredibly wealthy, my net worth is easily in the seven figures. I ended up moving away for the above reasons.


Please don't stir up nationalistic flamewar like this on HN.


The sentiment expressed is explicitly anti-nationalist.


Yes, right, and our position is the same, whichever the direction of the attack.


I assume you are not living in Paris then. Here in Paris:

- housing is expensive

- it's not cardboard boxes, it's tents

- you'd be mugged/knifed rather than shot, agreed

- public transportation is good when not on strike. However, it's dirty and you might get robbed

- the world's most creative government when it comes to taxes

- it's still beautiful though…


I don't live in Paris. Generally, I don't love cities >2M inhabitants.

The parts of Paris I went to recently were quite nice, but of course, a tourists view is different from a locals.

I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near as bad as, say the SF tenderloin though.


>my net worth is easily in the seven figures. I ended up moving away for the above reasons.

Easy to high road others now, AFTER you made 7 figures in the country you now publicly despise, and wouldn't be able to where you're originally from.

Why try to emotionally pull the ladder?


Yeah I didn't say "richer" I said "better"


> free healthcare

> earn 40k/yr

> get taxed 30% on it


> get taxes 30% on it

As opposed to paying more out of pocket or getting denied a claim? No thank you.


As opposed to paying the same rate and still not having functioning health care. Hello from Quebec, Canada,


> As opposed to paying the same rate and still not having functioning health care. Hello from Quebec, Canada

What do you mean "as opposed to"—that's exactly where the entire US is at.


As opposed to France, where taxes are high, but health care functions and life expectancy is five years higher than in the US.


See, that would make a good comparison.


can bike to work without being run down by a 10 ft high pickup truck, I dunno sign me up maybe


[flagged]


If we redefine words to have no meaning, then there is no such thing as words with meaning, yes.


Which is why I prefer to differentiate them as taxpayer-funded versus employer-subsidized health care


pointless pedantry

"free" means "no payment is due for medical care, regardless of how extensive the care"




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: