the eu-usa culture difference surrounding money and enjoyment is being overlooked

[cocacolamonster]

I was going around Reddit and it occurred to me that too many people are generalising/overlooking some of the strong culture differences that exist between US philosophy and non-US philosophy.

In Europe, we often go to great lengths to limit work hours even if that reduces productivity and looks statistically bad (reducing GDP) and much of society is based around enjoyment of life without money.

You raise children not to prepare them for a job, but rather either for enjoyment of life or to do some sort of moral good (become a doctor or politician).

A lot of Americans are still quite materialistic from a European perspective - universities are about making money there, a job's salary is most paramount, etc...

I'm Indian (or Sri Lankan) too. They don't have such a strong materialistic culture there as well. It is widely common for people to not peruse money in order to work towards a moral or cultural good - which many economists blame for the worse economic growth among Indians vis-a-vis more materialistic cultures such as China where money creation is views as a major aspect of success. Indian philosophies historically found that chasing money wouldn't lead to a better quality of life.

I'm not quite sure how most British people feel about paper chasing now considering the prevalence of US culture in the English speaking world.

Interestingly enough I work for a US style company and prior to this a US style Uni. My hours have always been shorter than my European/UK/Australian company peers. I'm always shocked at the hours my UK friends work.

I know several materialistic British Indian families. There are lots of lovely things to admire about them, however, but emphasis on entering fields such as medicine or law because of the status and money isn’t necessarily one of them. Equally I know other British Indians who aren’t like this at all.

Thing is, ‘the economy’ is a big umbrella. Yes a strong economy benefits workers but a significant proportion of that benefit is going direct to private companies at the expense of workers. So ‘a strong economy’ in and of itself isn’t a market of a functional society. Places like South Korea have incredibly long work hours but don’t score well on happiness. Productivity seems more important than size. Sweden for example is pretty productive.

When you look at markers of what makes somewhere a good place to live, you often see the US further down the list. Things like:

Maternal morbidity and mortality
Happiness levels
Spending on healthcare vs actual population health
Inequality

Etc. The countries that tend to come out in the top echelons are places like the nordics, Switzerland, Australia etc. All quite diverse in some ways, there’s a mix of social democratic and more right of centre philosophies in those countries, but money isn’t top of the list in any of them. Countries like Botswana (which is one of the better governed places in Africa but not wealthy) score very high on personal happiness for example.

I don’t think any country has quite nailed it. The climate in much of the nordics is a challenge ... living in darkness for months is quite hard and the culture is difficult to be accepted in to. It’s not a utopia like it’s often portrayed in the UK press.

Educational specialisation is interesting - I find my Eastern European colleagues have had really rigorous educations for example. Here In Sweden early years provision is great but later years not so much.

I guess if you could have a country with Aussie levels of positivity and good medical care, Swedish preschools and maternity leave, weather more in the mid European range and education like the eastern bloc you’d be sorted ;)

Living abroad I think you do get both a sense of just how culturally different places people assume are similar are, but also that people have a lot in common regardless of where they are from.

Also, remember that they don’t do end of school exams. They have grade point averages dictated by individual teachers and then can take SATS for university entry.

Everyone who doesn’t take these just gets their GED, which is just a ‘I went to High School’ diploma.

And yes if you compare a student from even a good US bachelors degree with one from the eastern bloc or most of Europe they come out broader but much more shallow. Their higher institutions (MIT etc) are second to none at postgraduate level though.

Don’t forget they pay HUGE fees unless they have a scholarship- uni is big business in the states. The debt a law or medical student comes out with is astonishing and their subsequent salaries reflect that.

Whilst I agree about Hindu relgion not being materialistic the most materialistic and showing wealth people around here (London) are Indian (we don't have many Russians in my bit of London and they seem the same - flash cars, over the top weddings, loads of gold and bling). May be the materialistic Indians are the ones who left India. Anyway that aside. the Americans have always been a bit more showy than the British. There is definitely a German, British, USA protestant work ethic which is not just about doing good but also about making money and I am not convinced everyone in the UK has Swedish levels of wanting high taxes and everyone the same.

I agree that China has done very well since it got rid of communist principles that you had to hold everything in common but it is a mixed picture with people in the country doing badly. China also had the 1 child policy whereas the Indian (awful) attempts at forced sterlisation were never such a big programme which may be one reason China has may be done a bit "better" (although I'd prefer to live in India any day over China because of Chinese human rights abuses and surveillance levels of citizens).

It is an interesting thread and topic. My family fought tooth and nail to get out of coal mines and to get an education. We are not particualrly materialistic in terms of possessions - the british aren't - eg you can tell the lord of the manor as he'll be the one in the 40 year old jacket with the old banger car etc. but I do think people want to do reasonably well. I've always been fairly ambitious.

I find the difference between workers' rights and benefits around the world really interesting - and also how people work with it.

My department is split across a number. Ber of different European countries, and one German manager appears to be under the illusion that we're all governed by German employment law, but we're not - local law comes first. A lot of the time, this doesn't make much difference in day-to-day running, other than I have a far greater awareness of public holidays around Europe, but there are real differences in areas like redundancy. We are a US company, and I think some of them have been confused that you can't just fire people. And one was really confused we don't have Thanksgiving. We have a good reputation as an employer in the US, in terms of benefits, salaries and leave allowances.

When it comes to timezones, mostly it's not too big an issue if you ask people to make it earlier to accommodate European timezones, though if it's a truly global call, it's going to be rubbish for somebody. We're quite good at recording calls so people can catch up, but that's best for informational message-from-the-CEO type, but if you need people to be decision-makers, it's got to suit their timezone.

IME, though there are differences in working culture, the biggest difference in how well people work together across different laws and timezones is personality. Some people are just more adaptable and accommodating, wherever they're from.

TBF, the US does seem more materialistic. Hardly any annual leave or maternity leave.

Also the weird competitive showing off of possessions - on WeddingBee for example, people post up pictures of their engagement rings to show off! And the smallest ones are 1 carat, which I haven't even seen in English shops.

People are confusing materialism with capitalism. Annual leave and maternity leave have nothing to do with materialism.

Uni fees in the US are not always extortionate. Yes, if you’re doing an undergraduate at Harvard/Yale or one of the other private colleges, fees will be large (but scholarships to match), but the state universities are very good deals if you stay in your home state. Cheaper than £9k a year, anyway!

As someone who moved to America from the UK - In the UK many people work all year to afford a couple of weeks abroad in the sun. If you live in the right bit of the States though like I do it’s sunny most of the time . So yes there’s less vacation time but I don’t find that I need as much.

The hours and work life balance really aren’t as bad as most people make them out to be, and funnily enough the people who seem to complain about the USA the most are the people that have never lived there.

I guess that Britain is more American than European then

12 weeks FMLA instead of maternity leave? No ta.

The USA is the ONLY developed ‘civilised’ country to have no parental leave. It also has maternal morbidity and mortality far above where it should be for its size and wealth.
I’ll stick in scandiwegia and pay my taxes with a smile

GrannyOggs My UK educated son just graduated from an Ivy League University, and what you say is true of some of his classmates, but there were also people there who arrived at University so far beyond A Level in their studies that there was no comparison. There is huge variety in the system, and very little standardisation.

The distribution requirements were not to get anyone up to speed, but to make them into informed people. For instance, everyone has to do two years of a foreign language, or pass out of that requirement. With 100% on his French GCSE, and a talent for taking tests, my son didn't even pass out of one term.

My son majored in Maths and Philosophy; the foreign language is not a prerequisite for his degree, but an attempt to make sure that everyone had a reasonable level of familiarity with another language.

The great strength of the US system is that it gives people the option to have a very broad education. I guess this is also the great weakness sometimes. What it is not is an attempt to make University into a quick route to a focused well-paying job.

NotAnotherJaffaCake Harvard and other similar schools give need based scholarships:
"Our program requires no contribution from Harvard families with annual incomes below $65,000. About 20% of our families have no parent contribution.
Families with incomes between $65,000 and $150,000 will contribute from 0-10% of their income, and those with incomes above $150,000 will be asked to pay proportionately more than 10%, based on their individual circumstances."

If your family income is under $65,000 everything will be funded by the university, including living expenses.

India is all about the creation of personal wealth and is as materialistic as China. The reason why India has low productivity is because automatation is still not valued. Social work in India is usually what ‘middle class’ people aspire to do in retirement; it’s not something people of working age do.

I just toured Stanford. It's free for anyone from a family making $125k a year or less. If your family makes $65k a year or less they also cover your living expenses.

Curious to know how that compares to Cambridge?

claraschu cross post :-)

@youcan’t. There are stringent academic requirements though, while richer kids who pay often can buy their way into Stanford.

Also, remember that they don’t do end of school exams. They have grade point averages dictated by individual teachers and then can take SATS for university entry.

Oh dear lord, what utter bullshit.

There are stringent academic requirements though, while richer kids who pay often can buy their way into Stanford.

No.

@TheHulksPurplePants

European universities don't tend to be hubs for money - you don't find the elite congregating at one university because they have the money to be there alone - but they tend to do better at talent.

There are stringent academic requirements though, while richer kids who pay often can buy their way into Stanford.

Sorry - my post got cut short. I agree about the stringent academic requirements - you would hope one of the top universities in the world had those. When it comes to getting cheaper university fees, it's not just Stanford or other top universities offering those deals. I looked at 7 universities over the last week, of varying levels of difficulty to get in (one took 80% of applicants), and all offered similar levels of financial aid to Stanford. You absolutely do not have to be rich to get into university. You are very unlikely to get into Stanford unless you are very smart.

@youcant. The academic requirements are so stringent that most poor or disadvantaged kids can’t keep their places when achieved. As for ‘not being able to’ buy a place in Stanford - all of the Ivy Leagues offer places to kids whose parents donate. Several colleagues have secured places at Stanford for kids who otherwise would not have gotten in, by making large donations. (In one case selling a UK property to do it).

The academic requirements are so stringent that most poor or disadvantaged kids can’t keep their places when achieved

Why can't they keep their places? What happens?