I guess it’s a difference in values, which affects your perspective. You can see it as robbing, or as contributing to society.
I’m trying to word it as neutral as possible, but it’s really hard in the values area. I think both sets of values are valid. I may not agree with yours, but that’s the thing with moral values - if you don’t share the same values, you will never see eye to eye or agree. Hard to be objective in such a situation.
Tl,dr: you value different things, which is not evil or bad, but completely valid. It’s just that I personally with my values don’t agree and see it negatively.
Maybe there already lies another reason for the lower salaries - if you are from a country which traditionally had your company actually appreciate their employees and make them feel valued, and historically you just had to land your job and could expect to stay with the company the rest of your life, you will not be actively looking unless you get laid off. Loyalty on both sides is still quite common where I live.
Social security. Strong protection against lay-offs. University without paying upfront - just because you don’t care for it as someone who didn’t grow up here, doesn’t mean it’s not a benefit for the majority. Healthcare at affordable prices. Public transport.
The thing is, you only see your own benefit. And I feel that’s a very typical way of looking at life in the US. The state is not here to rob you, but to provide you with a structure to live in that you couldn’t have in the same way on your own. Public transport may not be something you need, but what about the elderly? What about the people who can’t drive for whatever reason?
What if you have an accident that renders you unable to work? It doesn’t even need to be your fault. Someone might loose control over their car and you might get hit. People like that need strong social nets, and people who can work finance them. Elderly people need those. They are often sick (high health care costs) and not longer able to drive (public transport) and if their pension is not enough, the social security kicks in and supports them.
You personally may not be profiting from it right now, but there’s a ton of security built into the system for everyone that gets financed by everyone according to their means.
Isn’t the question rather “why do US companies do that” when they could get away with paying less?
I can only speak for myself but I’m not keen on constantly job-hunting like I see so many US engineer advise. I’m looking for a more stable situation where the company seeks to hire long-term, and often in those cases you get benefits that are not monetary. Free access to partnered places like fitness studios or swimming pools can’t really be rolled into your salary, but if you use those often you end up with a financial benefit too. Automatical raises when your child is born is another.
Maybe it’s just a different culture, but I’ll trade in some base salary for a work environment based on mutual trust and goodwill.
This right here. I’ll gladly take less pay in Europe than constantly having to worry about my health and whether or not that bit of pain you sometimes have in a weird area means a hospital bill you can’t afford. And even if I loose my job, I know I will not starve, because of our social security system. It will not be fun, but I won’t loose my house or worry about what to eat tomorrow just because I got unlucky and my company went under.
My understanding of that article was that it was not necessarily about duplicated code, but duplicated data. If you have two places storing the same data, and different parts of your app go to each of it, you need to somehow keep them in sync, and that’s often a pain.
I’m trying to be very rigorous about avoiding that, duplicated code I’m a bit less rigorous about.